astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

Where were all you guys with these great ideas when we really needed them?
Thinking the AMA had our backs and that there was nothing to worry about?

Astro

fliers1

I've been pushing this plan for decades. I belonged to 6 different clubs. Only one is still around. The members of the other clubs lost all members due to old age, as they failed to attract new members. Fought my efforts tooth and nail. lol I offered to teach others this method, but no one wanted to be bothered teaching, no matter how easy it could possibly be. Would you like to be able to train many beginners to solo status within a couple of hours, more or less?

ECHO24

It's a lost cause.

The FAA doesn't address it, but the closest thing to guage whether the FAA would accept add-on hardware is
"legacy UAS" and software-based flight notification with telemetry (non-equipped network participant). The
FAA rejected it because, " ... it relies on the individual operator to proactively report their location to a USS."

"Look for the person holding a little box with 2 sticks sticking out of it." --- 5 miles away.

jcmors

Agreed that the FAA likely won't accept retrofit due to the above statement.

Let me translate that government speak for everyone, what they are really saying is: "We can't trust our citizens, they must be regulated and controlled, this freedom thing just doesn't work out... did the general public truly think we live in a free society? Hahahahahahaha no way, they really thought that?"

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

I hate to point this out, but it is ALWAYS because of the few who cannot self-regulate themselves in a manner that is respectful to others that the Feds feel the need to regulate the masses. Look at the history of the AMA for instance; many decades of safe and responsible operations; enter the droners who were interested in FPV, aerial photography/video platforms and posting said pics and vids on YouTube and Facebook and could give a crap about our "old-fashioned" rules and regulations, and viola! enter the Feds!

Astro

jcmors

Astro,

Absolutely agree and understood but I think that government regulation really is going a bit far, in general. Rather than innocent until proven guilty, we are all assumed to be guilty low life citizens who won't follow the rules. Yes the droners ruined it for all of us however this inherent mistrust of the average citizen by the government, in my humble opinion, is getting way out of control and is not a good thing. I can respect your opinion if you disagree.

ECHO24

Below is an article on the 5th Amendment takings clause and RC aircraft made worthless by the new
rule and the taking of private airspace by being prohibited from flying over your own property. The
author believes it would be an uphill battle, but interesting nonetheless and maybe worth looking into.
https://interdrone.com/news/industry...akings-clause/

R_Strowe

Thank you for posting that. An interesting read.

I do disagree with him with reference to Lucas, however. The basis being that the FAA has not given the legacy type modeler any method of compliance, and therefore has rendered the legacy modelers aircraft useless, and the modeler would at least be due compensation. So Lucas is actually not on point.

R_Strowe

jcmors

Wholeheartedly agree that this would be an uphill battle. A very interesting article as you said. Perhaps this would be worth looking into.

R_Strowe

I plan on composing a letter to the IJ (who defended Vera Coking), as well as the ACLU. They've been somewhat effective in eminent domain cases, which this basically is:

https://ij.org/case/casino-reinvestm...rity-v-coking/

https://theweek.com/articles/644892/...eminent-domain

https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/...give-religious

If a case is joined, I'll happily contribute to the costs associated.

R_Strowe

franklin_m

Uh, yes they did. They're called FRIAs. I could see a counter argument that says "The policy structure is there for all these 'legacy' sUAS to fly. Whether or not you're able to preserve the FRIAs in perpetuity is more tied to the health of your organization and its franchises rather than whether a policy provision exists - for it does."

ECHO24

FRIAs are a sticking point in claiming tradition models are worthless. The counter-argument
would be that the FAA gave model flyers a "generous carve-out" in the new rule.

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

.

And yet FRIAs are destined to be phased out. Obsolete everyone’s investments at one time and it would create an uproar that couldn’t be ignored, do it gradually and uproar is avoided. Still some want to convince us that the FRIA concept was the idea of AMA EC.

R_Strowe

Uh, yeah. The policy carve-out you've been fighting (along with anything else pro-hobby?). The FRIA's that, as Speed says, are destined to phase out? Tied to the health of the organization you try to take down at every turn?

I seem to remember you threatening to write another one of your 'pro-hobby' letters, explaining why the FRIA concept is flawed and illegal, and to demand their banishment.

And Speed put it perfectly, this is set up to be death by a thousand cuts, so as to avoid the inevitable lawsuits. I plan on trying to get ahead of the curb.

R_Strowe

franklin_m

Again, I support the principal objective of RemoteID, and that is to give DHS, DoD, and LE the tool they think they need to do the mission the citizens demand of them. I personally get hurt by the rule if published as written, but I've decided that of the two: giving them the tool they need or preserving my ability to fly as I always have, the former is much more important.

I maintain that the FRIA concept, as written, is (1) an unconstitutional forced association with one private dues collecting organization (note 1), and (2) $60 million annually in costs imposed on the overwhelming majority of non-CBO members not considered as part of the rule (note 2).

