Support for Regulations By The FAA
12-23-2010 | 03:57 PM
#76
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Aguanga,
CA
RE: Support for Regulations By The FAA
ORIGINAL: Rich404
(snips)
This is a good time for the AMA to demonstrate to the FAA that they are capable of continuing to lead the hobby without their intervention. They have to do this by taking charge and prove that they are a capable entity that is able to regulate the hobby.
If the FAA shoves the AMA aside and imposes it's own rules and regulations then why the heck do modellers need the AMA for? Modellers should then send their dues to the FAA and forget about the AMA.
I believe the AMA needs to step up to the plate defend their position and prove to the Fed that they are an effective organization that can be counted on.
Just my 2 pennies worth. [img][/img]
-Rich.
</span>
(snips)
This is a good time for the AMA to demonstrate to the FAA that they are capable of continuing to lead the hobby without their intervention. They have to do this by taking charge and prove that they are a capable entity that is able to regulate the hobby.
If the FAA shoves the AMA aside and imposes it's own rules and regulations then why the heck do modellers need the AMA for? Modellers should then send their dues to the FAA and forget about the AMA.
I believe the AMA needs to step up to the plate defend their position and prove to the Fed that they are an effective organization that can be counted on.
Just my 2 pennies worth. [img][/img]
-Rich.
</span>
Here I was in agreement with nearly everyone participating in the thread (sans the OP), and then you threw this one out.
Before I can agree with you, you need to step up to the plate and explain just how FAA regulation of modelers being delegated to AMA is better than regulation of modelers by FAA directly.
FWIW, my position is that regulation of modelers and modeling sucks regardless of what entity public or private does it. I just want to know what's to like if AMA is doing the regulating?
Cletus
12-23-2010 | 03:58 PM
#77
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Aguanga,
CA
RE: Support for Regulations By The FAA
ORIGINAL: Rich404
(snips)
This is a good time for the AMA to demonstrate to the FAA that they are capable of continuing to lead the hobby without their intervention. They have to do this by taking charge and prove that they are a capable entity that is able to regulate the hobby.
If the FAA shoves the AMA aside and imposes it's own rules and regulations then why the heck do modellers need the AMA for? Modellers should then send their dues to the FAA and forget about the AMA.
I believe the AMA needs to step up to the plate defend their position and prove to the Fed that they are an effective organization that can be counted on.
Just my 2 pennies worth. [img][/img]
-Rich.
</span>
(snips)
This is a good time for the AMA to demonstrate to the FAA that they are capable of continuing to lead the hobby without their intervention. They have to do this by taking charge and prove that they are a capable entity that is able to regulate the hobby.
If the FAA shoves the AMA aside and imposes it's own rules and regulations then why the heck do modellers need the AMA for? Modellers should then send their dues to the FAA and forget about the AMA.
I believe the AMA needs to step up to the plate defend their position and prove to the Fed that they are an effective organization that can be counted on.
Just my 2 pennies worth. [img][/img]
-Rich.
</span>
Here I was in agreement with nearly everyone participating in the thread (sans the OP), and then you threw this one out.
Before I can agree with you, you need to step up to the plate and explain just how FAA regulation of modelers being delegated to AMA is better than regulation of modelers by FAA directly.
FWIW, my position is that regulation of modelers and modeling sucks regardless of what entity public or private does it. I just want to know what's to like if AMA is doing the regulating?
Cletus
12-23-2010 | 04:59 PM
#78
My Feedback: (21)
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 951
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Apple River IL
RE: Support for Regulations By The FAA
ORIGINAL: Hossfly
Mr. Thomas B, I am not going back in memory or searching dates, etc. but I will state 3 problems that I remember.
1. The United 737 in Colorado Springs which had all kinds of FAA/NTSB reports with all kinds of "Maybes" except the correct one. Most of us that had flown the 737 knew there was a problem. Had the FAA/NTSB properly evaluated all the reports of problems filed by the pilots, then the following US Air 737 in Pittsburgh may well never have happened.
2. In 1979, when the UAL mechanics were on strike I took an American flight along with the late John Grigg, then AMA Pres. to a EC meeting in LA. One week later, that very flight number, a DC-10, lost an engine (it fell off) on Takeoff and the plane crashed killing a bunch. 3 years later I went through DC-10 school and it was extremely apparent why the machine crashed. IMO and almost everyone else's the DC-10 had a criminal hydraulic system. The Feds never did anything about that until United lost the one over Iowa. They could not conceal the gross stupidity of a system that lost all hyd. power when there was one hyd. leak.
Heck in the Boeing 737 and 727 and the Douglas DC-8, loss of one system was only a slight inconvenience. Had a number of them in all 3 of those machines but it was never a problem other than maybe missing one last cup of coffee!
