Regulation passed the House
02-13-2012, 03:17 PM
#376
RE: Regulation passed the House
What about the wavier system that the AMA has in place, It seems it will be illegal to fly a turbine without having a AMA Turbine waver and how
would you get the waiver without being a AMA member?
would you get the waiver without being a AMA member?
02-13-2012, 04:18 PM
#377
RE: Regulation passed the House
ORIGINAL: KidEpoxy
no, you still are (as team member 50+ calls it) "manufacturing problems".
The FAA is able to write catch22s into the faa rules,
because it is all one big FAA tier circle-
One FAA rules says you must always do XXX, another FAA rule says you must never do XXX,
and the only clarification/arbitration you get is asking the FAA.... and they FAA says always follow both FAA rules.
But we dont have that here at all.
What we have is one Congress law allowing us to do XXX, and a FAA rule that might say XXX Verboten,
and we can simply have the Judicial (branch3) tell us that the Legislature(branch2) is the FAA's(branch1) boss, so do as the laws from congress say.... and the judicial will also likely tell FAA they are to execute the laws from congress not replace them with their own.... its a 3branch government, and we are dealing with the interaction of US Law between the legislators and the executors
Congress put the definition of ModelAircraft (and the definition of CBO in explanation) into US Law.
Congress made the protection of CBOs (within their definition) into US Law.
The FAA cannot then make a rule against CBOs, including a FAA rule to replace congress' definitions with FAA's
(theres your attempt at catch22, CBOs cannot have FAA rules against them but FAA would rule against CBOs by replacing the definition of CBO)
But this is not two FAA tier rules in catch22 as FAA is used to,
This is an attempt to write a FAA tier rule that would Catch22 against a CONGRESS TIER law,
and thus we simply point out that the FAA is to follow instructions(law) given to it by congress. (not to write rules opposing those US laws/instructions)
.... thats what the US Legislature does- it tells folks like the FAA what to do and how to do it... as seen in all the other 400pages of fun new stuff the Legislature is telling the FAA to do and how to do it in the bill
no again
The US Governemnt law writers (legislature)
just created the modelers dream law-
a SuperPermissive definition of MA,
a SuperPermissive definition of CBO,
and total protection of almost all modeling.
THATS what the government just did, it protected modelers(permissive) under CBO programming(permissive) from FAA harassment.
Your belief that the FAA has the authority to supersede / contradict US Laws instructing them,
makes it hard to have rational discussions with you
As for the AMA having different things defined by the FAA. If you don't have them defined the FAA will find a way through Catch 22 FAR's (and they are real good writing them)
The FAA is able to write catch22s into the faa rules,
because it is all one big FAA tier circle-
One FAA rules says you must always do XXX, another FAA rule says you must never do XXX,
and the only clarification/arbitration you get is asking the FAA.... and they FAA says always follow both FAA rules.
But we dont have that here at all.
What we have is one Congress law allowing us to do XXX, and a FAA rule that might say XXX Verboten,
and we can simply have the Judicial (branch3) tell us that the Legislature(branch2) is the FAA's(branch1) boss, so do as the laws from congress say.... and the judicial will also likely tell FAA they are to execute the laws from congress not replace them with their own.... its a 3branch government, and we are dealing with the interaction of US Law between the legislators and the executors
Congress put the definition of ModelAircraft (and the definition of CBO in explanation) into US Law.
Congress made the protection of CBOs (within their definition) into US Law.
The FAA cannot then make a rule against CBOs, including a FAA rule to replace congress' definitions with FAA's
(theres your attempt at catch22, CBOs cannot have FAA rules against them but FAA would rule against CBOs by replacing the definition of CBO)
But this is not two FAA tier rules in catch22 as FAA is used to,
This is an attempt to write a FAA tier rule that would Catch22 against a CONGRESS TIER law,
and thus we simply point out that the FAA is to follow instructions(law) given to it by congress. (not to write rules opposing those US laws/instructions)
.... thats what the US Legislature does- it tells folks like the FAA what to do and how to do it... as seen in all the other 400pages of fun new stuff the Legislature is telling the FAA to do and how to do it in the bill
Government is out to make everyone dependent on it ... if not dependent firmily under Government
(read FAA) control.
(read FAA) control.
The US Governemnt law writers (legislature)
just created the modelers dream law-
a SuperPermissive definition of MA,
a SuperPermissive definition of CBO,
and total protection of almost all modeling.
THATS what the government just did, it protected modelers(permissive) under CBO programming(permissive) from FAA harassment.
Your belief that the FAA has the authority to supersede / contradict US Laws instructing them,
makes it hard to have rational discussions with you
02-13-2012, 04:21 PM
#378
RE: Regulation passed the House
ORIGINAL: ira d
What about the wavier system that the AMA has in place, It seems it will be illegal to fly a turbine without having a AMA Turbine waver and how
would you get the waiver without being a AMA member?
