|
Overreacting government
On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 13:42:41 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 12/15/2015 1:30 PM, John H. wrote: On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 12:53:09 -0500, wrote: On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 10:46:53 -0500, John H. wrote: On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 10:08:41 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: Again, the concern is a 50% increase of drones, RC aircraft, etc., starting to be used within the next couple of months. I also realize that enforcement of the registration requirement is difficult. It probably would have made more sense to require registration at the time of sale. Or have the seller check for an AMA card prior to the sale. But, the AMA card is free to those under 19, and there is no requirement that the kid knows any flight rules or safety measures. Then we would have the "drone show" loophole ;-) These days anyone who can put am Ikea table together can make a drone from parts and I already know a guy who is making money doing it. (he works for my wife). Some of these are pretty sophisticated and still less than $500 to build. (more properly "assemble" since it is all off the shelf parts) None of which have serial numbers, although I see there is no mention of registering particular aircraft - only operators. "Q. What information will I be required to provide on the FAA UAS Registration website? A. You must provide your complete name, physical address, mailing address, and an email address. The email address will be used as your login ID when you set up your account. Q. Do I have to provide any information on my UAS? A. Individual recreational users do not have to enter the make, model, and serial number. All non-recreational users will be required to provide the make, model, and serial number when the website is available to all other users." (From the site provided by Luddite.) You missed some that pertain: Q. How do I prove I am registered? A. A certificate of registration will be available to download and will be sent to your email address at the time of registration. When operating your UAS you must be able to present the certificate in either print or electronic format if asked for proof of registration. Q. Will my drone require an N-number or sticker? A. No. You will receive a unique registration number, not an N-number, and you must mark the registration number on your UAS by some means that is legible and allows the number to be readily seen. The registration number may be placed in a battery compartment as long as it can be accessed without the use of tools. Q. Is putting my AMA number on my drone enough? A. No. Not at this time. The registration system will generate a unique FAA registration number, which you must mark on your aircraft. Q. Would putting my contact information on my drone be enough? A. No, you must mark it with the FAA registration number. Didn't miss it. The aircraft itself is not 'registered'. The person is. I could, and will, have the same registration number on each aircraft. -- Ban idiots, not guns! |
Overreacting government
On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 13:23:58 -0500, John H.
wrote: The people doing the most complaining of drones operated by hobbyists are private and commercial pilots. They are the ones pushing the FAA for the enforcement of regulations regarding their use. The regulations exist. Registration is an attempt to further enforcement. I can attest from experience that a sudden, unexpected distraction at a critical moment in your approach to landing could cause an accident. Birds are a problem (especially seagulls in our area). So are idiots flying drones near an airport. I played golf with a pilot Sunday. He's concerned about drones, but thinks a bigger problem is lasers. He said he knows several pilots who've quit flying because of lasers. I think that may be a bit overblown too. A drone could definitely damage an engine, but it's doubtful whether it could bring a plane down. I have not even heard of a drone caused accident. It is just people offended that someone else is in their "space". Fully registered planes with licensed pilots have caused far more close calls than drones and more than a few fatalities. Maybe they were "aware" enough. Charge them another $5 to tune them up. |
Overreacting government
On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 13:33:01 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 12/15/15 1:15 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 12/15/2015 1:02 PM, Justan Olphart wrote: On 12/15/2015 9:23 AM, True North wrote: Keyser Söze - show quoted text - "Why are you whining about government employment? Weren't you a government employee most of your working life? Wasn't your wife? Didn't your wife get health plan benefits from an employee union? You're biting the hands that fed you, eh?" The John got his......to 'ell with anyone else. What did John get that you didn't? John didn't "get" anything. He earned it, based on the contract he had for his service. Sorta like a union. John's problem is that he resents other government employees who get benefits. I resent the creation of 'jobs' which accomplish nothing but increasing the size of the government. -- Ban idiots, not guns! |
Overreacting government
On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 13:32:28 -0500, John H.
wrote: These days anyone who can put am Ikea table together can make a drone from parts and I already know a guy who is making money doing it. (he works for my wife). Some of these are pretty sophisticated and still less than $500 to build. (more properly "assemble" since it is all off the shelf parts) You can think of more reasons *not* to address a potential problem than anyone I know. :-) It's senseless to develop senseless, unenforceable rules just to say, "We have now addressed the problem." === Absolutely right. That's one of the reasons that the government has grown as bloated as it is, filled with smiling smug bureaucrats just doing their job. |
Overreacting government
On 12/15/15 1:56 PM, John H. wrote:
On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 13:33:01 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 12/15/15 1:15 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 12/15/2015 1:02 PM, Justan Olphart wrote: On 12/15/2015 9:23 AM, True North wrote: Keyser Söze - show quoted text - "Why are you whining about government employment? Weren't you a government employee most of your working life? Wasn't your wife? Didn't your wife get health plan benefits from an employee union? You're biting the hands that fed you, eh?" The John got his......to 'ell with anyone else. What did John get that you didn't? John didn't "get" anything. He earned it, based on the contract he had for his service. Sorta like a union. John's problem is that he resents other government employees who get benefits. I resent the creation of 'jobs' which accomplish nothing but increasing the size of the government. -- Well, then, you should have resigned from the army before you vested, as it were. |
Overreacting government
On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 13:31:55 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: On 12/15/2015 1:22 PM, wrote: As John said, wouldn't a PSA on TV accomplish the same thing, a whole lot cheaper. Maybe do the normal government thing for things they can't controller and require a warning label on the drone controller. Why do you suppose the idea of requiring the drone's owner to be registered and a traceable number be put on the drone that leads back to the owner was determined to be the only viable action the FAA can take at the present time? Also, I don't buy into your argument that the registration process is going to be unreasonably expensive. Computers do almost all the work creating the registry and database. Computers do most of the work at DMV but they have plenty of employees. This will be done largely by a contractor so the cost will be readily available if you want to dig through the FAA appropriations. The thing you ignore is how much will enforcement cost. The FAA can barely deal with the things they are responsible for now and in a lot of cases, not so well. There are plenary of planes flying around with missed inspections, pilots who have license problems and some who have no license at all. A toothless rule is worse than no rule at all. |
Overreacting government
