hook57

My Feedback: (21)

Ef, likewise, I have an interest on both sides thatspans 3 decades or more.However, this is much more a debate than an argument. In a nutshell (if you have followed the subject threads) the essence of the issue is whether or not RC aircraft will be folded into the sUAS category. Preference is that it won't be,but one never knows. It's irrational to think that it will be completely exempt simply because that ignores the scope of commercial use possibilities for sUAS equipped with FPV, OSD, and GPS for nav capability. Thus, in the interest of safety of course, there in lay a need to define and seperate it to some degree. In that form it does not constitute intereference, but it does seperate and potentially subject commercially pursued sUAS interests to thesame standard for civil aircraft operators and manufacturers.I would think that you, asan IFR pilot,would see some logic in that regard.
As aformer (my own reasons) 28 year AOPA member, and a pilot who has experienced FAA flight (by inspectors, not DPE's) checks since 1981, I'm trying to determinewhat you mean by contrary? AOPA is contrary to what (making a living or the UAS)? FAA is contrary to what (the same)? The AOPA is a special interest lobby for the FAA? Highly unlikely, perhaps for all its owner/pilot members, but I've never seen AOPA lobby for anything on behalf of the FAA. It really doesn't matter what type of regulatory body it is does it?While thetrooper is writing us the speeding ticket we're cussing him/her out, yet we would call em in a heartbeat when in need. Same principle mostly applies everwhere else too.