Go Back  RCU Forums > Radios, Batteries, Clubhouse and more > The Clubhouse
Reload this Page >

AMA says, "Wait to register"

Notices
The Clubhouse If it doesn't fit in any other category and is about general RC stuff then post it here at the Clubhouse.

AMA says, "Wait to register"

Old 12-20-2015, 06:11 AM
  #76  
Rvander
My Feedback: (81)
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Walden, NY
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

So for kicks I visited a few hobby shops locally and some retail stores during this busiest shopping weekend. Saw about 10 larger drones bought.. And not a person knew about FAA.. Nor AMA, etc. their excuse.. It's a toy that I'm gifting. Lol.. Again.. A rule that will only impact 'real' modelers.. Not 90% of the consumer..'for fun toy' group! Wake up ... Everyone that's on these discussion forums aren't the problem. FAA has lost.. No way to control it. Hey.. Govt allowed the import of all this stuff.. They created their own dilemma. If they were smart... They wouldn't penalize us... The modelers.. Cause we are likely to bump into more offenders then they ever will. Like lazer pointers.. There's gazillions out there.. Battle lost. And contrary to everyone's thoughts... Not everyone reads Internet, watches CNN, etc., to know what's going on with this mess. The 10 people I spoke with kinda heard something.. But didn't pay attention cause they thought it wouldn't apply to their toys! And these quads qualified!! Prisons are gonna be real soon.. How do you incarcinate a million citizens! Lol..
Old 12-20-2015, 06:38 AM
  #77  
HoundDog
My Feedback: (49)
 
HoundDog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Apache Junction AZ. WI 0WI8
Posts: 4,501
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by Rvander
So for kicks I visited a few hobby shops locally and some retail stores during this busiest shopping weekend. Saw about 10 larger drones bought.. And not a person knew about FAA.. Nor AMA, etc. their excuse.. It's a toy that I'm gifting. Lol.. Again.. A rule that will only impact 'real' modelers.. Not 90% of the consumer..'for fun toy' group! Wake up ... Everyone that's on these discussion forums aren't the problem. FAA has lost.. No way to control it. Hey.. Govt allowed the import of all this stuff.. They created their own dilemma. If they were smart... They wouldn't penalize us... The modelers.. Cause we are likely to bump into more offenders then they ever will. Like lazer pointers.. There's gazillions out there.. Battle lost. And contrary to everyone's thoughts... Not everyone reads Internet, watches CNN, etc., to know what's going on with this mess. The 10 people I spoke with kinda heard something.. But didn't pay attention cause they thought it wouldn't apply to their toys! And these quads qualified!! Prisons are gonna be real soon.. How do you incarcinate a million citizens! Lol..
Rvander and all"
Hey Man U R Preaching to the Choir here ... Tell ya what, Wright Your Congressman Senator Even your Local FSDO and O'B Won him self. Tell them Registration ain't gona work and U think they should have mush greater restrictions on R/C TOYs. OH don't for get to let the CnC what a In covariance it every times he decides that AF1 needs to take him some place for a vacation. OH don't make those letters E'Mails either ...Real Paper Letters make an impression. Just think if every congressman senator, Pres and FSDO Received a 180 thousand paper letters by mail what an impact that might make. Might even wake someone up.
Old 12-20-2015, 07:15 AM
  #78  
porcia83
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Hartford, CT
Posts: 7,269
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

You are right as usual buddy, the Dubros on one of my Telemasters weigh a heck of a lot more than that!
Old 12-20-2015, 07:57 AM
  #79  
HoundDog
My Feedback: (49)
 
HoundDog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Apache Junction AZ. WI 0WI8
Posts: 4,501
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by porcia 83
You are right as usual buddy, the Dubros on one of my Telemasters weigh a heck of a lot more than that!
porcia 83;
I believe this statement was about My wheels being more than .55 lbs Right?
We all should use Reply with Quotes unless we are makeing a completely new statement. Nouns works much better then PRO nouns too. Makes ones thoughts easier to follow, Wouldn't U agree? OH and Punctuation works too. Just saying.
Old 12-20-2015, 08:17 AM
  #80  
porcia83
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Hartford, CT
Posts: 7,269
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

ya, it was about the wheels. I forgot to quote it, and the thread moved along quickly.
Old 12-20-2015, 08:58 AM
  #81  
Tony Gag Jr.
My Feedback: (124)
 
