Ending mini-lawyering ... is it past time for AMA to require members follow the law?
05-27-2020, 02:06 PM
#127
After reading Franklin's last post, WOULD YOU TRUST R/C FLYERS TO FOLLOW THROUGH ON ANYTHING if you were sitting at a desk at the FAA?
05-27-2020, 02:34 PM
#129
Thread Starter
One major difference would be that in the DJI system, the radio receiver is an integrated and inseparable part of the device.
05-27-2020, 02:43 PM
#130
No idea what Futaba, or any other radio maker is doing. I only do product support on a volunteer basis and have no part in the design or development of new products nor am I privy to upper level discussions within Futaba relative to their future product developments. Which I am sure you will take to mean they are not doing anything when all it actually means is nobody outside of the upper levels of Futaba-Japan knows what they plan to do. Not sure what any of that has to do with what we were talking about.
05-27-2020, 02:50 PM
#131
manned aircraft? Is that really what you are peddling?
05-27-2020, 03:09 PM
#132
Thread Starter
Yet at the root the FAA would have to trust the DJI owners to perform the update, trust the guys that are flying within a few hundred feet of the Blue Angels but not trust the LOS guys that have had very few close calls with manned aircraft? Is that really what you are peddling?
In contrast, a LOS guy using a system that can be moved to multiple sUAS, or moved to the trash can, will be able to much more easily avoid LE action, thereby remaining a threat to manned aircraft and people on the ground.
05-27-2020, 03:12 PM
#133
Thread Starter
It is not clear what the actual standards are and it is also not clear that what DJI has done will, in fact, be in compliance or compatible with the ultimate standards for RID. DJI was jumping the gun in hopes of leading the pack. Not clear it will be of any benefit to them.
The AMA's approach? Fight them rather than compromise. And we see how well that's working out.
05-27-2020, 03:34 PM
#134
And yet a DJI flying anywhere w/o an update would not be transmitting RemoteID, therefore could be actioned by law enforcement. Even if flying the day before at a park, or a week before at sporting event, etc. Each and every flight increase the chance of law enforcement detection and action. Over time, the non-updated systems will be reduced as their owners are caught and prosecuted.
In contrast, a LOS guy using a system that can be moved to multiple sUAS, or moved to the trash can, will be able to much more easily avoid LE action, thereby remaining a threat to manned aircraft and people on the ground.
In contrast, a LOS guy using a system that can be moved to multiple sUAS, or moved to the trash can, will be able to much more easily avoid LE action, thereby remaining a threat to manned aircraft and people on the ground.
Yea, that makes no sense. Either not transmitting RID could be auctioned by law enforcement. Arguably because the LOS is larger, louder and usually within a few hundred yards of a guy holding a box, it would be easier to track down the LOS guy. Not to mention that a good percentage of LOS guys are flying from a fixed site. If they don't belong to a club they usually will favor the same site where they do fly. The drone guys will pull their camera platform out when an opportunity arises to take some nice pictures or video. Of course I fully expect you to ask for some sort of documentation to prove my above statements, it's your way of deflecting from the fact that the FAA can't offer one group a self policed solution and not offer it to another.
05-27-2020, 03:41 PM
#135
ANSWER: HELL NO!!!!
05-27-2020, 04:27 PM
#139
Speed, your posts are beginning to align with a few of our points of view. Is this where you shift to the other side, claiming that was your stance all along?
In many of your recent posts, you are expounding on how unfair and nonsensical it is for the FAA to regulate traditional modeling. You and I both agree on that, I mean, we've done it quite safely for 80+ years, right? Common sense, right? Then WHY has it been so difficult for our appointed leaders to convey that simple fact to the FAA? THAT is my whole issue, and why I am posting in THIS forum. It should have been a slam-dunk for the AMA execs to show the AMA that a bunch of old men flying toy planes are NOT a threat to the NAS, and have 80+ years of quite stellar history to prove it. None of "us" have much of a chance with the Feds, but the AMA DID (at one point), and the facts prove that they failed miserably to do so. Those are the facts, it is history, can't be changed.
For the sake of this thread, can you parse the facts and acquiesce that the AMA has abjectly failed to do their (most important) job?
Astro
05-27-2020, 04:43 PM
#140
IMO it's best to enter any new situation with an open un bias mind. Going in with a per determined disposition only getsnin the way of seeing the whole picture. It appears to me that Hydro would walk into the FAA with his mind already made up. Now he may come to the same conclusion after looking at the whole picture but at least that decision came about fairly.
I certainly would have hoped that the AMA would have had a slam dunk in all this. Keep in mind that it appears that the FAA was leaving us alone until Congress pushed them. Do I really need to point out what kind of people we have sitting in congress right now? Those people saw dollar signs when big business started talking about drone delivery. I personally don't see drone delivery ever being financially feasible but that is an entirely different topic.
