FAA banning FPV Goggles

[Dumpster Jedi]

Yeah, well I feel a responsibility to not do things that make my fellow man unsafe, too, but that doesn't mean I can't think that perhaps there are a bunch of folks in the government who are incompetent, and a few more that really are ill-intentioned. You know there are a few elected officials out there who think they should be allowed to carry guns to keep them safe, but that you shouldn't be allowed to do the same. Those individuals then hold press conferences in which they hold guns in ways that show they are less qualified to even be near a gun than you are. They are fat cats who love the power they've gained. It's human nature. We all want power. That's why I not only vote for, but actively support candidates who will work to reduce the size and power of government rather than expand it.

There was a time when we didn't need the NSA to spy on its own citizens because the citizens themselves were armed and took care of internal problems themselves. That practice was followed because we had a war to rid ourselves of a government that spied on its citizens and worked to confiscate their guns (forget about that bit in history class that Lexington and Concord were fought over gun confiscation, not taxes?).

The irony is not lost on me that in many states it is illegal to carry a gun into a church...there was a time when one of the pastor's key roles in his congregation was to teach them marksmanship...also that the members were required to bring their guns to church. My how times have changed!

I'm gonna copy/paste this over from a chat, since you mentioned gun confiscation and I was just explaining this concept.

So I had a brilliantly stupid idea last night

since the FAA is in motion to do something regarding our hobby, we're getting shoved into the game of politics whether we like it or not.

So why not play the game how it is traditionally played? Dirty.
Bear with me here, cause this is half genius and half stupid.

Say we were able to plant the idea in the heads of the far-right pro-gun crowd, that the same government that is the main proponent of drone warfare is also the main opponent of civilian drone technology falls right into their "right to bear arms" argument.... basically, don't bring a gun to a drone fight.

In the interest of "well regulated militias", perhaps legal civilian drone tech is essential.
If we could swing that, we get millions of supporters that will fight on our behalf... the downside is the kind of people we'd have supporting us.

But therein lies the ultimate political conundrum... yes, we could use their ignorance to our advantage.... but then they're on our team.

An interesting thought experiment if nothing else.

Just a silly idea, mainly in the vein of playing politics how it's actually played, as opposed to the 10th-grade U.S. Government class version we got in school. not really a viable option but I find the idea of "We the People" playing political forces against each other instead of vice-versa quite fun.

In all reality I think we need a new organization focused on FPV/Drones/Commecial usage that kind of falls outside of the scope of what the AMA has traditionally done.

 

[FAI-F1D]

If we could swing that, we get millions of supporters that will fight on our behalf... the downside is the kind of people we'd have supporting us.

But therein lies the ultimate political conundrum... yes, we could use their ignorance to our advantage.... but then they're on our team.

Well you're going to get a whole lot of support from the rest of us now that you absolutely trashed half the people posting in this thread.

 

[Dumpster Jedi]

Hey now, I love my guns. But you're not going to see me on CNN going on about what I'd do with my AR-15 if I had to stand my ground in Chipotle. I'm not talking about reasonable people here, I'm talking about the kind of people that get media attention these days.

 

[Dumpster Jedi]

Oh and it's a joke. You really think anything good would come of what I outlined up there? Not at all, if it were even possible to swing a large vocal group to our aide, which I don't think (in the case of real 2nd amendment fundamentalists) it is.

As I said, we are likely in need of a new organization tasked with advocating for our interests. The AMA's broad scope over everything aeromodeling isn't going to be enough, I think.

 

[Tactical Ex]

I think the best way to fight any Anti-drone or anti-FPV laws should be growing the industry as much as possible. This is a very political but positive move (unlikely you hear that from me).

The FAA isn't going to have clear regulations set until at least Sept 2015 (and that will likely be pushed back farther).

Since March 6 (the date of the trial resolution of FAA v Pirker) the knowledge is out there that the FAA cant touch you when it comes to commercial drone operation and the use of FPV for commercial purposes. This meaning all of the people who have been waiting to launch businesses that are FPV or drone related can now do so without fear of fines and having their business shut down.

The point I'm getting at is that if the civilian drone industry grows fast enough and large enough, it will be harder for the FAA or FCC to get laws passed that cripple economic growth. Why? Because not only will the business owners and clients be crying "unfair!" and lobby against it but the general public will have learned more and experienced more (and hopefully worked out all of the fears and issues involved ) when it comes to drones.

 

[RoyBro]

The FAA have released a document stating their intent. Now, it's our turn to participate and tell them what's wrong with it through our representatives and direct to the agency, and via our lobby groups (AMA, et al).

I agree. Ranting and raving on message boards isn't going to do squat. We need to get organized and take effective action to get this defeated. Things to get the message out to all RC enthusiasts, to our congressmen, White House petitions, etc.
I'm have no experience organizing political or government stuff, but I'm willing to pitch in where I can do the most good.

