Are you ready to register your aircraft?
06-08-2016, 03:37 PM
#5226
Unfortunately that's the bottom line. They could just say no and it's done.
They could say yes too.
They aren't required to explain a thing.
Where does it say that in their operating procedures?
If we have learned one thing from all this horse crap is the FAA don't care about a bunch of guys with toy airplanes and the AMA try as they may is not a force in any of this.
If that were the case the entire R/C hobby would have been banned long ago. There's strength in numbers. You can't be much of a force with a small number of members.
Mike
They could say yes too.
They aren't required to explain a thing.
Where does it say that in their operating procedures?
If we have learned one thing from all this horse crap is the FAA don't care about a bunch of guys with toy airplanes and the AMA try as they may is not a force in any of this.
If that were the case the entire R/C hobby would have been banned long ago. There's strength in numbers. You can't be much of a force with a small number of members.
Mike
06-08-2016, 05:08 PM
#5227
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
Unfortunately that's the bottom line. They could just say no and it's done. They aren't required to explain a thing. If we have learned one thing from all this horse crap is the FAA don't care about a bunch of guys with toy airplanes and the AMA try as they may is not a force in any of this.
Mike
Mike
06-08-2016, 07:26 PM
#5229
06-08-2016, 07:33 PM
#5230
Why would denial require an explanation? Tower/FBO says "no," and that's it. They're in the driver's seat.
The Idea is that the house doesn't get to it this term and we get them to DROP any requirement for permission from a tower to fly at a Designated Flying site. Look these fields have been in their location in many cases for more than 30 years and the towers never even knew they were even there. WHY because we are not a threat to Full Scale never was never will be, So no need for any approval since they never knew we existed in the first place. U all give up way to easy ... better sell all your JUNK know while it's worth something ... Besides there are thousands of R/C Fields this doesn't even concern. Do U personally fly at a field within 5 miles of a towered field????? How man of actually fly at a field with in 5 miles of a towered airport.
The Idea is that the house doesn't get to it this term and we get them to DROP any requirement for permission from a tower to fly at a Designated Flying site. Look these fields have been in their location in many cases for more than 30 years and the towers never even knew they were even there. WHY because we are not a threat to Full Scale never was never will be, So no need for any approval since they never knew we existed in the first place. U all give up way to easy ... better sell all your JUNK know while it's worth something ... Besides there are thousands of R/C Fields this doesn't even concern. Do U personally fly at a field within 5 miles of a towered field????? How man of actually fly at a field with in 5 miles of a towered airport.
06-08-2016, 08:15 PM
#5231
Unfortunately that's the bottom line. They could just say no and it's done. They aren't required to explain a thing. If we have learned one thing from all this horse crap is the FAA don't care about a bunch of guys with toy airplanes and the AMA try as they may is not a force in any of this.
Mike
Mike
06-09-2016, 02:38 AM
#5232
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
Of the two clubs in my area, one is located within about a mile of an airport, and depending on wind direction, often directly below the landing pattern. Planes sometimes fly as low as about 700-800 feet over the field, but usually at about 1000. We just fly low when they pass over. The other is ON an airport. Neither have towers. Both clubs have been in existence for 30+ years and there has NEVER been even one incident involving a model and a full scale aircraft. "See and avoid" has worked just fine. The FBO's at both fields have no problem with our flying.
06-09-2016, 04:01 AM
#5233
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: El Paso,
TX
Posts: 5,277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
06-09-2016, 04:04 AM
#5234
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: El Paso,
TX
Posts: 5,277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having to "ask permission" ( as worded in the Senate version) from the tower just would open up another can of worms and miscommunication in this mess and that's the last thing we need. We seem to have enough of that already.
Lets hope that it doesn't come to that.
Mike
Lets hope that it doesn't come to that.
Mike
Last edited by rcmiket; 06-09-2016 at 04:09 AM.
06-09-2016, 04:34 AM
#5237
We all hope it doesn't come to that. Unfortunately, often times we're our own worst enemy when it comes to miscommunications.
06-09-2016, 04:38 AM
#5239
06-09-2016, 05:37 AM
#5240
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
Priker would have paid the initial fine in a heartbeat had he not been given a free defense. The cost of that defense were at a minimum high 5 figures, and probably well into the 100 k range. As we've now seen in other cases, the FAA accepted a reduced fine. Meanwhile, Pirker's business probably took off ten fold, and he went from having a cult like following to a national one. He made good stuff, and I think many would agree his videos were done with pretty good production quality (choice of music...meh).
