[NSRCA-discussion] UAS registration

Sun Dec 27 14:46:32 AKST 2015

Remember when we chuckled at Bevis and Butthead, now they are our greatest
fear?
DC

On Sat, Dec 26, 2015 at 10:39 PM, Keith Black via NSRCA-discussion <
nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:

> 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
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20151227/32d1960b/attachment.html>