Let's join together and refuse the FAA registration
01-23-2016 | 08:51 AM
#851
Always interesting how all these AMA/FAA threads bring out all the long term low post count members out of the woodwork. It's like human Cicadas following their own government schedule. Guess it's just a matter of time before they hunker down and wait for the next cycle.
01-23-2016 | 10:10 AM
#856
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: TITUSVILLE FLORIDA NY
STKNRUD: It is a lot worse than either of us have mentioned. The whole idea behind a Community Based Organization goes out the window with a membership flying anything, anywhere, anytime. The AMA has invited the Trojan Horse into our midst.
The CBO being the AMA would be viewed as ineffective at regulation of its' membership, What might be the actions of the FAA regarding that?
I would imagine the FAA would by-pass the AMA and then step in and become the dominate regulator or the hobby.
But would the FAA really want to be identified, and held solely responsible for managing all the "little Jimmies" flying their Best Buys drones?
That might bring such attention to the FAAs ineffectiveness and overload police forces, it would be a mess.
I think the FAA will tread a fine line with the AMA, the FAA needs to maintain a scapegoat, just like DJI needed the AMA to front responsibility for drone operation and therefore brokered the deal with the AMA.
Regarding the lawsuit, as I understand the FAAs interpretation;
1)They agree that no new laws regarding models can be written, however that does not preclude the FAA from writing new laws that apply to all flying vehicles, which includes full scale as well as model aircraft. (that's a stretch)
2)They also state that there registration requirements are not new therefore they are not precluded by the Special Rule for Model Aircraft 2012 law.
they just never enforced them before.
3) The FAAs ability to impose SFRAs is a power given to them by Congress for Safety and Security reasons.
Is that about it?
I would imagine the argument would go something along the lines of this:
1) There has been a separate classification for models and a special new law in 2012 designed to prevent restrictions on models,
Congress created a new protection for model aircraft that would obviate models and their pilots from other FAA regulations so long as the group model pilots followed a safety code of a community based organization. The FAA therefore can not apply full scale regulations to models.
Why is the law called "Special Rule for Model Aviation" must we define the word "special" for the FAA ?
2) If in fact registration has always been on the FAAs regulation books, why was it not applied previously (over sight) and why is it being applied now? How will the registration of CBO registered pilots produce the registration of non-CBO unregistered pilots?
3) SFRAs for Safety and Security Reasons: How will the closure of CBO chartered airfields produce a more safe and secure NAS when the safety and security issues relate to the flying of UAVs from non-CBO locations? Restrictions of UAV flying would be appropriately addressed from
the individual municipalities and not the FAA. You could make the argument to outlaw the sale, manufacture and flying of all technologies related to model flight but then that would contradict the 2012 Special Rule for Model Aircraft.
I just put this out there to clarify in my mind what might be the argument posed by an attorney. If people find flaws or different approaches I welcome your input.
The CBO being the AMA would be viewed as ineffective at regulation of its' membership, What might be the actions of the FAA regarding that?
I would imagine the FAA would by-pass the AMA and then step in and become the dominate regulator or the hobby.
But would the FAA really want to be identified, and held solely responsible for managing all the "little Jimmies" flying their Best Buys drones?
That might bring such attention to the FAAs ineffectiveness and overload police forces, it would be a mess.
I think the FAA will tread a fine line with the AMA, the FAA needs to maintain a scapegoat, just like DJI needed the AMA to front responsibility for drone operation and therefore brokered the deal with the AMA.
Regarding the lawsuit, as I understand the FAAs interpretation;
1)They agree that no new laws regarding models can be written, however that does not preclude the FAA from writing new laws that apply to all flying vehicles, which includes full scale as well as model aircraft. (that's a stretch)
2)They also state that there registration requirements are not new therefore they are not precluded by the Special Rule for Model Aircraft 2012 law.
they just never enforced them before.
3) The FAAs ability to impose SFRAs is a power given to them by Congress for Safety and Security reasons.
Is that about it?
I would imagine the argument would go something along the lines of this:
1) There has been a separate classification for models and a special new law in 2012 designed to prevent restrictions on models,
Congress created a new protection for model aircraft that would obviate models and their pilots from other FAA regulations so long as the group model pilots followed a safety code of a community based organization. The FAA therefore can not apply full scale regulations to models.
Why is the law called "Special Rule for Model Aviation" must we define the word "special" for the FAA ?
- different from what is normal or usual; especially : unusual in a good way : better or more important than others
- : especially important or loved
- : more than is usual
2) If in fact registration has always been on the FAAs regulation books, why was it not applied previously (over sight) and why is it being applied now? How will the registration of CBO registered pilots produce the registration of non-CBO unregistered pilots?
3) SFRAs for Safety and Security Reasons: How will the closure of CBO chartered airfields produce a more safe and secure NAS when the safety and security issues relate to the flying of UAVs from non-CBO locations? Restrictions of UAV flying would be appropriately addressed from
the individual municipalities and not the FAA. You could make the argument to outlaw the sale, manufacture and flying of all technologies related to model flight but then that would contradict the 2012 Special Rule for Model Aircraft.
I just put this out there to clarify in my mind what might be the argument posed by an attorney. If people find flaws or different approaches I welcome your input.