What about the wavier system that the AMA has in place, It seems it will be illegal to fly a turbine without having a AMA Turbine waver and how
would you get the waiver without being a AMA member?
02-13-2012, 04:58 PM
#379
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: San Antonio,
TX
Posts: 6,681
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Regulation passed the House
Silent said
yup
About the only concerns left are regarding the "Intellectual Property" claim and restriction.
But we have another thread discussing that already, so I just refer to it
. . .
Ira
Yup,
I have been mentioning that since the Senate bill, over Turb and the Heavy waivers.
But now that we have the permissive CBO definition from congress,
more CBOs can startup and issue their own C&CFP/USAmA/DIYD/RCUcbo waivers
(or those CBOs might even run a waiverless OnlineTraining&Testing system or whatever as long as its 'extensive')
for the case of teh Heavys, another CBO might develop a 3Tier program,
f1 for <55lb, f2 for 55<100lb, f3 for 100-300lb,
and have f1 and f2 look a lot like what AMA does, and expand on the policies of f2 to control f3.
Whynot, its their cbo and why should we care as long as they follow congress' cbo code.
congress' LAW requires them to be safe regarding manned craft and airports
regardless of what the cbo says about that facet of operations
Since the FAA is no longer part of the equation as far as accepting our safety standards or not, it is not clear what happens now with respect to membership. But I am hard pressed to understand how membership can be required in a practical sense. You print the rules, put them in your toolbox and there you go, you can say you are operating in accordance with the CBO's program.
About the only concerns left are regarding the "Intellectual Property" claim and restriction.
But we have another thread discussing that already, so I just refer to it
. . .
Ira
What about the wavier system that the AMA has in place, It seems it will be illegal to fly a turbine without having a AMA Turbine waver and how
would you get the waiver without being a AMA member?
would you get the waiver without being a AMA member?
I have been mentioning that since the Senate bill, over Turb and the Heavy waivers.
But now that we have the permissive CBO definition from congress,
more CBOs can startup and issue their own C&CFP/USAmA/DIYD/RCUcbo waivers
(or those CBOs might even run a waiverless OnlineTraining&Testing system or whatever as long as its 'extensive')
for the case of teh Heavys, another CBO might develop a 3Tier program,
f1 for <55lb, f2 for 55<100lb, f3 for 100-300lb,
and have f1 and f2 look a lot like what AMA does, and expand on the policies of f2 to control f3.
Whynot, its their cbo and why should we care as long as they follow congress' cbo code.
(3) the aircraft is limited to not more than 55 pounds unless otherwise certified through a design, construction, inspection, flight test, and operational safety program administered by a community-based organization;
(4) the aircraft is operated in a manner that does not interfere with and gives way to any manned aircraft; and
(5) when flown within 5 miles of an airport, the ....
(4) the aircraft is operated in a manner that does not interfere with and gives way to any manned aircraft; and
(5) when flown within 5 miles of an airport, the ....
regardless of what the cbo says about that facet of operations
02-13-2012, 05:06 PM
#380
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: San Antonio,
TX
Posts: 6,681
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Regulation passed the House
Hound
doing that is already excluded from congress' protections of cbo modeling
what are you afraid of,
if someone breaks the existing law, the feds will make that same law More Existier?
Just let some RC'er get close to a GA or Commericial air liner then
(4) the aircraft is operated in a manner that does not interfere with and gives way to any manned aircraft; and
...
(b) Statutory Construction.Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the authority of the Administrator to pursue enforcement action against persons operating model aircraft who endanger the safety of the national airspace system.
...
(b) Statutory Construction.Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the authority of the Administrator to pursue enforcement action against persons operating model aircraft who endanger the safety of the national airspace system.
what are you afraid of,
if someone breaks the existing law, the feds will make that same law More Existier?
02-13-2012, 05:21 PM
#381
RE: Regulation passed the House
ORIGINAL: KidEpoxy
Hound
doing that is already excluded from congress' protections of cbo modeling
what are you afraid of,
if someone breaks the existing law, the feds will make that same law More Existier?
Hound
Just let some RC'er get close to a GA or Commericial air liner then
(4) the aircraft is operated in a manner that does not interfere with and gives way to any manned aircraft; and
...
(b) Statutory Construction.Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the authority of the Administrator to pursue enforcement action against persons operating model aircraft who endanger the safety of the national airspace system.
...
(b) Statutory Construction.Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the authority of the Administrator to pursue enforcement action against persons operating model aircraft who endanger the safety of the national airspace system.
what are you afraid of,
if someone breaks the existing law, the feds will make that same law More Existier?
02-13-2012, 06:06 PM
#382
Senior Member
My Feedback: (-1)
RE: Regulation passed the House
kid i'm not picking at you , i'm 100% AMA have been for a long time , they have never done anything to hurt this hobby , that would only hurt them as well as us , don't like park flyers as they fly unsafe and in unsafe places , if you don't like that i'm sorry but that is just the way it is , and as long as i belong to AMA i follow their rules as the NCBO and i am fine if you don;t belong and fly outside AMA then you answer to the FAA , and yes if you are not a member of AMA why would you expect a waiver from them , it will not happen , like going to the union hall not being a member and expect them to put you to work , thats not going to happen either , just think about it , we all have oponions and we must respect them that is what makes thisa country great and yes gov wants to control everything and we can;t let that happen , that is why AMA is trying to do battle with the FAA any , lets band together and keep this hobby as great as it has always been with no gov intrusion !!!!!!!~!
