RDQ Lawsuit vs FAA - be careful what you ask for...
12-26-2021, 06:05 PM
#51
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by speedracerntrixie
1. picture previously posted
2. picture previously posted
3. take my word for it
4. records aren’t kept, score sheets would only indicate a zero score not the reason for the zero
5. I don’t have a track record of being a liar.
2. picture previously posted
3. take my word for it
4. records aren’t kept, score sheets would only indicate a zero score not the reason for the zero
5. I don’t have a track record of being a liar.
Congratulations on the 4 of 13 finish on 3 April; as well as the ones later in the year: 8 of 16 finish on 8 May, 8 of 14 on 19 June, and 7 of 10 finish on 11 July.
12-26-2021, 06:06 PM
#52
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by ElectriMan
So why be a member at all. If there is no benefit to membership and all you want is to criticize, your taxes should be enough.
12-26-2021, 06:09 PM
#53
Originally Posted by speedracerntrixie
1. picture previously posted
2. picture previously posted
3. take my word for it
4. records aren’t kept, score sheets would only indicate a zero score not the reason for the zero
5. I don’t have a track record of being a liar.
2. picture previously posted
3. take my word for it
4. records aren’t kept, score sheets would only indicate a zero score not the reason for the zero
5. I don’t have a track record of being a liar.
Disgusting.
Astro
12-26-2021, 06:28 PM
#55
Originally Posted by franklin_m
That's ok. I'd already found it.
Congratulations on the 4 of 13 finish on 3 April; as well as the ones later in the year: 8 of 16 finish on 8 May, 8 of 14 on 19 June, and 7 of 10 finish on 11 July.
Congratulations on the 4 of 13 finish on 3 April; as well as the ones later in the year: 8 of 16 finish on 8 May, 8 of 14 on 19 June, and 7 of 10 finish on 11 July.
Not a great year, working 60 hours a week making sure our deployed soldiers get the communications equipment they need makes it bit difficult to get in some practice. The prior year was much better.
12-26-2021, 07:41 PM
#56
Look at me, look at me. I'm so relevant.....
How many times have you and prop asked that these threads stay on topic? Just providing more context to the adjectives I have used (hypocrisy and narcissism come to mind) that some are trying to portray as personal attacks and trolling.
Astro
How many times have you and prop asked that these threads stay on topic? Just providing more context to the adjectives I have used (hypocrisy and narcissism come to mind) that some are trying to portray as personal attacks and trolling.
Astro
12-27-2021, 04:55 AM
#57
LOL so predictable. Franklin brought up the topic of contest results didn’t he? Of course he did so in a manner to think he was taunting me about finding the information he was looking for. You really seem to be bothered by guys with a higher level of abilities then you though, I wonder what medical term that falls under. Inferiority complex maybe?
12-27-2021, 05:55 AM
#59
Originally Posted by speedracerntrixie
LOL so predictable. Franklin brought up the topic of contest results didn’t he? Of course he did so in a manner to think he was taunting me about finding the information he was looking for. You really seem to be bothered by guys with a higher level of abilities then you though, I wonder what medical term that falls under. Inferiority complex maybe?
It would seem that you are trying too hard....another sign of your narcissism.
The more you post the more it shows.
Astro
12-27-2021, 06:47 AM
#60
Well that seemed to strike a nerve didn’t it? Kinda a new piece in the Astro puzzle. Starting to make me see that your inferiority complex had you wanting to be a big shot at the flying field but your skill set was lacking, so maybe you did the same “ big man talk “ that you do here at your club and got put in your place. Maybe a reason why you aren’t currently active with any club. Did all of your local clubs get tired of your act? Of course there is the “ I call people out on their BS on these forums it’s a tough thankless job but somebody has to do it “. Just wondering who hired you? Could it be yet another act to hide your inferiority complex?
12-27-2021, 06:58 AM
#61
Originally Posted by speedracerntrixie
Well that seemed to strike a nerve didn’t it? Kinda a new piece in the Astro puzzle. Starting to make me see that your inferiority complex had you wanting to be a big shot at the flying field but your skill set was lacking, so maybe you did the same “ big man talk “ that you do here at your club and got put in your place. Maybe a reason why you aren’t currently active with any club. Did all of your local clubs get tired of your act? Of course there is the “ I call people out on their BS on these forums it’s a tough thankless job but somebody has to do it “. Just wondering who hired you? Could it be yet another act to hide your inferiority complex?
