California...A legal Perspective On The FAA UAV Guidelines - WattFlyer RC Electric Flight Forums - Discuss radio control eflight

General Electric Discussions Talk about topics related to e-powered RC flying

California...A legal Perspective On The FAA UAV Guidelines

Old 04-28-2016, 04:47 PM
  #1  
pizzano
Behold The Renaissance
Thread Starter
 
pizzano's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: So. Calif
Posts: 2,316
Default California...A legal Perspective On The FAA UAV Guidelines

A buddy of mine who is a Principal Partner with a law firm who specializes in Engineering and Land Surveying cases, to also include the implementation and application of UAV Photogrammetry and Property Boundary Surveillance, has studied the recent FAA Regulations and is currently working on a case related to such.

He has published a legal "perspective" that relates to a few on-going arguments that are currently being implemented in the "prosecution" aspects of the legal enforcement and State (local and regional) jurisdiction "powers" currently being applied to the FAA Regulations.......

If one cares to TRULY be enlightened and or intelligently informed, this read may open a few eyes and cut through the crap being bounced around on this forum..........:

"Expanding Horizons: Drone Regulations from a Prosecutorial Perspective

BB&K attorney Jordan Ferguson writes about the criminal side of drones for the California District Attorneys Association’s Prosecutor’s Brief.

Over the next few years, the skies are likely to get much more crowded. Unmanned aircraft systems, colloquially known as drones, are increasing their prominence in domestic airspace as hobbyists dabble, researchers collect data, local governments explore the possibilities, and commercial operators take to the skies for everything from photography to delivery services. Drones are subject to regulation by the Federal Aviation Authority to ensure safety of flight, and safety of people and property on the ground. With the proliferation of domestic drone ownership and use, 2015 saw a corresponding increase in efforts to regulate drones, and to prosecute those who violate drone regulations. Approximately 45 states have considered restrictions on UAS in the last year, and local governments also frequently contemplate enacting their own regulations. Yet, the FAA, as a federal agency, may exercise its authority to preempt state or local regulations — whether or not they conflict with its regulations.

As drone use continues to rise throughout California and across the United States, prosecutors will increasingly have to charge and prosecute violations of drone regulations imposed by every level of government. To prepare for drone mainstreaming and the increase in drone-related violations that will ensue, it is important to understand the current state of the law at all levels, the likely misuse of drones prosecutors should be prepared to face, and the ways this technology and the law surrounding it are likely to change going forward.

Rules from Above: Preemption and Drone Regulations

Congress has vested the FAA with authority to regulate airspace use, management, and efficiency, as well as air traffic control, safety, navigational facilities, and aircraft noise at its source.[1] In section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, Congress directed the Secretary to determine whether UAS operations posing the least amount of public risk and no threat to national security could safely be operated in the national airspace system and, if so, to establish the requirements for the safe operation of those systems.

On Feb. 15, 2015, the FAA proposed a framework of regulations that defined permissible hours of flight, line-of-sight observation, altitude, operator certification, optional use of visual observers, aircraft registration and marking, and operations limits.[2] The proposed rules limit operators to flying drones during daylight hours, at speeds less than 100 mph, and below 500 feet altitude. They also require operators to maintain visual line-of-sight with the drone at all times. In December 2015, the FAA began requiring federal registration of drones to operate them in domestic airspace.[3] The FAA has determined that federal registration is the exclusive means of registering UAS for purposes of operating an aircraft in domestic airspace, which means that no state or local government may impose an additional registration requirement on the operation of drones in their airspace without first obtaining FAA approval.[4]

The FAA has made clear that substantial air safety issues are raised whenever state or local governments attempt to regulate drones. The agency has expressed concern over the creation of a “patchwork quilt” of differing restrictions that could limit the flexibility of the FAA in controlling airspace and flight patterns.[5] Courts have held that a navigable airspace free from inconsistent state and local restrictions is essential to the maintenance of a safe and sound air transportation system.[6] However, courts have gone even further, indicating that, where the federal government occupies an entire field, even complimentary state and local regulations are impermissible.[7] This greatly limits the potential regulatory options available at the state and local level, and may leave prosecutors limited in the charges they can bring against drone violations.

