Yours is the simplest explanation, that a guy used a jetpack like in the video and managed to get up and down without getting caught.

Just had a glimpse over at RCGroups. Still three blind men and an elephant. Causby was essentially a noise abatement suit
and did not establish any altitude claims or really anything else. The award to Causby was eventually reduced because the heavy
bombers and fighters quit using the field. The field continued in operation with GA traffic typical at the time. The dimwits also don't
know that the Causbys had lived there for 8 years with the airport operating before the military began using it. The capper is that a
couple of years later subsequent legislation added take off and landing glidepaths to "navigable airspace", the supposed loophole,
though it was obviously part of routine operations even though not previosly spelled out.

As always happens to every thread someone injects a topic that should have been a different thread starter. Of course this provides an opportunity for some of you to begin flaming someone’s differing opinion.

Hijacking a thread is the norm here on RCU and is likely the reason for it’s continuous spiral down the toilet. The AMA thread was interesting until the jetpack t$rd was tossed into the punch bowl. The usual misfits sprung into action, opened their skulls and began spilling out fecal matter.

So the infants here need to take their personal grudges and attacks private, but, that is unlikely since it becomes an audience of one that denies bloating the ego.

Diverse opinions are the building blocks for solutions and need to be respected even if you disagree. But that is no longer displayed here where threads devolve into rancorous nonsense and drift away entirely.

Sadly RCU used to be a premiere web site I spent countless hours on. Now it’s occasionally ten minutes or less. I surmise the site owner keeps it up as it fits nicely at tax time in the loss column.

Oops, that’s it for my ten minutes. Out.

Usually though, it's not the opinion as much as it is the way things are worded that start the aggressive behavior
I agree, the jet pack topic needed to be in it's own thread but the resulting back and forth would still be the same
Some just need an audience or it's not worth the time needed to post something
Unfortunately, you are correct in that assessment. There are some that have such a need to be right that they can't listen to anything else that contradicts their way of thinking

just an FYI for those upset over this thread's "Hijacking" ;

This thread , for anyone who cares to actually READ the thread TITLE , is the "crickets" thread . This thread was "a thread about nothing" TO BEGIN WITH !!!!!

Now , a thread griping about the lack of activity in OTHER threads sure sounds to me like fair game for pretty much ANY topic that someone cares to post , as any activity at all is very likely to chase those "crickets" away .

So , in short , ANYONE with a problem about this thread's "thread purity" is cordially invited to go post in other more targeted threads where the all important (to some) "thread purity" will be enforced (yeah right ) by the non existent moderation staff , and leave this thread for what it was created to be , a rambling thread to silence those dreaded gawdawful crickets .

Thread Purity Indeed

And now , continuing on with the topic du jour , I am honestly surprised this pic generated no responses , I figured at least one of ya would have shared my concern that this technology could fall into the wrong hands and , well , we all know all too well what happened when more traditional aircraft came to be possessed by the wrong hands 19 years ago tomorrow . A small squadron of terrorists flying something like this could inflict some heavy casualties before someone on the ground was able to take em all out .....

Easier to just attach the weapon to a drone and oufit 50 to 100 drones for the cost of one jetpack.

Then again, if you go back to the late 50s or early 60s, the US army was experimenting with almost the exact same thing. The only difference was that the prototype the army tried to use was bigger, powered by a big enclosed prop and very short ranged when compared to the platform shown above. The army cancelled the project after a couple of prototypes crashed, killing or injuring the operator. The modern jetpacks and the platform shown could change that thinking

Just pointing out how every thread in the AMA Discussions Sub Forum, including Crickets, spins off into crapperville. Good ideas and suggestions get lost in the BS.

And I'm just pointing out that this thread , that you accused me of "hijacking" with my "turd in the punchbowl" topic of the possible jetpack seen by two airline pilots , HAD no real topic from it's beginning .

This is not supposed to be a "save the AMA" thread , it was a wandering melting pot of various topics spread out over a whole bunch of pages before I posted the jetpack story to it .

Let's take a look at this thread's first six posts , shall we , and then you tell me just how this thread was destined for some kind of AMA saving greatness ?

I'm not worried about our US military having them , it's the terrorists , homegrown serial killers , that sort that I'd really rather not get them . Let them become as common as those "Segway" scooters are now and ya just know some jerk is gonna do a fly by shooting somewhere with one , that's the only downside I'm concerned about .

From what I've seen here and at RCGroups, regardless of the supposed original thread topic it ends up at some point being just a placeholder
with the thread going in whatever diection people take it. At RCGroups it is self regulating. The subject will eventually be exhasted and with
10X the number of people participating new threads will pop up and everyone moves on. With so few participants here (a dozen?), splitting
off a new thread on every idea would create a bunch of disjointed threads with a few comments each.

Forget about BVLOS. Forget about RID. This has to be the most ridiculous thing the FAA could expect from a hobbyist.

In a webinar presented today by the FAA this question came up. The answer will shock you.
Excerpts from emails to the webinar host.

My question:

I would like clarification on one of the points in the webinar. It wasn’t clear about the requirements of an instructor. Did I understand that if an unpaid club member is volunteering to teach a new club member how to fly a model airplane that instructor should have a Part 107 cert?

Jim

The answer:

Hi Jim: Yes, anyone who is instructing, even if unpaid, needs a Part 107 cert because even unpaid instruction is considered a level above a hobbyist even though both parties involved are hobbyists.

Best,
Laura

Actually Laura, it's not all that surprising when you consider what the FAA is tasked to do by Congress.
When you consider that a full sized instructor pilot has to have a license to teach others, it could be expected that, with the way things have been going between the FAA and AMA that the FAA would require an R/C instructor to have a "license" to teach that as well. Way back when, while in high school, I took a class that covered the ground school to get a pilot's license. When I completed it, I received a math credit for it and only needed to take my FAA exam and get in my flight time to get my license. To be allowed to teach the class, the teacher had to have an instructor certificate with the FAA, even though no one was actually going to be flying anything with him as an "in plane" instructor as part of the class

Sorry, Laura doesn't know what she's talking about. The basis for instuctor licenses are that a prospective student is required to log a certain amount of
instruction time from an instructor cerified in whatever airman classification they're seeking. No such formal training requirements exist in hobby RC flying
and no regulation exists to cite to issue such a violation.

A friend and I are out flying RC. We both know how to fly but he hasn't ever used flaps. If I explain flaps, how to trim, etc., am I now an "instructor"?

RC instruction for money is another matter.

So, Echo, you're telling me I just replied to someone that has no clue that comes across like an expert? Here I was thinking I had just learned something I didn't know. Guess I got fooled

Someone from the FAA saying something does not necessarily make it so. "We have authority over anything flying down to the blades of grass"

AMA at one time said paid instruction is a grey area. They said they had no problem with it, that is if the paid instructor isn't doing it to make a living.
Then there is the case of a hobby shop or any industry member employee is teaching in a club that significantly helps his employer, even though he is doing so on his own, can he be considered a commercial instructor in the eyes of the FAA? He is not getting paid by the beginners he's teaching.

Welcome to the AMA amateur hour!

The AMA has said many things over the years, and has been so very, very wrong many times.

I believe that, legally speaking, "doing it to make a living" means accepting compensation.....ANY compensation....the law will not sort out what constitutes, "a living" beyond performing a service for pay.

This is a perfect example of how the AMA would be better served being run by paid professionals rather than good ole boys that play with toy airplanes...

Astro

Paid RC instruction was the other main claim, after FPV, in AMA's fake lawsuit over the FAA's interpretation of 336 that AMA filed in 2014
but never persued. There was some discussion on RCGroups about it with (now) DJI US representative Brendan Shulman, AMA's attorney
who filed the suit in 2014.

AMA not persuing their lawsuit did not smell right to me. At the time B. Schulman was still active on RCGroups, so I asked Schulman
about it in a post. Schulman answered that events had moved on, etc. But basically it was all a sham and just for show for AMA members
and the RC public at large.

If you've followed any of this, FAA's 2014 interpretation has been totally affirmed or bolstered by subsequent legislation 100%.

As for AMA, zero.

The recent open letter to the FAA signed by AMA and Google Wing is also a sham. AMA has no idea what they're doing, AOPA
and EAA have their heart in the right place, but Remote ID is coming and Google wants to be it.

