Trust test

[Phaedrus]

Originally Posted by fiddle

I'm glad my club claims to require AMA but no one has ever asked me for proof of my membership. No matter, its a public park anyway in the middle of nowhere (strange I know) that no one but us uses for the most part. If they were to kick me out, I could just fly next to the field in the part of the park that they don't rent

We have to provide our club with scanned images of AMA card and FAA registration.

[wjvail]

Originally Posted by Phaedrus

We have to provide our club with scanned images of AMA card and FAA registration.

Once a year I have to pull out my AMA card and present it to the club secretary. Job done. Good for another year. I get that. It's what we have to do to use the land we fly off of and over.

FAA registration is none of their business. If they were to check, I have an ATP (Airline Transport License) and FAA 1st class medical - but again, that's none of their business.

[Phaedrus]

Originally Posted by wjvail

Once a year I have to pull out my AMA card and present it to the club secretary. Job done. Good for another year. I get that. It's what we have to do to use the land we fly off of and over.

FAA registration is none of their business. If they were to check, I have an ATP (Airline Transport License) and FAA 1st class medical - but again, that's none of their business.

My club wants proof of FAA recreational aUAS registration. When I was in the Navy I had to proves licence, registration and insurance to drive on base.

Like you we provide club AMA and then we give them FAA model registration proof. Neither one a big deal.

[BELL SKY]

I'm glad I stepped away from the hobby during this time. I wish you all the best in your flying endeavors.

[AllanNg]

Drug test? What drug test?!

[HeliBeachBum]

Originally Posted by AllanNg

Drug test? What drug test?!

Employers are now drug testing to see if their employees are heli addicts or not. It's really a thing.

[AllanNg]

Originally Posted by HeliBeachBum

Employers are now drug testing to see if their employees are heli addicts or not. It's really a thing.

LOL. I'm glad we got helifreaks here with humor

[wjvail]

Originally Posted by Phaedrus

My club wants proof of FAA recreational aUAS registration. When I was in the Navy I had to proves licence, registration and insurance to drive on base.

Like you we provide club AMA and then we give them FAA model registration proof. Neither one a big deal.

Fair enough. But does your club require license, registration and proof of insurance to drive on the field? Is it any of their business?

And we a agree, providing proof of AMA membership and FAA registration isn't difficult. Our club has simply decided that our "due diligence" doesn't include going beyond checking AMA membership.

[fiddle]

The only reason for a club to check AMA membership is because I believe the AMA wants them too as part of being a chartered field?

Since the FAA is conveying no similar special status for checking member compliance, why should the club care?

[hpaulmo]

Originally Posted by Cyclone7

I agree Sandy - when I look at the high-handed attitude at play in the U.S., I think that we here in the U.K. have a great deal to be thankful for. The BMFA has conducted itself extremely well in protecting the best interests of the members and the CAA has displayed a sensible and entirely pragmatic approach to the issue.

I think that is why there has been no real resistance to the regulations here. Everyone I know has paid the small fee, done the simple online test/forced reading exercise and are happily out flying, much as before

Jeez...the most reasonable people in the room (with some exceptions)...seem to be the non-USA participants. Rebels or not, it is pretty telling.

[nybbler]

Originally Posted by hpaulmo

Jeez...the most reasonable people in the room (with some exceptions)...seem to be the non-USA participants. Rebels or not, it is pretty telling.

Where "reasonable" means "happy to comply with whatever nonsense the government puts out".

I went out and flew my helis today. Regs violated include 14 CFR 107.12(a), 107.12(b), 107.13, and 107.19(d), as well as a violation of a county park rule. Nobody was harmed, but that's still worth a $6000-$120,000 fine depending on how much the FAA wanted to teach a lesson. Plus another $3000 or 90 days in jail for the county park violation. In order to become legal I'd have to

1) Register

2) Put the registration number on my helis

3) Take the TRUST test

4) Fly somewhere else, at a site which has an established "safety line" (this is needed to follow a safety code, without which I cannot claim the recreational exception). No such site is available to me.

