Regulation passed the House
02-14-2012, 03:01 PM
#402
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: combatpigg
United Pilot is only kidding........right......[
]...??
United Pilot is only kidding........right......[
]...??
I thought we were all kidding around,
ever since someone mentioned autonomous
coin-op beds and egg timers.
No?
My bad.
02-14-2012, 03:57 PM
#403
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga,
CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Regulation passed the House
ORIGINAL: KidEpoxy
(some snips)
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')
(more snips)
(some snips)
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')
(more snips)
Anybody with idyllic dreams of what will come from having a CBO calling all the shots instead of FAAhas never worked in a union shop.
02-14-2012, 05:26 PM
#404
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
Oh, sooo many posts to respond to
I'll knock out a few easy ones first-
Auger
thats just being silly,
the HF Apocalypse Flyer is $59, you cant kill 2 cats with the $29 one
. . .
CJ
ahh, but at least we have the permissive CBO definition from congress
to facilitate opening up new shops all over the place.
CP is in Wash, I'm in Texas, you got Mo, we got guys here in NY and the eastern seaboard
... sounds like a pretty 'national' group of fellas.
We slap together an 'extensive' code of policies/safety/rules,
have our rep make a few calls to some feds and schools,
and presto- WeBeCBO [8D] ...Tag, you're Prez.
. . .
804
You missed entirely on how the court will be used, not against a pilot but against the FAA.
We shouldnt be waiting to get the court involved till there is an incident:
the 'fact' that you want it hashed out before, the event that brings in the court,
is the moment the FAA trys to tell a CBO somethig is mandatory... that is an unlawful action by the FAA under our new Congress Protection. The moment FAA tells us about some rule requiring our cbo to...
STOP RIGHT THERE!!!
Congress said the FAA cant do that- FAA cannot make a rule like that (whatever the rule is about),
and when they do WE SUE THE FAA FOR $1000 per flyer (135k members in ama right?)
Thats when we get the court involved-
when WE use the court to SPANK the FAA for violating congress' protection of us
Thats our negotiating tool when dealing with the FAA.... we can sue them if they try to boss us around.
All we need to know is this simple term when dealing with FAA
We're sorry FAA, but the AMA is disinclined to acquiesce to your request
I'll knock out a few easy ones first-
Auger
Angry winos slaughtering thousands of innocents at stadiums with $29 Harbor Freight foamies ?
the HF Apocalypse Flyer is $59, you cant kill 2 cats with the $29 one
. . .
CJ
Anybody with idyllic dreams of what will come from having a CBO calling all the shots instead of FAA has never worked in a union shop.
to facilitate opening up new shops all over the place.
CP is in Wash, I'm in Texas, you got Mo, we got guys here in NY and the eastern seaboard
... sounds like a pretty 'national' group of fellas.
We slap together an 'extensive' code of policies/safety/rules,
have our rep make a few calls to some feds and schools,
and presto- WeBeCBO [8D] ...Tag, you're Prez.
. . .
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.
...snip...
Or do we try our best to get this all hashed out before the fact.
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.
...snip...
Or do we try our best to get this all hashed out before the fact.
We shouldnt be waiting to get the court involved till there is an incident:
the 'fact' that you want it hashed out before, the event that brings in the court,
is the moment the FAA trys to tell a CBO somethig is mandatory... that is an unlawful action by the FAA under our new Congress Protection. The moment FAA tells us about some rule requiring our cbo to...
STOP RIGHT THERE!!!
Congress said the FAA cant do that- FAA cannot make a rule like that (whatever the rule is about),
and when they do WE SUE THE FAA FOR $1000 per flyer (135k members in ama right?)
Thats when we get the court involved-
when WE use the court to SPANK the FAA for violating congress' protection of us
Thats our negotiating tool when dealing with the FAA.... we can sue them if they try to boss us around.
All we need to know is this simple term when dealing with FAA
We're sorry FAA, but the AMA is disinclined to acquiesce to your request
02-14-2012, 06:05 PM
#405
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
804
well, lets check the ole congress bill-
so there you go,
We do the same to him now as we did last month... when autonomous hobby craft were legal.