However, questions of preemption do not stop at the federal level. The FAA has laid out areas in which state and local government should avoid regulation entirely, but it has also demarcated areas where state and local laws will govern.[8] Any regulations restricting flight altitude, flight paths, or regulating the national airspace may be preempted entirely.[9] For example, the agency has specifically indicated a city ordinance banning anyone from operating drones within the city limits, within the airspace of the city, or within certain distances from landmarks would likely be preempted, or at least require consultation with the FAA prior to being adopted. Similarly, the FAA has indicated that mandating equipment or training for drones, such as geo-fencing, would likely be preempted. Courts have found that state regulation pertaining to mandatory training and equipment requirements related to aviation safety is not consistent with the federal regulatory framework.[10]

The agency has also indicated several areas that remain within state and local government police power. The FAA specifically indicates that land use, zoning, privacy, trespass, and law enforcement regulations are not subject to federal regulation and, thus, are not preempted by the FAA’s regulations.[11] Among the examples the FAA has specifically indicated remain in state and local hands are: 1) requirements for police to obtain a warrant prior to using drones for surveillance; 2) regulations specifying that drones may not be used for voyeurism; 3) prohibitions on using drones for hunting or fishing, or to interfere with or harass an individual who is hunting or fishing; 4) prohibitions on attaching firearms or similar weapons to a drone.

California has also enacted regulation of drones, though many other proposals for regulations at the state level are still being considered and debated by the Legislature. In 2010, California’s “anti-paparazzi” legislation became effective, imposing civil liability for offensive conduct in the process of capturing visual images, sound recordings, and other physical impressions of a private, personal, or familial activity.[12] In 2015, that law was amended to include the obtaining of such images, recordings, or other physical impressions through entry into the airspace above the land of another person without permission.[13] The effect of the revision is to treat entry into the airspace above the property of another for purposes of collecting offensive material as a trespass. Similarly, California law makes it a crime to resist, delay, or obstruct any public officer, peace officer, or emergency medical technician in the discharge of their duties.[14]

Regulation at the local level in California remains sparse, in part due to the unsettled nature of federal and state regulations, both of which would preempt local regulations. However, some cities have already begun creating municipal regulations. Poway enacted an ordinance banning drones outright in all portions of the City vulnerable to wildfire.[15] Though the ordinance bans drones completely, city officials have indicated the ban will only be enforced during emergencies.[16]

The state of the law governing drones is currently in flux at all levels of government. This creates preemption concerns for regulators and complicates efforts by prosecutors to charge and prosecute drone regulation violations or other drone-related crimes that may not fit cleanly into current categories.

The View From the Ground: Drone Use and Misuse from a Prosecutorial Perspective

With the increasing prominence of drones in domestic airspace, prosecutors should be aware of the many ways drone law violations can lead to charges. Perhaps the most common recent legal issue is the continued interference by drones in firefighting efforts. During at least five fires over the summer, aircraft dispatched to fight growing fires had to pull back to avoid potential collisions after drones were spotted in their flight paths.[17] Drones can complicate things during an already chaotic situation by requiring firefighters to make strategic decisions about whether they can safely fly fire aircraft without additional risk to the pilots or those on the ground. Air tankers and helicopters traditionally fly at low altitudes and the presence of drones can create a substantial risk of collision.

Drones also cause invasion of privacy issues in both public spaces and on private property. A recently filed lawsuit in Kentucky addresses the right to self-help question when a drone invades private property.[18] In that case, an individual saw a drone hovering over his backyard and fired three rounds from a shotgun to ground the drone. The drone’s pilot, a hobbyist endeavoring to take pictures of scenery, sued. He argues the individual lacked the right to shoot the craft down because the government controls airspace. What, exactly, constitutes a trespass when a drone flies over private property remains to be seen, as the FAA and California Legislature have yet to weigh in on exactly what airspace above a property belongs to the property owner.

While hobbyist invasions of privacy are certainly an issue, prosecutors should also consider the current Fourth Amendment jurisprudence and how it effects shifting views on privacy in public. The idea of aerial surveillance that is cheaper, less time-intensive, and requires fewer man hours to get off the ground leads immediately to concerns about the development of a surveillance state, where individuals can be monitored around the clock, and every public action can be recorded for posterity. Current Fourth Amendment jurisprudence indicates this might not be constitutionally problematic — the U.S. Supreme Court has twice held that the Fourth Amendment does not require police to obtain a warrant before observing what any other member of the public could with the naked eye, even when that observation takes place in the public airspace.[19] Yet a few recent decisions indicate the law may be shifting to address the privacy concerns addressed by law enforcement use of drone technology.

In 2014, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington granted a defendant’s motion to suppress evidence collected as a result of 24/7 video surveillance.[20] In United States v. Vargas, police officers installed a video camera on a utility pole more than 100 yards from Vargas’ rural home and continuously recorded activity in the front yard of Vargas’ home for more than six weeks. The camera observed only what any passerby might have seen, yet the court determined this violated Vargas’ Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable search, holding that the Constitution permits law enforcement officers to remotely and continuously view and record an individual’s front yard only after obtaining a search warrant to do so. The court distinguished the case from California v. Ciraolo, where the Supreme Court permitted “plain view” observations by an officer’s naked eye, pointing out that the surveillance was conducted both electronically and continuously.

