|
Overreacting government
Today the FAA announced plans for a model aircraft registration process to begin next
week. The new federal requirements: All aircraft that are flown using a ground control system, such as a transmitter, are required to participate. This includes fixed-wing aircraft, not just multirotors or drones. Any pilot flying models weighing between .55 pounds (or 250 grams) and 55 lbs is required to register. You will not be required to register every aircraft individually. You only need to register yourself and can affix one registration number to all your aircraft. You must mark all aircraft with your registration number. The number can be inside the aircraft, such as a battery hatch - but should not require tools to access. The FAA plans to launch the online registration website on Monday, December 21. There is a $5 fee to register, which is waived if you register within the first 30 days. You only need to register once every 3 years. The above was copied from an email from the AMA today. Note the minimum size, and the fact that every aircraft is included. So if I buy a baby model that weighs over a half pound, and give it to a grandkid, the grandkid must be a registered operator. How friggin' stupid are the assholes running this government. I guess they're pretty smart, they just made the AFGE a lot bigger. -- Ban idiots, not guns! |
Overreacting government
On Mon, 14 Dec 2015 20:32:44 -0500, John H.
wrote: Today the FAA announced plans for a model aircraft registration process to begin next week. The new federal requirements: All aircraft that are flown using a ground control system, such as a transmitter, are required to participate. This includes fixed-wing aircraft, not just multirotors or drones. Any pilot flying models weighing between .55 pounds (or 250 grams) and 55 lbs is required to register. You will not be required to register every aircraft individually. You only need to register yourself and can affix one registration number to all your aircraft. You must mark all aircraft with your registration number. The number can be inside the aircraft, such as a battery hatch - but should not require tools to access. The FAA plans to launch the online registration website on Monday, December 21. There is a $5 fee to register, which is waived if you register within the first 30 days. You only need to register once every 3 years. The above was copied from an email from the AMA today. Note the minimum size, and the fact that every aircraft is included. So if I buy a baby model that weighs over a half pound, and give it to a grandkid, the grandkid must be a registered operator. How friggin' stupid are the assholes running this government. I guess they're pretty smart, they just made the AFGE a lot bigger. This is way up on the stupid scale but nothing surprises me. It is just political knee jerking at it's finest. How many FAA cops do you think it would take to get the most minimal compliance. I am sure this is going to be way down on the police radar since a local cop can't enforce a federal "regulation" unless it is adopted as a local law (this is not a law). Enforcement is civil, not criminal unless there is another crime being committed (smuggling or something) and then the drone charge would get dealt away early. My prediction is that after a few years and a few ridiculous attempts at prosecution of children, this law will go the way of the "ammo log". It might make sense if they set the lower limit at a couple of pounds for commercial operators and then put a number on it you can see. |
Overreacting government
On 12/14/15 8:32 PM, John H. wrote:
Today the FAA announced plans for a model aircraft registration process to begin next week. The new federal requirements: All aircraft that are flown using a ground control system, such as a transmitter, are required to participate. This includes fixed-wing aircraft, not just multirotors or drones. Any pilot flying models weighing between .55 pounds (or 250 grams) and 55 lbs is required to register. You will not be required to register every aircraft individually. You only need to register yourself and can affix one registration number to all your aircraft. You must mark all aircraft with your registration number. The number can be inside the aircraft, such as a battery hatch - but should not require tools to access. The FAA plans to launch the online registration website on Monday, December 21. There is a $5 fee to register, which is waived if you register within the first 30 days. You only need to register once every 3 years. The above was copied from an email from the AMA today. Note the minimum size, and the fact that every aircraft is included. So if I buy a baby model that weighs over a half pound, and give it to a grandkid, the grandkid must be a registered operator. How friggin' stupid are the assholes running this government. I guess they're pretty smart, they just made the AFGE a lot bigger. -- Ban idiots, not guns! 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? |
Overreacting government
