Originally Posted by Silent-AV8R (Post 12131494)

Here is the actual AMA statement:

http://amablog.modelaircraft.org/med...-registration/

Originally Posted by kdunlap (Post 12131479)

Just found this in USATODAY.

"The Academy of Model Aeronautics, which represents 180,000 hobbyists nationwide and participated in the task force, wanted to file a dissenting opinion and was prevented from doing so, executive director Dave Mathewson said. Mathewson said factors other than weight should trigger the registration requirement, such as whether it could fly higher than the current 400-foot FAA limit.“Unfortunately the task force recommendations may ultimately prove untenable by requiring the registration of smaller devices that are essentially toys and do not represent safety concerns,” Mathewson said.


"http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/11/23/faa-gets-recommendations-register-all-drones/76253444/"

Here are my questions.
Why was AMA prevented from filing a dissenting opinion?
I would say the goal here was to reach a consensus, which is hard with 5 people, 10 people etc, but given the size of this group the task was even more difficult. With this many people involved there was no way they were going to allow each party to state their dissenting opinion. They know that's going to happen when the groups release their own statements.
Since it can't be filed... could the AMA post the dissent please?

http://amablog.modelaircraft.org/med...-registration/

They seem frustrated.

What is preventing AMA from sending a letter to the Administrator?

Nothing at this point, not sure that it would matter, seems like it's been decided already. They can send a letter, or I suppose they could challenge this somehow. Probably not a cost effective way of doing so though.

My understanding is that the report was unanimous. They specifically said no dissents. FAA announced this morning.

Here is what the report said specifically:




5. CONCLUSION

These recommendations were agreed upon in a spirit of cooperation and compromise.

Many TaskForce members approached the proceeding with strong convictions, derived both from their

personal experience and from knowledgeable input from their organizations and users.

In such a time-limited tasking, many of these convictions were necessarily set aside in order to reach a general

consensus among the group and to provide the FAA with a workable solution that met its safety and

policy requirements while not unduly burdening the nascent UAS industry and its enthusiasticowners and users of all ages.




Just wondering. Simple questions. Simple answers.

Originally Posted by cj_rumley (Post 12131523)

"Based on its years of experience the AMA cautioned against unnecessarily encumbering the toy industry........"

Awww.........that's so sweet. Mother Theresa must be smiling down them.:)

Originally Posted by porcia83 (Post 12131377)

Wow...he's getting the kid gloves treatment! :)

And yes..the 55 pound comment is odd. I've seen what a much lighter plane can do when striking a person on a mower. Multiple fractures of a leg, pins and rods.....$125,000 settlement. Hardly a fender bender.

Originally Posted by franklin_m (Post 12131483)

An LTMA1 at AMA max allowed speed of 200MPH (293 fps) has the same kinetic energy as a average weight Mini-Cooper at about 22 mph. I'm fairly certain that if a car of that size crashed into someone, it could be fatal. Even with a 2 second shut down timer on loss of signal, that same aircraft will cover 500 feet before the engine stops, let alone how much further it will go before it hits the ground. Now put it at 400 feet in the air -- it can go a very long way.

Originally Posted by kmeyers (Post 12131269)

250 - 24970 grams. Makes me want to drop a 249 gram object on somebodies head.

Originally Posted by HoundDog (Post 12131605)

Originally Posted by smeckert (Post 12131673)

Good to see Best Buy and Walmart were included in the rule making process. Ronald McDonald must have had previous commitments, and couldn't make it.
Just a thought, how are those laser laws working?

Originally Posted by franklin_m (Post 12131483)

An LTMA1 at AMA max allowed speed of 200MPH (293 fps) has the same kinetic energy as a average weight Mini-Cooper at about 22 mph. I'm fairly certain that if a car of that size crashed into someone, it could be fatal. Even with a 2 second shut down timer on loss of signal, that same aircraft will cover 500 feet before the engine stops, let alone how much further it will go before it hits the ground. Now put it at 400 feet in the air -- it can go a very long way.

Originally Posted by Sport_Pilot (Post 12131681)

A Mini Cooper into an airliner at 22 MPH would be a fender bender. Granted it would be more with a Cessna 152. Get off the stupid plane hitting a person. How gullible do they think we are!

Originally Posted by rgburrill (Post 12131371)

But 12 to 15 case of serious injury to a person on the ground over that last few years according ot the AMA.

Originally Posted by porcia83 (Post 12131687)

Might have asked before...but where do you come up with this stuff? Scale aircraft hit people and injure/kill them, and RC aircraft have hit people...I gave a specific example above.

Originally Posted by porcia83 (Post 12131687)

Might have asked before...but where do you come up with this stuff? Scale aircraft hit people and injure/kill them, and RC aircraft have hit people...I gave a specific example above.

Originally Posted by Sport_Pilot (Post 12131717)

Why the emphasis on hitting people? The issue is midair with full scale aircraft, especially airliners. If a Mini Cooper is traveling at 22 MPH into an airliner it would be a fender bender. They are not registering toys because they are afraid of them hitting people. In fact the FAA can do nothing about that.

Originally Posted by rgburrill (Post 12131737)

Again, read the report. Their issue was with hitting people on the ground, not midairs.

Originally Posted by rgburrill (Post 12131737)

Again, read the report. Their issue was with hitting people on the ground, not midairs.

Originally Posted by porcia83 (Post 12131687)

Might have asked before...but where do you come up with this stuff? Scale aircraft hit people and injure/kill them, and RC aircraft have hit people...I gave a specific example above.

Originally Posted by franklin_m (Post 12131768)

Thank you. I was wondering the same.

Originally Posted by astrohog (Post 12131750)

They would have used that data as well, IF it were available. Another one of their recommendations was for the FAA to expedite their efforts to gather the data needed where air-to-air incidents are concerned, so it very much WAS a part of their process but there just wasn't much relevant data available.