Top_Gunn

My Feedback: (6)

Enforcement is of course another question. But suppose the FAA adopts a 400 foot AGL limit for models, maybe within five miles of an airport (which is most places) or everywhere, maybe for models over a certain size, maybe for everybody. They might then require telemetry in models over a certain size. That would seriously limit things like turbines. Earlier on, there was talk about outlawing turbines entirely, though I gather from the AMA publications that they aren't pushing this. At least for now. Park fliers will be fine. Some of us fly different kinds of planes. Maybe the worrying is excessive. But when people claim that the FAA has no power to limit anything related to modeling, that's just nuts.

Jim Branaum

My Feedback: (3)

That very last clause is a very large part what is driving the FAA - John Q with no clue. That means it does not generally involve the majority of modelers and, in fact, may only involve folks on the very periphery of what we are doing. However they bring the bad press the FAA reacts to. On the other hand, modelers make mistakes that cost everyone a lot of money and are extremely dangerous. Like the guy that planted his model in a business jet that was taxiing to parking. Generally those types of incidents don't cause as much uproar but they do cause a close look at safe operations being taken by the FAA and reasonable modelers.

FYI the list of negative interaction's of models and GA is fairly long but in MOST cases they were accidents. Most were not caused by some modeler acting with his checkbook hubris. THAT issue is part of what the FAA would like to manage and it leads places I would rather we did not have to go.

Transponders in models would be a very expensive proposition. The expense would not just be financial, but support. Larger airframes and power plants to carry the extra dead weight of the transponder, power supply, and required testing, certifications, and proof you did not fly with it turned off. <shudder> Are they under consideration? I do not know but I do know that in general the FAA does not make regulations that they cannot enforce. Actually I have thought for the last 20+ years that their regulations started out with the enforcement methodology and penalty before the standard was locked in.


But I could be all wet.

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

The last couple of posts touched on the single biggest aspect of determining what the FAA will do...enforcement!

I think that even AMA recognizes how devastating overbearing FAA rules and laws would be, negatively impact it's own "worth". Many people would simply drop AMA and revert to a course much like the FCC's action had on CBers years ago...

Sport_Pilot

How does this show that the FAA originate the NOTAM's. Most were requested. Many though the Federal NOTAM System.

https://nfdc.faa.gov/aimnews/media/FNS_SysLink.pdf

Sport_Pilot

It's only nuts to cede that power to them. This is no longer the free government we had.

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

Sport,

I've come to the conclusion that most Americans want nothing more than to defer responsibility to the authority of a third party... As someone pointed out earlier...and I think that might have been you...having civil courts work out issues such as the one Brad has infused into this discussion is a fleeting concept...most would rather have big brother just take care of it all...no matter the actual cost or unintended consequences.

mongo

My Feedback: (15)

and there is no such thing as "free government", government is probably the most expensive thing man ever came up with.

Sport_Pilot

My reference was not about cost, but our current lack of freedom or rights.

mongo

My Feedback: (15)

and the greatest cost we pay to any government, is, our freedom and our rights.

PLANE JIM

My Feedback: (109)

We could go back to Free Flight-No radio, no battery, no fuel and no noise-except for the noise of a 55lb free flight hitting a house or car!!

Jim Branaum

My Feedback: (3)

Or a person? Well, I guess you would hear a scream.

I very strongly suspect that if the FAA sticks its toe in our water, each of us will discover that the rest of its rule making and fine issuing body will come with it. Meaning that they think they control everything that goes in the air because that is what your congress critter told them. Think of kite flying under regulation...

bradpaul

Sorry Jim the FAA already has regulations on kites............................................. .............

http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx...1.3.15&idno=14

Jim Branaum

My Feedback: (3)

I should have been more specific and said having to get a license from the FAA for kite flying because I forgot about those. It has been several decades since I got in trouble for breaking one of those rules...

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

Not to worry...we are licensed as Americans nowadays. We are given our number at birth. In most cases the term license is simply semantics about the privileges we are allowed. And the ability to have whatever privilege is highly dependent on the money thrown at it...

cj_rumley

It's not easy to remember all the rules, Jim. I had forgotten one limitation from the same document cited regarding amateur rockets. My 7 YO grandson is going to feel really put out when I have to tell him this restriction applies to his Class 1 model rockets:

"§ 101.23 General operating limitations.
(a) You must operate an amateur rocket in such a manner that it:
(1) Is launched on a suborbital trajectory;"

bradpaul

You just can't make this stuff up................................. idiots and multi rotor FPV drones flying in the wrong places.

http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?se...ors&id=9270668

More fodder for the FAA...............................

Jim Branaum

My Feedback: (3)

You are correct, you cannot make this stuff up. The problem *I* see is that you cannot make enough rules to stop stupid people, they somehow become smarter than the rules makers every single time. I am pretty sure the FAA knows and understands that so it is OUR job to "educate" the . . uh. . er . . stupid among us.

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

Sounds like the pilot, when or if caught, will likely be charged with reckless endangerment...

chuckk2

What it boils down to is the public perception of what is an "assault rifle".
The originals were any personally owned or hand carried rifle.

As written the constitution and amendments (Bill of Rights) cover assault rifles.

The M1, Springfield, Remington, and the civil war era "rolling block" were all designed to be "assault" rifles.

Some decades ago, when civil insurrection was going on, the military removed and destroyed large quantities of
rifles from various armory's and reserve centers.

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

One person's assault weapon is another's defense weapon...in reality it isn't the weapon's design it is the person using it!

Jim Branaum

My Feedback: (3)

Yes, as "instructed" by the mainstream entertainment media that used to go by the name of 'news'.

That is THE root problem that we have and we must make sure we are on the correct side of least the FAA do a knee jerk due to the mass media firestorm someone (in that industry) keeps trying to start and fools keep trying to help.

IMNSHO.


YMMV

bradpaul

They have idiots in Austraila also: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...et-review.html

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

WOW...seems an epidemic. I think we should do something soon as the "drone" could have knock the bridge down or something. Thanks for bringing that to our attention.

bradpaul

Thank you LCS for your words of encouragment! I will do my best to continue to expose the idiots.

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

Hope you are able to catch them guys.