On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 13:35:25 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: On 12/15/2015 1:23 PM, John H. wrote: On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 13:11:26 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 12/15/2015 12:48 PM, wrote: On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 10:44:48 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 12/15/2015 10:40 AM, John H. wrote: Any parent could bring their kids to an RC field and get a 'quickie' course for their kids, along with some buddy-boxed 'stick time'. Responsible parents, buying for their kids, might do so. But again, we're not talking responsible adults here. The FAA agrees with you. The FAA is used to dealing with professionals and dedicated amateurs. They are unprepared to deal with the rabble that is buying the drones. I am still reminded of the CB radio craze and the FCC's inability to really regulate much of any of it. They finally just walked away. CB pretty much just died from it's own weight. It became unusable. I don't see that happening with drones although some of the novelty might wear off after you have seen all of your neighbors naked. Oh the horror! The people doing the most complaining of drones operated by hobbyists are private and commercial pilots. They are the ones pushing the FAA for the enforcement of regulations regarding their use. The regulations exist. Registration is an attempt to further enforcement. I can attest from experience that a sudden, unexpected distraction at a critical moment in your approach to landing could cause an accident. Birds are a problem (especially seagulls in our area). So are idiots flying drones near an airport. I played golf with a pilot Sunday. He's concerned about drones, but thinks a bigger problem is lasers. He said he knows several pilots who've quit flying because of lasers. A drone could definitely damage an engine, but it's doubtful whether it could bring a plane down. Taking a plane down isn't the concern. Distracting the pilot (same with the lasers) at a critical moment is the concern. Ask your pilot golfing buddy. If a pilot is so distracted by a laser that he can't fly the plane, I certainly don't want him sitting up there in a thunder storm or even the most minor mechanical problem. |
Overreacting government
On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 13:42:41 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: On 12/15/2015 1:30 PM, John H. wrote: On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 12:53:09 -0500, wrote: On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 10:46:53 -0500, John H. wrote: On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 10:08:41 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: Again, the concern is a 50% increase of drones, RC aircraft, etc., starting to be used within the next couple of months. I also realize that enforcement of the registration requirement is difficult. It probably would have made more sense to require registration at the time of sale. Or have the seller check for an AMA card prior to the sale. But, the AMA card is free to those under 19, and there is no requirement that the kid knows any flight rules or safety measures. Then we would have the "drone show" loophole ;-) These days anyone who can put am Ikea table together can make a drone from parts and I already know a guy who is making money doing it. (he works for my wife). Some of these are pretty sophisticated and still less than $500 to build. (more properly "assemble" since it is all off the shelf parts) None of which have serial numbers, although I see there is no mention of registering particular aircraft - only operators. "Q. What information will I be required to provide on the FAA UAS Registration website? A. You must provide your complete name, physical address, mailing address, and an email address. The email address will be used as your login ID when you set up your account. Q. Do I have to provide any information on my UAS? A. Individual recreational users do not have to enter the make, model, and serial number. All non-recreational users will be required to provide the make, model, and serial number when the website is available to all other users." (From the site provided by Luddite.) You missed some that pertain: Q. How do I prove I am registered? A. A certificate of registration will be available to download and will be sent to your email address at the time of registration. When operating your UAS you must be able to present the certificate in either print or electronic format if asked for proof of registration. Q. Will my drone require an N-number or sticker? A. No. You will receive a unique registration number, not an N-number, and you must mark the registration number on your UAS by some means that is legible and allows the number to be readily seen. The registration number may be placed in a battery compartment as long as it can be accessed without the use of tools. Q. Is putting my AMA number on my drone enough? A. No. Not at this time. The registration system will generate a unique FAA registration number, which you must mark on your aircraft. Q. Would putting my contact information on my drone be enough? A. No, you must mark it with the FAA registration number. Who is going to look? |
Overreacting government
On Tuesday, December 15, 2015 at 3:50:21 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 13:35:25 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 12/15/2015 1:23 PM, John H. wrote: On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 13:11:26 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 12/15/2015 12:48 PM, wrote: On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 10:44:48 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 12/15/2015 10:40 AM, John H. wrote: Any parent could bring their kids to an RC field and get a 'quickie' course for their kids, along with some buddy-boxed 'stick time'. Responsible parents, buying for their kids, might do so. But again, we're not talking responsible adults here. The FAA agrees with you. The FAA is used to dealing with professionals and dedicated amateurs.. They are unprepared to deal with the rabble that is buying the drones. I am still reminded of the CB radio craze and the FCC's inability to really regulate much of any of it. They finally just walked away. CB pretty much just died from it's own weight. It became unusable. I don't see that happening with drones although some of the novelty might wear off after you have seen all of your neighbors naked. Oh the horror! The people doing the most complaining of drones operated by hobbyists are private and commercial pilots. They are the ones pushing the FAA for the enforcement of regulations regarding their use. The regulations exist. Registration is an attempt to further enforcement.. I can attest from experience that a sudden, unexpected distraction at a critical moment in your approach to landing could cause an accident.. Birds are a problem (especially seagulls in our area). So are idiots flying drones near an airport. I played golf with a pilot Sunday. He's concerned about drones, but thinks a bigger problem is lasers. He said he knows several pilots who've quit flying because of lasers. A drone could definitely damage an engine, but it's doubtful whether it could bring a plane down. Taking a plane down isn't the concern. Distracting the pilot (same with the lasers) at a critical moment is the concern. Ask your pilot golfing buddy. If a pilot is so distracted by a laser that he can't fly the plane, I certainly don't want him sitting up there in a thunder storm or even the most minor mechanical problem. The problem isn't just distraction it's temporary night blindness and, in the case of a hit from close in while landing, the laser diffracting when it hits the cockpit glass can totally wash-out the runway and it's lights. Lightning doesn't do that as its light isn't a focused beam directed into the windshield. Apples and oranges. There are some youtube videos and a series of still photos showing the affect from different distances. Google them up. |
Overreacting government