Though Vargas is a district court decision that may be revealed to be an outlier, it joins a growing list of recent cases that indicate increased judicial anxiety with pervasive surveillance, and may lead to changes in Fourth Amendment jurisprudence aimed to contend with modern complications to the old framework. In United States v. Jones,[21] the Supreme Court held that the government’s attachment of a GPS device to a vehicle constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment, and in Riley v. California,[22] the Supreme Court held that the police may not search a cell phone seized during an arrest without a warrant. Though the Supreme Court has yet to address drone surveillance and its Fourth Amendment implications, these cases shed light on what that case may look like when it arises.

Drone case law is small for the moment, yet the issues drones pose for prosecutors are growing by the day, as new uses of the technology arise, and new public safety risks become apparent. Prosecutors should keep a close watch on the developing body of law surrounding drones to understand the parameter of their authority and to anticipate new potential drone violations they may be required to charge.

Eyes on the Horizon: Future Developments in the Use of Drones

Drones are still relatively new to domestic airspace, and the issue is far from settled from a legal perspective. The FAA’s proposed rules are yet to be finalized, and state and local regulations are sure to follow to fill in gaps in the FAA’s authority. Beyond that, legal issues surrounding those regulations, and the use of drones more broadly, are only now beginning to find their way to the courts, and resolution of issues surrounding use of drones in public spaces, drone invasions of privacy, and Fourth Amendment concerns are all forthcoming. For now, prosecutors should pay close attention to the development of regulations at the various levels of government, and for the ways those regulations will shape their approach to charging and prosecuting drone misuse.

This technology has the opportunity to change our lives from the ground up, to remake the way we think about crime, and to alter our thoughts as we look to the skies. Drones present opportunities for positive change in personal lives and in law enforcement investigations, but drones also come with their own attendant challenges from regulatory and enforcement perspectives. Determining a legal framework within which to prosecute misuse of drones is just one issue to consider, after which prosecutors will be confronted with the challenges of catching and charging those who violate those laws. The jurisprudence and regulatory structure surrounding drones is constantly developing and changing, and prosecutors should be prepared to adapt to dynamic situations to ensure they are prepared to face the challenges of mainstream use of drones. It’s a crowded sky out there, but the right set of eyes can still see through to the sun.



[1] 49 U.S.C. §§ 40103, 44502, and 444701-44735.

[2] 14 CFR Parts 21, 43, 45, 47, 61, 91, 101, 107, and 183, available at https://www.faa.gov/regulations_poli..._signature.pdf

[3] Registration and Marking Requirements for Small Unmanned Aircraft, available at https://www.federalregister.gov/arti...anned-aircraft

[4] State and Local Regulations of Unmanned Aircraft Systems Fact Sheet, Federal Aviation Administration Office of the Chief Council, December 17, 2015, available at https://www.faa.gov/uas/regulations_...heet_Final.pdf

[5] Id.

[6] See Montalvo v. Spirit Airlines, 508 F.3d 464 (9th Cir. 2007), and French v. Pan Am Express, Inc., 869 F. 2d 1 (1st Cir. 1989)

[7] See Arizona v. U.S., 132 S. Ct. 2492, 2502 (2012) (“Where Congress occupies an entire field … even complimentary state regulation is impermissible. Field preemption reflects a congressional decision to foreclose any state regulation in the area, even if it is parallel to federal standards”); see also Morales v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 504 U.S. 374, 386-87 (1992).

[8] State and Local Regulations Fact Sheet

[9] Federal courts strictly scrutinize state and local regulation of overflight. City of Burbank v. Lockheed Air Terminal, 411 U.S. 624 (1973); Skysign International, Inc. v. City and County of Honolulu, 276 F.3d 1109, 1117 (9th Cir. 2002); American Airlines v. Town of Hempstead, 398 F. 2d 369 (2d Cir. 1968); American Airlines v. City of Audubon Park, 407 F. 2d 1306 (6th Cir. 1969).

[10] See Med-Trans Corp. v. Benton, 581 F. Supp 2d 721, 740 (E.D.N.C. 2008); Air Evac EMS, Inc. v. Robinson, 486 F. Supp. 2d 713, 722 (M.D. Tenn. 2007)

[11] See Skysign International, Inc. v. City and County of Honolulu¸276 F. 3d 1109, 1115 (9th Cir. 2002).

[12] California Civil Code §1708.8

[13] Id.

[14] California Penal Code §148(a)

[15] J. Harry Jones, Poway passes ban on drones, San Diego Union Tribune, Sept. 1, 2015, available at http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/...ordinance-ban/

[16] Id.

