RC Jets Discuss RC jets in this forum plus rc turbines and ducted fan power systems

FAA requiring outside markings now

Reply

Old 02-21-2019, 08:02 AM
  #51  
Reever45
My Feedback: (16)
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Grand Junction, CO
Posts: 65
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Originally Posted by Reever45 View Post
Just like always the folks that follow the law will register and apply their numbers and follow the rules, the ones that created the need for the rules in the first place will do neither.
I don't blame only the quadcopter guys,seems to me the biggest issue is when the tech showed up for beyond line of sight flight and the ability to fly a quadcopter with no training/exp at all. I will just stick with my last sentence in my original post.
Reever45 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2019, 08:15 AM
  #52  
tp777fo
My Feedback: (28)
 
tp777fo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Greer, SC
Posts: 2,946
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Guys, you are missing the point. The AMA had this all worked with the FAA about model airplanes. We are the apples of the apples and oranges. The commercial drone guys went nuts because we were originally exempt from UAS rules as long as we in a community based program. They had to pay to play in the airspace. They went to Congress with their lobbyists and pulled out their money bags. Congress got involved.and ejected the AMA from the UAS discussion..WE DIDNT HAVE A VOICE in the final discussion. Want to throw darts....throw them at your Congressman...he let it happen. Modelers were the bug on the windshield even we are not the problem. Until we give campaign contributions to Congress we will be out in the cold.
tp777fo is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2019, 08:38 AM
  #53  
franklin_m
 
franklin_m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 2,964
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Originally Posted by tp777fo View Post
Guys, you are missing the point. The AMA had this all worked with the FAA about model airplanes. We are the apples of the apples and oranges. The commercial drone guys went nuts because we were originally exempt from UAS rules as long as we in a community based program. They had to pay to play in the airspace. They went to Congress with their lobbyists and pulled out their money bags. Congress got involved.and ejected the AMA from the UAS discussion..WE DIDNT HAVE A VOICE in the final discussion. Want to throw darts....throw them at your Congressman...he let it happen. Modelers were the bug on the windshield even we are not the problem. Until we give campaign contributions to Congress we will be out in the cold.
No. Congress realized it was not wise to have a private dues collecting organization, one not directly acccountable to Congress, acting in a quasi-govermental role. I spoke with a number of staffers who understood that 336 allowed AMA, w/o any oversight from Congress, to make operational changes to the FARs (in the form of changes to AMA "safety code") w/o being accountable to anyone but themselves. Similarly, a number of these same staffers saw for themselves how AMA was trying to use 336 to imply that membership in AMA was required in order to fly legally. They rightfully saw that as AMA trying to use law to drive membership.

AMA is a private dues collecting organization, one that should not be involved in the writing and/or implementation of FARs. They can be advised, but promulgation, interpretation, and enforcement is inherently governmental. The new law makes big strides toward restoring that proper firewall between government and a private organization. Once FAA takes over the promulgation of operational limits for recreational sUAS, then the last step will be complete.
franklin_m is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2019, 10:25 AM
  #54  
rhklenke
My Feedback: (24)
 
rhklenke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 5,717
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Originally Posted by franklin_m View Post
No. Congress realized it was not wise to have a private dues collecting organization, one not directly acccountable to Congress, acting in a quasi-govermental role. I spoke with a number of staffers who understood that 336 allowed AMA, w/o any oversight from Congress, to make operational changes to the FARs (in the form of changes to AMA "safety code") w/o being accountable to anyone but themselves. Similarly, a number of these same staffers saw for themselves how AMA was trying to use 336 to imply that membership in AMA was required in order to fly legally. They rightfully saw that as AMA trying to use law to drive membership.

AMA is a private dues collecting organization, one that should not be involved in the writing and/or implementation of FARs. They can be advised, but promulgation, interpretation, and enforcement is inherently governmental. The new law makes big strides toward restoring that proper firewall between government and a private organization. Once FAA takes over the promulgation of operational limits for recreational sUAS, then the last step will be complete.
... and We will be in control - MUWAHAHAHA! (evil grin - rubbing hands together...)

Exactly what the founding fathers envisioned - a people totally controlled by their government - after all, they're the experts (in every thing) so why shouldn't they be!?!?!

