FAA Reauthorization 2016 AIRR - 2016
02-14-2016, 11:19 AM
#102
02-14-2016, 01:18 PM
#103
There was never any mention of 400 foot anything in Section 336 of P.L. 112-95. Nor is it in the proposed Part 101.41 governing model aircraft operations. The one and only place 400 feet is officially mentioned is in AC 91-57A, where it is referred to as a "best practice". The 400 foot guideline in the registration process carries no regulatory or legal weight.
02-14-2016, 02:10 PM
#104
Read an article on Yahoo news the other day from the guy that trned Madoff in for his billions Ponzi scheme. He says there 3 Ponzi schemes that investors are being stolen from right now and one is many times greater than Madoff did. Now that's how well U can trust anyone in this country. Now U want to talk of drug companies being honest?
I'm happy to see there still enough dummies that think the government and any modern company can be trusted where money Profit and the public are involved. It's all BS. Remember Only the Lord can Giveth but the Lord and the Government can Taketh It away.
02-14-2016, 07:36 PM
#105
Companies are only trust worthy because of the rules laws and restrictions the Government Places on them ... If they are government contractors they are expected to lie cheat and steel, because most of the money stays here to support the economy, When's the lsat time anything in this country concerned with defence or any government contract come in on time Under budget or at least less than 10 times the original quote. Never and U never will.
Read an article on Yahoo news the other day from the guy that trned Madoff in for his billions Ponzi scheme. He says there 3 Ponzi schemes that investors are being stolen from right now and one is many times greater than Madoff did. Now that's how well U can trust anyone in this country. Now U want to talk of drug companies being honest?
I'm happy to see there still enough dummies that think the government and any modern company can be trusted where money Profit and the public are involved. It's all BS. Remember Only the Lord can Giveth but the Lord and the Government can Taketh It away.
Read an article on Yahoo news the other day from the guy that trned Madoff in for his billions Ponzi scheme. He says there 3 Ponzi schemes that investors are being stolen from right now and one is many times greater than Madoff did. Now that's how well U can trust anyone in this country. Now U want to talk of drug companies being honest?
I'm happy to see there still enough dummies that think the government and any modern company can be trusted where money Profit and the public are involved. It's all BS. Remember Only the Lord can Giveth but the Lord and the Government can Taketh It away.
02-17-2016, 05:48 AM
#106
I've always understood folks in these positions to be "acting as agents of" the organization which empowers them to perform those roles. There's nothing that prevents the AMA from empowering these agents to perform said inspections as part of the certification program administered by the CBO. Allowing the aircraft to fly at an AMA field is a completely separate issue.
Recommend we let our legislators know that this language is already being used to require membership, and there's nothing that prevents a CBO from changing their opinion of what it means to comply with "programming" and perhaps decide that to comply you need to be a member.
Recommend we let our legislators know that this language is already being used to require membership, and there's nothing that prevents a CBO from changing their opinion of what it means to comply with "programming" and perhaps decide that to comply you need to be a member.
I believe the FAA has taken control of over 55 pound aircraft away from the AMA already , and the AMA hasn't noticed or mentioned it yet . The way I read the FAA registration process we can register ourselves to fly 1/2 pound to 55 pound UAS using the on line system , but over 55 pounds have to use the mail in system as used by full scale manned aircraft to get an actual "N" number for that one specific large model aircraft . Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't a mandatory airworthiness inspection required to be performed by an FAA authorized IA before "N" numbers are assigned to any aircraft ? Sure , the AMA can "certify" any over 55 pound craft so as to keep the AMA insurance in effect , but the craft isn't legal to fly till the "N" numbers are granted by the FAA , and I know of no one yet who has gone through the process of registering something over 55 pounds , to know if an FAA inspection is required or not .