To me the solution is pretty simple. If it has a camera then it should have remote ID, no camera no need for ID. But then that would take away the payouts that some of our politicians may be getting.
I certainly would have hoped that the AMA would have had a slam dunk in all this. Keep in mind that it appears that the FAA was leaving us alone until Congress pushed them. Do I really need to point out what kind of people we have sitting in congress right now? Those people saw dollar signs when big business started talking about drone delivery. I personally don't see drone delivery ever being financially feasible but that is an entirely different topic.
To me the solution is pretty simple. If it has a camera then it should have remote ID, no camera no need for ID. But then that would take away the payouts that some of our politicians may be getting.
05-27-2020, 04:51 PM
#141
What's even funnier is that the defense wasn't sure they wanted me on the jury. I lost several family members in a car accident when I was a youngster due to their car being hit head on by a drunk driver, in a blizzard just south of Mott North Dakota. The lawyer was unjustly afraid of bias on my part
Last edited by Hydro Junkie; 05-27-2020 at 04:57 PM.
05-27-2020, 05:01 PM
#142
I certainly would have hoped that the AMA would have had a slam dunk in all this. Keep in mind that it appears that the FAA was leaving us alone until Congress pushed them. Do I really need to point out what kind of people we have sitting in congress right now? Those people saw dollar signs when big business started talking about drone delivery. I personally don't see drone delivery ever being financially feasible but that is an entirely different topic.
To me the solution is pretty simple. If it has a camera then it should have remote ID, no camera no need for ID. But then that would take away the payouts that some of our politicians may be getting.
To me the solution is pretty simple. If it has a camera then it should have remote ID, no camera no need for ID. But then that would take away the payouts that some of our politicians may be getting.
I find it hard to blame the congress critters alone , without also laying blame with the AMA's attempted power grab during a critical moment , as being why our hobby is facing such a dismal future .And , I agree 100% that camera / no camera oughta be the defining line , and had the AMA played our cards right with the FAA maybe it coulda been that way .
Gotta admit , when the full weight of the NPRM sunk in , I began to think the AMA EC themselves weren't so sure if the power grab was or wasn't gonna fly , with the bailout plan being the proposed indoor flying facility so that when we the "worker bees" were all grounded they would still have something (and somewhere) to fly ????
05-27-2020, 05:02 PM
#143
Actually, I have. An accident with one being intoxicated. What was funny is the intoxicated driver wasn't the guilty party, the other person was as that person was too busy texting to be paying attention to their surroundings. The guilty person lost their license due to multiple inattentive driving incidents, the intoxicated one lost theirs for driving under the influence on more than just that occasion. The police actually charged to intoxicated driver with drunk driving and causing the accident when that person wasn't at fault, hence the jury trial. We actually spend a full day deliberating and I, believe it or not, was on the innocent side as the evidence showed the texter was at fault. Needless to say, the guilty party was required to pay for all damage to and medical bills for the innocent party.
What's even funnier is that the defense wasn't sure they wanted me on the jury. I lost several family members in a car accident when I was a youngster due to their car being hit head on by a drunk driver, in a blizzard just south of Mott North Dakota. The lawyer was unjustly afraid of bias on my part
What's even funnier is that the defense wasn't sure they wanted me on the jury. I lost several family members in a car accident when I was a youngster due to their car being hit head on by a drunk driver, in a blizzard just south of Mott North Dakota. The lawyer was unjustly afraid of bias on my part
Well then I stand corrected on that comment. Thank you for sharing.
05-27-2020, 05:11 PM
#144
I find it hard to blame the congress critters alone , without also laying blame with the AMA's attempted power grab during a critical moment , as being why our hobby is facing such a dismal future .And , I agree 100% that camera / no camera oughta be the defining line , and had the AMA played our cards right with the FAA maybe it coulda been that way .
Gotta admit , when the full weight of the NPRM sunk in , I began to think the AMA EC themselves weren't so sure if the power grab was or wasn't gonna fly , with the bailout plan being the proposed indoor flying facility so that when we the "worker bees" were all grounded they would still have something (and somewhere) to fly ????
That all does make good sense. Myself I'm not convinced of the AMA leaping at an opportunity to force membership as it looks to me as a blundered attempt at trying to illustrate that AMA members operate safely. I tend to see that as more of trying to throw non members under the bus in an attempt to gain a carve out for AMA members. I can however see how others can draw the forced membership perspective. Remember that I have 43 years of dealing with clubs and AMA, not without their pitfalls mind you but enough positive experiences with them both to default to giving them the benifit of the doubt.
05-27-2020, 05:18 PM
#145
Senior Member
It is not clear what the actual standards are and it is also not clear that what DJI has done will, in fact, be in compliance or compatible with the ultimate standards for RID. DJI was jumping the gun in hopes of leading the pack. Not clear it will be of any benefit to them.
No idea what Futaba, or any other radio maker is doing. I only do product support on a volunteer basis and have no part in the design or development of new products nor am I privy to upper level discussions within Futaba relative to their future product developments. Which I am sure you will take to mean they are not doing anything when all it actually means is nobody outside of the upper levels of Futaba-Japan knows what they plan to do. Not sure what any of that has to do with what we were talking about.
No idea what Futaba, or any other radio maker is doing. I only do product support on a volunteer basis and have no part in the design or development of new products nor am I privy to upper level discussions within Futaba relative to their future product developments. Which I am sure you will take to mean they are not doing anything when all it actually means is nobody outside of the upper levels of Futaba-Japan knows what they plan to do. Not sure what any of that has to do with what we were talking about.
Thanks for clarifying. So just an internt junkie like the rest of us then.
Remote ID is farther along than you indicate. Although the ASTM standard was just finalized, the basics
have been known for some time and all of the elements are currently in use. AirMap came out an app
last year. The FAA has also been meeting with the various companies involved, as stated in the NPRM.
"The FAA received information from industry on the potential to retrofit during Executive Order 12866
meetings from September through December, 2019."
"Based on industry information and market research, the FAA estimates at least 93% of the current part
107 fleet and at least 20% of the current recreational fleet ... could be retrofit through a software update."
"The FAA identified the top-10 registered aircraft ... each of the registered models within this group had
internet and Wi-Fi connectivity, ability to transmit data, receive software uploads, and had radio frequency
transceivers, among other technology such as advanced microprocessors."
05-27-2020, 06:31 PM
#147
"The FAA received information from industry on the potential to retrofit during Executive Order 12866
meetings from September through December, 2019."
"Based on industry information and market research, the FAA estimates at least 93% of the current part
107 fleet and at least 20% of the current recreational fleet ... could be retrofit through a software update."
"The FAA identified the top-10 registered aircraft ... each of the registered models within this group had
internet and Wi-Fi connectivity, ability to transmit data, receive software uploads, and had radio frequency
transceivers, among other technology such as advanced microprocessors."
05-27-2020, 07:28 PM
#148
Thread Starter
05-27-2020, 07:37 PM
#149
Thread Starter
AFTER the AMA tried to use law to force membership (That is until someone asked a question of the FAA!)
AFTER the AMA was unable to provide safety data as FAA is accustomed to seeing
AFTER the AMA was unable to show a credible Aviation Safety Management System
AFTER the AMA did not enforce their own rules at their own chartered clubs, let alone FAA rules
To me the solution is simple: Stay 400 feet AGL and below in class G, stay below the LAANC approved altitude in controlled airspace, and comply with other provisions of section 349. And only AFTER the AMA has demonstrated they can get their members to comply with LAW -- then and only then ask for privileges beyond that. But in all cases, fully integrated RemoteID for any flight above 400 AGL in class G or above LAANC altitude in controlled airspace.
05-27-2020, 07:47 PM
#150
AFTER the AMA embraced MR's in an attempt to increase membership
AFTER the AMA tried to use law to force membership (That is until someone asked a question of the FAA!)
AFTER the AMA was unable to provide safety data as FAA is accustomed to seeing
AFTER the AMA was unable to show a credible Aviation Safety Management System
AFTER the AMA did not enforce their own rules at their own chartered clubs, let alone FAA rules
To me the solution is simple: Stay 400 feet AGL and below in class G, stay below the LAANC approved altitude in controlled airspace, and comply with other provisions of section 349. And only AFTER the AMA has demonstrated they can get their members to comply with LAW -- then and only then ask for privileges beyond that. But in all cases, fully integrated RemoteID for any flight above 400 AGL in class G or above LAANC altitude in controlled airspace.
AFTER the AMA tried to use law to force membership (That is until someone asked a question of the FAA!)
AFTER the AMA was unable to provide safety data as FAA is accustomed to seeing
AFTER the AMA was unable to show a credible Aviation Safety Management System
AFTER the AMA did not enforce their own rules at their own chartered clubs, let alone FAA rules
To me the solution is simple: Stay 400 feet AGL and below in class G, stay below the LAANC approved altitude in controlled airspace, and comply with other provisions of section 349. And only AFTER the AMA has demonstrated they can get their members to comply with LAW -- then and only then ask for privileges beyond that. But in all cases, fully integrated RemoteID for any flight above 400 AGL in class G or above LAANC altitude in controlled airspace.
I guess anything else but the same old broken record just wouldn't be you now would it?