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
 

On 12/15/2015 1:56 PM, wrote:
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.


Much more onerous regulations were originally desired, including
mandatory training, testing and *licensing* of recreational drone and RC
hobbyists. The FAA is limited in it's authority to establish
regulations outside of those that are safety related. Plus, it is
dealing with a technology that no one could envision when the existing
regulations were written.

The registration requirement is a compromise between those who wanted
more stringent regulations or laws and the concerns of pilots regarding
the safe operation of their aircraft. It's also within the FAA's scope
of authority.

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!