evarnad

Let's see Section 311 makes it a punishable offence to point a laser at an airplane, why don't they register lasers.
It would make just as much sense. IMO.
In either case the law breakers will do just that, break the law.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

Obviously your mental acuity is called into question as you appear to expect logic from a federal agency? JK.

I forget what 1,2,8 are...but c'mon...man cannot live on ultramicro's alone!

mike1974

My Feedback: (1)

lol!

#1 Fly below 400 ft. Nope
#2 Fly within LOS Nope
#8 Will not fly under the influence Nope Sorry, i'm not a choir boy. lol

Of course all on private land, within reason and WAY out in the middle of nowhere. When I fly at the AMA field I follow all the rules as I respect our club and our field.

Ultra-micros???? That's way too safe!!! A few of us will have a "few" beers and grill out at my buddies land (100 acres with large pond big enough to fly off of) in the summer and rip 280 size warbirds around.

Ok, off to bed. Hopefully I've caused some kind of controversy. lol

LUDS96

My Feedback: (23)

I would not be surprised if the AMA does not ask for proof of FAA registration prior to obtaining AMA membership renewals.

mongo

My Feedback: (15)

expect to see landowners starting to require proof of FAA registration as part of land use agreements/leases soon.

Hinckley Bill

My Feedback: (569)

Not quite sure why landowners would do so.......unless I misread the FAA information it's an individual's responsibility to register so where does a landowner come into the picture?

Silent-AV8R

According to everything I have been told by people I know within the AMA they have no intention of doing this. Nor are they planning on requiring clubs to check, or CDs. AMA views this as a personal responsibility that is up to each person to do. They are not thinking they need to treat people like children and check up on them.

Plus, if AMA succeeds in getting AMA numbers as the surrogate for the FAA process this will be a moot point.

hawkerone

My Feedback: (11)

Our club field is on property of the state Parks and Recreation Dept. and our just signed permit states early on that we will comply with any requirements and regulations issued by the FAA and further on that to violate any provisions of the agreement subjects us to immediate termination. Flying sites are very difficult to find and retain and ours is beautiful, making it a very desirable target to a host of other organizations. Our board has the duty to protect the site for the continuing use of the members and can not quibble or put it at risk over a few individuals refusing to comply. The requirement by the use permit to have current AMA membership for insurance purposes is enforced and after the Feb. 19, 2016 deadline so will the FAA registration requirement in order to fly there.

BrightGarden

A flying site is a rare commodity in even mildly populated areas, these days. The sheer competition from commercial development is one of the biggest factors - turning fields into apartment complexes and strip malls. Beyond that, we deal with unfavorable attitudes of neighbors toward our hallowed hobby/sport/obsession.

Any club wants "0 Drama" around holding onto its field(s). You want to avoid even the possibility of an incident with law enforcement getting involved. No land owner tolerates incidents like this where their name is on public record of ownership of land, and something gets reported in the local (much less nationa) news.

So, I can see requirements being added to club bylaws, by and large, to avoid even the possibility of an incident that draws the attention of law enforcement. Everybody has to be squeaky clean, we are now being monitored by Big Brother. Exactly why I oppose the ruling. A few days ago I was able to go fly at local parks, unmolested. Then the FAA pre-criminalized all RC-flyers, publicly listing us like sex offenders, inviting encroachment on OUR privacy. I am not willing to see a wholesome way of life get trampled by a government agency, like this.

Some things to consider:

Here's the best technical dissection of the FAA ruling I have found, to date , prepared by an actual attorney (Because nobody cares how you feel. You have to go to the statute and rule.) :
http://jrupprechtlaw.com/drone-law-blog

Here's who is suing the FAA: http://www.forbes.com/sites/johngogl...tration-rules/

The FAA is halfway thru a 6 month interim funding period, as Congress is only temporarily funding the FAA (this is why it is so powerful to contact your Congressperson - Congress isn't rubberstamping the FAA budget anymore):http://www.forbes.com/sites/johngogl...tration-rules/

Here's how to find out how to call your Congressperson, today...
http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

The registration requirement is for individuals, not for clubs. A person is required to have a drivers license to drive their car to the club, are landowners requiring clubs to check for drivers licenses? Certainly driving a car is more dangerous than flying a model aircraft, and could do more damage. Clubs are certainly able to write their own rules and create their own bylaws (something the AMA purposefully stays out of), so if they want to write that requirement in, they certainly can, but it seems like at this point people are looking for a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

The Forbes article is o/k overall, that guy has written some slanted pieces in the past. What's missing in the article is the fact that AMA has a pending case on basically the same issue. I guess it's more novel to note an individual has brought suit, but he might have wanted to note the similar action that had been filed as well.

franklin_m

I wouldn't hold your breath. From page 131 of the rule:

"Regarding the comment seeking to display an AMA number in particular, the Civil Aircraft Registry and the registration system implemented in this IFR are premised on the ability to uniquely identify and owner and their aircraft. The FAA does not govern the membership structures of section 336 organizations and cannot be assured of the uniqueness of those organizations’ identification systems [emphasis added]. Therefore, the FAA has no assurance that such a member number will provide the requisite unique identifier. Thus, the FAA will maintain an FAA-issued registration number for the marking scheme for small unmanned aircraft used as model aircraft."

Additionally, local, state, and Federal law enforcement, and national security agencies will need to be able to access membership and registration info 24/7/365. AMA does not have the staff necessary to support such demands.