[17] Jennifer Medina, Chasing Video With Drones, Hobbyists Imperil California Firefighting Efforts, The New York Times, July 19, 2015, available at http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/20/us...=5?login=email

[18] Andrea Peterson and Matt McFarland, You may be powerless to stop a drone from hovering over your own yard, The Washington Post, Jan. 13, 2016, available at https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...your-own-yard/

[19] See California v. Ciraolo 476 U.S. 207 (1986); see also Florida v. Riley 488 U.S. 445 (1989)

[20] See United States v. Vargas, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 184672 (E.D. Wash. Dec. 15, 2014)

[21] United States v. Jones (2012) 132 S. Ct. 945

[22] Riley v. California (2014) 134 S. Ct. 2473 "
pizzano is offline  
Old 04-28-2016, 05:34 PM
  #2  
dahawk
Super Contributor
 
dahawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Keller, TX
Posts: 5,019
Default

Stil interested to know how under 55# model airplanes are discussed in the same category. There was a comment above: " Drones are relatively new..."

The AMA has been around for 80 years and has pillared its existence on promoting safety.

The distinction must be made sometime.

Hawk
dahawk is offline  
Old 04-28-2016, 06:01 PM
  #3  
Brner
AMA16634
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 554
Default

All that reading and, everyone in the audience that now understands the reason for what's happening to our hobby, please raise your hands!

I, personally, don't see a legitimate reason for the FAA or the local jurisdictions taking the actions they have taken or are contemplating taking. What they've done and are contemplating doing is way over kill for the dangers outlined!

But one thing I am firmly convinced of gentlemen....Our hobby, as we have known it for many years, has gone the way of the Buffalo.....SAD!

AMA16634
Brner is offline  
Old 04-28-2016, 06:52 PM
  #4  
Wildflyer
Past President of PSSF
 
Wildflyer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Lacey WA, 1 mile E of Mushroom Corner
Posts: 2,081
Default

Originally Posted by dahawk View Post
Stil interested to know how under 55# model airplanes are discussed in the same category. There was a comment above: " Drones are relatively new..."

Hawk
Apparently no one noticed the "Drones" flying since the the 1960's.
When relatively good RC systems came around about 1970, the "Drone" population went up by a power of 10 or more, and as RC systems became better, more people started flying.
It's only after the Quads became so simple to fly that the stupid people started flying them in places that a responsible AMA member would not have considered, that put all of us in this mess.

Strange bit of information from the news last night.
If you try to take a LOADED gun onto a airline flight, in your carry on, they could fine you $11,000,
But if we fly an unregistered "Drone" they could fine us as much as $27,500

I have to ask, which action is more dangerous?
Why the disparity in the potential fines?
Wildflyer is offline  
Old 04-28-2016, 07:15 PM
  #5  
P51 fan
Amazon Airspace Tester
 
P51 fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: MN
Posts: 182
Default

responsible AMA member
What is that exactly?
P51 fan is offline  
Old 04-28-2016, 10:19 PM
  #6  
pizzano
Behold The Renaissance
Thread Starter
 
pizzano's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: So. Calif
Posts: 2,316
Default

Originally Posted by P51 fan View Post
What is that exactly?

"responsible AMA member"........................:

Just maybe what you had claimed to be, up until your recent decision not to renew your membership.........:

"I did not renew my AMA this year, after calculating how much I have paid in dues over the years I don't feel the money I have contributed has been used properly, and I don't feel I or others have gotten what they have paid for."

Just for argument sake.........LOL
pizzano is offline  
Old 04-28-2016, 11:05 PM
  #7  
P51 fan
Amazon Airspace Tester
 
P51 fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: MN
Posts: 182
Default

Originally Posted by pizzano View Post
"responsible AMA member"........................:

Just maybe what you had claimed to be, up until your recent decision not to renew your membership.........:

"I did not renew my AMA this year, after calculating how much I have paid in dues over the years I don't feel the money I have contributed has been used properly, and I don't feel I or others have gotten what they have paid for."

Just for argument sake.........LOL
So...even though with one click of a button I could renew my membership, but for the first time in over 30 years I hesitated (and was very honest about it...I could have never mentioned it), it is being suggested that now I am an irresponsible R/C pilot?


Since you thought you needed to argue...as you have in the other posts...

EDIT I should add, that I have see a lot of pretty stupid things done with aircraft, and the shiny AMA number didn't stop that 'responsible AMA member'.
P51 fan is offline  
Old 04-29-2016, 06:49 AM
  #8  
Wildflyer
Past President of PSSF
 
Wildflyer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Lacey WA, 1 mile E of Mushroom Corner
Posts: 2,081
Default

I didn't say all AMA members were responsible, just that a responsible member would not have done something stupid.

