<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:georgia,serif;color:rgb(0,0,255)">The thought I wrote Dec. 16th:</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:georgia,serif;color:rgb(0,0,255)"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:georgia,serif"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:12.8px"><font color="#ff0000">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:</font></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:12.8px"><font color="#ff0000"><br></font></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:12.8px"><font color="#ff0000">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.</font></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:12.8px"><font color="#ff0000">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.</font></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:12.8px"><font color="#ff0000">C.</font></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:12.8px"><font color="#ff0000">D.</font></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:12.8px"><font color="#ff0000">and so on.</font></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:12.8px"><font color="#ff0000"><br></font></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:12.8px"><font color="#ff0000">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. </font></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:12.8px"><font color="#ff0000"><br></font></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:12.8px"><font color="#ff0000">The FAA needs to be educated on the how's and why's as well as the operator in today's society.</font></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:12.8px"><font color="#ff0000"><br></font></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:12.8px"><font color="#0000ff">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.</font></div></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all"><div><div class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><b style="color:rgb(51,51,255)"><font style="font-family:comic sans ms,sans-serif" size="4">Scott A. McHarg</font></b><br><div>VSCL / CANVASS U.A.S. Research Pilot</div><div>Texas A&M University</div><div>PPL - ASEL</div></div></div></div></div></div>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 12:45 PM, John Gayer <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jgghome@comcast.net" target="_blank">jgghome@comcast.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#3333FF">
What thought are you referring to?<br>
<br>
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. <br>
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.<br>
<br>
<div>On 12/21/2015 1:27 PM, Scott McHarg
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">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>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote></div><br></div>