+1
I agree. I don't think it will be what some fear...

Jets??.... I would say they will be OK when the proposed rule comes out.

FPV is first on the chopping block... IMHO.


BTW, this is probably the 500th variation of the NPRM 'What Would You Do?' thread.

... Kind of a waste of time and energy for the OP; Over 2k in views and not even 140 votes says a lot. All he's worried about is if you will vote.

Democracy at work

People seem to be missing the point. The FAA has stated repeatedly that they are not planning on regulating models. Yes, they will have to define what we are, but they are not going to be out looking for models at 401 feet, or 101 mph, or whatever their definition is.

The "enforcement" will come if you cause an accident, and then the enforcement is that you were operating a sUAS illegally since if you are outside the defined parameters of what a model is then you must comply with the rules for sUAS.

Pretty twisted, but there it is. Ultimately, the AMA is trying to sell the FAA on the idea that we can be trusted to act like responsible adults who will comply voluntarily, not petulant children who will only comply if we think we are going to get caught.

Silent I think you made a very good point.

I agree with Silent too, though from the tone of many on these threads, I fear there are too many "children" and not enough "responsible adults."

One aspect of this question that does not appear to have been addressed is what will AMA chartered clubs do. This discussion is based on a worst case scenario and for the sake of that discussion, what will the club allow? We can all talk about our actions, but if faced with severe regulatory restrictions, AMA clubs are going to have to make some tough decisions.

Personally, I feel that this is all going to become ho-hum history when the new FAA NPRM comes out, but we will not know until then.

... and no, I am not a current member of AMA due to my location. I was for years and will be again when I return.

Bedford

Actually, I predict that there will be fire, fury, and gnashing of teeth when the NPRM comes out, namely due to many not understanding the nuances of federal language (this being the first time they've ever read one). Though I've dealt with the FAA for many years, I'll make only a passing attempt to interpret it, and will mostly wait to hear what AMA's counsel says about it.

Silent-AV8R I agree. Leverage for potential new laws and regulations consist of the threat of lawsuits and denial of insurance.

Silent, you're very knowledgeable regarding the AMA and AMA insurance - historically have AMA insurance claims been denied when a safety code violation was involved?

I am not aware of that happening. It is sort of like other rules, laws, etc. Your car insurance still applies even if you are speeding.

Heck, he is known to be a paid expert witness to insure accidental bodily injury claims aren't paid... In one fairly well known case, I don't think the AMA safety code was even broken...yet the injured party was legally denied compensation for his medical bills. Another AMA's AVP looking out for you...

Off topic troll response - deleted

Silent
Do you understand that the reason you never heard of that happening
is when we ask AMA if that is covered, and if AMA will pay in future violation accidents,
they respond by telling us they dont discuss details of those events,
and say future events are 'Depends on the Situation'

so, even if the AMA DID do that,
of course you can say you never heard of it happening cause they refuse to say when it does

Example:
look what happened when I asked basicly the same question over the Tampa Heli Girl thing,
if the insurance pays even if there are law/rule violations:
a very nice and knowledgeable EC guy wouldnt talk about that event and said future events coverage is 'DOTS'.



Your reply to WCF seems to be intentionally misleading him
to believe it doesnt happen cause you never heard of it happening

Off topic troll response - deleted

Beepee
Fortunately, AMA has already worked out a swell plan that answers that,
and it is implemented to protect others as well:
The clubs are not responsible to enforce speed/weight/equipment limits, that is just the pilots responsibility.
(in particular, the look-the-other-way system was for AMA/PPP speed/weight/equip violations)

So clubs can just winkwink look the other way,
no AMA requirement to enforce the rules cause that is up to the pilot.
As with WestCoastFlyer, he wont slow down unless the club makes him, and the club dont have to make him.
That there is some fine 'self regulating' we do,
but dont complain about that particular system dont work right and makes us look bad,
that would be 'bashing' the ama.



also, as another poster pointed out-
>>
It may useful to make note of the fact (from FAQ on the AMA website) that compliance with the COB rules would be voluntary. We all know how that worked out for compliance with FAA's AC 91-57.

>>

it dont matter what I believe,
the guy should call the AMA and ask for the facts from them,
and I wish him good luck in getting any direct confirmation that they will or wont pay for violations
(that the violation itself is the grounds for refusing to pay)

Off topic troll response - deleted

You are correct. Liabilty of the pilot whose model hit the injured party was contested by his homeowners and the AMA based on the assumption of risk that we take when we go out to the flight line. Injured party was found at fault and denied compensation for his injuries, not for breaking any rules, but for having assumed the risk of participating in the model flying activity. Incident occurred at Sepulveda Basin ca 2004-5 for anyone that wants to search further details.

yes, you keep bringing up the bank robbery speeding 'no ama rule' situation...

AMA dont need to enforce FCC rules it dont have,
yet AMA has chosen to create it OWN radio rules in addition to those imposed by the FCC,
so when the AMA has a rule to not use particular radio stuff a certain way,
then YES it is amas job to enforec its own rules
.... well, if it wants to claim it is self regulating it does... otherwise a org that is not self regulating dont have to worry bout its own rules

Off topic troll response - deleted

Off topic troll response - deleted

So you weren't an AMA AVP at the time you testified as a paid expert in that case in which the injured pary was denied the money to pay his medical bills?

Which part of that question is an incorrect inference?

I just happen to think it is very wrong for an AMA AVP to testify in a court preceding to deny an injured party coverage while he is benefiting from the pay as a so-called expert. And further wrong yet when he characterizes the incident in a manner to polarize the jury in an inappropriate way. Just plain wrong IMO anyway you wish to rationalize it.

Just like your attempt to defame or devalue my opinion here citing my anonymity. Weak, very weak... Many people here know me personally.

And BTW you should Know my name. I have made it known often.

So, your credibility is waining, bud.

BS! You know that if the party was found liable the AMA certainly would be on the hook... Hmmm....have you looked into how subrogation works in California???

You are obviously trying to mislead people hear! Makes me sick!

Off topic troll response - deleted

Seems safer to reply to myself.......

I see we're drifting again.

"You noticed."

Seems you'velit a fuse.

"Apparently suppositionblends thedefinitive quantitative measure that a simple straight forward pollmay render."

Go figure.

"It was."

BUT in this thread your and my anonymity is equal to this point. Now, for the check mate.... My name is Mark Humphries in Tyler, Texas... Who are you?

Were you an AVP during the trial in question that you were being paid to testify?... You have yet to answer that... furthermore I doubt you will answer that directly without spin.


People can buy your BS if they wish... later.