Go Back  RCU Forums > RC Airplanes > AMA Discussions
Reload this Page >

Are you ready to register your aircraft?

Notices
AMA Discussions Discuss AMA policies, decisions & any other AMA related topics here.

Are you ready to register your aircraft?

Old 01-12-2016, 02:58 PM
  #3776  
TimJ
Thread Starter
 
TimJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Orange County CA
Posts: 1,170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by franklin_m

I do not support AMA so long as they use any single part of PL112-95 section 336 to compel membership. They're doing that with section (a)(3), and who's to say they won't do that with other sections in the future? If and when there are other CBOs, then I'm less concerned. Until then though, I will continue to express my concern for the safety of manned aircraft and people on the ground imposed by ambiguous and inconsistent operational rules for non-commercial sUAS/UAS operations.
That is a B.S. cop-out on nav charts. Airports across the country come and go all the time.

Are you reporting those errors to the AMA headquarters? If the AMA doesn't know there's a problem, how can they fix it?

You are simply wrong. Show us hard evidence that the AMA is using the LMA program to gain membership. I hope you are exerting as much energy to repeal the Federal ACA, or the laws on auto insurance.

It is obvious that you either have a problem with large model aircraft or the AMA.

Your path will only lead to more hardship for modelers whom truly enjoy this hobby. Then you will have the opportunity to answer to the one hundred thousand plus model aviation enthusiasts across the U.S.
Old 01-12-2016, 03:21 PM
  #3777  
franklin_m
 
franklin_m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 4,561
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by TimJ
That is a B.S. cop-out on nav charts. Airports across the country come and go all the time.

Are you reporting those errors to the AMA headquarters? If the AMA doesn't know there's a problem, how can they fix it?

You are simply wrong. Show us hard evidence that the AMA is using the LMA program to gain membership. I hope you are exerting as much energy to repeal the Federal ACA, or the laws on auto insurance.

It is obvious that you either have a problem with large model aircraft or the AMA.

Your path will only lead to more hardship for modelers whom truly enjoy this hobby. Then you will have the opportunity to answer to the one hundred thousand plus model aviation enthusiasts across the U.S.
As for getting AMA fields on Nav charts, good luck with that. Why don't you let me know how it works out for you.
On the problems with the clubs, yep; have sent them.
On the LMA, I asked a direct question if they'll certify non-member UAS. They said no. Therefore must be a member.

I see many here talking about actions in the NAS that are a real risk to manned aircraft and people on the ground. It's easy to find video of 100lb aircraft narrowly missing people on the ground, or other aircraft crashing into people resulting in burns. It's also easy to find AMA member video shot from the aircraft showing large and fast aircraft overflying cars on the road, occupied buildings, etc. And don't even get me started about folks who don't have the situational awareness of knowing other aircraft are approaching the airspace.
Old 01-12-2016, 03:26 PM
  #3778  
franklin_m
 
franklin_m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 4,561
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

[QUOTE=Chris P. Bacon;12160584]
Originally Posted by franklin_m

Just to confirm, you have no idea how much it would cost to implement and maintain such a program?

I'd also be interested in the benefit such a program would provide. If the FAA thought it was that important they'd already be doing it, right?
I do have an idea. It's been replicated in every aviation safety program I've seen. Not difficult nor expensive, but I honestly think many are concerned that it would show the "record" is not nearly so good as they've led themselves to believe. That's ok. With increasing attention from FAA, legislators, and media, I'm confident that it's not if there's a significant incident, it's when.

After all, the White Star line also had a good safety record --- right up until that little incident on April 15th 1912.

Last edited by franklin_m; 01-12-2016 at 03:28 PM.
Old 01-12-2016, 03:32 PM
  #3779  
mike1974
My Feedback: (1)
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Canisteo, NY
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Let's ask ourselves some questions. Has any full scale craft been downed or lives lost EVER due to RC craft of ANY kind? I believe the answer is no. (non-military)

How many lives are lost DAILY due to alcohol related accidents and illness? Approx. 241 PER DAY!!!!!!

So the gov't wants to regulate RC craft because they MIGHT cause an accident in the FUTURE, but they allow alcohol that kills approx. 241 people per day. Okee dokee. Here's your sign!

How many people actually fly RC? How many of those fly MR or FPV? How many of those fly irresponsibly? How many that fly irresponsibly actually pose a danger? Pretty small number I would say. I bet the number is well below 1%. But we need to federally register to keep the NAS safe? Okee dokee. Here's your sign!

I would say at this point laser pointers pose much more of a threat to full scale than RC craft. There have certainly been more incidents! Has the FAA required laser pointer registration? No? Why not? It's more of a danger. Interesting.

I'm sorry, this entire registration is an exercise in futility. It is mind numbing to believe that the FAA actually believes this will do anything to solve the perceived problem or keep the NAS safe. I would bet money that my 7 year old could understand why this registration solves nothing. How grown, educated men and woman of the FAA cannot understand such a simple concept is insane!! Heres your sign!!
Old 01-12-2016, 03:47 PM
  #3780  
ira d
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Maricopa County AZ
Posts: 3,249
Received 5 Likes on 5 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by franklin_m
sorry you feel that way tim. The ama's record is what it is because it's incomplete. It does not include any number of events that are part of a credible safety management system data collection effort: Non-injury mishaps, ama rule violations, breaches of flight discipline, near misses, etc.

I am not supportive of getting every ama field on sectional chart, as that won't be supported by aopa or other groups, and imposes needless burden on the faa system as ama clubs lose fields, add fields, lose them, etc. The ama's own website isn't even up to date with respective to active fields, of the five within 50nm of my zip code, half of them result in "404" errors when you access the web pages.

i support one set of rules for all non-commercial suas/uas flights nationwide w/o regard for cbo membership. It invites chaos to have multiple numbering systems, multiple operational limits, and multiple certification/qualification systems.

I do not support ama so long as they use any single part of pl112-95 section 336 to compel membership. They're doing that with section (a)(3), and who's to say they won't do that with other sections in the future? If and when there are other cbos, then i'm less concerned. Until then though, i will continue to express my concern for the safety of manned aircraft and people on the ground imposed by ambiguous and inconsistent operational rules for non-commercial suas/uas operations.


+ 1
Old 01-12-2016, 04:09 PM
  #3781  
franklin_m
 
franklin_m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 4,561
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by mike1974
I'm sorry, this entire registration is an exercise in futility. It is mind numbing to believe that the FAA actually believes this will do anything to solve the perceived problem or keep the NAS safe. I would bet money that my 7 year old could understand why this registration solves nothing. How grown, educated men and woman of the FAA cannot understand such a simple concept is insane!! Heres your sign!!
Registration is a necessary administrative requirement that then can serve as a basis for additional action. Just like laws on obstruction of justice. In and of themselves, they do nothing to prevent crime. What they do however is provide a basis for starting action when a law is broken. It works like this: If the Feds suspect something, they will notify an individual, organization, company, etc. that they are the subject of an investigation and direct them to preserve all documents, communications, emails, etc. From that moment forward, if someone destroys something, it's a slam dunk felony charge. You want to see it in action, remember the BP engineer that destroyed text messages on his phone? Yep. Obstruction of justice.

So, now fast forward to someone who does something with a MR that results in something serious to an aircraft. If they're fortunate enough to find the operator, and they're getting smarter and smarter about how to do that, if they find he's not registered - guess what? Slam dunk holding charge. Now they can start negotiating for a plea bargin, perhaps use it to find others who might have known about the dangerous operation, etc.

If the registration requirement wasn't there, it all gets much more difficult.
Old 01-12-2016, 04:10 PM
  #3782  
Chris P. Bacon
Banned
My Feedback: (4)
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,762
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

[QUOTE=franklin_m;12160621]
Originally Posted by Chris P. Bacon

I do have an idea. It's been replicated in every aviation safety program I've seen. Not difficult nor expensive, but I honestly think many are concerned that it would show the "record" is not nearly so good as they've led themselves to believe. That's ok. With increasing attention from FAA, legislators, and media, I'm confident that it's not if there's a significant incident, it's when.

After all, the White Star line also had a good safety record --- right up until that little incident on April 15th 1912.
I have lots of ideas too. It 's doesn't mean they're all practical, cost effective, or worthwhile.
Old 01-12-2016, 04:13 PM
  #3783  
porcia83
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Hartford, CT
Posts: 7,269
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

[QUOTE=Chris P. Bacon;12160645]
Originally Posted by franklin_m

I have lots of ideas too. It 's doesn't mean they're all practical, cost effective, or worthwhile.
You shut your filthy mouth....all of your ideas involving bacon are practical, cost effective, worthwhile, and finger licking heart attack inducing good!
Old 01-12-2016, 04:21 PM
  #3784  
Chris P. Bacon
Banned
My Feedback: (4)
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,762
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by franklin_m
Sorry you feel that way Tim. The AMA's record is what it is because it's incomplete. It does not include any number of events that are part of a credible safety management system data collection effort: non-injury mishaps, AMA rule violations, breaches of flight discipline, near misses, etc.
How many of these programs have you successfully implemented at any of the clubs you've been a member of? If so,

1) Can you provide the detailed program description and processes?
2) Can you provide the actual data acquired as part of the program?
3) What changes in club policy/procedures were a direct result of this program's implementation?
4) Is there data available that validates the results of the program's implementation?
Old 01-12-2016, 04:23 PM
  #3785  
Chris P. Bacon
Banned
My Feedback: (4)
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,762
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

[QUOTE=porcia83;12160646]
Originally Posted by Chris P. Bacon

You shut your filthy mouth....all of your ideas involving bacon are practical, cost effective, worthwhile, and finger licking heart attack inducing good!
Eat more bacon!
Old 01-12-2016, 05:20 PM
  #3786  
cj_rumley
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga, CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by mike1974
.............

I'm sorry, this entire registration is an exercise in futility. It is mind numbing to believe that the FAA actually believes this will do anything to solve the perceived problem or keep the NAS safe. I would bet money that my 7 year old could understand why this registration solves nothing. How grown, educated men and woman of the FAA cannot understand such a simple concept is insane!! Heres your sign!!
What if you're right about that, Mike?
If it turns out to be futile as it well may, I'm concerned about what comes next, and I trust you are too. Unlike AMA management FAA is answerable to higher authority; they had to do something. I have said and still think they have taken a minimalist step toward regulation of MA. I am sure the next step, if this one fails to produce desired results, is already in their planning. I don't want to that next step to be implemented, even though I have no preconception of the details. I think you and I and FAA probably agree it isn't going to work. I hope we are all proven wrong about that.
Old 01-12-2016, 06:09 PM
  #3787  
mike1974
My Feedback: (1)
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Canisteo, NY
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by franklin_m
Registration is a necessary administrative requirement that then can serve as a basis for additional action. Just like laws on obstruction of justice. In and of themselves, they do nothing to prevent crime. What they do however is provide a basis for starting action when a law is broken. It works like this: If the Feds suspect something, they will notify an individual, organization, company, etc. that they are the subject of an investigation and direct them to preserve all documents, communications, emails, etc. From that moment forward, if someone destroys something, it's a slam dunk felony charge. You want to see it in action, remember the BP engineer that destroyed text messages on his phone? Yep. Obstruction of justice.

So, now fast forward to someone who does something with a MR that results in something serious to an aircraft. If they're fortunate enough to find the operator, and they're getting smarter and smarter about how to do that, if they find he's not registered - guess what? Slam dunk holding charge. Now they can start negotiating for a plea bargin, perhaps use it to find others who might have known about the dangerous operation, etc.

If the registration requirement wasn't there, it all gets much more difficult.
But don't you understand they keep talking about the safety of the NAS and all you have described is a way to nail somebody after the fact. You even just said your 1st-51st objective is the safety of the NAS. But it's not really about preventing anything; it's about nailing somebody after the fact; which has nothing to do with safety.
Old 01-12-2016, 07:25 PM
  #3788  
Rob2160
Senior Member
 
Rob2160's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Sydney, AUSTRALIA
Posts: 4,786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by mike1974
But don't you understand they keep talking about the safety of the NAS and all you have described is a way to nail somebody after the fact. You even just said your 1st-51st objective is the safety of the NAS. But it's not really about preventing anything; it's about nailing somebody after the fact; which has nothing to do with safety.
Having the ability to nail somebody after the fact is the deterrent.

Some countries have the death penalty for first offence drink driving. Not many people die from drunk drivers in those countries.

Registration won't solve everything and it won't stop all the idiots but it will definitely stop some. It's the deterrent factor. Knowing there is a greater chance of getting caught if they do something stupid.

I would wager more people 'know' about the FAA guidelines now than would have without all this publicity. I am not saying it's the best solution at all but I do understand the reason for it and education is one objective.

You are right in your earlier post about green lasers. They are a problem. The FAA does not regulate them because they don't fly but there are laws making it illegal to point one at an aircraft in flight.

The severity of those penalties is what stops laser illumination events from occurring more often but they will never stop them all.
Old 01-12-2016, 07:53 PM
  #3789  
skylark-flier
 
skylark-flier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: VA, Luray
Posts: 2,226
Received 15 Likes on 13 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by franklin_m
As for getting AMA fields on Nav charts, good luck with that. Why don't you let me know how it works out for you.
On the problems with the clubs, yep; have sent them.

On the LMA, I asked a direct question if they'll certify non-member UAS. They said no. Therefore must be a member.

I see many here talking about actions in the NAS that are a real risk to manned aircraft and people on the ground. It's easy to find video of 100lb aircraft narrowly missing people on the ground, or other aircraft crashing into people resulting in burns. It's also easy to find AMA member video shot from the aircraft showing large and fast aircraft overflying cars on the road, occupied buildings, etc. And don't even get me started about folks who don't have the situational awareness of knowing other aircraft are approaching the airspace.
If I might, I'd like to comment on just this one point that has been brought up over and over. Would anyone expect ANY company/organization to certify/sanctify/qualify/whatever ANY product they didn't sponsor? IE., would you expect GE to honor a warranty for a product built by Ford?

To me, "no" is the proper answer.
Old 01-12-2016, 08:13 PM
  #3790  
HoundDog
My Feedback: (49)
 
HoundDog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Apache Junction AZ. WI 0WI8
Posts: 4,501
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by franklin_m
Registration is a necessary administrative requirement that then can serve as a basis for additional action. Just like laws on obstruction of justice. In and of themselves, they do nothing to prevent crime. What they do however is provide a basis for starting action when a law is broken. It works like this: If the Feds suspect something, they will notify an individual, organization, company, etc. that they are the subject of an investigation and direct them to preserve all documents, communications, emails, etc. From that moment forward, if someone destroys something, it's a slam dunk felony charge. You want to see it in action, remember the BP engineer that destroyed text messages on his phone? Yep. Obstruction of justice.

So, now fast forward to someone who does something with a MR that results in something serious to an aircraft. If they're fortunate enough to find the operator, and they're getting smarter and smarter about how to do that, if they find he's not registered - guess what? Slam dunk holding charge. Now they can start negotiating for a plea bargin, perhaps use it to find others who might have known about the dangerous operation, etc.

If the registration requirement wasn't there, it all gets much more difficult
.
does something with a MR that results in something serious to an aircraft
Ya Multi Rotor Not a conventional R/C TOY Even U think of DRONES that are causing the possibility of bring down an air liner as a Multi Rotor Not a traditional R/C TOY.
Old 01-12-2016, 08:47 PM
  #3791  
HoundDog
My Feedback: (49)
 
HoundDog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Apache Junction AZ. WI 0WI8
Posts: 4,501
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by cj_rumley
What if you're right about that, Mike?
If it turns out to be futile as it well may, I'm concerned about what comes next, and I trust you are too. Unlike AMA management FAA is answerable to higher authority; they had to do something. I have said and still think they have taken a minimalist step toward regulation of MA. I am sure the next step, if this one fails to produce desired results, is already in their planning. I don't want to that next step to be implemented, even though I have no preconception of the details. I think you and I and FAA probably agree it isn't going to work. I hope we are all proven wrong about that.
Come on cj U I the AMA FAA and every sane person involved in any way with R/C Aviation know that "Registration Alone" will do nothing to alleviate the problem of MULTI ROTORS getting in the way of Full scale Air Craft with in 5 miles of an airport.The Only viable way is to admit that it is Multi Rotor craft alone are the Problem, NOT Traditional R/C TOYS. Next There must be a Massive News Media Blitz that Multi Rotors are not to be flown with in 5 miles of any Towered airport. Admit anything flown 5 miles or more from Towered Airports are an Infinitesimally small danger to Commercial aircraft. All R/C Registered Flying sites MUST be noted on Aviation Charts as 1/2 Mile diameter up to 1500'AGL Warning or alert areas just as all towers above 100' are marked on all VFR Charts.

Besides All Full Scales Pilots are just as responsible for "See and Be Seen" as are any craft that fly in the NAS in VFR Conditions. Full Scale Pilots are required to under.

Sec. 91.103
Preflight action.
Each pilot in command shall, before beginning a flight, become familiar with all available information concerning that flight. ect

http://Sec. 91.103 Preflight action....9?OpenDocument
Old 01-13-2016, 03:11 AM
  #3792  
franklin_m
 
franklin_m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 4,561
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by mike1974
But don't you understand they keep talking about the safety of the NAS and all you have described is a way to nail somebody after the fact. You even just said your 1st-51st objective is the safety of the NAS. But it's not really about preventing anything; it's about nailing somebody after the fact; which has nothing to do with safety.
Having the legal tools to enforce - hold people accountable for their actions - is a deterrent...result of which is safety.
Old 01-13-2016, 03:13 AM
  #3793  
franklin_m
 
franklin_m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 4,561
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by skylark-flier
If I might, I'd like to comment on just this one point that has been brought up over and over. Would anyone expect ANY company/organization to certify/sanctify/qualify/whatever ANY product they didn't sponsor? IE., would you expect GE to honor a warranty for a product built by Ford?

To me, "no" is the proper answer.
They're not sponsoring the aircraft, merely administering the program that checks them.
Old 01-13-2016, 03:18 AM
  #3794  
franklin_m
 
franklin_m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 4,561
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by Chris P. Bacon
How many of these programs have you successfully implemented at any of the clubs you've been a member of? If so,

1) Can you provide the detailed program description and processes?
2) Can you provide the actual data acquired as part of the program?
3) What changes in club policy/procedures were a direct result of this program's implementation?
4) Is there data available that validates the results of the program's implementation?
Unless you are indeed an agent of the AMA, I'm not going to waste time presenting ideas to you for approval because it's evident from these and other pages that you're neither objective nor schooled in professional aviation safety. Suffice to say that the program would be based on ones that are working now in any number of squadrons around the country. The majority is merely policy changes and a willingness to enforce by AMA. Both of those cost nothing in terms of dollars, but they do require courage to act.

So long as they're content letting FAA and the media whitewash them with quantitative data, they'll keep doing what they've been doing. Perhaps at some point, too late perhaps, they'll see the need for a credible aviation safety management system.
Old 01-13-2016, 04:02 AM
  #3795  
Luchnia
My Feedback: (21)
 
Luchnia's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Amelia, VA
Posts: 2,079
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by franklin_m
Having the legal tools to enforce - hold people accountable for their actions - is a deterrent...result of which is safety.
To me this falls extremely short of the whole problem we have and would mean that you must believe that a renegade/outlaw flyer will register with the FAA? Why are you sold on the outlaws registering with the FAA? I could be misunderstanding you though, let me know if I am.

Who will force them to register? Will a website, mandate, paper in a drone box, TV announcer, or other convince them to sign up?

Outlaws could care less about following any rules. The problem is the same as always the good guy does what is right, will be the one that registers, and will be safety conscience because he does care.

Safety is not in the mind of the renegade except maybe to keep his own hide. The bad guy won't register "jack" with the FAA - this will not hold them accountable or be a deterrent to them in any way, shape, or form. With knowing that, what will this deter for the good guys? Anything they don't already know?
Old 01-13-2016, 04:34 AM
  #3796  
franklin_m
 
franklin_m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 4,561
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by Luchnia
To me this falls extremely short of the whole problem we have and would mean that you must believe that a renegade/outlaw flyer will register with the FAA? Why are you sold on the outlaws registering with the FAA? I could be misunderstanding you though, let me know if I am.

Who will force them to register? Will a website, mandate, paper in a drone box, TV announcer, or other convince them to sign up?

Outlaws could care less about following any rules. The problem is the same as always the good guy does what is right, will be the one that registers, and will be safety conscience because he does care.

Safety is not in the mind of the renegade except maybe to keep his own hide. The bad guy won't register "jack" with the FAA - this will not hold them accountable or be a deterrent to them in any way, shape, or form. With knowing that, what will this deter for the good guys? Anything they don't already know?
If they don't register, and you catch them doing anything...even trespassing, then the failure to register is a charge you can hold over their head.
Old 01-13-2016, 04:36 AM
  #3797  
Sport_Pilot
 
Sport_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 16,916
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by cj_rumley
Well Sporty, I'll probably be losing a lot of sleep over that first sentence
I should have consulted an expert first, but maybe things can be set straight after the fact. So, what has AMA accomplished with their political/legal wrangling with FAA that ensued from the sUAS ARC, which AMA participated in ostensibly for the sole purpose of providing expert advice as to what a model aircraft is?
I suggest that you look at the sUAV NPRM. Section 336 will practically be pasted in Part 101. See page 172.

http://www.faa.gov/regulations_polic..._signature.pdf

Last edited by Sport_Pilot; 01-13-2016 at 05:33 AM.
Old 01-13-2016, 05:29 AM
  #3798  
mike1974
My Feedback: (1)
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Canisteo, NY
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by cj_rumley
What if you're right about that, Mike?
If it turns out to be futile as it well may, I'm concerned about what comes next, and I trust you are too. Unlike AMA management FAA is answerable to higher authority; they had to do something. I have said and still think they have taken a minimalist step toward regulation of MA. I am sure the next step, if this one fails to produce desired results, is already in their planning. I don't want to that next step to be implemented, even though I have no preconception of the details. I think you and I and FAA probably agree it isn't going to work. I hope we are all proven wrong about that.
I understand what you are saying, but why do they have to do something? The number of RC craft zooming around full scale craft has to be few and far between. We cannot keep everybody safe from everything. It is not possible. Why don't they have to do something for the children suffering from seizures that a "harmless" non-toxic plant can help? Why don't they have to do something about the 241 per day alcohol related deaths? Etc, etc, etc. The Feds have to do something to try and stop something that has not even happened, but don't have to do something for the multitude of things that currently harm and cause death to poeple? Is this opposite world? lol.
By the way i'm being genuine and not trying to come of as rude.
Old 01-13-2016, 05:31 AM
  #3799  
HoundDog
My Feedback: (49)
 
HoundDog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Apache Junction AZ. WI 0WI8
Posts: 4,501
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by franklin_m
Having the legal tools to enforce - hold people accountable for their actions - is a deterrent...result of which is safety.
Registration of R/C Toy airplanes won't do a thing any more than GUN Registration stops Murders. If a quad flyer with or with out a Federal Registration Number can't be apprehended they can't be Prosecuted, Simple as that. What they gona do, station Quad Spotters all along the Final Approach every half mile or so of every towered air port in the USA to capture the The People that refuse to comply with the 5 mile NO FLY Zone?
Old 01-13-2016, 05:51 AM
  #3800  
HoundDog
My Feedback: (49)
 
HoundDog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Apache Junction AZ. WI 0WI8
Posts: 4,501
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by cj_rumley
What if you're right about that, Mike?
If it turns out to be futile as it well may, I'm concerned about what comes next, and I trust you are too. Unlike AMA management FAA is answerable to higher authority; they had to do something. I have said and still think they have taken a minimalist step toward regulation of MA. I am sure the next step, if this one fails to produce desired results, is already in their planning. I don't want to that next step to be implemented, even though I have no preconception of the details. I think you and I and FAA probably agree it isn't going to work. I hope we are all proven wrong about that.


Originally Posted by mike1974
I understand what you are saying, but why do they have to do something? The number of RC craft zooming around full scale craft has to be few and far between. We cannot keep everybody safe from everything. It is not possible. Why don't they have to do something for the children suffering from seizures that a "harmless" non-toxic plant can help? Why don't they have to do something about the 241 per day alcohol related deaths? Etc, etc, etc. The Feds have to do something to try and stop something that has not even happened, but don't have to do something for the multitude of things that currently harm and cause death to poeple? Is this opposite world? lol.
By the way i'm being genuine and not trying to come of as rude.
Exactly ... The reason the FAA is messing with Traditional R/C toys instead of concentrating on the real problem of QUADS (Drones) is two fold. First is "BECAUSE THY CAN". Second and this is my belief until someone can change my mind with another better theory, is the AMA through Congress tried to a Preemptive Strike to limit the FAA's power to regulate Traditional R/C TOY airplanes. The FAA has never been very receptive to being told how to do their job. That being said you see how they Interpreted Amendment #336, Completely the opposite of what the AMA and congress intended. i.e. a FU to congress. Can't really say but maybe if The AMA and Congress had not done anything the FAA Would have gone after the real problem of Quads getting in the way of Commercial aircraft within 5 miles of an airport. Traditional R/C TOY airplanes are not the problem, Never have been, never will be. For what it's worth JMHO

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.