[NSRCA-discussion] FAA Registration begins December 21

Sat Dec 19 08:00:53 AKST 2015

If the FAA was really concerned about the NAS, they would regulate ultralights. They are powered, carry people, but require no, zero, nada registration, marking, or training. But our models which have no autonomous capability do. The FAA is simply reacting to a perceived problem, rather than a real one. Perception became reality.

On Dec 19, 2015 10:38 AM, ronlock--- via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
>
> +1
> ________________________________
> From: "Dana Beaton via NSRCA-discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> To: "John FORD" <astropattern at yahoo.com>, "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Sent: Friday, December 18, 2015 10:52:28 AM
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] FAA Registration begins December 21
>
> For those with an appetite for reading into the FARs, would suggest looking into topics like see and avoid, right of way; the basics of navigation and aviation law as they apply to smaller craft giving way to larger craft.  We can read with the thought in mind that our smaller craft are unmanned and larger craft typically have souls on board. These sort of mundane things are probably more what the FAA is concerned about as we share the NAS with full scale aircraft.  When we put conspiracy theories aside, and our general resistance to onerous regulation, there are some things that do make sense even if we object to how Uncle Sam is going about it.  Of course, this is preaching to the choir of elite, highly skilled, precision aerobatic pattern pilots and not the guys out there causing hazards to navigation LOL!  I think John Ford is making the right distinctions below, as I myself understand the FARs.  Cheers!
>
>
> > On Dec 18, 2015, at 10:43 AM, John FORD via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
> > 
> > Those things apply if you wish to maintain the validity of an airworthiness certificate, which no model airplane under 55 lbs has.
> > 
> > The FAA wants to consider models as aircraft in the NAS, not to manage category, class, or airworthiness.
> > 
> > J
> > 
> > On Dec 18, 2015 10:20 AM, Keith Hoard via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
> >> 
> >> http://dronelawjournal.com/
> >> 
> >>  
> >> 
> >> There's some light reading for those of you who still think this is just about “putting a number” on our plane. The FAA considers models subject to the same Part 91 rules as full scale planes.
> >> 
> >>  
> >> 
> >> The certificated mechanics on this list can chime in with how many FAA Part 91 violations a typical pattern plane is now out of compliance. Does your 2M plane have a magnetic compass?  When is the last time it was swung and documented by an A&P?  Does your glow engine have two magnetos?  Do you document discrepancies in a logbook?  Documented an annual?  How about a horizon attitude reference with two power sources?  How about a calibrated altimeter and airsoeed indicator?  All of that is before you even get the plane out of your truck. How many of you know your VFR cloud clearances? 
> >> 
> >> --Keith Hoard
> >> --klhoard at outlook.com
> >> 
> >>  
> >> 
> >> 
> >> From: Ronald Van Putte via NSRCA-discussion
> >> Sent: Friday, December 18, 2015 8:52
> >> To: General pattern discussion
> >> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] FAA Registration begins December 21
> >> 
> >>  
> >> 
> >> That is ridiculous!  They wouldn’t knock at the door, they’d knock in in!
> >> 
> >>  
> >> 
> >>  
> >>> 
> >>> On Dec 17, 2015, at 11:03 PM, W Anthony Abdullah via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
> >>> 
> >>>  
> >>> 
> >>> # 4 sounds scary! Something about "immediate and targeted education activities" makes me a little uneasy. A knock at the door at 3:00AM and a nightstick to the head can be pretty educational. Not suggesting they would do that, it just doesn't feel right.
> >>> 
> >>> Sent from my iPad
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> On Dec 17, 2015, at 5:28 PM, Dana Beaton via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
> >>>> 
> >>>> From page 39-40:
> >>>> 
> >>>> "Registration will 1) make it easier to identify the owners of the aircraft which has been involved in an “incident;” 2) facilitate compliance and education, and when appropriate, enforcement action; 3) encourage accountability by holding owner’s responsible for use and 4) establish a future basis for FAA to engage in immediate and targeted education activities which might not otherwise occur. "
> >>>> 
> >>>> Sent from my iPad
> >>>> 
> >>>> On Dec 17, 2015, at 5:16 PM, Scott McHarg via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> Sorry, that was page 36 for non-political individuals.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> Scott A. McHarg
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> VSCL / CANVASS U.A.S. Research Pilot
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> Texas A&M University
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> PPL - ASEL
> >>>>> 
> >>>>>  
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 4:13 PM, Scott McHarg <scmcharg at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> According to them.....
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>>  
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> http://www.faa.gov/news/updates/media/2015-12-13_2120-AK82_RIA.pdf
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>>  
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> "Benefits" start on page 29
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> Scott A. McHarg
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> VSCL / CANVASS U.A.S. Research Pilot
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> Texas A&M University
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> PPL - ASEL
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>>  
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 4:11 PM, Ted Sander via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>  
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> Missing from the official publicity of all this is the “What is this going to do?”.  Is there any “official” information about what registration hopes to accomplish (as opposed to the “they’re coming to get us” theories)?  Even if it was a page of “Know before you fly” info during the registration process, I would be more supportive.  But all I can speculate on is that it is to “Hope we find that one little part that has the registration number on it”.  We’ve all seen RC mid-airs and crashes, and know that often full recovery of parts is very difficult.  If something bad happens, the odds seem pretty low that even if there is a number, it will be found and traced to the owner, even if there is one!
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> It would perhaps be better to have the FCC mandate registering receivers/control units that have and “squawk” a unique identifier, than this poorly thought out solution!
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>>> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>