[NSRCA-discussion] FAA Registration begins December 21
Scott McHarg
scmcharg at gmail.com
Wed Dec 16 07:16:39 AKST 2015
I think that maybe we, as an organization, could come up with a "paper" to
present to the AMA or the FAA if we so choose to point out some very
obvious facts:
A. The registration process will not work in the manner expected because
those who are doing illegal actions with drones will simply not register as
there is zero way to find that out without inspecting by an agency that
would have to have the manpower to do it.
B. By registering only the operator, a person knowingly flying where they
shouldn't be will simply take out the registration information when
performing illegal activities.
C.
D.
and so on.
Just a thought on how to try to work with the system. I understand why
they're doing it but I don't think for one second that this will change the
problem children in the least, especially those who don't know. Like many
have said, the problem is those that are uneducated about etiquette with
these models. Before online purchasing became so big (and to the detriment
of local hobby shops), people would go to these local hobby shops and be
directed to the local AMA field where folks began to understand how this
all worked. Now, they just purchase these things online. Due to advancing
technology, you no longer have to know how to be a pilot, you simply
program in the waypoints and sit back and watch. With today's gyro's, the
aircraft is always stable.
The FAA needs to be educated on the how's and why's as well as the operator
in today's society.
*Scott A. McHarg*
VSCL / CANVASS U.A.S. Research Pilot
Texas A&M University
PPL - ASEL
On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 10:07 AM, John Ford via NSRCA-discussion <
nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
> I think it boiled down to figuring out a way to distinguish between "bad
> drones" and "good drones", for lack of better terms... when in fact the
> drone itself isn't the culprit…it's the operator(s). With a lot of AMA
> members enjoying "good drones", I think they made a choice.
> But, as was mentioned elsewhere, the FAA didn't pay attention one way or
> the other…they basically concluded that everything above a paper airplane
> is a drone, and all drones are bad, hence subject to regulation.
>
> John
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Dec 16, 2015, at 10:36 AM, Ed Alt via NSRCA-discussion <
> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
>
> That's how I see it as well. Huge blunder on AMA's part.
>
> On Dec 16, 2015, at 10:05 AM, DaveL322 via NSRCA-discussion <
> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
>
> The AMA chose to pursue a policy of including "drones" (non line of sight
> capable air vehicles) as part of "our" community. With that policy from
> the most visible RC organization, why is it local, state, and Fed
> officials will see the distinction between drones and our line of sight
> models?
>
> Complaints about airports (noise), golf courses (stray golfballs),
> dangerous roads and intersections, etc - the result (after many complaints)
> is generally some amount of discussion / negotiation, and an institutional
> control to mitigate the problem.
>
> One complaint or one visible incident can shut down RC activities. We
> simply don't have the broad base acceptance and support that other
> activities have.
>
> AMA has "tied our wagon" to the drone element most likely to cause
> problems. AMA will not successfully educate the rogue drone operators
> anymore than the manufacturers, retailers, or legislators.
>
> Regards,
>
> Dave
>
> Please pardon any spelling errors or brevity.....Sent on a Sprint Samsung
> Galaxy Note® 3
>
>
> -------- Original message --------
> From: Dana Beaton via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Date: 12/16/2015 07:32 (GMT-05:00)
> To: John Ford <jsf106 at gmail.com>, General pattern discussion <
> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] FAA Registration begins December 21
>
> Good post John, thanks. When I posted about people registering their
> pleasure craft, etc. someone clarified it happens at the State level. With
> so many municipalities feeling challenged by drone issues, cities banning
> drones, and State Legislatures circulating bills about stuff they don’t
> completely understand, we may be better off with the FAA (flame away). Will
> be difficult to appreciate today, but the NAS is not for local or State
> governments to legislate or regulate; and if we are registered to operate
> our UAS for recreational purposes in the NAS, then the locals cannot
> legally revoke that privilege.
>
> True, local governments have recourse to other laws or zoning ordinance,
> and our neighbors have recourse to zoning boards and torts if they are
> aggrieved, but with federal registration in hand we are recognized as
> recreational UAS users. That may help our larger cause if some of the more
> onerous local or State legislation falls off the docket, and registration
> averts more towns or cities from bothering with bans. After all, they all
> have police forces and what is the most common phrase that we hear police
> officers say?
>
> “License and Registration please.”
>
> Could be the most common cop talk we are familiar with, right? I think a
> lot of guys in the RC hobby are under the misconception that enforcement
> will be by FAA, or that they will see local FSDO guys patrolling RC
> fields. That’s not how it goes IMO. The most probably scenarios involve a
> visit from local law enforcement, wether or not an incident has occurred or
> a neighbor complaint is valid. To date, police officers could have a look
> around, ask some questions, meet some RC club members, take some notes and
> move on unless something truly crazy was observed. There was nothing for
> them to ask or enforce: Not anymore.
