Blogs

You need to be a member of diydrones to add comments!

Join diydrones

Comments

  • Duane Brocious March 17, 2011 at 12:12pm

    Sorry it took awhile to research ARRL.

    Yes, I guess I am implying that, Michael.

    I saw nowhere in part 95 where ARRL members were allowed to either make up their own rules or ARRL members being exempt from FCC regulations nor making ARRL membership mandatory for getting out of all FCC rules.. That is how the AMA and FAA should be.

  • ArileyS February 25, 2011 at 6:44am
    No offense, but you guys haven't been paying attention if you still think that writing your congressman can accomplish anything.
  • Kyle February 24, 2011 at 8:28am

    @Michael Zaffuto, I understand your point on the silence in the crowd, but truth be told, many of these posts are directed at citizens of the USA, even though I am just a short drive north of the 49th, these regulations will not affect me directly.  The only thing that this may do is greatly reduce the availability of hardware from US distributors, while a financial set-back I'm not convinced that this regulation will shutdown the industry in America; unless the manufacture of autopilot and related hardware is also regulated I can see this industry operating on the "grey" side much like head-shops - they sell glass "tobacco" pipes and that's completely legal, what you do with the pipe after you leave the premises is yours and yours alone.  

     

    I guess what it boils down to is that these regulations only affect people flying within the CONUSA and maybe the protectorates/territories, even then, as most people have pointed out, the methods of enforcing these regulations are currently null.  That may change overtime, however, its commonly pointed out that the speed limit is regulated and enforced with a lot of advanced technology (overhead speed detecting sUAS - maybe soon?) yet there are vast swaths of area that are not enforced, usually away from built-up urban areas - coincidentally an excellent place to fly autonomously.

     

    TL;DR These regulations will only be enforced in built-up urban areas, ie for commercial use where liability will be huge.  The average hobbyist will still be free to build and develop his sUAS, although flying it will be done in the "grey" area and most people in the USA are willing to live with that, the rest of the world population doesn't care since their regulations are more open.

  • Duane Brocious February 24, 2011 at 8:12am
    Not sure wha that relationships is. Are ARRL members (and ARRL members only) allowed to do anything they want while everyone else has to follow FCC regulations?
  • Michael Zaffuto February 24, 2011 at 7:30am

    Are you implying that as goes the relationship between the ARRL and the FCC,

    so should the AMA and the FAA?

  • Duane Brocious February 24, 2011 at 5:43am
    Delete Comment

    Michael,

    In a word. Yes.

    I often feel like I am in a theatre on fire trying to get someone's attention and half the patrons are telling me to shut up and watch the movie while the other hafl just sit there waiting to burn to death.

     

    I said that the FAA was going to put teeth into AC 91-57 long before the FAA/ARC and was called a fear monger, liar and insane. I said the AMA would do nothing for anyone who was not a member of the AMA and that is proven time and again. I am now saying all the CBO stuff the AMA is pushing for is only to make the AMA big and richer and ruining recreational flight for everyone else and that is what is going to happen if the CBO nonsense stands, whether it be in this bill. the FAA regs or anything else. The CBO exemption is the worst thing that can happen to recreational sUAS/UAS. One law for everyone, no special priviledges for a few. That is what made this country (and others) great, why change that?

  • Michael Zaffuto February 24, 2011 at 5:03am
    @Duane, I sat here this morning reading this thread for the third time since you have posted it. I recalled your other posts on similar topics as news or events unfolded. Something seems very odd in all this, it is the same feeling I got just some years ago when I saw houses in my neighborhood selling for 50% more than what I knew they worth. Not being able to comment on the demographics of members of this site, it is hard to estimate how many of the 14000 members are in the U.S. ,the fraction of those members that actually fly or plan to fly autonomously. The odd feeling I have is how little response or coordinated and intelligently ironed out discussion is or has occurred. Consider the many pages of heated discussions a post about Trappy garners and compare it to how many people have anything to say or add or provide insight on this topic. Something is amiss, doesn't set right, it looks, acts and smells like a duck so to speak, I just don't know what that duck is. It doesn't take long to get a feel for who the movers and shakers here are, the top 50 or so members i consider to be diydrones, shaping the technology through hardware and software development, improvements and testing. They are the folks I would expect to have amongst the greatest vested interest in these outcomes. What do they know, how have they ironed this out in their own minds? Mostly there is silence, is it a sign of humble acceptance? a realization that there is nothing that can be done about any of it? a sign that it won't be so bad? a sign that it just doesn't doesn't matter? a sign that folks are just not thinking about it too deeply or its implications? Is there an element of fear or caution that keeps folks opinions to themselves in case the powers that be are listening in? In essense Duane, do you feel like the lone voice in the wilderness crying out? Odd, isn't it?
  • Duane Brocious February 23, 2011 at 6:01pm

    I would suggest sending real letters if possible, the link will provide the addresses of your congressmen as well as send the emails. Email us not nearly as effective as letters but they do help our cause.

     

    I also mentioned the possible unconstitutionality of exempting any organization from federal law as well as the fact that it is in violation of OMB.119 as well as throwing 5 years of work by the FAA into the trash a week before it is all but finished and sent to the Sec. of Trans. for approval.

  • Duane Brocious February 23, 2011 at 5:53pm

    Just a note: I removed my erroneous post and a couple others pointing out my error.

    I was mistaken and not trying to cover it up. Just keeping the thread accurate and clear.

  • Duane Brocious February 23, 2011 at 1:24pm

    My recommendation to my  congressmen was to reword the amendment to:

    (1) IN GENERAL.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law relating to the incorporation of unmanned aircraft systems into FAA plans and policies,, including this section, the Administrator shall not promulgate any rules or regulations regarding model aircraft or aircraft being developed as model aircraft if such aircraft is--
    (A) flown strictly for recreational, sport, competition, or academic purposes;
    (B) operated in accordance with a community-based set of safety guidelines and within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization; and
    (C) limited to not more than 55 pounds unless otherwise certified through a design, construction, inspection,flight test, and operational safety program currently administered by a community-based organization.

    ", flown no faster than 100 MPH and limited to no more than 1200' alt. in uncontrolled (class G) airspace"

This reply was deleted.