On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 13:45:56 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 12/15/2015 1:32 PM, John H. wrote: On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 13:12:58 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 12/15/2015 12:53 PM, wrote: On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 10:46:53 -0500, John H. wrote: On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 10:08:41 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: Again, the concern is a 50% increase of drones, RC aircraft, etc., starting to be used within the next couple of months. I also realize that enforcement of the registration requirement is difficult. It probably would have made more sense to require registration at the time of sale. Or have the seller check for an AMA card prior to the sale. But, the AMA card is free to those under 19, and there is no requirement that the kid knows any flight rules or safety measures. Then we would have the "drone show" loophole ;-) These days anyone who can put am Ikea table together can make a drone from parts and I already know a guy who is making money doing it. (he works for my wife). Some of these are pretty sophisticated and still less than $500 to build. (more properly "assemble" since it is all off the shelf parts) You can think of more reasons *not* to address a potential problem than anyone I know. :-) It's senseless to develop senseless, unenforceable rules just to say, "We have now addressed the problem." I don't think it's up to the average lay person to determine what laws are enforceable and what are not. It's obvious that those who feel most restricted or affected by a law or regulation designed for the benefit of the whole will be bitching the most. The total restriction I will suffer will be about 4 minutes on the computer. As I will 'register' soon, I won't even have to pay the $5 (another collection task to give someone a meaningless job). As an average lay person, I can say that this 'law' will be not be enforceable unless the aircraft operator is trying to fly at a field where the 'law' will be enforced. That means a field where a club's officers are on hand to enforce the 'law'. As an average lay person, I can say that the gun control laws are suffering from an abysmal lack of enforcement. Look at the shootings in any big city. Trust me, my complaint has nothing to do with the impact upon me, as you imply, but with the impact on the government - for stupidity. -- Ban idiots, not guns! |
Overreacting government
On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 13:52:20 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 12/15/15 1:42 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 12/15/2015 1:30 PM, John H. wrote: On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 12:53:09 -0500, wrote: On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 10:46:53 -0500, John H. wrote: On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 10:08:41 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: Again, the concern is a 50% increase of drones, RC aircraft, etc., starting to be used within the next couple of months. I also realize that enforcement of the registration requirement is difficult. It probably would have made more sense to require registration at the time of sale. Or have the seller check for an AMA card prior to the sale. But, the AMA card is free to those under 19, and there is no requirement that the kid knows any flight rules or safety measures. Then we would have the "drone show" loophole ;-) These days anyone who can put am Ikea table together can make a drone from parts and I already know a guy who is making money doing it. (he works for my wife). Some of these are pretty sophisticated and still less than $500 to build. (more properly "assemble" since it is all off the shelf parts) None of which have serial numbers, although I see there is no mention of registering particular aircraft - only operators. "Q. What information will I be required to provide on the FAA UAS Registration website? A. You must provide your complete name, physical address, mailing address, and an email address. The email address will be used as your login ID when you set up your account. Q. Do I have to provide any information on my UAS? A. Individual recreational users do not have to enter the make, model, and serial number. All non-recreational users will be required to provide the make, model, and serial number when the website is available to all other users." (From the site provided by Luddite.) You missed some that pertain: Q. How do I prove I am registered? A. A certificate of registration will be available to download and will be sent to your email address at the time of registration. When operating your UAS you must be able to present the certificate in either print or electronic format if asked for proof of registration. Q. Will my drone require an N-number or sticker? A. No. You will receive a unique registration number, not an N-number, and you must mark the registration number on your UAS by some means that is legible and allows the number to be readily seen. The registration number may be placed in a battery compartment as long as it can be accessed without the use of tools. Q. Is putting my AMA number on my drone enough? A. No. Not at this time. The registration system will generate a unique FAA registration number, which you must mark on your aircraft. Q. Would putting my contact information on my drone be enough? A. No, you must mark it with the FAA registration number. I'm sorry for laughing, but this thread is hysterical. A kazillion posts about toy airplanes, as it were, and all because Herring at heart thinks the rules shouldn't apply to his little hobbies. Glad you're happy. -- Ban idiots, not guns! |
Overreacting government
On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 13:57:08 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 12/15/15 1:56 PM, John H. wrote: On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 13:33:01 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 12/15/15 1:15 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 12/15/2015 1:02 PM, Justan Olphart wrote: On 12/15/2015 9:23 AM, True North wrote: Keyser Söze - show quoted text - "Why are you whining about government employment? Weren't you a government employee most of your working life? Wasn't your wife? Didn't your wife get health plan benefits from an employee union? You're biting the hands that fed you, eh?" The John got his......to 'ell with anyone else. What did John get that you didn't? John didn't "get" anything. He earned it, based on the contract he had for his service. Sorta like a union. John's problem is that he resents other government employees who get benefits. I resent the creation of 'jobs' which accomplish nothing but increasing the size of the government. -- Well, then, you should have resigned from the army before you vested, as it were. The fact that several of us are having a discussion without rancor and name-calling, even though we disagree, just bugs the **** out of you, doesn't it? -- Ban idiots, not guns! |
Overreacting government
On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 15:54:20 -0500, wrote:
On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 13:42:41 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 12/15/2015 1:30 PM, John H. wrote: On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 12:53:09 -0500, wrote: On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 10:46:53 -0500, John H. wrote: On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 10:08:41 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: Again, the concern is a 50% increase of drones, RC aircraft, etc., starting to be used within the next couple of months. I also realize that enforcement of the registration requirement is difficult. It probably would have made more sense to require registration at the time of sale. Or have the seller check for an AMA card prior to the sale. But, the AMA card is free to those under 19, and there is no requirement that the kid knows any flight rules or safety measures. Then we would have the "drone show" loophole ;-) These days anyone who can put am Ikea table together can make a drone from parts and I already know a guy who is making money doing it. (he works for my wife). Some of these are pretty sophisticated and still less than $500 to build. (more properly "assemble" since it is all off the shelf parts) None of which have serial numbers, although I see there is no mention of registering particular aircraft - only operators. "Q. What information will I be required to provide on the FAA UAS Registration website? A. You must provide your complete name, physical address, mailing address, and an email address. The email address will be used as your login ID when you set up your account. Q. Do I have to provide any information on my UAS? A. Individual recreational users do not have to enter the make, model, and serial number. All non-recreational users will be required to provide the make, model, and serial number when the website is available to all other users." (From the site provided by Luddite.) You missed some that pertain: Q. How do I prove I am registered? A. A certificate of registration will be available to download and will be sent to your email address at the time of registration. When operating your UAS you must be able to present the certificate in either print or electronic format if asked for proof of registration. Q. Will my drone require an N-number or sticker? A. No. You will receive a unique registration number, not an N-number, and you must mark the registration number on your UAS by some means that is legible and allows the number to be readily seen. The registration number may be placed in a battery compartment as long as it can be accessed without the use of tools. Q. Is putting my AMA number on my drone enough? A. No. Not at this time. The registration system will generate a unique FAA registration number, which you must mark on your aircraft. Q. Would putting my contact information on my drone be enough? A. No, you must mark it with the FAA registration number. Who is going to look? Only the officers at an AMA sanctioned airfield that are willing to do so. But, if I fly a drone I don't need no steeenkin' airfield! -- Ban idiots, not guns! |
