Deletion of the post regarding UAS registration?

Discussion in 'Feedback and Suggestions' started by Hypatia's Protege, Feb 2, 2016.

  1. Hypatia's Protege

    Thread Starter Distinguished Member

    Mar 1, 2015
    2,804
    1,237
    First off this in not a complaint -- merely a question:)

    With reference to the post in regards to the new registration requirement for UAS devices operated within the US (Said post briefly appearing on the 'Off Topic' forum at Ca. 9:00 hours UTC Feb 2, 2016 )

    I am confused as to the rationale back of its deletion? -- FWIW I feel many people are unaware of the new requirement, and, hence, the Feb 19 deadline? Moreover, it seems such information might reasonably be expected to be of material interest to a significant number of participants on these fora...

    With constructive intent

    Sincerely
    HP:)
     
    Last edited: Feb 2, 2016
  2. jpanhalt

    AAC Fanatic!

    Jan 18, 2008
    5,699
    907
    Agreed. I am now registered. I found it a bit odd that the FAA required a credit card number, even when there was no charge at the time that I registered. Alternative forms of payment (e.g., check, cash, or PayPal) were not allowed. A simple-minded reading of what is printed on every Federal Reserve Note, "This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private," would imply that there are other reasons for collecting a credit card number from all applicants. The mere fact that is is an application (i.e., a petition to the government) to exercise a right is objectionable to many people.

    Also, read the details of what is required to fly within the law as it is currently interpreted by the FAA. The largest private modeler organization in the US ("AMA") is in "continuing" dialog with the FAA, as it seems to individuals familiar with recent congressional actions on such regulations that the FAA's interpretation is an over-reach. For, example, it covers any aircraft "controlled from the ground" that weights more than about 8 oz -- even if such flight is indoors, entirely over privately held ground and in uncontrolled airspace, or tethered.

    John
     
    Hypatia's Protege likes this.
  3. Kermit2

    AAC Fanatic!

    Feb 5, 2010
    3,795
    951
    These days, election to a public office is interpreted by the public official as conference of legal authority over those whom he has been elected to represent. He considers it as a coronation and begins acting as though he has become our moral and legislative superior.
    Maybe not real in every instance, but it explains a lot of the changes we are seeing in how the government we elect treats those who elected it.
     
    Hypatia's Protege likes this.
  4. Hypatia's Protege

    Thread Starter Distinguished Member

    Mar 1, 2015
    2,804
    1,237
    ---Emphasis added---

    I notice that their FAQs have been amended to indicate that indoor operation is non-regulated --- Isn't that big of them tho?:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

    Best regards
    HP
     
  5. jpanhalt

    AAC Fanatic!

    Jan 18, 2008
    5,699
    907
    Recent change and typical for regulatory bullying. The FAA regulated everything initially. You had to request registration as a "drone" pilot. Then to appear reasonable to some, it allows indoor flying and models less than 8 oz to be exempt from regulation. Message given: we will regulate those activities, if you keep complaining. We may even require a that flight plan be filed 24 hours in advance of any flight...etc. The flight plan was in early versions.

    I was flying RC models well before the FAA even existed. The ones who the FAA claims are creating problems are not the mainstream. They are not fixed wing. They are in violation of existing AMA rules, insurance requirements, and so forth. They are even in violation of existing laws before this new regulation was enacted. Has the FAA taken action against those few individuals? NO.

    John
     
    Hypatia's Protege likes this.
  6. Hypatia's Protege

    Thread Starter Distinguished Member

    Mar 1, 2015
    2,804
    1,237
    I find it amusing that manned ULA are not regulated by the FAA/Federal DOT while literal toys now are:confused: -- But then I've never heard bureaucracy accused of making sense...:rolleyes:
     
  7. Kermit2

    AAC Fanatic!

    Feb 5, 2010
    3,795
    951
    Maybe all the toy drone owners need to get together and give the FAA what they are seeking. Call the FAA or contact the official web site and make them aware in excruciating detail of every move, altitude change, direction of flight and duration. Hell, make Shit up if you want to.
    Millions of users making daily contact with the FAA. Give the rulers what they want! :)
     
    Hypatia's Protege likes this.
  8. Hypatia's Protege

    Thread Starter Distinguished Member

    Mar 1, 2015
    2,804
    1,237
    Careful!;)--- You'd only give them an excuse for new programs and more spending --- All in the name of 'acceding to the mandate of conscientious citizens'!:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
     
  9. DickCappels

    Moderator

    Aug 21, 2008
    2,664
    634
    If it is the one I am thinking of, it was one of two promotional (spam) posts which we deleted. The thread starter also started a few superfluous threads in an attempt to make himself appear to be a legitimate user. Those too were deleted.
     
    Hypatia's Protege likes this.
  10. Kermit2

    AAC Fanatic!

    Feb 5, 2010
    3,795
    951
    These laws are never about safety. They are onerous and difficult to comply with on purpose. They are revenue generating rules. Full compliance is not expected. In fact they count on most people ignoring the stupid rules and becoming future donation providers whenever or where ever the revenue agents need some cash. Just send some heavily armored agents with fully automatic assault rifles out to the park and frighten a few thousand dollars out the parents of the kids flying their Christmas or Birthday present.

