astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

In six days you will find out that the ship sailed YEARS AGO.

Astro

RCUer75345

In six days I expect to have found out that age 60 feels just about like age 59.

But I could be dead from coronavirus.

Neither is a reason to stop living TODAY.

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

Lord, NO! Hope nobody is doing that!
Happy Birthday!

Astro

Steve Collins

My Feedback: (8)

If the FAA is so all fired up to control drones, this video is the way and they can leave the rest of us alone! Let the FAA foot the bill for the control they so desire!

FUTABA-RC

See my comments in one of the other threads/forums you have posted this.

RCUer75345

Four days left to make comments. Don't waste time arguing here when you could be posting material the FAA has to at least read and consider.

fliers1

Recent AMA EC minutes

Rich Hanson stated that the future of the organization is in new member acquisition. He would like to see more focus on a strategy for new member acquisition. Eric stated that if clubs aren’t doing as they had in the past and growing their clubs, AMA needs to find a new gateway to attracting new members. The committee is enthused about entertaining all possibilities and sharing them.

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

Embrace the droners? Oh, wait.......
How about FORCED membership? Oh, wait......

Clubs have always been the gateway to membership. Sure hope when this FAA stuff is sorted out that clubs are still viable........

Astro

franklin_m

I saw that too in the EC minutes. What? Has that not been "the future" of the AMA for the last five years or so? If not, then what the heck has been "the future?" Unbelievable. They think that just by saying it makes it come true. Did you also note that in some areas they "HOPE" things will get better? Like that's a great plan! And although they hired a new group to perform a specific task, did you note that despite poor performance they're going to give them more time? And they wonder why this year's problems become next year's problems. Time is not on their side. Yet they act like it us.

I've seen better managed elementary school bake sales.

ira d

If the proposed rules are fully implemented as the FAA wants I think the AMA will be pretty munch gone in about 5 years.

dionysusbacchus

My Feedback: (25)

Read enough of the BS on here from those with an agenda, DJI actually posted an awesome response based on facts, something a certain individual on here purposefully avoids because they don't serve his purpose. These are amazing, thoughtful responses:

https://www.regulations.gov/document...019-1100-51823

And Google depended us, the traditional line of sight modeler:

https://www.regulations.gov/document...019-1100-51456

franklin_m

Pretty encouraging to see Google come out in favor of relaxing the ID requirement so the need for FRIAs is reduced. By my count, there are four lines of reasoning to say FRIAs, as written, don't work:

1. "Constitutional" : forced association for 800,000 non-CBO members
2. "Permission" : puts CBO in position of granting permission to fly from their sites; law prohibits FAA from requiring permission
3. "Capacity" : not enough FRIAs to support over 1 million non-CBO members
4. "Time out" : not in perpetuity

It will be interesting to see how FAA resolves these comments. The easiest thing would be to expand option to fly w/o equipment retrofit. That would solve all three issues. Then the AMA folks can continue to go their fields, and those who are largely not going to them now can continue flying as they've been flying - perhaps with some operational limits. On the latter, I'd support no autonav, "LAANC-like" notification, and below 400 in class G or permissive altitude in controlled.

mach5nchimchim

Why is Mellott so against CBO based frias, especially if it's AMA based fria? He wants his cake and ice cream when it benefits him...

franklin_m

I've been very consistent. I oppose granting of privileges in PUBLIC airspace (or airwaves, or waterways or roadways) to members of PRIVATE DUES COLLECTING organizations that are not available equally to all citizens that are NOT members.

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

Don’t bother trying to explain your stance AGAIN, if he doesn’t understand it by now, he won’t. You have been very clear and consistent.

on another note, his buddy grognard will happily take AND eat the cake, whether it is granted to him or not, so I’m not sure why he is casting shade on you. Apparently, that is perfectly acceptable to these folks......

Astro

mach5nchimchim

Consistent in bashing the AMA nonstop... Yep you are correct there... Everyone knows how you feel about the AMA, but yet; you still go out of the way to "Consistently" bash them every minute of your existence...

franklin_m

I oppose ONE aspect of AMA's policy goals, and that is any use of rule or law to force association with a PRIVATE dues collecting organization as a condition for exercising a privilege in the PUBLIC airspace. They tried with 336, with the ED himself saying that "We believe membership is required..." and now they're trying it again with the FRIA concept ... knowing they enjoy a near total monopoly on FRIA sites.

They can require membership to participate in their reindeer games (competitions) all day long, as I could care less. But requiring membership to just exercise the privilege in PUBLIC airspace is wrong on many levels, and I will do all I can to ensure it does not happen.

mach5nchimchim

That would be coming from the law on the books, just because the AMA would benefit from said law; you hold it against them to. You just don't want to see them benefit from anything the AMA, was the AMA the big bully in school who took away your balsa glider as a kid in school and not give it back, cause you didn't want to go play on their playground?

franklin_m

Please cite such law. Tell you what, I'll save you the trouble. There is no such "law on the books" as you say.

Again, I oppose just ONE aspect of AMA's policy goals, and that is any use of rule or law to force association with a PRIVATE dues collecting organization as a condition for exercising a privilege in the PUBLIC airspace. They tried with 336, with the ED himself saying that "We believe membership is required..." and now they're trying it again with the FRIA concept ... knowing they enjoy a near total monopoly on FRIA sites.

mach5nchimchim

That would be comiing from the law on the books when the fria is required, the laws are not on the books yet; but as you like to point out the NPRM will probably pass the way it's currently written...

franklin_m

It's not a "law" as you call it, it's rule. Even after adopted, it's not a "law," but a "rule."

Secondly, I don't think I've ever said that it will "probably pass the way it's currently written..."

mach5nchimchim

semantics buddy..

franklin_m

Yeah, just like someone jumping on the use of "USAF property" vs. "Federal property".

mach5nchimchim

Well, in your mind; you think you know it all, so of course you get what we are all trying to convey.

franklin_m

In the end, it matters not whether I used the term USAF, DoD, or Federal property, as ultimately it's all the same.