Bob

ps. The law codifies what exactly a CBO is (and the AMA fits - exactly) and also states that the FAA can, and should, work with constituents to develop and promulgate those rules, so hopefully we can work with the FAA to continue to practice our safe and enjoyable hobby as we have done in the past...

Last edited by rhklenke; 02-21-2019 at 10:29 AM.
rhklenke is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2019, 10:31 AM
  #55  
Appowner
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 823
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Originally Posted by rhklenke View Post
... and We will be in control - MUWAHAHAHA! (evil grin - rubbing hands together...)

Exactly what the founding fathers envisioned - a people totally controlled by their government - after all, they're the experts (in every thing) so why shouldn't they be!?!?!

Bob

ps. The law codifies what exactly a CBO is (and the AMA fits - exactly) and also states that the FAA can, and should, work with constituents to develop and promulgate those rules, so hopefully we can work with the FAA to continue to practice our safe and enjoyable hobby as we have done in the past...
Well, considering that the people have demonstrated that they can not be responsible to control themselves, maybe this is for the better?
Appowner is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2019, 10:35 AM
  #56  
Appowner
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 823
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Originally Posted by RCFlyerDan View Post


Sad truth to think about rejoining the AOPA for the legal help and advice. Has anyone checked to see if they will even help modelers now that we are being controlled by the FAA? Or does the EAA have legal help with the FAA?
I joined and queried the EAA about setting up a recreational section. Primarily for some insurance. They're not interested and will direct you to their buddy, the AMA. I no longer belong to either organization.
Appowner is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2019, 11:14 AM
  #57  
RCFlyerDan
My Feedback: (49)
 
RCFlyerDan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Cape Coral
Posts: 1,418
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Originally Posted by gunradd View Post
I wouldn't worry about the FAA much they cant handle all thus stuff we have going on in the full scale world much less the typical AMA flyting field.
I agree with you that daily or even monthly enforcement will be difficult by the FAA. I think that most of us that have had to deal with the FAA understand that all of these rules of control are for after the fact. To control the commercial drone operators and get the stupid, ignorant and ill informed. The numbers are there to point the finger for liability. For us, hopefully the number burns in the wreck, even then, there are witnesses. The FAA system works on the honor system most of the time. Everything from true logbooks, both mechanical and pilot are based on honesty, also not physically breaking flying rules and regulations. Chances are that every time you fly in full scale, a rule or regulation has been broken. Itís like slowing exactly to 250 descending through 10,000, or speeding up above 250 above 9500 on climb. Technically 251 is breaking the FARS. Broken right now somewhere in the USA at the moment that you are reading the forum. No one is perfect. These rules are for after the wreck, someone is killed, property damage done. Itís to nail the guy for breaking rules so that lawyers have someone to sue. Government has someone to fine and/or jail. Everything is pilot error, no matter what. Improper preflight, improper weather briefing, even if mechanical started the emergency to the accident. It is still pilot error. Some of us fly our jets at crowded and high visibility events. Thereís always at least one jet wreck. Imagine it going in the stands or behind the the flight line and kills someone. The AMA isnít going to help with FAA violations, the legal issues and cost that follow. They would only cover secondary liability.....I think, but donít know and donít want to find out the hard way. These rules are to cover the FAA and Government that the rules and regulations were there, and the pilot broke the rules. Finger is pointed. Would probably boil down to pilot error for improper preflight of jet and radio equipment. Did you do a range test? Did you test flight control pressure resistance? Properly charged batteries? Gyro mount came loose? More than 5# of thrust greater than than your maximum gross take off weight above 55#? This is an extreme example. But could happen.....Mac Hodges B-29 in Delaware.

Last edited by RCFlyerDan; 02-21-2019 at 11:18 AM.
RCFlyerDan is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2019, 12:46 PM
  #58  
franklin_m
 
franklin_m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 2,964
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Originally Posted by rhklenke View Post
... and We will be in control - MUWAHAHAHA! (evil grin - rubbing hands together...)

Exactly what the founding fathers envisioned - a people totally controlled by their government - after all, they're the experts (in every thing) so why shouldn't they be!?!?!

Bob

ps. The law codifies what exactly a CBO is (and the AMA fits - exactly) and also states that the FAA can, and should, work with constituents to develop and promulgate those rules, so hopefully we can work with the FAA to continue to practice our safe and enjoyable hobby as we have done in the past...
The whole CBO thing is a pyrrhic victory ... at best. AMA couldn't even get FAA decision makers to attend meetings, do we really think this is going to change?