02-13-2012, 07:14 PM
#383
My Feedback: (58)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: here
Posts: 5,413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Regulation passed the House
ORIGINAL: Silent-AV8R
Since the FAA is no longer part of the equation as far as accepting our safety standards or not, it is not clear what happens now with respect to membership. But I am hard pressed to understand how membership can be required in a practical sense. You print the rules, put them in your toolbox and there you go, you can say you are operating in accordance with the CBO's program.
Since the FAA is no longer part of the equation as far as accepting our safety standards or not, it is not clear what happens now with respect to membership. But I am hard pressed to understand how membership can be required in a practical sense. You print the rules, put them in your toolbox and there you go, you can say you are operating in accordance with the CBO's program.
02-13-2012, 07:22 PM
#384
RE: Regulation passed the House
ORIGINAL: littlecrankshaf
Here’s the deal... after the dust settles and if your above stated theory holds true, without any apparent attempts by AMA to derail or short circuit with over bearing rules to non-members, you will see my name in the AMA MA for giving a large donation to show my appreciation for their hard work and proof positive they are about promoting the hobby.
ORIGINAL: Silent-AV8R
Since the FAA is no longer part of the equation as far as accepting our safety standards or not, it is not clear what happens now with respect to membership. But I am hard pressed to understand how membership can be required in a practical sense. You print the rules, put them in your toolbox and there you go, you can say you are operating in accordance with the CBO's program.
Since the FAA is no longer part of the equation as far as accepting our safety standards or not, it is not clear what happens now with respect to membership. But I am hard pressed to understand how membership can be required in a practical sense. You print the rules, put them in your toolbox and there you go, you can say you are operating in accordance with the CBO's program.
Remember if U keep poke'n a BIG DOG in the butt with sharp stick you will get Bit... BIG DOGS = FAA/HLS & AMA ect.
02-13-2012, 08:38 PM
#385
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Orange County,
CA
Posts: 5,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Regulation passed the House
ORIGINAL: HoundDog
Just remember the CBO is only going to be for specific air space.
Just remember the CBO is only going to be for specific air space.
There is not one shred of evidence to support this very odd assertion. And one more time, what's with your obsession for using weird fonts? Your posts are difficult enough to understand without the added strangeness of the odd colors, sizes, etc.
02-13-2012, 08:54 PM
#386
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: San Antonio,
TX
Posts: 6,681
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Regulation passed the House
Silent
There is not one shred of evidence to support this very odd assertion. And one more time, what's with your obsession for using weird fonts? Your posts are difficult enough to understand without the added strangeness of the odd colors, sizes, etc.
uh, yeah... I think he is just opening the dictionary to random words and typing whatever comes up,
cause his posts have nothing to do with the reality of the bill congress passed or its effect on modelers
I'm done feeding that troll, if you want to continue dealing with him I wish you luck
ORIGINAL: HoundDog
Just remember the CBO is only going to be for specific air space.
Just remember the CBO is only going to be for specific air space.
cause his posts have nothing to do with the reality of the bill congress passed or its effect on modelers
I'm done feeding that troll, if you want to continue dealing with him I wish you luck
02-13-2012, 09:05 PM
#387
RE: Regulation passed the House
ORIGINAL: HoundDog
You Fly under the sUAS FAR's simple as that ... if U don't fly "ON the Reservation" you won't fly anything but a KITE anyway ... Mark my words.
ORIGINAL: ira d
What about the wavier system that the AMA has in place, It seems it will be illegal to fly a turbine without having a AMA Turbine waver and how
would you get the waiver without being a AMA member?
What about the wavier system that the AMA has in place, It seems it will be illegal to fly a turbine without having a AMA Turbine waver and how
would you get the waiver without being a AMA member?
02-13-2012, 09:07 PM
#388
RE: Regulation passed the House
ORIGINAL: llindsey1965
flyersand as long as i belong to AMA i follow their rules as the NCBO and i am fine if you don;t belong and fly outside AMA then you answer to the FAA , and yes if you are not a member of AMA why would you expect a waiver from them , it will not happen , like going to the union hall not being a member and expect them to put you to work , thats not going to happen either ,
flyersand as long as i belong to AMA i follow their rules as the NCBO and i am fine if you don;t belong and fly outside AMA then you answer to the FAA , and yes if you are not a member of AMA why would you expect a waiver from them , it will not happen , like going to the union hall not being a member and expect them to put you to work , thats not going to happen either ,
02-13-2012, 09:56 PM
#389
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: San Antonio,
TX
Posts: 6,681
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Regulation passed the House
Lindsey
Hope you dont mind,
but I'm gonna break your text into a few blocks
to deal with one at a time
ok
I'm not trying to make everyone like every discipline of the hobby, if XXXX flying dont do it for you, ok.