 

[makattack]

You realize this actually happened right?

http://mobile.theverge.com/2013/12/...-a-back-door-into-rsa-encryption-according-to

Of course RSA denies knowing about or any form of relationship between the NSA.
https://blogs.rsa.com/news-media/rsa-response/

Yes, while I didn't intend for this thread to go into cryptography, I used it as an example. I didn't mean to imply there are no cryptographic algorithms out there without vulnerabilities or even a formal and published escrow system -- there definitely are. Some are put out by the NSA, others from other organizations and companies. At my place of work, our IT Security department mandates that people use a key escrow based hard drive encryption program so that if people forget their passwords, they don't lose all their data. IT stores all the escrow keys in a vault.

As the article implies, the process of open peer reviews of such algorithms is what killed it off from becoming the defacto standard. Sure, it may be in bsafe, but you don't have to use bsafe when there are plenty of open source alternatives out there.

Similarly with the FAA rules. As I think it was TacticalEx mentioned, if the industry and community grows beyond what the FAA can manage in regulations, then they will have a very hard time, getting highly restrictive regulations in place.

 

[FAI-F1D]

Hey now, I love my guns. But you're not going to see me on CNN going on about what I'd do with my AR-15 if I had to stand my ground in Chipotle. I'm not talking about reasonable people here, I'm talking about the kind of people that get media attention these days.

Ok, fair enough, though I see plenty of gun rights advocates on the news who are fighting for the right thing. Actually, no I don't...CNN isn't pro gun and doesn't invite people that might have a chance of making any sense. Which would be part of the problem with the original premise--the media isn't on our side and would only invite crazy people, if any, just as they have treated all of the travesties in recent years.

Anyway, all's forgiven...you made a good point...and now I've managed to expand on it in a depressing way. :/

The point I'm getting at is that if the civilian drone industry grows fast enough and large enough, it will be harder for the FAA or FCC to get laws passed that cripple economic growth. Why? Because not only will the business owners and clients be crying "unfair!" and lobby against it but the general public will have learned more and experienced more (and hopefully worked out all of the fears and issues involved ) when it comes to drones.

Tying this in with my point above, we're not going to get positive media attention. Model aviation, like a lot of other activities like general aviation, firearms, you name it, will be fighting against public opinion for the foreseeable future. Other than a couple of conservatives in the Senate (who are not to be minimized seeing as how they held the FAA off of us for this long), we don't have that many friends in high places. I think the end result is going to be all out rebellion whether any of us supports such or not. I mean seriously, go back and look at the rules. They have clearly stated that sponsored pilots are criminals unless they obtain a waiver (yeah, like that's gonna happen--go look who you have to be connected to before they'll grant you one). If I were a sponsored pilot, I'd just keep on doing what I want to. The FAA has no right to be doing any of this. But then they've been cronyists since the early days of the airlines, so what do we expect?

And this is why I agree that creating a new organization specifically for FPV isn't the solution. The FAA is on the offensive against all forms of model aviation, not just FPV. This crusade is nothing new--it's been brewing for a very long time.

 

[Mid7night]

It's making its way out into the news: http://www.usatoday.com/story/trave...s-rules-model-hobbyist-plane-pilots/11268597/

What bugs me is that the general public doesn't get the difference between "guidance" and "regulation". If you read this article and nothing else, you get the impression that the FAA can haul you off for doing anything on their "Don't" list. .... :-\

A couple more FAA links:

http://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsId=16474

http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/uas/model_aircraft_operators/

 

[Tritium]

Unfortunately I don't think the AMA is going to cut it. If you read the recent "interpretation" they give (some) power any "community based organization" not just the AMA.

We have a rather quickly growing community based organization here at Flite Test. The FPV community as a whole is growing by leaps and bounds. The FPV industry has a lot to lose if this "interpretation" is recognized as law. So there's a pool of financial backing.

The FAA might have just given the FPV community the boost it needed to organize.

I believe the wording was "National Community Based Organization".

Thurmond

 

[Stradawhovious]

In the interest of "well regulated militias", perhaps legal civilian drone tech is essential.
If we could swing that, we get millions of supporters that will fight on our behalf... the downside is the kind of people we'd have supporting us.

You didn't seriously just say that, did you?

Wow.

Understand there are loud obnoxious Asshats in EVERY lobby group , even this cause, and they are the ones who are most likely to get televised or quoted.

It's a fact, Jack.

Also, saying it's a joke, and that you like guns after a comment like that is similar to saying "Hey, I have friends that are [insert ethnicity here]" and using it as justification to spout off racist jokes.

Sarcasm doesn't translate well on the interwebz. I understand what you are saying, and it's the reason I no longer visit gun forums but you can't paint everyone that shares an interest with that wide a brush. ESPECIALLY if you're interested in gaining support.

 

[Tritium]

You know who stands to loose biggest here in terms of profit are the Chinese! They need to get right in the middle of this with some BIG MONEY! Only money talks to the Gooberment any more. Once they breathed into life a Corporation and it became a living asset it was all over for a common real person. I have contacted FoxtechFPV.com and encouraged them to Contact ALL Chinese RC vendors to get together some BIG money to fight this. Pretty sad having to use Communist to try to force the Land of the Free and Home of the Brave to do the right thing.

