AMA Discussions Discuss AMA policies, decisions & any other AMA related topics here.

Model airplanes over NYC bad idea.

Reply
Old 02-02-2012, 06:01 PM
  #151
RacerPaul15
 
RacerPaul15's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Bellport, NY
Posts: 37
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Model airplanes over NYC bad idea.

Short write up and video from Airpigz.com    Superman, Iron Man And The Rocketeer All Fly Over New York?:    http://adf.ly/59FOw 
RacerPaul15 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2012, 06:16 PM
  #152
BobbyMcGee
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: South Florida
Posts: 375
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Model airplanes over NYC bad idea.

Ahh, the hell with law and order. That's boring. I vote for anarchy, chaos, confusion, casual dating, free sex, and liquor!
BobbyMcGee is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2012, 06:37 PM
  #153
Silent-AV8R
 
Silent-AV8R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 5,308
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Model airplanes over NYC bad idea.


Quote:
ORIGINAL: cj_rumley

Silent-

You have said many times that compliance with current FAA rules, in particular the 400' ceiling for MA operations, is voluntary and clearly support modelers ignoring it. Yet when it comes to some instance like the subject of this thread that is completely innocuous and unlikely to be of any concern whatever to FAA, you're Mr Lawandorder. How in 'ell do you rationalize that? I am concerned because AMA appears to apply similar rationalization that is nonsensical to me.

CJ

Well you seem intent about making this thread about what an AC means and not about what operating authority the New York flying was done under. Not sure why you want to take the thread off topic, but I'll try to answer your questions.


Please allow me to restate what I have said, since it is clear you have misunderstood me. What I have said many times is not that compliance with FAA rules is voluntary. I have said, just as the FAA says, that compliance with an AC is voluntary. I have never supported modelers ignoring anything. As far as your fixation on gliders over 400 feet, as long as it is done safely that is what matters.

Here's an oddity. The FAA witnessed a model glider well in excess of 400 feet during a demo for them. Full size traffic transited the area and the model immediately descended. The FAA people were impressed and never said a word about being over 400 feet. Go figure. Had the glider caused a conflict then I suspect things would have gone differently.

I have further not said anything about the subject of this thread other than they likely were not operating under any of the three FAA-defined authorities for sUAS operations in the NAS. Not sure where the snide "Mr. Law and Order" crap comes from. What is so difficult to understand? Which of the three operating authorizations were they operating under? Simple question.

I thought the flight was cool and I do not think they compromised safety in the least. But their flight is a perfect illustration of why the FAA is writing far more stringently defined regulations for sUAS operations, including models.
Silent-AV8R is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2012, 06:45 PM
  #154
jpjamie
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Rochester, MN
Posts: 118
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Model airplanes over NYC bad idea.

This is a publicity stunt for a movie about teenagers with special powers. I saw the clip on CNN and Moos as usual spins it to the populist audience. The link was "flying people over New York City" to get attention. The stunt works for the movie promotion, but it doesn't help us in the public eye. One wonders if the sUAS guys are are going to use this as ammo to further strengthen their case for FAA regulation of the hobby industry. I'm sure the commercial sUAS industry wants to distance themselves from any public perception of "toying around" as they mean business and don't want "toys" getting in the way.
jpjamie is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2012, 07:00 PM
  #155
cj_rumley
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga, CA
Posts: 1,768
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Model airplanes over NYC bad idea.


Quote:
ORIGINAL: Silent-AV8R


Please allow me to restate what I have said, since it is clear you have misunderstood me. What I have said many times is not that compliance with FAA rules is voluntary. I have said, just as the FAA says, that compliance with an AC is voluntary. I have never supported modelers ignoring anything. As far as your fixation on gliders over 400 feet, as long as it is done safely that is what matters.
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10940794

Compliance with an ACis not voluntary after it has been incorporated by reference into regulatory material. But then you knew that...........
cj_rumley is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2012, 07:34 PM
  #156
ira d
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Moreno Valley, CA
Posts: 3,049
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Model airplanes over NYC bad idea.


Quote:
ORIGINAL: H5487


Quote:
ORIGINAL: takevin

Original poster is a wet blanket No harm was done so what the heck is the beef?
The beef is that three r/c pilots (AMA members who supposedly knew better) illegally used their models for commercial purposes during a time when the FAA has all radio controlled aircraft under their microscope. Those three pilots didn't do us any favors.

Harvey

I can't see why you think the rc pilots should have know better, In fact if it was not for all the chatter here on RCU most folks would have no way of knowing
that anybody thought anything negtive about the flight.

