[NSRCA-discussion] UAS registration

Tue Dec 22 09:21:26 AKST 2015

I vote Scott for AMA President.

He can write a lot of big words.

--Keith Hoard
--klhoard at outlook.com

From: Scott McHarg via NSRCA-discussion<mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2015 11:12
To: Jeff and Claire<mailto:jeffclaire at cableone.net>; General pattern discussion<mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] UAS registration

I find it really interesting that a lot of us have no problem complaining
but when a thought about putting together a logical, well-founded paper
written to either the AMA or the FAA is presented, no one comments.

Here's the truth if you really think about it:

This rule. which contradicts a law. was made by the FAA due to public
pressure.  Public pressure is out there because there are a lot of rogue
operators of multi-rotor, autonomous vehicles flying in places that they
should not be flying such as over stadiums or densely populated areas or
into sky scrapers or in TFR areas.  It is impossible to catch these
people.  They are putting this out there in hopes of tracking down these
offenders when the vehicle crashes and hurts people or property.  Do you
honestly and truly believe that FAA officials are going to be driving
around and going to AMA fields looking for folks flying at 600 ft above an
AMA site or checking to see if you have your ID in there?  If you do, I
think you're sadly mistaken.

The truth is, one of four things is going to happen:

1.)  The AMA and associated parties are going to have the courts uphold the
Modernization Law of 2012 which effectively protects our ability to fly as
we always have and eliminate the hold that the FAA has on us.

2.)  The AMA will compromise with the FAA and allow our AMA numbers and
names to be on our aircraft and the FAA will accept that database into
theirs and that will be sufficient for registration.  ( By the way, even if
they do get this done, you will still be bound to the guidelines which are
already in AMA's Safety Guidelines and your information will still be
publicly searchable).  Do I know how they will legally bind us to that, no,
but guaranteed they will try.  Understand that if you go to court over
this, you will go broke fighting it even if you're in the right.  Look at
what it took to get Bob Hoover his license back because one FAA official
was unhappy with him.

3.)  You will still be required to comply with the FAA registration process
in February because, if you don't and you get caught, you face a lot of
fines that could buy some nice planes instead and the FAA will be looking
to make a statement out of somebody.

4.)  You can sell all of your stuff and do another hobby because you won't
to agree to some guidelines.  When you sign contracts and agree to
indemnify a company against any and all litigation, do you refuse those as
well?  If you have a cell phone, you did not.

I refuse to fly in fear of an agency that doesn't even have the manpower to
do ramp checks much less drive around and find AMA sanctioned model
airplane fields to make sure everyone has their registration number.  Rules
are already out there that says we will not fly within a few miles of an
airport but yet, AMA fields exist within these boundaries and no one can
tell me that these fields notify the airport that we are about to go flying
every time.  NOTAMS are not posted about these model airplane fields and
yet the FAA isn't coming after us.  Wait and see what the AMA comes up
with.  My guess is, it won't be much because in reality, we aren't the
problem.  The rogue operators that do what they aren't supposed to and
crash into things and fly into forest fires to get video are the problem
and they are the ones they're after (read the pdf's introducing this rule
and look at the cases that are cited).  I'm not saying I agree with the
steps the FAA is taking as it is obviously flawed in many ways.  What I am
saying is I think that some are up in arms about this and are letting it
ruin the hobby.  If it is that big of a deal to you, help write the paper
on the why's and why not's of this rule and let's try to make a difference.

As far as someone stealing your registration number, which is a true
concern, I have decided to sign my paper that will go inside each of my
planes in a certain color and with a certain color highlighter that is on
the back side and cannot be seen unless removed as well as write the name
of the model it's in.  If someone steals my number, they would also have to
forge my signature and know the color of the pen and highlighter and I will
be able to prove this is what I do for every one of my aircraft.  If I sell
an aircraft, I will remove and destroy that paper.

*Scott A. McHarg*
VSCL / CANVASS U.A.S. Research Pilot
Texas A&M University
PPL - ASEL

On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 9:13 AM, Jeff and Claire via NSRCA-discussion <
nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:

> We can argue semantics, but if you fly R/C events such as soaring, RC
> Assist Old Timer, Pattern, etc in which you routinely bust 400ft because
> that's what you must do in order to do well in the event, what are you
> going to tell the Feds when they show up at an event and start asking
> questions- "Yea I signed that I will not fly over 400 ft. but I thought it
> was just a guideline so I go ahead and fly over 400ft during every
> competition flight and every flight in which I'm practicing for
> competition.  Really sir, that's only about 700-1000 flights a year.
> What's the problem?"
>
>
>
> Doesn't seem like it will be a comfortable spot to be in.  Makes my blood
> boil thinking about it.
>
>
>
> *From:* NSRCA-discussion [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]
> *On Behalf Of *Ed Alt via NSRCA-discussion
> *Sent:* Monday, December 21, 2015 10:19 PM
> *To:* John Gayer; General pattern discussion
> *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] UAS registration
>
>
>
> Actually, it would need to say "I shall", not "I will' in order for it to
> compel you to comply.  Don't worry about the 400' guideline so much.
>
>
> On Dec 21, 2015, at 8:08 PM, John Gayer via NSRCA-discussion <
> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
>
> Anytime a document says "I will" rather than "I should" or "I will if"
> and it is something you are signing, be prepared to be held to your word.
> It may be a guideline before you sign it but not afterwards. What do you
> think the checkmark is for?
>
> John
>
> On 12/21/2015 5:38 PM, Ted Sander via NSRCA-discussion wrote:
>
> Ditto - not a rule or law, it says guideline.  Which I will follow anytime
> I am aware of piloted aircraft in my area.
>
>
> On Dec 21, 2015, at 6:25 PM, John FORD via NSRCA-discussion <
> nsrca--discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
>
> I agreed to observe a guideline, as stated on the certificate.
>
> J
>
> On Dec 21, 2015 5:58 PM, Scott Smith <vze23c3q at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> So you agreed to fly under 400 ft?  Man, this is a huge problem...amazing
> how quads revolutionized our hobby!
>
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 6:47 PM, John Ford via NSRCA-discussion <
> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
>
> Took me only a few minutes. The site worked well.
>
>
>
> J
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
>
> On Dec 21, 2015, at 5:18 PM, Patrick Harris via NSRCA-discussion <
> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
>
> Who's on First?
>
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 3:14 PM, Patternpilot One via NSRCA-discussion <
> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
>
> Jan 20th is the end of the free period.
>
> The Feb date is when aircraft prior to December 21st have to register. Any
> aircraft after today has to be registered right away...
>
> That's what I saw on the site.
>
>
>
> Sa
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE smartphone
>
>
>
> -------- Original message --------
> From: Joe Lachowski via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>
> Date: 12/21/2015 6:05 PM (GMT-05:00)
> To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] UAS registration
>
> The FAA site says January 20th, not February I think that is what I saw?
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org> on
> behalf of Scott McHarg via NSRCA-discussion <
> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> *Sent:* Monday, December 21, 2015 1:12 PM
> *To:* Ihncheol; General pattern discussion
> *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] UAS registration
>
>
>
> Remember, AMA is not telling you do not register, they're telling you to
> wait until they figure out what, if anything, they can do about it OR
> register at the deadline in February.
>
>
> *Scott A. McHarg*
>
> VSCL / CANVASS U.A.S. Research Pilot
>
> Texas A&M University
>
> PPL - ASEL
>
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 2:54 PM, Ihncheol via NSRCA-discussion <
> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
>
> Link that Scott provided took 3 different clicks to work after waiting at
> least 5min plus each time.
>
>
>
> Then, Confirming  the account by clicking on the link I got in an email
> takes forever.  Been waiting for the last 30 min.  Still a blank.
>
> Does FAA really think  this will work?
>
>
>
> Also about AMA telling us not to register, I don't worry about local
> here.  However, those who are close to large metro area that FAA may
> monitor regularly, does AMA going to cover the fine if they are caught not
> registered while  AMA tells us what to do?
>
>
>
> Ihncheol
>
> Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Note® II
>
>
>
> -------- Original message --------
>
> From: DaveL322 via NSRCA-discussion
>
> Date:12/21/2015 2:37 PM (GMT-06:00)
>
> To: Keith Hoard , General pattern discussion
>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] UAS registration
>
>
>
> Maybe the rumors are true and the UAS site was setup by the good folks
> behind healthcare.gov......
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Dave
>
>
>
> Please pardon any spelling errors or brevity.....Sent on a Sprint Samsung
> Galaxy Note® 3
>
>
>
> -------- Original message --------
> From: Keith Hoard via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Date: 12/21/2015 15:27 (GMT-05:00)
> To: 'General pattern discussion' <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] UAS registration
>
> Hmmmmm, what a perfect phishing site . . . .
>
>
>
> I’d LOL all the way to my holding cell.
>
>
>
> --Keith Hoard
>
> --klhoard at outlook.com
>
>
>
> *From:* NSRCA-discussion [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]
> *On Behalf Of *John Gayer via NSRCA-discussion
> *Sent:* Monday, December 21, 2015 14:21
> *To:* Scott McHarg <scmcharg at gmail.com>; General pattern discussion <
> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] UAS registration
>
>
>
> Out of idle curiosity, how did you find this link?
> There seems to be no path to it from
> http://www.faa.gov/uas/registration/
>
> Also the link below either doesn't work or can't handle the load.
>
> John
>
> On 12/21/2015 12:45 PM, Scott McHarg via NSRCA-discussion wrote:
>
> Looks like this is the link?????
>
>
>
> https://registermyuas.faa.gov/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *Scott A. McHarg*
>
> VSCL / CANVASS U.A.S. Research Pilot
>
> Texas A&M University
>
> PPL - ASEL
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> 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/20151222/7996f530/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion