Regulation passed the House
02-16-2012, 10:35 AM
#451
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
First off, KidEpoxy, your contempt for teh AMA and government is showing. Now...
I told you the bill didnt contain any requirement despite your repeated attempts to say it did,
and asked you to highlight ANY word in the bill that was even a close synomym to 'require'.
You failed to highlight any words like that.
the most likely reason you failed to identify congress' words that were requiring FAA approval,
is that THERE ARE NONE OF COGRESS' WORDS THAT REQUIRE FAA APPROVAL of cbos.
It is up to the FAA to determine that these criteria and definitions are met. It is up to the AMA to demonstrate that they meet these criteria and definitions. The law is clear.
It dont have them words, stop adding your own agenda to what congress put into law.
The word 'determine' is not in congress' text, so dont YOU ADD IT in meaning.
The word 'demonstrate' is not in congress' text, so dont YOU ADD IT in meaning.
The text you cited show no mandate to FAA to do any determining what qualifies for congress' protection from them.
The text you cited show no mandate to CBOs to do ant Demonstrating they qualify for congress' protection from FAA.
If you are unclear as to what congress meant, congress already put exactly what they meant into the note Silent found.
The requirements and mandated actions you keep posting about
exist only in your mind and agenda driven posts that ignore the actual text of the law.
Do not confuse me pointing out your (repeated) failure to comprehend the bill,
with me not liking the US or AMA.
again,
JohnShe, rather than just asking us to believe you when you stand back and vaguely nod toward the entire bill,
could you quote where congress says cbo docs must be given to ANY fed boys,
and highlight the word 'REQUIRED' in the citation (or its synonym like SHALL or MUST or WILL etc)
02-16-2012, 10:44 AM
#452
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
BKD
Indeed
Good post.
I would add one more line as that-
What Congress enacts, Congress can repeal, and
what Congress enacts, FAA cannot repeal, countermand, or contradict
Bill passed and signed by the President. Good job.
We can now answer the infamous comma question on AC 91-57 (which takes precendence, FAA guideline or AMA safety code) and the AMA wins.
We hobbyists have to continue to act responsibly.
If someone doesn't behave responsibly, the FAA has the teeth to act if they choose.
What Congress enacts, Congress can repeal.
We can now answer the infamous comma question on AC 91-57 (which takes precendence, FAA guideline or AMA safety code) and the AMA wins.
We hobbyists have to continue to act responsibly.
If someone doesn't behave responsibly, the FAA has the teeth to act if they choose.
What Congress enacts, Congress can repeal.
Good post.
I would add one more line as that-
What Congress enacts, Congress can repeal, and
what Congress enacts, FAA cannot repeal, countermand, or contradict
02-16-2012, 11:02 AM
#453
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: KidEpoxy
again,
JohnShe, rather than just asking us to believe you when you stand back and vaguely nod toward the entire bill,
could you quote where congress says cbo docs must be given to ANY fed boys,
and highlight the word 'REQUIRED' in the citation (or its synonym like SHALL or MUST or WILL etc)
again,
JohnShe, rather than just asking us to believe you when you stand back and vaguely nod toward the entire bill,
could you quote where congress says cbo docs must be given to ANY fed boys,
and highlight the word 'REQUIRED' in the citation (or its synonym like SHALL or MUST or WILL etc)
Here it is again.
Read the law, it is perfectly clear.
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 community based 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 community based 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.
The boldfaced, underlined and italic text of the SPECIALRULE clearly directs the FAA to determine if any special group meets the specified criteria in the Bill.
Congress is directing the FAA to regulate the use of drones in public airspace. While, at the same time, telling the FAA that they cannot regulate model aviation operations that meet the criteria and definitions given in the special rule. It is up to the FAA to determine that these criteria and definitions are met. It is up to the AMA to demonstrate that they meet these criteria and definitions. The law is clear.
The AMAhas already approached the FAAhand has a working relationship with them. We know that the AMA is a CBO, we know that the FAA can accept the AMAas a CBO and is likely to accept them although that has not been officially announced by the FAA. We know that the AMAhas a set of guidelines that can meet the concept of guidelines in the law, but that has not been officially announced either.
But, I am confident that the FAAand the AMAare working in our best interest.