Point is two airplanes had serious problems and the FUZZ never corrected anything until forced into it. Are they being forced into bugging toy model airplanes? I think not, but then the aeromodeler doesn't have the voting power that big aero-industry can buy.
3. Are you aware that the stretched DC-9, I forget the real number (Always called it a long DC-9 - that poed the American Pilots big time
) never really passed the hard-landing tests prior to being certified? Where was the FAA then? [sm=confused.gif]
NOPE - NO DOCUMENTS - JUST AN OLD AVIATOR'S FADING MEMORY, BUT IT'S MY STORY AND I'M STICKING TO IT.
ORIGINAL: Thomas B
SP, while you have been making some good posts lately, you are off the deep end with that later statement. The NTSB does a pretty darn good job of investigating and documenting the vast majority of all air crashes. I know they did a thorough job on the crash I had in 1978.....
Read the book about the crash of USAir flight 427 in Pa to get an idea of how hard and long they work to get the correct answers.
Show me three cases where they got it wrong, with documentation, to back up that silly statement of yours....
ORIGINAL: Sport_Pilot
The FAA is probably thethird most beuracratic (IRS and the military are the worst) and probably the second largest money waster (the military being the worst). They and the NTSB don't even get many of the crash's right!
The FAA is probably thethird most beuracratic (IRS and the military are the worst) and probably the second largest money waster (the military being the worst). They and the NTSB don't even get many of the crash's right!
Read the book about the crash of USAir flight 427 in Pa to get an idea of how hard and long they work to get the correct answers.Show me three cases where they got it wrong, with documentation, to back up that silly statement of yours....
1. The United 737 in Colorado Springs which had all kinds of FAA/NTSB reports with all kinds of "Maybes" except the correct one. Most of us that had flown the 737 knew there was a problem. Had the FAA/NTSB properly evaluated all the reports of problems filed by the pilots, then the following US Air 737 in Pittsburgh may well never have happened.
2. In 1979, when the UAL mechanics were on strike I took an American flight along with the late John Grigg, then AMA Pres. to a EC meeting in LA. One week later, that very flight number, a DC-10, lost an engine (it fell off) on Takeoff and the plane crashed killing a bunch. 3 years later I went through DC-10 school and it was extremely apparent why the machine crashed. IMO and almost everyone else's the DC-10 had a criminal hydraulic system. The Feds never did anything about that until United lost the one over Iowa. They could not conceal the gross stupidity of a system that lost all hyd. power when there was one hyd. leak.
Heck in the Boeing 737 and 727 and the Douglas DC-8, loss of one system was only a slight inconvenience. Had a number of them in all 3 of those machines but it was never a problem other than maybe missing one last cup of coffee!
Point is two airplanes had serious problems and the FUZZ never corrected anything until forced into it. Are they being forced into bugging toy model airplanes? I think not, but then the aeromodeler doesn't have the voting power that big aero-industry can buy.
3. Are you aware that the stretched DC-9, I forget the real number (Always called it a long DC-9 - that poed the American Pilots big time
) never really passed the hard-landing tests prior to being certified? Where was the FAA then? [sm=confused.gif]NOPE - NO DOCUMENTS - JUST AN OLD AVIATOR'S FADING MEMORY, BUT IT'S MY STORY AND I'M STICKING TO IT.
Top Gun memory not needed, but ...
1. the 737 actuator problem was not readily identified since it was not a frequent occurrence nor did it occurr under identical circumstances, but.... NTSB's D. Criderargued that "rudder reversal" was a match for the events described, Boeing "hotly" contested that, and FAA argued that no one would ever "know with certainty" (maybe that's why they focused on efforts at making it safer).
2. Flight 191 engine seperation was traced back to AA engine removal and re-install procedures, AA did not follow Douglass' recommended procedure (NTSB probable cause "improper maintenance"), hhmmm, seems like "one thing leads to another" thingy... and the deadliest US air crash
3. The stretched 9, or MD-80, was being flown according to Douglass' flight test card,the left seater (PIC) was a "MD engineering test pilot", not a FAA test pilot; however, the right seater was a FAA flight test engineer (who likely had/has little to do with regulatory going ons.) The flight test card called for power off at 50' agl, now if you've flown the 80, and I have, power off at 50' can get your juices flowing.... but hey, this was a "flight test", not a revenue flight. Probable cause? It's in the NTSB final, but no mention of FAA fault.
4. Now, the Alaska MD-80 in January 2000 might be one. Yep, FAA did approve increased maintenance interval for elevator jack screw after the PMI faced increasing pressure from the operator... etc, but hey, it was Alaska that was looking to shave costs and the damn FAA was costing em money. Sounds like a damned if you do / damned if you don't scenario, but the only damned thing aboutis the 88 that died.
