Safety Metrics & AC91-57C
#26

My Feedback: (29)

Yes, you were right about the things that were already painfully obvious, congratulations. Your push to not be required to join a CBO may very well have been a contributing factor in RID being required when not flying in a FRIA. By saving these people $85 they are now subjected to having to drop $200 ( Dronetag Rid module ) on the only module I am aware of presently to have FAA approval. Congratulations again.
For the record, I’m not against safety recording and reporting. As stated, clubs have already been doing this amongst there own community. Granted the format is different. I however would prefer to let the FAA state what format and level of depth is required for each incident and make definitions as to what qualifies as an incident or near miss.
For the record, I’m not against safety recording and reporting. As stated, clubs have already been doing this amongst there own community. Granted the format is different. I however would prefer to let the FAA state what format and level of depth is required for each incident and make definitions as to what qualifies as an incident or near miss.
#27

Thread Starter

Your push to not be required to join a CBO may very well have been a contributing factor in RID being required when not flying in a FRIA. By saving these people $85 they are now subjected to having to drop $200 ( Dronetag Rid module ) on the only module I am aware of presently to have FAA approval. Congratulations again.
For the record, I’m not against safety recording and reporting. As stated, clubs have already been doing this amongst there own community. Granted the format is different. I however would prefer to let the FAA state what format and level of depth is required for each incident and make definitions as to what qualifies as an incident or near miss.
#28

My Feedback: (29)

Dronetag or equivalent could be a one time expense for some but not all. I have a few aircraft that access to internals is not exactly easy. If I had no access to a FRIA I would require at least 3 modules. I consider myself a fairly typical example of how many aircraft the average R/C guys own, if fact I may be a bit on the light side. Point is it’s typical for guys to buy a receiver for each operational aircraft to avoid having to swap so the same is likely to happen with RID modules.
As far as a safety reporting system is concerned, as of right now the FAA is not mandating it, I agree that it should be initiated before they make it mandatory but should be done with their guidance.
As far as a safety reporting system is concerned, as of right now the FAA is not mandating it, I agree that it should be initiated before they make it mandatory but should be done with their guidance.
#29

Thread Starter

Dronetag or equivalent could be a one time expense for some but not all. I have a few aircraft that access to internals is not exactly easy. If I had no access to a FRIA I would require at least 3 modules. I consider myself a fairly typical example of how many aircraft the average R/C guys own, if fact I may be a bit on the light side. Point is it’s typical for guys to buy a receiver for each operational aircraft to avoid having to swap so the same is likely to happen with RID modules.
#30

My Feedback: (29)

You are assuming that the FAA is going to impose the same standards onto hobbyists most of whom have zero practical knowledge of full scale requirements. As already demonstrated by the FAA in the knowledge test they are fully aware that they are not able to hold us to the same standard. The same standards simply can’t apply between manned aircraft and UAS. Even manned home built aircraft have a different set of requirements then a production civil aircraft. The idea that the FAA would ever be interested in obtaining maintenance records on R/C aircraft flown for recreation is absolutely ridiculous, they are already short staffed for the workload they have, example giving Boeing the green light to do their own inspections regarding 737 Max flight control augmentation.
#31

Thread Starter

You are assuming that the FAA is going to impose the same standards onto hobbyists most of whom have zero practical knowledge of full scale requirements. As already demonstrated by the FAA in the knowledge test they are fully aware that they are not able to hold us to the same standard. The same standards simply can’t apply between manned aircraft and UAS. Even manned home built aircraft have a different set of requirements then a production civil aircraft.
AC91-57C, 3.3.2.1.1.3:
"... The FAA recommends including information on ... the 'Dirty Dozen' human behaviors in aircraft maintenance (emphasis added)."
AC91-57C, 3.3.2.4.1:
"... A comprehensive set of safety guidelines should include guidance for UA maintenance, inspections, and minimum conditions for safe operations to ensure recreational flyers are taking proper care of their UA between flights (emphasis added)"
AC91-57C, 3.3.2.4.1.1:
"... For homebuilt UA or those without manufacturer instructions, safety guidelines should provide general maintenance guidance. Refer to AC 107-2, Paragraphs 7.2.1.1 and 7.3.5, Benefits of Recordkeeping, for further recommendations (emphasis added)."
#32

