FAA/DOT Registration Task Force Recommendations
11-23-2015, 06:06 PM
#26
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga,
CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Awww.........that's so sweet. Mother Theresa must be smiling down them.
11-23-2015, 06:10 PM
#27
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
Just found this in USATODAY.
"The Academy of Model Aeronautics, which represents 180,000 hobbyists nationwide and participated in the task force, wanted to file a dissenting opinion and was prevented from doing so, executive director Dave Mathewson said. Mathewson said factors other than weight should trigger the registration requirement, such as whether it could fly higher than the current 400-foot FAA limit.“Unfortunately the task force recommendations may ultimately prove untenable by requiring the registration of smaller devices that are essentially toys and do not represent safety concerns,” Mathewson said.
"http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/11/23/faa-gets-recommendations-register-all-drones/76253444/"
Here are my questions.
Why was AMA prevented from filing a dissenting opinion?
I would say the goal here was to reach a consensus, which is hard with 5 people, 10 people etc, but given the size of this group the task was even more difficult. With this many people involved there was no way they were going to allow each party to state their dissenting opinion. They know that's going to happen when the groups release their own statements.
Since it can't be filed... could the AMA post the dissent please?
http://amablog.modelaircraft.org/med...-registration/
They seem frustrated.
What is preventing AMA from sending a letter to the Administrator?
Nothing at this point, not sure that it would matter, seems like it's been decided already. They can send a letter, or I suppose they could challenge this somehow. Probably not a cost effective way of doing so though.
My understanding is that the report was unanimous. They specifically said no dissents. FAA announced this morning.
Here is what the report said specifically:
5. CONCLUSION
These recommendations were agreed upon in a spirit of cooperation and compromise.
Many TaskForce members approached the proceeding with strong convictions, derived both from their
personal experience and from knowledgeable input from their organizations and users.
In such a time-limited tasking, many of these convictions were necessarily set aside in order to reach a general
consensus among the group and to provide the FAA with a workable solution that met its safety and
policy requirements while not unduly burdening the nascent UAS industry and its enthusiasticowners and users of all ages.
Just wondering. Simple questions. Simple answers.
"The Academy of Model Aeronautics, which represents 180,000 hobbyists nationwide and participated in the task force, wanted to file a dissenting opinion and was prevented from doing so, executive director Dave Mathewson said. Mathewson said factors other than weight should trigger the registration requirement, such as whether it could fly higher than the current 400-foot FAA limit.“Unfortunately the task force recommendations may ultimately prove untenable by requiring the registration of smaller devices that are essentially toys and do not represent safety concerns,” Mathewson said.
"http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/11/23/faa-gets-recommendations-register-all-drones/76253444/"
Here are my questions.
Why was AMA prevented from filing a dissenting opinion?
I would say the goal here was to reach a consensus, which is hard with 5 people, 10 people etc, but given the size of this group the task was even more difficult. With this many people involved there was no way they were going to allow each party to state their dissenting opinion. They know that's going to happen when the groups release their own statements.
Since it can't be filed... could the AMA post the dissent please?
http://amablog.modelaircraft.org/med...-registration/
They seem frustrated.
What is preventing AMA from sending a letter to the Administrator?
Nothing at this point, not sure that it would matter, seems like it's been decided already. They can send a letter, or I suppose they could challenge this somehow. Probably not a cost effective way of doing so though.
My understanding is that the report was unanimous. They specifically said no dissents. FAA announced this morning.
Here is what the report said specifically:
5. CONCLUSION
These recommendations were agreed upon in a spirit of cooperation and compromise.
Many TaskForce members approached the proceeding with strong convictions, derived both from their
personal experience and from knowledgeable input from their organizations and users.
In such a time-limited tasking, many of these convictions were necessarily set aside in order to reach a general
consensus among the group and to provide the FAA with a workable solution that met its safety and
policy requirements while not unduly burdening the nascent UAS industry and its enthusiasticowners and users of all ages.
Just wondering. Simple questions. Simple answers.
11-23-2015, 07:55 PM
#30
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
Needless to say, he didn't mow the lawn after that. And oddly enough, he told the pilot "go on up, no problem, I'll go cut over there". One plane in sky, one mower on the ground, and the rest is history. $125k was actually a good settlement That was I believe 6-7 years ago. I wasn't a member then, was just coming into the hobby. No more flying while mowing, even if the guy was like, sure!