Not knocking you Hoss, you know I respect you, but just relating a few facts available with a bit of research.
Oh, and KidE, it's 254 lbs for a "powered" ultralight (empty), not 230 lbs,and fuel capacity not exceeding 5 gallons. And it was their own organizations that pushed for the Sport Pilot rule and to get rid of the "fat ultra-light" exemption; mostly because many didn't bother with getting the exemption which likely irritated theose orgs. Facts are facts, speculation and rumor is just that. Not siding with anyone, except maybe Silent8 (post 56 in particular) and a few others.
And, whether under ARC Section 2 or 3, exempt ultimately means exempt.... so....
hook
12-23-2010 | 05:06 PM
#79
My Feedback: (28)
RE: Support for Regulations By The FAA
ORIGINAL: apwachholz
All -
I appreciate the insight on many your behalf surrounding the possibility of regulations begin sanctioned on our hobby community and the AMA regarding pending FAA rulings. It's given me a good perspective where some of us stand, how we see this affecting us, and most of all the passion that you all have for our hobby and its future.
Unfortunately, I will be resigning any further comments on this particular thread following a final post.
Please note: If you would care to contact me directly and share some of your thoughts, please email me through RCU and I'd be happy to get in touch with you directly via email or phone and share a conversation. I'd post my contact info on this thread however, that isn't the wisest of ideas online ('bots, spam, et.). Hit me up via my bio.
Have a safe and happy holiday everyone.
// Some closing comments to individuals: //
@phlpsfrnk
Actually I attempt to keep GA quite separate from the FAA as I know you are a body primarily represented by AOPA; of whom I'm also very familiar with. It's a great organization in my book and does a fine of job as any working with the states and federal governments to represent GA pilots in a fair manner.
As for my lack of posts on the AMA forum, RCU has more visible traction within our hobby and it seemed the logical place to gain the most insight from others.
//
@jonkoppisch
I'm not asking for the worst to be unleashed on our hobby or the AMA. The reality is that we will have possible collateral damage done to our hobby with pending rulings. Or perhaps not… either way, I'm not out to destroy you or the hobby. This is why I wanted to pose the questions to you all. Please don't assume that fully support all the FAA has to say or rule. I'm trying to understand us as much as them - and to make the best possible decision based on the facts given.
//
@littlecrankshaf
You don't have to support my opinion, but what I do ask is that you support the AMA and the building of our community. We can agree to disagree.
//
@Hossfly
I am not compensated, nor am I claiming to be of high rank. Rather I'm an individual who was chosen by the AMA to participate in a group who's sole objective is to increase membership and community of the AMA; not to stifle its growth or its members. Horrace, I understand your point of view and your concerns but again, please don't assume that I'm a proponent of governmental 'control' over aero modeling. I'm not proposing control. If anything, at the least, I'm asking that we have an open mind and as an rc community be more open to working with the FAA and organizations like them.
//
@CowboyLifesaver
Actually I'll talk to the FCC about my bedroom activities :-) Seriously though, I'm not looking for hard and fast regulations and lock down. But I do support some type of oversight.
//
@Thomas B
Agreed. Unneeded regulations will be a detriment. But as far as I can tell, the rc aviation community can't seem to agree on anything other then complete free reign. Unless there is one unified voice (AMA) that we support (note that I said we support the AMA) we're going to be at the mercy of whatever is thrown our way. AOPA was created to try and stem the tides of this for GA. Do they succeed all the time? No. Does everyone agree with them? No. But they have a presence on Capitol Hill and more of a unified voice then we do. Why is it that we seem so separated from the very body that we need (AMA)?
//
@eddieC
I don't fear the government. We only fear what we don't know and If I don't know something about the government, I try to find out. As for what rc has done to warrant scrutiny? It hasn't. But the stunts like the NYC vid over the Hudson and near the Statue of Liberty show that we're skirting the line to where we do warrant scrutiny.
//
@aeronca52
I'll gladly go head-to-head with you on some of your thoughts. Actually, I think it would be good for both of us. Being a certified pilot it surprises me that you have such a distain for the FAA. I'm curious as to why. Email me through RCU when you get the chance, we should talk.
All -
I appreciate the insight on many your behalf surrounding the possibility of regulations begin sanctioned on our hobby community and the AMA regarding pending FAA rulings. It's given me a good perspective where some of us stand, how we see this affecting us, and most of all the passion that you all have for our hobby and its future.
Unfortunately, I will be resigning any further comments on this particular thread following a final post.
