<h3>The proper way to get rid of or eliminate something is <font color="#FF0000">"TAX it out of Existence"</font> So if community's wish to eliminate "DRONES" all that is required is a <font color="#FF0000">"DRONE TAX".</font><br type="_moz"/></h3>

Here is a u-tube flick for you drone flyers to catch up on. joe http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iz19D...em-subs_digest

I totally call B.S.it's not a license it is a membership.................................. when was the last time you got a invoice from the AMA for a "license renewal" ??????????????????????

Now I just renewed my "membership" ................ hey anybody out there get a "license renewal" ?

Brad



<br type="_moz" />

dup post

The problem we are facing is that up until recently model aircraft have been, with very few exceptions, strictly a hobby. Now we have high power low cost motors, light weight electronics, and miniature computers able to do more than some current Air Force aircraft. These are being used more and more for commercial and public/government uses. Do we need liscensing? Absolutly, but only for those that are flying outside the confines of a simple hobby, ie: commercial, gov/public, R&D, etc...

Imo, it ain't the marriage that needs licensing.
It's the baby-making that's the problem.
I see a lot of folks on RCU go on about how bad the kids are these days,
when it's the parents who really need a spanking.

Maybe we can blame all these wild drone pilots on bad mommy and daddy.

<div>
</div><div>The AMA does not sanction fields. We can fly anywhere the property owner allows. </div>

Spot on, Luchnia.

Not to get pedantic here, but this was the main reason many in the country did not want a Bill of Rights added to the Constitution. By enumerating some rights, others would be made to appear less important or nonexistent. Hence the 10th Amendment, which was basically a sop to that faction. Unfortunately, history seems to have proven them correct, as now inclusion in the Bill of Rights is not even enough for some people.

Plus, FDR's expansive rewriting of the defenition of "right" to include "everything that would be nice to have and most people have to work for" has watered down the definition and so permeated the society that we don't know a fundamental truth: Rights come from responsibilities. All true "rights" are "human rights," since they are based in transcendent principles, truths, and responsibilities.

Without getting too specific and ticking people off, we have basically replaced a transcendent, moral higher power with Big Brother government. We've ditched a perfect moral being in favor of those despotic idiots in government (wherever you live).

Do I make sense?<br type="_moz" />

Interesting debate, just for info here's a link to the FPV rules that apply in the UK http://www.bmfa.org/publications/fpv.html anything more than this and you have to be a licensed drone operator. I suspect 90% of the RCers would be happy to operate under these rules but the other 10% may consider them an infringement of their rights.

I haven't done FPV yet (but do do aerial video) but once the price comes down a bit I'll definitely give it a go.

WHY THE RED INK? Do you think your voice is so important you have to spill red ink on my comments?

You know what? maybe I am saying that to buy an RC aircraft you would be required to take a test or show a license... that test would be simple... to insure that you know you cannot fly the aircraft away from line of sight, not over 400 feet, and not in the public park if that rule exists in your area. Too bad if you have to read a flying (much like driving) manual and pass the test.

Part of enforcing rules is that you had an opportunity to know the rule. You take a drivers test to ensure you know the rules. Then when you break one, you cannot claim that you did not know the rule. Same way in aircraft, you take ground school to learn the rules among other things. The sky belongs to the FAA, it is they that will have to build and enforce the rules for unmanned flight. As you want more capability, you will have to take and pass more tests. I really don't like flying next to some of the guys at the field... if they are flying, I wait, if I am flying and they join me, I land. No words, I just fly when I feel the sky is safe for me to do so. I don't like loosing a $2,000 aircraft to stupidity. I just can't afford it.

No, not an officer... I just help out as much as I can at the club. I donate, I help instruct, I help build field facilities, I help newbies build projects.
I am a realist. I am a GA private, land pilot... I know how the FAA works and the system they are comfortable with. Set of Rules, Tests, Practical Knowledge, Demonstrated Airsmanhip Skills. Do you really think that you are going to change the FAA?
No matter what the AMA keeps spoon feeding you, the FAA will have their way in the end.
If you don't like my opinion, find someone else you agree with.

I agree the FAA will do what it wants and i hope at least the ama stays clear of sticking up for the drone people. If drone people want to have their own org they had better hurry up and do it before the faa shuts them down before they even get started.