As for AMA membership costs, remember it is primarily a insurance policy.
Do you have car insurance?
Do you have home insurance?

If we don't file a claim with these, then they were a waste of money also.

Even life insurance is a gamble, with term you might outlive the policy making it a waste, but with any of it you are betting you are going to die, but you don't get the benefit, some one else does.

I believe AMA is fighting for us, but the FAA won't listen to reason.
Isn't anyone in the FAA interested in model aircraft?
Wildflyer is offline  
Old 04-29-2016, 12:25 PM
  #9  
Porcia83
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 543
Default

Originally Posted by DEG View Post
All that reading and, everyone in the audience that now understands the reason for what's happening to our hobby, please raise your hands!

I, personally, don't see a legitimate reason for the FAA or the local jurisdictions taking the actions they have taken or are contemplating taking. What they've done and are contemplating doing is way over kill for the dangers outlined!

But one thing I am firmly convinced of gentlemen....Our hobby, as we have known it for many years, has gone the way of the Buffalo.....SAD!

AMA16634
The hobby is changing, just as it has over the past 80 years. No one segment of the hobby has a "hold" on it, or can claim their specific discipline of flying as the "right" or "traditional" one. I'm sure the folks thought the hobby was coming to an end when nitro, then gas, then giant scale, then helis, then arfs, then electrics etc etc came to be.

I don't understand how anyone can not understand why the FAA is involved in this. I think we tend to look at this as a hobby issue, rather than what it is, which is a commercial operations/safety issue. Google, Walmart, Intel, and of course Amazon got the ball rolling on big brother being involved, and I'm actually happy about that. Why? Because I don't want big business putting market growth and profit literally above my safety. Left to their own devices they will almost always make decisions that are good for their bottom line, not for our safety. Examples of this are plentiful. Imagine all of them sending out tens of thousands of these quads in the 200-400 foot level, unchecked. Madness.

The hobby isn't dead, dying, nor near extinction. However those who won't accept or adapt to the change will probably not continue with the hobby, and that's their choice.

Originally Posted by Wildflyer View Post
I didn't say all AMA members were responsible, just that a responsible member would not have done something stupid.

As for AMA membership costs, remember it is primarily a insurance policy.
Do you have car insurance?
Do you have home insurance?

If we don't file a claim with these, then they were a waste of money also.

Even life insurance is a gamble, with term you might outlive the policy making it a waste, but with any of it you are betting you are going to die, but you don't get the benefit, some one else does.

I believe AMA is fighting for us, but the FAA won't listen to reason.
Isn't anyone in the FAA interested in model aircraft?
I don't remember that the membership cost is primarily for insurance. That might be your individual take, and if that's all you look at it as, then that's all it is. I think the logic is faulty regarding it being a waste of money if a claim isn't filed. The coverage is there for when you need it, that's why you have it. The majority of people would not be able to pay out of pocket for any substantive loss/claim, at least not easily.

The dues we pay go to far more things than the insurance coverage.
Porcia83 is offline  
Old 04-29-2016, 02:44 PM
  #10  
P51 fan
Amazon Airspace Tester
 
P51 fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: MN
Posts: 182
Default

At this time, since I feel I have a few things that I would LIKE to say but I also feel that I have no reason to prove anything, I will respect the forum by keeping them to myself. Also, since I tried to be an honest person on this forum unlike some that use a username to hide behind...I now see that isn't respected here...and therefore I will play the game like everyone else.

As far as insurance goes, understand that I am much more highly insured than the offered AMA insurance could even hope to compete with. Anyone that still relies on AMA insurance entirely should really look into how it works and what it covers, you might be quite surprised when you read and understand the fine print. With that said, you also better hope you never have to use it.

My choice to hesitate wasn't a bash to the AMA, I just feel that I have paid enough dues in my life to take a minute and see how everything pans out before I renew.

The dues we pay go to far more things than the insurance coverage.
Agreed, but lately the AMA's interests do not include mine, and frankly I am tired of donating money to other people's interests.

To get back on topic, what really is the point here?

If one cares to TRULY be enlightened and or intelligently informed, this read may open a few eyes and cut through the crap being bounced around on this forum..........:
I don't feel enlightened at all, and if this was supposed to be intelligent information it missed the mark by quite a long way.
P51 fan is offline  
Old 04-29-2016, 04:47 PM
  #11  
pizzano
Behold The Renaissance
Thread Starter
 
pizzano's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: So. Calif
Posts: 2,316
Default

"I don't feel enlightened at all, and if this was supposed to be intelligent information it missed the mark by quite a long way."