Please note: If you would care to contact me directly and share some of your thoughts, please email me through RCU and I'd be happy to get in touch with you directly via email or phone and share a conversation. I'd post my contact info on this thread however, that isn't the wisest of ideas online ('bots, spam, et.). Hit me up via my bio.
Have a safe and happy holiday everyone.
// Some closing comments to individuals: //
@phlpsfrnk
Actually I attempt to keep GA quite separate from the FAA as I know you are a body primarily represented by AOPA; of whom I'm also very familiar with. It's a great organization in my book and does a fine of job as any working with the states and federal governments to represent GA pilots in a fair manner.
As for my lack of posts on the AMA forum, RCU has more visible traction within our hobby and it seemed the logical place to gain the most insight from others.
//
@jonkoppisch
I'm not asking for the worst to be unleashed on our hobby or the AMA. The reality is that we will have possible collateral damage done to our hobby with pending rulings. Or perhaps not… either way, I'm not out to destroy you or the hobby. This is why I wanted to pose the questions to you all. Please don't assume that fully support all the FAA has to say or rule. I'm trying to understand us as much as them - and to make the best possible decision based on the facts given.
//
@littlecrankshaf
You don't have to support my opinion, but what I do ask is that you support the AMA and the building of our community. We can agree to disagree.
//
@Hossfly
I am not compensated, nor am I claiming to be of high rank. Rather I'm an individual who was chosen by the AMA to participate in a group who's sole objective is to increase membership and community of the AMA; not to stifle its growth or its members. Horrace, I understand your point of view and your concerns but again, please don't assume that I'm a proponent of governmental 'control' over aero modeling. I'm not proposing control. If anything, at the least, I'm asking that we have an open mind and as an rc community be more open to working with the FAA and organizations like them.
//
@CowboyLifesaver
Actually I'll talk to the FCC about my bedroom activities :-) Seriously though, I'm not looking for hard and fast regulations and lock down. But I do support some type of oversight.
//
@Thomas B
Agreed. Unneeded regulations will be a detriment. But as far as I can tell, the rc aviation community can't seem to agree on anything other then complete free reign. Unless there is one unified voice (AMA) that we support (note that I said we support the AMA) we're going to be at the mercy of whatever is thrown our way. AOPA was created to try and stem the tides of this for GA. Do they succeed all the time? No. Does everyone agree with them? No. But they have a presence on Capitol Hill and more of a unified voice then we do. Why is it that we seem so separated from the very body that we need (AMA)?
//
@eddieC
I don't fear the government. We only fear what we don't know and If I don't know something about the government, I try to find out. As for what rc has done to warrant scrutiny? It hasn't. But the stunts like the NYC vid over the Hudson and near the Statue of Liberty show that we're skirting the line to where we do warrant scrutiny.
//
@aeronca52
I'll gladly go head-to-head with you on some of your thoughts. Actually, I think it would be good for both of us. Being a certified pilot it surprises me that you have such a distain for the FAA. I'm curious as to why. Email me through RCU when you get the chance, we should talk.
Oh that's right, "it's just an old document that really doesn't pertain to today".
The current administration said that.
Not to mention they are already FORCING each of us to purchase health insurance.
12-23-2010 | 05:53 PM
#80
RE: Support for Regulations By The FAA
ORIGINAL: Silent-AV8R
One more time........
The coming regulations have NOTHING to do with preventing terrorism or any other such security concerns.
ORIGINAL: COPTERPETE
The current regulations, and AMA safety rules are more than adequate. The government is not our friend, and any thoughts by the FAA, FBI, TSA, or whomever that preventing terrorism by interfering with the lawful enjoyment of the R/C plane hobby is ludicrous!
The current regulations, and AMA safety rules are more than adequate. The government is not our friend, and any thoughts by the FAA, FBI, TSA, or whomever that preventing terrorism by interfering with the lawful enjoyment of the R/C plane hobby is ludicrous!
The coming regulations have NOTHING to do with preventing terrorism or any other such security concerns.
In your previous post you said that the FAA does not want to regulate modelers just commercial uav operation, If that is true then we modelers have nothing to be
concearned about.
12-23-2010 | 06:14 PM
#81
RE: Support for Regulations By The FAA
hook57
2. Flight 191 engine seperation was traced back to AA engine removal and re-install procedures, AA did not follow Douglass' recommended procedure (NTSB probable cause "improper maintenance"), hhmmm, seems like "one thing leads to another" thingy... and the deadliest US air crash
2. Flight 191 engine seperation was traced back to AA engine removal and re-install procedures, AA did not follow Douglass' recommended procedure (NTSB probable cause "improper maintenance"), hhmmm, seems like "one thing leads to another" thingy... and the deadliest US air crash
After the ORD crash most pilots had that figured out, but the companies squashed all the info. they could.