    Damn law breaking neer-do-wells, a fine $ and maybe a year in jail. That will teach them their place.
     
    Hypatia's Protege likes this.
  11. jpanhalt

    AAC Fanatic!

    Jan 18, 2008
    5,699
    907
    There is an interesting bit of history to that approach. At least it is interesting to me as I lived through it.

    In about 1988, the US government published "revised" regulations covering clinical laboratory work in the US (aka CLIA 1988). That regulatory revision was sparked by excesses and poor practices by a few very large commercial laboratories in NJ. (It is rumored that a pap smear on a Senator's wife got messed up.) Despite the cooperation and best advice from professional organizations involved with such lab work, the grossly "revised" regulation went into place and covered "all" laboratory testing. There was a lot of required paperwork to be submitted.

    A couple of problems emerged immediately. No one in government had bothered to identify what agency would be responsible for administration; although,there was an address for submitting all of the documentation. Second, the legislation had grossly underestimated the number of laboratories in the US. There was hardly a physician in the US who didn't do a urine test ("dipstick") in the office. From the regulatory standpoint, they were included. The expected happened. The agency was buried in paper it had not planned for and had no way to enter the data. After long delays, multiple revisions of the regulation were published at frequent intervals. He had to hire someone just to keep track of the revisions. Long story short, CLIA 1988 was implemented about 10 years late, and the original problem (poor reading of pap smears) was not addressed until at least 10 years after that.

    @Kermit2 , I fear that your projection may be close to reality. A lot of law-abiding modelers will be affected, the government (FAA) will not be able to effectively administer the program, and the problem with screwballs flying their FPG multicopters in the landing pattern of airports or for snooping on neighbors will not be addressed.

    John
     
    Hypatia's Protege likes this.
  12. Hypatia's Protege

    Thread Starter Distinguished Member

    Mar 1, 2015
    2,804
    1,237
    --Emphasis added--

    GMRS licensure comes to mind...:rolleyes:
     
    jpanhalt likes this.
  13. Hypatia's Protege

    Thread Starter Distinguished Member

    Mar 1, 2015
    2,804
    1,237
    Now that you mention it, what I saw of the post did read a bit like ad copy or solicitation for a petition...

    Best regards
    HP:)
     
  14. shortbus

    AAC Fanatic!

    Sep 30, 2009
    4,019
    1,542
    Will this come to, "when UAS are outlawed, only outlaws will have UAS".
     
    Hypatia's Protege likes this.
  15. jpanhalt

    AAC Fanatic!

    Jan 18, 2008
    5,699
    907
    Yes, but the Dutch have a solution: interceptor eagles!
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...d-eagle-destroys-drone-in-dutch-police-video/

    Shotguns are effective too for snoopers. The real problem are the idiots who fly near the approaches for airports. Unfortunately, hitting an eagle at 100 to 150 knots is not good either, and shotguns aren't practical. It is like the fad of pointing green lasers at landing aircraft and is probably one category of crime/idiocy for which a very stiff federal penalty might be a deterrent.

    John
     
    Hypatia's Protege and JohnInTX like this.
  16. Hypatia's Protege

    Thread Starter Distinguished Member

    Mar 1, 2015
    2,804
    1,237
    And here you have identified the 'triad of evil' as it were -- To wit: ignorant, 'acquisitive', legislators playing to a mindless, hysterical (and, hence, readily manipulated herded populace) in the 'key' of irresponsible jackA$$es whose misuse of 'technology' justifies the tyranny of the former in the eyes the latter --- of course the concept of punishing misdeeds as opposed to criminalizing/over-regulating tools is lost all around!:mad::rolleyes:

    CIP There are long standing, stringent, sanctions in place for "interference with vehicles in motion" -- but then I suppose enforcement of existing law isn't as 'sexy' as new legislation:rolleyes:

    Sorry to sound cynical -- but the facts remain:(

    Best regards
    HP
     
    Last edited: Feb 2, 2016
  17. boatsman

    Senior Member

    Jan 17, 2008
    165
    391
    And I always thought the US was the land of the free!
     
  18. jpanhalt

    AAC Fanatic!

    Jan 18, 2008
    5,699
    907
    As you may have surmised, I lived on data.
    Reported laser incidents to the FAA:
    upload_2016-2-2_16-10-34.png
    A search for prosecutions yielded two last year. Maybe the number is a little greater, but one can probably assume the # is less than 1%. Crime does pay. Regulations and registrations don't help reduce the rate.

    John
     
    Hypatia's Protege likes this.
  19. Wendy

    Moderator

    Mar 24, 2008
    20,766
    2,536
    I was probably the one who deleted it, as it was an advert for a particular make and model masquerading as and article. We have had a flurry of those lately
     
    Hypatia's Protege likes this.
  20. jpanhalt

    AAC Fanatic!

    Jan 18, 2008
    5,699
    907
    Wendy,

    You are absolutely right on. I have seen them here and on another site. Apparently "quadcopter spammers" is a new species of troll. They are a little hard to detect sometimes. Maybe a lock on the thread, banning the poster, and leaving the thread visible if there are posts to it would be a less disruptive action.

    John,
     
Loading...