Drone VS Aircraft - Mid Air Collisions
07-11-2016, 12:48 PM
#526
I too can see why Franklin thinks second degree burns are required to be reported , because it's written right there into the law he quoted . Franklin isn't making that up or twisting that statute to his point's advantage , it says what it says , and that is what the writers of that law intend , that all burns second degree or above get reported .
Bottom line = the law says what it says and Franklin is correct that the incident being discussed here does fall within the scope of requiring reporting under that law .
Bottom line = the law says what it says and Franklin is correct that the incident being discussed here does fall within the scope of requiring reporting under that law .
Last edited by Chris P. Bacon; 07-11-2016 at 12:51 PM.
07-11-2016, 12:51 PM
#527
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
I haven't seen anything from you, Franklin, Hydro, speedracerntrixie, or anyone else for that matter prove that law was in effect and applicable to non-commercial sUAS operations at the time the incident occurred. Will you be providing evidence that law was in effect for non-commercial sUAS operations at the time the incident occurred or is Franklin the only one providing any real substance here?
Originally Posted by franklin_m 
Actually, that's a great idea. I'm thinking:
- Letters to my elected representatives
- Hotline email to FAA
- Hotline email to NTSB
Of course all will include citations of these and other incidents that required reporting under the law, yet were not reported. Pointing them where to look for examples of a not so "impeccable" safety record, which will inform their decisions with respect to future legislative, regulatory, and enforcement action.
I don't know there's a cause and effect, I could certainly never prove it, but I can't help but note that after I asked for copies of the AMA's IRS990's last year (ones that should have been published but were not) under the law / FOIA ... suddenly there's an IRS look at AMA? Things that make you go "hummmmm." But I digress.
So, be careful what you ask for Crispy....I'm just the guy who knows not just who and where to send these, but how to frame it in a way that makes it tough for regulators to ignore. That's the thing about government agencies, when you make it easy for them by telling them exactly where to look, and provide proof of clear and documented violation of law, policy, or regulation, they're more than happy to go look (even more so when you have friends that work there).
07-11-2016, 12:56 PM
#528
No, they will just try to agree with him because they can't possibly agree with anything we say. Note none of them have weighed in on this comment yet:
Originally Posted by franklin_m
Actually, that's a great idea. I'm thinking:
- Letters to my elected representatives
- Hotline email to FAA
- Hotline email to NTSB
Of course all will include citations of these and other incidents that required reporting under the law, yet were not reported. Pointing them where to look for examples of a not so "impeccable" safety record, which will inform their decisions with respect to future legislative, regulatory, and enforcement action.
I don't know there's a cause and effect, I could certainly never prove it, but I can't help but note that after I asked for copies of the AMA's IRS990's last year (ones that should have been published but were not) under the law / FOIA ... suddenly there's an IRS look at AMA? Things that make you go "hummmmm." But I digress.
So, be careful what you ask for Crispy....I'm just the guy who knows not just who and where to send these, but how to frame it in a way that makes it tough for regulators to ignore. That's the thing about government agencies, when you make it easy for them by telling them exactly where to look, and provide proof of clear and documented violation of law, policy, or regulation, they're more than happy to go look (even more so when you have friends that work there).
Originally Posted by franklin_m Actually, that's a great idea. I'm thinking:
- Letters to my elected representatives
- Hotline email to FAA
- Hotline email to NTSB
Of course all will include citations of these and other incidents that required reporting under the law, yet were not reported. Pointing them where to look for examples of a not so "impeccable" safety record, which will inform their decisions with respect to future legislative, regulatory, and enforcement action.
I don't know there's a cause and effect, I could certainly never prove it, but I can't help but note that after I asked for copies of the AMA's IRS990's last year (ones that should have been published but were not) under the law / FOIA ... suddenly there's an IRS look at AMA? Things that make you go "hummmmm." But I digress.
So, be careful what you ask for Crispy....I'm just the guy who knows not just who and where to send these, but how to frame it in a way that makes it tough for regulators to ignore. That's the thing about government agencies, when you make it easy for them by telling them exactly where to look, and provide proof of clear and documented violation of law, policy, or regulation, they're more than happy to go look (even more so when you have friends that work there).