02-16-2012, 11:03 AM
#454
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
yeah, back then, and up to that point
(good thing its still fresh in our memories huh
)
ok, so we are in agreement then:
There is no actual external force imposing the AMA to remake, nor submit, their docs,
but as a purely internal decision it would be prudent to improve them in some non-detrimental ways.
However, you raised a new and interesting point (heh, the old One Answer raises another question [8D]):
You bring up the 4year term of the bill.
before I post my interpretation and inducements, what is your take on-
We know the act funds FAA for 4 years,
but in regards to the changes of the laws (such as changing a FAR or union laws or whatnot),
do you believe the law changed in this bill become undone in 4 years,
or are the changes in law permanent until other congressional action changes/repeals them?
With no further congressional action-
In 4 years, do the union rules revert back?
In 4 years do the FAR changes revert back?
In 4 years, does the model airplane law revert back?
Back then, you mean last week?
(good thing its still fresh in our memories huh
)
I think the AMA feels that they have invested considerable time and effort at working on making our operational guidelines robust enough that they would not be questioned by anyone who looked at them. Rather than just abandon that effort, since they are so close to being done, I think they plan to finish it. As The quote above note, even though there will likely not be a reduction in what we can do, having to pay more attention to how we do it might feel like a restriction at first. But having a robust set of guidelines reduces the ability of the FAA or anyone else from pointing at our 1-page safety code and implying that it is not adequate.
The big point is not we do not have to give the FAA a chance to review, accept, or fool with our guidelines, but I think it is prudent to be prepared for it in the future, especially since we are already so far down the road. The Bill has a 4-year term on it. Who knows what might happen 4 years down the line.
The big point is not we do not have to give the FAA a chance to review, accept, or fool with our guidelines, but I think it is prudent to be prepared for it in the future, especially since we are already so far down the road. The Bill has a 4-year term on it. Who knows what might happen 4 years down the line.
There is no actual external force imposing the AMA to remake, nor submit, their docs,
but as a purely internal decision it would be prudent to improve them in some non-detrimental ways.
However, you raised a new and interesting point (heh, the old One Answer raises another question [8D]):
You bring up the 4year term of the bill.
before I post my interpretation and inducements, what is your take on-
We know the act funds FAA for 4 years,
but in regards to the changes of the laws (such as changing a FAR or union laws or whatnot),
do you believe the law changed in this bill become undone in 4 years,
or are the changes in law permanent until other congressional action changes/repeals them?
With no further congressional action-
In 4 years, do the union rules revert back?
In 4 years do the FAR changes revert back?
In 4 years, does the model airplane law revert back?
02-16-2012, 11:12 AM
#455
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
JohnShe
omg
Can you read the words that are coming out of my keyboard?
You found Congress telling FAA not to harass us.
very good
now, how on earth are you seeing that
as a requirement for CBOs to submit their docs for FAA Approval/Denial, or even submit them at all?
That text is a congressional DEpowerment of the FAA, not empowerment to demand / review / approve cbo documents
one more time, again since you still havent actually done it to support your delusions,
JohnShe, rather than just asking us to believe you,
could you quote where congress says cbo docs must be given to ANY fed boys,
and highlight the word 'REQUIRED' in the citation (or its synonym like SHALL or MUST or WILL etc)
omg
Can you read the words that are coming out of my keyboard?
You found Congress telling FAA not to harass us.
very good
now, how on earth are you seeing that
as a requirement for CBOs to submit their docs for FAA Approval/Denial, or even submit them at all?
That text is a congressional DEpowerment of the FAA, not empowerment to demand / review / approve cbo documents
one more time, again since you still havent actually done it to support your delusions,
JohnShe, rather than just asking us to believe you,
could you quote where congress says cbo docs must be given to ANY fed boys,
and highlight the word 'REQUIRED' in the citation (or its synonym like SHALL or MUST or WILL etc)
02-16-2012, 11:26 AM
#456
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: KidEpoxy
With no further congressional action-
In 4 years, do the union rules revert back?
In 4 years do the FAR changes revert back?
In 4 years, does the model airplane law revert back?
With no further congressional action-
In 4 years, do the union rules revert back?
In 4 years do the FAR changes revert back?
In 4 years, does the model airplane law revert back?