Lastly, AOPA does not register aircraft, nor do AOPA members have special privileges in the public airspace that others do not. Likewise, BoatUS does not register watercraft, and its members do not enjoy privileges on the nation's waterways that others do not. Lastly, AAA does not register vehicles, and its members do not get to do things on the roads that non-members do not.

What AMA doesn't realize is that registration is inherently governmental.

BrightGarden

The AMA has split loyalties, now - the very reason it is going to be someone else that get's anything done about this.

I realize the AMA is dear to you and can understand that, and that you quickly capitulated with the FAA ruling, but the AMA, itself, hasn't gotten the terminology correct, for all their ballyhooing that they are the RC Czar, our savior. I am not convinced. Yes, it is the flyer, not the club - you're comments are a non-sequitor to my point. Read the AMA recommendations and see that by only the second stanza they speak as though it is the aircraft that gets registered, not the flyer. They are promulgating the confusion. I'm looking for more professionalism than what is exhibited.

http://www.modelaircraft.org/files/F...gistration.pdf

jollyroger

My Feedback: (6)

As president of a local club, I sent out a message that I would not pressure any of the club members to register with the FAA. I stated it would be up to them.
If the AMA looses its fight with the FAA, then we will consider other options.
Our club owns the property it is located on. Therefore we are free from the pressures of any land owner or municipality which could cause us any problems.

The most dangerous belief is the belief in authority and the power it assumes it has. that to allow someone or others to rule over us without our consent is surrender over to that authority our lives and wealth.

init4fun

About the only thing I could possibly add to an otherwise spot on post would be , after the sentence ;

"What the AMA doesn't realize is that registration is inherently governmental"

I'd add ;

"And the government isn't sharing a piece of that pie with anyone , ever"

BrightGarden

Short and sweet, amen.
The rule should be summarily dismantled.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

LoL...gotta get a zinger in there eh...the AMA is near and dear to me? Too funny. I didn't realize my comment there glorified the AMA, but hey, if that's your narrative have at it. They are far from perfect, but it's the only thing we've got, It is interesting to note how everyone has such high expectations of this organization, that every move they make is wrong, and now that someone else has filed suit there is this presumption that once again, they have failed somehow.

It's nothing short of nitpicking and pedantry to allege the AMA is part of the problem here because of a word or two. Is their use of the word "aircraft" the issue....because it's exactly what the feds note too: Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Registration. 30 seconds of reviewing the actual directions make clear for us it's the pilot who registers. But to take it one step further, there are directions for registering an aircraft....above 55 pounds. There really isn't any large scale misunderstanding here, the majority of people understand it's the pilot who registers.

That being said, the fed's documentation is voluminous, heck even the FAQ's are long!
[h=1][/h]

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

Our club will follow in the same vane, it's not our job to ensure people follow that particular rule, it's an individual mandate. Until the AMA requires it, or the town our club is located in does, we're not looking to solve (or create) a problem that's not there yet.

Just out of curiosity, do you guys require you membership to have AMA in order to join? Some feel the only benefit is the insurance, but many of those folks feel that coverage is useless as it's secondary to h/o. I've seen some privately held clubs that don't require the AMA.

HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

For Gods Sake APPEASE the FAA Register and put the Registration number in your R/C TOY and continue to fly the way and where U have since the beginning of time. The FAA don't give a crap about those of us that fly on AMA registered fields... They are after the people flying DRONES where when and How that should not ... It's that simple. The FAA Knows Registration in it's self won't work, anymore than gun registration stops armed robberies or drive bys and mass shootings.

The FAA had to do something before the inevitable happens so they can say LOOK we tried. The FAA has been charged by Congress to implement the FAA MODERNIZATION AND REFORM ACT OF2012. Then the congress tried to tell the FAA "HOW" to do their Job Well that's why we have the Problems we have. Just look at the FAA's Interpretation of #336. They basically told Congress and the AMA to go stuff it. Read the Interpretation
http://www.faa.gov/uas/media/model_a..._spec_rule.pdf
Then go reread #336 and if U don't come to the conclution that the FAA Just said Screw U to congress, well then I will never convince anyone that the
FAA is in charge here.

archerry

My Feedback: (6)

Does anyone not see what has really happened here?...
Think about what I am about to say, it's very simple....
The FAA has become the DMV of the skies and the AMA wants to become the Triple A.
Again and I repeat, the reason the why AMA has gotten into bed with the FED is that, if you remember when this all started, before the drones became a real issue, AMA was not invited or included in the original meetings and were afraid that the FED would have another NRA on their hands...
When the dust settles we will all be happily permitted "licensed pilots" and required to be insured, and the AMA will become our "required" insurance carrier and our AAA. Remember AAA is in part, in bed with the DMV and not causing a nuisance.

Sport_Pilot

So posting the same lame "I will fly below 400 feet" is supposed to prove something?

Sport_Pilot

Read the sUAV NPRM. That is a success.

Sport_Pilot

Why do you use AOPA a better CBO to compare us to would be USUA. They do have special privileges to an extent.

Sport_Pilot

Everybody will comply with number 1 because you will be under 400 feet when you take off. Also this is listed as guidance not rules. A recommendation.

TimJ

I've been told the same from people within the AMA.

Hinckley Bill

My Feedback: (569)

Our club members fly outside on land that is rented on an annual basis from a local farmer and fly small electric aircraft indoors at a local high school during the winter......

Both REQUIRE our club to have AMA insurance that specifically names them as additional insured in order to protect themselves so yes all flyers MUST have OPEN AMA membership ..... as club secretary I make sure that all members comply and that any 'guests' at our field or the gym also comply