07-11-2016, 12:56 PM
#529
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
But Sport , I too can see why Franklin thinks second degree burns are required to be reported , because it's written right there into the law he quoted . Franklin isn't making that up or twisting that statute to his point's advantage , it says what it says , and that is what the writers of that law intend , that all burns second degree or above get reported . Now , you , I , and the man on the moon may think it's silly to report a muffler burn , but that IS what the letter of the law states . Also , as to muffler burns , if you read the article of the two guys burned by that crashed jet , it only mentioned one of the two burned gents as being treated & released , the least burned of the two . The fact that no further mention was made of the more severely burned guy leads one to wonder if maybe he did spend a bit more time in the hospital than what would be considered "treated & released" as the least burned guy was said to be . Also , don't forget this was no muffler burn , the article described the more burned gent as having been sprayed by burning fuel on his arm , I'll bet that burn was indeed quite severe and far worse than mistakenly coming into contact with the muffler on your old OS 35 .....
Bottom line = the law says what it says and Franklin is correct that the incident being discussed here does fall within the scope of requiring reporting under that law .
Bottom line = the law says what it says and Franklin is correct that the incident being discussed here does fall within the scope of requiring reporting under that law .
Also, and more importantly, since you seem to agree with everything he has to say, what about this?
So, be careful what you ask for Crispy....I'm just the guy who knows not just who and where to send these, but how to frame it in a way that makes it tough for regulators to ignore. That's the thing about government agencies, when you make it easy for them by telling them exactly where to look, and provide proof of clear and documented violation of law, policy, or regulation, they're more than happy to go look (even more so when you have friends that work there).
Got any problem with that or does that seem like something a reasonable person would go about setting into motion? How about the comment made about gathering data for personal injury attorneys. Do you think any of that helps your club or the AMA? Wouldn't you be one of the first to complain about over burdensome regulation and oversight, and yet another thing to keep track of? Who in your club should be responsible for this?
07-11-2016, 01:01 PM
#530
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
Ola! Set aside even the issue of corruption. It's interesting that nobody who generally agrees with Franklin stepped up to comment on that latest threat (and that's exactly what it was), or the comment in the past about gathering data to work hand in hand with personal injury attorneys. The silence in deafening. Ever time I read about another proposed rule or regulation coming from him I naturally wonder why, and what is the true intent of the data collection. They can bob and weave and spin talk about three amigos all they want, but best I've seen so far is "well Frankin said it's the law, so we should do it". This is just another exercise to show how silly some of the laws are, and one persons attempt to classify a park flier and a full scale aircraft as one in the same. Can't help but wonder if he would self report himself if he had an "incident" at the school yard he likes to fly at. I mean, it it's the law...this should have been going on all the time right?
07-11-2016, 01:10 PM
#531
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
Concur. Is it just me or do folks seem to be working really hard to defend failure to follow the law at an AMA sanctioned event? By contrast, it seems to be rather easy for others to find ample documented examples with respect to a less than "impeccable" record. And we haven't even needed to quote AMA's comments on trends they're seeing in insurance claims.
Let's see: FAA reports of sUAS events going up (YYYY/MM vs. YYYY+1/MM), NASA ASRS reports coming more frequently (on very limited search, found six in 2015, vs. six in the years 1998 to 2001 using same criteria), and AMA reporting troubling claim trends. Yet some still deny these are leading indicators of a troubling trend?
Let's see: FAA reports of sUAS events going up (YYYY/MM vs. YYYY+1/MM), NASA ASRS reports coming more frequently (on very limited search, found six in 2015, vs. six in the years 1998 to 2001 using same criteria), and AMA reporting troubling claim trends. Yet some still deny these are leading indicators of a troubling trend?
07-11-2016, 01:11 PM
#532
It's funny how you guys practically demand that we answer your questions yet fail to answer ours. What are we going to do about those birds Chris? It's quite obvious your agendas are to keep the argument alive. Links to information have been posted yet you fail to recognize them. A mind is a terrible thing to waste, a closed mind is even worse.
07-11-2016, 01:13 PM
#533
Ola! Set aside even the issue of corruption. It's interesting that nobody who generally agrees with Franklin stepped up to comment on that latest threat (and that's exactly what it was), or the comment in the past about gathering data to work hand in hand with personal injury attorneys. The silence in deafening. Ever time I read about another proposed rule or regulation coming from him I naturally wonder why, and what is the true intent of the data collection. They can bob and weave and spin talk about three amigos all they want, but best I've seen so far is "well Frankin said it's the law, so we should do it". This is just another exercise to show how silly some of the laws are, and one persons attempt to classify a park flier and a full scale aircraft as one in the same. Can't help but wonder if he would self report himself if he had an "incident" at the school yard he likes to fly at. I mean, it it's the law...this should have been going on all the time right?