On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 05:52:36 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 12/14/15 8:32 PM, John H. wrote: Today the FAA announced plans for a model aircraft registration process to begin next week. The new federal requirements: All aircraft that are flown using a ground control system, such as a transmitter, are required to participate. This includes fixed-wing aircraft, not just multirotors or drones. Any pilot flying models weighing between .55 pounds (or 250 grams) and 55 lbs is required to register. You will not be required to register every aircraft individually. You only need to register yourself and can affix one registration number to all your aircraft. You must mark all aircraft with your registration number. The number can be inside the aircraft, such as a battery hatch - but should not require tools to access. The FAA plans to launch the online registration website on Monday, December 21. There is a $5 fee to register, which is waived if you register within the first 30 days. You only need to register once every 3 years. The above was copied from an email from the AMA today. Note the minimum size, and the fact that every aircraft is included. So if I buy a baby model that weighs over a half pound, and give it to a grandkid, the grandkid must be a registered operator. How friggin' stupid are the assholes running this government. I guess they're pretty smart, they just made the AFGE a lot bigger. -- Ban idiots, not guns! 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? Waste is waste, Krause. Attempting to solve the drone problem by forcing responsible operators to register and then needing a bureaucracy to track the process is stupid. As usual, you can't discuss the topic without changing the subject. -- Ban idiots, not guns! |
Overreacting government
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. |
Overreacting government
On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 08:20:20 -0600, Boating All Out wrote:
In article Oo6dnX9gZfcDgO3LnZ2dnUU7- , says... The concern is that a million or more inexpensive "drones" will be given as Christmas presents next week and the FAA anticipates many potential problems with people using them who are not familiar with their operation or restrictions. The FAA isn't the only government agency who is concerned. British Columbia has also issued concerns due to several close calls involving aircraft and drones in Canada. Similar regulations are in the works there. Did you happen to hear Joe Scarborough this morning, saying the Republican base have been "whiners" for at least the past 20 years? This is good example of that. The government reacts to the threat of commercial aircraft being brought down, with 100's of deaths. "Republicans" and libertarians whine about it. And so it goes. How very stupid. Stick to ISIS, where you're a renowned expert. -- Ban idiots, not guns! |
Overreacting government
On 12/15/15 7:36 AM, John H. wrote:
On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 05:52:36 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 12/14/15 8:32 PM, John H. wrote: Today the FAA announced plans for a model aircraft registration process to begin next week. The new federal requirements: All aircraft that are flown using a ground control system, such as a transmitter, are required to participate. This includes fixed-wing aircraft, not just multirotors or drones. Any pilot flying models weighing between .55 pounds (or 250 grams) and 55 lbs is required to register. You will not be required to register every aircraft individually. You only need to register yourself and can affix one registration number to all your aircraft. You must mark all aircraft with your registration number. The number can be inside the aircraft, such as a battery hatch - but should not require tools to access. The FAA plans to launch the online registration website on Monday, December 21. There is a $5 fee to register, which is waived if you register within the first 30 days. You only need to register once every 3 years. The above was copied from an email from the AMA today. Note the minimum size, and the fact that every aircraft is included. So if I buy a baby model that weighs over a half pound, and give it to a grandkid, the grandkid must be a registered operator. How friggin' stupid are the assholes running this government. I guess they're pretty smart, they just made the AFGE a lot bigger. -- Ban idiots, not guns! 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? Waste is waste, Krause. Attempting to solve the drone problem by forcing responsible operators to register and then needing a bureaucracy to track the process is stupid. As usual, you can't discuss the topic without changing the subject. -- Ban idiots, not guns! If the subject is overreacting government and waste, then your involvements as a government employee in the war against Vietnam qualifies as both, and to a much greater degree than an effort to help control what might be a toy that interferes with safe air travel. |
Overreacting government
On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 10:38:42 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 12/15/15 7:36 AM, John H. wrote: On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 05:52:36 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 12/14/15 8:32 PM, John H. wrote: Today the FAA announced plans for a model aircraft registration process to begin next week. The new federal requirements: All aircraft that are flown using a ground control system, such as a transmitter, are required to participate. This includes fixed-wing aircraft, not just multirotors or drones. Any pilot flying models weighing between .55 pounds (or 250 grams) and 55 lbs is required to register. You will not be required to register every aircraft individually. You only need to register yourself and can affix one registration number to all your aircraft. You must mark all aircraft with your registration number. The number can be inside the aircraft, such as a battery hatch - but should not require tools to access. The FAA plans to launch the online registration website on Monday, December 21. There is a $5 fee to register, which is waived if you register within the first 30 days. You only need to register once every 3 years. The above was copied from an email from the AMA today. Note the minimum size, and the fact that every aircraft is included. So if I buy a baby model that weighs over a half pound, and give it to a grandkid, the grandkid must be a registered operator. How friggin' stupid are the assholes running this government. I guess they're pretty smart, they just made the AFGE a lot bigger. -- Ban idiots, not guns! 