Support for Regulations By The FAA
12-24-2010 | 09:49 AM
#102
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
And the term is "sense and avoid"; no eyes in the sUAS to pivot around to see what's coming from behind or the side.
Would you give 'Support for Regulations By The FAA' requiring non-LOS recreational model craft to have Pan&Tilt camera
so they CAN look around to use Find&Flee?
(exactly like VFR flights in a c172 look around)
12-24-2010 | 10:22 AM
#103
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: KidEpoxy
The semantics of Find&Flee/Recon&RunFrom/Spot&StayAway are hardly important
Would you give 'Support for Regulations By The FAA' requiring non-LOS recreational model craft to have Pan&Tilt camera
so they CAN look around to use Find&Flee?
(exactly like VFR flights in a c172 look around)
And the term is "sense and avoid"; no eyes in the sUAS to pivot around to see what's coming from behind or the side.
Would you give 'Support for Regulations By The FAA' requiring non-LOS recreational model craft to have Pan&Tilt camera
so they CAN look around to use Find&Flee?
(exactly like VFR flights in a c172 look around)
2. I already do. As long as it is done in accordance with AMAs document #550. I would look at rewriting itto decsribe the "buddy box" as being the mitigating factor inregard to potential"lost link" problems. Also, since aircraft approaching to land at an airport could easily be under 1000' agl, some altitude restriction <u>should</u> be considered for separation purposes when less than 5 miles fromthat airport.
h
12-24-2010 | 10:26 AM
#104
My Feedback: (10)
RE: Support for Regulations By The FAA
ORIGINAL: Silent-AV8R
This is patently absurd and there is not one piece of objective evidence to support your opinion. It also demonstrates an incredible lack of knowledge and understanding of how this process actually works. But like each of us we are entitled to our opinions, even when they are based on sheer fantasy.
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..
I suggest you do some research on the train of events The FAA was not interested in regulating hobbiest modelers. Due to the increasing pressure by the UAV industry and groups in the US wanting to buy and operate them Law enforcement, etc... the FAA had to come up with some sort of regulations- The FAA was not looking to do anything to us- but the good old AMA started up a campaing to set themselves up as a regulating authority and approached the FAA with the "AMA members are self policing and we can manage ourselves but the non-AMA fliers need strict regulation"- A ploy to force anyone with anything bigger than a park flyer to have to join to swell the dwindling ranks of the AMA.. The AMA even managed to set up some demo events where 40% planes and a high speed turbine powered jet were demonstrated.. The FAA saw some of the "toys" we wer playing with and since the AMA had broached the regulation for modelers issue we got tied up in the regulation process...
OPEN YOUR EYES , IT IS ALL ABOUT THE MONEY...
12-24-2010 | 11:46 AM
#105
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 501
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: mt.pleasant,
PA
RE: Support for Regulations By The FAA
if we are to be regulated by the faa why would we need the AMA any longer our ins. from the AMA is secondary anyway lets do away with the AMA if they can't protect our flying
12-24-2010 | 12:24 PM
#106
My Feedback: (10)
RE: Support for Regulations By The FAA
go vertical What the AMA was trying to do was become a regulatory body- IE If you belonged to them you would subscribe by their rules vice the federal imposed rules. So essentially if you were AMA the new rules woudnt effect you.. If you weren't AMA you would be very restricted to size, weight, speed. etc... It was then in the AMA's interest to make the federal rules very restrictive to essentially force guys to join the AMA.. It backfired because the FAA thought the restrictive rules would be better for everybody- now the AMA is scrambling to try to save us from their screw up......
12-24-2010 | 01:06 PM
#107
RE: Support for Regulations By The FAA
ORIGINAL: KidEpoxy
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)
Ira
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)
Kid
I think everyone got the just of what I was saying, But you areright in that I didnt say anyting about a engine so youcould include a harly in the definiton allthough I think
most know whatIment. But I still it very easy to define what a model is and you dont need to regulate somthing just to define it if you dont intend to regulate it in the first
place.
12-24-2010 | 01:09 PM
#108
RE: Support for Regulations By The FAA
[quote]ORIGINAL: 2walla
ORIGINAL: Silent-AV8R
This is patently absurd and there is not one piece of objective evidence to support your opinion. It also demonstrates an incredible lack of knowledge and understanding of how this process actually works. But like each of us we are entitled to our opinions, even when they are based on sheer fantasy.
