ORIGINAL: KidEpoxy
Ira
As I said before there is no need to define us for we as modelers have been clearly defined for years. OTOH I think the FAA if they really said they need to define us
they are making a attempt to blow some smoke. Lets say I wanted to regulate bicycles I would define a bicycle as a vehicle haveing only two wheels in line with each
other and would have remain upright without any other wheels or devices atteched to it, Once I defined the bicycle there would be no need to look at what a unicycle
or a tricycle is.
And thusly you just declared a Harley is a 'bicycle',
and would thereby no longer need to pay any fees, licensing, or registration that other bicycles dont need to pay.
SilentAv has been saying it for as long as I have,
they have to define what a model is in order to say Models Are Exempted,
and in that definition we modelers get a boot in the bum.
Ira,
to understand the actual lack of definition that we are currently under,
just peruse some of the 400'Cap threads here.
Just what existing defining document from the FAA doesnt include a 400' cap? ... and so just how much regard have we (ama) shown respecting that document
(cant cherry pick definitions but not cap)
Kid
I think everyone got the just of what I was saying, But you areright in that I didnt say anyting about a engine so youcould include a harly in the definiton allthough I think
most know whatIment. But I still it very easy to define what a model is and you dont need to regulate somthing just to define it if you dont intend to regulate it in the first
place.