It would not take a rocket scientist studying the crash to wonder why the airplane lost the left engine and the plane rolled into the lost engine. That is normal if the engine is hanging on, but the weight loss would help a lot to stop such roll, and if normal aileron and rudder control was available, then such an accident would be an eye-opener but not result in a crash, providing competent pilots were at active controls.
(NOTE) Many RCers lose multi-engine models because they are not sitting in the cockpit when the yaw happens, thus they use aileron which is detrimental to the situation which requires rudder application.
NTSB Responsibilities
Transportation Security
NTSB Investigative Process - Investigations Involving Criminal Activity
Transportation Security Administration (Department of Homeland Security)
Air Travel - Prohibited Items
Information for Travelers and Consumers
Employment
Industry Partners
Law and Policy
Department of Transportation
Transport Security Info
Federal Aviation Administration
Office of Security & Hazardous Materials
Had the NTSB/FAA required that the DC-10 be retrofitted with both one-way check valves along double Hyd. lines and at least one additional Electric heavy duty hyd. pump and at least one aux. hyd.-fluid tank, then the Sioux City accident would have never happened. When #2 blew up it servered the hyd. line close to the engine and ALL hyd. fluid escaped. HYD. PUMPS WITHOUT HYD. FLUID JUST DON'T GOT NUSSIN' TO DOES!!!! [sm=angry.gif]
Even you people that believe government "Official Reports" should be able to figure that out. [sm=greedy.gif]
12-23-2010 | 07:00 PM
#82
RE: Support for Regulations By The FAA
ORIGINAL: ira d
Silent - AV8R
In your previous post you said that the FAA does not want to regulate modelers just commercial uav operation, If that is true then we modelers have nothing to be
concearned about.
Silent - AV8R
In your previous post you said that the FAA does not want to regulate modelers just commercial uav operation, If that is true then we modelers have nothing to be
concearned about.
The AMA I support is the AMA that vigilantly counters any further restrictions to our hobby while advocating even greater latitude regardless of discipline and only accepts further restrictions under protest. This sacrificial crap that "we should restrict ourselves or the FAA will" is hogwash and asininely stupid.
12-23-2010 | 07:22 PM
#84
My Feedback: (21)
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 951
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Apple River IL
RE: Support for Regulations By The FAA
Well, so does the DC-8 right? The reserve or reservoir is the fluid below the standpipe; and it was possible to lose it all if you weren't fast enough on the panel. But hey, at least you still had a few miles of cable! We could go on all day about what is NOT in any report; and argue to days end about what of those is factual or not. The point is the NTSB publish the final report, not the FAA, the facts of which we can choose to believe or not. Oh, and didn't losingtwo leading edge devices contribute to the left wing stalling, falling, and rolling that way? Or maybe that was not one of the facts, I don't know.
Are you saying the NTSB is responsible forthe following:
NTSB Responsibilities
Transportation Security
NTSB Investigative Process - Investigations Involving Criminal Activity
Transportation Security Administration (Department of Homeland Security)
Air Travel - Prohibited Items
Information for Travelers and Consumers
Employment
Industry Partners
Law and Policy
Department of Transportation
Transport Security Info
And the FAA the following:
Federal Aviation Administration
Office of Security & Hazardous Materials
If so, I respectfully disagree. Also, it is well recognized now that Flight 191 could have been recoverable, but, to say that 191 was in factrecoverable one would need to know exactly what was happening inside the cockpit in the final moments before the words "Oh f**&" were uttered. To say that it NEVER would have happened is to say EXACTLY why and how it happened; and that has the makings of a great conspiracy novel which I'll buy, when it's written.
As for RCers and twins, can't argue with that; except that if you recognize the failing/failed engine quick enough and reduce power adequately )or at least lower the nose)you also reduce Vmc, etc. (and regain control authority). As for believing government "Official Reports", well, what would you propose that one reads and believes (with respect to the subject at hand)? Please don't say the "Enquirer"!
hook
Are you saying the NTSB is responsible forthe following:
NTSB Responsibilities
Transportation Security
NTSB Investigative Process - Investigations Involving Criminal Activity
Transportation Security Administration (Department of Homeland Security)
Air Travel - Prohibited Items
Information for Travelers and Consumers
Employment
Industry Partners
Law and Policy
Department of Transportation
Transport Security Info
And the FAA the following:
Federal Aviation Administration
Office of Security & Hazardous Materials
If so, I respectfully disagree. Also, it is well recognized now that Flight 191 could have been recoverable, but, to say that 191 was in factrecoverable one would need to know exactly what was happening inside the cockpit in the final moments before the words "Oh f**&" were uttered. To say that it NEVER would have happened is to say EXACTLY why and how it happened; and that has the makings of a great conspiracy novel which I'll buy, when it's written.
