Glad I have a box # I can use

[G+_Michael Heinz]

A big part of those dues pay for the liability insurance that members get.

[G+_Jeff Brand]

I'm curious to know the data supporting that statement.

 

AMA's Insurance report from 2012: http://www.modelaircraft.org/files/500-q.pdf

 

I wonder how many knitting-related claims were filed in the same period of time.

[G+_Jeff Brand]

Citing two less-safe leisure activities (both involving manned vehicle operation) isn't evidence that model aircraft is "one of the safest hobbies." I'm just asking for support of your claim since it apparently feeds into your opinion that regulation of any sort is unnecessary.

 

You wondered how many claims the AMA has paid out and I provided some published data. To be sure, the number is fairly low, but not zero. I would actually like to see more current data since the growth of multi-rotor use.

[G+_Jeff Brand]

As you provide examples of hobbies/leisure activities that are more dangerous, consider that a more useful number would be persons per injury/claim. I'd suggest that the frequency of incidents needs to be weighted by the number of people who participate in it. Otherwise, commercial fishing looks to be a lot safer than cheerleading.

[G+_Michael Heinz]

I'd also point out that given that the AMA is the only organization fighting these regulations, complaining about them may not be the most useful thing to do right now...

[G+_Jeff Brand]

I cited some cases yesterday in a link. While none address registration directly, some seek to clarify rules affecting model aircraft and would effect this new rule as well.

[G+_Larry Havenstein]

I am an AMA member and will register in February if needed. However this FAA rule flies in the face of current laws. Here is an excerpt from the an article that spells it out plainly:

 

"A few years ago, Congress passed the Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, an immense 300-page tome that set directives to the FAA including how airports should be improved, what medical certificates apply to what type of pilot, and special rules for model aircraft.

 

The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration may not promulgate any rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft, or an aircraft being developed as a model aircraft

 

In the Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, ‘model aircraft’ are defined as, ‘an unmanned aircraft capable of sustained flight in the atmosphere, flown within visual line of sight, and flown for hobby or recreational purposes.’ If these qualifications are met, the FAA may not make a rule regarding these aircraft, so long as they are not flown within 5 miles of an airport.

 

Yet the requirements for the FAA’s UAS registration do just that. A month ago, 99% of the aircraft sold on HobbyKing were safe from FAA rules. By making a simple rule that anyone can understand, the FAA may have crossed a line, and overstepped the authority granted to it by Congress."

 

http://hackaday.com/2015/12/21/heres-the-reason-the-faas-drone-registration-system-doesnt-make-sense/

 

This is the reason the AMA is up in arms. Everything that is popular by the AMA members now is pretty much under this ruling. Yes the AMA has some clout as the special ruling for model aircraft in the Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 exists thanks to AMA lobbying.

[G+_Jeff Brand]

At this point it's a matter of interpretation. The FAA thinks that the rules authorizing it are already "promogulated" (see section V. here https://www.faa.gov/news/updates/media/20151213_IFR.pdf) and they're just clarifying the process.

 

I believe that the AMA and others feel that since these types of aircraft have always been excluded from registration requirements, this is not a matter of clarifying the application of an existing rule but instead creating a new one. This would clearly be against the FMRA.

 

I'd like to find the regulation that exempts them specifically or a decision on that point. Until then, we hold our breath...

[G+_Michael Heinz]

I have to side with Carson Black on the grounds that while, yes, we're going to have stupid people doing stupid things and, yes, it would be nice to prevent them from doing so, I do not believe this policy is going to actually stop them from doing their stupid things and offers no benefit to responsible users.

[G+_Jeff Brand]

Carson Black I probably sound like a broken record at this point but I want to clarify some points from your comment:

 

1. "don't think for a second that's the most they'll ever ask for."

 

First, while "ever" is a long time, the $5 has been the same since 1966. Sure, the process may evolve to request different things. In fact, that's what most of us are hoping will happen as the FAA gets to the point of asking for data relevant to the flight of sUAS.

 

Without getting too deep into your gov't intrusion premise, this process has remained stable for many years and changes would also affect major airlines, emergency air rescue services, and bush pilots as well.

 

2. "Evey adult that flies has already been registered"

 

The registration is an "aircraft registration" and must be positioned as such by the FAA. If not, they're violating Congress by creating a new rule against model aircraft. I believe they only need to verify accuracy of statements made during registration - that the person registering the aircraft is who they say they are.

 

To the heart of your statement:

While I don't think the FAA will back down, I'd like to see the process be an utter failure and perhaps some legal decisions to strike it down outright.

 

On top of that, it'd be nice to see some penalty for violating the deadline to present real reform as was required of them. http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-faa-has-missed-its-congressionally-mandated-deadline-to-regulate-drones

[G+_Jeff Brand]

It's presented as an aircraft registry but it definitely feels like an "operator registry." I don't know if that's enough of a loophole since they could just change the policy and be even more impractical and costly.

[G+_Larry Havenstein]

Yes its falsely presented by the FAA as it is pilot registration.   

 

To the points about the AMA and only benefiting their members.  The AMA has two things going on.  One they would like to see their registration be used for their members by passing the info to the FAA to simplify registration for AMA members.   That is a totally separate issue from the if registration should exist because of the "Special Ruling".

 

If the litigation that has been going on defines model aircraft (under 55 pounds) according to the "Special Ruling" instead of the FAA's "if it flies it is an aircraft and is under FAA rules".  If the special ruling is upheld everyone gets that benefit and my AMA membership dues helped pay for it.