... before congress' bill that made what was (not illegal) then become (not illegal) now.
Congress made no mention of changing last months DUI laws with this bill.
Congress made no mention of changing last months 'calamity' handling laws.
Congress DID say that this bill actually fully allows those DUI/Calamity punishment to be enforced by the FAA.
Further, even if someone if acquitted of charges against them
that dont mean they dont get a court punishment spanking.... ask OJ about that
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?
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?
(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.
We do the same to him now as we did last month... when autonomous hobby craft were legal.
... before congress' bill that made what was (not illegal) then become (not illegal) now.
Congress made no mention of changing last months DUI laws with this bill.
Congress made no mention of changing last months 'calamity' handling laws.
Congress DID say that this bill actually fully allows those DUI/Calamity punishment to be enforced by the FAA.
Further, even if someone if acquitted of charges against them
that dont mean they dont get a court punishment spanking.... ask OJ about that
02-14-2012, 06:13 PM
#406
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: KidEpoxy
804
well, lets check the ole congress bill-
so there you go,
We do the same to him now as we did last month... when autonomous hobby craft were legal.
... before congress' bill that made what was (not illegal) then become (not illegal) now.
Congress made no mention of changing last months DUI laws with this bill.
Congress made no mention of changing last months 'calamity' handling laws.
Congress DID say that this bill actually fully allows those DUI/Calamity punishment to be enforced by the FAA.
Further, even if someone if acquitted of charges against them
that dont mean they dont get a court punishment spanking.... ask OJ about that
804
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?
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?
(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.
We do the same to him now as we did last month... when autonomous hobby craft were legal.
... before congress' bill that made what was (not illegal) then become (not illegal) now.
Congress made no mention of changing last months DUI laws with this bill.
Congress made no mention of changing last months 'calamity' handling laws.
Congress DID say that this bill actually fully allows those DUI/Calamity punishment to be enforced by the FAA.
Further, even if someone if acquitted of charges against them
that dont mean they dont get a court punishment spanking.... ask OJ about that
that part of the post was tongue-in-cheek.
I guess I should warn folks from now on. Sorry.
02-14-2012, 06:21 PM
#408
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: KidEpoxy
We shouldnt be waiting to get the court involved till there is an incident:
the 'fact' that you want it hashed out before, [b]the event that brings in the court,
the 'fact' that you want it hashed out before, [b]the event that brings in the court,
I'm sure it's my fault,
but, could you rephrase this?
(not meant to be bolded)
02-14-2012, 06:23 PM
#409
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
CP
Be careful with trying to play the Doom card to hurt one type of modeling,
cause that card comes in a pack of 52
and you can fairly well bet someone else will play the Doom card on something you care for,
and then say 'you started it, you must agree'
consider
f(Z) = "A person could use a" Z "model plane as a weapon"
Evaluate f(Z) : Z = { Autonomous, >55lb, Turbine, .40sport, Uncontroled(FF), Hobby }
Be careful with trying to play the Doom card to hurt one type of modeling,
cause that card comes in a pack of 52
and you can fairly well bet someone else will play the Doom card on something you care for,
and then say 'you started it, you must agree'
consider
f(Z) = "A person could use a" Z "model plane as a weapon"
Evaluate f(Z) : Z = { Autonomous, >55lb, Turbine, .40sport, Uncontroled(FF), Hobby }
02-14-2012, 08:21 PM
#410
RE: Regulation passed the House
KE, no matter what happens I'll always find a way to enjoy myself in this hobby, even if it comes down to rubberband power. ....heck, even if it comes down to flying micro control line combat with house flies for the engines.
I'm not trying to "hurt" any aspect of model aviation....just trying to be prophetic about what I see as a delivery system that is already too accessible for any Yayhoo with a chip on his shoulder and getting more so as the days go by.
I'm not trying to "hurt" any aspect of model aviation....just trying to be prophetic about what I see as a delivery system that is already too accessible for any Yayhoo with a chip on his shoulder and getting more so as the days go by.