As for RCers and twins, can't argue with that; except that if you recognize the failing/failed engine quick enough and reduce power adequately )or at least lower the nose)you also reduce Vmc, etc. (and regain control authority). As for believing government "Official Reports", well, what would you propose that one reads and believes (with respect to the subject at hand)? Please don't say the "Enquirer"!
hook
12-23-2010 | 07:43 PM
#85
RE: Support for Regulations By The FAA
ORIGINAL: ira d
Silent - AV8R
In your previous post you said that the FAA does not want to regulate modelers just commercial uav operation, If that is true then we modelers have nothing to be
concearned about.
ORIGINAL: Silent-AV8R
One more time........
The coming regulations have NOTHING to do with preventing terrorism or any other such security concerns.
ORIGINAL: COPTERPETE
The current regulations, and AMA safety rules are more than adequate. The government is not our friend, and any thoughts by the FAA, FBI, TSA, or whomever that preventing terrorism by interfering with the lawful enjoyment of the R/C plane hobby is ludicrous!
The current regulations, and AMA safety rules are more than adequate. The government is not our friend, and any thoughts by the FAA, FBI, TSA, or whomever that preventing terrorism by interfering with the lawful enjoyment of the R/C plane hobby is ludicrous!
The coming regulations have NOTHING to do with preventing terrorism or any other such security concerns.
In your previous post you said that the FAA does not want to regulate modelers just commercial uav operation, If that is true then we modelers have nothing to be
concearned about.
It is true that I have aid the FAA is not concerned with us as far as the reasons for the coming rues. However, I have also said numerous times that we will be effected due to the fact that in order to NOT regulate us they need to define we "WE" are. And that is where we will see damage done to our hobby. As Dave Mathewson has called it "collateral damage." We are not the target but we are still going to feel the effect.
12-23-2010 | 08:46 PM
#86
RE: Support for Regulations By The FAA
ORIGINAL: Silent-AV8R
It is true that I have aid the FAA is not concerned with us as far as the reasons for the coming rues. However, I have also said numerous times that we will be effected due to the fact that in order to NOT regulate us they need to define we ''WE'' are. And that is where we will see damage done to our hobby. As Dave Mathewson has called it ''collateral damage.'' We are not the target but we are still going to feel the effect.
It is true that I have aid the FAA is not concerned with us as far as the reasons for the coming rues. However, I have also said numerous times that we will be effected due to the fact that in order to NOT regulate us they need to define we ''WE'' are. And that is where we will see damage done to our hobby. As Dave Mathewson has called it ''collateral damage.'' We are not the target but we are still going to feel the effect.
yea... the concept 'they are going to regulate us by not regulating us" is sort of like saying "depends on what the definition of what "is" is" LOL. How is such silliness reconciled in ones mind???
12-23-2010 | 09:21 PM
#87
RE: Support for Regulations By The FAA
Silent
As I said before there is no needto define us forwe 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 attemptto blow some smoke. Lets say I wanted to regulate bicycles I would define a bicycle as avehicle 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.
As I said before there is no needto define us forwe 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 attemptto blow some smoke. Lets say I wanted to regulate bicycles I would define a bicycle as avehicle 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.
12-24-2010 | 12:03 AM
#88
RE: Support for Regulations By The FAA
The FAA Order that formed the ARC was Order 1110.150
Item 4 (c) reads:
From the ARC
Item 4 (c) reads:
Recommendations from the Small UAS ARC will be important to us as we establish the regulatory basis allowing small UAS to operate in the National Airspace System (NAS) for compensation or hire, and clarify the definition of model aircraft.
RATIONALE: Reflects FAA's concept of regulating model aviation by
exempting Model Aircraft from regulation. Under this approach, modelers
participating within an aeromodeling structure/organization such as the
Academy of Model Aeronautics (AMA) may operate their Model Aircraft
in accordance with an accepted set of standards and operating
procedures. Based on a more rigorous attention to safety, risk assessment,
and risk mitigation, the accepted standards may provide greater latitude
in the Model Aircraft operations. Modelers not participating in the
additional safety programming established in an accepted set of standards
shall comply with the requirements of Section 3.
exempting Model Aircraft from regulation. Under this approach, modelers
participating within an aeromodeling structure/organization such as the
Academy of Model Aeronautics (AMA) may operate their Model Aircraft
in accordance with an accepted set of standards and operating
procedures. Based on a more rigorous attention to safety, risk assessment,
and risk mitigation, the accepted standards may provide greater latitude
in the Model Aircraft operations. Modelers not participating in the
additional safety programming established in an accepted set of standards
shall comply with the requirements of Section 3.
