Granpooba

My Feedback: (5)

Its not a wild hair ! Its FREEDOM OF SPEECH !

Or has that right been taken away also

mike31

My Feedback: (67)

Why not. You are supposed to have either your AMA number or name and address somewhere on or in the plane as it stands now.

RCFlyerDan

My Feedback: (54)

Do you know why that was a "suggestion" that is still around today? Back when I flew r/c in the 70's, the transmitters were AM and then FM, and not reliable. Back when liability rules weren't so crazy. There were many times that transmission was lost between the transmitter and the receiver. If the plane was in stable flight, it would just fly off!!! We, as modelers then, had to jump in our cars and go chase them down. Then, if we couldn't find the plane, it was hoped that a good Samaritan would find it, and would see your phone number and call you to come and pick up your plane and parts. If the wrecked plane, which a .60 size plane was considered extremely large then, caused any damage, the owner would offer a reward or to pay for the damage. The wrecked plane rarely did any damage, and the owner, who was glad to get it back, normally paid a reward. So, it was more to find a wrecked airplane, rather then track down an r/c pilot to drag him over the coals. Today, it is rare that a plane flies off, and we normally know where it wrecks, which is hopefully in bounds of the flying field. So, it is really irrelevant to have your name on the inside today.

abufletcher

Thanks, I stand corrected!

LJE4357

My Feedback: (74)

has anybody seen this on You Tube yet?

DOT/FAA Conference on UAS "Drone" Registration w/Expert Commentary - YouTube
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLA8VvzKKGo

Granpooba

My Feedback: (5)

After viewing this, I believe that we are in danger and that danger is that we will be loosing the " RC Model Hobby ".

On a personal note, what a bunch of idiots in charge of this program !

Granpooba

My Feedback: (5)

Just a simple question. If I were to go back to flying U-Control that is " line of sight " and not over 400 ', correct

Or are the stupid A**'s in Washington going to come up with restrictions for that also

skylark-flier

Yo! Pooba! Actually, (and I'm no legal expert but this is my observation) I don't think the DOT/FAA crowd can/will do much about CL planes. "Legally", they're always in contact with the ground because you are standing on the ground and the plane is "legally" always in direct contact with you via the control lines.

At least, that's how I read their rule.

semeraro

Thanks for all who commented on this thread. My main reason for posting was to see if the community I am most involved in knew about the regulation and/or cared. Some of the regular scale guys chimed in. Thanks. My concern is that I will have to place an "N" number on my scale models. I dont mind so much on a sport model but someone on the thread brought up the point that they did mind. I didnt mean to be insensitive I guess I would not want extra markings on my sport models either. I would really rather not lose static points due to a registration number though.

I filed my comments with the FAA. I dont know what good it will do. I have filed lots of comments to various NPRM and it seems to have no effect. The agency does what it wants. Seems stupid to have to register my stick as a potential safety threat. Hmm maybe they have seen me fly...

vertical grimmace

My Feedback: (1)

What happens if I have a fly-away while competing in a CL combat match? And dang, I have to register everyone of my competition planes? All of those disposable combat aircraft? Pylon racers? I own a lot of planes. I wonder what it will cost per plane?

skylark-flier

Good question. I've got 19 planes, myself, currently active - 6 control-liners and 13 RC planes. And, that's not counting the 14 more that aren't currently active but could be at nearly any time (would just need radios & engines).

As I said to DOT in my comments, if they make it cumbersome and expensive enough I'm of the opinion that everybody who is currently flying responsibly will simply go "rogue" and join those idiots that caused this whole thing in the first place. I've got just so much $$$ yearly for flying - more fees to go into the government black hole are not part of my budget, especially being that I know that those $$$ will simply go AGAINST me and my wishes.

jester_s1

Once again, the FAA is not interested in standard RC planes at all. As long as we aren't flying them near an airport or over people and property to cause a safety issue, they don't care about what we do. This registration proposal is 100% about camera equipped aircraft that users love to fly in places they shouldn't. It's a growing problem and so the FAA is responding to the very legitimate public safety concerns that this new technology is making possible. Your Tiger Moth has nothing to worry about.

vertical grimmace

My Feedback: (1)

This is not true. In the press conference, they stated any unmanned aircraft that enters the NAS.

geezeraviation

My Feedback: (3)

Don't worry about how many planes you have, they'll give you one number that leads to you and you put the same number on all your models. At least that makes the most sense (did I say makes sense, just shoot me) to me.

vertical grimmace

My Feedback: (1)

So, while we are making sense, we could just continue to use our AMA number?

geezeraviation

My Feedback: (3)

Duh!!! Maybe one of the geniuses will figure that out.

vertical grimmace

My Feedback: (1)

I mean, the next thing will be the "Affordable aircraft care act". To help us all pay for the mandated insurance policy we will need. Unfortunately It will not help me because I make too much money.

Desertlakesflying

My Feedback: (28)

How about we stop electing people that are going to appoint people like we have running around the administration now and elect an administration that will leave people the hell alone? Next will be registering your guns, and speech is already on the way out. We got what we voted for with this.

geezeraviation

My Feedback: (3)

Could I have an Amen!

skylark-flier

Speaking for myself,

AMEN!!!

However, just in the way of "exactitude", we got what they voted for.

geezeraviation

My Feedback: (3)

Thank you for that Tsgt, They is exactly right.
Wouldn't want to get lumped in that bunch either.

geezeraviation

My Feedback: (3)

I'd like to relate something interesting that just happened to me. I get sales e-mails from Horizon every other day or so. I just received one from them asking me to take a survey on the R/C hobby. It started out asking general questions about me, age group, how long in the hobby what type of aircraft, etc... Then the questions all started to be about drones, After five or six questions all of which were answered in a somewhat negative tone it cut me off and said sorry our system is full up with responses and we wont be needing your survey. When I started I was told the survey would take 20 to 25 minutes, I only got into it for eight minutes worth. I think they're looking for support for the massive drone sales that they are anticipating on the upcoming Holiday season and I wasn't in their camp so I got tossed. Maybe I'm just being over imaginative but it just seemed odd to me .
Doc

FlyerInOKC

My Feedback: (6)

I wonder if Tom Coburn could push another bill thru before retiring but the screws to the FAA? They appear to be trying to ignore the first one Congress passed.

skylark-flier

Mike, it's just like everything else in this administration. They ignore any "law" they don't like, write their own as they go along, and then ignore THAT one when it's inconvenient to their wishes.

I was always taught that the US govt had checks & balances to prevent the kind of crap that's been going on for the past 7 years. Guess that fairy tale is a match to the one they used to tell us about US troops would never fire on US citizens - then Kent State happened.

Lies, lies, lies.



sorry 'bout the rant guys, I'll step off my soapbox now.

FlyerInOKC

My Feedback: (6)

I suspect we'll see the judicial branch get dragged into the discussion if the FAA goes too far. I would like to see a case using Colburn's big to attack unnecessary intrusion.