And it begins! Registration?
12-15-2015, 07:48 AM
#53
If the FAA is run like DHS, we ain't got noth'in to worry about... This Bimbo don't know sick'em from come here !!!
Our tax dollars at work !!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHbHKCozVcs
Our tax dollars at work !!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHbHKCozVcs
12-15-2015, 08:58 AM
#55
Neglecting to comply will give the AMA grounds to refuse insurance coverage in the event of a mishap involving property damage or injury. PLUS, if you end up in court the Lawyers will use any non-conpliance with the law to show that YOU are negligent.
How about those that are professional pilots? Do you think that failure to register your model plane will result in enforcement action against your license if you are caught?
This is a VERY BAD SITUATION.
How about those that are professional pilots? Do you think that failure to register your model plane will result in enforcement action against your license if you are caught?
This is a VERY BAD SITUATION.
12-15-2015, 09:25 AM
#57
LOL,
I was in the LHS listening to this old timer practically give himself a coronary over this. He was literally 'spitting mad' about it. Went on and on about tyranny and out-of-control government and moving to the hills. While I'm having my 4-40 bolts rung up, I was reflecting on how Christmas was forever ruined for the families 90 miles up the road whose lives were shattered by a terrorist attack. Then it occurred to me how many places in the world there are where San Bernardino is a normal, daily thing. One of my neighbors just moved here from a place where if the wrong guy wins the election, you've got hours to get your family out before they're slaughtered. Is this new FAA thing an example of tyranny or government run amok or just more badly-thought-out, bureaucratic PITA? I guess it's all a matter of perspective...
I don't plan to give much thought to it. I'm gonna just keep doing what I'm doing.
https://youtu.be/brj2UkUPjCI
I was in the LHS listening to this old timer practically give himself a coronary over this. He was literally 'spitting mad' about it. Went on and on about tyranny and out-of-control government and moving to the hills. While I'm having my 4-40 bolts rung up, I was reflecting on how Christmas was forever ruined for the families 90 miles up the road whose lives were shattered by a terrorist attack. Then it occurred to me how many places in the world there are where San Bernardino is a normal, daily thing. One of my neighbors just moved here from a place where if the wrong guy wins the election, you've got hours to get your family out before they're slaughtered. Is this new FAA thing an example of tyranny or government run amok or just more badly-thought-out, bureaucratic PITA? I guess it's all a matter of perspective...
I don't plan to give much thought to it. I'm gonna just keep doing what I'm doing.
https://youtu.be/brj2UkUPjCI
12-15-2015, 09:35 AM
#58
Well, it says NEW item and it's on the FAA web site, so how do you determine if something is old information and should be disregarded?
http://www.faa.gov/licenses_certific...raft_registry/
Aircraft Registry
News and Highlights
We are processing documents received on approximately
November 20, 2015.
http://www.faa.gov/licenses_certific...raft_registry/
Aircraft Registry
News and Highlights
We are processing documents received on approximately
November 20, 2015.
Craig
12-15-2015, 10:05 AM
#60
I agree, but if you follow the links they kind of run you in a circle. However there is nothing on the FAA site that I can see that requires models over 55 lbs, flown by a hobbyist for recreation, requiring an N # assigned to each model. They are requiring those hobbyist to register and follow some recommended guidelines, like not to fly models over 55 lbs, but they don't say not to directly. I'm assuming they figure most people flying those types of models belong to the AMA and follow AMA guidelines maybe? I'm planning a build of a model that will probably be around 65 lbs, so I do want to get to the bottom of this.
12-15-2015, 10:58 AM
#61
I have talked many times with the guys that I deal with at my local FSDO. The FAA does not want to be involved with this mess and they dont have the man power to do it anyway. But at the same time they need to be able to do something when people are being reckless. They had no authority before to enforce anything on these people flying quads and other aircraft in crowded areas and around airports.
It was not long ago we almost had a collision with a 40 percent extra within 1 mile from the international airport we fly out of. These people doing reckless things needs to be taken care of. We have also spotted quads at night flying our same altitude. It really is getting out of hand. Before the FAA had no teeth to even do anything about it. They where trying to get cities to pass their own ordinance against flying drones and have local law enforcement handle it. That didn't work to well so now this is they way. Now they can take action.
In a way this is a good thing. If they do nothing it is only a matter of time before a large plane hits a quad and lots of people die. Then the entire public will be against what we do and it will all be banned altogether. Now when something bad happens it is because that person was not following the rules and they can assign blame and win in court. I am concerned though that this opens the door for further regulation. We all need to be vigilant about being safe and staying off the radar. It will be very easy now for them to make new rules for us now.
I have been dealing with the FAA for a long time doing what I do. They are all about holding some one responsible and being able to point the finger to save face. Its just a job for most and some could care less about aviation safety. Was funny how they had a big task force on some new rules that applied to our aviation unit and when it came time to enforce it they didn't and let it go for many years due to lack of funding. Then Obama gave them their funding and boom all of a sudden its a safety hazard again and we could not fly under NVG goggles. Its a joke it was only a safety hazard when they had the funding.
It was not long ago we almost had a collision with a 40 percent extra within 1 mile from the international airport we fly out of. These people doing reckless things needs to be taken care of. We have also spotted quads at night flying our same altitude. It really is getting out of hand. Before the FAA had no teeth to even do anything about it. They where trying to get cities to pass their own ordinance against flying drones and have local law enforcement handle it. That didn't work to well so now this is they way. Now they can take action.
