Is FAA Saying It's OK For AMA Members To Lie On Drone Registration Form?
01-14-2016, 06:46 PM
#51
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 ........
Yeppers , coulda been tryin to be helpful , , , OR , given my post that he quoted when he asked his unexplained question(s) , he coulda been preparing to post up some insult or attack , who knows ? The SHADOW knows !!! (and I'm pretty sure Tim does , too) ..... 
OOps !! Post #6 , Gee I hope poor poor Chris' head doesn't explode ! 
01-14-2016, 06:56 PM
#52
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: valley springs, CA
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flying RC is not a right. It is a privilege. If you have enough money to hire a bloodsucker (lawyer) a Right can be protected in the courts. A privilege is argued in what's called the administrative process where the Government becomes the accuser, jury, judge and executer. The FAA proudly proclaims a 99% conviction rate. A rational person would be suspicious. Any GRAY areas or ambiguity's in rules or regulations (administration process) or laws (RIGHTS) are always ruled in favor of the administrator. They are intentional traps for people that watched to many John Wayne movies where the good guy always won. By the way the FAA doesn't collect the fines. The IRS does. Not hard to see where this is going.
01-14-2016, 07:28 PM
#54
Banned
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (4)
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,762
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeppers , coulda been tryin to be helpful , , , OR , given my post that he quoted when he asked his unexplained question(s) , he coulda been preparing to post up some insult or attack , who knows ? The SHADOW knows !!! (and I'm pretty sure Tim does , too) ..... OOps !! Post #6 , Gee I hope poor poor Chris' head doesn't explode !
01-14-2016, 07:39 PM
#56
Last edited by init4fun; 01-14-2016 at 07:43 PM.
01-15-2016, 05:37 AM
#57
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Canisteo,
NY
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey , no problem , I kinda wish I you were right , since I'd rather not be limited to 400 feet . I just don't see the ambiguity in that sentence that you do and if you plant one in a jetliner's windshield at 1000 feet i'm sure the FAA's version is going to win over yours .
Hmm , I smell a good POLL question coming up !
Hmm , I smell a good POLL question coming up !
01-15-2016, 05:42 AM
#58
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Canisteo,
NY
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sport likes to pretend he knows a lot about law. I've been a lawyer for 45 years, and I can say with some confidence that he doesn't. The most basic principle of legal interpretation is that language should not be interpreted to mean something utterly ridiculous. Sport's reading would have "I promise to fly under 400 feet" as meaning "my flights will include a portion that's under 400 feet, but I will also go higher than that." It's hard to imagine a more ridiculous interpretation than that, and it is inconceivable that the FAA could have meant to say that. Why would any sane person want to exact a "promise" that some part of your flight will take place at an altitude of less than 400 feet? This is literalism carried to an absurd extreme.
By the way, Sport: The law does not have "tenants." It has "tenets." If you want to pretend to be a lawyer, you should learn to spell everyday legal terms.
By the way, Sport: The law does not have "tenants." It has "tenets." If you want to pretend to be a lawyer, you should learn to spell everyday legal terms.
01-15-2016, 07:45 AM
#59
My Feedback: (17)
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Oviedo,
FL
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Didn't the FAA rep at the recent meeting say something about the guidelines being poorly worded? (I think I read something about that).
Let's all agree that it was poorly worded, at best. They could have just said, "I will not fly higher than 400 feet"
In any case, we can expect clarification to these muddy waters in the weeks to come.
It is hard to believe that the existing wording crossed so many desks and was thought to be adequate when they could have been perfectly clear.
One of my favorite Cicero quotes: "The art of good writing is not in making it possible to be understood, but in making it impossible to be misunderstood."
Let's all agree that it was poorly worded, at best. They could have just said, "I will not fly higher than 400 feet"
In any case, we can expect clarification to these muddy waters in the weeks to come.
It is hard to believe that the existing wording crossed so many desks and was thought to be adequate when they could have been perfectly clear.
One of my favorite Cicero quotes: "The art of good writing is not in making it possible to be understood, but in making it impossible to be misunderstood."
01-15-2016, 08:02 AM
#60
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: , CA
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Last edited by F-16 viperman; 01-15-2016 at 08:06 AM.