06-09-2016, 10:03 AM
#5241
Of the two clubs in my area, one is located within about a mile of an airport, and depending on wind direction, often directly below the landing pattern. Planes sometimes fly as low as about 700-800 feet over the field, but usually at about 1000. We just fly low when they pass over. The other is ON an airport. Neither have towers. Both clubs have been in existence for 30+ years and there has NEVER been even one incident involving a model and a full scale aircraft. "See and avoid" has worked just fine. The FBO's at both fields have no problem with our flying.
U have done all that is required (Right Now) under the only law legal passed and signed by the President. That is to notify the (In your case the airport manager). What I am advocating and U can Include your airport managers to wright (on Paper) all your 2 senators and Your House of Reps all for your state, And explain that Traditional R/C is not the problem, i.e. no incidents in 30 plus years. In form that it is not U causing any problem. It's the Rogue MR/Quad flyers that do not under stand tha rules. U might contact your local Officials and explain to them U have been doing this for 30+ years without Incident. Do this to preempt them from creating stupid laws governing all R/C activity.
It's probably our last chance to convince the congress and local officials that we are not the problem an thuse should be left to fly and enjoy R/C the way we always have. If we fail it's no ones fault but our own.
06-09-2016, 10:11 AM
#5242
06-09-2016, 10:22 AM
#5243
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
I think there is a difference between doing whatever they want, and doing what they think they are allowed to do, and what they feel is needed. If they just went off half cocked and did "whatever they wanted" the place would never run right, and Sec Fox and the rest of the head honchos would be gone. Ultimately the courts or congress and the president will decide what their reach is. Until then, we should all fly. 
06-09-2016, 11:36 AM
#5244
I think there is a difference between doing whatever they want, and doing what they think they are allowed to do, and what they feel is needed. If they just went off half cocked and did "whatever they wanted" the place would never run right,
Just why do U think it runs right when they can't make t a simple thing like integrate "DRONS" into the system since 2007 that I know of.
and Sec Fox and the rest of the head honchos would be gone. Ultimately the courts or congress and the president will decide what their reach is. Until then, we should all fly.
Just why do U think it runs right when they can't make t a simple thing like integrate "DRONS" into the system since 2007 that I know of.
and Sec Fox and the rest of the head honchos would be gone. Ultimately the courts or congress and the president will decide what their reach is. Until then, we should all fly.
06-09-2016, 11:45 AM
#5245
Some interesting reading from RC Groups:[h=1]Who Has Been Fined by the FAA? Find Out![/h]:
http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2675672&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_content=Click%20here%20to%20learn%20more.&utm_campaign=June9%2016
http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2675672&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_content=Click%20here%20to%20learn%20more.&utm_campaign=June9%2016
06-09-2016, 12:30 PM
#5246
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
Porcie: if that were true then they would have not Interpenetrated #336 exactly the Opposite that congress intended. The Law of the LAND says NO New Rules For Model aircraft ... What's so hard to understand about that. We would not be having all this Huliblue if the FAA didn't think they were above Congress. Like I've said when dealing with the IRS FAA etc U are Guilty until U can prove your are innocent. Don't for get not one congressman senator came to the defense of the Amendment #336 Now did they. Nuff Said I stand by my convictions. Just keep your head down Fly like we always have, Stay out of Full Scales way and every thing will be OK.
Not saying your v
06-09-2016, 12:33 PM
#5247
Someone on RCGroups said that all are MR's. But that is not true. Pirker is there and he flew a plank. There are some that don't state the aircraft type and I suspect they are planks as well.
06-09-2016, 12:58 PM
#5248
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
Ya, as usual people only report part of the facts, usually to suit their slant. You're right of course, Pirker flew one of his creations, a wing. I saw a note from someone complaining about the the whole MR thing being the cause of all the ills of RC today (what's new), and specifically said he had been flying fixed wing FPV since the 80's with narry a problem.
06-09-2016, 02:04 PM
#5249
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: El Paso,
TX
Posts: 5,277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Porcie: if that were true then they would have not Interpenetrated #336 exactly the Opposite that congress intended. The Law of the LAND says NO New Rules For Model aircraft ... What's so hard to understand about that. We would not be having all this Huliblue if the FAA didn't think they were above Congress. Like I've said when dealing with the IRS FAA etc U are Guilty until U can prove your are innocent. Don't for get not one congressman senator came to the defense of the Amendment #336 Now did they. Nuff Said I stand by my convictions. Just keep your head down Fly like we always have, Stay out of Full Scales way and every thing will be OK.
Mike