[NSRCA-discussion] UAS registration

Sat Dec 26 18:41:10 AKST 2015

Keith H., you are correct about the automobile. There used to be no drivers
license. When the car became popular enough (and after enough auto deaths)
the government finally decided to require drivers license. However,
initially you just went and signed up for one, there was no test. My grand
parents never took any sort of drivers test since they got theirs early,
then the DPS just perpetually renewed their license no questions asked. I
thought that was pretty ironic.

But wait, I can still drive a car and I'm glad that other drivers are
required to have some training. Honestly, if the requirements were more
strict we'd probably be even safer. Oh, and by the way, I've taken my car
to a track where I can race it and go as fast as I want.

So yes times change, and I DO worry about ignorant sound bite driven
government screwing up our hobby. My biggest worry is an unreasonably low
ceiling. What the AMA needs to be doing is to continue informing and
educating the FAA on how well disciplined and responsible all of the AMA
sanctioned clubs are and make sure there is no unreasonable restrictions
that kill our hobby. However, the fight that should not be registered
because we are more disciplined than the rest of the public or special in
some way is probably the wrong tact.

Of course, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong. ;)

Keith Black

On Sat, Dec 26, 2015 at 5:32 PM, Keith Hoard via NSRCA-discussion <
nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:

> I’m sure there are quite a few on this list who said the same thing when
> the first automobiles started showing up on the nation’s roads.
>
>
>
> “That damn Henry Ford . . . now anyone can just jump in a Model-T, crank
> up the engine and go flying down the road any time they want!!  (shaking
> finger in the air) These young whipper-snappers don’t even have to keep it
> in a pasture!!”
>
>
>
> Oh well, we got rolled by technological progress . . .
>
>
>
> *From:* NSRCA-discussion [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]
> *On Behalf Of *Phil Spelt via NSRCA-discussion
> *Sent:* Saturday, December 26, 2015 17:08
> *To:* Keith Black <tkeithblack at gmail.com>; nsrca-discussion <
> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] UAS registration
>
>
>
> 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 MemberSPA L-18, Board Member(865) 435-1476v
> (865) 604-0541c*
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> 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:
>
> 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:
>
> 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.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20151227/25641685/attachment.html>