02-15-2012, 04:07 AM
#411
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Regulation passed the House
ORIGINAL: combatpigg
Skyjackers taking down the World Trade Center..?
Only an idiot would think that could be possible, huh...?
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 $29.99 to spend on a GPS controlled RTF Harbor Freight plane and that will send all this stuff back to the stone ages with the public's outrage that will be soon to follow.
I'm talking about an attack or series of attacks that effects thousands of innocents....like at stadiums, over open resevoirs, office buildings, school yards, freeways, etc..
Model plane flyers will be more concerned about lynch mobs at that point, than any legal mumbo jumbo.
At that point, even NRA advocates would be willing to throw RC models under the bus.
This is when Control Line makes it's big comeback in about ohhh.... 2050.
Only an idiot would think that could be possible, huh...?
Winos and a 29$ Harbor Freight foamies attacking a stadium or office building is patently retarded.
There are many more viable threats that can pulled off with HF supplies.
02-15-2012, 04:12 AM
#412
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Regulation passed the House
ORIGINAL: combatpigg
I'm not trying to "hurt" any aspect of model aviation....just trying to be prophetic about what I see as a delivery system that is already too accessible for any Yayhoo with a chip on his shoulder and getting more so as the days go by.
I'm not trying to "hurt" any aspect of model aviation....just trying to be prophetic about what I see as a delivery system that is already too accessible for any Yayhoo with a chip on his shoulder and getting more so as the days go by.
Explain the delivery system and threat......you realize building a bomb is already illegal ?
You sound like a Fudd shooter that wants to curtail lawful machine gun ownership because you're a prophet and know that a legal MG is going to be used in a crime and wipe out your right to own a single shot deer rifle.
02-15-2012, 06:29 AM
#413
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
CP
We are the ones that are supposed to be educating folks to eliminate/reduce fear of modeling.
Your recent posts are not just failing to stop the spread of Fear-mongering, but are fear-mongering themselves.
Again, trying to throw one discipline to the wolves with a fear-mongering justification
WILL be used by others to justify taking down other modeling with fear-mongering
lemme demonstrate again, for your new fear-mongeration:
g(Z) = X "model planes can be used as a delivery system"
Evaluate g(Z) : Z = { Autonomous, >55lb, Turbine, .40sport, Uncontroled(FF), Hobby }
we, in the hobby, need to work at stopping this kind of Divide & Conquer of the hobby,
not be the ones advocating incremental death of aeromodeling, discipline by discipline.
just trying to be prophetic about what I see as a delivery system that is already too accessible for any Yayhoo with a chip on his shoulder and getting more so as the days go by.
Your recent posts are not just failing to stop the spread of Fear-mongering, but are fear-mongering themselves.
Again, trying to throw one discipline to the wolves with a fear-mongering justification
WILL be used by others to justify taking down other modeling with fear-mongering
lemme demonstrate again, for your new fear-mongeration:
g(Z) = X "model planes can be used as a delivery system"
Evaluate g(Z) : Z = { Autonomous, >55lb, Turbine, .40sport, Uncontroled(FF), Hobby }
we, in the hobby, need to work at stopping this kind of Divide & Conquer of the hobby,
not be the ones advocating incremental death of aeromodeling, discipline by discipline.
02-15-2012, 06:31 AM
#414
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: combatpigg
KE, no matter what happens I'll always find a way to enjoy myself in this hobby, even if it comes down to rubberband power. ....heck, even if it comes down to flying micro control line combat with house flies for the engines.
I'm not trying to ''hurt'' any aspect of model aviation....just trying to be prophetic about what I see as a delivery system that is already too accessible for any Yayhoo with a chip on his shoulder and getting more so as the days go by.
KE, no matter what happens I'll always find a way to enjoy myself in this hobby, even if it comes down to rubberband power. ....heck, even if it comes down to flying micro control line combat with house flies for the engines.
I'm not trying to ''hurt'' any aspect of model aviation....just trying to be prophetic about what I see as a delivery system that is already too accessible for any Yayhoo with a chip on his shoulder and getting more so as the days go by.