When EC eventually gets around to a post mortem on the failed strategy, and starts wondering why FAA is taking away authority (safety code now must be coordinate with FAA, and LMA program must be outright approved by FAA), they might want to consider this: AMA has been telling FAA and other aviation stakeholders that they have a Safety Management System. Unfortunately for AMA, the FAA is smart enough to know that without the organization holding itself accountable, there is no SMS. And how can AMA say its holding itself accountable when they "[know] there is a problem ... but they need to address it without driving away members."

Last edited by franklin_m; 02-21-2019 at 12:48 PM.
franklin_m is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2019, 12:54 PM
  #59  
mr_matt
My Feedback: (10)
 
mr_matt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Oak Park, CA,
Posts: 10,305
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Originally Posted by gunradd View Post
I wouldn't worry about the FAA much they cant handle all thus stuff we have going on in the full scale world much less the typical AMA flyting field. The only people that are going to enforce this is the that bunch of guys that every flying field has that sits around giving flyers a hard time at the field. We have a crew at our field I avoid since it makes flying not fun anymore when they are around. Lucky for me they go to Denny's at 10:30 every day so I just wait until they leave to fly. One of our jet member's installed a GPS tracker inside his plane to prove he was staying in bounds because of these guys.

Anyway those are the guys that will enforce this stuff. I will be putting my number inside my wheel well some place. If they want to see it I can make sure my vent takes a leak on them.
Yes yes and yes. I have been trying to tell everyone this for years, maybe they will listen to you:-)
mr_matt is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2019, 12:57 PM
  #60  
mr_matt
My Feedback: (10)
 
mr_matt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Oak Park, CA,
Posts: 10,305
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Originally Posted by franklin_m View Post
No. Congress realized it was not wise to have a private dues collecting organization, one not directly acccountable to Congress, acting in a quasi-govermental role. I spoke with a number of staffers who understood that 336 allowed AMA, w/o any oversight from Congress, to make operational changes to the FARs (in the form of changes to AMA "safety code") w/o being accountable to anyone but themselves. Similarly, a number of these same staffers saw for themselves how AMA was trying to use 336 to imply that membership in AMA was required in order to fly legally. They rightfully saw that as AMA trying to use law to drive membership.

AMA is a private dues collecting organization, one that should not be involved in the writing and/or implementation of FARs. They can be advised, but promulgation, interpretation, and enforcement is inherently governmental. The new law makes big strides toward restoring that proper firewall between government and a private organization. Once FAA takes over the promulgation of operational limits for recreational sUAS, then the last step will be complete.
Thank goodness we had guys like you calling Congress to help out with this. Almost 10:30, are you going to get a grand slam breakfast today?
mr_matt is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2019, 01:00 PM
  #61  
franklin_m
 
franklin_m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 2,964
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Originally Posted by mr_matt View Post
Thank goodness we had guys like you calling Congress to help out with this. Almost 10:30, are you going to get a grand slam breakfast today?
Some of believe in the proper role of government vs. private dues collecting organizations.

And I actually cooked eggs and bacon before going flying this morning.
franklin_m is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2019, 01:23 PM
  #62  
rhklenke
My Feedback: (24)
 
rhklenke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 5,717
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Originally Posted by franklin_m View Post
Some of believe in the proper role of government vs. private dues collecting organizations.

And I actually cooked eggs and bacon before going flying this morning.
Hey, maybe we can get AOC to oversee the FAA and its dealings with recreational model flyers! She's a duly elected government official - and I'm sure she'll have time left over from solving the climate change crisis with the Green New Deal!

Jeeze, yes, let's put people who only know how to spell model airplane in charge of model airplane safety - they'll know exactly how to fix the (non) problem.

I long for the days of the Soviet Union - I can't be trusted to control my own destiny...

Bob
rhklenke is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2019, 01:32 PM
  #63  
franklin_m
 
franklin_m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 2,964
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Originally Posted by rhklenke View Post
Hey, maybe we can get AOC to oversee the FAA and its dealings with recreational model flyers! She's a duly elected government official - and I'm sure she'll have time left over from solving the climate change crisis with the Green New Deal!

