Are you ready to register your aircraft?
01-15-2016, 08:56 PM
#3926
The leading edge of the shuttle Columbia was breached by a 1.7lb piece of FOAM that impacted it at a relative velocity of 530 MPH. So I'd argue your glider is indeed a threat to manned aircraft on MTRs, to airliners that may be in the area if you have a flyaway on one of your unlawful BLOS jaunts, and may well be a risk to going through the windshield of a helicopter -- as we've seen happen with birds of about that same weight.
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question...ns/q0131.shtml
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question...ns/q0131.shtml
Just an observation about Your Paranoia that is.
01-15-2016, 09:11 PM
#3927
My Feedback: (1)
Just as Jaybird is now registered and "moving on", so am I ! I waited when AMA asked us to, listened to all the debate (well as much as I could stand), and two days ago decided to "get er done". Registration was smooth and easy, so easy even a caveman could do !
It took me all afternoon yesterday to label all 52 of my in service flyable models using a Brothers label making machine that I happen to have. It's done, I'am registered with the FAA, my planes all have the required number displayed and I'm ready to go flying. Too bad the weather here in West Georgia doesn't look good for this weekend.
It took me all afternoon yesterday to label all 52 of my in service flyable models using a Brothers label making machine that I happen to have. It's done, I'am registered with the FAA, my planes all have the required number displayed and I'm ready to go flying. Too bad the weather here in West Georgia doesn't look good for this weekend.
01-15-2016, 09:18 PM
#3928
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Canisteo,
NY
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mike1974, I think that BLOS does have the potential for serious trouble to the hobby. I am sure what you do, because of where you are is a non issue. But there is no doubt that BLOS flying is why LOS flying is getting regulated as well, and I believe unnecessarily, because the FAA is too inept to discern the profound difference. We have people here where I live flying FPV over our old town, and that is just not cool. If a failure occurs, then that quad is going to drop like a rock. I think you have to understand the concern by people seeing this going on over their city? In a sequestered rural situation such as yours, I am sure you are fine.
I think the real solution is these types of models need to have an RFID chip installed during manufacture, registered to the purchaser. This silly registering the FAA is doing now will not solve any problem.
As much noise as I have made in these threads about this, I did register last night. I had no choice, as my club, and all of the competitions and events I have worked so hard to attend will not allow me to participate otherwise. That being said, I will be rooting for success in the pending lawsuits. THis is certainly not over.
I think the real solution is these types of models need to have an RFID chip installed during manufacture, registered to the purchaser. This silly registering the FAA is doing now will not solve any problem.
As much noise as I have made in these threads about this, I did register last night. I had no choice, as my club, and all of the competitions and events I have worked so hard to attend will not allow me to participate otherwise. That being said, I will be rooting for success in the pending lawsuits. THis is certainly not over.
01-16-2016, 06:27 AM
#3929
Just as Jaybird is now registered and "moving on", so am I ! I waited when AMA asked us to, listened to all the debate (well as much as I could stand), and two days ago decided to "get er done". Registration was smooth and easy, so easy even a caveman could do ! It took me all afternoon yesterday to label all 52 of my in service flyable models using a Brothers label making machine that I happen to have. It's done, I'am registered with the FAA, my planes all have the required number displayed and I'm ready to go flying. Too bad the weather here in West Georgia doesn't look good for this weekend.
It took me all afternoon yesterday to label all 52 of my in service flyable models using a Brothers label making machine that I happen to have. It's done, I'am registered with the FAA, my planes all have the required number displayed and I'm ready to go flying. Too bad the weather here in West Georgia doesn't look good for this weekend.
01-16-2016, 07:33 AM
#3930
You don't need justify your position to me. Unless the law has an exception process that you've applied for and received, you don't have an exception. Thus, it's between you and the government.
01-16-2016, 08:16 AM
#3931
My Feedback: (1)
Luchnia, I also did my FAA registration after the AMA gave it's go ahead but nowhere on the FAA site did I see any reference to AMA numbers or even AMA membership. Did I miss something? My understanding is the use of AMA numbers in place of FAA numbers is still not official and therefore there was no mention of that contained in the FAA application. No matter as mine now have both FAA and AMA required information. In the labeling process I did find 2 of my planes missing their AMA label and corrected that. It would be nice if the FAA allows use of our AMA numbers, but as of now I don't think the FAA has stated it's OK.
01-16-2016, 08:26 AM
#3932
Just as Jaybird is now registered and "moving on", so am I ! I waited when AMA asked us to, listened to all the debate (well as much as I could stand), and two days ago decided to "get er done". Registration was smooth and easy, so easy even a caveman could do ! It took me all afternoon yesterday to label all 52 of my in service flyable models using a Brothers label making machine that I happen to have. It's done, I'am registered with the FAA, my planes all have the required number displayed and I'm ready to go flying. Too bad the weather here in West Georgia doesn't look good for this weekend
.
It took me all afternoon yesterday to label all 52 of my in service flyable models using a Brothers label making machine that I happen to have. It's done, I'am registered with the FAA, my planes all have the required number displayed and I'm ready to go flying. Too bad the weather here in West Georgia doesn't look good for this weekend.
Your weather is better than wisconsin but now Apache Junction AZ is 61 to day 69 sunday 73 monday Have a great day I'm gona Sun Valley Flyers War Bird fly is today and tomorrow.
http://www.wunderground.com/weather-...:85120.1.99999
01-16-2016, 08:29 AM
#3933
Luchnia, I also did my FAA registration after the AMA gave it's go ahead but nowhere on the FAA site did I see any reference to AMA numbers or even AMA membership. Did I miss something? My understanding is the use of AMA numbers in place of FAA numbers is still not official and therefore there was no mention of that contained in the FAA application. No matter as mine now have both FAA and AMA required information. In the labeling process I did find 2 of my planes missing their AMA label and corrected that. It would be nice if the FAA allows use of our AMA numbers, but as of now I don't think the FAA has stated it's OK.
"AMA and the FAA are working to streamline the registration process for AMA members whereby those who register with the FAA will be able to use their AMA number as the primary identification on their model aircraft, as opposed to adding a new federal registration number."
Source:
http://amablog.modelaircraft.org/ama...-registration/
The key word there is "working".
01-16-2016, 08:30 AM
#3934
Luchnia, I also did my FAA registration after the AMA gave it's go ahead but nowhere on the FAA site did I see any reference to AMA numbers or even AMA membership. Did I miss something? My understanding is the use of AMA numbers in place of FAA numbers is still not official and therefore there was no mention of that contained in the FAA application. No matter as mine now have both FAA and AMA required information. In the labeling process I did find 2 of my planes missing their AMA label and corrected that. It would be nice if the FAA allows use of our AMA numbers, but as of now I don't think the FAA has stated it's OK.
01-16-2016, 10:27 AM
#3935
What a mess! I've been through all 158 pages and the vitriol and emotional quotient seems to be rather high on this subject. It seems to rub most of our fellow RCer's in much the same way that a large portion of firearms regulation rubs the majority of responsible gun owners the wrong way.
Looking back over the course of events it seems that prior to the advent of multi-rotor, FPV, BLOS and fly by cell-phone, (AKA "Drones") the traditional LOS, and certainly control line, RC community was all but invisible to any of the Federal regulatory agencies and only of passing interest to any national security entities.
The "drone" folks hate to hear that "drones" and their owner/operators are at the root of all this regulation and rant and rail at the thought, but one must admit that it's true. Has anyone ever heard of a traditional LOS fixed wing plane being spotted pacing traffic, flying in and amongst, across the Brooklyn or Golden Gate bridge? How many YouTube videos can be found of "drones" doing it? 100's, 1000's?
Vertical Grimace made a salient point in (paraphrasing/interpreting) saying that without positive identification of any model a/c, ie) RFID chip or serial numbers intrinsically and/or indelibly incorporated into the a/c in some way, the whole of the registration excersise becomes moot. Only those that are aware of the requirement AND care to abide will be counted. Retailers and manufacturers have effectively squashed any requirement that they inform purchasers of any a/c of the requirement.
I've spoken with several law enforcement and police officer aqquaintences in and around the Charlotte, NC and Rock Hill, SC area and none of them have been made aware of their apparent additional duty to enforce FAA regulations. Most of them said, quite frankly, that they had little interest in stopping to query every kid and teenager or other that they saw flying a quadcopter or something about whether or not they were "legal"...."please, are you serious!"
Interestingly, the "Park Police" (not really law officers) were all very aware as it gives them additional authority or persuasive ammo to enforce the no flying in public parks, schoolyards, parking lots etc.
Until all newly manufactured receivers and or motors are physically and /or electronically serial numbered by the manufacturer and that number is required to be registered to the purchaser at point of sale and subsequently required to be transferred upon transfer of ownership (much like a handgun) the whole thing is an undue burden on the responsible and law abiding.
Franklin_m, as a former Army Aviator, I must say you sound very much like any one of many of the Flight Safety Officers I served with.
not a bad thing...