Tony Gag Jr.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: CT
Posts: 1,146
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 4 Posts
Default

Unless the FAA plans on having a representative at every RC field in every state on every weekend this is totally impossible to enforce.
Old 12-20-2015, 09:00 AM
  #82  
vfourmax
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Lynchburg, Va.
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

New member here just returning to the hobby after being away for 20+ years. It is actually refreshing to see a thread discussing this issue that has remained above the name calling or accusations of who is at fault.

One thing that I have not really seen enter into the discussion is that just recently at the San Bernardino shooting there were rc cars at the scene rigged with explosives presumably aimed for the first responders to the tragedy that were not detonated. There have also been videos posted on you tube of people mounting firearms to drones and firing them during flight. I feel for sure that Homeland Security has probably also gotten involved with the FAA as this could be considered a real threat to security at any location that has large crowds in attendance.

Unfortunately with blos technology a drone loaded with explosives that can be remotely detonated over a large crowd could cause major mayhem and the trigger man/pilot would not even need to be in the immediate area. Everything is just speculation on my part but I feel that moving forward that what may well become "restricted air space" in the future will take these threats into consideration.

I have seen many post in various threads that do not understand why current AMA numbers are not deemed to be acceptable by the FAA. If you think about the above scenarios the way that the FAA is doing the registration is even though they are refunding the charges they are still requiring a cc number to be submitted, this information can be used to verify that you are who you say you are and your submitted information is real and correct. Using information obtained from the AMA would not give them that verification.

Rather than just get mad when a situation arises I try to look at the circumstances and understand the reasoning for it first. Unfortunately with the current state of affairs and recent trends in this country I can see reasoning behind an argument that something needs to be done. Do I think that the current announced plan will have the desired effect? That would have to be no but again I think this is just a first step of many more to come.

First I would like to see drones and fixed wing aircraft totally separated as they have such different requirements to achieve flight namely in space required for take off and landing and space to maintain flight. I would also like to see los and blos operations separated. Make the line of sight operators be classed as what they are recreational hobbiest and for beyond line of sight operators require a license and to obtain such would have Federal background checks similar to the background checks required to buy a firearm.

I really only have one problem as far as the registration is concerned and that is if the list is searchable by the public. My understanding is the AMA has under 200,000 total membership so I question the actual total political clout they carry. I am sure they will challenge the ruling but with recent developments I think that it is likely to have homeland security involved and those arguments may become a moot point as a result.

Unfortunately the times and technology have changed the hobby to a different level and I feel we as modelers will see changes to what is allowed as a result.
Old 12-20-2015, 09:20 AM
  #83  
topspin
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Sterling, VA
Posts: 1,169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

I can recall several years ago when some irresponsible people did some stupid things with drones and it got the entire RC community buzzing. There were a number of threads on RCU with varying opinions on the effect this technology in the wrong hands might have on the RC hobby. There were some, myself included who felt that the AMA should have begun to distance themselves from the whole FPV scene and stay focused on the core membership. We were of course maligned by the many controversialist posters here either for the sake of being contrary or just to stir the pot.

Well, the morons have made an impact on the hobby and here we are, government regulation of model aircraft, I never thought I would see the day.
So now, because of a small handful of idiots I have to register my model aircraft with the FAA. Something I fully intend to do regardless of what the AMA says because I don't feel like paying a fine or going to jail on behalf of the organization who is supposed to represent my interests as a model aircraft enthusiast.