Overreacting government
On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 13:45:56 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: I don't think it's up to the average lay person to determine what laws are enforceable and what are not. It's obvious that those who feel most restricted or affected by a law or regulation designed for the benefit of the whole will be bitching the most. It is not hard to decide whether a law is enforceable by looking at what kind of staff they will appropriate to enforce it. That is the second shoe that will drop. Currently there is no money allocated for enforcement. This is "rock soup" government at it's best. They start with a simple regulation, that is ineffective and they will keep throwing new resources at it until it is a huge bureaucracy or hopefully just abandon the idea. I will not be restricted at all but I will be taxed. |
Overreacting government
On 12/15/15 4:15 PM, John H. wrote:
On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 13:57:08 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 12/15/15 1:56 PM, John H. wrote: On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 13:33:01 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 12/15/15 1:15 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 12/15/2015 1:02 PM, Justan Olphart wrote: On 12/15/2015 9:23 AM, True North wrote: Keyser Söze - show quoted text - "Why are you whining about government employment? Weren't you a government employee most of your working life? Wasn't your wife? Didn't your wife get health plan benefits from an employee union? You're biting the hands that fed you, eh?" The John got his......to 'ell with anyone else. What did John get that you didn't? John didn't "get" anything. He earned it, based on the contract he had for his service. Sorta like a union. John's problem is that he resents other government employees who get benefits. I resent the creation of 'jobs' which accomplish nothing but increasing the size of the government. -- Well, then, you should have resigned from the army before you vested, as it were. The fact that several of us are having a discussion without rancor and name-calling, even though we disagree, just bugs the **** out of you, doesn't it? -- You are the one who insulted government employees who might be covered by an AFGE contract. They're no different than you were...in terms of their employer(s). |
Overreacting government
Mr. Luddite
- show quoted text - "Like I said, this was from a by-gone era when cops walked a beat twirling a nightstick and wore uniforms like you see in the famous Norman Rockwell paintings. * The bicycle plate looked like this, except it said "Quincy" instead of Concord: http://platevault.com/uploads/86/ee/thumbs/6155832592bee86.jpg" WOW, that's exactly the shape of bicycle license plate we had in the old city of Halifax. Some kids attached them to the front wheel spokes and others mounted the plate to the rear fender...either above or below the rear reflector. Seems to me the vast majority of bikes had fenders then...before the 10 speeds became so popular. |
Overreacting government
On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 16:20:41 -0500, John H.
wrote: On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 15:54:20 -0500, wrote: On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 13:42:41 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 12/15/2015 1:30 PM, John H. wrote: On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 12:53:09 -0500, wrote: On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 10:46:53 -0500, John H. wrote: On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 10:08:41 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: Again, the concern is a 50% increase of drones, RC aircraft, etc., starting to be used within the next couple of months. I also realize that enforcement of the registration requirement is difficult. It probably would have made more sense to require registration at the time of sale. Or have the seller check for an AMA card prior to the sale. But, the AMA card is free to those under 19, and there is no requirement that the kid knows any flight rules or safety measures. Then we would have the "drone show" loophole ;-) These days anyone who can put am Ikea table together can make a drone from parts and I already know a guy who is making money doing it. (he works for my wife). Some of these are pretty sophisticated and still less than $500 to build. (more properly "assemble" since it is all off the shelf parts) None of which have serial numbers, although I see there is no mention of registering particular aircraft - only operators. "Q. What information will I be required to provide on the FAA UAS Registration website? A. You must provide your complete name, physical address, mailing address, and an email address. The email address will be used as your login ID when you set up your account. Q. Do I have to provide any information on my UAS? A. Individual recreational users do not have to enter the make, model, and serial number. All non-recreational users will be required to provide the make, model, and serial number when the website is available to all other users." (From the site provided by Luddite.) You missed some that pertain: Q. How do I prove I am registered? A. A certificate of registration will be available to download and will be sent to your email address at the time of registration. When operating your UAS you must be able to present the certificate in either print or electronic format if asked for proof of registration. Q. Will my drone require an N-number or sticker? A. No. You will receive a unique registration number, not an N-number, and you must mark the registration number on your UAS by some means that is legible and allows the number to be readily seen. The registration number may be placed in a battery compartment as long as it can be accessed without the use of tools. Q. Is putting my AMA number on my drone enough? A. No. Not at this time. The registration system will generate a unique FAA registration number, which you must mark on your aircraft. Q. Would putting my contact information on my drone be enough? A. No, you must mark it with the FAA registration number. Who is going to look? Only the officers at an AMA sanctioned airfield that are willing to do so. But, if I fly a drone I don't need no steeenkin' airfield! That is true. The drones that are causing the problem are not and probably will not ever be flown at an AMA field. It certainly appears to me that if the FAA is powerful enough to catch a guy in Fumbuck Arkansas flying a drone without a license they could have stopped these guys near major airports where they already have a presence. |
Overreacting government
On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 16:32:08 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote: You are the one who insulted government employees who might be covered by an AFGE contract. They're no different than you were...in terms of their employer(s). In this case you should be fighting the new rule because this will not be administered by USCS. It will be farmed out to contractors in an evil corporation. The actual enforcement plan is still "up in the air" so to speak. I also have not actually seen any money appropriated to hire the contractor so it is just on the cuff for a while. |
Overreacting government
|
Overreacting government
Keyser Söze wrote:
On 12/15/15 1:15 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 12/15/2015 1:02 PM, Justan Olphart wrote: On 12/15/2015 9:23 AM, True North wrote: Keyser Söze - show quoted text - "Why are you whining about government employment? Weren't you a government employee most of your working life? Wasn't your wife? Didn't your wife get health plan benefits from an employee union? You're biting the hands that fed you, eh?" The John got his......to 'ell with anyone else. What did John get that you didn't? John didn't "get" anything. He earned it, based on the contract he had for his service. Sorta like a union. John's problem is that he resents other government employees who get benefits. I have a problem with a lot of government employees pensions also. Spend 20 years in the military, transferred around the world, maybe shot at, and you get 50% of your last years salary. Spend 4 years in Congress, and high pay and get retirement of 100% for life. Be a public employee in at least California and you get 3% per year of your last years gross. Includes vacation pay that is accrued, overtime, etc. |