Absolutely everything you said about me is just a lame attempt to construct a false narrative about me. If you are going to make claims, I simply ask that you substantiate them with substance.
You and prop are the King and queen of speculation. Please do the responsible thing and substantiate your claims. Anything less could be considered slanderous, and you've already told us how you feel about THAT.
Astro
12-27-2021, 07:14 AM
#62
Do you realize how much fun it is to use your own BS on you? Do you even realize it’s happening or are you unable to figure it out?
Your like my little sad puppet right now. Example, you are going to attempt to come up with some witty response to this while I forget about you and go about my day.
Your like my little sad puppet right now. Example, you are going to attempt to come up with some witty response to this while I forget about you and go about my day.
12-27-2021, 07:15 AM
#63
Originally Posted by BarracudaHockey
Does anyone have any opinions of the law suit?
Just curious.
Just curious.
12-27-2021, 07:20 AM
#64
Hog why you keep trying to drag me into your stupidity is beyond me. It looks to me like your denial of being here for arguments sake is nothing more than BS on your part. Nuff said eh.
You see Init4fun as I said there are some who will never be able or willing to change tactics.
You see Init4fun as I said there are some who will never be able or willing to change tactics.
Last edited by Propworn; 12-27-2021 at 07:41 AM.
12-27-2021, 09:44 AM
#66
Originally Posted by speedracerntrixie
Do you realize how much fun it is to use your own BS on you? Do you even realize it’s happening or are you unable to figure it out?
Your like my little sad puppet right now. Example, you are going to attempt to come up with some witty response to this while I forget about you and go about my day.
Your like my little sad puppet right now. Example, you are going to attempt to come up with some witty response to this while I forget about you and go about my day.
Glad you are amusing yourself, as you can see, you are the only one.
Astro
12-27-2021, 10:40 AM
#68
Originally Posted by BarracudaHockey
Does anyone have any opinions of the law suit?
Just curious.
Just curious.
Hi Andy, Thank You for asking.Not so much of an opinion as an observation, I think the FAA has far bigger fish to fry with the whole "5G" debacle, the RDQ issue being kinda small taters by comparison
12-29-2021, 09:50 AM
#70
Nary a mention of a, "model airplane". Just think how the vast majority of AMA members could breathe easy now, knowing that their, "model airplanes" were not subject to the outcome of any of this legislation, that really has nothing to do with model airplanes.
**SIGH**
Astro
**SIGH**
Astro
12-29-2021, 09:52 AM
#71
Originally Posted by franklin_m
Changes to AMA:
EC voted in favor of extending discounts to E5 and below after suggestion by me. Proof: AMA EC Minutes, 15 July 2017, item M and motion XIV.
Is this not the same item that was passed but an agreement could not be reached so it was never offered as a discount? I contacted the AMA and was told there was no military discount. If that indeed is the case how can you claim credit for something that does not exist?
Originally Posted by franklin_m
Changes to government agency (in this case FAA) during NPRM regarding registration. If you recall, AMA's position was that members should either be exempt or be able to use their AMA number in lieu of regisration. FAA rejected both ideas, and in fact cited nearly word for word from my comment in their final rule.
NPRM comment I submitted: "AMA contends their administrative requirements make registration unnecessary. First, registration is inherently governmental. Second, the AMA guidelines do not have the force of law. Third, AOPA, BoatUS, & AAA do not register airplanes, boats, or cars (emphasis added)."
FINAL Rule under "N. Alternatives to Registration": "One individual stated that registration is an inherently governmental function that should not be ceded to any dues collecting organization. This commenter pointed out that neither the Experimental Aircraft Association nor the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association register manned aircraft (emphasis added)."
NPRM comment I submitted: "AMA contends their administrative requirements make registration unnecessary. First, registration is inherently governmental. Second, the AMA guidelines do not have the force of law. Third, AOPA, BoatUS, & AAA do not register airplanes, boats, or cars (emphasis added)."