02-17-2016, 06:00 AM
#107
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: El Paso,
TX
Posts: 5,277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Franklin ,
I believe the FAA has taken control of over 55 pound aircraft away from the AMA already , and the AMA hasn't noticed or mentioned it yet . The way I read the FAA registration process we can register ourselves to fly 1/2 pound to 55 pound UAS using the on line system , but over 55 pounds have to use the mail in system as used by full scale manned aircraft to get an actual "N" number for that one specific large model aircraft . Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't a mandatory airworthiness inspection required to be performed by an FAA authorized IA before "N" numbers are assigned to any aircraft ? Sure , the AMA can "certify" any over 55 pound craft so as to keep the AMA insurance in effect , but the craft isn't legal to fly till the "N" numbers are granted by the FAA , and I know of no one yet who has gone through the process of registering something over 55 pounds , to know if an FAA inspection is required or not .
I believe the FAA has taken control of over 55 pound aircraft away from the AMA already , and the AMA hasn't noticed or mentioned it yet . The way I read the FAA registration process we can register ourselves to fly 1/2 pound to 55 pound UAS using the on line system , but over 55 pounds have to use the mail in system as used by full scale manned aircraft to get an actual "N" number for that one specific large model aircraft . Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't a mandatory airworthiness inspection required to be performed by an FAA authorized IA before "N" numbers are assigned to any aircraft ? Sure , the AMA can "certify" any over 55 pound craft so as to keep the AMA insurance in effect , but the craft isn't legal to fly till the "N" numbers are granted by the FAA , and I know of no one yet who has gone through the process of registering something over 55 pounds , to know if an FAA inspection is required or not .
Mike
02-17-2016, 06:27 AM
#108
Hi Franklin ,
I believe the FAA has taken control of over 55 pound aircraft away from the AMA already , and the AMA hasn't noticed or mentioned it yet . The way I read the FAA registration process we can register ourselves to fly 1/2 pound to 55 pound UAS using the on line system , but over 55 pounds have to use the mail in system as used by full scale manned aircraft to get an actual "N" number for that one specific large model aircraft . Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't a mandatory airworthiness inspection required to be performed by an FAA authorized IA before "N" numbers are assigned to any aircraft ? Sure , the AMA can "certify" any over 55 pound craft so as to keep the AMA insurance in effect , but the craft isn't legal to fly till the "N" numbers are granted by the FAA , and I know of no one yet who has gone through the process of registering something over 55 pounds , to know if an FAA inspection is required or not .
I believe the FAA has taken control of over 55 pound aircraft away from the AMA already , and the AMA hasn't noticed or mentioned it yet . The way I read the FAA registration process we can register ourselves to fly 1/2 pound to 55 pound UAS using the on line system , but over 55 pounds have to use the mail in system as used by full scale manned aircraft to get an actual "N" number for that one specific large model aircraft . Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't a mandatory airworthiness inspection required to be performed by an FAA authorized IA before "N" numbers are assigned to any aircraft ? Sure , the AMA can "certify" any over 55 pound craft so as to keep the AMA insurance in effect , but the craft isn't legal to fly till the "N" numbers are granted by the FAA , and I know of no one yet who has gone through the process of registering something over 55 pounds , to know if an FAA inspection is required or not .
02-17-2016, 10:55 AM
#110
Hi Franklin ,
I believe the FAA has taken control of over 55 pound aircraft away from the AMA already , and the AMA hasn't noticed or mentioned it yet . The way I read the FAA registration process we can register ourselves to fly 1/2 pound to 55 pound UAS using the on line system , but over 55 pounds have to use the mail in system as used by full scale manned aircraft to get an actual "N" number for that one specific large model aircraft . Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't a mandatory airworthiness inspection required to be performed by an FAA authorized IA before "N" numbers are assigned to any aircraft ? Sure , the AMA can "certify" any over 55 pound craft so as to keep the AMA insurance in effect , but the craft isn't legal to fly till the "N" numbers are granted by the FAA , and I know of no one yet who has gone through the process of registering something over 55 pounds , to know if an FAA inspection is required or not .