But I am trying to get folks to respect the right to exist of all aeromodeling disciplines.
Even that XXX that I dont particularly favor,
I still will fight for XXXX against those that would shut that part of our hobby down or set them up for defeat.
well, you are still talking like you do not recognize that other startup CBOs are allowed to exist,
like you believe there will not be any CBOs other than AMA
.... even though we clearly see in the text congress writ just how easy it is to become a CBO.
That aside, ok, you are right:
If you dont qualify for congress' cbo protection from FAA, then you are under FAA's thumb.
yup, thats why we have been bringing that particular sticking point up for the past year,
since the Senate bill came out and folks were saying you can fly under CBO Standards without being a member (their justification to defend 2TIER regulation by FAA that crushes the hobby but lets AMA off the hook)
I have been asking defenders of the AMA about that, after the senate bill and now after the congress,
but they have yet to answer with anything other than getting mad at me over them not wanting to admit
AMA will have to issue waivers nor accept that other orgs will issue them internally without AMA. Its not 'bashing' or 'anti-AMA' to see that they havent come up with an answer to that in a year now... cause the simple answer are
Maybe nonmembers actually cant use CBO rules regardless of FAA/Congress, cause AMA wont issue waivers
Maybe AMA will have to just recognize they cant extract $58 from the whole hobby, and issue waivers to nonmembers
Maybe FAA wont accept ama's cbo Standards if they dont allow non-members to get waivers (or start a new waiverless policy)
Been asking for a year now, maybe you will have better luck asking the same question this year.
But seeing how Congress just wrote a blanket protection for CBOs that eliminated the FAA approval of the CBOStandards, we dont really see a method of FAA FORCING AMA to issue or reform the waivers.
Uh, we(ama) just did that battle.
It was fought with a lobbyist rather than a gun or sword.... we won by the way.
yup, we won
We have the spoils to prove it: A bill from congress telling the FAA to sit down and shut up over toy airplanes.
We are golden, practiclly complete freedom of the hobby by permissive CBO & Model definitions and protection.
When you have complete freedom,
any redefinition of that freedom will end up being less .
What battle do you see that now needs to be fought by the AMA?
Its NOT to get our CBO Standards accepted by FAA, congress just eliminated that need.
Its NOT to get a permisive and all inclusive definition of Models, congress just gave us that.
Its NOT to stop FAA from changing congress' law that protects us, the US Legislature just told FAA what to do
(and congress didnt make it 'voluntary FAA compliance of US Law', it really is congress TELLING faa what to do and how to do it: The legislature writes the law and the executive carries those laws out)
Hope you dont mind,
but I'm gonna break your text into a few blocks
to deal with one at a time
kid i'm not picking at you , i'm 100% AMA have been for a long time , they have never done anything to hurt this hobby , that would only hurt them as well as us , don't like park flyers as they fly unsafe and in unsafe places , if you don't like that i'm sorry but that is just the way it is
I'm not trying to make everyone like every discipline of the hobby, if XXXX flying dont do it for you, ok.
But I am trying to get folks to respect the right to exist of all aeromodeling disciplines.
Even that XXX that I dont particularly favor,
I still will fight for XXXX against those that would shut that part of our hobby down or set them up for defeat.
and as long as i belong to AMA i follow their rules as the NCBO and i am fine if you don;t belong and fly outside AMA then you answer to the FAA ,
like you believe there will not be any CBOs other than AMA
.... even though we clearly see in the text congress writ just how easy it is to become a CBO.
That aside, ok, you are right:
If you dont qualify for congress' cbo protection from FAA, then you are under FAA's thumb.
and yes if you are not a member of AMA why would you expect a waiver from them ,
it will not happen , like going to the union hall not being a member and expect them to put you to work , thats not going to happen either ,
it will not happen , like going to the union hall not being a member and expect them to put you to work , thats not going to happen either ,
since the Senate bill came out and folks were saying you can fly under CBO Standards without being a member (their justification to defend 2TIER regulation by FAA that crushes the hobby but lets AMA off the hook)
I have been asking defenders of the AMA about that, after the senate bill and now after the congress,
but they have yet to answer with anything other than getting mad at me over them not wanting to admit
AMA will have to issue waivers nor accept that other orgs will issue them internally without AMA. Its not 'bashing' or 'anti-AMA' to see that they havent come up with an answer to that in a year now... cause the simple answer are
Maybe nonmembers actually cant use CBO rules regardless of FAA/Congress, cause AMA wont issue waivers
Maybe AMA will have to just recognize they cant extract $58 from the whole hobby, and issue waivers to nonmembers
Maybe FAA wont accept ama's cbo Standards if they dont allow non-members to get waivers (or start a new waiverless policy)
Been asking for a year now, maybe you will have better luck asking the same question this year.