Jeeze, yes, let's put people who only know how to spell model airplane in charge of model airplane safety - they'll know exactly how to fix the (non) problem.

I long for the days of the Soviet Union - I can't be trusted to control my own destiny...

Bob
It's very hard to say that AMA has any credibility when it comes to safety, especially when they prioritize "not driving away members" over holding individuals accountable for safety violations - in what is arguably the AMA's highest risk operations. So I happen to think it makes sense for FAA to be much more involved in recreational sUAS safety ... for AMA has a financial interest in not taking action ... that whole paid membership thing.
franklin_m is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2019, 02:36 PM
  #64  
mr_matt
My Feedback: (10)
 
mr_matt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Oak Park, CA,
Posts: 10,305
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Originally Posted by franklin_m View Post
It's very hard to say that AMA has any credibility when it comes to safety, especially when they prioritize "not driving away members" over holding individuals accountable for safety violations - in what is arguably the AMA's highest risk operations. So I happen to think it makes sense for FAA to be much more involved in recreational sUAS safety ... for AMA has a financial interest in not taking action ... that whole paid membership thing.
Are you even in the AMA? Are you more pissed that the AMA did not want your help with some safety training thingy or that they won't build a field across the street from you?
mr_matt is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2019, 02:53 PM
  #65  
franklin_m
 
franklin_m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 2,964
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Originally Posted by mr_matt View Post
Are you even in the AMA? Are you more pissed that the AMA did not want your help with some safety training thingy or that they won't build a field across the street from you?
I fundamentally oppose private dues collecting organizations (a) trying to use law to compel membership, (b) attempting to perform a quasi-governmental role w/o accountability, and (c) taking a hands-off attitude toward the actions of its own members while simultaneously calling for FAA to go after non-members.
franklin_m is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2019, 03:41 PM
  #66  
gunradd
My Feedback: (9)
 
gunradd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Springhill, FL
Posts: 3,015
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

The ama is far from perfect but the clowns at the FAA are far worse.

Btw they donít care about safety only whoís fault it is and who is getting sued.

Was not long long ago a company that did our night vision cockpit on our helicopters was in FAA trouble. The FAA was going to ground all 100 helicopters that got this MOD done. Will then the FAA task force ran out of money and did nothing about this quote unquote safety of flight issue. Then 3 years later they got funding and over night everyone got grounded including the FBIís own helicopters. Them and us had to fly under public catagory rules that ignore their part 91 rules.

Funny part the the one that started it all was a discruntle
former employee of the company helping the FAA.

I also sat in meetings with the guy responsible for drones in our area and I tried to educate him on what I do on the weekends and he never knew RC jets exsisted. He was trying to get us in law enforcement to help since they for the most part canít do much to law breakers. Their plan was to get cities to get drone bans as a city policy then normal law enforcement can take care of it all.

The best thing we can do is stay off the negative radar and educate along with promote what we do. Donít be the ***** at the club that does not help the new guys and do things for the young ones. That will kill the hobby.

I have no no problem setting my transmitter down and helping anyone that wants help at my field. I will buddy box a trainer or set a .46 glow motor. What ever it takes to get people in the air and help them have success. Donít be the jet snob that I will slap.
gunradd is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2019, 05:00 PM
  #67  
RCFlyerDan
My Feedback: (49)
 
RCFlyerDan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Cape Coral
Posts: 1,418
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Originally Posted by gunradd View Post
The ama is far from perfect but the clowns at the FAA are far worse.

I also sat in meetings with the guy responsible for drones in our area and I tried to educate him on what I do on the weekends and he never knew RC jets exsisted.

The best thing we can do is stay off the negative radar and educate along with promote what we do. Donít be the ***** at the club that does not help the new guys and do things for the young ones. That will kill the hobby.
I had a great experience with our city police officers one flying day this month. I was flying my Viper. Our field is a city park along side a 4 lane parkway. I was doing my normal thing and didnít notice the squad car driving by on the parkway. I went speeding by them (road speed limit is 45) and again on the way back. My spotter noticed them when they abruptly turn around and headed towards the parkís entrance. We all thought; O boy! ****s about to hit the fan. I was getting nervous. They didnít park near me, and more in the center of the field. The two women officers got out of their squad suv, and asked where was the jet that was flying, and were directed towards me. As they started heading my way, of course all eyes were on the situation. I was on my last flight of the day, so defueling and getting ready to take the wings off. Everyone was quiet as the officers came up to the fence. They didnít start the conversation and were attentively looking at the jet and what I was doing. I acknowledged their presence and started a conversation with them. The conversation began as of great interest in wanting to learn about rc and jets. Not in a serious questioning mode of an officer, but rather a citizen interested in the hobby. One of them had stopped before and knew about flying field, but the other officer didnít know rc jets existed. Since they were there due to learning and interest, the conversation was telling them about the radios, where they are made, what kind of fuel. Both were surprised about using jet fuel. I explained that it was just more refined than diesel with more additives, even for fire suppression. I had them come around the fence to show and explain the engine and different systems of the jet. Both got right down on the on the ground to see the engine and components. They loved it! I even put the canopy back on and moved the jet out on the ramp for pictures with them. I took several pictures of both of them with each onesí personal phones. I now wished that I thought to take one with my phone. Turned out to be a better experience than expecting when they pulled into the park, the officers left happy and thankful for the time and pictures. I invited them to our Gathering of the Giants in March. One is bringing her grandkids for sure. They never asked my name, anything about FAA registration, AMA, or any other legal issues. Being open and non defensive towards any officers will usually be a better experience than expected.
RCFlyerDan is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2019, 05:18 AM
  #68  
SECRET AGENT
My Feedback: (18)
 
SECRET AGENT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Bush, LA
Posts: 1,241
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Good story RCFlyerDan, put them on a buddy box next time, HA!

I've been in law enforcement for 25 years and with all the things I've had to worry about (bad guys, bullets and bombs), toy airplanes never once was a concern of mine or any other cop I know.
SECRET AGENT is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2019, 05:51 AM
  #69  
Appowner
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 823
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Originally Posted by mr_matt View Post
Thank goodness we had guys like you calling Congress to help out with this. Almost 10:30, are you going to get a grand slam breakfast today?
So did you call? And if not, why?
Appowner is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2019, 11:11 AM
  #70  
ira d
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Moreno Valley, CA
Posts: 3,126
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Originally Posted by SECRET AGENT View Post
Good story RCFlyerDan, put them on a buddy box next time, HA!

I've been in law enforcement for 25 years and with all the things I've had to worry about (bad guys, bullets and bombs), toy airplanes never once was a concern of mine or any other cop I know.
I doubt anybody else is really concerned either, common sense should tell anyone that if you come up on a model crash it will be highly unlikely that a number can be viewed without
moving something or turning the model over.
ira d is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2019, 06:55 PM
  #71  
c/f
My Feedback: (1)
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: evansville, IN
Posts: 793
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

I paid the $5 awhile back but never put any numbers AMA or FAA on my models, with the latest email I found my answer in this thread, Back of prop in a black, red, orange, silver, gold, sharpie, and tailpipe exhaust on Jets, Thanks RCU jet Jockeys
c/f is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2019, 04:51 AM
  #72  
RCFlyerDan
My Feedback: (49)
 
RCFlyerDan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Cape Coral
Posts: 1,418
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

New article that I read this morning. Basically, the new law keeps those of us honest, honest, the ignorant and careless......maybe caught.....and won't affect the criminally inclined.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/travel/new...cid=spartandhp
RCFlyerDan is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2019, 10:36 AM
  #73  
ravill
My Feedback: (11)
 
ravill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Granite Bay, Ca
Posts: 4,776
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Originally Posted by RCFlyerDan View Post
New article that I read this morning. Basically, the new law keeps those of us honest, honest, the ignorant and careless......maybe caught.....and won't affect the criminally inclined.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/travel/new...cid=spartandhp
Thankfully, most "law-abiding" people don't need laws to be good, caring and thoughtful people. I.e., their natural motives and thus actions are naturally inclined to do things that are already, legal.

I don't need a stupid government agency to tell me that flying my toy airplane around full scale airplanes is unsafe, for example. I already know it is unsafe, hence force, I don't do it.

And I bet most here also are naturally inclined to know what's safe and what isn't.

This is just for the government to have teeth. Nothing more, nothing less.
ravill is offline  
Reply With Quote

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service