In the case of your school course credit, your instructor only had to have either the BGI (Basic Ground Instructor), AGI(Advanced Ground Instructor), or maybe the IGI(Instrument Ground Instructor). None of these instructor ratings require any flight time, a commercial certificate or a medical. The 1 requirement of holding a CFI(or higher) is a Commercial Certificate and a MINIMUM of a 2nd Class medical. But holding just a Commercial/SEL/MEL/etc does not give anyone the authority to sign off a candidate for a certificate or eating. And the 107 certificate is meant for Commercial operations, yet a Commercial-rated pilot has no extra authority to give instruction than a private pilot does. (I’ll leave out the ATP exemption because that’ll needlessly muddy the water and has no application here).

Now how does this apply to the world of R/C? Frankly it cannot, because the rest of the infrastructure that the CFR’s cover for the full-scale world do not exist here, have not been created, and there has been no direction from Congress to do so.

It sounds to me like the FAA rep really has no idea what she is talking about here. I specifically asked the FAA this question and their response was that “No, a 107 certificate was not required if one was instructing another on a recreational basis only”. Of course, the FAA may have changed their minds on this. And if they have, it truly will be a BIG nail in the coffin of this hobby, as it would serve no purpose that wasn’t already covered by the written test that was supposed to be out already for recreational hobbyists from the FAA.

R_Strowe

He may have only needed a BGI cert but, in his case, he was checked out to teach in the C150, 152 and 172. I didn't hear of anyone that actually took the FAA test or got in their hours so I'm assuming none actually ended up with a license. Heaven knows, I'd love to have one now as it would save me serious time commuting to work when I have to drive roughly 45 miles each way as compared to only driving 6 miles to the local airport and fly to work in half the time, if not less. Only issue is I'd need an instrument rating since I'd be flying to and/or from work in the dark on any given day

Ahh, OK. He already held a CFI and a Commercial/SEL/Inst. then as a minimum

I truly hope that the FAA doesn’t actually try to overlay the full-scale model over the R/C community. The results would be devastating.

R_Strowe

Okay guys, here's a rough draft of what I'm thinking of sending to Cantwell and Murray. Let me know what you think:
As members of the US Senate, I'm sure you see many issues come up on the floor. I would like to address another that needs to be brought up.
Between the FAA and Congress, an activity that has been around for at least 70 years is being regulated into history. That activity is Model Aviation. This is an activity that started out with uncontrolled aircraft, moved on to control line and eventually to the radio controlled aircraft we have today. Through much of that time, an organization called the Academy of Model Aeronautics has been in existence as a place to get plans, assistance and information on building and flying aircraft as well as insurance. The AMA has also picked up the task of "lobbying" Congress in support of the activity. Unfortunately, due to some of the actions taken by the AMA in the recent past, Congress and the FAA have set a path that will see the hobby of building and flying R/C aircraft become a thing of the past.
The FAA has recently mandated that the flying of R/C aircraft will be illegal over 400 feet about the ground and is looking into limiting the locations to some of the existing model airfields. This has serious implications to the hobby:

• The airfields are all controlled by organizations that are aligned with the AMA and will require membership to both the organization and the AMA just to fly. This will cost those that are active in the community a significant amount of money BEFORE they would be allowed to fly the first time.
• Many aircraft models are now sold for use in parks and/or play fields. Being made of molded foam, they are marketed as being safe for people to fly with little or no instruction by the industry. People buying these planes would now be required to join the organizations that control the flying fields AND THE AMA or be in violation of the proposed regulations.
• The regulations being looked into will have little to no effect on those that have or plan on buying multi-rotored vehicles(drones) as they don't require a large area to take off or land. It is these "drones" that are the actual problem and not conventional model aircraft or helicopters. It was a drone flown from the Seattle Center that did circles around the Space Needle's observation deck and was used to look into apartments in downtown Seattle as well as cause a dangerous situation for several FAA recognized helipads, some being at hospitals. It was a drone that flew into the "Big Wheel", at the Seattle waterfront within weeks of the first incident.

As you can probably see, the safety issues of model aviation are not with the conventional aircraft but, rather, with the proliferation of drones and the ease in which they can be flown and the ease in which the operator can pack up and "disappear" before anyone from the local police or sheriff's office can get to the location the operator was flying from.
At this time I would request a chance to talk with you about the issue and see if there is some way to prevent the hobby from becoming a thing of the past while protecting our national airspace
Thank You for your time