[/quote
I suggest you do some research on the train of events The FAA was not interested in regulating hobbiest modelers. Due to the increasing pressure by the UAV industry and groups in the US wanting to buy and operate them Law enforcement, etc... the FAA had to come up with some sort of regulations- The FAA was not looking to do anything to us- but the good old AMA started up a campaing to set themselves up as a regulating authority and approached the FAA with the "AMA members are self policing and we can manage ourselves but the non-AMA fliers need strict regulation"- A ploy to force anyone with anything bigger than a park flyer to have to join to swell the dwindling ranks of the AMA.. The AMA even managed to set up some demo events where 40% planes and a high speed turbine powered jet were demonstrated.. The FAA saw some of the "toys" we wer playing with and since the AMA had broached the regulation for modelers issue we got tied up in the regulation process...
OPEN YOUR EYES , IT IS ALL ABOUT THE MONEY...
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..
[/quote
I suggest you do some research on the train of events The FAA was not interested in regulating hobbiest modelers. Due to the increasing pressure by the UAV industry and groups in the US wanting to buy and operate them Law enforcement, etc... the FAA had to come up with some sort of regulations- The FAA was not looking to do anything to us- but the good old AMA started up a campaing to set themselves up as a regulating authority and approached the FAA with the "AMA members are self policing and we can manage ourselves but the non-AMA fliers need strict regulation"- A ploy to force anyone with anything bigger than a park flyer to have to join to swell the dwindling ranks of the AMA.. The AMA even managed to set up some demo events where 40% planes and a high speed turbine powered jet were demonstrated.. The FAA saw some of the "toys" we wer playing with and since the AMA had broached the regulation for modelers issue we got tied up in the regulation process...
OPEN YOUR EYES , IT IS ALL ABOUT THE MONEY...
I have a feeling that 2walla is closer to the truth than anyone has been willing admit up to this point.
12-24-2010 | 01:24 PM
#110
My Feedback: (11)
RE: Support for Regulations By The FAA
If that does, in fact, be the case of what happened; LUCY there's gona be trouble!
ORIGINAL: 2walla
go vertical What the AMA was trying to do was become a regulatory body- IE If you belonged to them you would subscribe by their rules vice the federal imposed rules. So essentially if you were AMA the new rules woudnt effect you.. If you weren't AMA you would be very restricted to size, weight, speed. etc... It was then in the AMA's interest to make the federal rules very restrictive to essentially force guys to join the AMA.. It backfired because the FAA thought the restrictive rules would be better for everybody- now the AMA is scrambling to try to save us from their screw up......
go vertical What the AMA was trying to do was become a regulatory body- IE If you belonged to them you would subscribe by their rules vice the federal imposed rules. So essentially if you were AMA the new rules woudnt effect you.. If you weren't AMA you would be very restricted to size, weight, speed. etc... It was then in the AMA's interest to make the federal rules very restrictive to essentially force guys to join the AMA.. It backfired because the FAA thought the restrictive rules would be better for everybody- now the AMA is scrambling to try to save us from their screw up......
12-24-2010 | 01:35 PM
#111
RE: Support for Regulations By The FAA
ORIGINAL: 2walla
The FAA was not looking to do anything to us- but the good old AMA started up a campaing to set themselves up as a regulating authority and approached the FAA
The FAA was not looking to do anything to us- but the good old AMA started up a campaing to set themselves up as a regulating authority and approached the FAA
So again, any proof beyond your opinion??
12-24-2010 | 02:30 PM
#112
My Feedback: (22)
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 2,972
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Houston, TX
RE: Support for Regulations By The FAA
The FAA is charged with regulating and promoting aviation.
The FAA gives away billions of dollars in grants to promote aviation in communities all over the country. The money is for new facilities and for improvements.
If the FAA regulates model aviation, it will then also be required to promote model aviation. That means millions of dollars coming our way.
If the FAA attempts to regulate model aviation without promoting model aviation then millions of dollars worth of attorney fees will bring the legal profession running to insist that we recieve our fair share of funding.
