Never before have I ever seen anything like this
 

Last Friday I was shocked about what I saw in TWO major newspapers in my local area. ( Boston Mass )
Each paper had a full page add about drone registration. This add clearly specified the requirements of what was to
be registered , why , and the penalty for non conformance. This add was paid for by the Mass DOT.

Yet why is it that this gets posted in large print but a report on bridges that are on the brink of failure never gets mentioned much less
a full page of noterity.

I 've been building model airplanes in one form or another for over 60 years . In that time , never before have I ever seen
so much attention, (positive or negative) given to any portion of our hobby. What a bunch of BS. One question I have is
how come no one who has a lazer beam generator is required to register those . Keep in mind that the lazer pointers have been
a problem with full size airplanes longer than drones.

Did I register and get a FAA # ? Reluctantly yes . But as a safety officer of my club I felt the need to do so. Unfortunately I'm going
to be the one asking members of our club to comply with the new rules and somehow I'll have to enforce them. Never been
a field Nazi nor do I intend to become one. I guess I'll have to wait and see how all this crap works out.

As for the new marking requirements . I didn't see any mention or specifications on the size or color of the information that's required
to be seen without the use of the screwdriver. So I'm having some high quality labels made up with my appropriate info . These labels
will be clear with either red . black ,or white 6 point characters . The reason for the colors is that from what I've seen ,nothing says the
reqd info has to be contrasting in color . The info just has to be on the plane /drone. Naturally the white will be used on white paint
and the red on a red background. Maybe I'll use the black ones on my prop.

When I was a young kid I used to wonder why old people were always so crabby ...................................now I know.

Regards,
Roby

The Boston Globe and the Herald ?

With respect why do you and/or your club feel compelled to check people for these numbers?

Roby: Yours are the best comments I have read as of date about this mess.

The AMA has been clear that they are not going to request clubs or CDs to enforce the FAA registration requirement. Compliance is left up to the individual member. As such no club is required to check, so why would they??

Bill you are correct however there are those who feel the safest route is the " sheep route ". Just page down to the scale racing forum and see where RCPRO racing series is going to require FAA registration. I'm just irritated that unlike the DMV I am not able to request a vanity number from the FAA. Of course if possible my FAA registration number would be.......FUFAA.

The posting in the 2 newspapers was on Friday Jan 29th in the Globe and Herald.

Now , as far as taking the "sheep route" or the AMA not requiring compliance. While the new FAA rules that are now on the books
is being challenged and maybe overturned , the rule in place today is that if you take a drone outside that
exceeds .55 lbs you must be registered. And it appears that the Massachusetts DOT is going to enforce
the law that currently is on the books what ever it is . At this point I don't believe the Mass DOT really cares
what the AMA has to say about any of this seeing as the AMA is nothing more than a lobby group.

Additionally , I'd suggest you don't hold your breath waiting for a rules change . This is an election year
and members of Congress are not concerned with the FAA and model airplanes. They are more focused
with keeping their job and aligning themselves for self preservation.

Thanks for the feedback and responding.

Best regards,
Roby

Registration has nothing to do with safety and would put the club in jeopardy of a lawsuit because the FAA broke the law. So why would you check?

So what did they say?

Of course clubs can do what they want to, but it is worth making the point that they are not required to do so. I've been registered for almost a month now. So far the world has not imploded, and I've flown gliders, electric and gas planes. Go figure!!

Bill, I have an issue with agreeing to fly below 400' knowing full well it will be a lie. I have serious doubts that while flying at a long established AMA site that I will ever be either ask to show proof of registration or be sited for flying above 400'. All the sites I fly at are in such a location where law enforcement has to drive to that area with the intent of going to the model field. I just don't see that being enough of a priority for an officer to not spend his time on bigger things.

Plplplplplplplplop - and he sh*ts out another doozy.

+1

Since there is no mention of 400 feet in any regulation, rule, or law, "agreeing" to the guideline during registration has zero enforcement ability. The only thing the FAA can enforce is an actual FAR.If you cause an accident or incident they will violate you on FAR 91.13 for reckless or careless operation, but that has zero dependance on altitude. Cause an incident at 5 feet and they can still violate you. Fly at 401 feet and cause no problems, then, no problems.

Plus, unless people want to believe the the AMA is lying to them there is this:

Plus 1 for everything you say Roby, well almost everything. " LOL " Yes, as we get older and see much more crap that has been happening than the younger generations, thus we do lean towards the crabby side.

I agree that as a Safety Officer in your club, you may have the right to ask if other members are FAA registered. But, that is about as far and that is where your authority ends as YOU have NO credentials to enforce any FAA regulations, unless you do happen to be an FAA Examiner.