Making AMA fields a feature on our charts and permanent NOTAMs would not be very hard and if the FAA is going to get into this whole thing then they need to do it wholey and completely and not just halfway, or get out. NOTAMs would probably be the way to go as they can be added or deleted effectively. While flying a Ft Rucker and Ft Campbell we were responsible to mark our charts with 100,s of no fly areas due to NOTAMs and base SOP's involving woodland area parks, camping areas, chicken coops/farms and all manner of other things. No reason the rest of Civil, Commercial and Military aviation can't do the same to avoid known RC areas of operation. It's a two way street.
Everyone feel free to flame away!
Cheers
Looking back over the course of events it seems that prior to the advent of multi-rotor, FPV, BLOS and fly by cell-phone, (AKA "Drones") the traditional LOS, and certainly control line, RC community was all but invisible to any of the Federal regulatory agencies and only of passing interest to any national security entities.
The "drone" folks hate to hear that "drones" and their owner/operators are at the root of all this regulation and rant and rail at the thought, but one must admit that it's true. Has anyone ever heard of a traditional LOS fixed wing plane being spotted pacing traffic, flying in and amongst, across the Brooklyn or Golden Gate bridge? How many YouTube videos can be found of "drones" doing it? 100's, 1000's?
Vertical Grimace made a salient point in (paraphrasing/interpreting) saying that without positive identification of any model a/c, ie) RFID chip or serial numbers intrinsically and/or indelibly incorporated into the a/c in some way, the whole of the registration excersise becomes moot. Only those that are aware of the requirement AND care to abide will be counted. Retailers and manufacturers have effectively squashed any requirement that they inform purchasers of any a/c of the requirement.
I've spoken with several law enforcement and police officer aqquaintences in and around the Charlotte, NC and Rock Hill, SC area and none of them have been made aware of their apparent additional duty to enforce FAA regulations. Most of them said, quite frankly, that they had little interest in stopping to query every kid and teenager or other that they saw flying a quadcopter or something about whether or not they were "legal"...."please, are you serious!"
Interestingly, the "Park Police" (not really law officers) were all very aware as it gives them additional authority or persuasive ammo to enforce the no flying in public parks, schoolyards, parking lots etc.
Until all newly manufactured receivers and or motors are physically and /or electronically serial numbered by the manufacturer and that number is required to be registered to the purchaser at point of sale and subsequently required to be transferred upon transfer of ownership (much like a handgun) the whole thing is an undue burden on the responsible and law abiding.
Franklin_m, as a former Army Aviator, I must say you sound very much like any one of many of the Flight Safety Officers I served with.
not a bad thing... Making AMA fields a feature on our charts and permanent NOTAMs would not be very hard and if the FAA is going to get into this whole thing then they need to do it wholey and completely and not just halfway, or get out. NOTAMs would probably be the way to go as they can be added or deleted effectively. While flying a Ft Rucker and Ft Campbell we were responsible to mark our charts with 100,s of no fly areas due to NOTAMs and base SOP's involving woodland area parks, camping areas, chicken coops/farms and all manner of other things. No reason the rest of Civil, Commercial and Military aviation can't do the same to avoid known RC areas of operation. It's a two way street.
Everyone feel free to flame away!
Cheers
01-16-2016, 10:44 AM
#3936
Luchnia, I also did my FAA registration after the AMA gave it's go ahead but nowhere on the FAA site did I see any reference to AMA numbers or even AMA membership. Did I miss something? My understanding is the use of AMA numbers in place of FAA numbers is still not official and therefore there was no mention of that contained in the FAA application. No matter as mine now have both FAA and AMA required information. In the labeling process I did find 2 of my planes missing their AMA label and corrected that. It would be nice if the FAA allows use of our AMA numbers, but as of now I don't think the FAA has stated it's OK.
01-16-2016, 04:08 PM
#3939
Frankie How many years were, Triditianl R/C airplanes flying over 400', while you were flying every where u flew in your 22 years of service. And what has changed that scares U so much that U are Paranoid about hitting some Poor Unsuspecting R/C Model flying under 400' or over 400' while U R down on the deck at 540 kts.
Just an observation about Your Paranoia that is.
Just an observation about Your Paranoia that is.
01-16-2016, 04:09 PM
#3940
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
"Its all about 2 things CONTROLL & MONEY. If they don't have complete control they can't get the Money. With Out the MONEY there is no control. Just a vicious circle".
Really? Just control and money eh? Not safety....not to protect consumers, citizens, and heck even the fishies? None of those licenses and regulations are for that?
Sorry, when people and more importantly, profit driven companies are left to their own devices, with no checks or balances in place...bad things happen.
Really? Just control and money eh? Not safety....not to protect consumers, citizens, and heck even the fishies? None of those licenses and regulations are for that?
Sorry, when people and more importantly, profit driven companies are left to their own devices, with no checks or balances in place...bad things happen.