12-24-2010 | 03:36 AM
#89
My Feedback: (40)
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 313
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Alexandria, MN
RE: Support for Regulations By The FAA
<span style="font-size: medium">
</span><span style="font-size: small">
Minnesota is as colorful in many ways as our seasons. But beforebashing our GREATSTATE, take a look at your own 2008 presidential race - seems the social agenda pervaded Florida as well - http://www.usatoday.com/news/politic...ion2008/fl.htm
As to theprogressive movement andthose embracing more regulations- you believe you are entitled to an opinion,it is my RIGHT to tell you to stuff it!
Speaking of movements..............
</span>
</span><span style="font-size: small">
ORIGINAL: VF84sluggo
Heart-warming words to any government bureaucrat...spoken by a loyal comrade from the People's Republic of Minnesota
ORIGINAL: apwachholz
I, for one, am prepared for and welcome possible regulations to our hobby by the FAA.
I, for one, am prepared for and welcome possible regulations to our hobby by the FAA.
As to theprogressive movement andthose embracing more regulations- you believe you are entitled to an opinion,it is my RIGHT to tell you to stuff it!
Speaking of movements..............
</span>
12-24-2010 | 06:11 AM
#90
My Feedback: (21)
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 951
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Apple River IL
RE: Support for Regulations By The FAA
ORIGINAL: ira d
Silent
As I said before there is no needto define us forwe 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 attemptto blow some smoke. Lets say I wanted to regulate bicycles I would define a bicycle as avehicle 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.
Silent
As I said before there is no needto define us forwe 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 attemptto blow some smoke. Lets say I wanted to regulate bicycles I would define a bicycle as avehicle 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.
hook
12-24-2010 | 06:57 AM
#91
RE: Support for Regulations By The FAA
ORIGINAL: hook57
...and someone questions its status; I can explain to them what that status is. If they persist or cop an attitude, then maybe I can tell them to go pound sand.
hook
...and someone questions its status; I can explain to them what that status is. If they persist or cop an attitude, then maybe I can tell them to go pound sand.
hook
12-24-2010 | 07:09 AM
#92
My Feedback: (67)
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 724
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: York,
ME
RE: Support for Regulations By The FAA
It dosen't matter what anyone thinks. The feds are gonna do whatever the big money says they are gonna do! You have no voice. Get used to it. Big brother is watching all of us.
12-24-2010 | 07:39 AM
#93
RE: Support for Regulations By The FAA
<div><div style="border: medium none ; overflow: hidden; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); background-color: transparent; text-align: left; text-decoration: none;">
<span>
Per the constitution the Feds are allowed to regulate interstate commerse. sUAS's are not interstate commerse, but they can be an obstruction to aircraft that are. However I am dubious of the legality of regulating them, at least when they keep below the minimums per FAR 91.119.
<a href="../../../m_10209869/mpage_4/key_/tm.htm#ixzz192mhnN1Z" style="color: rgb(0, 51, 153);">
</a></span></div></div>
Last time I read the Constitution, I did not see where this kind of "oversight" was allowed by the government.
Per the constitution the Feds are allowed to regulate interstate commerse. sUAS's are not interstate commerse, but they can be an obstruction to aircraft that are. However I am dubious of the legality of regulating them, at least when they keep below the minimums per FAR 91.119.
<a href="../../../m_10209869/mpage_4/key_/tm.htm#ixzz192mhnN1Z" style="color: rgb(0, 51, 153);">
</a></span></div></div>
12-24-2010 | 07:52 AM
#94
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,681
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: San Antonio,
TX
RE: Support for Regulations By The FAA
Ira
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)
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.
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 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)
12-24-2010 | 08:07 AM
#95
My Feedback: (21)
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 951
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Apple River IL
RE: Support for Regulations By The FAA
ORIGINAL: littlecrankshaf
Just tell them to pound sand from get go if they don't know "the status" and seem to want to know the status...LOL This is really silly... model airplanes are model airplanes and as such the definition is very large unless you are willing to accept model airplanes are model airplanes...LOL. The use of model airplanes can be another thing all together...
ORIGINAL: hook57
...and someone questions its status; I can explain to them what that status is. If they persist or cop an attitude, then maybe I can tell them to go pound sand.
hook
...and someone questions its status; I can explain to them what that status is. If they persist or cop an attitude, then maybe I can tell them to go pound sand.
hook
h
12-24-2010 | 08:17 AM
#96
My Feedback: (10)
RE: Support for Regulations By The FAA
ORIGINAL: Thomas B
Plerase note that I was standing up for NTSB accident investigations and not for the FAA...