I don't know how death of a thousand cuts avoids lawsuits, but so be it. I still believe that the FRIA idea was something AMA floated to FAA in yet another attempt to compel membership (note 3). FAA saw the opportunity and gave AMA exactly what they wanted ... knowing it is flawed per above. Not my fault AMA didn't think it out.



Note 1: I believe that neither FAA nor OMB can ignore the reality that one organization enjoys near monoplistic control of likely FRIA sites, in some regions total control - a situation unlikely to change substantially before the rule goes into effect.

Note 2: It remains a fact that the vast majority of recreational sUAS registrants are NOT members of the CBO that enjoys near monopolistic control over likely FRIA sites as noted above.

Note 3: I believe this because it is consistent with past actions: AMA pushed language of 336 with the "and within the programming," and the multiple instances of different AMA leaders using that exact language to say membership is required.

franklin_m

It would be consistent with past AMA EC members' actions:

ECHO24

AMA got the monopoly they wanted, it just didn't work out as planned. Be careful what you wish for.

franklin_m

More proof that they're in way over their head. How many times does the EC need to fail in its dealings w/ FAA before the true believers will stop relying on the "but they're the only...." excuse for not demanding resignations.

R_Strowe

Au Contraire...I would have no issue with any other CBO. In fact I don't believe many here have an issue with the formation of other CBO's. Which, as per the FAA are required to request the approval of a FRIA.

And nowhere did the AMA ever object to other CBO's. What they objected to was the language of 'with the programming', which AT THAT TIME was THEIR language, under THEIR CBO rules, and I'm sure that under the advice of their legal council were, in fact correct in their interpretation. And I seem to remember that the FAA altered the language after your letter. Which would indicate that the AMA's interpretation of the LANGUAGE was correct, or else the FAA would not have had to change it.

The real concern now is that the FAA has still not completed the definition of a CBO, or recognized any CBO's (AMA, Flite Test, etc.). And without CBO recognition, there are no FRIA's (since the FRIA application requires a CBO to file), and therefore legacy, non-RID compliant models become permanently grounded when/if this NPRM goes into effect. And the concern now is that the FAA seems to be accelerating the process. Witness the fact that the application for USS providers was issued over a year ago.

R_Strowe

init4fun

Before RC aircraft organizations were called "CBOs" , the AMA strangled what would have been a second CBO in the grave with lawsuits , the SFA (Sport Flyers Association) . I'd call that a pretty strong objection to anything that looks like competition , in the form of "other CBOs"

R_Strowe

Yeah, I knew someone would bring that up. How many years ago was that?

Times do change. Under the current situation, I really don't believe AMA would object, as having multiple CBO's now is a benefit to them.

R_Strowe

Hydro Junkie

It sounds to me like you didn't want anyone to bring that up since it shoots down the comments about the AMA being okay with other CBOs being formed. It doesn't really matter how long ago that was, what does matter that it happened. In fact, that is probably more relevant than the wording used by the FAA and parroted by the AMA's brass over following the safety code.
As for the AMA being fine with having more CBOs, you have me confused. How would having one or more additional CBOs benefit the AMA? They are already having a difficult time getting new members, they are in trouble financially due to mismanagement of capital and the legal team has shown itself to be totally inept. How would having more CBOs reverse that? Are you saying another CBO might have better luck dealing with the FAA and the AMA could just go along for the ride? Please explain this one to me as I just don't get it.

ECHO24

That is an amazing false scenario you've cooked up. I mean REALLY false. You're talking about the FAA
Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, which cannot be "altered" except by Congress.

If AMA actually thought they had the authority to interpret the law, Hanson would not have publicly called
on Congress to "tweak" 336 to make it clear who had fly under part 107 and who had to otherwise join
AMA or face penalties. In effect, Hanson admits he was lying through most of of the article:

" ....we acknowledge that some tweaks to Section 336 may be necessary to clarify who the provision
does and does not cover."

It's a scam and always has been. And not just a scam, it's a really ugly scam when you think about it.
Decent people don't do things like that.

R_Strowe

First off, it does matter. Points of view change over time.

Second, after reading here on RCU the history of said lawsuit (from Mr. Red Shoenfield), it looks like SFA sued AMA first, and lost (thrown out of court), and AMA counter-sued and won ( for defamation of character). I would guess that if SFA hadn’t both sued and made false statements about the AMA they might still be in existence.

Third, with the direction the FAA is taking (and I believe that AMA’s problem fighting this is their lack of size and influence), the more structurally organized players fighting this the better. Just as not every airline pilot is a member of ALPA (SWAPA, APA, Teamsters), there are times where they pull together to fight a common issue. And are often successful.

R_Strowe

Hydro Junkie

Okay, I responded above