>
> Soon they can politely ask us for our registration and as it has already
> been pointed out, if we cannot produce registration there is already a
> problem. We can protect ourselves from this most probable of encounters by
> registering and taking this violation opportunity off the table. While I
> get the desire for some inspired to pursue the course of civil
> disobedience, history show that those who do so for a cause they treasured
> were willing to accept the consequences of running afoul the authorities.
> The collective case we can and must make is to demonstrate at the local
> level that the RC hobby can be enjoyed responsibly and is not a danger or
> threat to our communities. All politics is local guys, we must hold our
> ground and win locally, individually!
>
>
> On Dec 16, 2015, at 7:02 AM, John Ford via NSRCA-discussion <
> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
>
> Just as an interesting trivia factoid that adds to the mosaic of all
> this…Last week the Albany County Legislature (Albany, New York), introduced
> a bill that was to ban all radio control flying in Albany County. At the
> hearing, the legislators discovered (thanks to a standing-room only showing
> of local R/C clubs) that not all radio control models were "dangerous
> drones", and the bill will very likely be shelved.
> But, goes to show how close to the edge we are on this, given that the
> various agencies don't really understand what they trying to regulate.
>
> We can buck the system and become part of the "drone war problem", or we
> can pay our 5 bucks and further isolate those that don't.
> Sooner or later the local FAA FSDO will get bored with sitting at the R/C
> field and figure out that the GoPro-totin' drone that crashed into a car on
> Main Street wasn't mainstream AMA, and that the local clubs don't host
> drone rave parties at their monthly meetings.
>
> On the other hand, if y'all have club jerks that everyone at the field is
> afraid of…then now might be a good time to read the rules to them, or vote
> them off the island.
>
> John
>
>
>
> On Dec 16, 2015, at 12:24 AM, kvelez--- via NSRCA-discussion <
> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
>
> +10
>
> Sent from my Verizon 4G LTE Smartphone
>
> ------ Original message------
> *From: *Atwood, Mark via NSRCA-discussion
> *Date: *Tue, Dec 15, 2015 2:21 PM
> *To: *Keith Hoard;General pattern discussion;
>
> *Cc: *
> *Subject:*Re: [NSRCA-discussion] FAA Registration begins December 21
>
> Keith,I’ll simply say that I think you’re selling our AMA leadership short in the effort that has been put forth to work WITH the FAA and to protect our rights as modelers. I don’t know how involved you’ve been so I’ll stop short of calling your comments ignorant, but they are clearly both inconsiderate of their efforts and personally attacking… without merit.I’ve had no shortage of complaints and disagreements with the AMA over the years, and even with our current leaders (Bob and Dave and board) over various issues. But I don’t think publicly disparaging their efforts is ever warranted, and on this subject in particular, it’s just erroneous. They have worked diligently on this effort, including funding lobbying efforts in
> DC and their results have been quite good. This is a VERY minor setback and one that they’re working aggressively to mitigate. The FAA is reacting to public pressure to “do something”, and the voice of 150,000 toy airplane enthusiasts is only going to have so much weight, ESPECIALLY when the reality is…it doesn’t affect us. Yes, we can scream civil liberties and slippery slope and all the other NRA worries, but it’s toy airplanes. Those aren’t real worries until people are actually doing damage with our toys.Let’s support our AMA. They’re us. They’re modelers. They’re friends.Rant over…-MarkOn Dec 15, 2015, at 2:06 PM, Keith Hoard via NSRCA-discussion > wrote:If the AMA had any ballz they would tell the FAA to go pack sand and budget for their own advertising campaign. We won't participate in your stupidity, put the word out yourself, and also go ahead and budget to attem
> pt enforcement of 10 million drones.But we all know the AMA won't do that, Muncie isn’t exactly a hot bed of employment opportunity so they have to comply to protect those cushy non-profit jobs.Let's just hope they fight this as hard as they did the SFA.--Keith Hoard--klhoard at outlook.com <+Hoard--klhoard at outlook.com>From: DaveL322 via NSRCA-discussionSent: Tuesday, December 15, 2015 12:34To: Scott McHarg; General pattern discussion; James HillerSubject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] FAA Registration begins December 21To limit liability, all manufacturers, retailers, and clubs will have to include the new regs with every vehicle and every membership sold/offered. And of course the rogues that have caused the problems and will continue to cause the problems will not register.I
> t <http://register.it/> is the camels nose in the tent, it is the slippery slope, it is yet again another unelected bureaucratic over reach that will accomplish little or nothing other than grow wasteful government and degrade personal liberty. It will be a tool used by the FAA to characterize all modelers as irresponsible operators causing the problems, and we (the vast majority) will be subject to ever increasingly restrictive (and uneffective) egulations targeted to control the tiny minority.Re <http://minority.re/>gards,DavePlease pardon any spelling errors or brevity.....Sent on a Sprint Samsung Galaxy Note® 3-------- Original message --------From: Scott McHarg via NSRCA-discussion >Date: 12/15/2015 13:05 (GMT-05:00)To: James Hiller >, General pattern discussion >Subject: Re:
> [NSRCA-discussion] FAA Registration begins December 21My question is.....Since the FAA has no ability to put something in place at the point of sale and since the FAA cannot make a law and only a rule, how are they going to let all the Best Buy / Radio Shack / Walmart / online store buyers know that they must register? There are going to be so many new operators out there that have no idea this is happening. I heard a ridiculous number of the amount of these toys being sold just this Christmas season. They obviously did not think this through. Announcement and implementation all in one week. That's the fastest I've ever seen a bureaucracy work even if it did benefit them.Sc <http://them.sc/>ott A. McHargVSCL / CANVASS U.A.S. Research PilotTexas A&M UniversityPPL - ASELOn Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 11:56 AM, James Hiller via NSRCA-discussion > wrote:Does anyone really believe an outlaw operato
> r is going to put a number on their toy of choice?JimFrom: NSRCA-discussion [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Ed Alt via NSRCA-discussionSent: Tuesday, December 15, 2015 9:15 AMTo: Dana BeatonCc: John Ford; General pattern discussionSubject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] FAA Registration begins December 21DanaThe identity theft risk with the FAA number is that if someone places your number on their model and causes property damage or injuries or worse, then the FAA and law enforcement are coming down on your head.On Dec 15, 2015, at 8:34 AM, Dana Beaton > wrote:Hi Ed, Andy and I joined Buc-Le in Quakertown this week since Farview closed (due to excess turbine traffic outraging the neighbors, having nothing to do with drones or nefarious non-members). Buc-Le requires that club membership cards, or AMA car
> ds for guests, be placed on the board while we fly. Many clubs have a system like this. The LVRCS still does, but we now permit members to wear their membership cards if they don’t want to use the board. Someone who wants to borrow an identity, copy or steal an AMA card, can just stroll up to the box: No need for someone to help one of us find parts to a downed model, it’s that simple today to grab a name and number of someone who is reputable in the hobby to hide behind. I have not heard of this happeningso it seems so unlikely, even now with registration coming down the pike.In <http://pike.in/> the coming compliance environment, the new normal for AMA members, what may mar our hobby is reputable hobbyist pilots NOT registering? I get that a lot of us are angry at what has transpired, but let’s think through the more probable scenarios and avoid needless troubles for ourselves and clubs.De <http://clubs.de/>cades ago when I was training for my Priv
> ate Pilot ticket we still had the large registration numbers, N numbers, on general aviation planes. Every instructor had stories about the one little old lady who called the police every time she saw a low flying aircraft overhead. While the pilot in question may have been in fact at a legal altitude/separation per the FARs, that did not stop those nuisance calls. When the police came to ask around in these stories, nothing ever came of the complaints as the pilots, operators, etc. all had their documents in order and were flying responsibly. Just crank calls that burdened the cops, resulting no problems for the flight school. What I am getting at is if and when our neighbor calls around about activity at our clubs, should the locals come around asking, we will have all our documents in order. If asked, like John suggests, we can produce registration. End of story.OTOH, if neighbors complain and local authorities cannot establish that club members are operating within guidel
> ines, there could be more questions than the situation would otherwise merit. That is the more likely scenario in my mind than bad actors stealing my identity to fly drones badly. We might want to worry more about the mundane stuff like that than the more elaborate scenarios?Respectfully/anonymously (LOL),DanaOn Dec 15, 2015, at 8:01 AM, Ed Alt via NSRCA-discussion > wrote:That should work for the most part. Don't ever let anyone help you look for a lost/crashed model I guess. There are still complications for various scenarios, such as for anyone who wants to teach a student to fly etc.<27B2484C95EE419C9457784BA2057328.pn <http://27b2484c95ee419c9457784ba2057328.pn/>g>From: jsf106 at gmail.com <+jsf106 at gmail.com>Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] FAA Registration begins December 21Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 07:37:04 -0500CC: ed_alt at hotmail.com <+ed_alt at hotm+ail.com>To: mark.grabowski at comcast.net <+mark.grabowski at comcast.net>; nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org <+nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>On my plane, the number will be accessible without tools, per the rule, but unless asked by an FAA official, I'm not offering to show where it is to anyone.I need to have my registration with me, and I will, but no one gets to see it. As the rule says, this is between me and the FAA.No <http://faa.no/>t up to the clubs or the AMA to police individuals on behalf of the FAA, so identity theft should not be a problem.Jo <http://problem.jo/>hnOn Dec 15, 2015, at 7:12 AM, Comcast via NSRCA-discussion > wrote:Been thinking the very same thing. Someone steals a user number, does something stupid
> and then there's a knock at my door. Without a great alibi what are you gonna do???Sent from my iPhoneOn Dec 15, 2015, at 5:23 AM, Ed Alt via NSRCA-discussion > wrote:Speaking of use cases, perhaps I missed it in the flurry of emails yesterday, but has anyone thought about the identity theft risk that the FAA is creating? By registering the pilot and not having unique identification numbers for each model that are assigned to an owner, it sets up the scenario for anyone else to use your number on their model and cause virtually unlimited problems for you, anywhere, anytime. To help reduce this risk, at the very least, the numbers would have to be provided by the FAA with some sort of marking, holography, whatever to at least raise the difficulty of identity theft from zero to something above zero. You can apparently use a felt marker to scribble your own numbers as it stands now.