Once again you turning something inside out, reversing it and folding back unto itself has lost me. My one and only point is that the term of this reauthorization is 4 years. At the end of that period of time it is unclear what will happen. Nothing more and nothing less. I also think it is a waste of time to start trying to speculate on the virtually limitless number of possible permutations of what might happen.
02-16-2012, 11:55 AM
#457
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: KidEpoxy
JohnShe
omg
Can you read the words that are coming out of my keyboard?
You found Congress telling FAA not to harass us.
very good
now, how on earth are you seeing that
as a requirement for CBOs to submit their docs for FAA Approval/Denial, or even submit them at all?
That text is a congressional DEpowerment of the FAA, not empowerment to demand / review / approve cbo documents
one more time, again since you still havent actually done it to support your delusions,
JohnShe, rather than just asking us to believe you,
could you quote where congress says cbo docs must be given to ANY fed boys,
and highlight the word 'REQUIRED' in the citation (or its synonym like SHALL or MUST or WILL etc)
JohnShe
omg
Can you read the words that are coming out of my keyboard?
You found Congress telling FAA not to harass us.
very good
now, how on earth are you seeing that
as a requirement for CBOs to submit their docs for FAA Approval/Denial, or even submit them at all?
That text is a congressional DEpowerment of the FAA, not empowerment to demand / review / approve cbo documents
one more time, again since you still havent actually done it to support your delusions,
JohnShe, rather than just asking us to believe you,
could you quote where congress says cbo docs must be given to ANY fed boys,
and highlight the word 'REQUIRED' in the citation (or its synonym like SHALL or MUST or WILL etc)
Here is your answer. The law is very clear and unambiguous. In order for the FAA to follow congress's direction, the FAA has to know that a CBO exists and that the operational and safety guidelines, of the CBO, meet the criteria specified in the law. In order for this to happen, a CBO (such as the AMA) must present to the FAA satisfactory evidence that they are indeed a nationwide CBO and that a set of adequate guidelines exist.
As Ihave said repeatedly, I believe that the AMA has already approached and established a sound enough relationship with the FAAto satisfy the requirements of the law.
02-16-2012, 12:36 PM
#458
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: JohnShe
Here is your answer. The law is very clear and unambiguous. In order for the FAA to follow congress's direction, the FAA has to know that a CBO exists and that the operational and safety guidelines, of the CBO, meet the criteria specified in the law. In order for this to happen, a CBO (such as the AMA) must present to the FAA satisfactory evidence that they are indeed a nationwide CBO and that a set of adequate guidelines exist.
Here is your answer. The law is very clear and unambiguous. In order for the FAA to follow congress's direction, the FAA has to know that a CBO exists and that the operational and safety guidelines, of the CBO, meet the criteria specified in the law. In order for this to happen, a CBO (such as the AMA) must present to the FAA satisfactory evidence that they are indeed a nationwide CBO and that a set of adequate guidelines exist.
As I have said repeatedly, I believe that the AMA has already approached and established a sound enough relationship with the FAA to satisfy the requirements of the law.
That effort was established prior to the Act and was based on exactly the scenario you envision (incorrectly so). Prior to the law the FAA would have control over who they would recognize as a CBO and would have full authority to review any prospective operating guidelines and grant acceptance for their use as an alternative path to compliance.
The law changed that without question. The FAA lost both the authority to decide what an CBO is and they lost the authority to review and accept operating guidelines the CBO may use.
Having said that, I'm betting that the AMA at least maintains a good relationship with the FAA, because as we all know, laws can be changed either by Congress or the judiciary, and it is in our own vested self interest not to alienate the FAA.
02-16-2012, 12:57 PM
#459
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Left Coast ,
CA
Posts: 4,890
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Regulation passed the House
ORIGINAL: PilotFighter
As ex-FAA myself, I think you might consider that the FAA is probably as pleased with the legislation as the AMA is. The box has been checked. That item on the ''to do'' list now has a line through it. There is one less thing to worry about. If I were the specialist asigned to the sUAS spaghetti bowl I would be pleased. And remember, the FAA has plenty of AMA members.
As ex-FAA myself, I think you might consider that the FAA is probably as pleased with the legislation as the AMA is. The box has been checked. That item on the ''to do'' list now has a line through it. There is one less thing to worry about. If I were the specialist asigned to the sUAS spaghetti bowl I would be pleased. And remember, the FAA has plenty of AMA members.
Good to know
02-16-2012, 01:35 PM
#460
RE: Regulation passed the House
The sad part is that you guys are nitpicking each other to death about who said what to whom and are ignoring the potectially dangerous issue of renegades. The plain a simple fact is that those who put thier "run" above the rules and recommendations of the AMA are jeoparding every other modeler out there. Jets gone wild in weight and speed. FPVs that fly well out of the view of the pilot. Failure to provide adequate control and insurance. Use of public and even private lands without authorization. All these things can kill RC after the 4 years run out, if not before.
Every one of you that promotes this bull, every one that laughs about the "fun", and everyone that ignores the flagrant violations instead of trying to put a stop to it gives the rest of us a black eye. You all know who you are because it is rampant on these boards. Remember, just one "Aw sh_t wipes out 1000 attaboys". And there is an entire industry out there that wants what we have or wants us to lose it!
Every one of you that promotes this bull, every one that laughs about the "fun", and everyone that ignores the flagrant violations instead of trying to put a stop to it gives the rest of us a black eye. You all know who you are because it is rampant on these boards. Remember, just one "Aw sh_t wipes out 1000 attaboys". And there is an entire industry out there that wants what we have or wants us to lose it!
02-16-2012, 01:49 PM
#461
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
ok, great, here's a time that we can avoid butting heads over something before agreeing.
We agree that
There is currently no fixed reversion date of congress' protection of MA (not created as a temp/interim protection),
the Legislature can change its mind at any time, and with enough votes change anything about the US/USLaw, the government can even change the constitution by amendments
My one and only point is that the term of this reauthorization is 4 years. At the end of that period of time it is unclear what will happen. Nothing more and nothing less.
We agree that
There is currently no fixed reversion date of congress' protection of MA (not created as a temp/interim protection),
the Legislature can change its mind at any time, and with enough votes change anything about the US/USLaw, the government can even change the constitution by amendments
02-16-2012, 02:03 PM
#462
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
rgburril
uh,
1: congress set the CBO model weight cap at 55lb to be under its protection, and doesnt stop FAA from creating new regs limiting model weight for non-cbo... that means there is NO current regulatory requirement to keep a model below ANY weight, not by FAA and not by Congress. Hard to violate laws that dont exist.
(congressional provision to allow CBOs to raise weihgt cap like AMA did)
2: congress set the range to be under their protection at LoS. Again, there is nothing stopping FAA from creating some new law that is as far or closer, but again there is no law limiting range as of now. You may not like BLoS, but your opinion is about as valuable as my opinion, right?
3: Insurance requirement? What, are you kidding?
4: pffft, I've been doing that for years... and I'm AMA, go figure. Since I do what you hate, and I am AMA, you must hate what AMA members do... thats ok, you can be an AMA hater if you want
it sounds like you want a bunch of new government restrictions on toy airplanes.
Heres an idea-
We should be fighting to keep the government off our back,
not trying to get them to hide us harder with their regulations
The sad part is that you guys are nitpicking each other to death about who said what to whom and are ignoring the potectially dangerous issue of renegades. The plain a simple fact is that those who put thier "run" above the rules and recommendations of the AMA are jeoparding every other modeler out there. 1 Jets gone wild in weight and speed. 2FPVs that fly well out of the view of the pilot. 3Failure to provide adequate control and insurance. 4Use of public and even private lands without authorization.
1: congress set the CBO model weight cap at 55lb to be under its protection, and doesnt stop FAA from creating new regs limiting model weight for non-cbo... that means there is NO current regulatory requirement to keep a model below ANY weight, not by FAA and not by Congress. Hard to violate laws that dont exist.
(congressional provision to allow CBOs to raise weihgt cap like AMA did)
2: congress set the range to be under their protection at LoS. Again, there is nothing stopping FAA from creating some new law that is as far or closer, but again there is no law limiting range as of now. You may not like BLoS, but your opinion is about as valuable as my opinion, right?
3: Insurance requirement? What, are you kidding?
4: pffft, I've been doing that for years... and I'm AMA, go figure. Since I do what you hate, and I am AMA, you must hate what AMA members do... thats ok, you can be an AMA hater if you want
it sounds like you want a bunch of new government restrictions on toy airplanes.
Heres an idea-
We should be fighting to keep the government off our back,
not trying to get them to hide us harder with their regulations
02-16-2012, 02:15 PM
#463
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: rgburrill
The sad part is that you guys are nitpicking each other to death about who said what to whom and are ignoring the potectially dangerous issue of renegades.
The sad part is that you guys are nitpicking each other to death about who said what to whom and are ignoring the potectially dangerous issue of renegades.
02-16-2012, 02:28 PM
#464
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: FrederickMD
Posts: 2,114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Regulation passed the House
From a regulators perspective, the FAA probably will NOT develop any guidelines or other documents (approval or otherwise) for CBO status because of this statement:
(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 that means is that if an individual does something stupid (fly's FPV around the Statue of Liberty perhaps?) the Administrator has the authority to purse action if the FAA determines that person endangered the safety of the national airspace system. No other rules, procedures, guidance, etc will be required and the FAA is not required to establish such.
Any person can claim to be under a CBO, but if the FAA determines a specific act endangered, it won't matter what the individual claimed.
And the FAA won't have to ruin it for the rest of us to take that action.
Brad
(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 that means is that if an individual does something stupid (fly's FPV around the Statue of Liberty perhaps?) the Administrator has the authority to purse action if the FAA determines that person endangered the safety of the national airspace system. No other rules, procedures, guidance, etc will be required and the FAA is not required to establish such.
Any person can claim to be under a CBO, but if the FAA determines a specific act endangered, it won't matter what the individual claimed.
And the FAA won't have to ruin it for the rest of us to take that action.
Brad
02-16-2012, 02:30 PM
#465
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: KidEpoxy
it sounds like you want a bunch of new government restrictions on toy airplanes.
Heres an idea-
We should be fighting to keep the government off our back,
not trying to get them to hide us harder with their regulations
it sounds like you want a bunch of new government restrictions on toy airplanes.
Heres an idea-
We should be fighting to keep the government off our back,
not trying to get them to hide us harder with their regulations
02-16-2012, 02:37 PM
#466
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Left Coast ,
CA
Posts: 4,890
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Regulation passed the House
ORIGINAL: rgburrill
The sad part is that you guys are nitpicking each other to death about who said what to whom and are ignoring the potectially dangerous issue of renegades. The plain a simple fact is that those who put thier ''run'' above the rules and recommendations of the AMA are jeoparding every other modeler out there. Jets gone wild in weight and speed. FPVs that fly well out of the view of the pilot. Failure to provide adequate control and insurance. Use of public and even private lands without authorization. All these things can kill RC after the 4 years run out, if not before.
Every one of you that promotes this bull, every one that laughs about the ''fun'', and everyone that ignores the flagrant violations instead of trying to put a stop to it gives the rest of us a black eye. You all know who you are because it is rampant on these boards. Remember, just one ''Aw sh_t wipes out 1000 attaboys''. And there is an entire industry out there that wants what we have or wants us to lose it!
The sad part is that you guys are nitpicking each other to death about who said what to whom and are ignoring the potectially dangerous issue of renegades. The plain a simple fact is that those who put thier ''run'' above the rules and recommendations of the AMA are jeoparding every other modeler out there. Jets gone wild in weight and speed. FPVs that fly well out of the view of the pilot. Failure to provide adequate control and insurance. Use of public and even private lands without authorization. All these things can kill RC after the 4 years run out, if not before.
Every one of you that promotes this bull, every one that laughs about the ''fun'', and everyone that ignores the flagrant violations instead of trying to put a stop to it gives the rest of us a black eye. You all know who you are because it is rampant on these boards. Remember, just one ''Aw sh_t wipes out 1000 attaboys''. And there is an entire industry out there that wants what we have or wants us to lose it!
I doubt it will affect the AMA or it's members when someone ignores the guidelines, in that case it would be the FAA and other authorities that would deal with that particular individual on a case by case basis...
02-16-2012, 02:40 PM
#467
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Left Coast ,
CA
Posts: 4,890
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Regulation passed the House
ORIGINAL: JohnShe
Wow! You just don't get it. It's over, we won. All there is left is a little pro forma paperwork and we have complete control of model aviation. The FAA can go back to what t does best, manage and regulate real aviation and now regulate the use of drones in the public airspace. Meanwhile, model aviators can go back to having fun.
