AMA says, "Wait to register"
01-28-2016, 05:11 AM
#652
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: El Paso,
TX
Posts: 5,277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
01-28-2016, 07:26 AM
#654
01-28-2016, 07:56 AM
#655
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: El Paso,
TX
Posts: 5,277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1- Commented to the FAA
2-Commented to my representatives in DC
3-Commented to the AMA which I am a paying member.
4- Signed the petitions out there objecting to this mess.
OK your turn. Now you besides protesting ( what ever that means) and I have yet to see the Million Modeler March covering in the press.
Mike
2-Commented to my representatives in DC
3-Commented to the AMA which I am a paying member.
4- Signed the petitions out there objecting to this mess.
OK your turn. Now you besides protesting ( what ever that means) and I have yet to see the Million Modeler March covering in the press.
Mike
01-28-2016, 08:00 AM
#656
Some say that 180K members of the AMA are incapable of swaying the FAA. There As of the end of 2014, in the US, there were an estimated 593,499 active certificated Full Scale pilots. They have swayed the FAA when certain Unpopular NPRM's came along. Just think if all persons flying any R/C TOYs had to belong to a CBO i.e. AMA we would out number Full Scale Pilots 2 to 3 to one.
Full Scale Pilots are required to avoid flying over Stadiums Power Plant and are warned about Glider operations, Sky Diving areas and Areas of higher than normal air traffic (Alert Area). Why are we, that fly any form of R/C Toys strictly for fun, Denied our share of the NAS. If it's possible for Full Scale aircraft to avoid all the air space mentioned above then why is it that R/C TOYs can't have their flight areas protected from Full Scale aircraft. All air Space within 5 miles of just over 500 ATC towers in the USA. that's over 40,000 Sq miles prohibited from flying R/C Anything. We are only asking for less than 475 SQ miles to fly our R/C Toy's. And even less because We only require a half circle of 1/4 mile radius where there is only 1 runway with only one flight area. that's less than 2/10ths of a SQ mile for a 1/4 mile radius full circle for R/C Field where they have multiple Runway / Flight Areas and less than 1/10 of a SQ Mile for those having a single Runway.
PI times R Squared = Area ((.25 x .25) 3.4159. of protected R/C Field with multiple runways and half that for single runway flight areas. ((.25x.25)x 3.14159)/2 = ..098 SQ miles less than 2/10 of a Sq mile.
i.e. 2400 fields of less than 2/10ths of a Square mile in area should't be too much to ask after it's our tax money that keeps the FAA in business.
What I'm saying is it's time to quit crying and start Fighting the FAA for our Fair share of the NAS. Just because we are not in our Air Craft doesn't mean that were are Second rate users of the NAS.
Ya all happy with the Font ???? LOL
Full Scale Pilots are required to avoid flying over Stadiums Power Plant and are warned about Glider operations, Sky Diving areas and Areas of higher than normal air traffic (Alert Area). Why are we, that fly any form of R/C Toys strictly for fun, Denied our share of the NAS. If it's possible for Full Scale aircraft to avoid all the air space mentioned above then why is it that R/C TOYs can't have their flight areas protected from Full Scale aircraft. All air Space within 5 miles of just over 500 ATC towers in the USA. that's over 40,000 Sq miles prohibited from flying R/C Anything. We are only asking for less than 475 SQ miles to fly our R/C Toy's. And even less because We only require a half circle of 1/4 mile radius where there is only 1 runway with only one flight area. that's less than 2/10ths of a SQ mile for a 1/4 mile radius full circle for R/C Field where they have multiple Runway / Flight Areas and less than 1/10 of a SQ Mile for those having a single Runway.
PI times R Squared = Area ((.25 x .25) 3.4159. of protected R/C Field with multiple runways and half that for single runway flight areas. ((.25x.25)x 3.14159)/2 = ..098 SQ miles less than 2/10 of a Sq mile.
i.e. 2400 fields of less than 2/10ths of a Square mile in area should't be too much to ask after it's our tax money that keeps the FAA in business.
What I'm saying is it's time to quit crying and start Fighting the FAA for our Fair share of the NAS. Just because we are not in our Air Craft doesn't mean that were are Second rate users of the NAS.
Ya all happy with the Font ???? LOL
Last edited by HoundDog; 01-28-2016 at 08:16 AM.
01-28-2016, 08:04 AM
#657
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: TITUSVILLE FLORIDA NY
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I emailed 20 department heads at the AMA asking when will they petition the court to get the
lawsuit out of abeyance.
The next evening the AMA sent out its' email to all speaking on the case and some of the situations,
There was also supposed to be a "briefing" sent by the law firm listing additional effects the FAA actions will cause.
I have never seen it will call law firm now and ask. Has anyone seen the briefing?