But seeing how Congress just wrote a blanket protection for CBOs that eliminated the FAA approval of the CBOStandards, we dont really see a method of FAA FORCING AMA to issue or reform the waivers.
just think about it , we all have oponions and we must respect them that is what makes thisa country great
and yes gov wants to control everything and we can;t let that happen , that is why AMA is trying to do battle with the FAA any , lets band together and keep this hobby as great as it has always been with no gov intrusion !!!!!!!~!
and yes gov wants to control everything and we can;t let that happen , that is why AMA is trying to do battle with the FAA any , lets band together and keep this hobby as great as it has always been with no gov intrusion !!!!!!!~!
It was fought with a lobbyist rather than a gun or sword.... we won by the way.
yup, we won
We have the spoils to prove it: A bill from congress telling the FAA to sit down and shut up over toy airplanes.
We are golden, practiclly complete freedom of the hobby by permissive CBO & Model definitions and protection.
When you have complete freedom,
any redefinition of that freedom will end up being less .
What battle do you see that now needs to be fought by the AMA?
Its NOT to get our CBO Standards accepted by FAA, congress just eliminated that need.
Its NOT to get a permisive and all inclusive definition of Models, congress just gave us that.
Its NOT to stop FAA from changing congress' law that protects us, the US Legislature just told FAA what to do
(and congress didnt make it 'voluntary FAA compliance of US Law', it really is congress TELLING faa what to do and how to do it: The legislature writes the law and the executive carries those laws out)
02-14-2012, 07:35 AM
#391
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: San Antonio,
TX
Posts: 6,681
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Regulation passed the House
well, to put a Worst Case Scenario in scale, I'll first give a Best Case
Best Case:
Nobody does nuthin to tip the apple cart.
AMA respectfully declines FAA's wishes of grabbing approval/control of cbos. AMA enjoys the protections granted by congress, as will other startup cbos that cater to hobby niches AMA either under-caters or wont cater to. Modelers enjoy the freedom by congress and the hobby benefits from more choices and groups. And should AMA find itself the target of the government trying to oppress CBOs, then AMA wont have to stand alone but stand with the other cbo liaisons stating We, ALL the CBOs, will have their combined memberships fight for the hobby(teehee, even though out of the 400k combined memberships, we just skip over the part that many modelers could belong to more than one org).
Good times for all.
....
Really Bad Case (from a few pagses back)
....
Most likely worst case:
Somebody gets themselves taken care of but poisons it for the rest.
Some huge CBO goes ahead right from the start and surrenders control/approval to the FAA, despite congress protection from that, and it sets a precedent that makes it harder for other startup cbos to get out from under FAA's illegal controlling of cbos. Once a huge cbo refuses to take the FAA to court over it, the small startup cbos will have to fight that precedent... and the small startups dont have millions in assets and a rabid fan base of 30000 willing to send $100-$1000 to an ama legal fund.... FAA could just pull the modern classic of bankrupting the plaintiff rather than winning the case on merit. Why would the HUGE cbo choose not to fight FAA approvals/control? Well, maybe its cause that CBO already knows THEY will be approved and its really just other cbos that will suffer / fail to startup.
Where do the FT 200+lb models fly then?
Where do the Look&Launch model gogglepilots fly then?
Where do the Program,Look&Launch autonomous model pilots fly then?
We saw all the non-safety junk in the ARC, junk like model equipment bans, that had AMA's fingerprints all over it... thats what 'we the people' were asking FAA to ban. When we were not free from FAA control we saw junk like that, and the overall abandonment of HeadsDown, from AMA in order to appease the FAA. Come on, 20 folks on the ARC were 19 guys that use and dont mind metal propellers plus AMA that hates metal props... and we see 'the ARC not the AMA' asking the feds to ban them? Asking for a ban???? sheesh[:@]
AMA-Only means no Superheavy cbo rules, AMA-Only means no HeadsDown cbo rules, AMA-Only means no programming the 14oz autonomous heli to fly around your front yard. And all those non-members cannot even vote in AMA leaders that would open up AMA to their disciplines, cause nonmembers cannot vote (hey, lookit that, AMA learned a trick from what they did to the PPP: 'No Vote ForYou')
....
Last month, the government was allowing a lot of model flying, and AMA rules allowed less of it.
Right now congress allows slightly less model flying, and AMA rules allow even less of that.
We dont need to make the government allow less as to be more like AMA.
We dont need to have our 'extensive' cbo documents rewritten/submitted to meet FAA(now illegal)requirements.
We dont need to poison the waters against other cbos.
We DO need to, right off the congressional bat, take FAA to court to stop them from getting any ideas in the future.
Best Case:
Nobody does nuthin to tip the apple cart.