I have been registered as a pilot with the FAA since 1968 and could not understand why I had to register again, but I did. Partly the reason being is that I did not want any hassles at my flying fields, nor any hard feelings with club officers or members that might ask if I was FAA registered. I believe it is just easier to say, yes I am registered and there is my number on my model. Easier to say that than, who do you think you are ? Where are your FAA credentials ? If you do not have any FAA credentials, then do not bother me ! :mad:

As for your Boston Mass. newspapers, it might be better if the British returned and took it back. LOL They are famous for their London Bridge and not bridges falling apart as in both MA and NY state. :rolleyes:

Good luck at your flying field " Heir Safety Officer " ! LOL

Thanks Granpooba,

At this point I think I'll just step back , be very quiet ,(but still might be crabby) , and not do anything until forced to do so.
Hopefully soon this will all pass by and be forgotten like a bad dream.

Heir Safety Officer out. LOL

1. I would say the AMA may be something, but certainly not a lobby group. They are hardly representing us on this issue. I got a happy happy joy joy set of emails today, headlines were ridiculous. Rome burns.

2. Not so, not so. The FAA is on Congress' poop list - they are only authorizing budgets for a mere 6 months at a time. The very mal-formed and ill conceived FAA ruling was out of desparation as they have little control on anything right now, and commanded by Congress to come up with a solution. They did so at the 11th hour, and have now riled the natives (you and me). Call your Rep and Senator today... I.e. actually use the system that exists. I called mine, and the office was actually very interested to hear from the district what was going on with this rule. I was logical and straightforward in my comments, I had prepared significantly for the call, and I felt like I was heard.

Not at all. If you deny them the right to fly because they have no registration. They could possibly sue you because the requirement was illegal. Of course that would probably require a ruling in another lawsuit, and may be some time away. But there is that possibility. The most he should do is ask and ask but not demand that they be registered.

If Roby is acting as the elected safety officer for the club , it is his responsibility to address the safety issues that are spelled out in the club's bylaws . ALL clubs have bylaws (or rules , or whatever you want to call them) that specifically list what are unacceptable behaviors , safety wise , for the safety officer to police , are we in agreement so far ? . "Don't fly over the pits" , "Only X number of aircraft in the air at one time" , and so on . Now , till there is something written into the club's bylaws specifically mandating the FAA registration and giving the safety officer the authority to check for club member compliance on the club's behalf , you would be outside of your authority as safety officer just as you would be to kick someone off the property who showed up in a car with an expired inspection sticker showing on it's windshield ! Since there is no increased threat to the immediate physical safety of other people whether or not an FAA number is displayed , and since your club's bylaws don't grant you all encompassing law enforcement rights , only the right to intercede on behaviors directly related to folk's immediate physical safety , I do believe it would amount to overextending the authority granted to you by the club .

Not to mention that untill compliance with the FAA registration becomes a club requirement through a vote by the members , as ALL club bylaw additions/changes must be , you WILL be seen as a field Nazi by anyone you ask for their FAA number , for the reason stated above .

I still don't know what the MASS DOT said in those papers.

Sport pilot,
I'm not sure how to get that page posted so you can see it but was in the paper , (Boston Globe) Jan 28th
page A11. Sorry but that's the best I can do.

Regards,
Roby

[/QUOTE]
Same reason U inforce the AMA safety code it's a lot less hassle to comply with the rules than take the chance of loosing your field. U don't want the FAA natizes talking to your Land Lord simple as that. Registration is/was free simple and would/will keep the FAA at bay. better to appease them than Pissen'em off. Look what happened when the Congress and the AMA tried through amendment #336 how to do their job. I know several present and retired FAA personal and they dont thak sheit from anyone not U/M/AMA even congress. So just have a few people not put a simple piece of paper in/ on their R/C TOYS and then suffer the rath of the FAA. Not saying it will happen right away bt if the FAA get's enough non cliance U can bet they will get much more reg happy. U can take that to the bank.

Same reason U inforce the AMA safety code it's a lot less hassle to comply with the rules than take the chance of loosing your field. U don't want the FAA natizes talking to your Land Lord simple as that. Registration is/was free simple and would/will keep the FAA at bay. better to appease them than Pissen'em off. Look what happened when the Congress and the AMA tried through amendment #336 how to do their job. I know several present and retired FAA personal and they dont thak sheit from anyone not U/M/AMA even congress. So just have a few people not put a simple piece of paper in/ on their R/C TOYS and then suffer the rath of the FAA. Not saying it will happen right away bt if the FAA get's enough non cliance U can bet they will get much more reg happy. U can take that to the bank.[/QUOTE]

Airport FBO's are not responsible when unregistered or otherwise illegal aircraft are found on their ramp. Unless of course it is their aircraft. So the club is also not responsible for models that are unregistered.