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? Waste is waste, Krause. Attempting to solve the drone problem by forcing responsible operators to register and then needing a bureaucracy to track the process is stupid. As usual, you can't discuss the topic without changing the subject. -- Ban idiots, not guns! If the subject is overreacting government and waste, then your involvements as a government employee in the war against Vietnam qualifies as both, As does yours. and to a much greater degree than an effort to help control what might be a toy that interferes with safe air travel. There is no help being given to the control of the toy. If that was desired, they could allow more 'legal' airfields for kids to come to for training and enjoyment. As usual, you can't seem to keep on track. However, since our 'discussion' about name-calling a while back, you've managed to curtail that activity. Kudos to you! -- Ban idiots, not guns! |
Overreacting government
On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 08:20:20 -0600, Boating All Out
wrote: In article Oo6dnX9gZfcDgO3LnZ2dnUU7- , says... The concern is that a million or more inexpensive "drones" will be given as Christmas presents next week and the FAA anticipates many potential problems with people using them who are not familiar with their operation or restrictions. The FAA isn't the only government agency who is concerned. British Columbia has also issued concerns due to several close calls involving aircraft and drones in Canada. Similar regulations are in the works there. Did you happen to hear Joe Scarborough this morning, saying the Republican base have been "whiners" for at least the past 20 years? This is good example of that. The government reacts to the threat of commercial aircraft being brought down, with 100's of deaths. "Republicans" and libertarians whine about it. And so it goes. The complaint is about ineffective bureaucracy. How does sending the government $5 and getting a registration number prevent someone from flying a drone near the airport? Even if the person did put the number somewhere on the drone and it survived the crash in a condition that it could still be read (the method of numbering is up to the owner), the fine is $5000 and the plane still crashed. That is a huge bureaucracy that did absolutely nothing to advance safety. |
Overreacting government
|
Overreacting government
On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 10:26:28 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: I was just thinking about a by-gone era. I lived in the small city of Quincy, MA as a youngster in the 1950's. They had a program in which kids under a certain age were required to get a "license plate" for their bicycles. I remember getting one ... small, vertical plate that you attached to the rear fender of the bicycle. The plates were issued at the police station and they had a cop give a short driver's "course" to the kids about safety, rules of the road for bicycles, etc., before the license plate was issued. The whole purpose of this program was to introduce youngsters to safety issues. It was effective. The closest thing I ever saw to that was a sticker the cops gave you for a bike and it was only to get it back easier if it was stolen ... or so the story went. I am not sure how many ever made it home. The thief just scraped the sticker off and you were not required to have a sticker. |
Overreacting government
On 12/15/2015 11:03 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 08:20:20 -0600, Boating All Out wrote: In article Oo6dnX9gZfcDgO3LnZ2dnUU7- , says... The concern is that a million or more inexpensive "drones" will be given as Christmas presents next week and the FAA anticipates many potential problems with people using them who are not familiar with their operation or restrictions. The FAA isn't the only government agency who is concerned. British Columbia has also issued concerns due to several close calls involving aircraft and drones in Canada. Similar regulations are in the works there. Did you happen to hear Joe Scarborough this morning, saying the Republican base have been "whiners" for at least the past 20 years? This is good example of that. The government reacts to the threat of commercial aircraft being brought down, with 100's of deaths. "Republicans" and libertarians whine about it. And so it goes. The complaint is about ineffective bureaucracy. How does sending the government $5 and getting a registration number prevent someone from flying a drone near the airport? Even if the person did put the number somewhere on the drone and it survived the crash in a condition that it could still be read (the method of numbering is up to the owner), the fine is $5000 and the plane still crashed. That is a huge bureaucracy that did absolutely nothing to advance safety. I don't think you are correct about the "$5,000" fine. The penalties can be much higher than that, including criminal prosecution. Here's the link to the FAQ's again regarding this new regulation: https://www.faa.gov/uas/registration/faqs/ |
Overreacting government
|
Overreacting government
On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 06:23:50 -0800 (PST), True North
wrote: The John got his......to 'ell with anyone else. === Merry Christmas to you also. |