FINAL Rule under "N. Alternatives to Registration": "One individual stated that registration is an inherently governmental function that should not be ceded to any dues collecting organization. This commenter pointed out that neither the Experimental Aircraft Association nor the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association register manned aircraft (emphasis added)."
So it looks like the membership has you to thank for what basically turns out to be another tax on our hobby and an addition to more government overreach. You have also added that cost to the military members you claimed you were trying to help. Nice.
Originally Posted by franklin_m
Because the number was going to be changed on 31 December. Either by administrative means, or by allowing my membership to lapse and joining later in the year and requesting a different number.
12-29-2021, 10:29 AM
#72
Originally Posted by franklin_m
Race Day Quads (RDQ) case vs FAA came up for oral arguments not too long ago. It will be really interesting to see how this shakes out. One of my other hobbies is following court cases at the Supreme Court. There's a great podcast (Oyez) that publishes SCOTUS oral arguments about a week after they're made. I like to then compare what I hear vs. what comes out in rulings - especially so in cases involving something with which I've got experience. Things like search and seizure for example.
So I've listened to the RDQ case audio three times so far. Nobody can predict what the court will do, but I think this could turn out to be a case just like the last time FAA was challenged. A temporary win at best. Except in this case, RDQ caused the court to ask some questions that could show up in the ruling in a way that hurts long term.
By this, I mean the RDQ pursuing a right to privacy approach in their case. Imagine if the court throws out the RID rule based in whole or in part on privacy. That would then establish that everyone enjoys that same right. So now any neighbor of a FRIA can easily assert that overflights from the FRIA are violating their privacy. Similarly, if part of the ruling requires FAA to define navigable airspace, that would result in a patchwork of rules below it. Imagine all the local governments and agencies that will want to have a piece of deciding what happens in airspace below the navigable limit. One can easily imagine any number of places where people can fly now suddenly being off limits.
Be careful what we wish for....
So I've listened to the RDQ case audio three times so far. Nobody can predict what the court will do, but I think this could turn out to be a case just like the last time FAA was challenged. A temporary win at best. Except in this case, RDQ caused the court to ask some questions that could show up in the ruling in a way that hurts long term.
By this, I mean the RDQ pursuing a right to privacy approach in their case. Imagine if the court throws out the RID rule based in whole or in part on privacy. That would then establish that everyone enjoys that same right. So now any neighbor of a FRIA can easily assert that overflights from the FRIA are violating their privacy. Similarly, if part of the ruling requires FAA to define navigable airspace, that would result in a patchwork of rules below it. Imagine all the local governments and agencies that will want to have a piece of deciding what happens in airspace below the navigable limit. One can easily imagine any number of places where people can fly now suddenly being off limits.
Be careful what we wish for....
You are spot on here!For anyone who is interested, here is the link to the full audio archive: https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/record...le/21-1087.mp3
My overall assessment was that both attorneys did a poor job (but I guess that's easy for me to say sitting back after the fact). I did not get the impression that there was an appetite to throw the whole thing out, the questions all seemed to be centered around the expectation of privacy when operating a drone on your personal property below the tree line. The judges frequently brought up a hypothetical case of someone operating their drone in the middle of a 100 acre ranch where there would be no practical way for the drone to cross into public space. However, one of the judges who seemed most critical of the FAA in his line of questioning also conceded that his expectation is that 99.9% of the time drones would be operating in a manner that there is no expectation of privacy, so I am not sure how much to read into the overall line of questioning.
I seriously doubt that this will result in the rule being completely tossed out, but the chance of a rewrite that complicates this still concerns me. We may end up with something that is much more complex or limiting.
12-29-2021, 10:29 AM
#73
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by Propworn
Now how does this help the membership (emphasis added). It sounds like there was an attempt to petition the FAA to use the AMA membership number as the registration number thus avoiding the 5 dollar fee. The membership number would provide the info the FAA was looking for (who was using the national airspace) and just like in Canada it would cost the members nothing. So it looks like the membership has you to thank for what basically turns out to be another tax on our hobby and an addition to more government overreach. You have also added that cost to the military members you claimed you were trying to help. Nice.
Originally Posted by Propworn
This is indeed true I myself have asked you provide verification of your claims that you had instigated certain changes within the AMA and certain government agencies effecting changes to the modeling community (emphasis added).