The FAA knows this.
The FAA is walking a tight rope. The lawyers are watching and circling.
The FAA gives away billions of dollars in grants to promote aviation in communities all over the country. The money is for new facilities and for improvements.
If the FAA regulates model aviation, it will then also be required to promote model aviation. That means millions of dollars coming our way.
If the FAA attempts to regulate model aviation without promoting model aviation then millions of dollars worth of attorney fees will bring the legal profession running to insist that we recieve our fair share of funding.
The FAA knows this.
The FAA is walking a tight rope. The lawyers are watching and circling.
12-24-2010 | 03:00 PM
#113
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
Hook
That is completely not answering the question asked-
Hook, regardless of how you feel about AMA 550pdf,
Would you give 'Support for Regulations By The FAA' requiring non-LOS recreational model craft to have Pan&Tilt camera
so they CAN look around to use Find&Flee?
(exactly like VFR flights in a c172 look around)
Either you would support the FAA saying a single non-LOS pilot will require Pan&Tilt (aka T&E for mil folks),
or you wouldnt.
If you wouldnt support the Pan&Tilt FPV pilot having the same views that a guy sitting in a c172 has,
explain why that is not acceptable to you
2. I already do. As long as it is done in accordance with AMAs document #550
Hook, regardless of how you feel about AMA 550pdf,
Would you give 'Support for Regulations By The FAA' requiring non-LOS recreational model craft to have Pan&Tilt camera
so they CAN look around to use Find&Flee?
(exactly like VFR flights in a c172 look around)
Either you would support the FAA saying a single non-LOS pilot will require Pan&Tilt (aka T&E for mil folks),
or you wouldnt.
If you wouldnt support the Pan&Tilt FPV pilot having the same views that a guy sitting in a c172 has,
explain why that is not acceptable to you
12-24-2010 | 03:09 PM
#114
My Feedback: (49)
RE: Support for Regulations By The FAA
ORIGINAL: Silent-AV8R
One more time after me........
The sUAS regulations are in no way motivated by, or targeted at, the model aviation hobby. They are 100% motivated by a desire on the part of the FAA to regulate the fast growing commercial/public agency sUAS industry. We are simply collateral damage that results from the FAA needing to define what we are so they can exempt us from the new regulations.
There is no ''assault on our hobby'' or anything like that. In fact, if we continue to hold that attitude it does us no good since it demonstrates that we do not understand the situation.
Also, NONE of these new regulations are motivated by security concerns. The FAA has clearly stated on numerous occasions that their motivation is air safety and the protection of man carrying aircraft from a large number of commercial sUAS using the NAS.
ORIGINAL: Nitro-Tom
I am sick over this potential “Assault†on our hobby…..we would have ZERO liberties if we regulated every “What if†based on 911 and all the other concerns…
I am sick over this potential “Assault†on our hobby…..we would have ZERO liberties if we regulated every “What if†based on 911 and all the other concerns…
The sUAS regulations are in no way motivated by, or targeted at, the model aviation hobby. They are 100% motivated by a desire on the part of the FAA to regulate the fast growing commercial/public agency sUAS industry. We are simply collateral damage that results from the FAA needing to define what we are so they can exempt us from the new regulations.
There is no ''assault on our hobby'' or anything like that. In fact, if we continue to hold that attitude it does us no good since it demonstrates that we do not understand the situation.
Also, NONE of these new regulations are motivated by security concerns. The FAA has clearly stated on numerous occasions that their motivation is air safety and the protection of man carrying aircraft from a large number of commercial sUAS using the NAS.
Self Regulation and being responsible flyers and good neighbors to the our flying field neighbors will go farther to further our cause than all the forum comments and speculation we can have. Remember Good actions are easly forgotten, but nobody forgets the bad actions weather true or just precived to be.
12-24-2010 | 04:27 PM
#117
RE: Support for Regulations By The FAA
ORIGINAL: HoundDog
Where in the world have U been for the last 50 to 70 years ... Every Government agency wants to regulate our lives to death. The FAA is one of the worst ... If they start regulating Model Aviation,
Where in the world have U been for the last 50 to 70 years ... Every Government agency wants to regulate our lives to death. The FAA is one of the worst ... If they start regulating Model Aviation,
I might ask you the same since it is clear you have not read or understood anything about the current FAA action. So think it part of some master plan on the part of the gubbermint to regulate everything, but it still has NOTHING to do with a desire to regulate model airplanes.