AMA respectfully declines FAA's wishes of grabbing approval/control of cbos. AMA enjoys the protections granted by congress, as will other startup cbos that cater to hobby niches AMA either under-caters or wont cater to. Modelers enjoy the freedom by congress and the hobby benefits from more choices and groups. And should AMA find itself the target of the government trying to oppress CBOs, then AMA wont have to stand alone but stand with the other cbo liaisons stating We, ALL the CBOs, will have their combined memberships fight for the hobby(teehee, even though out of the 400k combined memberships, we just skip over the part that many modelers could belong to more than one org).
Good times for all.
....
Really Bad Case (from a few pagses back)
If some CBO starts up and trys to talk the fed into 'better defining' models as to be Electric Only,
you would be greatly irked over that cbo trying to make what AMA does (glow&gas) a federal offense.
Even regardless of their 'good intentions' to save the planet, and go green, and quiet neighborhoods, and any other junk they say to convince congress to 'better define' model aircraft as Electric Only.
Their 'better definition' is actually a WORSE DEFINITION for model disciplines(gas&glaw)
that they dont consider part of the hobby and therefore they dont need to protect
wow
that Electric Only startup cbo sounds like a bunch of jerks
you would be greatly irked over that cbo trying to make what AMA does (glow&gas) a federal offense.
Even regardless of their 'good intentions' to save the planet, and go green, and quiet neighborhoods, and any other junk they say to convince congress to 'better define' model aircraft as Electric Only.
Their 'better definition' is actually a WORSE DEFINITION for model disciplines(gas&glaw)
that they dont consider part of the hobby and therefore they dont need to protect
wow
that Electric Only startup cbo sounds like a bunch of jerks
Most likely worst case:
Somebody gets themselves taken care of but poisons it for the rest.
Some huge CBO goes ahead right from the start and surrenders control/approval to the FAA, despite congress protection from that, and it sets a precedent that makes it harder for other startup cbos to get out from under FAA's illegal controlling of cbos. Once a huge cbo refuses to take the FAA to court over it, the small startup cbos will have to fight that precedent... and the small startups dont have millions in assets and a rabid fan base of 30000 willing to send $100-$1000 to an ama legal fund.... FAA could just pull the modern classic of bankrupting the plaintiff rather than winning the case on merit. Why would the HUGE cbo choose not to fight FAA approvals/control? Well, maybe its cause that CBO already knows THEY will be approved and its really just other cbos that will suffer / fail to startup.
Where do the FT 200+lb models fly then?
Where do the Look&Launch model gogglepilots fly then?
Where do the Program,Look&Launch autonomous model pilots fly then?
We saw all the non-safety junk in the ARC, junk like model equipment bans, that had AMA's fingerprints all over it... thats what 'we the people' were asking FAA to ban. When we were not free from FAA control we saw junk like that, and the overall abandonment of HeadsDown, from AMA in order to appease the FAA. Come on, 20 folks on the ARC were 19 guys that use and dont mind metal propellers plus AMA that hates metal props... and we see 'the ARC not the AMA' asking the feds to ban them? Asking for a ban???? sheesh[:@]
AMA-Only means no Superheavy cbo rules, AMA-Only means no HeadsDown cbo rules, AMA-Only means no programming the 14oz autonomous heli to fly around your front yard. And all those non-members cannot even vote in AMA leaders that would open up AMA to their disciplines, cause nonmembers cannot vote (hey, lookit that, AMA learned a trick from what they did to the PPP: 'No Vote ForYou')
....
Last month, the government was allowing a lot of model flying, and AMA rules allowed less of it.
Right now congress allows slightly less model flying, and AMA rules allow even less of that.
We dont need to make the government allow less as to be more like AMA.
We dont need to have our 'extensive' cbo documents rewritten/submitted to meet FAA(now illegal)requirements.
We dont need to poison the waters against other cbos.
We DO need to, right off the congressional bat, take FAA to court to stop them from getting any ideas in the future.
02-14-2012, 07:46 AM
#392
My Feedback: (14)
RE: Regulation passed the House
ORIGINAL: Silent-AV8R
There is not one shred of evidence to support this very odd assertion. And one more time, what's with your obsession for using weird fonts? Your posts are difficult enough to understand without the added strangeness of the odd colors, sizes, etc.
ORIGINAL: HoundDog
Just remember the CBO is only going to be for specific air space.
Just remember the CBO is only going to be for specific air space.
There is not one shred of evidence to support this very odd assertion. And one more time, what's with your obsession for using weird fonts? Your posts are difficult enough to understand without the added strangeness of the odd colors, sizes, etc.
02-14-2012, 08:05 AM
#393
RE: Regulation passed the House
ORIGINAL: s3nfo
Yea, that hounddog just don't hunt (OK, sorry, couldn't resist)
ORIGINAL: Silent-AV8R
There is not one shred of evidence to support this very odd assertion. And one more time, what's with your obsession for using weird fonts? Your posts are difficult enough to understand without the added strangeness of the odd colors, sizes, etc.
ORIGINAL: HoundDog
Just remember the CBO is only going to be for specific air space.
Just remember the CBO is only going to be for specific air space.
