Chris P. Bacon

My Feedback: (4)

Much appreciated.

Chris P. Bacon

My Feedback: (4)

I'd like to know as well. You'd think everyone would be applauding the only legal course of action we have.

init4fun

Hi CJ ,

I respect anyone's efforts such as the gent who filed suit against the FAA . The man is standing up for what he believes is right and truly God bless him . I am the first to agree that registering LOS model aircraft is a step too far , but my worry is that the FAA seems to have carefully crafted their way around #336 by claiming all UAS are aircraft and since there is a pre existing requirement for the registration of all aircraft I can't see how the court will rule that the registration is a new requirement in violation of #336 . The best hope , in my opinion , will be to get the court to rule that we are not aircraft bound by FAA control since we carry no living beings . One of the FAA's definitions of an aircraft that I read had some mention of "designed to navigate in the air" , now to me , since "navigation" in that sense speaks of the moving of people from one location to another , and since we carry no human cargo , can we really be said to be "navigating" anything ? I looked up the definition of navigation and the examples I saw all spoke of navagation being the process of moving people , no where did it speak of the movement of unmanned mechanical contrivances . I realize the term "navigate" can be interpreted to mean "steering something around" but to me with no human cargo I can't rightly call operating a UAS "navigating" it . For further reference I look to the unmanned rockets that place satellites in orbit . I have never heard of their flight paths being called navigation and I suspect this wording is due to there being no humans on board . It's a stretch , but in one way or other our best bet would be to get the court to recognize that the principal reason aircraft exist is the transportation of people , and since we have not a soul on board we are not the aircraft the FAA was tasked with regulating at it's inception .

Silent-AV8R

So you are OK with agreeing to fly below 400 feet?? For me that is the sticking point. Until the FAA clarifies that this is not a hard limit I plan to hold off registering. Everything else does not bother me much, but their backdoor attempt to impose a 400 foot altitude cap is not something I can abide by.

init4fun

Ok Tim , If you didn't mean that as an attack against me , then you do have my apology . For real .

Please understand that when you posted what you did , you quoted my post and so it sure looked like you were attacking me . Honestly , I have agreed with you on some ideas , and disagreed on others . I do not want an enemy of you or anyone else here over a different take on what's going on in our hobby right now . I know all too well how easy it is to see folks who think differently than I as "the enemy" and I try my best to not let that mentality creep into my posts . We are all here for the common love of things that fly , and I can't picture wanting myself to dislike anyone who participates in such a great hobby as ours . The outside world thinks we're all weird for being "old men playing with toy airplanes" , there are only about 50 or 75 of us who post regularly here , and each other is all we got as far as having like minded folks to talk with .

Again , My Apology for misunderstanding your post , and next time I'll make sure to clarify a post's meaning before I take issue with it .

Happy Flying , for real , to you Tim and everyone else out here ........

Silent-AV8R

They are not claiming that so much as pointing out that Section 336 itself defines models as a type of aircraft. AMA goofed in using that term in 336. Once we are defined as aircraft in the law, which we are right now, then the FAA can claim us as fair game. AMA is working on changes to 336 in the next FMRA coming up this year. Hopefully this will be one of the key elements they get changed.

cj_rumley

So it's mainly a symbolic effort that folks might find inspirational. I can buy that. I do see problems with arguing we not operating 'aircraft' while at the same time claiming that FAA is not following the law re sec 336. Every stated condition for exemption from FAA regulation in 336 specifies that it applies to 'aircraft.'

Chris P. Bacon

My Feedback: (4)

Considering his law experience I doubt he'd be spending his personal time on something symbolic.

TheEdge

My Feedback: (788)

Exactly, and supports why more people complain about his posts than compliment.

Your one of posters I most respect init and I find it satisfying that you spoke out about his character.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

And the post vulture descends on cue.........

RCFlyerDan

My Feedback: (54)

I am with you on this too!! I haven't registered either, due to this issue of the 400'.

I think it is EXCELLENT that finally a hobbyist modeler, who happens to be a Lawyer, finally did something on their spare time to help out the group as a whole. I am a retiree, wasn't a Lawyer, so don't know the legal system. Being a retiree, I also don't have the $$ to hire a Lawyer to take on the FAA. I thought the AMA had a more recent law suite, and that is why we are waiting to register? I wish other retired Lawyers, who are modelers, maybe dust off their books and glasses to add more law suites against the FAA. Just a thought.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

His time and efforts don't come cheap either. There are costs associated with filing the action, and his time is also valuable.

Are we going to consider his actions as equally symbolic as those of the AMA who filed a similar challenge? I think people do these things for real change, not a chance to show some type of symbolism.

init4fun

My friends , your collective point is well taken , and I agree it'll be a tough fight getting the "aircraft" label removed that we've accidentally gotten stuck to ourselves . My only hope would be in getting the court to decide that since full scale aircraft operations are done for the transportation of either people or goods (or other payloads) , and since we are transporting nothing , that we truly are Models of aircraft and not actual aircraft themselves .

By the FAA's logic , the RMV (registry of motor vehicles) can force registration and insurance on my Son's model 4X4 truck , being that all trucks in the state of Massachusetts are required by law to have registration and insurance . Thank God the CDL requirement don't kick in till ya get over 10,000 pounds GVW (gross vehicle weight) , huh ?

It's reasons like this , and the removal of the hobby strangling 400 foot limit , that I support any and all action to get the FAA to do the right thing and declare all LOS RC model aircraft operations as just that , "model" aircraft operations !

After all , doesn't being a "model" in this sense refer to being something less than the actual object being "modeled" ?