I have been an AMA member for a long time and because my club requires AMA membership to use the field I will continue. If I didn't have a membership to I would tell the AMA to shove it. They should have disavowed the whole FPV/Drone thing long ago and we would not be faced with this now.
Old 12-20-2015, 09:24 AM
  #84  
topspin
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Sterling, VA
Posts: 1,169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by vfourmax
New member here just returning to the hobby after being away for 20+ years. It is actually refreshing to see a thread discussing this issue that has remained above the name calling or accusations of who is at fault.

One thing that I have not really seen enter into the discussion is that just recently at the San Bernardino shooting there were rc cars at the scene rigged with explosives presumably aimed for the first responders to the tragedy that were not detonated. There have also been videos posted on you tube of people mounting firearms to drones and firing them during flight. I feel for sure that Homeland Security has probably also gotten involved with the FAA as this could be considered a real threat to security at any location that has large crowds in attendance.

Unfortunately with blos technology a drone loaded with explosives that can be remotely detonated over a large crowd could cause major mayhem and the trigger man/pilot would not even need to be in the immediate area. Everything is just speculation on my part but I feel that moving forward that what may well become "restricted air space" in the future will take these threats into consideration.
I have a GWS Zero that I am planning to take with me to Hawaii next summer. I plan to fly it over Pearl harbor. It has a hover board battery in it.
Old 12-20-2015, 09:31 AM
  #85  
LUDS96
My Feedback: (23)
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: East Haven, CT
Posts: 494
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Don't copy a number. That is just another way to cause trouble.

Last edited by LUDS96; 12-20-2015 at 09:37 AM. Reason: incorrect
Old 12-20-2015, 09:53 AM
  #86  
RC_Fanatic
My Feedback: (1)
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Sutter Creek, CA
Posts: 1,042
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by vfourmax
First I would like to see drones and fixed wing aircraft totally separated as they have such different requirements to achieve flight namely in space required for take off and landing and space to maintain flight. I would also like to see los and blos operations separated. Make the line of sight operators be classed as what they are recreational hobbiest and for beyond line of sight operators require a license and to obtain such would have Federal background checks similar to the background checks required to buy a firearm.
From an anti-terrorism point of view, fixed-wing planes are more of a concern. They can fly farther, faster and carry a heavier payload than a multi-rotor. Recall that decades ago, Maynard Hill flew a fixed-wing aircraft across the Atlantic. This was before GPS and the complex control systems available today. As I recall from the photos, the aircraft was hand-launched, and landed by radio control at the end of its flight. Horizon Hobby sells a plane that will land by itself (and I assume can take off on its own). Take a Senior Telemaster with modern electronics and you can deliver a huge explosive load anywhere you wish.

BTW, I fly fixed wing only, except for a cheap little quadcopter I have flown in the house until I got totally bored.
Old 12-20-2015, 09:57 AM
  #87  
porcia83
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Hartford, CT
Posts: 7,269
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by RC_Fanatic
From an anti-terrorism point of view, fixed-wing planes are more of a concern. They can fly farther, faster and carry a heavier payload than a multi-rotor. Recall that decades ago, Maynard Hill flew a fixed-wing aircraft across the Atlantic. This was before GPS and the complex control systems available today. As I recall from the photos, the aircraft was hand-launched, and landed by radio control at the end of its flight. Horizon Hobby sells a plane that will land by itself (and I assume can take off on its own). Take a Senior Telemaster with modern electronics and you can deliver a huge explosive load anywhere you wish.

BTW, I fly fixed wing only, except for a cheap little quadcopter I have flown in the house until I got totally bored.
You are 100% correct. Think back a year or two ago, it wasn't a MR "drone" that someone was thinking about packing with explosives and flying into a building, it was fixed wing ducted fan EDF jets. Funny too, because from what so many of the anti MR/drone folks say, the drones are just sooo easy to fly, take out of the box and off you go without any practive or experience needed. So wrong.

Your right on the Telemaster too...I can easily fit 2 extra pounds on mine no problem and mine is electric. Slap a gasser on there and it's even more.
Old 12-20-2015, 10:22 AM
  #88  
skylark-flier
 
skylark-flier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: VA, Luray
Posts: 2,226
Received 15 Likes on 13 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by topspin
I have a GWS Zero that I am planning to take with me to Hawaii next summer. I plan to fly it over Pearl harbor. It has a hover board battery in it.
PLEASE let me know when you get out of jail - I want to be there to greet you.

YOU'RE PLANNING TO FLY A MODEL AIRPLANE OVER A NATIONAL HISTORIC PARK??????????????????

AFTER ALL THAT'S GOING ON RIGHT NOW?????????



Oh, goodie. I'll let them know you're coming.
Old 12-20-2015, 10:25 AM
  #89  
pkoury
My Feedback: (7)
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Picayune, MS
Posts: 442
Received 5 Likes on 5 Posts
Default

I am surprised that those flying models over 55 pounds have not commented on the AMA suggestion to wait on registering with the FAA. If you notice the FAA announcement for sUAS that weigh .55 pounds up to 55 pounds allows for registering using the web based application. Over 55 pounds need actual notarized paper copies of the registration paperwork mailed in. If you are flying a model over 55 pounds and wait to register until the last minute your over 55 pound model is grounded until the registration comes back. As I read what I can find there is no blanket registration for models over 55 pound, they need individual registration. https://www.faa.gov/licenses_certifi...stry/UA/#NewUA
Old 12-20-2015, 10:58 AM
  #90  
Tony Iannucelli
My Feedback: (193)
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Parrish, FL
Posts: 475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

I'm going to register. What's the big deal?

We stop at stop signs. We don't yell 'fire' in theaters. We pay our utility bills. We renew our driver's licenses. We get carry permits. And fishing licenses. And hunting licenses. And our dogs have licenses. So do our cars. I'm forced to join the AMA by my club for the liability protection. What's the problem with any of it? Your freedom is not being abridged, it's being protected.

Government, OUR government, needs to monitor our society because of the yahoos in it.

After all, as George Costanza said, "We are living in a society here".
Old 12-20-2015, 11:50 AM
  #91  
joancmigneault
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Austell, GA
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Rcken, you are not goofy. I see this coming too. I still want an "n" number when i register my aircraft tomorrow the 21st.
Old 12-20-2015, 11:51 AM
  #92  
jmiles1941
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 150
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by RCKen
Ok, anybody that has seen my posts in the "Useless AMA" thread knows that I try to stay as neutral as I can in all things that go in anything that goes on here on RCU, especially as controversial as these recent event concerning the FAA rulings. I said I was going to climb off my soapbox after my rant about the AMA's recent mailing about cheap auto insurance. But now I feel the need to pull the soapbox back out and dust it back off.

I see this mailing by the AMA and they are encouraging us (I stay short of calling it instructing us) to "hold off registering" under the FAA registration system that kicks in starting next Monday. Soooooooooo, let's get this straight now. The AMA now has the legal authority to overrule an agency of the Federal Government. Now please DO NOT get me wrong her that I like the new system of having to register my airplanes, because I hate the entire idea and I want it gone. But, come Monday the 21st it IS Federal regulation that can be backup up with penalties in Federal Courts. So the AMA can tell us to simply not do that. I know that this is going to be a scenario that probably will not happen, but let's play what if for a second. Let's say that I don't register as per the AMA's instructions, and then on January 1st I go out for my club's annual Chili Fly (we cook up pots of chili and go and and fly regardless of the weather). Lo and behold a Federal Officer shows up and wants to see my Federal Registration for me flying my airplanes and I tell him that "Oh, the AMA said I didn't have to do it". Wrong answer.... I get slammed. If you read down the documentation of the new regulation the max fines are up to $250,00 and up to 3 years on jail. So, if I were to get busted for flying without registering my planes is the AMA going to pay for my fines??? Is Bob Brown or Dave Mathewson going to go sit in a jail cell for me??

Once again the AMA has made a bad call. While I hate the FAA and I think that they made bad call by including Model Aircraft in with the drones, the AMA has made a worse call by telling it's membership to ignore Federal Regulations. I really am starting to wonder what is going on in Muncie and what they are thinking when they make these calls, because they really seem less and less like they have the best welfare of the membership in mind when they make calls like this. In fact, this current call to me just stinks more and more of the Executive Council trying to make themselves look good. They are trying to make themselves took like heros that "swooped" in to save us all. Well in my mind they are the part of the problem and not part of the solution, and following their advice to not register is just going to compound that problem. We really need to start voting these guys out of office, starting with Bob Brown.

Does anybody else see the same thing I am seeing here?? Or am I just being goofy??

Ok, Rant Mode off. Soapbox is back in the closet.

Ken
Ken as for me I am registering dec 21 to get this out of the way I have a IMAC contest in feb not going to go and they want my card well I will have mine , I have already renewed my AMA, IMAC, MAA, SPA and now I shall register my FAA no big deal
Old 12-20-2015, 12:10 PM
  #93  
TFF
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Memphis, TN
Posts: 4,183
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

A pilot still has to have a license even it a member of AOPA, but a couple of years ago the States wanted CFIs to register and was going to require all airplane pilot instructors to have a 4 year degree in teaching. AOPA had all CFIs not register and it got dropped. AMA can only hope one of two things happens. Model airplanes actually get their own pass in the system, not, or if the AMA can be the portal through membership. FAA is using AMA recommendations, so there is some hope. If they dont, the AMA may end breaking up and loose what lobbying they can do and home owners policies will go up as that is where the damage payments will come from without AMA insurance backup. Think breaking a window with a baseball was bad when your a kid; lawyers are lining up on this one.
Old 12-20-2015, 12:14 PM
  #94  
Lightning Fan
My Feedback: (17)
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Hartland, WI
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Perhaps this has already been covered somewhere, but I see in threads dire scenarios of a deputy with a grudge driving up to our field and demanding to see the FAA registrations of the pilots on the flight line.
I'll go out on a limb here and say that, just like full scale, that deputy does not have jurisdiction to do that.
I have a pilots license but have not flown in over a decade. However, a couple of CFI's I've discussed this with say that while an FAA inspector can demand to "see your papers", a sheriff, or policeman, cannot. I did a cursory look on AOPA's site and it all seems to revolve around the fact that the FAA writes their regs in the FARs, which the FAA is charged with enforcing. Local police are not charged with enforcing FARs. I'm sure an FAA Inspector could ask for local law enforcement "backup", but I don't think a policeman is authorized without the FAA being there.

IF I am correct about jurisdiction ... the chances the few FAA inspectors that exist will show up at my field seem pretty remote. IF I am wrong, then obviously there would be a lot more bodies to conduct enforcement. Jurisdiction will determine how much exposure we RC hobbyists have when flying. It does not address the intrusive nature of my name on a list that says I fly toys.

This whole thing is about the regulator wanting to be in a position to jail an idiot that dents a commercial jet that is on final. Of course, the chance that the idiot would have his registration number in the "drone" (gawd I hate that word) is zero, which then gives the FAA legal footing to throw the book at the guy IF they catch him, because he is in violation of the registration law.
I've got a fair amount of experience with the FDA -- the regulator's biggest fear is getting summoned before congress and asked hard questions about why they are not controlling a situation that they are responsible for - if they handle it badly, it usually means some fool in congress starts cutting budgets and mandating rules that the regulator cannot deal with. Right now, I'd say that the FAA is handling the "idiots that have drones" situation pretty badly, and are exposed.
We are collateral damage.

Fire suit is on. Go ahead.
Old 12-20-2015, 01:11 PM
  #95  
fliers1
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Lockport, NY
Posts: 1,318
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

I wonder if drones has serial numbers? That would be one way to track down the owner.
Old 12-20-2015, 01:52 PM
  #96  
vfourmax
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Lynchburg, Va.
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by TFF
AMA can only hope one of two things happens. Model airplanes actually get their own pass in the system, not, or if the AMA can be the portal through membership. FAA is using AMA recommendations, so there is some hope. If they dont, the AMA may end breaking up and loose what lobbying they can do and home owners policies will go up as that is where the damage payments will come from without AMA insurance backup..
I think first off we need to figure out what the FAA has in mind for an end result. Of coarse we have no way of knowing that but if I were in charge of setting this up I would say 1. Institute the registration to have a data base of the owner/operators of model aircraft. 2. Goal of protecting the general public's privacy and safety. 3. Try to limit the risk to full size aircraft. 4. Limit the risk of possible terrorist use of rc models.