Overreacting government
On 12/15/2015 1:56 PM, John H. wrote:
On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 13:33:01 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 12/15/15 1:15 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 12/15/2015 1:02 PM, Justan Olphart wrote: On 12/15/2015 9:23 AM, True North wrote: Keyser Söze - show quoted text - "Why are you whining about government employment? Weren't you a government employee most of your working life? Wasn't your wife? Didn't your wife get health plan benefits from an employee union? You're biting the hands that fed you, eh?" The John got his......to 'ell with anyone else. What did John get that you didn't? John didn't "get" anything. He earned it, based on the contract he had for his service. Sorta like a union. John's problem is that he resents other government employees who get benefits. I resent the creation of 'jobs' which accomplish nothing but increasing the size of the government. So, how many jobs is the registration of drones going to create? Do you know? |
Overreacting government
|
Overreacting government
On Tuesday, 15 December 2015 18:09:00 UTC-4, Califbill wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote: On 12/15/15 1:15 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 12/15/2015 1:02 PM, Justan Olphart wrote: On 12/15/2015 9:23 AM, True North wrote: Keyser Söze - show quoted text - "Why are you whining about government employment? Weren't you a government employee most of your working life? Wasn't your wife? Didn't your wife get health plan benefits from an employee union? You're biting the hands that fed you, eh?" The John got his......to 'ell with anyone else. What did John get that you didn't? John didn't "get" anything. He earned it, based on the contract he had for his service. Sorta like a union. John's problem is that he resents other government employees who get benefits. I have a problem with a lot of government employees pensions also. Spend 20 years in the military, transferred around the world, maybe shot at, and you get 50% of your last years salary. Spend 4 years in Congress, and high pay and get retirement of 100% for life. Be a public employee in at least California and you get 3% per year of your last years gross. Includes vacation pay that is accrued, overtime, etc. Wozers.... we are only entitled to 2% for each year and they figure out your average salary from your last five years to base your pension on. No wonder y'all can live so high on the hog. |
Overreacting government
On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 17:05:34 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: On 12/15/2015 1:55 PM, wrote: On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 13:23:58 -0500, John H. wrote: The people doing the most complaining of drones operated by hobbyists are private and commercial pilots. They are the ones pushing the FAA for the enforcement of regulations regarding their use. The regulations exist. Registration is an attempt to further enforcement. I can attest from experience that a sudden, unexpected distraction at a critical moment in your approach to landing could cause an accident. Birds are a problem (especially seagulls in our area). So are idiots flying drones near an airport. I played golf with a pilot Sunday. He's concerned about drones, but thinks a bigger problem is lasers. He said he knows several pilots who've quit flying because of lasers. I think that may be a bit overblown too. A drone could definitely damage an engine, but it's doubtful whether it could bring a plane down. I have not even heard of a drone caused accident. It is just people offended that someone else is in their "space". Fully registered planes with licensed pilots have caused far more close calls than drones and more than a few fatalities. Maybe they were "aware" enough. Charge them another $5 to tune them up. Amazing. "... people offended that someone else is in their "space". A pilot on final shouldn't be concerned with a nitwit flying a drone or RC aircraft. He has enough to be focused on, especially when his aircraft is in a vulnerable place and flying setup. It's not an issue of intruding on their "space". There are really two concerns that have pushed this registration requirement. One is the expressed concerns of pilots who put pressure on the FAA. The other is the realization that on December 26 the number of these are likely to increase by 50 percent overnight. The idea is to discourage irresponsible operation *before* an accident occurs. Registration allows the possibility of tracing a captured drone back to it's irresponsible owner. Those who are responsible for the safe operation of their RC's have nothing to be concerned about. All of that assumes they recover the drone, it is actually marked and that they can read the marks. Then they have to prove you actually own the drone and that someone didn't just pick your number out of thin air. If I am flying in a restricted area, I doubt I would mark my drone. They have written a regulation that depends on everyone doing the right thing but if everyone did the right thing we wouldn't need the regulation in the first place. |
Overreacting government
On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 16:32:08 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 12/15/15 4:15 PM, John H. wrote: On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 13:57:08 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 12/15/15 1:56 PM, John H. wrote: On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 13:33:01 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 12/15/15 1:15 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 12/15/2015 1:02 PM, Justan Olphart wrote: On 12/15/2015 9:23 AM, True North wrote: Keyser Söze - show quoted text - "Why are you whining about government employment? Weren't you a government employee most of your working life? Wasn't your wife? Didn't your wife get health plan benefits from an employee union? You're biting the hands that fed you, eh?" The John got his......to 'ell with anyone else. What did John get that you didn't? John didn't "get" anything. He earned it, based on the contract he had for his service. Sorta like a union. John's problem is that he resents other government employees who get benefits. I resent the creation of 'jobs' which accomplish nothing but increasing the size of the government. -- Well, then, you should have resigned from the army before you vested, as it were. The fact that several of us are having a discussion without rancor and name-calling, even though we disagree, just bugs the **** out of you, doesn't it? -- You are the one who insulted government employees who might be covered by an AFGE contract. They're no different than you were...in terms of their employer(s). Show me the insult. -- Ban idiots, not guns! |
Overreacting government
On 12/15/2015 3:50 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 13:35:25 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 12/15/2015 1:23 PM, John H. wrote: On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 13:11:26 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 12/15/2015 12:48 PM, wrote: On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 10:44:48 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 12/15/2015 10:40 AM, John H. wrote: Any parent could bring their kids to an RC field and get a 'quickie' course for their kids, along with some buddy-boxed 'stick time'. Responsible parents, buying for their kids, might do so. But again, we're not talking responsible adults here. The FAA agrees with you. The FAA is used to dealing with professionals and dedicated amateurs. They are unprepared to deal with the rabble that is buying the drones. I am still reminded of the CB radio craze and the FCC's inability to really regulate much of any of it. They finally just walked away. CB pretty much just died from it's own weight. It became unusable. I don't see that happening with drones although some of the novelty might wear off after you have seen all of your neighbors naked. Oh the horror! The people doing the most complaining of drones operated by hobbyists are private and commercial pilots. They are the ones pushing the FAA for the enforcement of regulations regarding their use. The regulations exist. Registration is an