[NSRCA-discussion] UAS registration

[John Gayer]

Surely the AMA has already done this!  There must have been a lot of 
papers and correspondence between the FAA and the AMA covering many of 
these points that we haven't seen and that have been ignored by the FAA.

The biggest problem I see is very basic-

Lack of definition of UAV types at the FAA. They use all possibilities 
interchangeably and throw a large blanket over them all.


On 12/22/2015 11:57 AM, Scott McHarg wrote:
> The thought I wrote Dec. 16th:
>
> 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.
>
> It's not really about the numbers.  We all have plenty of numbers in 
> our life.  The physical number doesn't matter and isn't what people 
> are upset about. It's about that number being used by people who do 
> bad things and about being regulated by another agency that doesn't 
> really understand who or what we, as modelers, are and do.  This rule 
> has been instituted because of people flying where they're not 
> supposed to whether it be lack of education or the simple fact they 
> don't care because there's little chance of them getting caught.  
> Police officers will be using this and citing parts of laws in order 
> to give citations and make arrests but the simple fact is they're not 
> going to be sitting at AMA fields. They're going to be in parks, in 
> downtown areas, by airports, etc.  Those are the people they're after 
> and we are just caught in the middle which stinks.  We have a right to 
> be upset that we're caught up but we need to find a way to deal with 
> this and be positive and certainly pro-active as Jim suggested.  
> Refusing to click "I accept" gets you nowhere other than in trouble 
> and fined or out of the hobby.  For me, neither of those are acceptable.
>
> *Scott A. McHarg*
> VSCL / CANVASS U.A.S. Research Pilot
> Texas A&M University
> PPL - ASEL
>
> On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 12:45 PM, John Gayer <jgghome at comcast.net 
> <mailto:jgghome at comcast.net>> wrote:
>
>     What thought are you referring to?
>
>     The AMA won't win their argument about numbers. The AMA could
>     propose a compromise that FAA provide a block of numbers and that
>     the AMA drop their own numbering system and convert to those numbers.
>     Unless the AMA can get model aircraft excluded from registration.
>     I did propose a different set of UAV categories way back in this
>     thread. It's obvious from their publications that the FAA lacks
>     any coherent definitions.
>
>     On 12/21/2015 1:27 PM, Scott McHarg wrote:
>>     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.
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20151222/42d33b4a/attachment.html>