Just called Eric Tirshwell left a message B Schulman I was told no longer works for the firm
SCA Case #14-1158 Document #1509571 Filed: 08/22/2014 Page 6 of 6
Date: August 22, 2014
KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS & FRANKEL LLP
Brendan M. Schulman
Eric A. Tirschwell
1177 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036
Tel: (212) 715-9100
Fax: (212) 715-8220
Email: [email protected]1n Email: [email protected]
Attorneys for Petitioner
One More thing we can do
CALL THE LAWYERS HANDLING OUR CASE
lawsuit out of abeyance.
The next evening the AMA sent out its' email to all speaking on the case and some of the situations,
There was also supposed to be a "briefing" sent by the law firm listing additional effects the FAA actions will cause.
I have never seen it will call law firm now and ask. Has anyone seen the briefing?
Just called Eric Tirshwell left a message B Schulman I was told no longer works for the firm
SCA Case #14-1158 Document #1509571 Filed: 08/22/2014 Page 6 of 6
Date: August 22, 2014
KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS & FRANKEL LLP
Brendan M. Schulman
Eric A. Tirschwell
1177 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036
Tel: (212) 715-9100
Fax: (212) 715-8220
Email: [email protected]1n Email: [email protected]
Attorneys for Petitioner
One More thing we can do
CALL THE LAWYERS HANDLING OUR CASE
Last edited by jeffrey solomon; 01-28-2016 at 08:09 AM.
01-28-2016, 08:14 AM
#658
1- Commented to the FAA
2-Commented to my representatives in DC
3-Commented to the AMA which I am a paying member.
4- Signed the petitions out there objecting to this mess.
OK your turn. Now you besides protesting ( what ever that means) and I have yet to see the Million Modeler March covering in the press.
Then maybe we better start getting the Press behind us not sensualizing DRONES. Don't ya think.
Mike
2-Commented to my representatives in DC
3-Commented to the AMA which I am a paying member.
4- Signed the petitions out there objecting to this mess.
OK your turn. Now you besides protesting ( what ever that means) and I have yet to see the Million Modeler March covering in the press.
Then maybe we better start getting the Press behind us not sensualizing DRONES. Don't ya think.
Mike
01-28-2016, 08:20 AM
#659
1- Commented to the FAA
2-Commented to my representatives in DC
3-Commented to the AMA which I am a paying member.
4- Signed the petitions out there objecting to this mess.
OK your turn. Now you besides protesting ( what ever that means) and I have yet to see the Million Modeler March covering in the press.
Mike
2-Commented to my representatives in DC
3-Commented to the AMA which I am a paying member.
4- Signed the petitions out there objecting to this mess.
OK your turn. Now you besides protesting ( what ever that means) and I have yet to see the Million Modeler March covering in the press.
Mike
01-28-2016, 08:39 AM
#660
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: El Paso,
TX
Posts: 5,277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why not the AMA are they not the CBO the FAA talks about? Seems like that would be the first organization to comment too
Mike
01-28-2016, 09:03 AM
#661
01-28-2016, 11:37 AM
#663
And yet FAA keeps collecting more and more data points, another one yesterday
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/busi...e56954443.html
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/busi...e56954443.html
01-28-2016, 12:48 PM
#668
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Canisteo,
NY
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And yet FAA keeps collecting more and more data points, another one yesterday
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/busi...e56954443.html
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/busi...e56954443.html
01-28-2016, 12:59 PM
#671
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: TITUSVILLE FLORIDA NY
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It does not matter if they speak to us
Merely the act of calling will drive the point further home to the AMA that we
are dissatisfied with them and to resume the lawsuit.
It is only a phone call
Is that too much to do, to preserve the hobby?
Merely the act of calling will drive the point further home to the AMA that we
are dissatisfied with them and to resume the lawsuit.
It is only a phone call
Is that too much to do, to preserve the hobby?
01-28-2016, 01:05 PM
#672
Calling the lawyers won't preserve anything. Good luck with trying.
01-28-2016, 01:34 PM
#673
I argue the pilots of airliners won't be asked to prove anything, as we're the only ones asking. Their reports are presumed to be true. As for perception of those outside the FAA who might be able to challenge FAA's accounting, consider this: To the average public or media, who do they believe more? An airline pilot reporting a drone or a bunch of modelers saying "no it's not.?"
01-28-2016, 01:37 PM
#674
And whether there are more reports of one or the other is immaterial to anyone but us. I contend that to the public, media, and lawmakers, the number of both should be ZERO. There's not even an estimate of the number of laser pointers out there, but I suspect it far exceeds the number of "drones." So percentage wise, it's likely a much smaller number, yet FAA is pursuing that too.
01-28-2016, 02:34 PM
#675
You are concerned that any actions by members could potentially upset the negotiations, right ?
Yes I have heard that before, but we have all heard people say that our voice of a mere 180,000 members does not count with the FAA.
So which is it ? Our actions don't matter or they do matter, it can't be both.
I realize that you may not have commented regarding our collective affect in this matter, but anything I have suggested would be presented to
the AMA and meet or not meet with their approval. Don't believe that these so called "pros" think of everything. If you ever retained an
attorney you know that you have to hold these guys accountable to you. That is my perspective.