Thurmond

 

[William A]

Well, looks like I'm going to be an outlaw then.

 

[jdawson]

The new guidance also makes it clear that you can not directly or indirectly profit from model flying. That is something the AMA also says. So based on that FliteTest is breaking AMA and FAA rules by having sponsors for videos.

It is all nuts.

 

[Vitamin J]

If you can't profit from model flying then apparently Horizon Hobby, Hitec, Futaba, Spektrum, etc will all be out of business if these regs are passed.

This is the first step in the FAA's multi-year process so we shouldn't be too depressed yet. There is still a long way to go and a lot of changes can be written.

 

[Tritium]

It will all settle down once the items of commercial licensing and revenue generation for the FAA are in place. Of course it will probably require the same training and cost as a private pilot. That way the big commercial players are "protected" from low cost encroachments into their territory.
I saw this in the Texas Refrigeration Industry. Too many small independents were popping up with little up front cost (show rooms and massive inventory collections). I got my Federal EPA permitting and started a refrigeration business only to have the Big players lobby in a requirement for licensing and totally out of line insurance requirements in Texas. The license could only be obtained in Austin Texas over a several day period for significant cost. This put me and most small refrigeration businesses in Texas OUT OF BUSINESS!

Thurmond

 

[Dumpster Jedi]

You didn't seriously just say that, did you?

Wow.

Understand there are loud obnoxious Asshats in EVERY lobby group , even this cause, and they are the ones who are most likely to get televised or quoted.

It's a fact, Jack.

Also, saying it's a joke, and that you like guns after a comment like that is similar to saying "Hey, I have friends that are [insert ethnicity here]" and using it as justification to spout off racist jokes.

Sarcasm doesn't translate well on the interwebz. I understand what you are saying, and it's the reason I no longer visit gun forums but you can't paint everyone that shares an interest with that wide a brush. ESPECIALLY if you're interested in gaining support.

I said it, laughed heartily, and said it again. Doesn't matter how many black friends I have, if people want to do something monumentally idiotic I will point and laugh at them. And the people that defend them.

That's where the "broad brush" problem lies. You don't defend a murderer because you both root for the same football team... but let's defend the folks toting rifles around restaurants because we both like guns. Because that's what a reasonable person does, right? Nope. Screw those people. They deserve the ire they get. They should be publicly ridiculed, and shown what responsible gun ownership is.

I've got more weapons in the house than there are people to wield them. I've got a CCW permit. My wife used to shoot competitively. I don't carry a concealed weapon on my person, nor in my vehicle. They are at home, secured like they should be. The permit is an afterthought, a legality... a piece of paper. It's not a license to carry any gun I want anywhere I want, and for the life of me, I've never once been tempted to enjoy a nice burrito with my favorite rifle slung over my shoulder. And I as a gun owner am under no obligation to support or defend any idiot that does. I will get as much amusement at their expense as I can, though.

Which brings us back to the joke, the funniest part of which was the implication that they could be put to some use other than national ridicule and scaring the hell out of sane people.

Snark aside, the entire point of the post was an existential commentary (harder to convey than sarcasm, I will say) on the state of politics in this country. That the sad thing is for a small group (like us) to get the attention it needs, you almost have to employ a larger fanatical group (like them) for visibility's sake. Or throw a bunch of money at some senators. Neither of which is likely to lead anywhere positive, much the same as nothing good would come from combining the gun argument with the drone argument in the public eye.

What we need is representation... somewhere between impotent senators concerned with getting re-elected and the wackos on the news trying to help by escalating the situation to a blind panic.

My opinions tend to offend delicate sensibilities. Try not to be so delicate. I'm as much a part of the "gun nut" crowd as you are, from an outside point of view. Stop defending people that are actively trying to make things harder for us.

 

[Stradawhovious]

My opinions tend to offend delicate sensibilities. Try not to be so delicate. I'm as much a part of the "gun nut" crowd as you are, from an outside point of view. Stop defending people that are actively trying to make things harder for us.

What we need is representation... somewhere between impotent senators concerned with getting re-elected and the wackos on the news trying to help by escalating the situation to a blind panic.

#1, Don't portend to know anything about me and who I defend. You don't. It's making you look silly, and is hilariously insulting.

#2, You're right we need representation, I just hope it isn't you. Your opinions make "us" look bad. Stop jumping to conclusions about people you've never met.

Have a nice day.

 

[FlyingMonkey]

I believe the wording was "National Community Based Organization".

Thurmond

Agreed. And that should be easily accomplished. Heck, I think in just this thread we've assembled a national community based group. (I counted at least ten states, California, Colorado, Georgia, Florida, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Washington.) Now we just need to get organized.

What are the requirements to become a recognized "national community based organization"?

 

[FlyingMonkey]

It will all settle down once the items of commercial licensing and revenue generation for the FAA are in place.

Thurmond

Don't hold your breath...

http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=816172&pp=100

We've been wanting fair regulations from the FAA for a long time now. They're obviously not interested in working with us, just against us.