OR I could

1) Register each aircraft individually

2) Put the registration numbers on my helis

3) Take the $175 Part 107 test and get an expletive-deleted remote pilot license

4) Play jailhouse lawyer with state pre-emption to get around the park rules.

Both of these are absolutely nuts.

I never bothered registering because I knew it wouldn't end there; they'd keep piling on the rules at least until there were some I couldn't follow. And indeed they did.

(in a few years, also add "put a tattle-tale remote ID transmitter on the aircraft")

[fiddle]

so glad i live out here in the middle of the cow pastures where no one cares what you do for the most part.

[Cyclone7]

Originally Posted by fiddle

so glad i live out here in the middle of the cow pastures where no one cares what you do for the most part.

Nor are they ever likely to care, truth beknown. I still think that these regulations are unlikely to be 'actively policed'..... unless you attract public attention through flying irresponsibly(in which case you probably deserve what you get) or God forbid, are involved in an incident of some sort.

[Andy from Sandy]

Where "reasonable" means "happy to comply with whatever nonsense the government puts out".

We could all go in for civil disobedience but is it really the answer?

I believe in America you are now not allowed to fly above 400 feet.

The BMFA in consultation with the CAA has got exemptions for its members of glider guiders to fly as high as they like and others above 400 feet. Also any BMFA member that took one of its award scheme tests doesn't have to complete the CAA test.

[navigator2011]

Originally Posted by nybbler

Where "reasonable" means "happy to comply with whatever nonsense the government puts out".

I went out and flew my helis today. Regs violated include 14 CFR 107.12(a), 107.12(b), 107.13, and 107.19(d), as well as a violation of a county park rule. Nobody was harmed, but that's still worth a $6000-$120,000 fine depending on how much the FAA wanted to teach a lesson. Plus another $3000 or 90 days in jail for the county park violation. In order to become legal I'd have to

1) Register

2) Put the registration number on my helis

3) Take the TRUST test

4) Fly somewhere else, at a site which has an established "safety line" (this is needed to follow a safety code, without which I cannot claim the recreational exception). No such site is available to me.

OR I could

1) Register each aircraft individually

2) Put the registration numbers on my helis

3) Take the $175 Part 107 test and get an expletive-deleted remote pilot license

4) Play jailhouse lawyer with state pre-emption to get around the park rules.

Both of these are absolutely nuts.

I never bothered registering because I knew it wouldn't end there; they'd keep piling on the rules at least until there were some I couldn't follow. And indeed they did.

(in a few years, also add "put a tattle-tale remote ID transmitter on the aircraft")

What did you fly at the county park?

[nybbler]

Originally Posted by navigator2011

What did you fly at the county park?

What does it matter? Anything from a nano to a 800 and above is equally illegal.

Originally Posted by Andy from Sandy

We could all go in for civil disobedience but is it really the answer?

I'm just going in for plain disobedience. "Civil Disobedience" indicates an intention to get caught and punished to shock the conscience of the public, and the public just doesn't care; their response to R/C flyers being financially ruined or jailed would be "good", if they had any response at all.

I believe in America you are now not allowed to fly above 400 feet.

The BMFA in consultation with the CAA has got exemptions for its members of glider guiders to fly as high as they like and others above 400 feet. Also any BMFA member that took one of its award scheme tests doesn't have to complete the CAA test.

Yeah, so your BMFA managed to do successfully what our AMA couldn't do -- carve out exceptions for itself. I don't care all that much about the 400 foot rule (hard to see my helis at 400 feet) but the AMA here has gotten only a few point exemptions for a very few clubs.

[Phaedrus]

Originally Posted by nybbler

What does it matter? Anything from a nano to a 800 and above is equally illegal.

Really? WOW. If that were true it would be awful.

[nybbler]

Originally Posted by Phaedrus

Really? WOW. If that were true it would be awful.

It's true.

[navigator2011]

Originally Posted by nybbler

It's true.

So the county park doesn't want what they think are drones. But no way are you going to be slammed with all those regs over something like an mcpx bl.

[Phaedrus]

Originally Posted by nybbler

It's true.

In a single location, maybe. abut as a blanket statement, no. which is the point I am making