12-24-2010 | 06:07 PM
#118
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 573
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: lillington,
NC
RE: Support for Regulations By The FAA
Why do you keep repeating it has NOTHING to do with a desire to regulate Model Aircraft. Should I feel any better using my GS Warbirds as wood for my outdor firepit because they had no desire to regulate us. Go away, what a joke.
12-24-2010 | 06:32 PM
#119
RE: Support for Regulations By The FAA
ORIGINAL: crashproof
Why do you keep repeating it has NOTHING to do with a desire to regulate Model Aircraft. Should I feel any better using my GS Warbirds as wood for my outdor firepit because they had no desire to regulate us. Go away, what a joke.
Why do you keep repeating it has NOTHING to do with a desire to regulate Model Aircraft. Should I feel any better using my GS Warbirds as wood for my outdor firepit because they had no desire to regulate us. Go away, what a joke.
You also noticed that the impending regulations from the "no regulation" spin spiel that someone keeps putting out here for us to swallow is just some very bad subjective brainwashing reality altering BS that is being used to splain away how things have gotten all goofed up... AMAGov went for all the bananas and screwed us and the pouch in the process.
Yep, Lucy dun it again.
12-24-2010 | 06:57 PM
#120
RE: Support for Regulations By The FAA
Please read my posts above. It is not SPIN, it is exactly what was stated in the ARC Recommendations and is consistent with everything we have seen from the FAA. So try to SPIN it your way if you wish, but what I posted are the facts. This really gets wearisome.
12-24-2010 | 07:04 PM
#121
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: littlecrankshaf
You also noticed that the impending regulations from the ''no regulation'' spin spiel that someone keeps putting out here for us to swallow is just some very bad subjective brainwashing reality altering BS that is being used to splain away how things have gotten all goofed up...
You also noticed that the impending regulations from the ''no regulation'' spin spiel that someone keeps putting out here for us to swallow is just some very bad subjective brainwashing reality altering BS that is being used to splain away how things have gotten all goofed up...
12-24-2010 | 07:10 PM
#122
RE: Support for Regulations By The FAA
ORIGINAL: crashproof
Why do you keep repeating it has NOTHING to do with a desire to regulate Model Aircraft. Should I feel any better using my GS Warbirds as wood for my outdor firepit because they had no desire to regulate us. Go away, what a joke.
Why do you keep repeating it has NOTHING to do with a desire to regulate Model Aircraft. Should I feel any better using my GS Warbirds as wood for my outdor firepit because they had no desire to regulate us. Go away, what a joke.
I keep repeating it because so many people apparently are unable to understand the nuance and what it means. So when we start a campaign to stop or modify it if a bunch of people are going off half cocked and ill-informed it does us no good. Railing on about how big Gubbermint is coming down on our hobby absolutely misses the point. SOrry if the facts are offensive, but they are facts none the less.
12-24-2010 | 07:19 PM
#123
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 573
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: lillington,
NC
RE: Support for Regulations By The FAA
I think I understand just fine. Trust me I was taught to keep my head out of the sand. The rub is it seems that had this been handled properly by the folks predetermined to do so we might not be getting schooled and lined up for this fight, THAT WE CAN NOT WIN.
12-24-2010 | 07:32 PM
#124
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: crashproof
I think I understand just fine. Trust me I was taught to keep my head out of the sand. The rub is it seems that had this been handled properly by the folks predetermined to do so we might not be getting schooled and lined up for this fight, THAT WE CAN NOT WIN.
I think I understand just fine. Trust me I was taught to keep my head out of the sand. The rub is it seems that had this been handled properly by the folks predetermined to do so we might not be getting schooled and lined up for this fight, THAT WE CAN NOT WIN.
Whoopie! Let's party.
12-24-2010 | 07:52 PM
#125
My Feedback: (24)
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 751
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Bismarck, ND
RE: Support for Regulations By The FAA
I trust the government as far as I could hurl a ton of elephant *****! If some bureaucrat can regulate something, then they have justified the reason for their position.