01-23-2016 | 06:27 PM
#857
My Feedback: (49)
STKNRUD: It is a lot worse than either of us have mentioned. The whole idea behind a Community Based Organization goes out the window with a membership flying anything, anywhere, anytime. The AMA has invited the Trojan Horse into our midst.
The CBO being the AMA would be viewed as ineffective at regulation of its' membership, What might be the actions of the FAA regarding that?
I would imagine the FAA would by-pass the AMA and then step in and become the dominate regulator or the hobby.
But would the FAA really want to be identified, and held solely responsible for managing all the "little Jimmies" flying their Best Buys drones?
That might bring such attention to the FAAs ineffectiveness and overload police forces, it would be a mess.
I think the FAA will tread a fine line with the AMA, the FAA needs to maintain a scapegoat, just like DJI needed the AMA to front responsibility for drone operation and therefore brokered the deal with the AMA.
Regarding the lawsuit, as I understand the FAAs interpretation;
1)They agree that no new laws regarding models can be written, however that does not preclude the FAA from writing new laws that apply to all flying vehicles, which includes full scale as well as model aircraft. (that's a stretch)
2)They also state that there registration requirements are not new therefore they are not precluded by the Special Rule for Model Aircraft 2012 law.
they just never enforced them before.
3) The FAAs ability to impose SFRAs is a power given to them by Congress for Safety and Security reasons.
Is that about it?
I would imagine the argument would go something along the lines of this:
1) There has been a separate classification for models and a special new law in 2012 designed to prevent restrictions on models,
Congress created a new protection for model aircraft that would obviate models and their pilots from other FAA regulations so long as the group model pilots followed a safety code of a community based organization. The FAA therefore can not apply full scale regulations to models.
Why is the law called "Special Rule for Model Aviation" must we define the word "special" for the FAA ?
2) If in fact registration has always been on the FAAs regulation books, why was it not applied previously (over sight) and why is it being applied now? How will the registration of CBO registered pilots produce the registration of non-CBO unregistered pilots?
3) SFRAs for Safety and Security Reasons: How will the closure of CBO chartered airfields produce a more safe and secure NAS when the safety and security issues relate to the flying of UAVs from non-CBO locations? Restrictions of UAV flying would be appropriately addressed from
the individual municipalities and not the FAA. You could make the argument to outlaw the sale, manufacture and flying of all technologies related to model flight but then that would contradict the 2012 Special Rule for Model Aircraft.
I just put this out there to clarify in my mind what might be the argument posed by an attorney. If people find flaws or different approaches I welcome your input.
The CBO being the AMA would be viewed as ineffective at regulation of its' membership, What might be the actions of the FAA regarding that?
I would imagine the FAA would by-pass the AMA and then step in and become the dominate regulator or the hobby.
But would the FAA really want to be identified, and held solely responsible for managing all the "little Jimmies" flying their Best Buys drones?
That might bring such attention to the FAAs ineffectiveness and overload police forces, it would be a mess.
I think the FAA will tread a fine line with the AMA, the FAA needs to maintain a scapegoat, just like DJI needed the AMA to front responsibility for drone operation and therefore brokered the deal with the AMA.
Regarding the lawsuit, as I understand the FAAs interpretation;
1)They agree that no new laws regarding models can be written, however that does not preclude the FAA from writing new laws that apply to all flying vehicles, which includes full scale as well as model aircraft. (that's a stretch)
2)They also state that there registration requirements are not new therefore they are not precluded by the Special Rule for Model Aircraft 2012 law.
they just never enforced them before.
3) The FAAs ability to impose SFRAs is a power given to them by Congress for Safety and Security reasons.
Is that about it?
I would imagine the argument would go something along the lines of this:
1) There has been a separate classification for models and a special new law in 2012 designed to prevent restrictions on models,
Congress created a new protection for model aircraft that would obviate models and their pilots from other FAA regulations so long as the group model pilots followed a safety code of a community based organization. The FAA therefore can not apply full scale regulations to models.
Why is the law called "Special Rule for Model Aviation" must we define the word "special" for the FAA ?
- different from what is normal or usual; especially : unusual in a good way : better or more important than others
- : especially important or loved
- : more than is usual
2) If in fact registration has always been on the FAAs regulation books, why was it not applied previously (over sight) and why is it being applied now? How will the registration of CBO registered pilots produce the registration of non-CBO unregistered pilots?
3) SFRAs for Safety and Security Reasons: How will the closure of CBO chartered airfields produce a more safe and secure NAS when the safety and security issues relate to the flying of UAVs from non-CBO locations? Restrictions of UAV flying would be appropriately addressed from
the individual municipalities and not the FAA. You could make the argument to outlaw the sale, manufacture and flying of all technologies related to model flight but then that would contradict the 2012 Special Rule for Model Aircraft.
I just put this out there to clarify in my mind what might be the argument posed by an attorney. If people find flaws or different approaches I welcome your input.
2. Have the FAA recognize that (Drones/Quads.Multi-Rotor) types flown near airports are the Problem.
3. Like wise any thing flown at a recognized R/C Model field under a CBO Safety Code, Are Not a problem to the NAS.
4. Place all Registered R/C Flying fields on all aeronautical maps and GPS data bases the same as glider, Sky Diving and Alert Areas are displayed.
5. Allow All Registered R/C Fields (except within 3 miles of a Towered airport) to be 1/3 mile Radius and up to 1500' AGL When a designated spotter is on duty for the expressed purpose of watching for Maned aircraft.