11-23-2015, 08:25 PM
#31
An LTMA1 at AMA max allowed speed of 200MPH (293 fps) has the same kinetic energy as a average weight Mini-Cooper at about 22 mph. I'm fairly certain that if a car of that size crashed into someone, it could be fatal. Even with a 2 second shut down timer on loss of signal, that same aircraft will cover 500 feet before the engine stops, let alone how much further it will go before it hits the ground. Now put it at 400 feet in the air -- it can go a very long way.
a. Mini-Coopers can't go 20 MPH
b. Mini-Coopers should be restricted to 10 mph or slower.
c. Mini-Coopers are dangerous at an speed.
d. All of the above
Now put it at 400 feet in the air -
Why would anyone put their Mini-Cooper 400' in the air?
Life is full of risks .... more people are killed getting in and out of the tub than are run over by Mini-Coopers or hit by a 200 MPH Toy Jet.
We had a 3 Day Jet Rally this weekend with over 50 pilots and over 100 planes and over 1000+ flights. Not one, even those that crashed in the desert, came close to hurting any Mini-Coopers.
11-23-2015, 10:45 PM
#32
So, assuming the victim is wearing a hard hat, a 249 gram object will likely cause:
- a medical treatment injury when it falls from above approx 18 meters
- a lost time injury when it falls from above approx 25 meters
- a fatality when it falls from above 40 meters
Source: http://www.dropsonline.org/resources...ps-calculator/
[ATTACH]2132201[/IMG]
11-23-2015, 10:55 PM
#33
11-24-2015, 03:50 AM
#34
Member
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Warren, MI
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good to see Best Buy and Walmart were included in the rule making process. Ronald McDonald must have had previous commitments, and couldn't make it.
Just a thought, how are those laser laws working?
Just a thought, how are those laser laws working?
11-24-2015, 04:34 AM
#37
An LTMA1 at AMA max allowed speed of 200MPH (293 fps) has the same kinetic energy as a average weight Mini-Cooper at about 22 mph. I'm fairly certain that if a car of that size crashed into someone, it could be fatal. Even with a 2 second shut down timer on loss of signal, that same aircraft will cover 500 feet before the engine stops, let alone how much further it will go before it hits the ground. Now put it at 400 feet in the air -- it can go a very long way.
11-24-2015, 05:46 AM
#40
Why the emphasis on hitting people? The issue is midair with full scale aircraft, especially airliners. If a Mini Cooper is traveling at 22 MPH into an airliner it would be a fender bender. They are not registering toys because they are afraid of them hitting people. In fact the FAA can do nothing about that.
11-24-2015, 06:03 AM
#41
11-24-2015, 06:04 AM
#42
Why the emphasis on hitting people? The issue is midair with full scale aircraft, especially airliners. If a Mini Cooper is traveling at 22 MPH into an airliner it would be a fender bender. They are not registering toys because they are afraid of them hitting people. In fact the FAA can do nothing about that.
11-24-2015, 06:11 AM
#43
But they said they had no info on mid airs, so they used people. Which makes the result wholly worthless so its worthless to argue that point. I am making the fender bender point to bring it back to where it should be, mid air collision. Apparently you took the bait!
11-24-2015, 06:14 AM
#44
Regards,
Astro
11-24-2015, 06:39 AM
#45
11-24-2015, 06:41 AM
#46
11-24-2015, 06:47 AM
#47
They would have used that data as well, IF it were available. Another one of their recommendations was for the FAA to expedite their efforts to gather the data needed where air-to-air incidents are concerned, so it very much WAS a part of their process but there just wasn't much relevant data available.
I'm sure many in this forum have also seen the damage that even things as small coins can do when ingested into a turbine engine. When I was in safety school back in 1998, we studied an accident where a single ball bearing (wrist rocket size) brought down a Harrier jet (high bypass turbofan). I'm a bit concerned about what happens to our hobby when they actually do start shooting DJI's and similar sized objects at turbine blades. Those outrunner motor cases are a lot larger than ball bearings.
11-24-2015, 06:54 AM
#48
Just like this thread the Task Force on Registration & Registration as a whole is a futile attempt to prove that they did SOMETHING. Don't care if it's sensible or practical. The powers that be did something to cover their BUTTs. Typical Politicians. Do Nothing of any substance but do something, Even if it's stupid. We can justify it later. Most People are to stupid, Ignorant or apathetic to care until it affects them in some adverse way. i.e. I don't play with those toy airplanes so I don't care if the ban them all together but don't screw with my R/C cars/boats or whatever.
But again I preaching to the Smartest people on the planet in this and other threads. LOL That should get a rise from a few.
But again I preaching to the Smartest people on the planet in this and other threads. LOL That should get a rise from a few.
11-24-2015, 07:01 AM
#49
I'm sure many in this forum have also seen the damage that even things as small coins can do when ingested into a turbine engine.