Overreacting government
On 12/15/2015 11:24 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 12/15/2015 11:11 AM, wrote: On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 10:26:28 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: I was just thinking about a by-gone era. I lived in the small city of Quincy, MA as a youngster in the 1950's. They had a program in which kids under a certain age were required to get a "license plate" for their bicycles. I remember getting one ... small, vertical plate that you attached to the rear fender of the bicycle. The plates were issued at the police station and they had a cop give a short driver's "course" to the kids about safety, rules of the road for bicycles, etc., before the license plate was issued. The whole purpose of this program was to introduce youngsters to safety issues. It was effective. The closest thing I ever saw to that was a sticker the cops gave you for a bike and it was only to get it back easier if it was stolen ... or so the story went. I am not sure how many ever made it home. The thief just scraped the sticker off and you were not required to have a sticker. 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 Should have kept it. I see old bicycle plates like this are selling on eBay for $45 and up. Probably cost 50 cents when issued in 1955. |
Overreacting government
wrote:
On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 10:26:28 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: I was just thinking about a by-gone era. I lived in the small city of Quincy, MA as a youngster in the 1950's. They had a program in which kids under a certain age were required to get a "license plate" for their bicycles. I remember getting one ... small, vertical plate that you attached to the rear fender of the bicycle. The plates were issued at the police station and they had a cop give a short driver's "course" to the kids about safety, rules of the road for bicycles, etc., before the license plate was issued. The whole purpose of this program was to introduce youngsters to safety issues. It was effective. The closest thing I ever saw to that was a sticker the cops gave you for a bike and it was only to get it back easier if it was stolen ... or so the story went. I am not sure how many ever made it home. The thief just scraped the sticker off and you were not required to have a sticker. We actually got a ticket if no sticker. Got one at school one time. Had to go to a bicycle court on Saturday. Run by students from the high school. Do not know the criteria for court service. |
Overreacting government
On 12/15/2015 10:38 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 12/15/15 7:36 AM, John H. wrote: On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 05:52:36 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 12/14/15 8:32 PM, John H. wrote: Today the FAA announced plans for a model aircraft registration process to begin next week. The new federal requirements: All aircraft that are flown using a ground control system, such as a transmitter, are required to participate. This includes fixed-wing aircraft, not just multirotors or drones. Any pilot flying models weighing between .55 pounds (or 250 grams) and 55 lbs is required to register. You will not be required to register every aircraft individually. You only need to register yourself and can affix one registration number to all your aircraft. You must mark all aircraft with your registration number. The number can be inside the aircraft, such as a battery hatch - but should not require tools to access. The FAA plans to launch the online registration website on Monday, December 21. There is a $5 fee to register, which is waived if you register within the first 30 days. You only need to register once every 3 years. The above was copied from an email from the AMA today. Note the minimum size, and the fact that every aircraft is included. So if I buy a baby model that weighs over a half pound, and give it to a grandkid, the grandkid must be a registered operator. How friggin' stupid are the assholes running this government. I guess they're pretty smart, they just made the AFGE a lot bigger. -- Ban idiots, not guns! 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? Waste is waste, Krause. Attempting to solve the drone problem by forcing responsible operators to register and then needing a bureaucracy to track the process is stupid. As usual, you can't discuss the topic without changing the subject. -- Ban idiots, not guns! If the subject is overreacting government and waste, then your involvements as a government employee in the war against Vietnam qualifies as both, and to a much greater degree than an effort to help control what might be a toy that interferes with safe air travel. You certainly didn't waste any of your hard earned cash on taxes, didja sport? |
Overreacting government
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! |
Overreacting government
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) |
Overreacting government
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? |
Overreacting government
|
Overreacting government
|
Overreacting government
|
Overreacting government
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. |
Overreacting government
On 12/15/2015 1:11 PM, 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. Have there been any reports, in your area, of police departments and other government agencies recently acquiring Drones? |
Overreacting government
On 12/15/2015 1:20 PM, Justan Olphart wrote:
