astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

Come on, man! Seriously?
Please cite the source for your, "facts", your southern posterior?
These threads will continue to aimlessly go back and forth as long as you continue to make things up as the basis for your arguments!

astro

RCUer75345

As Reagan used to say, "There you go again!"

There is no "forced CBO membership" because no one is being FORCED to join a CBO. FRIAs do not "limit access to airspace" because there is no shortage of airspace. Anyone can access airspace anywhere not otherwise prohibited by law by simply buying a Remote ID compliant UAS (which is what the FAA desires anyway). If one wishes access to the BENEFITS of FRIA use, then one should pay the same fees as others using that FRIA already do.

A good analogy is the Federal Employee Heath Benefits (FEHB) program. Unlike the military, Federal civilian employees do not receive health care directly from the government. They are presented with options and can decide which of several plans (or no plan) they wish to select each year. These plans are administered by private providers and include everything from comprehensive managed care HMOs to high-deductible health plans.

What Federal employees CANNOT do is walk into a doctor's office or hospital and demand to be treated at FEHB rates just because they work for the government. They have to pay to play. If they choose not to pay, they're on their own.

Now if this sort of pay-to-play arrangement applies even to Federal employees -- tell me why a similar pay-to-play arrangement cannot apply to FRIAs?

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

Good grief Asstro, follow your own advise. Most of the BS that you spew is nothing but opinion. Yours has no more value then mine, fact is mine comes from looking at a bigger picture and perhaps some enthusiasm, sorry you are such a negitive Nancy with short vision. I'm quite curious as to what goes through that head of yours that feeds your need to be such a big fish in a little pond. Does being an overly aggressive jerk in a very small forum that only .0000000000001% of the population care about somehow give you some satisfaction you can't get anywhere else?

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

Now with the name-calling. Who can't handle the truth? Your true colors are showing...... (nice typo! freudian slip or underhanded jab? classy touch!)

Having a discussion with you is like playing chess with a pigeon, it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board and flies back to its flock to claim victory.

Astro

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

So you think yours is BS too?

Astro

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

I'm quite satisfied in my real life, just not with those who can't have a factual, meaningful conversation.

Astro

init4fun

Um , guys , a bit of mutual tolerance would be most welcome right around now .....

Remember RC Ken ? Ken Issacs , the guy who used to moderate the AMA forum here ? How long to you think he would have tolerated the back & fourth aimed at each other rather than aimed at each other's viewpoints ? The people of this board , ALL of the people , make great points and present their sides well , right up till the point of where "agree to disagree" should be reached , and then BAM ! , it goes off the rails with "Southern Posteriors" and "overly aggressive jerks" .

I think both of you are WAY better at presenting your points than to have to resort to that type of opponent bashing

Side thought ; Anyone wonder if the FAA's tack may be to propose the most severe regulations they could come up with , knowing that they will be ratcheted back a little in their final form , giving the RC hobbyists a reason to be happy that things aren't as bad as they could have been ?

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

First, Thank-You for the voice of reason and I totally agree. I will however, have to disagree that saying someone pulled unsubstantiated "facts" from their souther posterior is not even close to being in the same league as someone outright calling me a "donkey" and an overly aggressive jerk. Not the same at all. I have said it many times, and my posting history here proves that I do not get personal until provoked. I will admit, that once the first shot has been fired my way, I have, and probably will continue to fire back, and that is why I ask that folks don't get personal in the first place. Right or wrong, fair or not, it is what it is. I will, however do my best to refrain, and will ask again, that others do the same.

Regards,

Astro

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

LOL, too funny. First off your policy on how you judge people and their opinions seems to be all over the board. Take for example Franklin's claim that his proposal would be saving a total of 60M because the 800,000 non AMA members that are regestered will not be forced to join AMA. Really? Do you and him actually think that ALL 800,000 are going to join AMA to continue flying and continue to renew if that becomes a requirement? First off if you took that chip off your shoulder and actually thought about it for a minute you would realize that a good percentage of guys who jump into the hobby don't last past the first year. I'm betting that when registration renewals come in that we will see a significant drop in recreational registrations and maybe an increase in commercial. It's too bad that out of those 800,000 that the aircraft type is not tracked, if it were I suspect that the majority of those are MR RTF type. If so many of those are/were used as a photography platform. Almost everyone that I know that purchased an MR for photography reasons lost interest within a year. The bottom line is I suspect that although there are 800,000 registrants, it's obvious to me that not all of then remained active.

