Member Support

  • Advertisement
SeaBear Aircraft

"Strength In Numbers" - A Failing Model

Advocacy topics from around the world...

"Strength In Numbers" - A Failing Model

Unread postby jjbaker » Mon Apr 27, 2015 4:57 am

Although there were widespread predictions (including by the FAA itself) that the agency's proposed rule (PDF) for unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) would overwhelm the bureaucracy with comments, only a relatively manageable 4,428 people and organizations took the time to make their feelings known. The devil is in the details, however, and some of the comment files are long and detailed and will take time for the FAA to digest. There have also been several requests for the FAA to extend the comment period. About 20 percent of the comments are not being publicly disclosed for proprietary, business or simple good taste reasons but they will all get the same scrutiny from the agency.

Image

Commenters seemed to generally have a constructive approach to the NPRM and suggested changes that would fix issues that would affect their use of the devices. But there were those who simply don't think they have any place in society or reason for being. Many of those commenting are model aircraft enthusiasts who are clearly worried that regulations will spread and "ruin our hobby." The next step is for the agency to digest the comments and then rewrite the proposed rule to reflect the suggestions it agrees with. It's not clear how long that might take but the agency has repeatedly said it's putting a huge amount of resources into the process.



Source: AVweb
User avatar
jjbaker
Owner/ Admin
Owner/ Admin
 
Posts: 5895
Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 4:46 pm
Location: Germany

Re: "Strength In Numbers" - A Failing Model

Unread postby RKittine » Mon Apr 27, 2015 7:59 am

The insurance companies will have a field day with this.
SUPPORTING MEMBER

Bob
West Nyack Aviation, L.L.C. New York, New York - East Hampton, New York & Warwick, New York 631.374.9652
rkittine@aol.com WA2YDV
User avatar
RKittine
Supporting Member
Supporting Member
 
Posts: 4821
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 11:02 am
Location: Manhattan and Sag Harbor, New York

Re: "Strength In Numbers" - A Failing Model

Unread postby TriPacer » Mon Apr 27, 2015 2:23 pm

I wish the FAA would put a "huge amount of resources" on the 3rd class medical issue. I'm kind of waiting here - no reason to pay the money to get a checkup if I won't need it soon...
TriPacer
Owner Of The Force
Image
From Minnesota, where men strangle bears and children fly helicopters!
User avatar
TriPacer
Supporting Member
Supporting Member
 
Posts: 484
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2011 11:43 pm
Location: Twin Cities, MN

Re: "Strength In Numbers" - A Failing Model

Unread postby RKittine » Mon Apr 27, 2015 2:50 pm

The FAA is not putting time, money or effort into the elimination of the 3rd Class Medical as they do not want to see that happen. I think the newest positive press is more to hold off the congress for forcing something much more unrestrictive. If I didn't have regular check ups, they would not have caught the cancer early and today I might not be here. I am happy to pay for a REAL check up though and have reasonable requirements rather than what they have now, which are way too arbitrary and restrictive and costly to fight.

Bob
SUPPORTING MEMBER

Bob
West Nyack Aviation, L.L.C. New York, New York - East Hampton, New York & Warwick, New York 631.374.9652
rkittine@aol.com WA2YDV
User avatar
RKittine
Supporting Member
Supporting Member
 
Posts: 4821
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 11:02 am
Location: Manhattan and Sag Harbor, New York

Re: "Strength In Numbers" - A Failing Model

Unread postby TriPacer » Tue Apr 28, 2015 11:42 am

Oh agreed - I get real checkups every 2 years. I just wish I could combine the two somehow.
TriPacer
Owner Of The Force
Image
From Minnesota, where men strangle bears and children fly helicopters!
User avatar
TriPacer
Supporting Member
Supporting Member
 
Posts: 484
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2011 11:43 pm
Location: Twin Cities, MN

Re: "Strength In Numbers" - A Failing Model

Unread postby jjbaker » Thu Apr 30, 2015 4:14 am

Medical reform is a looong way from happening. It won't bring the boom people hype about, either.
No matter how senseless and worthless a Class III medical may be, lots of dollars change owners due to it.

As currently practiced in Europe, we could instead easily have added psychological evaluations where the authorities deem it sensible.
More and more psycho's are doing incredibly dumb stuff with airplanes - the machine will eventually have to catch up. Here, pilots can already be ordered to go through a complete background check and psycho evaluation and all it takes to bring this upon the pilot is one single phone call or complaint.

Its amazing to me to see that drones and UAV's are not recognized as the largest threat to GA there is. 4400 voices are a complete shame.
In my short 26 years in aviation, I have yet to see any group more self-destructing and fragmented than the aviation community.

Getting people to realize that inaction is more damaging than writing a few lousy letters per year (even if one can't spell) has become impossible.
People really seem to expect advocacy associations to get this sick cow off the ice, alone.

Insanity redefines itself through the use of failed and ineffective systems.
User avatar
jjbaker
Owner/ Admin
Owner/ Admin
 
Posts: 5895
Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 4:46 pm
Location: Germany


Return to Seaplane & General Aviation Advocacy & Regulatory Matters

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests