mike1974

My Feedback: (1)

I agree with most of what you are saying, but you are way off base on the MR being the sole problem. Any FPV equipped aircraft can get in the way of full scale. Maybe I am not understanding what you are saying as I am sure you know this.

Chris P. Bacon

My Feedback: (4)

So you relentlessly proclaim the benefits of your safety program yet you're unwilling to:

1) Provide the detailed program description and processes.
2) Provide the actual data acquired as part of the program.
3) Show what changes in club policy/procedures were a direct result of this program's implementation.
4) Share the data available that validates the results of the program's implementation.

I've never claimed to have any formal training in professional aviation safety. However, I've had lots of professional safety training working in other large global industry.

TimJ

That's right, keep working to destroy our hobby. Your path will only lead to annuals and massive cost increases of product to consumers. All in the name of some needless feel good safety program.

Once you have succeeded in your accomplishment of destroying our hobby, you will get to experience the wrath of one hundred thousand plus members.

jwren00

UPDATE

I received my refund yesterday! It only took 3.5 weeks

Sport_Pilot

I applaud you!

Charlie P.

I broke down and registered. To register there are a group of statements and you have to click the "I agree" radio box to proceed.

Happily the first item is "I agree to fly under 400 ft". Rather than "I agree not to fly over 400 ft" or some more limiting declaration. I'll fly all over the place - I'm easy. I hope they don't mean sea level - as my local alfalfa field is 1,650 ft elevation and my club fields are 800 and 1,200 ft above sea level. I'm glad they didn't ask me to agree not to fly under 400 ft because - how would I land? Just turn off the transmitter and hope for the best when the model drops to below 400 ft?

I start and end every flight with the model at the same elevation as I am standing. But since I didn't have to agree not to exceed 400 ft or to fly completely at or below 400 ft at all times, specially with my sailplanes, I think it will work out.

I realize that's being "cutesie" and won't stand up - but they started it. How exactly is the pilot of a "toy" airplane going to accurately triangulate elevation from the ground?

I think I'll have a t-shirt printed for when I'm out catching thermals with my sailplanes: "Looks like 395 feet to me."

Sport_Pilot

It is not cutesie at all, and would definitely stand up in court just as you describe. I have a long experience with writing specifications for contracts and the FAA's wording would not stand up in court for them. They even admitted to that last weekend and are supposed to rewrite it.

Warbird Flyer

My Feedback: (7)

That's a lot of BS, the Govt. is selective about who it Prosecutes. Can you say Hillary Clinton and emails. Back to the topic PUBLIC LAW 112–95—FEB. 14, 2012 SEC. 336. SPECIAL RULE FOR MODEL AIRCRAFT states "(a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law relating to the incorporation of unmanned aircraft systems into Federal Aviation Administration plans and policies, including this subtitle, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration may not promulgate any rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft, or an aircraft being developed as a model aircraft, if— (1) the aircraft is flown strictly for hobby or recreational use. The Feds are trying to man handle the AMA and it is a disgrace and violation of current law.

Luchnia

My Feedback: (21)

I get it, yet I see this part as the problem: "and you catch them doing anything...even trespassing, then..." There may be some caught, yet I would wager it won't be any more than they would catch if you had no FAA registration. I simply do not see holding a failure to register charge over their head (the deterrent) as being any concern for the next one in line to do something stupid. Hope time will prove me wrong on this, yet historical evidence of "stupid" acts says otherwise.

I am still standing firm that registration won't help in this one bit and I maintain that this was an extremely poor misguided approach to keeping our airways safe and YES I want safety. I do not desire to see a news report that a "drone" being flown recklessly was responsible for downing a passenger plane with hundreds of people losing their life.

Sport_Pilot

OK so I am a bad guy and I know it. So if I register and I trespass or commit a crime or violate a FAR, at least I don't have to worry about paying up to $20,000 bucks to use the drone for say casing a bank for a future robbery,. But if I don't register they will never know who owned the drone. So which would I chose? How does registering protect us from the criminal?

OK so I am an ignorant fool who only reads tweets from pop stars. So how would I know to register. Fool that I am I crash my drone into the Presidents Limo and the tire blows and the SS mistakes someone in the crowd as having fired a gun ans they shoot the wrong person. So how does registering protect us from the fool to ignorant to know to register?

cj_rumley

Problems never get get resolved by making them bigger, and it isn't in FAA's charter to address the bigger problems you brought up. Most of the discussion here in this forum the has been been too narrow, driven by contempt for registration. In fact, as others have pointed out, registration does not in and of itself prevent accidents from happening in the NAS. It is only part of the action FAA has taken, the other being a step-up in enforcement action against those operating drones recklessly. FAA doesn't have a police force, so they are depending on local law enforcement to deal with the troublemakers, and FAA has provided guidance to them regarding what is allowed, what is not, and how to initiate action against offender if not. Registration is only intended to help enable law enforcement officers to do their part. LEO can't do anything to mitigate the problem if they cannot identify the wrongdoers. AMA has agreed with a need for registration "at some level," to protect the NAS from intrusion of drones that threaten safety of navigation by manned aircraft, that level being below anyone with the status of being a dues-paying AMA member, of course.

franklin_m

I'm glad you think I'm that influential. On the other hand, maybe it is a valid concern that will resonate with policy makers, and that folks like you would just prefer they remain unaware until something bad happens.