Wow! You just don't get it. It's over, we won. All there is left is a little pro forma paperwork and we have complete control of model aviation. The FAA can go back to what t does best, manage and regulate real aviation and now regulate the use of drones in the public airspace. Meanwhile, model aviators can go back to having fun.
One of the last things the FAA wants to do is deal with and regulate model airplanes, that was from the mouth of a former FAA official/emloyee that posted on one of these threads.
02-16-2012, 02:48 PM
#468
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Regulation passed the House
ORIGINAL: rgburrill
The sad part is that you guys are nitpicking each other to death about who said what to whom and are ignoring the potectially dangerous issue of renegades. The plain a simple fact is that those who put thier "run" above the rules and recommendations of the AMA are jeoparding every other modeler out there.
The sad part is that you guys are nitpicking each other to death about who said what to whom and are ignoring the potectially dangerous issue of renegades. The plain a simple fact is that those who put thier "run" above the rules and recommendations of the AMA are jeoparding every other modeler out there.
The other non NAS safety / AMA rules: membership, their insurance, not so much.
02-16-2012, 03:58 PM
#469
RE: Regulation passed the House
ORIGINAL: JohnShe
OK, Combatpig. Here is a direct quote from a government hater.
''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.''
ORIGINAL: combatpigg
Please state numerically the post(s) expressing hate for the government in this thread ?
Please state numerically the post(s) expressing hate for the government in this thread ?
''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.''
I don't know what your claim to fame is, Slick, but I doubt you could lift my jockstrap without a couple spotters.
02-16-2012, 04:18 PM
#470
My Feedback: (59)
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Steeler Nation
Posts: 599
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Regulation passed the House
Dude !! why do you argue with people who just don't get it ? This guy JohnShe likes rules and regs and I'd be willing to bet it would be shear pleasure to fly with him at his home field.
But if he wants to beleive that the FAA has to accept, agree with or how ever he wants to put it....then by all means let him.
But if he wants to beleive that the FAA has to accept, agree with or how ever he wants to put it....then by all means let him.
02-16-2012, 04:36 PM
#471
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: combatpigg
I don't know what your claim to fame is, Slick, but I doubt you could lift my jockstrap without a couple spotters.
[/quote]
Well the way you write, makes you look like someone who wears a tinfoil hat. So you will be easy to spot at the airfield.
02-16-2012, 04:42 PM
#472
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: wahoo
Dude !! why do you argue with people who just don't get it ? This guy JohnShe likes rules and regs and I'd be willing to bet it would be shear pleasure to fly with him at his home field.
But if he wants to beleive that the FAA has to accept, agree with or how ever he wants to put it....then by all means let him.
Dude !! why do you argue with people who just don't get it ? This guy JohnShe likes rules and regs and I'd be willing to bet it would be shear pleasure to fly with him at his home field.
But if he wants to beleive that the FAA has to accept, agree with or how ever he wants to put it....then by all means let him.
However, the rules must be our rules and the FAA needs to know that. For our protection and for theirs. The FAA cannot be said to be following the directive of congress if they allow a CBOto promote negligently unsafe practices. So there has to be a pro forma acknowledgement of the safety guidelines.
That being said, I am absolutely certain that the FAA will accept, without question, whatever the AMApresents to them.
02-16-2012, 04:52 PM
#474
RE: Regulation passed the House
ORIGINAL: JohnShe
Well the way you write, makes you look like someone who wears a tinfoil hat. So you will be easy to spot at the airfield.
Well the way you write, makes you look like someone who wears a tinfoil hat. So you will be easy to spot at the airfield.
You ought to be more careful about who you call government and AMA haters. Believe me, if you knew anything about me or my family you'd be looking for a rock to crawl under right about now.
02-16-2012, 05:45 PM
#475
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Left Coast ,
CA
Posts: 4,890
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Regulation passed the House
ORIGINAL: JohnShe
That being said, I am absolutely certain that the FAA will accept, without question, whatever the AMA presents to them.
That being said, I am absolutely certain that the FAA will accept, without question, whatever the AMA presents to them.