There is not one shred of evidence to support this very odd assertion. And one more time, what's with your obsession for using weird fonts? Your posts are difficult enough to understand without the added strangeness of the odd colors, sizes, etc.
02-14-2012, 08:21 AM
#394
RE: Regulation passed the House
KE, as a worse case a major calamity will someday be executed by some angry wino with $29.99 to spend on a GPS controlled RTF Harbor Freight plane and that will send all this stuff back to the stone ages with the public's outrage that will be soon to follow.
I'm talking about an attack or series of attacks that effects thousands of innocents....like at stadiums, over open resevoirs, office buildings, school yards, freeways, etc..
Model plane flyers will be more concerned about lynch mobs at that point, than any legal mumbo jumbo.
At that point, even NRA advocates would be willing to throw RC models under the bus.
This is when Control Line makes it's big comeback in about ohhh.... 2050.
I'm talking about an attack or series of attacks that effects thousands of innocents....like at stadiums, over open resevoirs, office buildings, school yards, freeways, etc..
Model plane flyers will be more concerned about lynch mobs at that point, than any legal mumbo jumbo.
At that point, even NRA advocates would be willing to throw RC models under the bus.
This is when Control Line makes it's big comeback in about ohhh.... 2050.
02-14-2012, 11:12 AM
#395
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: sheridan,
IN
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Regulation passed the House
While we're asking all these important questions,
which won't be answered til someone does something and the courts have to decide,
or, someone (like, God forbid, AMA) asks first,
what about this.
A fella buys a Harbor Freight autonomous UAV.
He sets the course, winds her up and lets her go.
He then proceeds to get drunk.
The UAV causes a calamity.
Now, if he's caught, what do we (society) do with him?
Do we charge him with operating a UAV while intoxicated?
Was he actually operating the device while intoxicated?
Or was the device operating itself independently of the fella's drunkeness.
Do we (hobby brethren) throw him under the bus.
Or, turn our heads and let the bus drive over him in his drunken stupor.
Or do we say, NO! He is our hobby brethren, and we must embrace him along with all other MA hobbyists, because Maynard Hill (father of autonomous hobby uav) was a hero.
Or do we try our best to get this all hashed out before the fact.
Man, I don't know.
So many questions.
which won't be answered til someone does something and the courts have to decide,
or, someone (like, God forbid, AMA) asks first,
what about this.
A fella buys a Harbor Freight autonomous UAV.
He sets the course, winds her up and lets her go.
He then proceeds to get drunk.
The UAV causes a calamity.
Now, if he's caught, what do we (society) do with him?
Do we charge him with operating a UAV while intoxicated?
Was he actually operating the device while intoxicated?
Or was the device operating itself independently of the fella's drunkeness.
Do we (hobby brethren) throw him under the bus.
Or, turn our heads and let the bus drive over him in his drunken stupor.
Or do we say, NO! He is our hobby brethren, and we must embrace him along with all other MA hobbyists, because Maynard Hill (father of autonomous hobby uav) was a hero.
Or do we try our best to get this all hashed out before the fact.
Man, I don't know.
So many questions.
02-14-2012, 12:26 PM
#397
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Regulation passed the House
ORIGINAL: combatpigg
KE, as a worse case a major calamity will someday be executed by some angry wino with $29.99 to spend on a GPS controlled RTF Harbor Freight plane and that will send all this stuff back to the stone ages with the public's outrage that will be soon to follow.
I'm talking about an attack or series of attacks that effects thousands of innocents....like at stadiums, over open resevoirs, office buildings, school yards, freeways, etc..
Model plane flyers will be more concerned about lynch mobs at that point, than any legal mumbo jumbo.
At that point, even NRA advocates would be willing to throw RC models under the bus.
This is when Control Line makes it's big comeback in about ohhh.... 2050.
KE, as a worse case a major calamity will someday be executed by some angry wino with $29.99 to spend on a GPS controlled RTF Harbor Freight plane and that will send all this stuff back to the stone ages with the public's outrage that will be soon to follow.
I'm talking about an attack or series of attacks that effects thousands of innocents....like at stadiums, over open resevoirs, office buildings, school yards, freeways, etc..
Model plane flyers will be more concerned about lynch mobs at that point, than any legal mumbo jumbo.
At that point, even NRA advocates would be willing to throw RC models under the bus.
This is when Control Line makes it's big comeback in about ohhh.... 2050.
02-14-2012, 12:39 PM
#398
RE: Regulation passed the House
ORIGINAL: AugerDawger
Angry winos slaughtering thousands of innocents at stadiums with $29 Harbor Freight foamies ?
ORIGINAL: combatpigg
KE, as a worse case a major calamity will someday be executed by some angry wino with $29.99 to spend on a GPS controlled RTF Harbor Freight plane and that will send all this stuff back to the stone ages with the public's outrage that will be soon to follow.
I'm talking about an attack or series of attacks that effects thousands of innocents....like at stadiums, over open resevoirs, office buildings, school yards, freeways, etc..