I think we know that registration will not fix the problem, criminals, terrorist or those operating recklessly will not register. But what registration does do is for those who fail to comply is to give teeth to being able to slap offenders with more severe criminal/civil charges and huge financial fines.
Next I would probably institute rules greatly broadening "no fly zones" and finally requiring all operators to be covered by a minimum "liability" damage insurance policy before being able to legally operate their aircraft.

What have the above accomplished, first the registration opens an avenue for aggressive prosecution of of non conformist, The no fly zones would limit the general public's exposure to risk from model aircraft and the liability insurance would not only offer protection in the way of damages caused by an owners aircraft but would act as a deterrent to many people that just want one because they are cool or mom and dad buying one for Jr for his 14th birthday due to the added expense and risk of liability therefore reducing the number of craft in the airspace.

I would also include Homeland security under this banner as a press conference from the oval office citing "national security concerns" will eliminate or greatly reduce most road blocks from a legal standpoint. These ideas would not be popular in the modeling community but probably have a lot of support from the general public. These rules would not really affect modelers who currently fly from ama sanctioned locations , nor probably those that fly in rural areas except the registration and possibly insurance requirement. There could also be insurance waivers for modelers in rural areas that their craft never ventured outside private property lines that they either owned or had written permission to fly from.

So even if the AMA had no lobbying clout their role could go back to more organizing events, helping secure approved flying sites (which there would probably be a greater need for than currently) and offering liability insurance as they currently do. Actually from the AMA'S standpoint this may well be a win financially as more people would need to use AMA sanctioned sites and sign up for the offered liability coverage.

This may not be a popular post in a lot of ways but if I was running the FAA and task the job to "get control" of the current situation this is how I would most likely proceed.
Old 12-20-2015, 02:13 PM
  #97  
BobH
My Feedback: (2)
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Springfield, VA,
Posts: 8,049
Received 21 Likes on 21 Posts
Default

Are you people serious? Please can you tell me a Gov't program that works very well and really does what it's intended to do?
I worked for a Regulatory Agency for over 30 years. Even with laws on the books and lots of court actions many many things go unpunished. More over they most often go unnoticed.
I'm sure as hell glad many of you weren't in Boston Harbor a few hundred years ago.. I shudder to think of the consequences.
Old 12-20-2015, 02:25 PM
  #98  
skylark-flier
 
skylark-flier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: VA, Luray
Posts: 2,226
Received 15 Likes on 13 Posts
Default

I think first off we need to figure out what the FAA has in mind for an end result. Of coarse we have no way of knowing that but if I were in charge of setting this up I would say 1. Institute the registration to have a data base of the owner/operators of model aircraft. 2. Goal of protecting the general public's privacy and safety. 3. Try to limit the risk to full size aircraft. 4. Limit the risk of possible terrorist use of rc models.
Your point 1, the database: Why? What is the REAL reason? They're not stupid, they know this registration is a paper exercise - but without even having paper.
2. How is this registration going to protect ONE person's privacy or safety? I just don't see it.
3. That little piece of tape on my wing's going to protect a 787? Really?
4. Oh, yeah! Sure! ISIS is going to quake, thinking they might make the FAA mad at them.


I think we know that registration will not fix the problem, criminals, terrorist or those operating recklessly will not register. But what registration does do is for those who fail to comply is to give teeth to being able to slap offenders with more severe criminal/civil charges and huge financial fines.
Here, you've hit the nail. It's a money maker!

Next I would probably institute rules greatly broadening "no fly zones" and finally requiring all operators to be covered by a minimum "liability" damage insurance policy before being able to legally operate their aircraft.
Are these anything like the thousands of square miles that already exist all over the US? They just going to fill in all the holes to make it impossible to legally fly anything at all, anywhere?

