[NSRCA-discussion] UAS registration

[chuenkan at comcast.net]

Keith, 

I do not disagree with anything you say. I mentioned to my bride a couple of years ago that the manufacturers were shooting themselves in the foot with all this "fly it yourself the first time..." stuff. I knew then any idiot could buy and fly one, and get the rest of us in trouble. Now, those of us who came up the hard way, building our own radios and planes, and learning to fly without 3-axis stabilization systems are getting punished by these instant-gratification people, abetted by those manufacturers. The instant gratification folks are putting a huge dent in our hobby. I see the fault lying primarily with the manufacturers of the easy-fly devices, and that includes the suppliers for Horizon Hobby and Great Planes. I would have thought someone like Anderson @ GP would have seen this coming. It will be interesting to see whether sales are down from what they anticipated this holiday season. I am betting they are significantly down. Maybe the retailers/distributors thought it would just pass like a bad storm... 

Phil Spelt, KCRC Emeritus, Secretary 
AMA 1294, Scientific Leader Member 
SPA L-18, Board Member 
(865) 435-1476v (865) 604-0541c 


----- Original Message -----

Facts: 

1. Drones are a real safety concern and the general public is beginning to understand this. 
2. The FAA is responsible for regulating safety of air travel, manned or unmanned. 
3. The public will be on the FAA's side and will expect them to get this under control. 
4. RC clubs are not the problem, but the subtleties in describing what makes us different is too nuanced for general understanding 
5. From the FAA's standpoint there is no upside to complicate the system by requiring registration for only a specific class of RC pilots (non-club drone pilots). 
6. Most drone pilots causing trouble will not register, but that should not stop the FAA from trying to control the problem. 

No matter how much everyone carries on here I don't think there is any way the registration requirement will be overturned. With the proliferation of off-the-shelf drones it actually makes sense and personally I wish people were required to register with AMA or FAA before buying drones. I've been concerned about random yahoos with no prior RC experience or club affiliation purchasing and fly these devices wherever they feel like. Non-RC guys, even so called professionals, simply don't understand the dangers involved (flying over people, highways, etc.) I've been to numerous events where there is a drone flying right above a crowd. 

I too am very concerned about what this means for our hobby, but as autonomous flight technologies grow it has to be controlled to protect the public. 

Keith Black 



On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 1:48 PM, John Gayer via NSRCA-discussion < nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org > wrote: 



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: 

<blockquote>

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 > wrote: 

<blockquote>

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: 

<blockquote>
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. 



</blockquote>



</blockquote>


_______________________________________________ 
NSRCA-discussion mailing list 
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org 
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion 

</blockquote>



_______________________________________________ 
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/20151226/4d8bf026/attachment.html>