Is FAA Saying It's OK For AMA Members To Lie On Drone Registration Form?
01-14-2016, 04:10 AM
#3
Well , Forbes is off my reading list ......When I click in Chris' link , I get nothing but a banner DEMANDING I turn off my Ad blocker and turn on cookie functionality !
Well , the data mining scumbags at Forbes are gonna have to drop their cookie trash on some other computer , cause I don't need Forbes nearly as bad as Forbes needs all of you to allow them free access to spam the Hell outta you and track your reading habits .
Gee , and I thought the National Enquirer was the epitome of tabloid trash ........
01-14-2016, 04:34 AM
#4
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
You're not missing much Init, the author of that article isn't the best. He consistently writes click-baity sensationalized articles that clearly have a bias to them, and this is one is no different. His attempts to bait the FAA are pretty transparent.
01-14-2016, 05:40 AM
#6
My Friend , the sensationalism in the news media is one of the major shames of the electronic age , closely followed by the cheekily vapid ignorance displayed in TV advertising ! I had really hoped that by the time "our" generation had taken charge things like TV commercials that actually factually represent the products being sold would become the norm . But no , instead of commercials being corny and odd as they were years ago in our youth , now they actually suck out your intelligence with every second watched ! Maybe it's age , maybe we all have a BS tolerance that once exceeded makes us want to barf every time we see some heroic bad azzed commercial for a flippin minivan , but with me it got to the point that I DO edit out as much advertising as possible from my day to day life . And now Forbes demands , in big block letters , that I allow them to dump their trash on my computer just for the privilege of reading their article ? No way , no how will I ever turn off my ABP (ad blocker plus) or turn on tracking software at the demand of some trashy news outlet . Now of course if everyone followed suit and their readership dropped drastically , what do ya bet they'd find a different way to push their ads rather than hold their own journalism hostage to me seeing their all important ads for crap I ain't gonna buy anyway ?
01-14-2016, 07:40 AM
#7
My Feedback: (6)
Nothing in the Forbes article seems to me to be inaccurate. But it doesn't seem quite right to call a statement that a government agency forces you to make a "lie," even if it's untrue. There is no federal law, not even a regulation, requiring modelers to stay below 400 feet everywhere. So the FAA's requiring people to say they will do that in order to register is unjustified, even if the FAA does have the authority to make American citizens (but not non-citizens, which is weird, too) register.
01-14-2016, 07:41 AM
#8
Last edited by Sport_Pilot; 01-14-2016 at 07:45 AM.
01-14-2016, 07:51 AM
#9
My Feedback: (6)
Lie about what? Y You are simply saying you will follow a guideline. So I go to the FAA website now and then and check to see if there are any changes. So that would be following a guideline. In fact a guideline itself is not a regulation or rule you have to adhere too.
01-14-2016, 07:57 AM
#10
You are saying that you don't intend to fly higher than 400 feet.
01-14-2016, 08:00 AM
#11
Banned
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (4)
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,762
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lie about what? Y You are simply saying you will follow a guideline. So I go to the FAA website now and then and check to see if there are any changes. So that would be following a guideline. In fact a guideline itself is not a regulation or rule you have to adhere too.
01-14-2016, 08:05 AM
#13
Banned
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (4)
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,762
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My Friend , the sensationalism in the news media is one of the major shames of the electronic age , closely followed by the cheekily vapid ignorance displayed in TV advertising ! I had really hoped that by the time "our" generation had taken charge things like TV commercials that actually factually represent the products being sold would become the norm . But no , instead of commercials being corny and odd as they were years ago in our youth , now they actually suck out your intelligence with every second watched ! Maybe it's age , maybe we all have a BS tolerance that once exceeded makes us want to barf every time we see some heroic bad azzed commercial for a flippin minivan , but with me it got to the point that I DO edit out as much advertising as possible from my day to day life . And now Forbes demands , in big block letters , that I allow them to dump their trash on my computer just for the privilege of reading their article ? No way , no how will I ever turn off my ABP (ad blocker plus) or turn on tracking software at the demand of some trashy news outlet . Now of course if everyone followed suit and their readership dropped drastically , what do ya bet they'd find a different way to push their ads rather than hold their own journalism hostage to me seeing their all important ads for crap I ain't gonna buy anyway ?
01-14-2016, 08:19 AM
#15
Age be damned I use my DVR quite handily to eliminate commercials . Kinda a shame the money they spend on advertising that ends up getting zapped before it's even seen . And yes , yes I would watch advertising that didn't pander to the lowest common denominator or make me feel like I just totally wasted those 30 seconds ...
01-14-2016, 08:22 AM
#16
01-14-2016, 08:48 AM
#18
Having written plenty of contracts and specifications, and in court. I can assure you hat to follow means to keep track of the status when written in a contract. It is one of those terms on our "do not use" list.