My Feedback: (29)

So your saying that I need to create maintenance records for all my models and upload them to an FAA database? I mean I’m fairly confident that what the word “ Obtaining “ meant in the post you quoted.
Once again having said that, I’m not opposed to FAA or AMA or Flite Test etc. to come up with a comprehensive check list. Perhaps one that would also cover the dangers of flying in public venues without a spotter.
Once again having said that, I’m not opposed to FAA or AMA or Flite Test etc. to come up with a comprehensive check list. Perhaps one that would also cover the dangers of flying in public venues without a spotter.
#33

My Feedback: (1)

LOL. You literally went from saying this:
To this:
So much for admitting when you've misspoken!
Is that really what you thought he posted? Because I didn't read anything like that at all.
HUH?
Astro
Originally Posted by speedracerntrixie
I’m not opposed to FAA or AMA or Flite Test etc. to come up with a comprehensive check list.
So much for admitting when you've misspoken!
Originally Posted by speedracerntrixie
So your saying that I need to create maintenance records for all my models and upload them to an FAA database?
Originally Posted by speedracerntrixie
I mean I’m fairly confident that what the word “ Obtaining “ meant in the post you quoted.
Astro
#35
Senior Member

Dronetag or equivalent could be a one time expense for some but not all. I have a few aircraft that access to internals is not exactly easy. If I had no access to a FRIA I would require at least 3 modules. I consider myself a fairly typical example of how many aircraft the average R/C guys own, if fact I may be a bit on the light side. Point is it’s typical for guys to buy a receiver for each operational aircraft to avoid having to swap so the same is likely to happen with RID modules.
As far as a safety reporting system is concerned, as of right now the FAA is not mandating it, I agree that it should be initiated before they make it mandatory but should be done with their guidance.
As far as a safety reporting system is concerned, as of right now the FAA is not mandating it, I agree that it should be initiated before they make it mandatory but should be done with their guidance.
Only two thumbs up in the comments. The rest be like, "How come when I see a Drone committee that is writing these laws. There is NO ONE from the AMA representing us", and, "So glad I’m a lifetime member of the AMA and our leadership is content, if not happy about the members being regulated". Well friend, there used be a law that said model aircraft were not drones and did not need to be regulated. AMA loves drones. So AMA saw to it that law repealed. Now model aircraft are drones!
As for the geriatric running the place, grandpa not only misstates the network requirement, he still thinks the "limited exception" for drones is "the special rule" (for model aircraft). Keep up the good work boys! Thanks to AMA I can keep at it with RC. For a while there I thought I was going to have to start making robots and atomic clocks.
Last edited by ECHO24; 11-10-2022 at 03:41 PM.
#39
Senior Member
#41
Senior Member

You need a reality check.
#43
Senior Member

Also, alluding to a ban on someone is the refuge of someone with nothing else left to say. Same with insults. Grow up.
#44

My Feedback: (1)

LOL. You are the only one with the secret decoder ring? LOL
It isn't proper English. It is a fact that it doesn't make sense, NOT an opinion. The fact that it makes sense to you is very telling......
And just another example of your narcissistic, self-righteous, speedy-is-never-wrong attitude.
Astro
It isn't proper English. It is a fact that it doesn't make sense, NOT an opinion. The fact that it makes sense to you is very telling......
And just another example of your narcissistic, self-righteous, speedy-is-never-wrong attitude.
Astro
#48
Senior Member