attempt to further enforcement. I can attest from experience that a sudden, unexpected distraction at a critical moment in your approach to landing could cause an accident. Birds are a problem (especially seagulls in our area). So are idiots flying drones near an airport. I played golf with a pilot Sunday. He's concerned about drones, but thinks a bigger problem is lasers. He said he knows several pilots who've quit flying because of lasers. A drone could definitely damage an engine, but it's doubtful whether it could bring a plane down. Taking a plane down isn't the concern. Distracting the pilot (same with the lasers) at a critical moment is the concern. Ask your pilot golfing buddy. If a pilot is so distracted by a laser that he can't fly the plane, I certainly don't want him sitting up there in a thunder storm or even the most minor mechanical problem. Lasers are a problem but they don't affect the most critical part of a flight. The aircraft is still at an altitude that, although distracted by the flash of the laser on the cockpit windows, it's not likely to cause an immediate crash. Certainly annoying though, especially if flying under VFR conditions and looking for ground references. The danger is in take offs and landings with landings being of the most concern. Altitude is a pilot's friend. During landings, you are close to the ground to begin with and getting closer. Power is reduced, speed is reduced and the aircraft is "dirty" meaning flaps are extended and landing gear is down. In this condition, the aircraft is nowhere near as agile or responsive, but you are still clipping along at about 150 kts (in a commercial airplane) with diminishing space between you and the ground. Not the time for surprises. |
Overreacting government
On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 17:05:34 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 12/15/2015 1:55 PM, wrote: On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 13:23:58 -0500, John H. wrote: The people doing the most complaining of drones operated by hobbyists are private and commercial pilots. They are the ones pushing the FAA for the enforcement of regulations regarding their use. The regulations exist. Registration is an attempt to further enforcement. I can attest from experience that a sudden, unexpected distraction at a critical moment in your approach to landing could cause an accident. Birds are a problem (especially seagulls in our area). So are idiots flying drones near an airport. I played golf with a pilot Sunday. He's concerned about drones, but thinks a bigger problem is lasers. He said he knows several pilots who've quit flying because of lasers. I think that may be a bit overblown too. A drone could definitely damage an engine, but it's doubtful whether it could bring a plane down. I have not even heard of a drone caused accident. It is just people offended that someone else is in their "space". Fully registered planes with licensed pilots have caused far more close calls than drones and more than a few fatalities. Maybe they were "aware" enough. Charge them another $5 to tune them up. Amazing. "... people offended that someone else is in their "space". A pilot on final shouldn't be concerned with a nitwit flying a drone or RC aircraft. He has enough to be focused on, especially when his aircraft is in a vulnerable place and flying setup. It's not an issue of intruding on their "space". The issue is the irresponsibility of the drone operator. The laws against such operation have been around for a long time. No enforcement is being done. There are really two concerns that have pushed this registration requirement. One is the expressed concerns of pilots who put pressure on the FAA. The other is the realization that on December 26 the number of these are likely to increase by 50 percent overnight. As the law does nothing, not one friggin' thing, to slow down the irresponsible operation of drones, I hope the pilots continue to put pressure on the FAA to do something 'meaningful'. The idea is to discourage irresponsible operation *before* an accident occurs. Registration allows the possibility of tracing a captured drone back to it's irresponsible owner. Those who are responsible for the safe operation of their RC's have nothing to be concerned about. You seem to think that those who've registered their drones might take them to airport to wreak havoc. The irresponsible owners are not going to register their damn drones! Come on, Luddite. There is some obtuse thinking going on here. It's supporting my claim that you like laws just for the sake of laws. -- Ban idiots, not guns! |
Overreacting government
wrote:
On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 16:32:08 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: You are the one who insulted government employees who might be covered by an AFGE contract. They're no different than you were...in terms of their employer(s). In this case you should be fighting the new rule because this will not be administered by USCS. It will be farmed out to contractors in an evil corporation. The actual enforcement plan is still "up in the air" so to speak. I also have not actually seen any money appropriated to hire the contractor so it is just on the cuff for a I'm not overly concerned about toy airplanes. -- Sent from my iPhone 6+ |
Overreacting government
On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 14:20:54 -0800 (PST), True North wrote:
On Tuesday, 15 December 2015 18:09:00 UTC-4, Califbill wrote: Keyser Söze wrote: On 12/15/15 1:15 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 12/15/2015 1:02 PM, Justan Olphart wrote: On 12/15/2015 9:23 AM, True North wrote: Keyser Söze - show quoted text - "Why are you whining about government employment? Weren't you a government employee most of your working life? Wasn't your wife? Didn't your wife get health plan benefits from an employee union? You're biting the hands that fed you, eh?" The John got his......to 'ell with anyone else. What did John get that you didn't? John didn't "get" anything. He earned it, based on the contract he had for his service. Sorta like a union. John's problem is that he resents other government employees who get benefits. I have a problem with a lot of government employees pensions also. Spend 20 years in the military, transferred around the world, maybe shot at, and you get 50% of your last years salary. Spend 4 years in Congress, and high pay and get retirement of 100% for life. Be a public employee in at least California and you get 3% per year of your last years gross. Includes vacation pay that is accrued, overtime, etc. Wozers.... we are only entitled to 2% for each year and they figure out your average salary from your last five years to base your pension on. No wonder y'all can live so high on the hog. Don, how many overseas or combat assignments did you have? How many times did you have to pull up stakes and move? My son-in-law returned a couple months ago from his third overseas tour - all without the wife and kids. That extra 1/2 of 1% they get over your pension is more than deserved. -- Ban idiots, not guns! |
Overreacting government
On 12/15/2015 4:01 PM, wrote:
On Tuesday, December 15, 2015 at 3:50:21 PM UTC-5, wrote: On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 13:35:25 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 12/15/2015 1:23 PM, John H. wrote: On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 13:11:26 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 12/15/2015 12:48 PM, wrote: On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 10:44:48 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 12/15/2015 10:40 AM, John H. wrote: Any parent could bring their kids to an RC field and get a 'quickie' course for their kids, along with some buddy-boxed 'stick time'. Responsible parents, buying for their kids, might do so. But again, we're not talking responsible adults here. The FAA agrees with you. The FAA is used to dealing with professionals and dedicated amateurs. They are unprepared to deal with the rabble that is buying the drones. I am still reminded of the CB radio craze and the FCC's inability to really regulate much of any of it. They finally just walked away. CB pretty much just died from it's own weight. It became unusable. I don't see that happening with drones although some of the novelty might wear off after you have seen all of your neighbors naked. Oh the horror! The people doing the most complaining of drones operated by hobbyists are private and commercial pilots. They are the ones pushing the FAA for the enforcement of regulations regarding their use. The regulations exist. Registration is an attempt to further enforcement. I can attest from experience that a sudden, unexpected