hook57

My Feedback: (21)

Amazingly accurate description in post 192 Silent 8.

The fact, and it is a fact, is that the ARC was formed to construe recommendations for commercial/public UAS and sUAS operationsin the NAS,period. PERIOD. Model aircraft fell into the fray by virtue of those enterprising folks who did one of several things with a (pick your noun) related to a commercial activity while operatingin the NAS, some with advertisement, and it resulted in or it will result in some form of compensation.They in essence claimed exemptionvia the ACas aMA activity when it was clearly not intended as such. Since the sUAS and UAS industry has all but exploded in terms of growth and request for CoAs, everything that resembled a UAS (MA and sUAS included) was deemed to be in need of review; that was in order to determine what was really what.Somelikened itto the supposed explosionof the VLJ market a few years ago and the impact itwould have on air trafficcongestion. No one reallyknows how many, 100, 1000, 100,000, commercial sUAS could conceivably enter the NAS; you really want to gamble your life (or an injury)or another's life on whether or not ithappens orwhen it happens?

The NPRM was not driven by the Colorado incident, it wasn't caused by the Blimp incident, and it wasn't caused by the NYC incident. If anything it was caused by the (and perhaps only anticipated) demand by commercial and public usedevdelopers wanting to conductvarious types ofoperations in the NAS; and it actually started with the good old USAF in about 1997. Do some research (on your own) and you'll find a lot more than the ARC and a few AFS-400 documents to chew on.

It's been said before, and it's quite simple, regardless of what standards are put in place by the AMA or a CBO, if the rule declares MA exempt, then they are exempt; and in the end it won't matter whether it was under Section 2 or 3. Don't believe it? Simple enough, call an attorney and ask him/her what exempt means in terms of a regulatory requirement. It is highly, very highly, unlikely that if one does whatever to rock theirgonads and causes harm to persons or property, the one to call on them will be from the FAA. It is muchmore likely it will be from the damaged party's attorney.You have more to fear from the local PD if and when they deploy sUAS for surveillance work than you do from the AMA or the FAA.

Furthermore, the government just announced how it planned to reduce spending, throughout several LOBs,under its continuing resolution by up to 78 billion dollars. It has stopped hiring, it is looking at RIFs, and might even do early buy-outs; where in the world are they going to get the resources to do what some here suggest. Nextthere will be thescreaming because of the freebies that got whacked in the process and who will you blame for that? Nothing sweet last forever, so you compromise, you adjust, you observe, you adapt and you move forward. Will the AC be revised, probably. Will it bring mayhem anddestruction to what is said to be a billion dollar industry? I for one seriously doubt it. Will it be the ruination of MA because by definition MA are sUAS? No, because the intent is to differentiate it from numerous (and onerous) other regulatory requirements;in that very same context the intention is to segregate it by exempting it. Individuals can turn, twist, and knot that anyway they wish, but in the end the bottom line is that the activity is exempt.

Lambasting the AMA, the FAA, or any organization here only proves you can put your finger to a keypad. No one is forced to be a member or to follow any AMA rules. The AMA was founded for a purpose and it still has a purpose, perhaps it needsredefining. So make a suggestion for change. You don't like like the FAA, fine, suggest something constructive via the comment period or petition to have the rule removed (yes, there is a procedure for that). *****ing, degrading,and moaning about it does nothing but reiterate what most already know, yet it seemingly creates a hostility amongst fellow modelers; and that just seems silly. Fire away.
hook

KidEpoxy

great
then the AMA can stop working on getting the organization exempted
outta these regulations that you say wont happen

KidEpoxy

man, too bad there isnt some nonprofit academy type place we could go to
for educational reading and FAA documents regarding model aviation

RTK

My Feedback: (1)

I believe hook has stated the reasons for exemption very well and why the regs might not apply to us the modeling community. After Reading that old ARC paper again it reinforces the exemption with regard to use.........

KidEpoxy

there is part of the problem

You see 'us' as not being 'everyone in America that aeromodels'

just because there is some 'us' that might get exempted from the hobby killing federal regulations,
does not mean that the hobby killing regulations are ok because they only hurt everyone else

..

Its almost humorous to hear that the stuff in the ARC is not going to happen,
but we are going to use the ARC provided exemption to get AMA out of the ARC listed troubles.

a. If the trouble aint gonna happen then we dont need exemption from trouble that dont exist
b. if the arc stuff dont happen then the arc exemption wouldnt happen either
c. if the AMA is only going to protect 'us' then it wont be needing that TaxFree status anymore will it

RTK

My Feedback: (1)

,,,,

hook57

My Feedback: (21)

Double Ditto'''''''''''''

Silent-AV8R

This is the core of your problem. You view the ARC recommendations as providing something or being the basis of the Rule, which it just flat is not. The FAA is not required to do anything the ARC suggested and they are completely free to go in whatever direction they see fit. So to infer that the recognition of allowing a CBO to submit their own set of safety standards is something that is authorized or required by the ARC recommendations is simply incorrect.