Yeah, that is just what AMA is doing... throwing the FPV guys to the wolves. One day, your son or grandson (daughter or granddaughter too) is going to want to learn how to fly those things and won't be able to do it without a 100K education. A good job is likely waiting with cheaper hobby experience. At least you will know whether your money will be wasted pursuing their passion.

We all need to recognize and support the hobby aspects of Flying ALL unmanned aerial vehicles. Swim or Sink together.

I am sure joebahl and others won't care as long as they are grandfathered in.

<font color="#ff0000">"DRONE TAX"


</font>Is that a tax on the old geezers bs'ing behind (and sometimes on)the flight line?

In Seattle, WA, the mayor has ordered the police to stop the use of their new drones. The drones were returned to the manufacturer. <div>From Aero-News.net:</div><div>
</div><div><h1><span style="font-size: 12px; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">Seattle Grounds Police UAVs Following Privacy Protests</span></h1>

</p><h2><span style="font-size: 12px; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">Residents, ACLU Complained To The Mayor, Who Shut The Program Down</span></h2>

<span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">After obtaining two small UAVs through federal grants to test as law enforcement tools, the Seattle Police Department has been ordered not to fly them by the Mayor's Office after residents and others complained about privacy.</span></p><p style="text-align: -webkit-auto; " align="center"><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0); ">The aircraft will be returned to the company that made them. In a statement, Mayor Mike McGinn</span><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0); "> </span>(pictured)<span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0); "> </span><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0); ">said "I spoke with Seattle Police Chief John Diaz, and we agreed that it was time to end the unmanned aerial vehicle program, so that SPD can focus its resources on public safety and the community building work that is the department's priority."</span></p>

<span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">The Draganflyer X6 aircraft had been publicly demonstrated by the Seattle police after recently receiving FAA approval for their use. The department said the drones' mission would be to provide aerial views of large crime scenes and natural disasters, as well as SAR operations. They would not have been authorized to fly over an "open-air assembly of people" or for general surveillance. The cameras installed on the drones would have been allowed to utilize face-recognition software, however.</span></p>

<span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">The movement to prevent the UAV's use was led by the Washington State ACLU, which said on its website "The ACLU of Washington applauds the Mayor’s decision to end Seattle’s police drone program. Drones would have given police unprecedented abilities to engage in surveillance and intrude on people’s privacy. The city obtained the drones through a federal grant without public input and without establishing any restrictions on their use." The group is pushing the state legislature to pass "very tight restrictions" on the use of UAVs by law enforcement statewide, according to its spokesman Doug Honig.</span></p></div>

They have better representation than we. There are several orgizations and (atleast for the larger drones), mulit billion corporations pulling for drone use.

While that is true, it is important to understand that those interests are not against having "others" qualify with licensing and much of other financial hurtles... As those are comparatively small obstacles to them. There are basically two sides, even if not understood or fully considered by the average American...either you support the side with the money or you support the basic principles of fairness...

If thats the case they need to start speaking up rather than hiding ,or do they think its better to hide behind the AMA and see what happens. Like i said i dont want my hobby or the ama to be fighting for drones that dont interest me at all. We might have some of them in the ama but they should start their own place and argue with who ever they want to when restriction talk comes up.

I'm glad to see them banning Drones too. Thats all we need in this hobby is a drone being flown into a building by some deranged r/c pilot and the next thing you know, R/C in general is on the block AGAIN.

The is no need to fly an R/c model beyond visible limits. After that, its not "hobby related"

len

Problem is that "banning" Drones doesn't prevent "some deranged r/c pilot" from doing whatever...it only works to prevent responsible hobbyist from enjoying what could be a fun and safe experience. We have more than enough laws on the books now...they are not being exercised correctly...that's the real problem.

They are speaking up! Just because you don't see it posted here doesn't mean they are not. In fact the best representation will never be stated anywhere, but comes with the bucks slid under the table.

The radio controled planes used in the past for target practice, used to be called aahh DRONES!

I think the trick here is in the definitions. The AMA should focus the effort on what defines a "drone" (UAV, UAS, whatever). Once this is sorted out push for the FAA to concentrate on the "drones" and convince them that our form of unmanned aerial flight should continue to operate under the rules of the AMA, as it has for a great many years with a relatively trouble-free track record.

I agree ,its the drones that will fly higher than 300 ft and be in the way of real aircraft not us. joe