Seriously, basing what is OK for you, to define the perimeters for others, based purely on your lake of desires or your ambition is a very scary thought... We are a country based in God’s trust and all actions against that trust should always carry full force regardless of a law or lack of one...that is what we are getting away from in this country and that is the real problem...
It seems some people are trying to base our existence on the letter of the law, exploiting loopholes instead of observing the spirit of our laws... Said another way, we do not need laws to cover any or every conceivable evil action or unfairness...they are endless... Its really not hard to see whats wrong with any act if God’s law is the metric.
02-15-2012, 07:08 AM
#415
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
To put this to bed,
What we are talking about these last few posts
should not be a prophetic exercise in WHAT COULD HAPPEN,
but should look at what DID happen.
We need no crystal ball to see the government reaction
to some fool caught loading up a RC hobby aircraft with an idiotic weight of ord, to 'cause a clamity' (804).
(the guy said he wanted to set it up for BLOS,
but we can evaluate his modeling ability and say that wasnt likely to happen... they were RC when seized)
DID the feds ban the control method of that ignorant(aero&telem) terrorist... a fed ban on RC?
The event DID happen, he was caught with his RC hobby planes intended for terror,
its not a speculation but an observation... did that one jerk ruin it for all RC folks?
We should not be picking winners and losers among our hobby disciplines.
If we defend the RC planes that WERE being used in one terror plot,
we should also extend the same effort to protect any other discipline toy planes in terror plots.
If you surrender Autonomous & FPV as 'weaponizable',
then FF is next cause it is a far better 'terror' weapon for its random impacts throughout a city.
One FPV foamie loaded beyond takeoff wt to attack a particular building Manhattan
is not as bad as launching 3 or 4 FF 50cc cubs with 3x the payload hitting shotgunesque thruout the city: nobody is safe.
So do we ban FF cause its been the guidance of choice for arty shells for a century or three?
What we are talking about these last few posts
should not be a prophetic exercise in WHAT COULD HAPPEN,
but should look at what DID happen.
We need no crystal ball to see the government reaction
to some fool caught loading up a RC hobby aircraft with an idiotic weight of ord, to 'cause a clamity' (804).
(the guy said he wanted to set it up for BLOS,
but we can evaluate his modeling ability and say that wasnt likely to happen... they were RC when seized)
DID the feds ban the control method of that ignorant(aero&telem) terrorist... a fed ban on RC?
The event DID happen, he was caught with his RC hobby planes intended for terror,
its not a speculation but an observation... did that one jerk ruin it for all RC folks?
We should not be picking winners and losers among our hobby disciplines.
If we defend the RC planes that WERE being used in one terror plot,
we should also extend the same effort to protect any other discipline toy planes in terror plots.
If you surrender Autonomous & FPV as 'weaponizable',
then FF is next cause it is a far better 'terror' weapon for its random impacts throughout a city.
One FPV foamie loaded beyond takeoff wt to attack a particular building Manhattan
is not as bad as launching 3 or 4 FF 50cc cubs with 3x the payload hitting shotgunesque thruout the city: nobody is safe.
So do we ban FF cause its been the guidance of choice for arty shells for a century or three?
02-15-2012, 07:29 AM
#416
RE: Regulation passed the House
ORIGINAL: littlecrankshaf
CP, what you just said is exactly what I see as the real problem...doesn’t really matter on what side of the equation we are talking about. Maybe the government should just raise us, cradle to grave in a cell and give us one piece of paper to fold and tell us to enjoy... Oh, wait...they might get a paper cut...well so much for that solution...
Seriously, basing what is OK for you, to define the perimeters for others, based purely on your lake of desires or your ambition is a very scary thought... We are a country based in God’s trust and all actions against that trust should always carry full force regardless of a law or lack of one...that is what we are getting away from in this country and that is the real problem...
It seems some people are trying to base our existence on the letter of the law, exploiting loopholes instead of observing the spirit of our laws... Said another way, we do not need laws to cover any or every conceivable evil action or unfairness...they are endless... Its really not hard to see whats wrong with any act if God’s law is the metric.