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

Look, if you don't want this to be personal, and actually have some benefit (and I've asked countless times!) please be specific. Do not make claims about what I do or don't do without citing examples.
THIS IS WHERE I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH WHAT YOU POST. FIRST, YOU CITE A CLAIM THAT FRANKLIN MADE, THEN YOU DRAW A CONCLUSION FROM THAT AND LUMP FRANKLIN AND I TOGETHER AS IF IT WERE MY STATEMENT. FAULTY LOGIC.
Please do not put words in my mouth. WHERE did I say that? (I didn't, but that would take all the wind out of your whole premise, wouldn't it?). Next, I don't think Franklin ever made that claim that all 800,00 were going to join either (but I can see where you drew that CONCLUSION), but the FACT is, that 800,000 is the number the FAA has (it is also the ONLY one I have seen), so it stands to reason that is the figure they might use when considering these things. Following?
Again, quit it with the jabs, it will only help to escalate this discussion
Again, QUIT it! Your premise is that I don't think things through (just because you don't agree) and that is not a good premise in order to have a beneficial discussion.
Your assertions of what I do or do not realize are getting OLD! (and have no bearing whatsoever on the discussion at hand).
And again, every single one of your points are your suspicions, they don't mean a thing. Second, don't try to convince me, I could care less for those "statistics", they don't mean a thing to me, maybe you should put them in your response to the FAA's proposal. Maybe they would listen, and it is the FAA (and ONLY the FAA) that those stats MIGHT be useful to.

Please read ALL of my words very carefully. It has been in the past that you somehow view my responses as an, "attack" on you. Nothing could be further from the truth!

Astro

Hydro Junkie

Are you so sure? How would this play out:
1) I don't have an AMA card or belong to a club.
2) I get a RTF for my birthday that isn't remote ID compliant since they don't exist
3) I take it to a local flying field that's designated as a FRIA and ask to fly
So, will I be allowed to fly or will I be told to come back when I have an AMA card and join the club? What about me showing up a second time, or a third?

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

Hydro, at this moment you would not be allowed to fly at a club field without AMA. I hope that you would still be treated with kindness but in all honesty could not say that would happen. However with your RTF the odds are that you don't need an improved site to fly, odds are that it is small enough to be flown in a park so going to an AMA site would still be a choice. What seemingly is being proposed by some in this forum will put an end to large models and many forms of competition thus removing that choice for many of us.

Hydro Junkie

Actually, Speed, I wasn't looking at any of the minutia on the edges of the discussion. I was looking at where the FRIA concept would lead and, as you just stated, unless I pay the AMA, I WOULD NOT be allowed to play UNLESS I have a park, private land or sport field that I can legally fly from. I know I have the same issues when I go boating, either have a permit from the county for access to most sites or go to a lake that's private/privately owned or is accessible to the public and allows boats that are powered by IC engines. Same deal as FRIA, pay to play or find a site that is allowed due to OTHER activities that are allowed there

RCUer75345

Two years after the NPRM goes final, it will be illegal to sell RTF's without Remote ID installed. That's a full year BEFORE non-Remote ID compliant UAS are restricted to FRIAs.

So -- by the time it makes any difference, RTF's will have Remote ID. Supposedly. If Remote ID development takes longer than expected, the FAA should extend the grace period.

Now, if you are given one of the last few legally sold RTF's without Remote ID during the last year -- enjoy it while you can.

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

Of course, you had in your mind what you wanted to hear, seems very common around here lately.

Hydro Junkie

Not at all. I KNEW what I was going to get in a reply and you gave me exactly what I expected. That said, the FRIA concept isn't going to work the way it's presently written. Is there an easy fix, probably not. I'm thinking the solution, at least in the short term, is somewhere between Franklin's proposition and the FRIA deal presently on the table. IF that is the case, it's going to be a compromise that, to quote Jonathan Archer, won't make anyone happy

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

I'm going to ask this question with an open mind. Other then the fact that some don't want to pay for the privilege to fly from a nicely maintained FRIA site, why do you feel that the FRIA concept won't work?