In a way this is a good thing. If they do nothing it is only a matter of time before a large plane hits a quad and lots of people die. Then the entire public will be against what we do and it will all be banned altogether. Now when something bad happens it is because that person was not following the rules and they can assign blame and win in court. I am concerned though that this opens the door for further regulation. We all need to be vigilant about being safe and staying off the radar. It will be very easy now for them to make new rules for us now.
I have been dealing with the FAA for a long time doing what I do. They are all about holding some one responsible and being able to point the finger to save face. Its just a job for most and some could care less about aviation safety. Was funny how they had a big task force on some new rules that applied to our aviation unit and when it came time to enforce it they didn't and let it go for many years due to lack of funding. Then Obama gave them their funding and boom all of a sudden its a safety hazard again and we could not fly under NVG goggles. Its a joke it was only a safety hazard when they had the funding.
Last edited by gunradd; 12-15-2015 at 11:01 AM.
12-15-2015, 11:08 AM
#63
what the AMA should to to be somewhat useful and relevant in view of this blunder, is to cover the cost of and process the registration of each and every AMA member as part of the annual renewal. enough of just talk, do something !
I don't care if i was to loose $5, $50, or $500 every 3 years myself, others do. And its now needing to keep track of another level of "paperwork" and hat is likely to be continually changing regulation.
Voy
I don't care if i was to loose $5, $50, or $500 every 3 years myself, others do. And its now needing to keep track of another level of "paperwork" and hat is likely to be continually changing regulation.
Voy
12-15-2015, 11:26 AM
#64
what the AMA should to to be somewhat useful and relevant in view of this blunder, is to cover the cost of and process the registration of each and every AMA member as part of the annual renewal. enough of just talk, do something !
I don't care if i was to loose $5, $50, or $500 every 3 years myself, others do. And its now needing to keep track of another level of "paperwork" and hat is likely to be continually changing regulation.
Voy
I don't care if i was to loose $5, $50, or $500 every 3 years myself, others do. And its now needing to keep track of another level of "paperwork" and hat is likely to be continually changing regulation.
Voy
And of course worrying about what comes next. I doubt this is the end of the regulations
12-15-2015, 11:30 AM
#65
I agree, but if you follow the links they kind of run you in a circle. However there is nothing on the FAA site that I can see that requires models over 55 lbs, flown by a hobbyist for recreation, requiring an N # assigned to each model. They are requiring those hobbyist to register and follow some recommended guidelines, like not to fly models over 55 lbs, but they don't say not to directly. I'm assuming they figure most people flying those types of models belong to the AMA and follow AMA guidelines maybe? I'm planning a build of a model that will probably be around 65 lbs, so I do want to get to the bottom of this.
250g to 55 pounds is an "sUAS". Over 55 pounds is a "UAS".
http://www.faa.gov/licenses_certific...stry/UA/#NewUA
12-15-2015, 11:32 AM
#66
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: San Juan, , PUERTO RICO (USA)
Posts: 1,205
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
7 Posts
I just developed a huge headache trying to decipher this
whole piece of s--t . 200 pages of nonsense and ALL referring
mainly to drones. I don't know what the AMA did there because
NOBODY listened to the representatives. The were not even taken
in consideration. It seems they serve mostly for insurance.
hmarmaizmd717
whole piece of s--t . 200 pages of nonsense and ALL referring
mainly to drones. I don't know what the AMA did there because
NOBODY listened to the representatives. The were not even taken
in consideration. It seems they serve mostly for insurance.
hmarmaizmd717
12-15-2015, 11:43 AM
#67
I think Gunradd, probably has the sentiments of the FAA tied up exactly.
If/when something happens when idiots do dumb things that can hurt people, "we the people" now think that the government is responsible for our safety.
So now, the FAA can have some teeth with those "idiots": idiots doing stupid things with quadcopters/drones/and even model airplanes.
If/when something happens when idiots do dumb things that can hurt people, "we the people" now think that the government is responsible for our safety.
So now, the FAA can have some teeth with those "idiots": idiots doing stupid things with quadcopters/drones/and even model airplanes.
12-15-2015, 12:04 PM
#68
What is the point of gathering your credit card information if in the end the payment is going to be refunded?
I think you need to ask yourself; “what else are they using that information for”?
So now we have yet another governmental data base with your personal information and your credit card information that needs to be protected from hackers or other agencies!
I think you need to ask yourself; “what else are they using that information for”?
So now we have yet another governmental data base with your personal information and your credit card information that needs to be protected from hackers or other agencies!
12-15-2015, 01:04 PM
#73
Regarding LTMA-1, over 55 lbs. aircraft, I sent an email to the AMA inquiring how the FAA registration process will affect our, over 55 lbs., aircraft. The response from Chad Budreau, AMA, "Since you belong to the AMA, you are still protected by Sec. 336. You may continue flying your A-10 and any aircraft over 55 pounds. The registration process is a tool for the FAA to track down owners of rogue pilots."
My speculation is that the LTMA permitting process brings us under the Sec. 336 umbrella.
My speculation is that the LTMA permitting process brings us under the Sec. 336 umbrella.
12-15-2015, 01:31 PM
#74
Regarding LTMA-1, over 55 lbs. aircraft, I sent an email to the AMA inquiring how the FAA registration process will affect our, over 55 lbs., aircraft. The response from Chad Budreau, AMA, "Since you belong to the AMA, you are still protected by Sec. 336. You may continue flying your A-10 and any aircraft over 55 pounds. The registration process is a tool for the FAA to track down owners of rogue pilots."
My speculation is that the LTMA permitting process brings us under the Sec. 336 umbrella.
My speculation is that the LTMA permitting process brings us under the Sec. 336 umbrella.