01-14-2016, 09:29 AM
#20
But I will say this ;
Having read the sentence regarding 400 feet in the registration agreement , If I were a juror on a case where that sentence's meaning was crucial to the outcome , I would follow the train of thought that the clear intent is that no flying of models will occur over 400 feet .
Your defense reminds me of a child who gets caught trying to sneak cookies before dinner , and gets caught by Mom who says "Now Junior , you know your not supposed to have cookies before dinner" , , , , So once Mom turns her back you dive into the chocolate cake cause she said "no cookies" instead of "No snacks , or food of any kind before dinner , including chocolate cake" , , , and think you haven't gone against her intent ? NO adult whose raised a child , called for jury duty , is gonna read that sentence and agree with you Sport that it's OK to fly above 400 feet . The intent of the sentence is clear and I doubt any court would accept your chocolate cake version .
01-14-2016, 09:39 AM
#22
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga,
CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well buddy , I can't claim any kind of real world court experience , having been a mechanic in my working life .
But I will say this ;
Having read the sentence regarding 400 feet in the registration agreement , If I were a juror on a case where that sentence's meaning was crucial to the outcome , I would follow the train of thought that the clear intent is that no flying of models will occur over 400 feet .
Your defense reminds me of a child who gets caught trying to sneak cookies before dinner , and gets caught by Mom who says "Now Junior , you know your not supposed to have cookies before dinner" , , , , So once Mom turns her back you dive into the chocolate cake cause she said "no cookies" instead of "No snacks , or food of any kind before dinner , including chocolate cake" , , , and think you haven't gone against her intent ? NO adult whose raised a child , called for jury duty , is gonna read that sentence and agree with you Sport that it's OK to fly above 400 feet . The intent of the sentence is clear and I doubt any court would accept your chocolate cake version .
But I will say this ;
Having read the sentence regarding 400 feet in the registration agreement , If I were a juror on a case where that sentence's meaning was crucial to the outcome , I would follow the train of thought that the clear intent is that no flying of models will occur over 400 feet .
Your defense reminds me of a child who gets caught trying to sneak cookies before dinner , and gets caught by Mom who says "Now Junior , you know your not supposed to have cookies before dinner" , , , , So once Mom turns her back you dive into the chocolate cake cause she said "no cookies" instead of "No snacks , or food of any kind before dinner , including chocolate cake" , , , and think you haven't gone against her intent ? NO adult whose raised a child , called for jury duty , is gonna read that sentence and agree with you Sport that it's OK to fly above 400 feet . The intent of the sentence is clear and I doubt any court would accept your chocolate cake version .
01-14-2016, 10:08 AM
#24
Well buddy , I can't claim any kind of real world court experience , having been a mechanic in my working life .
But I will say this ;
Having read the sentence regarding 400 feet in the registration agreement , If I were a juror on a case where that sentence's meaning was crucial to the outcome , I would follow the train of thought that the clear intent is that no flying of models will occur over 400 feet .
Your defense reminds me of a child who gets caught trying to sneak cookies before dinner , and gets caught by Mom who says "Now Junior , you know your not supposed to have cookies before dinner" , , , , So once Mom turns her back you dive into the chocolate cake cause she said "no cookies" instead of "No snacks , or food of any kind before dinner , including chocolate cake" , , , and think you haven't gone against her intent ? NO adult whose raised a child , called for jury duty , is gonna read that sentence and agree with you Sport that it's OK to fly above 400 feet . The intent of the sentence is clear and I doubt any court would accept your chocolate cake version .
But I will say this ;
Having read the sentence regarding 400 feet in the registration agreement , If I were a juror on a case where that sentence's meaning was crucial to the outcome , I would follow the train of thought that the clear intent is that no flying of models will occur over 400 feet .
Your defense reminds me of a child who gets caught trying to sneak cookies before dinner , and gets caught by Mom who says "Now Junior , you know your not supposed to have cookies before dinner" , , , , So once Mom turns her back you dive into the chocolate cake cause she said "no cookies" instead of "No snacks , or food of any kind before dinner , including chocolate cake" , , , and think you haven't gone against her intent ? NO adult whose raised a child , called for jury duty , is gonna read that sentence and agree with you Sport that it's OK to fly above 400 feet . The intent of the sentence is clear and I doubt any court would accept your chocolate cake version .
01-14-2016, 10:26 AM
#25
A case like that would not go in front of the jury. Either those issues could not be brought as evidence by order of the judge, or if that all to it, it would be thrown out of court. This is not mom talking to a kid this it the law. Just as you are innocent till proven guilty, then anything not specifically disallowed is allowed and the least restrictive definition is used. And common sense is not allowed in court and justice is blind. And if you don't understand that these things are based on our rights, then I suggest you take a civics class.
Hmm , I smell a good POLL question coming up !