What have the above accomplished, first the registration opens an avenue for aggressive prosecution of of non conformist, The no fly zones would limit the general public's exposure to risk from model aircraft and the liability insurance would not only offer protection in the way of damages caused by an owners aircraft but would act as a deterrent to many people that just want one because they are cool or mom and dad buying one for Jr for his 14th birthday due to the added expense and risk of liability therefore reducing the number of craft in the airspace.
The best thought I could possibly have to reply to this is your obvious hope for total government control of our lives.

I would also include Homeland security under this banner as a press conference from the oval office citing "national security concerns" will eliminate or greatly reduce most road blocks from a legal standpoint. These ideas would not be popular in the modeling community but probably have a lot of support from the general public. These rules would not really affect modelers who currently fly from ama sanctioned locations , nor probably those that fly in rural areas except the registration and possibly insurance requirement. There could also be insurance waivers for modelers in rural areas that their craft never ventured outside private property lines that they either owned or had written permission to fly from.
You're right - it's certainly not popular with me, at least. Let's add FDA into the mix also, and don't forget NEA, FEMA, SSA, and ATF - they're going to want a piece of this action too. Once all these agencies are done THERE WON'T BE ANY AMA SANCTIONED LOCATIONS.

So even if the AMA had no lobbying clout their role could go back to more organizing events, helping secure approved flying sites (which there would probably be a greater need for than currently) and offering liability insurance as they currently do. Actually from the AMA'S standpoint this may well be a win financially as more people would need to use AMA sanctioned sites and sign up for the offered liability coverage.
Yup, that would pretty much bottle AMA right into their little genie bottle. Remember, AMA doesn't own those sites that you're talking about right now. And once your plan was enacted they probably wouldn't own AMA HQ either.

This may not be a popular post in a lot of ways but if I was running the FAA and task the job to "get control" of the current situation this is how I would most likely proceed.
Then I thank God you're not running the FAA.

Sorry guys, to me, this would be the proverbial poison pill. Maybe I'm wrong though. Idunno.
Old 12-20-2015, 02:29 PM
  #99  
vfourmax
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Lynchburg, Va.
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by BobH
Are you people serious? Please can you tell me a Gov't program that works very well and really does what it's intended to do?
I worked for a Regulatory Agency for over 30 years. Even with laws on the books and lots of court actions many many things go unpunished. More over they most often go unnoticed.
I'm sure as hell glad many of you weren't in Boston Harbor a few hundred years ago.. I shudder to think of the consequences.
Never said I agreed with it or approved of it, for sure there aren't any government programs I am aware of that work efficiently or effectively. But I really cannot see where just registration will be the end results. Just putting out what a possible end scenario may or could consist of. Granted this has no basis other than what could be possible.
Old 12-20-2015, 03:08 PM
  #100  
108buzz
My Feedback: (14)
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Browns Mills, NJ
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Here is an example of the idiots in the government and what we are dealing with. This is not about RC, but it is an example of the government making laws and having no clue at what they are talking about. She states a clip and then high capacity magazines. Two different things and a barrel shroud is not a thing that goes over your shoulder. These people are making and sign for laws they have no clue about what it is.

https://youtu.be/ospNRk2uM3U

Also, the FAA is not making you register you aircraft, but instead will issue one number you will put on all your aircraft. This is nothing more than pilot registration.

Now, they have stated that all your information will be accessible to the public. For this reason I will not register and basically we will be treated like a sex offender.

Lets say some idiots that bought a quad for his kid for Christmas losses control and it and it fly's a couple of blocks and lands on some big road rage dude's new corvette. Now the pissed off dude looks at the database, sees your name and that you live close by.

Next, the dude is pounding on your front door wanting to kick your ass. So, is the FAA thinking of you and your families safety when this happens? The FAA has not thought of the implications and that they could be responsible for someone be assaulted.

I think the FAA is opening themselves up to law suits and does not realize it.

Just me two cents.

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.