I've heard countless people here contend that the FAA's data is bad because drones are so hard to see. Ok, if that's true, then that means 100% of the "see and avoid" that's so crucial to aviation safety rests with the operator of the drone....someone who isn't tested regularly for visual acuity, one who isn't tested regularly for hearing ability, one who isn't examined by an FAA rep periodically to confirm they still have the skill to fly, and one who isn't mandated by FAA to report incidents, etc....

I feel sooooooo much more comfortable. A 400' AGL limit for all non-commercial sUAS/UAS ops nationwide eliminates a lot of ambiguity. If for some reason the laws of physics preclude someone flying below 400' AGL, then ask for a NOTAM so the full scale folks know what's there.

franklin_m

Fair enough. From a policy making perspective, I would say that registration is "necessary but not sufficient" to regulate this fast growing segment of aviation. I agree there will be more to follow, and honestly I can't say I disagree. What I do know however, is that once there is the first confirmed "hobby" sUAS/UAS and manned aircraft incident that threatens lives, then you'll see a lot of draconian regulation in a short time.

My desire would be for the AMA to get out in front of this by carefully rethinking some of its policies with a goal of collecting much more quantitative data so we're ready to counter the quantitative data the FAA has collected - and will continue to collect. In fairness, some (bacon most notably) would rather say "nothing bad has happened for 80 years, so...."

Chris P. Bacon

My Feedback: (4)

In fairness, that's an outright lie, I've never said that. And yes, I'd encourage you search every single one of my posts to try and find where I said.

Chris P. Bacon

My Feedback: (4)

He didn't actually say or imply that.

HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

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 difficul


At last look where the Federal Aviation Administration may not promulgate any rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft, Didn't really work out the way the AMA and Congress expected. I sorta figured the FAA, By Their Interpretation of #336 told the MA and the congress pretty much to STUFF IT.

FAA interpertation g #336 https://www.faa.gov/uas/media/model_..._spec_rule.pdf

cj_rumley

Now you're talking like you have your eyes wide open, Hound.

mongo

My Feedback: (15)

"the times, they are a changing"

lota stuff not going to be as it it has always been, once the dust steeles out on all this, i reckon.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

The times are indeed changing, but I don't suspect we'll see any big changes to the hobby at all, other than more interest in the MR sector. Time will tell on the membership numbers for AMA, but as for what we have now, I don't think we'll see that much change. Outside of the uproar on the registrations, nothing has changed. We will still be able to fly, and still be able to do all the things we used to do prior to registration. Sure, there will continue to be those that forecast the end of the hobby, but I don't see anything even close to indicate that.

rcmiket

No one knows just what effect all this will have on the hobby. You continue to paint a pretty picture which is all good and well but after watching the video of our new FAA "friend" who had no clue about what we do continues to bother me. This is now beyond what the AMA can do being the FAA is become the major"player" in our hobby. The "growth" in the MR's got us to where we are today as far as regulation and their behavior will dictate what the future holds. Should be interesting to say the least.

Mike

NorfolkSouthern

The real problem here, is that there is NO RISK TO THE OPERATOR of the drone. Therefore, safety measures are not as likely to be adhered to by the owner of a model plane, like on a full scale aircraft. People see them as toys, or as a camera platform that works wonders for their iPhone photo album. While consumer drones have limits built in (the Parrot drone can't fly over 330 feet), a typical model airplane does NOT. So with a standard 2.4 ghz radio, you can fly over 1,500 feet, and STILL see the plane. I have seen this done before MANY times at the field. When the multi-rotors start seeing the limits, I see no doubt that they will just put their cameras on regular model airplanes to get around the 5 mile geofencing radius.

And again, flying a radio controlled model airplane is NOT a right. It is a PRIVILEGE. More regulation may be the only way to keep the hobby going, because ANYTHING radio-controlled can be banned entirely if an incident ever does happen.

franklin_m

I was just going to second the fact that 336 doesn't seem to be working out all that well for its intended purpose.

franklin_m

EXACTLY ... you hit the nail on the head ... the fact that there is no risk to the operator of the unmanned sUAS/UAS (or MR, or drone, or model aircraft, or traditional model, or thingamajig, or whatever tortured wording someone tries to use as justification for saying that something doesn't apply).

If folks who want to go above 1000 will put their lives at risk if there's a midair with a full scale, then go for it, they have my support because now they've got a vested interest in making sure they know when manned aircraft are in the area. I suspect there would be more spotters, more telemetry, and not a lot of headphone wearing while flying their aerobatic routine (to which I ask how would they hear an airplane approaching from behind....)

franklin_m

So you have no problem implying or extrapolating ideas from my post (remember the one where you extrapolate a numbered list of reasons why I won't submit my ideas for your royal approval), but yet you take issue that you never said the exact words I paraphrased?

franklin_m

I think that was the clear implication when he said "That's right, keep working to destroy our hobby."

You can disagree, but that doesn't make you right. Unless of course you're assuming the role of a self appointed interpreter of everyone's intent and thinking. Come to think of it, that does appear to be what you're doing.