Well, since your membership here at Wattflyer is very new, and you have not obviously been enlightened by the many numerous threads and posts previously published here over the last year or so related to the subject matter. Therefore, not quite up to speed or up-to-date.....I'll cut you some slack.......

However, I'll suggest, as I have, over time, to few other members here, that base their opinions only on "personal experience" and how they "feel" about a particular subject matter.............That credibility and plausibility of one's opinions can best be trustworthy when supported by facts.....ie. assisted by providing proof, citation, reference and or documentation that is recognized and or accepted as truth by the informed and educated observations of other's more knowledgeable than ourselves, be it professionals, craftsmen or educators, that have command of the particular subject matter....!

To date, not one opinion (I have read) posted by the subject new member, has included and or referenced any fact that can be verified be means other than the collusion of additional personal opinions........

Forums are a great place to broadcast and express ideas and share knowledge. But, with any opinion based solely on personal experience and "feelings"........as with the grains of salt, get scattered and diluted over the course of time....and leave no discernible after taste........
pizzano is offline  
Old 04-29-2016, 05:18 PM
  #12  
P51 fan
Amazon Airspace Tester
 
P51 fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: MN
Posts: 182
Default

[QUOTEWell, since your membership here at Wattflyer is very new][/QUOTE]

Post count is not a matter. I always find it funny when some one likes to use a lot of words to play bs and is called on it, they always like to use post count as tool when they have nothing else to use.

I am not on these forums to prove anything, but I have no problem saying most times a lot can be said when it is the truth without having to use a number to judge someone by...if you want to play "King of the Boards" by post count, 1800 posts doesn't mean a thing. The same thing can be said about AMA numbers.

Ironically...since you are apparently judging people here by little slivers of words that you feel you can feel better about yourself by using, you completely missed the fact that I actually backed you by including multirotors and FPV in my comments and tried to make a point that it shouldn't matter the example of airframe or technique you use in this hobby...it should matter how it is used.

With that said, I can't stand multirotors or FPV, and frankly it seems with those methods of people getting their kicks out of this hobby comes an attitude that really is quite disgusting, and that has been shown "in the other subjects" posts several times.

If you would like to compare money spent backing the AMA with each other, or even insurance policies with each other, that can be arranged.

But judging character by the number of times someone has posted or claiming they need to prove something just reveals ones own lack in character.

Forums are a funny thing, most of the time people can interact and even possibly have decent conversations...but there is always that one person...
P51 fan is offline  
Old 04-29-2016, 05:22 PM
  #13  
P51 fan
Amazon Airspace Tester
 
P51 fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: MN
Posts: 182
Default

Just maybe what you had claimed to be, up until your recent decision not to renew your membership.........:
Just a reminder, I didn't claim to be anything...you just assumed, again.
P51 fan is offline  
Old 04-29-2016, 06:48 PM
  #14  
firemanbill
Community Moderator
 
firemanbill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Sevierville, Tennessee
Posts: 20,593
Default

OK guys play nice. Let's get back on topic or we'll have to shut this one down.
firemanbill is offline  
Old 04-29-2016, 07:06 PM
  #15  
P51 fan
Amazon Airspace Tester
 
P51 fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: MN
Posts: 182
Default

I'm done here, I only asked one simple question, I meant it respectfully...possibly it was taken wrongly. That question was answered respectfully as well (Thank You Wildflyer).

It is not my intention to argue on the forum, I have tried to point out that arguing with others just causes more harm to the hobby. My question was unsuccessfully answered by someone who apparently jumped in just for an argument...as he himself stated...

Just for argument sake.........LOL
I will add that since I have no problem complementing someone when it is deserved, I have to say pizzano that is a pretty sweet looking GWS Tiger Moth you have there in your album, I also have one and love it. I run an old PJS300 on TP 3s800's and it will float around for 30 mins on that set-up. One of my favorites for sure.
P51 fan is offline  
Old 04-29-2016, 10:49 PM
  #16  
Porcia83
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 543
Default

Originally Posted by P51 fan View Post
At this time, since I feel I have a few things that I would LIKE to say but I also feel that I have no reason to prove anything, I will respect the forum by keeping them to myself. Also, since I tried to be an honest person on this forum unlike some that use a username to hide behind...I now see that isn't respected here...and therefore I will play the game like everyone else.

As far as insurance goes, understand that I am much more highly insured than the offered AMA insurance could even hope to compete with. Anyone that still relies on AMA insurance entirely should really look into how it works and what it covers, you might be quite surprised when you read and understand the fine print. With that said, you also better hope you never have to use it.

My choice to hesitate wasn't a bash to the AMA, I just feel that I have paid enough dues in my life to take a minute and see how everything pans out before I renew.

Agreed, but lately the AMA's interests do not include mine, and frankly I am tired of donating money to other people's interests.

To get back on topic, what really is the point here?

I don't feel enlightened at all, and if this was supposed to be intelligent information it missed the mark by quite a long way.
We all have different perspectives and opinions, usually based on personal experiences. You'll see lots of different ones on internet threads. I agree post count and time at a forum is irrelevant, or at least not useful to me I guess. I look at the content of the comments. Try not to take it personally if someone disagrees, or even gives you a gentle jab. It's sometimes difficult with written words only.

As for the AMA, that's certainly been a hot topic, even more so these past two years. They are many different things to everyone. The insurance is certainly part of their value proposition to me, but I think their educational programs as well as club support is pretty good too. Some folks will never be involved with them in any manner other than to pay for a membership, others will avail themselves of the different benefits they afford us. To each their own, just as it is with folks choosing fixed wing over rotor craft over boats, etc etc. I think there's room for everyone to enjoy what they do and what they fly.

(for the record, I'm fixed wing only...)
Porcia83 is offline  
Old 04-30-2016, 12:05 AM
  #17  
P51 fan
Amazon Airspace Tester
 
P51 fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: MN
Posts: 182
Default

Not a big deal, just because I'm new to this forum it doesn't mean I am new to the forum scene, but 11,000 posts on another forum doesn't mean squat here.

I agree about the AMA and the educational part, but it seems all they care about anymore is multirotors. I have experience with them on the insurance end and club support...and it was a waste of my time and effort.

I never said I am done with the AMA, I just feel it is time to take a break and look at it from a different perspective. I could point people to a different direction entirely, but at this time I am not doing that.

I appreciate your thoughts.
P51 fan is offline  
Old 04-30-2016, 12:14 AM
  #18  
Porcia83
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 543
Default

Originally Posted by P51 fan View Post
Not a big deal, just because I'm new to this forum it doesn't mean I am new to the forum scene, but 11,000 posts on another forum doesn't mean squat here.

I agree about the AMA and the educational part, but it seems all they care about anymore is multirotors. I have experience with them on the insurance end and club support...and it was a waste of my time and effort.

I never said I am done with the AMA, I just feel it is time to take a break and look at it from a different perspective. I could point people to a different direction entirely, but at this time I am not doing that.

I appreciate your thoughts.
I'm a believer in the AMA at this point, if for no other reason than they are the only one in the game. I'm a bigger fan of competition however. I think that drives innovation and ultimately benefits the consumer. If an org comes along that offers a better product, at a better price, I suspect folks would give that a hard look, I know I would. Share wathca got...
Porcia83 is offline  
Old 04-30-2016, 12:40 AM
  #19  
Brner
AMA16634
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 554
Default

Originally Posted by Porcia83 View Post
The hobby is changing, just as it has over the past 80 years. No one segment of the hobby has a "hold" on it, or can claim their specific discipline of flying as the "right" or "traditional" one. I'm sure the folks thought the hobby was coming to an end when nitro, then gas, then giant scale, then helis, then arfs, then electrics etc etc came to be.
Your attempt to put words in my mouth failed miserably. I made no suggestion the the hobby hasn't changed or that any specific discipline should be considered the "right" one.

And I too, lived and modeled through the years the gas, giant scale, helis, arfs, electrics...etc etc came around and while I don't speak for "the folks", I, for one, didn't see the "end" of our hobby ever even being mentioned.


I don't understand how anyone can not understand why the FAA is involved in this.
Again a failed attempt....I was referring to your post and if that post made anyone understand better what's happening. I made no mention of the FAA "not" being involved, only to the extent they, and other government agencies, are approaching the issue.

The hobby isn't dead, dying, nor near extinction.
I sincerely hope that you are correct but I differ with the conclusion that you have come to. And, BTW, for further clarification, I did say "the hobby as we have known it".

I didn't involve myself with the membership costs as that wasn't mentioned in your opening post so I will address that point now only to say that I agree with you that the costs have provided many more benefits than some seem to see. What they provide or not provide today is meat for another thread.

I also agree that numbers count for very little on here but I do note that you omitted your AMA number after that was pointed out to you (maybe just an oversight)...lol

Oh well, time to enjoy real life, while it exists....