ORIGINAL: combatpigg
KE, no matter what happens I'll always find a way to enjoy myself in this hobby, even if it comes down to rubberband power. ....heck, even if it comes down to flying micro control line combat with house flies for the engines.
I'm not trying to ''hurt'' any aspect of model aviation....just trying to be prophetic about what I see as a delivery system that is already too accessible for any Yayhoo with a chip on his shoulder and getting more so as the days go by.
KE, no matter what happens I'll always find a way to enjoy myself in this hobby, even if it comes down to rubberband power. ....heck, even if it comes down to flying micro control line combat with house flies for the engines.
I'm not trying to ''hurt'' any aspect of model aviation....just trying to be prophetic about what I see as a delivery system that is already too accessible for any Yayhoo with a chip on his shoulder and getting more so as the days go by.
Seriously, basing what is OK for you, to define the perimeters for others, based purely on your lake of desires or your ambition is a very scary thought... We are a country based in God’s trust and all actions against that trust should always carry full force regardless of a law or lack of one...that is what we are getting away from in this country and that is the real problem...
It seems some people are trying to base our existence on the letter of the law, exploiting loopholes instead of observing the spirit of our laws... Said another way, we do not need laws to cover any or every conceivable evil action or unfairness...they are endless... Its really not hard to see whats wrong with any act if God’s law is the metric.
Believe it or not there once was a time that any farmer or rancher could drive on down to the local Co-op and buy dynamite. Too bad those who lacked the desire or ambition to use dynamite in constructive ways put severe restrictions on it's sale and usage or we could buy it at 7/11 now.
KE, you don't need to load up planes with a ridiculous amount of ord to cause a mass stampede of humanity in full panic mode out of a stadium.
This latest congressional act that everyone is feeling so warm and fuzzy about is nothing more than a "House of Cards" that could come toppling down with a shopping spree at Harbor Freight by just 1 Sicko or maybe a small posse of Sickos.
02-15-2012, 08:58 AM
#417
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga,
CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Regulation passed the House
ORIGINAL: combatpigg
Then let's start selling .50 caliber machine guns and sticks of dynamite at Walmart for a "low-low price" because we don't need laws to cover every conceivable evil action if we simply work with God's Law.
Believe it or not there once was a time that any farmer or rancher could drive on down to the local Co-op and buy dynamite. Too bad those who lacked the desire or ambition to use dynamite in constructive ways put severe restrictions on it's sale and usage or we could buy it at 7/11 now.
KE, you don't need to load up planes with a ridiculous amount of ord to cause a mass stampede of humanity in full panic mode out of a stadium.
This latest congressional act that everyone is feeling so warm and fuzzy about is nothing more than a "House of Cards" that could come toppling down with a shopping spree at Harbor Freight by just 1 Sicko or maybe a small posse of Sickos.
Then let's start selling .50 caliber machine guns and sticks of dynamite at Walmart for a "low-low price" because we don't need laws to cover every conceivable evil action if we simply work with God's Law.
Believe it or not there once was a time that any farmer or rancher could drive on down to the local Co-op and buy dynamite. Too bad those who lacked the desire or ambition to use dynamite in constructive ways put severe restrictions on it's sale and usage or we could buy it at 7/11 now.
KE, you don't need to load up planes with a ridiculous amount of ord to cause a mass stampede of humanity in full panic mode out of a stadium.
This latest congressional act that everyone is feeling so warm and fuzzy about is nothing more than a "House of Cards" that could come toppling down with a shopping spree at Harbor Freight by just 1 Sicko or maybe a small posse of Sickos.
One more time, the topic of this thread is a provision in an Act of Congress to limit FAA regulation of MAby FAA. FAAisn't chartered to deal with the kind of issues you are bringing up.........maybe OHS, but they aren't involvedin this Act.
(okay Silent, you have repeated this 'till you're blue in the face....you owe me one..........)
CJ
02-15-2012, 10:20 AM
#420
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: KidEpoxy
To put this to bed,
What we are talking about these last few posts
should not be a prophetic exercise in WHAT COULD HAPPEN,
but should look at what DID happen.