Like this AMA fan boy, "The person who shall not be named would not have been banned from here unless he violated RCG rules"
Must have indeed. Our commenter not infected with AMA brain wasting disease, "This might have some credibility if RCG took similar action against the user who established an entire thread attacking him. At face value it appears to me to be an arbitrary application of the rules. If the mob agrees with your politics or your points, you have wide latitude to do things in violation of the rules without consequences. In this case the entire thread thing. By contrast, when the mob doesn't like what someone says, they fin and a way to pounce and get someone banned."
Then we get to this AMA insanity:
"YOU’RE the user who started the current thread. Which you’ve made into an “attack” on Franklin by asking questions about him.
Are you suggesting YOU should be banned?"
On-the-fence guy at RCG about joining AMA:
"I used to think the cancel culture twitter mob was juvenile. Clearly there's a new contender for top spot (RCG's AMAers). The arbitrary application of site rules - as evidenced above - only reinforce that perception. An entire thread dedicated to attacking the guy, and the individual creating it kept his account, while the subject of it lost theirs. If I was on the fence before about joining a CBO full of folks like those above, not anymore. I don't have time nor tolerance for such behaviors."
Another AMA flying monkey chimes in accusing the guy of being a Franklin sock puppet account: "Lighten up, Francis……or is it, Franklin?
Banning AMA criticism has turned RCGroups advocacy forum into an ideological cesspool and intellectual wasteland. And you want that for RCU, a constant stream of inane babbling punctuated by bouts of verbal diarrhea when anything negative about AMA comes up?
Last edited by ECHO24; 11-11-2022 at 07:02 AM.
#49
Senior Member

(repost in view of intervening nonsense)
In that video Tyler Dobbs says AMA has been working with module developers for over a year. Not clear if it's just modules but 22 MOCs. The latest uses aircraft power and is the size of a stick of gum. The rest about FRIAs was dull administrative talk. Remote ID is what those AMA dimwits are excited about, "We are actively engaged on this. We're not just sitting on or hands. We have committees dedicated to this", and on and on. Fantastic news for non-AMA members! - Hey everyone who will never set foot on an AMA field, Chad wants you to know he is on it!
Only two thumbs up in the comments. The rest be like, "How come when I see a Drone committee that is writing these laws. There is NO ONE from the AMA representing us", and, "So glad I’m a lifetime member of the AMA and our leadership is content, if not happy about the members being regulated". Well friend, there used be a law that said model aircraft were not drones and did not need to be regulated. AMA loves drones. So AMA saw to it that law repealed. Now model aircraft are drones!
As for the geriatric running the place, grandpa not only misstates the network requirement, he still thinks the "limited exception" for drones is "the special rule" (for model aircraft). Keep up the good work boys! Thanks to AMA I can keep at it with RC. For a while there I thought I was going to have to start making robots and atomic clocks.
In that video Tyler Dobbs says AMA has been working with module developers for over a year. Not clear if it's just modules but 22 MOCs. The latest uses aircraft power and is the size of a stick of gum. The rest about FRIAs was dull administrative talk. Remote ID is what those AMA dimwits are excited about, "We are actively engaged on this. We're not just sitting on or hands. We have committees dedicated to this", and on and on. Fantastic news for non-AMA members! - Hey everyone who will never set foot on an AMA field, Chad wants you to know he is on it!
Only two thumbs up in the comments. The rest be like, "How come when I see a Drone committee that is writing these laws. There is NO ONE from the AMA representing us", and, "So glad I’m a lifetime member of the AMA and our leadership is content, if not happy about the members being regulated". Well friend, there used be a law that said model aircraft were not drones and did not need to be regulated. AMA loves drones. So AMA saw to it that law repealed. Now model aircraft are drones!
As for the geriatric running the place, grandpa not only misstates the network requirement, he still thinks the "limited exception" for drones is "the special rule" (for model aircraft). Keep up the good work boys! Thanks to AMA I can keep at it with RC. For a while there I thought I was going to have to start making robots and atomic clocks.
#50

My Feedback: (29)

As I’ve said many times, I couldn’t care less what is said about the AMA provided what is said is factual. Don’t state your personal opinions a factual. Don’t disparage others for having a different opinion. For Astro, stop throwing amateur psychological labels on people. Today Franklin and I were actually having somewhat a productive discussion until the two of you chimed in. It shouldn’t be a surprise to you two that the tone that you take with me is going to be returned, good or bad. So if you really want me to lighten up then I suggest the same of you.
For the record Franklin was banned for two reasons. First he continually posted off topic. He posted continually about the AMA in the advocacy forum and not the AMA forum. I can only assume he was issued warnings which he ignored. Then as a banned member he created a different account. Bottom line he broke site rules which led to him being banned.
For the record Franklin was banned for two reasons. First he continually posted off topic. He posted continually about the AMA in the advocacy forum and not the AMA forum. I can only assume he was issued warnings which he ignored. Then as a banned member he created a different account. Bottom line he broke site rules which led to him being banned.