Don
AMA16634
Brner is offline  
Old 04-30-2016, 12:55 AM
  #20  
Turner
Super Contributor
 
Turner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Posts: 1,533
Default

Originally Posted by P51 fan View Post
...unlike some that use a username to hide behind...
Says the guy hiding behind a user name. Seriously?
Turner is offline  
Old 04-30-2016, 01:19 AM
  #21  
P51 fan
Amazon Airspace Tester
 
P51 fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: MN
Posts: 182
Default

Originally Posted by Turner View Post
Says the guy hiding behind a user name. Seriously?
Whats up Turner? I'm Bob..what would you like to know? I have nothing to hide.

BTW, if it makes you feel better...I am sure I can get my username changed to Bob.

Seriously.
P51 fan is offline  
Old 04-30-2016, 02:23 AM
  #22  
Turner
Super Contributor
 
Turner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Posts: 1,533
Default

I see that comment coming from people who use their full name as their user name. Now we can debate the wisdom of putting your name out there. I personally take identity security very seriously. But I've never seen anyone make that statement while themselves using a made up user name. Sort of like the pot calling the kettle black don't you think? I mean, what's your point?
Turner is offline  
Old 04-30-2016, 02:36 AM
  #23  
Porcia83
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 543
Default

Originally Posted by DEG View Post
Your attempt to put words in my mouth failed miserably. I made no suggestion the the hobby hasn't changed or that any specific discipline should be considered the "right" one.

And I too, lived and modeled through the years the gas, giant scale, helis, arfs, electrics...etc etc came around and while I don't speak for "the folks", I, for one, didn't see the "end" of our hobby ever even being mentioned.


Again a failed attempt....I was referring to your post and if that post made anyone understand better what's happening. I made no mention of the FAA "not" being involved, only to the extent they, and other government agencies, are approaching the issue.

I sincerely hope that you are correct but I differ with the conclusion that you have come to. And, BTW, for further clarification, I did say "the hobby as we have known it".

I didn't involve myself with the membership costs as that wasn't mentioned in your opening post so I will address that point now only to say that I agree with you that the costs have provided many more benefits than some seem to see. What they provide or not provide today is meat for another thread.

I also agree that numbers count for very little on here but I do note that you omitted your AMA number after that was pointed out to you (maybe just an oversight)...lol

Oh well, time to enjoy real life, while it exists....

Don
AMA16634
Hmm...curious reaction. I made a statement based on my opinion, just as you did. Try not to read anything else into that. It's not a right/wrong issue, it's an opinion.

As for the AMA number, again...completely irrelevant. That has absolutely nothing to do with the content of a comment or opinion does it? It's just another way of someone wanting to "pull rank", right up there with time on a board, or post count. Virtually meaningless, it's just a number.
Porcia83 is offline  
Old 04-30-2016, 02:44 AM
  #24  
P51 fan
Amazon Airspace Tester
 
P51 fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: MN
Posts: 182
Default

Originally Posted by Turner View Post
I see that comment coming from people who use their full name as their user name. Now we can debate the wisdom of putting your name out there. I personally take identity security very seriously. But I've never seen anyone make that statement while themselves using a made up user name. Sort of like the pot calling the kettle black don't you think? I mean, what's your point?
I have no problem using my full name, I just thought for once I could play the cute little username game like most people do on forums, but I take it I am not allowed to do that on this forum...maybe when I get my post count higher I can use a cute name without having to explain myself.

Why should the wisdom of putting my name out there even be a debate you are part of, or even a debate at all? I am not living my life afraid to put my name (Bob...in case any one missed that) out there. But I do find it incredibly funny when people use the security of a cute username to talk big.

Is my point clear now?
P51 fan is offline  
Old 04-30-2016, 02:56 AM
  #25  
P51 fan
Amazon Airspace Tester
 
P51 fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: MN
Posts: 182
Default

Originally Posted by Porcia83 View Post
Hmm...curious reaction. I made a statement based on my opinion, just as you did. Try not to read anything else into that. It's not a right/wrong issue, it's an opinion.

As for the AMA number, again...completely irrelevant. That has absolutely nothing to do with the content of a comment or opinion does it? It's just another way of someone wanting to "pull rank", right up there with time on a board, or post count. Virtually meaningless, it's just a number.
I think the FAA is actually helping things around here, now instead of just having one number to make people feel they seem more important, if you registered as a responsible R/C pilot should have, then the FAA felt obligated to give you another number to be even more excited about.

Ironically, the subject of identity security comes up...but yet everyone keeps flashing their AMA numbers around like it's nothing. If you think the AMA keeps your info that secure that no one can find you using that number, you are very wrong.

Lots of shiny numbers to be proud of, at this point I only carry one, which I will keep to myself Thank You...and that should answer any questions before they start.
P51 fan is offline  

Quick Reply: California...A legal Perspective On The FAA UAV Guidelines


Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.

Page generated in 0.11058 seconds with 12 queries