distraction at a critical moment in your approach to landing could cause an accident. Birds are a problem (especially seagulls in our area). So are idiots flying drones near an airport. I played golf with a pilot Sunday. He's concerned about drones, but thinks a bigger problem is lasers. He said he knows several pilots who've quit flying because of lasers. A drone could definitely damage an engine, but it's doubtful whether it could bring a plane down. Taking a plane down isn't the concern. Distracting the pilot (same with the lasers) at a critical moment is the concern. Ask your pilot golfing buddy. If a pilot is so distracted by a laser that he can't fly the plane, I certainly don't want him sitting up there in a thunder storm or even the most minor mechanical problem. The problem isn't just distraction it's temporary night blindness and, in the case of a hit from close in while landing, the laser diffracting when it hits the cockpit glass can totally wash-out the runway and it's lights. Lightning doesn't do that as its light isn't a focused beam directed into the windshield. Apples and oranges. There are some youtube videos and a series of still photos showing the affect from different distances. Google them up. The beam of a laser has expanded greatly by the time it reaches the cockpit. It's no longer a "pin point" of light. |
Overreacting government
On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 17:10:48 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 12/15/2015 1:56 PM, John H. wrote: On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 13:33:01 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 12/15/15 1:15 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 12/15/2015 1:02 PM, Justan Olphart wrote: On 12/15/2015 9:23 AM, True North wrote: Keyser Söze - show quoted text - "Why are you whining about government employment? Weren't you a government employee most of your working life? Wasn't your wife? Didn't your wife get health plan benefits from an employee union? You're biting the hands that fed you, eh?" The John got his......to 'ell with anyone else. What did John get that you didn't? John didn't "get" anything. He earned it, based on the contract he had for his service. Sorta like a union. John's problem is that he resents other government employees who get benefits. I resent the creation of 'jobs' which accomplish nothing but increasing the size of the government. So, how many jobs is the registration of drones going to create? Do you know? I would guess it's more than one. Therefore it's too many. -- Ban idiots, not guns! |
Overreacting government
Califbill billnews wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote: On 12/15/15 1:15 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 12/15/2015 1:02 PM, Justan Olphart wrote: On 12/15/2015 9:23 AM, True North wrote: Keyser Söze - show quoted text - "Why are you whining about government employment? Weren't you a government employee most of your working life? Wasn't your wife? Didn't your wife get health plan benefits from an employee union? You're biting the hands that fed you, eh?" The John got his......to 'ell with anyone else. What did John get that you didn't? John didn't "get" anything. He earned it, based on the contract he had for his service. Sorta like a union. John's problem is that he resents other government employees who get benefits. I have a problem with a lot of government employees pensions also. Spend 20 years in the military, transferred around the world, maybe shot at, and you get 50% of your last years salary. Spend 4 years in Congress, and high pay and get retirement of 100% for life. Be a public employee in at least California and you get 3% per year of your last years gross. Includes vacation pay that is accrued, overtime, etc. You think non elected federal workers should not get a decent pension? -- Sent from my iPhone 6+ |
Overreacting government
On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 17:30:04 -0500, wrote:
On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 17:05:34 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 12/15/2015 1:55 PM, wrote: On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 13:23:58 -0500, John H. wrote: The people doing the most complaining of drones operated by hobbyists are private and commercial pilots. They are the ones pushing the FAA for the enforcement of regulations regarding their use. The regulations exist. Registration is an attempt to further enforcement. I can attest from experience that a sudden, unexpected distraction at a critical moment in your approach to landing could cause an accident. Birds are a problem (especially seagulls in our area). So are idiots flying drones near an airport. I played golf with a pilot Sunday. He's concerned about drones, but thinks a bigger problem is lasers. He said he knows several pilots who've quit flying because of lasers. I think that may be a bit overblown too. A drone could definitely damage an engine, but it's doubtful whether it could bring a plane down. I have not even heard of a drone caused accident. It is just people offended that someone else is in their "space". Fully registered planes with licensed pilots have caused far more close calls than drones and more than a few fatalities. Maybe they were "aware" enough. Charge them another $5 to tune them up. Amazing. "... people offended that someone else is in their "space". A pilot on final shouldn't be concerned with a nitwit flying a drone or RC aircraft. He has enough to be focused on, especially when his aircraft is in a vulnerable place and flying setup. It's not an issue of intruding on their "space". There are really two concerns that have pushed this registration requirement. One is the expressed concerns of pilots who put pressure on the FAA. The other is the realization that on December 26 the number of these are likely to increase by 50 percent overnight. The idea is to discourage irresponsible operation *before* an accident occurs. Registration allows the possibility of tracing a captured drone back to it's irresponsible owner. Those who are responsible for the safe operation of their RC's have nothing to be concerned about. All of that assumes they recover the drone, it is actually marked and that they can read the marks. Then they have to prove you actually own the drone and that someone didn't just pick your number out of thin air. If I am flying in a restricted area, I doubt I would mark my drone. They have written a regulation that depends on everyone doing the right thing but if everyone did the right thing we wouldn't need the regulation in the first place. I may have to make that into a sig line. -- Ban idiots, not guns! |
Overreacting government
On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 17:36:29 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 12/15/2015 3:50 PM, wrote: On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 13:35:25 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 12/15/2015 1:23 PM, John H. wrote: On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 13:11:26 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 12/15/2015 12:48 PM, wrote: On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 10:44:48 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 12/15/2015 10:40 AM, John H. wrote: Any parent could bring their kids to an RC field and get a 'quickie' course for their kids, along with some buddy-boxed 'stick time'. Responsible parents, buying for their kids, might do so. But again, we're not talking responsible adults here. The FAA agrees with you. The FAA is used to dealing with professionals and dedicated amateurs. They are unprepared to deal with the rabble that is buying the drones. I am still reminded of the CB radio craze and the FCC's inability to really regulate much of any of it. They finally just walked away. CB pretty much just died from it's own weight. It became unusable. I don't see that happening with drones although some of the novelty might wear off after you have seen all of your neighbors naked. Oh the horror! The people doing the most complaining of drones operated by hobbyists are private and commercial pilots. They are the ones pushing the FAA for the enforcement of regulations regarding their use. The regulations exist. Registration is an attempt to further enforcement. I can attest from experience that a sudden, unexpected distraction at a critical moment in your approach to landing could cause an accident. Birds are a problem (especially seagulls in our area). So are idiots flying drones near an airport. I played golf with a pilot Sunday. He's concerned about drones, but thinks a bigger problem is lasers. He said he knows several pilots who've quit flying because of lasers. A drone could definitely