07-11-2016, 01:13 PM
#534
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
And Porcia...
If the organization is as safe as it says it is, why should you be at all concerned about what I might send regulators or legislators?
Failure to comply with the law with respect to incident reporting is part of the reason there's not a lot of data on actual safety performance. And the actual performance and actual compliance (or non-compliance) with AMA guidelines is what concerns me with respect to the danger of collisions between drones and manned aircraft.
NASA's safety database has several reports that show the "impeccable" record is not so "impeccable." Furthermore, it shows that these near misses often involve "model aircraft." I counted a number of times manned aircraft had to maneuver to avoid a collision with a "model aircraft". Not so "impeccable" as people have been told.
If the organization is as safe as it says it is, why should you be at all concerned about what I might send regulators or legislators?
Failure to comply with the law with respect to incident reporting is part of the reason there's not a lot of data on actual safety performance. And the actual performance and actual compliance (or non-compliance) with AMA guidelines is what concerns me with respect to the danger of collisions between drones and manned aircraft.
NASA's safety database has several reports that show the "impeccable" record is not so "impeccable." Furthermore, it shows that these near misses often involve "model aircraft." I counted a number of times manned aircraft had to maneuver to avoid a collision with a "model aircraft". Not so "impeccable" as people have been told.
http://<iframe src='http://players.b...er=0></iframe>
A report into the incident – in which eight were injured – concluded that human error was to blame. Thankfully, no deaths.
07-11-2016, 01:16 PM
#535
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
I have absolutely no concerns about anything you send to any regulator or legislator. Send reports, links, and your theory on this horribly troubling trend and be sure to update all of us on the response you get. Speaking of a group with I guess we can say is less than "exceptional" safety record. This just in;
http://<iframe src='http://players.b...er=0></iframe>
A report into the incident – in which eight were injured – concluded that human error was to blame. Thankfully, no deaths.
http://<iframe src='http://players.b...er=0></iframe>
A report into the incident – in which eight were injured – concluded that human error was to blame. Thankfully, no deaths.
07-11-2016, 01:17 PM
#536
It's funny how you guys practically demand that we answer your questions yet fail to answer ours. What are we going to do about those birds Chris? It's quite obvious your agendas are to keep the argument alive. Links to information have been posted yet you fail to recognize them. A mind is a terrible thing to waste, a closed mind is even worse.
http://www.faa.gov/airports/airport_...fe/management/
Maybe you can let them know?
07-11-2016, 01:20 PM
#537
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
Hi guys,
Glad to see everyone is still getting along as always. lmao!!
Read this whole thread. Fun!
I am just going to make one comment about the 400ft limit.
When I go to fly my fpv plane, I take off flying los and get to an altitude that looks safe and I put my plane in loiter (250ft radius around gps position when engadged) and get situated to fly fpv. You know what the funny thing was? Everytime I put the goggles on I was very suprised to see my altitude between 450-550ft. I would have never guessed I was that high up and I could very easily fly los at that altitude. I was not trying to take the plane to the edge of my vision, but just flying up to a safe altitude before I put it in loiter. This is a 5ft wingspan foam, whate glider. About the size of my GP .40 non-clipped Piper Cub. That 400ft limit is a joke.
Ok, I'm done. Carry on with the arguing. lol.
Oh, porcia, I will be in CT the end of Aug. I will get at ya.
Glad to see everyone is still getting along as always. lmao!!
Read this whole thread. Fun!
I am just going to make one comment about the 400ft limit.
When I go to fly my fpv plane, I take off flying los and get to an altitude that looks safe and I put my plane in loiter (250ft radius around gps position when engadged) and get situated to fly fpv. You know what the funny thing was? Everytime I put the goggles on I was very suprised to see my altitude between 450-550ft. I would have never guessed I was that high up and I could very easily fly los at that altitude. I was not trying to take the plane to the edge of my vision, but just flying up to a safe altitude before I put it in loiter. This is a 5ft wingspan foam, whate glider. About the size of my GP .40 non-clipped Piper Cub. That 400ft limit is a joke.