I believe the FAA has taken control of over 55 pound aircraft away from the AMA already , and the AMA hasn't noticed or mentioned it yet . The way I read the FAA registration process we can register ourselves to fly 1/2 pound to 55 pound UAS using the on line system , but over 55 pounds have to use the mail in system as used by full scale manned aircraft to get an actual "N" number for that one specific large model aircraft . Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't a mandatory airworthiness inspection required to be performed by an FAA authorized IA before "N" numbers are assigned to any aircraft ? Sure , the AMA can "certify" any over 55 pound craft so as to keep the AMA insurance in effect , but the craft isn't legal to fly till the "N" numbers are granted by the FAA , and I know of no one yet who has gone through the process of registering something over 55 pounds , to know if an FAA inspection is required or not .
I think this is meant for non AMA members that may have a craft over 55 pounds most likely most will be commercial operators.
02-17-2016, 11:06 AM
#111
My Feedback: (198)
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: El Reno, OK
Posts: 6,707
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think EVERY single thing the AMA is doing, and has done, with the AMA is simply a ruse to expand their revenue base, grow membership, and attempt to legislate same, thus "insuring" future income....what could be a better scheme for a declining organization than to have Federal law MANDATE membership?????
I pray the Congress is smart enough to see through it, and with the FAA support, simply mandate "programming". Let the states mandate insurance coverage like they do automobile insurance if it's REALLY such a big deal.
Seems like with such a stellar safety record as the AMA members *DO* have, expanding insurance requirement(s) becomes even MORE ludicrous. The risk/loss industry bases insurance prevention costs against actual losses, and doesn't require other than loss-experience risk-based prevention schemes.
What makes the AMA better/different????????????
I pray the Congress is smart enough to see through it, and with the FAA support, simply mandate "programming". Let the states mandate insurance coverage like they do automobile insurance if it's REALLY such a big deal.
Seems like with such a stellar safety record as the AMA members *DO* have, expanding insurance requirement(s) becomes even MORE ludicrous. The risk/loss industry bases insurance prevention costs against actual losses, and doesn't require other than loss-experience risk-based prevention schemes.
What makes the AMA better/different????????????
02-17-2016, 11:23 AM
#112
I think EVERY single thing the AMA is doing, and has done, with the AMA is simply a ruse to expand their revenue base, grow membership, and attempt to legislate same, thus "insuring" future income....what could be a better scheme for a declining organization than to have Federal law MANDATE membership?????
I pray the Congress is smart enough to see through it, and with the FAA support, simply mandate "programming". Let the states mandate insurance coverage like they do automobile insurance if it's REALLY such a big deal.
Seems like with such a stellar safety record as the AMA members *DO* have, expanding insurance requirement(s) becomes even MORE ludicrous. The risk/loss industry bases insurance prevention costs against actual losses, and doesn't require other than loss-experience risk-based prevention schemes.
What makes the AMA better/different????????????
I pray the Congress is smart enough to see through it, and with the FAA support, simply mandate "programming". Let the states mandate insurance coverage like they do automobile insurance if it's REALLY such a big deal.
Seems like with such a stellar safety record as the AMA members *DO* have, expanding insurance requirement(s) becomes even MORE ludicrous. The risk/loss industry bases insurance prevention costs against actual losses, and doesn't require other than loss-experience risk-based prevention schemes.
What makes the AMA better/different????????????
02-17-2016, 11:27 AM
#113
My Feedback: (198)
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: El Reno, OK
Posts: 6,707
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you don't like what I write, you don't have to respond, either.
The money grubbing minions of evil doers who put the money before all other things will always respond when someone writes something that hits the money grab nerve.
The money grubbing minions of evil doers who put the money before all other things will always respond when someone writes something that hits the money grab nerve.
02-17-2016, 11:36 AM
#114
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Orange County CA
Posts: 1,170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think EVERY single thing the AMA is doing, and has done, with the AMA is simply a ruse to expand their revenue base, grow membership, and attempt to legislate same, thus "insuring" future income....what could be a better scheme for a declining organization than to have Federal law MANDATE membership?????