On 12/15/2015 1:11 PM, 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. Have there been any reports, in your area, of police departments and other government agencies recently acquiring Drones? Not sure what you are asking. Acquiring for their use or confiscating from hobbyists for breaking a FAA regulation? Anyway, the answer ... for either ... is "no". |
Overreacting government
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. -- Ban idiots, not guns! |
Overreacting government
On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 11:15:34 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: On 12/15/2015 11:03 AM, wrote: On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 08:20:20 -0600, Boating All Out wrote: In article Oo6dnX9gZfcDgO3LnZ2dnUU7- , says... The concern is that a million or more inexpensive "drones" will be given as Christmas presents next week and the FAA anticipates many potential problems with people using them who are not familiar with their operation or restrictions. The FAA isn't the only government agency who is concerned. British Columbia has also issued concerns due to several close calls involving aircraft and drones in Canada. Similar regulations are in the works there. Did you happen to hear Joe Scarborough this morning, saying the Republican base have been "whiners" for at least the past 20 years? This is good example of that. The government reacts to the threat of commercial aircraft being brought down, with 100's of deaths. "Republicans" and libertarians whine about it. And so it goes. The complaint is about ineffective bureaucracy. How does sending the government $5 and getting a registration number prevent someone from flying a drone near the airport? Even if the person did put the number somewhere on the drone and it survived the crash in a condition that it could still be read (the method of numbering is up to the owner), the fine is $5000 and the plane still crashed. That is a huge bureaucracy that did absolutely nothing to advance safety. I don't think you are correct about the "$5,000" fine. The penalties can be much higher than that, including criminal prosecution. Here's the link to the FAQ's again regarding this new regulation: https://www.faa.gov/uas/registration/faqs/ That was what I heard the FAA guy say on TV. I suppose that is the normal amount they sue for. (It is really a civil case unless there is an accompanying crime). |
Overreacting government
|
Overreacting government
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." -- Ban idiots, not guns! |
Overreacting government
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. |
Overreacting government
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. |
Overreacting government
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. |
Overreacting government
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. :-) I will address useless bureaucracy when I see it. The closest thing I have seen for why they are doing this is to "raise awareness", like these people don't know you are not supposed to fly anything in the approach pattern of an airport. The same kind of publicity that they will need to get even a modicum of compliance would accomplish the same thing without the registration boondoggle. |
Overreacting government
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. |
Overreacting government
On 12/15/2015 1:45 PM, 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. :-) I will address useless bureaucracy when I see it. The closest thing I have seen for why they are doing this is to "raise awareness", like these people don't know you are not supposed to fly anything in the approach pattern of an airport. The same kind of publicity that they will need to get even a modicum of compliance would accomplish the same thing without the registration boondoggle. The people pushing the FAA the most about drones are commercial pilots, followed by private pilots. I'll defer to their concerns. |
Overreacting government
On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 13:20:02 -0500, Justan Olphart
wrote: On 12/15/2015 1:11 PM, 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. Have there been any reports, in your area, of police departments and other government agencies recently acquiring Drones? The cops are already using them around here but Florida passed a law saying they can't use the information in court without a warrant. It still doesn't stop them from using them to identify suspects that they can then watch and arrest based on other observations ... like a lucky traffic stop. Do you really believe those cops who find a guy on I-75 with contraband in a wheel well were just stopping him for a 5 over speeding ticket? |
Overreacting government
On 12/15/2015 1:22 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 12/15/2015 1:20 PM, Justan Olphart wrote: On 12/15/2015 1:11 PM, 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. Have there been any reports, in your area, of police departments and other government agencies recently acquiring Drones? Not sure what you are asking. Acquiring for their use or confiscating from hobbyists for breaking a FAA regulation? Anyway, the answer ... for either ... is "no". I'm thinking some of the drone sightings may not be of hobbyist's aircraft. |
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. Absolutely. I won't argue which is the bigger distraction. If the drone hits an engine, it would be extremely distracting. He's not a golfing buddy, he just happened to be visiting a golfing buddy. He was interesting though. He agrees that the 'registration' of RC aircraft is pretty stupid. -- Ban idiots, not guns! |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:17 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com