Drone VS Aircraft - Mid Air Collisions
07-11-2016, 02:10 PM
#552
"Serious injury means any injury which: (1) Requires hospitalization for more than 48 hours, commencing within 7 days from the date of the injury was received; (2) results in a fracture of any bone (except simple fractures of fingers, toes, or nose); (3) causes severe hemorrhages, nerve, muscle, or tendon damage; (4) involves any internal organ; or (5) involves second- or third-degree burns, or any burns affecting more than 5 percent of the body surface. [emphasis added]"
[53 FR 36982, Sept. 23, 1988, as amended at 60 FR 40112, Aug. 7, 1995; 75 FR 51955, Aug. 24, 2010]
http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx...dno=49;cc=ecfr
07-11-2016, 02:12 PM
#553
07-11-2016, 02:15 PM
#554
Ridiculous interpretation that fails to recognize the sentence construction. Note that this is five enumerated conditions, each separated by a semi-colon, with an "or" between the last semi-colon. If any one of those five conditions are true, then it is a "serious injury" per that section. Besides, it is in fact the second degree burn condition that follows after the "; or..."
Captious.
"Serious injury means any injury which: (1) Requires hospitalization for more than 48 hours, commencing within 7 days from the date of the injury was received; (2) results in a fracture of any bone (except simple fractures of fingers, toes, or nose); (3) causes severe hemorrhages, nerve, muscle, or tendon damage; (4) involves any internal organ; or (5) involves second- or third-degree burns, or any burns affecting more than 5 percent of the body surface. [emphasis added]"
[53 FR 36982, Sept. 23, 1988, as amended at 60 FR 40112, Aug. 7, 1995; 75 FR 51955, Aug. 24, 2010]
http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx...dno=49;cc=ecfr
Captious.
"Serious injury means any injury which: (1) Requires hospitalization for more than 48 hours, commencing within 7 days from the date of the injury was received; (2) results in a fracture of any bone (except simple fractures of fingers, toes, or nose); (3) causes severe hemorrhages, nerve, muscle, or tendon damage; (4) involves any internal organ; or (5) involves second- or third-degree burns, or any burns affecting more than 5 percent of the body surface. [emphasis added]"
[53 FR 36982, Sept. 23, 1988, as amended at 60 FR 40112, Aug. 7, 1995; 75 FR 51955, Aug. 24, 2010]
http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx...dno=49;cc=ecfr
07-11-2016, 02:18 PM
#556
You really should read these first. If you had, then you'd notice that a key component of this code is to give something of value in exchange for something:
"...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
"...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
07-11-2016, 02:32 PM
#557
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
So we're going to somehow blame the AMA retroactively for not complying with a law that was written almost 30 years ago that you feel applies to RC aircraft? This appears to be one of your biggest leaps ever, incredulous really wouldn't you say. It's doubtful you really buy into this, rather are you trying to make a point by way of comparison?
07-11-2016, 02:34 PM
#558
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
Sounds reasonable....so you and your club were aware of this so called law and have been complying with it since say, 1988. Are you really going to agree with Franklin's premise just so you don't have to agree with others, despite the complete lack of reality here? Really?
07-11-2016, 03:39 PM
#561
Impressive. The victims medical report is publicly available where?
07-11-2016, 04:05 PM
#563
Sounds reasonable....so you and your club were aware of this so called law and have been complying with it since say, 1988. Are you really going to agree with Franklin's premise just so you don't have to agree with others, despite the complete lack of reality here? Really?
07-11-2016, 04:15 PM
#565
Exactly .
Do I think the law is well meaning , but it's wording makes it outrageously far reaching with regards to the second degree burn reporting requirement ? Heck Yea ! Any law that requires reporting of all second degree burns without taking into account other factors such as the size/amount of those burns , sure sounds excessive to me . But then , there are whole bunches of laws that likely sound excessive when ya look into em and we're not supposed to go breaking them just cause we've deemed them excessive/overbearing/etc either . It's kinda like the law about no lying to the FBI , only very certain few get to get off Scott free on breaking that one , and the rest of us mere mortals have to follow it along with all the other laws . Including , it would appear , reporting all second degree burns sustained during UAS operations .
I don't write em . I just read em , understand what they say , and do my best to not run afoul of them . And as written , whether I agree with it's entire premise or not , it's pretty clear cut in it's intention .....
Do I think the law is well meaning , but it's wording makes it outrageously far reaching with regards to the second degree burn reporting requirement ? Heck Yea ! Any law that requires reporting of all second degree burns without taking into account other factors such as the size/amount of those burns , sure sounds excessive to me . But then , there are whole bunches of laws that likely sound excessive when ya look into em and we're not supposed to go breaking them just cause we've deemed them excessive/overbearing/etc either . It's kinda like the law about no lying to the FBI , only very certain few get to get off Scott free on breaking that one , and the rest of us mere mortals have to follow it along with all the other laws . Including , it would appear , reporting all second degree burns sustained during UAS operations .
I don't write em . I just read em , understand what they say , and do my best to not run afoul of them . And as written , whether I agree with it's entire premise or not , it's pretty clear cut in it's intention .....
07-11-2016, 04:58 PM
#568
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
Exactly .
Do I think the law is well meaning , but it's wording makes it outrageously far reaching with regards to the second degree burn reporting requirement ? Heck Yea ! Any law that requires reporting of all second degree burns without taking into account other factors such as the size/amount of those burns , sure sounds excessive to me . Like Sport says , a muffler burn with bubbling skin is second degree , and even if it's dime sized they want to know about it ? But then again , there are whole bunches of laws that likely sound excessive when ya look into em and we're not supposed to go breaking them just cause we've deemed them excessive/overbearing/etc either . It's kinda like the law about no lying to the FBI , only very certain few get to get off Scott free on breaking that one , and the rest of us mere mortals have to follow it along with all the other laws . Including , it would appear , reporting all second degree burns regardless of size sustained during UAS operations .
I don't write em . I just read em , understand what they say , and do my best to not run afoul of them . And as written , whether I agree with it's entire premise or not , it's pretty clear cut in it's intention .....
Do I think the law is well meaning , but it's wording makes it outrageously far reaching with regards to the second degree burn reporting requirement ? Heck Yea ! Any law that requires reporting of all second degree burns without taking into account other factors such as the size/amount of those burns , sure sounds excessive to me . Like Sport says , a muffler burn with bubbling skin is second degree , and even if it's dime sized they want to know about it ? But then again , there are whole bunches of laws that likely sound excessive when ya look into em and we're not supposed to go breaking them just cause we've deemed them excessive/overbearing/etc either . It's kinda like the law about no lying to the FBI , only very certain few get to get off Scott free on breaking that one , and the rest of us mere mortals have to follow it along with all the other laws . Including , it would appear , reporting all second degree burns regardless of size sustained during UAS operations .
I don't write em . I just read em , understand what they say , and do my best to not run afoul of them . And as written , whether I agree with it's entire premise or not , it's pretty clear cut in it's intention .....
So
07-11-2016, 05:00 PM
#569
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
Last time I checked, you aren't telling them what law to follow or not follow either. They have professionals to do that, either elected or paid for their expertise. Of all the doom and gloom and "what if's" thrown out to see what will stick against the wall, this had got to be one of the best red herrings yet. You seem to have one ardent supporting buying into it hook line and sinker.
07-11-2016, 05:05 PM
#571
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
Also...are you a CD and if so, have you ever CD'd an event?
07-11-2016, 05:07 PM
#572
Well, now that we're on the subject of checking, do the school officials for the school property you fly on know they are responsible for filing a report with the NTSB in the event you meet the criteria? Did you notify them of this when you requested permission in writing to use field for potentially lethal sUAS operations?
07-11-2016, 05:16 PM
#573
07-11-2016, 05:18 PM
#575
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
Wow, talk about exponential leaps and bounds. Really depends who the one is who's doing the thinking.
Well, now that we're on the subject of checking, do the school officials for the school property you fly on know they are responsible for filing a report with the NTSB in the event you meet the criteria? Did you notify them of this when you requested permission in writing to use field for potentially lethal sUAS operations?
Well, now that we're on the subject of checking, do the school officials for the school property you fly on know they are responsible for filing a report with the NTSB in the event you meet the criteria? Did you notify them of this when you requested permission in writing to use field for potentially lethal sUAS operations?