I pray the Congress is smart enough to see through it, and with the FAA support, simply mandate "programming". Let the states mandate insurance coverage like they do automobile insurance if it's REALLY such a big deal.
Seems like with such a stellar safety record as the AMA members *DO* have, expanding insurance requirement(s) becomes even MORE ludicrous. The risk/loss industry bases insurance prevention costs against actual losses, and doesn't require other than loss-experience risk-based prevention schemes.
What makes the AMA better/different????????????
I pray the Congress is smart enough to see through it, and with the FAA support, simply mandate "programming". Let the states mandate insurance coverage like they do automobile insurance if it's REALLY such a big deal.
Seems like with such a stellar safety record as the AMA members *DO* have, expanding insurance requirement(s) becomes even MORE ludicrous. The risk/loss industry bases insurance prevention costs against actual losses, and doesn't require other than loss-experience risk-based prevention schemes.
What makes the AMA better/different????????????
Also, the AMA isn't just "an insurance company" as some call it. They are our CBO and one voice for our community. The AMA over the years has simply done good work to help keep model aviation alive. Without the AMA as our voice, none of us would be allowed to fly model aircraft today or at least greatly restricted.
02-17-2016, 11:50 AM
#115
* Madoff * ....... Just typing the name makes me wonder , who would give money to a dude who calls himself a "broker" (as in , gonna leave ya broke) whose name sounds like "made off" , as in "made off with ALL the ca$h" !?!?!?
02-17-2016, 11:50 AM
#116
02-17-2016, 12:03 PM
#117
My Feedback: (198)
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: El Reno, OK
Posts: 6,707
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"The opinions expressed herein represent only those of the individual authors. Since opinions are the result of individual conceptualization of abstract issues, they need neither be evidence-based nor factual."
02-17-2016, 01:08 PM
#119
It's a shame really, if they put 10% of the effort they expend in vilifying the AMA to with or for the AMA, I bet it would be an even better organization.
it would seem natural that another organization would sprout up and compete with them. The SFA was able to do it once, why isn't another organization doing it? Right, because at the end of the day there is no real need for it.
Astro
02-17-2016, 01:11 PM
#120
02-17-2016, 01:12 PM
#121
Right. They would never let profits get in the way of safety.....because companies don't do that right? They don't lie or cheat or hide facts to maximize profits at all. No auto company has ever had a recall for say, lying about emission controls, or airbags, or the safety of the gas tanks. No drug companies have ever put products on the market that they new had significant side effects that weren't disclosed, or mortgage companies that lied about the quality/health of their loan packages.....etc etc etc. The list is literally endless, and encompasses every type of company out there. Greed rules.
Privatization isn't a panacea, it's just another possible alternative.
Privatization isn't a panacea, it's just another possible alternative.
Astro
02-17-2016, 01:13 PM
#122
02-17-2016, 06:19 PM
#124
You say that, except that really isn't the truth. The truth of the matter is, folks running the AMA are modelers just like you and me. They care about the hobby and want it to be here for the next generation. This conspiracy notion that the AMA is after locked in members is simply incorrect.
Also, the AMA isn't just "an insurance company" as some call it. They are our CBO and one voice for our community. The AMA over the years has simply done good work to help keep model aviation alive. Without the AMA as our voice, none of us would be allowed to fly model aircraft today or at least greatly restricted.
Also, the AMA isn't just "an insurance company" as some call it. They are our CBO and one voice for our community. The AMA over the years has simply done good work to help keep model aviation alive. Without the AMA as our voice, none of us would be allowed to fly model aircraft today or at least greatly restricted.
02-17-2016, 06:39 PM
#125
While it's true that they're modelers, you cannot ignore the fact that they're officials in an organization that has seen its membership revenue decline almost 20% over the period 2007-2013. That provides powerful motive to use anything at their disposal, including gray area in law, to drive membership.