1. The 737 ''failsafe'' rudder actuator that was not failsafe in every case was a tough one....was almost impossible to reproduce and if you can't reproduce it, it is a guess and not a concrete reason for the crash. I think the NTSB was right in not ruling on the CSprings accident sooner, until the proof from the PA accident was in hand. The NTSB has left VERY few air transport cases in their files with unknown causes....because they tend to never give up until the reasons for a crash are factually known and reproducable. Please note that Boeing was not too responsive on the fairly rare reports of rudder control issues and fought the announced cause fo the accident in PA. And note that the NTSB can only advise the FAA...and we know how stubborn they can be.
ORIGINAL: Hossfly
Mr. Thomas B, I am not going back in memory or searching dates, etc. but I will state 3 problems that I remember.
....................
Mr. Thomas B, I am not going back in memory or searching dates, etc. but I will state 3 problems that I remember.
....................
1. The 737 ''failsafe'' rudder actuator that was not failsafe in every case was a tough one....was almost impossible to reproduce and if you can't reproduce it, it is a guess and not a concrete reason for the crash. I think the NTSB was right in not ruling on the CSprings accident sooner, until the proof from the PA accident was in hand. The NTSB has left VERY few air transport cases in their files with unknown causes....because they tend to never give up until the reasons for a crash are factually known and reproducable. Please note that Boeing was not too responsive on the fairly rare reports of rudder control issues and fought the announced cause fo the accident in PA. And note that the NTSB can only advise the FAA...and we know how stubborn they can be.
The bottom line is that the FAA will cow to MONEY from lobbying..The UAV industry and airlines are MONEY.. Thankfully the AOPA recognized that they really needed to push to save general aviation thru the sport pilot program and were successful. They benefited in the end but they took care of the big issue first.
I believe that the AMA is to bent on selling its insurance and remaining a viable financial entity so much that they tried to push themselves on the FAA more than lobbying for freedom for recreational RC. I believe they at some levels have hosed us more than the FAA so far...The AMA has put its interests above the membership and all modelers.
They should have postured to STOP the regulation by the FAA then worried how to sell insurance. The play they made was in their self interest and has backfired to the detriment of all modelers..
12-24-2010 | 08:46 AM
#97
RE: Support for Regulations By The FAA
ORIGINAL: 2walla
I believe that the AMA is to bent on selling its insurance and remaining a viable financial entity so much that they tried to push themselves on the FAA more than lobbying for freedom for recreational RC. I believe they at some levels have hosed us more than the FAA so far...The AMA has put its interests above the membership and all modelers.
They should have postured to STOP the regulation by the FAA then worried how to sell insurance. The play they made was in their self interest and has backfired to the detriment of all modelers..
I believe that the AMA is to bent on selling its insurance and remaining a viable financial entity so much that they tried to push themselves on the FAA more than lobbying for freedom for recreational RC. I believe they at some levels have hosed us more than the FAA so far...The AMA has put its interests above the membership and all modelers.
They should have postured to STOP the regulation by the FAA then worried how to sell insurance. The play they made was in their self interest and has backfired to the detriment of all modelers..
12-24-2010 | 08:58 AM
#98
RE: Support for Regulations By The FAA
If they are all models LC, then they have no damn business operating in the NAS mixing it up with manned aircraft. Not anywhere near an airport, a runway approach path, or within 500' vertically of anywhere a manned aircraft could potentially operate (and that's a lot of area).
See and avoid is the key.
12-24-2010 | 09:13 AM
#99
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,681
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: San Antonio,
TX
RE: Support for Regulations By The FAA
If they are all models LC, then they have no damn business operating in the NAS mixing it up with manned aircraft.
Policy Statement
The current FAA policy for UAS operations is that no person may operate a UAS in
the National Airspace System without specific authority[/color]. For UAS operating as public
aircraft the authority is the COA, for UAS operating as civil aircraft the authority is special
airworthiness certificates, and for model aircraft the authority is AC 91-57
The current FAA policy for UAS operations is that no person may operate a UAS in
the National Airspace System without specific authority[/color]. For UAS operating as public
aircraft the authority is the COA, for UAS operating as civil aircraft the authority is special
airworthiness certificates, and for model aircraft the authority is AC 91-57
need to play by the FAA rules they each have.
12-24-2010 | 09:25 AM
#100
My Feedback: (162)
RE: Support for Regulations By The FAA
ORIGINAL: apwachholz
All -
My goal is not to ''stir-the-pot''
All -
My goal is not to ''stir-the-pot''
welcome possible regulations to our hobby by the FAA