Ok, I'm done. Carry on with the arguing. lol.
Oh, porcia, I will be in CT the end of Aug. I will get at ya.
07-11-2016, 01:27 PM
#538
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
It's funny how you guys practically demand that we answer your questions yet fail to answer ours. What are we going to do about those birds Chris? It's quite obvious your agendas are to keep the argument alive. Links to information have been posted yet you fail to recognize them. A mind is a terrible thing to waste, a closed mind is even worse.
Here's another issue that we might want to look into, hot in, just off the press;
http://www.aol.com/article/2016/07/1...ying/21429801/
Guess how many of those incidents occur in the US each year? Guess how many drone versus aircraft collisions have occurred? 0.0
Oh, and yes there are things that can be done to avoid hail damage.
07-11-2016, 01:37 PM
#539
[QUOTE=Chris P. Bacon;12233654]I haven't seen anything from you, Franklin, Hydro, speedracerntrixie, or anyone else for that matter prove that law was in effect and applicable to non-commercial sUAS operations at the time the incident occurred.QUOTE]
I provided a link to the eCFR, and below each section is an annotation of when they were enacted and amended, You must have missed it.
830.1 which includes the requirement to report - [60 FR 40112, Aug. 7, 1995] (before the event)
830.2 which defines that aircraft accident includes unmanned aircraft incident as well as establishes the 2nd degree injury criteria - [53 FR 36982, Sept. 23, 1988, as amended at 60 FR 40112, Aug. 7, 1995; 75 FR 51955, Aug. 24, 2010] (all before the event)
http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx...dno=49;cc=ecfr
I provided a link to the eCFR, and below each section is an annotation of when they were enacted and amended, You must have missed it.
830.1 which includes the requirement to report - [60 FR 40112, Aug. 7, 1995] (before the event)
830.2 which defines that aircraft accident includes unmanned aircraft incident as well as establishes the 2nd degree injury criteria - [53 FR 36982, Sept. 23, 1988, as amended at 60 FR 40112, Aug. 7, 1995; 75 FR 51955, Aug. 24, 2010] (all before the event)
http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx...dno=49;cc=ecfr
Last edited by franklin_m; 07-11-2016 at 01:54 PM.
07-11-2016, 01:46 PM
#542
07-11-2016, 01:46 PM
#543
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
Darn it Franklin , again with the facts that shoot holes in the BS argument that the law wasn't in effect when the incident happened ! How could you go draggin cold hard facts into their little pots twistin' party they're havin here ? Gee , guess they'll have to come up with some OTHER reason why the law don't apply ......
07-11-2016, 01:47 PM
#544
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
830.1 which includes the requirement to report - 60 FR 40112, Aug. 7, 1995 (before the event)
830.2 which defines that aircraft accident includes unmanned aircraft incident as well as establishes the 2nd degree injury criteria - [53 FR 36982, Sept. 23, 1988, as amended at 60 FR 40112, Aug. 7, 1995; 75 FR 51955, Aug. 24, 2010] (all before the event)
830.2 which defines that aircraft accident includes unmanned aircraft incident as well as establishes the 2nd degree injury criteria - [53 FR 36982, Sept. 23, 1988, as amended at 60 FR 40112, Aug. 7, 1995; 75 FR 51955, Aug. 24, 2010] (all before the event)
07-11-2016, 01:55 PM
#545
Ya...right. LOL. You're too funny. Were you applying this "law" all along, no doubt you and your club were aware of this and in full compliance right? Say, I must have missed the part where Franklin gave the date this was in effect? 1988...1995, 2010. All very very current. LOL!
07-11-2016, 01:55 PM
#546
Maybe now he'll have a little more time to do is research on 18 U.S. Code § 201. Maybe others can research as well.
07-11-2016, 01:57 PM
#547
07-11-2016, 02:02 PM
#548
07-11-2016, 02:04 PM
#550
"...directly or indirectly, corruptly gives, offers or promises anything of value..."
"...being a public official or person selected to be a public official, directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value..."
"...directly or indirectly, corruptly gives, offers, or promises anything of value to any person, or offers or promises such person to give anything of value..."
"...directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value..."
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/granule/US...-chap11-sec201