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

The AMA's action dates back to Aug of 2014 I believe. The reason the AMA has asked us to hold off on registering is because they continue to try to work out a deal with the FAA in regards to their registration requirements. Don't know all the issues they are still trying to hammer out, but assume they will benefit us all. The best part of your post though is that you called this guy a hobbyist modeler. The story described him as a multi-rotor builder and flyer of about a year. Many many folks here would NOT classify him has a modeler since he doesn't build replicas of scale models. Nor do they think he belongs in the AMA because he flies MR. This is the sort of irony I was addressing in my second post here. I wish this guy nothing but the best, he deserves praise for his actions regardless of how they play out. He also is most deserving of an AMA membership.

RCFlyerDan

My Feedback: (54)

I am an aviation enthusiast. I fly jets and large scale, don't like helicopters, but like quadcopters, don't like foamies, but think they have their place for the group of hobbyist that enjoy them. I started to fly c/l when I was 8 or 9, didn't know about the AMA for another few years. And, surprisingly, wasn't when I first started to fly r/c, due to being flown at a college empty field. I didn't get my AMA until I actually joined DCRC, Rockville, MD, back when they were located down in the valley, and had to join the AMA, in order to fly there. Just because you aren't in the AMA, doesn't mean that you aren't a hobbyist. Just means that you either don't know about them, or you don't fly at an AMA field. I just thought as a collective group, that the AMA had it's own Lawyers and had filed a law suite against the FAA to Congress? I just love the fact that a hobbyist and a Lawyer has stepped up to the plate!

cj_rumley

I'll support action to get FAA doing the right thing if that means separating 'model aircraft' from 'drone,' which I believe will have more positive impact than separating our hobby models from manned aircraft.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

The AMA had previously filed suit last year to have the matter litigated, hopefully in their favor. This doesn't stop others from filing their own actions as well. In some instances similar parties with the same goals can also come together and file one action on behalf of all of them. I agree totally with the comments about hobbyists not needing to be part of the AMA to enjoy the hobby. I suspect there are many people who build and don't fly, or just fly that aren't part of the AMA, perhaps even more than there are AMA members.

init4fun

I agree that getting us declared LOS model aircraft VS BLOS drones would serve us far better than the aircraft VS model aircraft strategy

BUT !

I don't think that's all that likely since to the FAA , once an AMA #550 flyer puts on the goggles , he's now BLOS since the goggles are blocking his direct view of the craft he's piloting . We had a possible chance with the "old #550" that had the pilot in command being the one with direct visual contact and the co pilot on the trainer TX wearing the goggles . Once the AMA watered down #550 to the point that a spotter is the only one with direct visual contact , we were screwed ....

RCFlyerDan

My Feedback: (54)

I have a buddy who is studying Aeronautical/Aerospace Engineering at Emery Riddle. Met him flying at a local ball diamond flying foamies. Now, he is a Junior and LOVE's Quadcopters, and he and his buddies race them away from people through a wood course. I have told him about quadcopters not being liked by the model community. At 20ish, he really doesn't care, due to this is the new aviation technology and where aviation and engineering are heading in the BIG picture. I am mad as Heck! about the FAA trying to control my hobby. Flew professionally as a Jet Capt, so have dealt with the FAA, and think this is totally over stepping our freedoms and rights to enjoy our hobby. And, this truly won't stop terrorist.
However, I do see a need to have some sort of FAR's for what is truly a Commercial Drone weighing far more then 55 pounds, and even upwards of 2000 pounds, flying for the law enforcement, private companies, such as Real Estate, Fishing, Photography and Cinematography, etc. In 50 years, since there are already guys doing it in a small back yard form, I can truly see a quadcopter becoming a form of transportation for the "dummy land car driver". The future is amazing, but in the mean time, the growth of this new aviation technology is a pain in the ass to my hobby.

init4fun

I think his multirotors belong right there along side of all the other AMA model aircraft , providing they are flown LOS* like the rest of the model aircraft are .......

* LOS meaning , of course , that the pilot has direct visual contact of the model he is piloting unaided by anything other than corrective glasses prescribed by a physician for vision correction , or sunglasses to block out glare thus giving a better visual contact with the model in question

init4fun

Not being a grammar Nazi here , but it's "Embry Riddle" and not "Emery" . No biggie , a lot of folks make the same mistake since Emery is a far more common name than Embry is .

cj_rumley

Therein is the rub that leads to your doubt expressed a couple of posts back. You are in agreement with FAA's position on this, which is in conflict with AMA's. I share that doubt as I think it most unlikely that AMA will back away from FPV and so the drone market they are aggressively trying to exploit.

TheEdge

My Feedback: (788)

Imagine, if people didn't keep calling you out for the character you are then I wouldn't be able to speak to the fact that I see it the same.
That's the Truth right there.

RCFlyerDan

My Feedback: (54)

I flew for Emery, out of Dayton, thus remember my paycheck and the spelling, and the big RED EMERY Ramp sign above the sort center. Never thought much of the Flight School Embry Riddle, since it is the blind teaching the blind, especially crosswind landings.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

It seems the purpose of your life on these threads is to stalk two people, me and Scale, and wait to find ways to comment on both of us, clearly not as fixated on Scale as you are on me. Anyone tracking your posts over the past two years (those that are still here that is) can see that clearly. If that's what gets you off, have at it. You've appointed yourself judge and jury of the character of others, as you have equally tried to appoint yourself moderator at large. Again, have at it. If this is what you feel you need to do either on your behalf, or others, by all means you do what you do.