Originally Posted by
grognard
@ Franklin:
I expect you're familiar with Fifth Amendment provisions regarding the taking of private property for public use without compensation. I think a case could be made that forcing private property owners to admit members of the general public on their land for the purpose of gaining access to a FRIA amounts to such a "taking".
Furthermore, doing away with FRIAs forces the retirement of all the equipment of 200,000 hobbyists. That's a "taking" as well. Forcing the closure of small manufacturers and retailers who manufacture and sell ARF and BNF models is also a "taking". Maybe the FAA needs to calculate the costs of paying compensation to all these owners, manufacturers, and retailers?
"Cui bono?" You asked in other threads. Who benefits if you get your way? Who benefits if there are no FRIAs and the only legally available model aircraft are ready-to-fly UAS "systems" and "UAS kits" which must be sold with transmitters?
Who benefits -- besides the Chinese?
As someone who's concerned about the retirement of equipment owned by the 800,000 who are NOT members of a CBO, I cannot support FRIA as written. Because it is effectively either a government mandate to retire the equipment a group four times the size of AMA, a "take" as you say, or a government mandate to join a private dues collecting organization. Who benefits from doing it my way? The overwhelming majority of recreational sUAS flyers.
As for the private property thing? Nothing says they have to ask to become a FRIA. On the other hand, if they want to be an FRIA, then if I get my way they have to allow EVERYONE to fly there - without regard for membership status.
However, I'm content to raise the points to the regulators and let them decide. It'll be a question of who matters more? The 200,000 members of AMA or the 800,000 non-members.