Revoking 336 Hobby Rules
- Thread starter Philsmith76
- Start date
That was an approximate number....LOL....I know I saw them in the mid to late 60's. And especially in the 70's. Showing my age I guess.....
lol..... I spent many a day back in the mid 70s riding my bike to the “RC field” watching all the cool planes flying around!! They were amazing!!That was an approximate number....LOL....I know I saw them in the mid to late 60's. And especially in the 70's. Showing my age I guess.....
BTW, that field was directly under the flight path about a mile away from the BUSIEST general aviation airport in the country!! Van Nuys Airport.
Last edited:
Similar here....lived right by a small grass airport.....could walk down and watch the flyers. More RC's than any actual aircraft....was a blast!
That ten years spoke more to how long drones have been around, not how long RC aircraft have existed. As far as lots of them? Sure, but in the greater scheme of things, there’s probably a much higher percentage of the public with drones now than ever had RC aircraft, by far.. by way of illustration, my “RC aircraft” experience as a kid was a bunch of Estes rockets and a plastic P51 mustang with an 049 engine and two strings coming out the side that constituted its “remote control”.. now I’ve got an evil Phantom that, listening to some people around here, is more capable of taking down a 747 at will than a Russian S-500. If I was growing up today, the same level of involvement in the hobby would, of course, be a drone, not some out of the box plane that flew in circles around you if you didn’t bury it into the neighbor’s rhododendrons. True remote control is finally here for the masses: back then, it was simply out of reach for a lot of people.
Last edited:
Similar here, but had a Stuka and an early Cox Cub R/C........Got real dizzy with the Stuka....
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2016
- Messages
- 322
- Reaction score
- 83
Not quite so - emphasis is on COMMERCIAL (legally responsible for the safety of other people or other people’s property FOR A FEE).
That was not the subject of the discussion. I was replying to a post suggesting that since different classes (sizes) of vehicle required different licenses, then recreational flyers should be able to fly with lesser licenses than commercial flyers. That conflates two different issues. You need a different license to drive a tractor trailer than a car because you need different training.
If recreational pilots were flying smaller/simpler/different equipment than commercial pilots then one could make that argument here but, in general, they are not.
And your responsibility for the safety of people and property is no different whether you are flying commercially or recreationally.
Yeah, the nearest AMA endorsed model aircraft field to me is well within LaGuardia's Bravo airspace. Though to be fair it is a half mile off the formal flight paths.lol..... I spent many a day back in the mid 70s riding my bike to the “RC field” watching all the cool planes flying around!! They were amazing!!
BTW, that field was directly under the flight path about a mile away from the BUSIEST general aviation airport in the country!! Van Nuys Airport.
Meanwhile we all used to fly big kites in Flushing Meadow Park right under one of LGAs' flight paths. We'd roll out well over a thousand feet of string. Never mind that approaching aircraft would be well under 1500' AGL where we were flying. Nobody really gave it much more of a thought than how annoying it will be if the kite winds up going down on the other side of the Grand Central Parkway.
The 'Meadow's "parkies" started getting nosy about the kite flyers' altitudes after a "bear in the air" flying across the park got tangled up with a kite and took some damage. That was probably around four decades ago.
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2017
- Messages
- 89
- Reaction score
- 19
- Age
- 63
Come on man! That’s like saying you don’t understand how drunk driving laws are going to prevent some guy from getting behind the wheel, drunk and killing people. So we might as well not have drunk driving laws? Or am I missing your point?
We don't pass laws to prevent people from doing stupid things. We pass laws to have a tool to punish the idiots.
Which is, itself, a deterrent, so while it doesn't prevent, it certainly reduces the number of instances of those things.
It’s certainly not going to deter a terrorist... a drunk driver doesn’t often start the day saying “my goals are to drink a fifth of crown then drive around a while”...deterrence applies there. by comparison, the terrorist’s goal is specifically to commit a crime, deterrence is the last thing on their mind, and won’t even enter into the equation in their decision to do so in a case like this.
That's too obvious even to be worth saying, so what's your point? That if you can't deter everyone, including terrorists, then don't bother with laws at all?
The point is to to actually pay attention to just who it affects. If you put a law or regulation in place to fight terrorism, which means nothing whatsoever to a terrorist or antiterrorism efforts, but is a significant obstruction to a few million law abiding citizens’ pursuit of happiness, you’re either wasting your time in a big way, you’re just an idiot to begin with, or you’re being seriously dishonest about your true intent. In this case, I'll go with “all three”...
You are assuming that these laws are just intended to fight terrorism?
That's an assertion that I don't see any evidence for. Who is selling them as such?
Top Fed Makes Case for More UAS Regulation
That’s by no means an isolated incident. The DHS is making similar overtures to get authority to shoot them down pretty much at will, etc. (see other thread). Is there a great push to lock down drones solely because of potential terrorist use? No; but the possibility is thrown into every argument, as what’s going to happen if you don’t support tighter regulation. That’s the way Washington works. Throw out the worst case scenario, no matter how remote a possibility, and there’s a fear that a vote against the regulation in question can be used as a vote FOR the terrorists. Suggest to a congressman that a paper airplane can be made with anthrax-laced paper, and he’ll support banning those too. Banning a million paper airplanes in the hands of six year olds is less politically damaging than having your opponents connect you to the vote that overtly allowed the one plane with the anthrax to be legal.
Similar threads