We need no crystal ball to see the government reaction
to some fool caught loading up a RC hobby aircraft with an idiotic weight of ord, to 'cause a clamity' (804).
(the guy said he wanted to set it up for BLOS,
but we can evaluate his modeling ability and say that wasnt likely to happen... they were RC when seized)
DID the feds ban the control method of that ignorant(aero&telem) terrorist... a fed ban on RC?
The event DID happen, he was caught with his RC hobby planes intended for terror,
its not a speculation but an observation... did that one jerk ruin it for all RC folks?
We should not be picking winners and losers among our hobby disciplines.
If we defend the RC planes that WERE being used in one terror plot,
we should also extend the same effort to protect any other discipline toy planes in terror plots.
If you surrender Autonomous & FPV as 'weaponizable',
then FF is next cause it is a far better 'terror' weapon for its random impacts throughout a city.
One FPV foamie loaded beyond takeoff wt to attack a particular building Manhattan
is not as bad as launching 3 or 4 FF 50cc cubs with 3x the payload hitting shotgunesque thruout the city: nobody is safe.
So do we ban FF cause its been the guidance of choice for arty shells for a century or three?
To put this to bed,
What we are talking about these last few posts
should not be a prophetic exercise in WHAT COULD HAPPEN,
but should look at what DID happen.
We need no crystal ball to see the government reaction
to some fool caught loading up a RC hobby aircraft with an idiotic weight of ord, to 'cause a clamity' (804).
(the guy said he wanted to set it up for BLOS,
but we can evaluate his modeling ability and say that wasnt likely to happen... they were RC when seized)
DID the feds ban the control method of that ignorant(aero&telem) terrorist... a fed ban on RC?
The event DID happen, he was caught with his RC hobby planes intended for terror,
its not a speculation but an observation... did that one jerk ruin it for all RC folks?
We should not be picking winners and losers among our hobby disciplines.
If we defend the RC planes that WERE being used in one terror plot,
we should also extend the same effort to protect any other discipline toy planes in terror plots.
If you surrender Autonomous & FPV as 'weaponizable',
then FF is next cause it is a far better 'terror' weapon for its random impacts throughout a city.
One FPV foamie loaded beyond takeoff wt to attack a particular building Manhattan
is not as bad as launching 3 or 4 FF 50cc cubs with 3x the payload hitting shotgunesque thruout the city: nobody is safe.
So do we ban FF cause its been the guidance of choice for arty shells for a century or three?
2-3, more, who knows. Maybe it would be a terrorist using fpv, auto, rc, maybe not.
Maybe it would be a misguided teen mad at his teacher. Who knows.
Maybe it will never happen.
I'm not against hobbyists using techy stuff.
What I am against is folks using techy stuff in a threatening manner,
and the rest of us getting blamed for it.
You say we are safe from that with this new bill as long as AMA and the rest of us keep our mouths shut.
I'm not so sure.
AMA is behind this bill, they ramrodded it, it passed, and
and they who ramrodded it think a little clarification is needed.
Nothing you can say here is gonna make a bit of difference in the end.
Go take it up with Muncie.
02-15-2012, 10:56 AM
#421
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Orange County,
CA
Posts: 5,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Regulation passed the House
Just FYI, the President singed H.R. 658 into la last night (2/14/12)
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-...588-and-hr-658
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-...588-and-hr-658
02-15-2012, 02:24 PM
#422
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Round Hill, VA
Posts: 1,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Regulation passed the House
ORIGINAL: Silent-AV8R
Just FYI, the President singed H.R. 658 into la last night (2/14/12)
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-...588-and-hr-658
Just FYI, the President singed H.R. 658 into la last night (2/14/12)
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-...588-and-hr-658
As for you government haters and AMA haters out there - Ihave nothing to say as Ido not comprehend your issues with the AMAand our government of the people, by the people and for the people.
