Originally Posted by
speedracerntrixie
In an attempt to stay within the facts as you have asked. Traditional model airplanes have a proven safety record. Clearly there are fewer accidents resulting in injury or death then most any other outdoor activity. Secondly, there is not a single reported incident that I am aware of a traditional model airplane bringing down a manned aircraft.
You cite that not one has been brought down. That means it is acceptable to you that at least one manned aircraft must be brought down before FAA can act. Please share with us just how many aircraft being "brought down" is acceptable to you before FAA can act. We know it's at least one, I just think you should be honest about how many YOU think need to happen before FAA can act.
My point is that for once the FAA is trying to act BEFORE a manned aircraft is "brought down." There have been several high risk near misses, and aviation safety operates on the basis of taking actions on near misses (leading indicators) to prevent a mishap (lagging indicator).
Originally Posted by
speedracerntrixie
This coupled with the fact that our aircraft are considered " toys " why on earth is the agency that oversees manned aircraft now regulating our toys?
I'm confused. Others in these forums are concerned with the use of the word "toy" to describe them. So which is it? Are they aircraft, in which case some greater level of professionalism (in operations, maintenance, and policy) is warranted, or are they "toys" that should be regulated under consumer safety processes?
Originally Posted by
speedracerntrixie
Does NASA regulate model rocketry?
NASA is an independent federal agency without regulatory authority. However, the Department of Transportation, via their subordinate agency the Federal Aviation Administration, does indeed regulate model rocketry, see FAR 101.22 (note 1) and other documents (note 2).
Originally Posted by
speedracerntrixie
I have no problem with the providing a flying environment for everyone regardless of member of CBO or not.
Good. We agree.
Originally Posted by
speedracerntrixie
That still brings us to the issue of liability insurance. So far nobody has produced a workable solution to that issue.
And right there you conveniently add another criteria that must be met, one that is not defined. Apparently you and you alone get to decide what is and is not "workable?" Perhaps you could help us by defining the criteria you deem "workable" and then let us figure out how to meet it. Or is it that you just want to always be able to declare something "unworkable" as a way of saying nothing is acceptable?
Originally Posted by
speedracerntrixie
Stating what the AMA spends per member is NOT providing a solution.
Why not? You later add paperwork, but again it is based on a standard known to you and you alone. So like above, please share with us what you deem acceptable. Or is that, like the "unworkable" allegation above, something you will not define so you can always level it without challenge at anything you don't like?
Originally Posted by
speedracerntrixie
In the sake of presenting " the Facts " unless someone has actual insurance rates that shows better coverage or cheaper rates then what the AMA is giving us I don't see how one can claim that it is not a good value.
AMA has stated each and every year for the last decade exactly what they spend on insurance. It's a line item on their IRS 990 filings. Unless they're not reporting their "insurance" spending accurately to the IRS, that is what they spend. Once you have that number, it's an exceedingly simple calculation to determine what percentage of member revenue or total revenue goes to that expense. And that number is historically less than 18%. So out of every $75 sent to AMA, at most $13.50 a year goes to insurance. The remaining $61.50 is spent on other things. Oh, and that number is probably high, as AMA "insurance" expense likely covers insurance beyond what covers member flying (fire theft vandalism for Muncie, personal injury at Munice, etc.).
Note 1:
https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-id...=14:2.0.1.3.15
Note 2:
Chapter 31. Rocket and Launch-Vehicle Operations