As for the changes within AMA, they voted on it and approved it. The fact the AMA never followed thorugh is AMA's problem (and culture) not mine. And besides, there was another one that you ignored. And that is getting the AMA EC to establish a documented process and deadline for posting EC minutes. Now I suspect their follow through will be consistent with past practice (i.e. awful), but again, that's AMA's problem, not mine. But that benefits the members in terms of transparency (and I'd argue operating discipline of the staff).
12-29-2021, 10:43 AM
#74
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by aymodeler
For once, we are in complete and total agreement You are spot on here!
For anyone who is interested, here is the link to the full audio archive: https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/record...le/21-1087.mp3
My overall assessment was that both attorneys did a poor job (but I guess that's easy for me to say sitting back after the fact). I did not get the impression that there was an appetite to throw the whole thing out, the questions all seemed to be centered around the expectation of privacy when operating a drone on your personal property below the tree line. The judges frequently brought up a hypothetical case of someone operating their drone in the middle of a 100 acre ranch where there would be no practical way for the drone to cross into public space. However, one of the judges who seemed most critical of the FAA in his line of questioning also conceded that his expectation is that 99.9% of the time drones would be operating in a manner that there is no expectation of privacy, so I am not sure how much to read into the overall line of questioning.
I seriously doubt that this will result in the rule being completely tossed out, but the chance of a rewrite that complicates this still concerns me. We may end up with something that is much more complex or limiting.
You are spot on here!For anyone who is interested, here is the link to the full audio archive: https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/record...le/21-1087.mp3
My overall assessment was that both attorneys did a poor job (but I guess that's easy for me to say sitting back after the fact). I did not get the impression that there was an appetite to throw the whole thing out, the questions all seemed to be centered around the expectation of privacy when operating a drone on your personal property below the tree line. The judges frequently brought up a hypothetical case of someone operating their drone in the middle of a 100 acre ranch where there would be no practical way for the drone to cross into public space. However, one of the judges who seemed most critical of the FAA in his line of questioning also conceded that his expectation is that 99.9% of the time drones would be operating in a manner that there is no expectation of privacy, so I am not sure how much to read into the overall line of questioning.
I seriously doubt that this will result in the rule being completely tossed out, but the chance of a rewrite that complicates this still concerns me. We may end up with something that is much more complex or limiting.
For instance. FAA could say "Ok, you wanna be like that, then here goes: FRIAs must be contained within lateral limits of property OWNED by the CBO; as part of FRIA designation, CBO must report all excursions outside lateral or vertical limits, with failure to report being loss of FRIA" those are just two off the top of my head.
I also read the link in Andy's post above, and for an attorney (and USAF vet), I'm more than little surprised that she made patently false statement. She indicated, implied, stated (pick one) that navigable airspace starts at 500 AGL. It does not, and I challenge anyone to find rule or regulation that says otherwise. 14 CFR 119.1(c) specifically allows flight below 500 AGL, stating only that the aircraft "may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure."
I would have thought a lawyer, former USAF lawyer, former USAF officer would have at least read the law before making such a declarative statement like "It will also be interesting to see how the court will address the 'avigation' issue. In its questioning, the panel seemed to presume that individuals had property and privacy rights below navigable airspace (500 feet above ground level) ... (emphasis added)."
Last edited by franklin_m; 12-29-2021 at 11:14 AM. Reason: slight shorten of first sentence; remove sentence from "I also read" and clarified 14 CFR reference
12-29-2021, 11:30 AM
#75
Originally Posted by franklin_m
I would have thought a lawyer, former USAF lawyer, former USAF officer would have at least read the law before making such a declarative statement like "It will also be interesting to see how the court will address the 'avigation' issue. In its questioning, the panel seemed to presume that individuals had property and privacy rights below navigable airspace (500 feet above ground level) ... (emphasis added)."
Not necessarily disagreeing with you, but in the legal world, the line can be a fine one.
During my private pilot training, I recognized early on how a lot of the actual FAA and flight rules are much different than how they are portrayed during casual conversations between many of the, know-it-all, wanna-be "pilots" we encounter regularly at our respective toy airplane fields.
Astro