As far as two lawsuits there are I believe 1 from the AMA and 2 private lawsuits. I re-read the AMA lawsuit and noticed at the end the AMA
lawyer mentions a briefing outlining the ways that the FAA's action will impact the hobby. I have never seen the briefing , has anyone?
Here is the language:
As will be set out more specifically in briefing that will follow, the Order is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law, in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, and without observance of procedure required by law. This Petition should be granted, and the Order should be set aside, vacated, and/or reversed.
Was this briefing ever sent to the judge?
Here is a thought process that might be considered by the judge during his review, this thought would be an extrapolation of the FAA's actions against the AMA and RC flyers in general:
1) The 2012 Special rule is suppose to protect all modelers from new FAA regs, who agree to follow guidelines of a CBO.
2) The special rule does not say, "except in matters of safety and security or past rules the FAA opted not to enforce."
That idea is contained in the FAA's interpretation not the law.
3) The FAA says their rules supercede any CBO, you have to follow FAA guidelines.
During registration I am told that nowhere does the registration ask if you belong to a CBO or not.
So the registrant may be a non-CBO (regular citizen) or CBO (an AMA member).
4) What guidelines would the non-CBO registrant follow, answer; the only ones they have namely the FAA, one set of rules.
5) What guideline would a CBO registrant follow, they would have to follow their CBO as well as the FAA , two sets of rules.
6) What does that say about the FAA's regulations regarding the authority of the CBO to regulate its' pilots?
7) It is saying' " CBO's are not needed because our FAA's guidelines supercede the CBO's guidelines.
8) The FAA's actions nullify the need for CBOs guidelines .
9) How does that nullification affect the protection afforded CBO pilots by the 2012 Special Rule for Model Aircraft
wherein Congress writes we are protected from burdensome regulations so long as we follow a CBO?
10) By removing the CBO's it removes our protection . And then the only agency we are left with is the FAA.
11) The FAA's actions nullifies the 2012 Special Rule for Model Aircraft which the judge know is a law.
It spits in Congress's face and says " We at the FAA don't care what Congress legislates, we are doing our on thing."
This is far more then just saying the FAA is misinterpreting and not following the intention of Congress, as the lawsuit states.
I believe the judge would be compelled to vacate the FAA's actions.
Yes I have heard that before, but we have all heard people say that our voice of a mere 180,000 members does not count with the FAA.
So which is it ? Our actions don't matter or they do matter, it can't be both.
I realize that you may not have commented regarding our collective affect in this matter, but anything I have suggested would be presented to
the AMA and meet or not meet with their approval. Don't believe that these so called "pros" think of everything. If you ever retained an
attorney you know that you have to hold these guys accountable to you. That is my perspective.
As far as two lawsuits there are I believe 1 from the AMA and 2 private lawsuits. I re-read the AMA lawsuit and noticed at the end the AMA
lawyer mentions a briefing outlining the ways that the FAA's action will impact the hobby. I have never seen the briefing , has anyone?
Here is the language:
As will be set out more specifically in briefing that will follow, the Order is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law, in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, and without observance of procedure required by law. This Petition should be granted, and the Order should be set aside, vacated, and/or reversed.
Was this briefing ever sent to the judge?
Here is a thought process that might be considered by the judge during his review, this thought would be an extrapolation of the FAA's actions against the AMA and RC flyers in general:
1) The 2012 Special rule is suppose to protect all modelers from new FAA regs, who agree to follow guidelines of a CBO.
2) The special rule does not say, "except in matters of safety and security or past rules the FAA opted not to enforce."
That idea is contained in the FAA's interpretation not the law.
3) The FAA says their rules supercede any CBO, you have to follow FAA guidelines.
During registration I am told that nowhere does the registration ask if you belong to a CBO or not.
So the registrant may be a non-CBO (regular citizen) or CBO (an AMA member).
4) What guidelines would the non-CBO registrant follow, answer; the only ones they have namely the FAA, one set of rules.
5) What guideline would a CBO registrant follow, they would have to follow their CBO as well as the FAA , two sets of rules.
6) What does that say about the FAA's regulations regarding the authority of the CBO to regulate its' pilots?
7) It is saying' " CBO's are not needed because our FAA's guidelines supercede the CBO's guidelines.
8) The FAA's actions nullify the need for CBOs guidelines .
9) How does that nullification affect the protection afforded CBO pilots by the 2012 Special Rule for Model Aircraft
wherein Congress writes we are protected from burdensome regulations so long as we follow a CBO?
10) By removing the CBO's it removes our protection . And then the only agency we are left with is the FAA.
11) The FAA's actions nullifies the 2012 Special Rule for Model Aircraft which the judge know is a law.
It spits in Congress's face and says " We at the FAA don't care what Congress legislates, we are doing our on thing."
This is far more then just saying the FAA is misinterpreting and not following the intention of Congress, as the lawsuit states.
I believe the judge would be compelled to vacate the FAA's actions.