Model plane flyers will be more concerned about lynch mobs at that point, than any legal mumbo jumbo.
At that point, even NRA advocates would be willing to throw RC models under the bus.
This is when Control Line makes it's big comeback in about ohhh.... 2050.
KE, as a worse case a major calamity will someday be executed by some angry wino with $29.99 to spend on a GPS controlled RTF Harbor Freight plane and that will send all this stuff back to the stone ages with the public's outrage that will be soon to follow.
I'm talking about an attack or series of attacks that effects thousands of innocents....like at stadiums, over open resevoirs, office buildings, school yards, freeways, etc..
Model plane flyers will be more concerned about lynch mobs at that point, than any legal mumbo jumbo.
At that point, even NRA advocates would be willing to throw RC models under the bus.
This is when Control Line makes it's big comeback in about ohhh.... 2050.
Only an idiot would think that could be possible, huh...?
02-14-2012, 01:31 PM
#399
My Feedback: (22)
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 2,972
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Regulation passed the House
ORIGINAL: 804
While we're asking all these important questions,
which won't be answered til someone does something and the courts have to decide,
or, someone (like, God forbid, AMA) asks first,
what about this.
A fella buys a Harbor Freight autonomous UAV.
He sets the course, winds her up and lets her go.
He then proceeds to get drunk.
The UAV causes a calamity.
Now, if he's caught, what do we (society) do with him?
Do we charge him with operating a UAV while intoxicated?
Was he actually operating the device while intoxicated?
Or was the device operating itself independently of the fella's drunkeness.
Do we (hobby brethren) throw him under the bus.
Or, turn our heads and let the bus drive over him in his drunken stupor.
Or do we say, NO! He is our hobby brethren, and we must embrace him along with all other MA hobbyists, because Maynard Hill (father of autonomous hobby uav) was a hero.
Or do we try our best to get this all hashed out before the fact.
Man, I don't know.
So many questions.
While we're asking all these important questions,
which won't be answered til someone does something and the courts have to decide,
or, someone (like, God forbid, AMA) asks first,
what about this.
A fella buys a Harbor Freight autonomous UAV.
He sets the course, winds her up and lets her go.
He then proceeds to get drunk.
The UAV causes a calamity.
Now, if he's caught, what do we (society) do with him?
Do we charge him with operating a UAV while intoxicated?
Was he actually operating the device while intoxicated?
Or was the device operating itself independently of the fella's drunkeness.
Do we (hobby brethren) throw him under the bus.
Or, turn our heads and let the bus drive over him in his drunken stupor.
Or do we say, NO! He is our hobby brethren, and we must embrace him along with all other MA hobbyists, because Maynard Hill (father of autonomous hobby uav) was a hero.
Or do we try our best to get this all hashed out before the fact.
Man, I don't know.
So many questions.
Drunken autonomous flight happens every day of the week !!
02-14-2012, 01:48 PM
#400
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: sheridan,
IN
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Regulation passed the House
ORIGINAL: United_Pilot
Drunken autonomous flight happens every day of the week !!
ORIGINAL: 804
While we're asking all these important questions,
which won't be answered til someone does something and the courts have to decide,
or, someone (like, God forbid, AMA) asks first,
what about this.
A fella buys a Harbor Freight autonomous UAV.
He sets the course, winds her up and lets her go.
He then proceeds to get drunk.
The UAV causes a calamity.
Now, if he's caught, what do we (society) do with him?
Do we charge him with operating a UAV while intoxicated?
Was he actually operating the device while intoxicated?
Or was the device operating itself independently of the fella's drunkeness.
Do we (hobby brethren) throw him under the bus.
Or, turn our heads and let the bus drive over him in his drunken stupor.
Or do we say, NO! He is our hobby brethren, and we must embrace him along with all other MA hobbyists, because Maynard Hill (father of autonomous hobby uav) was a hero.
Or do we try our best to get this all hashed out before the fact.
Man, I don't know.
So many questions.
While we're asking all these important questions,
which won't be answered til someone does something and the courts have to decide,
or, someone (like, God forbid, AMA) asks first,
what about this.
A fella buys a Harbor Freight autonomous UAV.
He sets the course, winds her up and lets her go.
He then proceeds to get drunk.
The UAV causes a calamity.
Now, if he's caught, what do we (society) do with him?
Do we charge him with operating a UAV while intoxicated?
Was he actually operating the device while intoxicated?
Or was the device operating itself independently of the fella's drunkeness.
Do we (hobby brethren) throw him under the bus.
Or, turn our heads and let the bus drive over him in his drunken stupor.
Or do we say, NO! He is our hobby brethren, and we must embrace him along with all other MA hobbyists, because Maynard Hill (father of autonomous hobby uav) was a hero.
Or do we try our best to get this all hashed out before the fact.
Man, I don't know.
So many questions.
Drunken autonomous flight happens every day of the week !!
Hope I didn't offend any drunken autonomous pilots.[X(]