01-16-2016, 04:20 PM
#3941
Actually, not true. While the AMA doesn't explicitly address BLOS, it does address it by negation.
AMA document 550 states that "All FPV flights require an AMA FPV pilot to have an AMA FPV spotter next to him/her maintaining VLOS with the FPV aircraft throughout its flight." So an AMA member flying BLOS is, by definition, not complying with AMA safety code in that they are not maintaining VLOS throughout the flight.
In addition, I submit that members that do so are handing FAA a stick to beat us with, as it makes it more difficult for AMA to say its members are not the problem.
AMA document 550 states that "All FPV flights require an AMA FPV pilot to have an AMA FPV spotter next to him/her maintaining VLOS with the FPV aircraft throughout its flight." So an AMA member flying BLOS is, by definition, not complying with AMA safety code in that they are not maintaining VLOS throughout the flight.
In addition, I submit that members that do so are handing FAA a stick to beat us with, as it makes it more difficult for AMA to say its members are not the problem.
01-16-2016, 05:03 PM
#3943
Always on the lookout for the 0.01% bad apples to try and prove your point and make your case against the AMA.
01-16-2016, 05:07 PM
#3944
What's changed is that there's many more non-commercial sUAS/UAS out there.
How many more?
From the cockpit it's impossible to distinguish between those flown by AMA members, and really difficult to distinguish those flown by AMA members who - in these forums - admitted flying BLOS in violation of AMA safety guidelines and PL112-95 section 336.
How many would that be and what percentage of the total AMA membership does that number represent?
How many more?
From the cockpit it's impossible to distinguish between those flown by AMA members, and really difficult to distinguish those flown by AMA members who - in these forums - admitted flying BLOS in violation of AMA safety guidelines and PL112-95 section 336.
How many would that be and what percentage of the total AMA membership does that number represent?
01-16-2016, 05:08 PM
#3945
01-16-2016, 06:17 PM
#3948
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: , CA
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's January 19th, deadline to save the fee. I don't give a goddamn about the five friggen dollars. I'm not going to register until the 400' issue is clarified and settled. I;m not going to agree when some schmuck that never held a real job can screw with everything I ever worked for, so my entire fleet of over 100 aircraft will be grounded after February 19th until the issue is settled. I can still start My turbines up on the driveway and tell the kids in the neighborhood who ohh and aww over them that there was a time when, and thanks to powers that should'nt be, things are the way they are now. They still dig My bikes too! For those Who naively believe that lady justice is blind, consider this , for those of Us who don't have the right social or finnancial status, That B*TCH can see very clearly!
Last edited by F-16 viperman; 01-16-2016 at 06:25 PM.
01-16-2016, 06:23 PM
#3949
My Feedback: (59)
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Steeler Nation
Posts: 599
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's January 19th, deadline to save the fee. I don't give a goddamn about the five friggen dollars. I'm not going to register until the 400' issue is clarified and settled. I;m not going to agree when some schmuck that never held a real job can screw with everything I ever worked for, so my entire fleet of over 100 aircraft will be grounded after February 19th until the issue is settled. I can still start My turbines up on the driveway and tell the kids in the neighborhood who ohh and aww over them that there was a time when, and thanks to powers that should'nt be, things are the way they are now. They still dig My bikes too!
+ 1000 man
01-17-2016, 06:01 AM
#3950
What's changed is that there's many more non-commercial sUAS/UAS out there.
How many more?
From the cockpit it's impossible to distinguish between those flown by AMA members, and really difficult to distinguish those flown by AMA members who - in these forums - admitted flying BLOS in violation of AMA safety guidelines and PL112-95 section 336.
How many would that be and what percentage of the total AMA membership does that number represent?
How many more?
From the cockpit it's impossible to distinguish between those flown by AMA members, and really difficult to distinguish those flown by AMA members who - in these forums - admitted flying BLOS in violation of AMA safety guidelines and PL112-95 section 336.
How many would that be and what percentage of the total AMA membership does that number represent?
As for how many AMA members fly BLOS and/or percentage of the AMA membership, does it really matter? AMA is telling FAA that its members are not the problem, when clearly some are. FAA, and especially Congressional staffers (young folks mostly) know how to search youtube and other places for a "sense" of what's happening. When I was interviewed for a local media outlet on registration, the reporter mentioned things she'd seen and read on RCG. I found it pretty refreshing that she'd done that level of research.
I for one believe AMA members need to be seen by everyone as following the AMA guidelines all the time, and most definitely following the law. I also think we should be collecting leading indicator data, for FAA is continuing to collect data. Trying to counter quantitative data from a Federal agency with incomplete - at best qualitative comments - is usually a loser.