damage an engine, but it's doubtful whether it could bring a plane down. Taking a plane down isn't the concern. Distracting the pilot (same with the lasers) at a critical moment is the concern. Ask your pilot golfing buddy. If a pilot is so distracted by a laser that he can't fly the plane, I certainly don't want him sitting up there in a thunder storm or even the most minor mechanical problem. Lasers are a problem but they don't affect the most critical part of a flight. The aircraft is still at an altitude that, although distracted by the flash of the laser on the cockpit windows, it's not likely to cause an immediate crash. Certainly annoying though, especially if flying under VFR conditions and looking for ground references. The danger is in take offs and landings with landings being of the most concern. Altitude is a pilot's friend. During landings, you are close to the ground to begin with and getting closer. Power is reduced, speed is reduced and the aircraft is "dirty" meaning flaps are extended and landing gear is down. In this condition, the aircraft is nowhere near as agile or responsive, but you are still clipping along at about 150 kts (in a commercial airplane) with diminishing space between you and the ground. Not the time for surprises. "...they don't affect the most critical part of a flight." Oh yes they do! At National Airport there is a park about 1000' from the north end of the main runway. Folks lay there and watch the planes take off and land only a few hundred feet over their heads. Do you not thing that's plenty close for a laser? -- Ban idiots, not guns! |
Overreacting government
On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 17:40:04 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote:
wrote: On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 16:32:08 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: You are the one who insulted government employees who might be covered by an AFGE contract. They're no different than you were...in terms of their employer(s). In this case you should be fighting the new rule because this will not be administered by USCS. It will be farmed out to contractors in an evil corporation. The actual enforcement plan is still "up in the air" so to speak. I also have not actually seen any money appropriated to hire the contractor so it is just on the cuff for a I'm not overly concerned about toy airplanes. Then stay out of real ones. -- Ban idiots, not guns! |
Overreacting government
|
Overreacting government
On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 17:40:17 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 12/15/2015 4:01 PM, wrote: On Tuesday, December 15, 2015 at 3:50:21 PM UTC-5, wrote: On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 13:35:25 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 12/15/2015 1:23 PM, John H. wrote: On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 13:11:26 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 12/15/2015 12:48 PM, wrote: On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 10:44:48 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 12/15/2015 10:40 AM, John H. wrote: Any parent could bring their kids to an RC field and get a 'quickie' course for their kids, along with some buddy-boxed 'stick time'. Responsible parents, buying for their kids, might do so. But again, we're not talking responsible adults here. The FAA agrees with you. The FAA is used to dealing with professionals and dedicated amateurs. They are unprepared to deal with the rabble that is buying the drones. I am still reminded of the CB radio craze and the FCC's inability to really regulate much of any of it. They finally just walked away. CB pretty much just died from it's own weight. It became unusable. I don't see that happening with drones although some of the novelty might wear off after you have seen all of your neighbors naked. Oh the horror! The people doing the most complaining of drones operated by hobbyists are private and commercial pilots. They are the ones pushing the FAA for the enforcement of regulations regarding their use. The regulations exist. Registration is an attempt to further enforcement. I can attest from experience that a sudden, unexpected distraction at a critical moment in your approach to landing could cause an accident. Birds are a problem (especially seagulls in our area). So are idiots flying drones near an airport. I played golf with a pilot Sunday. He's concerned about drones, but thinks a bigger problem is lasers. He said he knows several pilots who've quit flying because of lasers. A drone could definitely damage an engine, but it's doubtful whether it could bring a plane down. Taking a plane down isn't the concern. Distracting the pilot (same with the lasers) at a critical moment is the concern. Ask your pilot golfing buddy. If a pilot is so distracted by a laser that he can't fly the plane, I certainly don't want him sitting up there in a thunder storm or even the most minor mechanical problem. The problem isn't just distraction it's temporary night blindness and, in the case of a hit from close in while landing, the laser diffracting when it hits the cockpit glass can totally wash-out the runway and it's lights. Lightning doesn't do that as its light isn't a focused beam directed into the windshield. Apples and oranges. There are some youtube videos and a series of still photos showing the affect from different distances. Google them up. The beam of a laser has expanded greatly by the time it reaches the cockpit. It's no longer a "pin point" of light. Which is what is shown on the youtube. The fact that it has spread makes the diffusion on the cockpit window even worse. -- Ban idiots, not guns! |
Overreacting government
On 12/15/2015 4:51 PM, True North wrote:
Mr. Luddite - show quoted text - "Like I said, this was from a by-gone era when cops walked a beat twirling a nightstick and wore uniforms like you see in the famous Norman Rockwell paintings. The bicycle plate looked like this, except it said "Quincy" instead of Concord: http://platevault.com/uploads/86/ee/thumbs/6155832592bee86.jpg" WOW, that's exactly the shape of bicycle license plate we had in the old city of Halifax. Some kids attached them to the front wheel spokes and others mounted the plate to the rear fender...either above or below the rear reflector. Seems to me the vast majority of bikes had fenders then...before the 10 speeds became so popular. One of my earliest memories is learning to ride a bicycle. I was five years old. My father removed the training wheels it had and would run beside me holding the seat post while I pedaled then let go once I got going. After a few crashes I got the idea and the big "reward" was a visit to the police station to get a license plate. I still remember the station too. It was a huge, turn of the century building that also had a court house in it. Tons of cops walking around. Very impressionable experience for a five year old. |
Overreacting government
On Tuesday, December 15, 2015 at 5:40:19 PM UTC-5, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 12/15/2015 4:01 PM, wrote: On Tuesday, December 15, 2015 at 3:50:21 PM UTC-5, wrote: On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 13:35:25 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 12/15/2015 1:23 PM, John H. wrote: On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 13:11:26 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 12/15/2015 12:48 PM, wrote: On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 10:44:48 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 12/15/2015 10:40 AM, John H. wrote: Any parent could bring their kids to an RC field and get a 'quickie' course for their kids, along with some buddy-boxed 'stick time'. Responsible parents, buying for their kids, might do so. But again, we're not talking responsible adults here. The FAA agrees with you. The FAA is used to dealing with professionals and dedicated amateurs. They are unprepared to deal with the rabble that is buying the drones. I am still reminded of the CB radio craze and the FCC's inability to really regulate much of any of it. They finally just walked away. CB pretty much just died from it's own weight. It became unusable. I don't see that happening with drones although some of the novelty might wear off after you have seen all of your neighbors naked. Oh the horror! The people doing the most complaining of drones operated by hobbyists are private and commercial pilots. They are the ones pushing the FAA for the enforcement of regulations regarding their use. The regulations exist. Registration is an attempt to further enforcement. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:27 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com