RCU Forums - View Single Post - Be Worried Now. NTSB Says RC=aircraft
View Single Post
Old 11-24-2014, 02:52 PM
  #137  
cj_rumley
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga, CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by kdunlap
Sorry, we're sliding down the slippery slope if we redefine the mission of the FAA according to how some view Pirker. FAA's role is to "regulate civil aviation to promote safety." (see FAA website) The question is what categories of model aircraft need to be regulated? My short answer is none of them. (-I could acknowledge a weight limit at some point as you probably don't want a BLOS hunk of metal that can take out an airplane engine to fly the skies without rules.) But for now we don't need a federal agency telling us how to build and fly hobby aircraft. So, we don't want to agree with an NTSB decision that defines RC airplanes as part of "civil aviation" or in need of "regulation." Just doesn't make any sense. That leads to equipage mandates, construction regulations, and pilot licenses. Rather, we need to rely on local laws that provide remedies to injuries caused by people who engage in careless behavior. You hit somebody with a golf ball... there is a local law for that... not a federal agency. You break a window with a baseball .... there is a local law for that.. not a federal agency... you drop a brick off a building and hurt someone there is a local law for that... not a federal agency....

(snipped)
Laws in my locality do not provide remedies for injuries due to somebody's negligence, relying instead on civil courts to referee such issues. My community doesn't have any laws that prohibit hitting someone with a golf ball, or a window with a baseball, either. YMMV

Local laws in many communities do 'regulate' model aircraft, very expediently by prohibiting their operation from/over public property, or entirely within the limits of the political subdivision. Makes enforcement much simpler than arguing over whether the actions of people involved in an incident were/are behaving carelessly. Is that really what you want?

And BTW, what would you recommend we do, for those among us that agree we don't want to agree with NTSB's decision?