> Be <http://now.be/>tter yet, from an identity theft perspective at least, there should be unique numbers for each model provided to the owner. This, of course would drive costs way up and incur delays.We should put the central planners in charge of every aspect of our lives now, should we not? They've really shown their true colors on this one. Incompetent boobs, every last one of them.<27B2484C95EE419C9457784BA2057328.pn <http://27b2484c95ee419c9457784ba2057328.pn/>g>Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 15:53:22 -0800To: acornacchione at hotmail.com <+acornacchione at hotmail.com>; nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org <+nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] FAA Registration begins December 21From: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org <+nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>Honestly, I think thats one of the use
> -cases the FAA didn't think through real well...My belief is that this whole thing is about creating a sense of accountability for the "rogue" users (I'm not willing to give them the term pilot because they don't deserve it) who do stupid shit like flying around a wildfire and preventing Calfire airborne response for 20+ minutes, etc. It's about dealing with the anti-AMA guys who fly 120+mph EDFs weighing 6+ lbs over an active soccer game at a local park, it's about dealing with the dipshits who fly their drone on the takeoff/approach path of an active full scale airport in hopes of "cool footage". The AMA field flyers are the least of the FAA's worries and we're blowing it out of proportion. Yes, it's a stupid regulation, but let's comply where we can and show ourselves to be the responsible modelers the AMA says we are.Fo <http://are.fo/>r the foreign guys, first of all, sorry for the needless red tape (though I think a similar thing is coming for the BMFA guys in th
> e UK and it would not surprise me to see a more sensible version of this from the Canadian guys). But if I were CD'ing a contest and some guys came down from the Great White North, I'd happily hook them up with some temporary form of my own registration # to put in their planes for the purposes of flying at the contest because I know them to be responsible pilots.Pe <http://pilots.pe/>ter+On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 3:46 PM, Anthony Cornacchione via NSRCA-discussion > wrote:Legit question with an unknown answer: how will this impact international (IMAC Worlds in Muncie 2018) NATS with international competitors (NATS News this year had a nice write up) and our local contests which have had the occasional Canadian wander south?On Dec 14, 2015, at 6:33 PM, Dana Beaton via NSRCA-discussion > wrote:Boaters register their pleasu
> re craft, fishermen & hunters buy licenses, some folks even register their firearms! So what? Are we going to give up our hobby just because of a tiny pice of red tape? Nope! Just keep flying. The bad actors who misuse their aircraft will run afoul local authorities sure enough, that's their problem, not ours. We need to continue to set the good example though our good flying. Good flying will carry the day.Se <http://day.se/>nt from my iPadOn Dec 14, 2015, at 6:25 PM, Dave Burton via NSRCA-discussion > wrote:So, just shut up and drink the Kool-Aid?From: NSRCA-discussion [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Derek Koopowitz via NSRCA-discussionSent: Monday, December 14, 2015 6:15 PMTo: Atwood, Mark; General pattern discussionSubject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] FAA Registration begins December 21Yep.... yep..
> . yep.On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 2:32 PM, Atwood, Mark via NSRCA-discussion > wrote:Hasn’t that private information ship already sailed? We all register cars and think nothing of it. Heck, we even took classes, got educated, and were tested for a license before we could own or operate a car and we have to renew that every four years and prove we’re still physically capable (minimal proof admittedly). Personally not sure a gun should be much different but don’t want to start that discussion (especially since I’m generally pro gun…just not pro redneck hill jack survivalist conspiracy theorist) but not registering to fly airplanes? Really? We trade more info internationally downloading a Facebook app. Also, we’re already registered�
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20151216/409e55dd/attachment.html>
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list