SEC. 336. SPECIAL RULE FOR MODEL AIRCRAFT.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law relating to the incorporation of unmanned aircraft systems into Federal Aviation Administration plans and policies, including this subtitle, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration may not promulgate any rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft, or an aircraft being developed as a model aircraft, if
(1) the aircraft is flown strictly for hobby or recreational use;
(2) the aircraft is operated in accordance with a communitybased set of safety guidelines and within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization;
(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 operator of the aircraft provides the airport operator and the airport air traffic control tower (when an air traffic facility is located at the airport) with prior notice of the operation (model aircraft operators flying from a permanent location within 5 miles of an airport should establish a mutually-agreed upon operating procedure with the airport operator and the airport air traffic control tower (when an air traffic facility is located at the airport)).
(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.
(c) MODEL AIRCRAFT DEFINED.—In this section, the term ‘‘model aircraft’’ means an unmanned aircraft that is
(1) capable of sustained flight in the atmosphere;
(2) flown within visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft; and
(3) flown for hobby or recreational purposes.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law relating to the incorporation of unmanned aircraft systems into Federal Aviation Administration plans and policies, including this subtitle, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration may not promulgate any rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft, or an aircraft being developed as a model aircraft, if
(1) the aircraft is flown strictly for hobby or recreational use;
(2) the aircraft is operated in accordance with a communitybased set of safety guidelines and within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization;
(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 operator of the aircraft provides the airport operator and the airport air traffic control tower (when an air traffic facility is located at the airport) with prior notice of the operation (model aircraft operators flying from a permanent location within 5 miles of an airport should establish a mutually-agreed upon operating procedure with the airport operator and the airport air traffic control tower (when an air traffic facility is located at the airport)).
(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.
(c) MODEL AIRCRAFT DEFINED.—In this section, the term ‘‘model aircraft’’ means an unmanned aircraft that is
(1) capable of sustained flight in the atmosphere;
(2) flown within visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft; and
(3) flown for hobby or recreational purposes.
02-15-2012, 02:43 PM
#423
RE: Regulation passed the House
ORIGINAL: JohnShe
They can then be presented to the FAA, I think, and if the FAA accepts them, you can fly to your hearts content.
They can then be presented to the FAA, I think, and if the FAA accepts them, you can fly to your hearts content.
I saw no where in the law that said the FAA gets to "accept" or approve what constitutes a "CBO" , , , just that an RCer must be CBO compliant ...... I think the whole point of the Model Aircraft provision was to keep the FAA from regulating model avation , and here you say that the CBO's regs must meet FAA approval ? You sure about that ?
02-15-2012, 03:40 PM
#425
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: init4fun
I saw no where in the law that said the FAA gets to ''accept'' or approve what constitutes a ''CBO'' , , , just that an RCer must be CBO compliant ...... I think the whole point of the Model Aircraft provision was to keep the FAA from regulating model avation , and here you say that the CBO's regs must meet FAA approval ?
You sure about that ?
ORIGINAL: JohnShe
They can then be presented to the FAA, I think, and if the FAA accepts them, you can fly to your hearts content.
They can then be presented to the FAA, I think, and if the FAA accepts them, you can fly to your hearts content.
I saw no where in the law that said the FAA gets to ''accept'' or approve what constitutes a ''CBO'' , , , just that an RCer must be CBO compliant ...... I think the whole point of the Model Aircraft provision was to keep the FAA from regulating model avation , and here you say that the CBO's regs must meet FAA approval ? You sure about that ?
In this section the term ``nationwide community-based organization'' is intended to mean a membership based association that
represents the aeromodeling community within the United States; provides its members a comprehensive set of safety guidelines that underscores safe aeromodeling operations within the
National Airspace System and the protection and safety of the general public on the ground; develops and maintains mutually supportive programming with educational institutions,
government entities and other aviation associations; and acts as a liaison with government agencies as an advocate for its members.
represents the aeromodeling community within the United States; provides its members a comprehensive set of safety guidelines that underscores safe aeromodeling operations within the
National Airspace System and the protection and safety of the general public on the ground; develops and maintains mutually supportive programming with educational institutions,
government entities and other aviation associations; and acts as a liaison with government agencies as an advocate for its members.