Chris P. Bacon

My Feedback: (4)

This is interesting:

https://cei.org/content/cei-comments...g-requirements

https://cei.org/sites/default/files/...20comments.pdf

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

Yup, they are right in DC too. Wonder if they will do more than make a commment, ie: pony up some cash and join in the litigation .

Chris P. Bacon

My Feedback: (4)

One reason I'm not registering until the last day possible.

Granpooba

My Feedback: (5)

If they did, why did we not hear of this from the AMA ? Or, does the AMA know nothing of what is happening around them ?

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

If who did what? The CEI released their comments on Friday afternoon...and they more or less echoed what the AMA has been saying all along. What was AMA supposed to do, rehash what another group already has said that the AMA has previously said?

Granpooba

My Feedback: (5)

Just seems like a their is a lot of miscommunication between entities and the AMA " members " are taking the hits.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

Not all entities will communicate with each other even if there interests are similar. In this case the CEI is at least a year or more behind the AMA is what they are saying. The only entity that I'm concerned about in terms of communication is the AMA, and for me they have been advising us of their progress all along.

Chris P. Bacon

My Feedback: (4)

+1. Although I like the CEI's comments, it's not clear who's funding them, who specifically they are representing, and what the intent of their involvement is.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

I'm sure if we dug a little we could tell. Probably a front for some extremely wealthy special interest group/family. Has all the markings of an offshoot of the Chamber of Commerce, traditionally conservative right wing small govt free market kinda entity. Not saying that's good or bad before the whole right/left arguments start flying.

Luchnia

My Feedback: (21)

Although I know nothing about CEI, I do share some similar thoughts. Here is a quote from their document: "FAA's claim that UAS present a significant immediate safety risk is highly implausible. 36 FAA also fails to demonstrate how mandating registration by itself particularly with respect to model aircraft, will mitigate UAS safety risk. A registered model aircraft is just as capable as an unregistered one of colliding with another aircraft."

I do agree that the FAA fails to demonstrate how mandating registration by itself will mitigate safety risk. It is BS and typical government hype piled on layers of bloat.

The last sentence in the quote has sort of been my argument against the FAA registration fiasco. I can apply the same logic to non-registered folks - sort of sets the whole registry concept as a waste of taxpayer money. Yikes, did I type that? .

Franklin will probably chime in and set me straight.

cj_rumley

I don't recall Franklin saying anywhere that that registration by itself will mitigate safety risk. Nor has DOT, FAA, AMA or anybody with half a brain that has posted in this forum said it will. Dozens of posters have replied to the ghosts that say it will, though.

Silent-AV8R

Ummm.. Here is Question Number 1 from the FAA FAQ on Registration:



And this is from the IFR as published by the FAA:

Quote:

Many of the owners of these new sUAS may have no prior aviation experience and have little or no understanding of the NAS, let alone knowledge of the safe operating requirements. Aircraft registration provides an immediate and direct opportunity for the agency to engage and educate these new users prior to operating their unmanned aircraft, thus helping to mitigate the risk associated with the influx of operations.The risk of unsafe operation will increase as more small unmanned aircraft enter theNAS. Registration will provide a means by which to quickly identify these small unmanned aircraft in the event of an incident or accident involving the sUAS. Registration of small unmanned aircraft also provides an immediate and direct opportunity for the agency to educatesUAS owners on safety requirements before they begin operating.

FAA clearly thinks that registration will impact safety. I personally think that is absurd, but there it is.

tailskid

My Feedback: (34)

Now here is a REAL CBO

http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2580042

cj_rumley

C'mon Silent,
In both of the places you highlighted where it was said that registration helps with safety/risk mitigation it goes on to mention how, that is, traceability/identification of of a small UA in case of an incident. You know full well that this is to enable prosecution of the offenders and so derive some deterrent value, and is intended to support the primary objective of stepping up enforcement action against those that are bringing the law down on responsible model aircraft flyers ( an educational benefit also mentioned) . Most people understand that, and I challenge you cite anyone that has posted in this forum that registration in and of itself will make the NAS safer. AMA/CEI et al legal eagles will doubtless pull sound bites out of context like this, but even given my skepticism of the reasoning of courts, such argument won't fly. It will however impede/delay FAA from taking actions that might lead to some relief from bad PR heat on us "drone operators" are we are now known thanks in part to AMA's redefinition of MA to include drones. Is that a reasonable objective for AMA in your estimation?

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

Ol' Earl liked it so much he joined twice!

GBLynden

Thanks! I joined that too

tailskid

My Feedback: (34)

And here is my CBO OFFICIAL Document....

Sport_Pilot

There are thousands of comments to the FAA. Do you expect the AMA to tell you of all of them? BTW you can see all of them on the FAA website. Do you expect the AMA to tell members everything? Even though some members are employee's of the FAA?

Sport_Pilot

So if you feel this way about their comments, why haven't you communicated what your comments are? Why are you contributing to the miscommunication?

Sport_Pilot

The national chamber of commerce is a left wing group not right wing.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

No, incorrect. They contribute to both parties but are far from left leaning. In 2012 90% of their contributions (35million plus) went to conservative Republican or attack ads against dems. Over 50 million was spent in 2014 again over 80% for repubs. What kind of left leaning group would do that?

Chris P. Bacon

My Feedback: (4)

This thread is about the CEI, not the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compet...rise_Institute

Sporty, do you make any attempt to verify or validate anything you state before posting?

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

Sorry about that, my bad for bringing that group up. Tried to reference them in a comparison, but will stay on point now

Sport_Pilot

There money did not go to conservative repoublicans. They went to liberal republicans whom I despise almost as much as demoncrats.

Sport_Pilot

Porcia brought up the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. He called those liberal Harvard *******s conservative, which they are not..