Hydro Junkie

Because it presently forces anyone that wants to fly to go to a FRIA site and that requires an AMA membership, something that many won't go for. You know my opinion of the AMA headquarters, it's a cash cow that needs to go on a serious diet, to put it mildly. Many of the programs are out of date or unneeded or, as we've discussed, ineffective, but I digress. Until the AMA learns to spend the money they get from the members in a manner that isn't wasteful or self serving(i.e. on pet projects), many won't consider joining and will fly where and when they want, regardless of what the FAA says.
I would have no problem going to a site where I would be asked to help maintain it to be able to fly. I wouldn't even mind a fee for entry if that was used to cover things like the previously mentioned maintenance or utilities. For example, I spent this past weekend as a paying participant at a festival in Albany. Even though I wasn't part of the staff/committee, I spent part of the weekend pushing one of the featured entertainers around in a wheelchair. There was someone assigned that job but I ended up doing it anyway as the person assigned had a medical issue and wasn't able to do so without pain and difficulty. Needless to say, it needed to be done so I did it.

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

My understanding is that the FRIA will enable aircraft that currently can not be upgraded with remote ID to continue to be flyable until a time when industry will have add on remote ID available or the FAA thinks that FRIA aircraft ( traditional airplanes ) will have all worn out or crashed. It may also be FAA's way of keeping us traditional guys corralled.

I invision that those who do not want to fly at a FRIA site will mostly be the MR or RTF group, not all but most. These aircraft will be the first available with remote ID as standard. Building model airplanes from kits or scratch is a dying activity. I think the FAA is well aware of this and think we will all be happy flying RTF with remote ID. Again not everyone but as we know the government works in averages.

I don't know of any other solution to keep aircraft that can't be upgraded to remote ID flying. As you know, I beleive that there are well over $100M worth of said airplanes out there. I simply can not and will not support a system where we simply take a loss on that much money.

There are clubs out there that will trade Field maintenance for membership. It's usually a good deal for retired guys as the tasks are usually best done during a weekday.

Now for the hard reality, to avoid having to join the AMA some sort of substitute liability insurance has to be provided. A FRIA site is going to require the insurance plain and simple. As of right now AMA is the only option there. I get that many are not happy with the way AMA is run. I too feel that if they are to survive they need to make changes and right now. Obviously that does not bother me nearly as much as it bothers others. I really only require 3 things from the AMA, these are access to AMA club sites, ability to participate in events and the liability insurance. Since 1977 AMA has has not dropped the ball on any of those items.

Do I think the HQ is more then needed? Yes. Where to cut? I don't know. I remember what a huge pain it was to have the NATs change locations each year. They were always understaffed and the flying sites were usually not appropriate for the event. I have not made it to Muncie for the NATs but have hopes of doing so. I would also like to visit the museum. I agree that a very small percentage of AMA members will ever make it to Muncie but all the members have the opportunity to do so.

RCUer75345

Wrong. It only forces those who want to continue flying without Remote ID to do so.

As I see it, you have the same choices as someone who is an AMA member now. You can buy Remote ID compliant planes when they become available, and fly anywhere you want. Or you can continue to fly without Remote ID, which means joining a CBO and club to gain access to their FRIA.

You aren't being asked to do anything MORE than anyone else who flies at the FRIA does. Why should you expect to use the field for free?

As an AMA member I have the same problem you do. I have a pasture field beside my home and sometimes fly there. That's going to be out once the grace period is over (UMX models excepted). There is also a nice field at a State park that doesn't have a club. I've often flown there in the past, but that will no longer be an option after the grace period. But at least as a club member I can still fly at the club field - provided FRIA status is granted.

So FRIAs just give people who are willing to pay some extra choices. Don't take that away from us when we've been paying for years already.

RCUer75345

I hope that's how it eventually turns out, but as written the NPRM makes it virtually impossible for an owner to install Remote ID in an existing airplane. You'll need to be approved as a "UAS Producer", do some kind of system-level testing, and keep records. You'll have to pay for access to an industry standard so you can issue your aircraft a serial number. And you'll have to open you shop to FAA inspection upon request.