In fact, the FAA has done this before and it is a path to compliance that they use not all that infrequently.

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

Well, unless things are perceived as positive then I guess you would likely say otherwise... But let's just go with what you have just said... it would then follow AMA's involvement was providing nothing positive as well... Now, if you can say that... then your statement above rings true. Otherwise we are just listening to the other side of your mouth.

Silent-AV8R

LCS, please re-read my post and rather than parse each word separately try to grasp the meaning of what I actually wrote. KE views the ARC as some sort of foundation document that provides for certain things. It is no such thing.

cj_rumley

I'd really like for that to be true. Burn the ARC recommendations, scatter the ashes.......salt the earth. Forget the CBO nonsense and the privileged class of modelers it creates. Don't like 'all men created equal?' Tough noogies.

Silent-AV8R

I keep hearing that much, if not all, of the ARC suggestions are history. However, the concept and use of CBOs by the FAA in Rulemaking is nothing new nor unique to the FAA so I am fairly certain that part will survive. I do not see it, nor does the FAA based on what I have seen and heard, as creating a special class. In the eyes of the FAA CBO generated standards are simply an alternative path to compliance.

cj_rumley

"Gimme yer wallet or I'll blow your head off" provides a simple alternative path to compliance.

The Toolman

hahahaha, ya got'im there cj

Silent-AV8R

Yes, very clever. Meaningless in the context of what we are talking about, but still amusing.

804

My Feedback: (1)

Does this mean I should carry my Glock to the field?
Or would my single action Kimber 1911 be more appropriate?
Decisions, decisions.[X(]

GerKonig

You only got the first part right. This is the complete version: "All men are created equal, but some are more equal than others". This guys are the problem (se below - published today). Everybody wants to get in the action. The uavs will multiply like bunnys on viagra...

Gerry



DAYTON — Regional leaders’ hopes to make Dayton a center of expertise for unmanned aircraft will include a request to the government that it designate local airspace for low-altitude flights for educational purposes, officials said.

Sinclair Community College is working with the University of Dayton, Wright State University, local companies and organizations to shape the request, which could go to the Federal Aviation Administration in a few months, said Deborah Norris, vice president of Sinclair’s Workforce Development and Corporate Services.

The Pentagon has been emphasizing deploying more unmanned aerial vehicles in war zones. No one knows how many jobs could result in future years, but it is a growing industry in which Dayton needs a role, said Michael Gessel, a Dayton Development Coalition vice president.

“It opens the Dayton region to a multibillion-dollar industry and has the potential of attracting many high-value manufacturing, science and research jobs,� Gessel said.

Norris declined to reveal the projected location of the flying area, saying that is still up for discussion.

The community college has ordered two unmanned aerial vehicles that it could use for low-altitude, hands-on training flights. Sinclair already has an accredited degree program for airplane pilots and is exploring offering similar training for UAV pilots, Norris said.

RTK

My Feedback: (1)

I always prefer a single action 1911 style with a crisp 2 lb. trigger myself

cj_rumley

Silent:
True enough, I was being a bit facetious.
Everybody knows there is only one viable CBO in this context, yet some can smugly talk about alternatives where none exist.......and try to keep a straight face.

804:

As a modeler you're well aware of the performance impact of power/weight ratio. Go with the Glock.

Gerry:

I think you got your version from '1984' (or was it Animal Farm?). I don't argue against there often being truth in it, but I don't support or voluntarily contribute to the concept.

KidEpoxy

AutoOrd 1911 with a 6" Springfield comp barrel
When in doubt, use a Colt45 or a 45Colt


oh snap
We were all having fun, but you had to play the Noogies card
... aint no Takeybackys from that one

[8D][8D]

Hangin's too good for it.... Burnin's too good for it....
It should be chopped up into little bitty pieces and burried alive

KidEpoxy

now hold on
Dont you recall the guy that proved my bowling team & AMA are both already CBOs

thats two right there, there are gonna be lots of different standards writ

mike31

My Feedback: (67)

We are talking about the idiots we voted for in the past. May the fleas of a thousand camels infest thier armpits.

MinnSpin

My Feedback: (40)

Hah, hah, hah, hah - you guys crack me up! Who needs TV with you comics in the room?

The Toolman

Silent av8r appears to be the Nancy Pelosi of airplane regs an info. "We'll see whats in it after its done" hahaha

Nitro-Tom

The 1911 can be more dangerous than a spinning prop

Carefull if you carry that thing "Locked and Loaded"