1. The AMA as far as i'm aware has not contacted it's members and said the flight violated any AMA rules or laws.

2. As a recreational flyer there is no law that says we have to know the laws that apply to non recreational rc flying.

3. There is no law that says the flight was not allowed because the pilots and models were considered hobbist.

4. I not heard that the FAA has contacted the pilots and made a threat to bring charges.
ira d is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2012, 07:49 PM
  #157
Silent-AV8R
 
Silent-AV8R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 5,308
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Model airplanes over NYC bad idea.

Quote:
ORIGINAL: cj_rumley


Quote:
ORIGINAL: Silent-AV8R


Please allow me to restate what I have said, since it is clear you have misunderstood me. What I have said many times is not that compliance with FAA rules is voluntary. I have said, just as the FAA says, that compliance with an AC is voluntary. I have never supported modelers ignoring anything. As far as your fixation on gliders over 400 feet, as long as it is done safely that is what matters.
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10940794

Compliance with an AC is not voluntary after it has been incorporated by reference into regulatory material. But then you knew that...........

Nope, missed it by that much....

All the Guidance does is make it clear that AC 91-57 is the operating authority for models. It does not turn it into a mandatory compliance issue. Hard to follow I know when your mind is already made up, but an AC is an AC. All the FAA has done is spell out that for models, and models alone, AC 91-57 is the authority under which they operate.
Silent-AV8R is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2012, 08:32 PM
  #158
cj_rumley
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga, CA
Posts: 1,768
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Model airplanes over NYC bad idea.


Quote:
ORIGINAL: Silent-AV8R

Quote:
ORIGINAL: cj_rumley


Quote:
ORIGINAL: Silent-AV8R


Please allow me to restate what I have said, since it is clear you have misunderstood me. What I have said many times is not that compliance with FAA rules is voluntary. I have said, just as the FAA says, that compliance with an AC is voluntary. I have never supported modelers ignoring anything. As far as your fixation on gliders over 400 feet, as long as it is done safely that is what matters.
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10940794

Compliance with an ACis not voluntary after it has been incorporated by reference into regulatory material. But then you knew that...........

Nope, missed it by that much....

All the Guidance does is make it clear that AC 91-57 is the operating authority for models. It does not turn it into a mandatory compliance issue. Hard to follow I know when your mind is already made up, but an AC is an AC. All the FAA has done is spell out that for models, and models alone, AC 91-57 is the authority under which they operate.

From http://www.faa.gov/library/manuals/a...83-30_Ch12.pdf

"Other FAA Documents
Advisory Circulars (ACs)
The FAA issues advisory circulars to inform the
aviation public in a systematic way of non-regulatory
material. Unless incorporated into a regulation by
reference, the contents of an advisory circular are not
binding on the public
. Advisory circulars are issued
in a numbered-subject system corresponding to the
subject areas of the Federal Aviation Regulations
(Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Chapter
I, Federal Aviation Administration) and Chapter III,
Commercial Space Transportation, Federal Aviation
Administration, Department of Transportation, Parts
400–450. An AC is issued to provide guidance and
information in a designated subject area or to show a
method acceptable to the Administrator for complying
with a related federal aviation regulation."

cj_rumley is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2012, 09:45 PM
  #159
Sport_Pilot
 
Sport_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 16,908
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Model airplanes over NYC bad idea.


Quote:
ORIGINAL: H5487


Quote:
ORIGINAL: cj_rumley
AMA's interpretation of Guidance 08 is that since AC 91-57, which is referenced as authorization for operation of MA is just advisory, so compliance is voluntary.
Why do people continue to say that compliance with an AC is optional? Advisory Circulars are written into Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14CFR). While the AC lacks the legal clout of a regulation, it is often cited as supporting documentation for a charge against a pilot. Call your local FSDO and ask one of the inspectors if ACs are optional.

Harvey

They use them in conjunction with the reckless flying clause in the FAR. That might be true if you have a pilot license. If you are not a pilot the FAA cannot take your license away. There are fines of course, but hard to use this when the recless clause does not apply to RC aircraft.
Sport_Pilot is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2012, 09:54 PM
  #160
Sport_Pilot
 
Sport_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 16,908
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Model airplanes over NYC bad idea.


Quote:
ORIGINAL: Silent-AV8R

CJ/Abel. I've given you all the document references. Your refusal to read and understand them appears to serve no useful purpose other than to continue this argument. We are not talking about the AMA, how the AMA "enforces" FAA rules or anything of the like. My one and only focus in this thread has been to focus on the FAA's recognized operating authority for sUAS in the NAS. I simply am at a loss as to what else can be said or quoted.

I am in no way trying to uphold law-n-order or whatever. I am simply stating facts. Facts you, and a few others, seem completely unwilling to accept. That is fine, it does not change the truthfulness of the facts.
Your contention is that any payment to fly an RC plane is commercial. People continue to show that payment does not automatically make a flight a commercial flight. Your refusal to read and understand this appears to serve no useful purpose.

The fact is that this is apparently decided now on a case by case basis. FAA officials have said that getting paid for RC training and flight testing will not be commercial. This will all be very clear soon.
Sport_Pilot is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2012, 10:18 PM
  #161
Silent-AV8R
 
Silent-AV8R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 5,308
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Model airplanes over NYC bad idea.


Quote:
ORIGINAL: Sport_Pilot


Your contention is that any payment to fly an RC plane is commercial.
I've said no such thing. As a matter of fact I have been saying that the term "commercial" has no relevance to the operating authority that must be used. You are either a recreational/sport/hobby (model), a civil, or public use sUAS. Right now the only Special Airworthiness certificates that are considered are defined as follows:

Quote:
An SAC-EC is the only certification means available to civil operators for UAS and optionallypiloted aircraft (OPA). Due to regulatory requirements, this approval precludes carrying persons or property for compensation or hire, but does allow operations for research and development, market survey, and crew training.
http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives...FACT_Sheet.pdf
The FAA also has stated this:

Quote:
The FAA has issued five experimental certificates for unmanned aircraft systems for the purposes of research and development, marketing surveys, or crew training. UAS issued experimental certificates may not be used for compensation or hire.
http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives...notice_uas.pdf
You are the one obsessed with what is, and is not, commercial use. I simply want to know which of the three possible types of authorization people think these fellows were operating under.



Silent-AV8R is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2012, 02:46 AM
  #162
AugerDawger
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 154
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Model airplanes over NYC bad idea.

Quote:
ORIGINAL: Silent-AV8R

As a matter of fact I have been saying that the term "commercial" has no relevance to the operating authority that must be used. You are either a recreational/sport/hobby (model), a civil, or public use sUAS. Right now the only Special Airworthiness certificates that are considered are defined as follows:

This.

The uSAS AC defines and distinguishes betweenmodel aircraft (a/k/a R/C) and sUAS.
AugerDawger is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2012, 03:00 AM
  #163
AugerDawger
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 154
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Model airplanes over NYC bad idea.


Quote:
ORIGINAL: H5487

Quote:
ORIGINAL: cj_rumley
Are modelers expected to read every word of FARs, ACs, policy statements, guidance documents, etc. to ferret out rules they must follow?
No, of course not. One of the purposes of the AMA is to be the buffer between modelers and the FARs. As Silent has pointed out several times, the three pilots flew their models for commercial purposes during a time when the FAA has put a hold on all commercial UAV operations until the NPRM becomes law. While the FAA has said that some limited exceptions to the moritorium will be approved, some of us doubt that they had a waiver because the write-up for the YouTube video includes a few curious statements that have us wondering about the legality of their flights.

While we're not against positive media exposure for model airplane use, we're not for it if the flying was done illegally; especially during a time when the FAA is watching us closely.

Harvey
This is exactly like my other hobby where the "sanctioning body" is in bed with the governing authority to restrict use and ownership where it is otherwise safe, legal and not a problem. And even more like it the restriction is not due to theactualunsafe record or security threat of the hobby itself, but the possible criminal use by a third party.

Watch AMA membership decline as well.

AugerDawger is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2012, 03:36 AM
  #164
bkdavy
 
bkdavy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: FrederickMD
Posts: 2,114
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Model airplanes over NYC bad idea.

http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/off...his-spring.cnn

Apparently they did it right - practiced at a safe location, got permission from (well not sure who, but they had a permit), flew in safe locations (used camera tricks to make it look more dramatic, but I suspect they never even got close to major landmarks).

My only concern is that someone less responsible may try it without these precautions. Perhaps we should be playing up the positive aspects of what they did right, rather than panicking and worrying about the scope of AC 91-57.

Brad
bkdavy is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2012, 03:44 AM
  #165
on_your_six
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Maryland, MD
Posts: 1,361
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Model airplanes over NYC bad idea.

Wow, I did not know that I needed a law degree to FOLLOW the law. Sir, you need to change the color scheme because it is offensive to women and marginalizes their brains for their busts. The other reason you need to change is because it is plain ugly. If they are paying you to fly at airshows, that too is a commercial venture and disallowed by the current law. Should you fail to follow the law and someone is injured, it is willful disregard. You have already advertised here that you NOW know the rule. You would have been better off to shut up and pleaded ignorance later. Does your other shoe fit in your mouth too?

Quote:
ORIGINAL: BobbyMcGee
Quote:
ORIGINAL: on_your_six
You are correct... the only reason our private RC aircraft are still flying is because they are not commercial enterprises.
If you try and start an arial photography business (or any other commercial RC flying) and advertise it.. don't be surprised at the stop order arriving from the FAA.
Holy crap! You mean I have to repaint my Hooter's plane because it falls under ''Commercial advertising''?
Get a grip! Where is your law degree that supports your idea as to what commercial advertising is, or is not; how it is used; and how it relates to such FAA regulation?
The way this is going, next you could all be discussing and debating neuro-surgery as if you knew all about it.
on_your_six is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2012, 04:18 AM
  #166
on_your_six
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Maryland, MD
Posts: 1,361
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Model airplanes over NYC bad idea.

All of this inane discussion is exactly why we need the FAA to establish exactly what is allowable and not allowable when flying RC airplanes.

Every RC pilot should be forced to attend RC ground school and required to pass an exam on the appropriate FARs in order to fly. Then we will talk about flight testing and competency. The AMA guidelines are a bunch of maybe you should possibly think about doing this suggestions.

As everyone here with a pilots license has tried to help you understand the MAJOR differences between private and commercial tickets, you either don't accept it or don't want to accept it. The rules are the rules. You want to fly GA aircraft, you follow the rules or you deal with license suspensions and fines. Of course, there are things that slip through and everybody knows someone who got away with something. The rule did not change, you just got lucky it was not enforced.

The first time we have a GA aircraft legally transiting an RC field and is struck by an RC plane, the FAA will descend on our hobby. Private is private, commercial is commercial..

Thanks to the guy who posted the shared expenses circular.
on_your_six is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2012, 04:47 AM
  #167
Sport_Pilot
 
Sport_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 16,908
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Model airplanes over NYC bad idea.

Quote:
If they are paying you to fly at airshows, that too is a commercial venture and disallowed by the current law.
Show me where it says so in the regulations, or even the policy letters. There is noting defining getting paid for our hobby as being commercial.
Sport_Pilot is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2012, 04:51 AM
  #168
Sport_Pilot
 
Sport_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 16,908
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Model airplanes over NYC bad idea.

Quote:
All of this inane discussion is exactly why we need the FAA to establish exactly what is allowable and not allowable when flying RC airplanes.
No this is all caused by their interferance. Before nobody cared if you got paid to fly your R/C plane. The FAA stepped into it when they said using R/C for activities requiring video or other data from an R/C plane. It did not even matter if you got paid for it. IMO that ruling is wrong as theygenerally fly in not navigable airspace. However they made this a policy, we will see it it gets better or worse when they submit their proposed rules.
Sport_Pilot is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2012, 05:08 AM
  #169
littlecrankshaf
 
littlecrankshaf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: here
Posts: 5,413
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Model airplanes over NYC bad idea.

Quote:
ORIGINAL: on_your_six

All of this inane discussion is exactly why we need the FAA to establish exactly what is allowable and not allowable when flying RC airplanes.
This one sentence comprises everything that is wrong with our country today. We are screwed...
littlecrankshaf is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2012, 06:05 AM
  #170
CashD
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: City
Posts: 68
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Model airplanes over NYC bad idea.


Quote:
ORIGINAL: littlecrankshaf


Quote:
ORIGINAL: on_your_six

All of this inane discussion is exactly why we need the FAA to establish exactly what is allowable and not allowable when flying RC airplanes.
This one sentence comprises everything that is wrong with out country today. We are screwed...

See my post #118 in this thread. Our rationale is different (similar but different) but the conclusions are scary similar.

Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	Sp45483.jpg
Views:	9
Size:	48.6 KB
ID:	1722705  
CashD is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2012, 06:11 AM
  #171
on_your_six
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Maryland, MD
Posts: 1,361
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Model airplanes over NYC bad idea.

Quite the contrary, it is your type that cannot see a larger picture and the consequences of ones actions upon others. That narcissistic, egotistic attitude would have you believe that you alone can decide what is right and wrong for everyone else.

Quote:
ORIGINAL: littlecrankshaf
Quote:
ORIGINAL: on_your_six
All of this inane discussion is exactly why we need the FAA to establish exactly what is allowable and not allowable when flying RC airplanes.
This one sentence comprises everything that is wrong with out country today. We are screwed...
on_your_six is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2012, 06:20 AM
  #172
littlecrankshaf
 
littlecrankshaf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: here
Posts: 5,413
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Model airplanes over NYC bad idea.


Quote:
ORIGINAL: CashD


Quote:
ORIGINAL: littlecrankshaf


Quote:
ORIGINAL: on_your_six

All of this inane discussion is exactly why we need the FAA to establish exactly what is allowable and not allowable when flying RC airplanes.
This one sentence comprises everything that is wrong with out country today. We are screwed...

See my post #118 in this thread. Our rationale is different (similar but different) but the conclusions are scary similar.

I caught that and I agree!

littlecrankshaf is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2012, 06:24 AM
  #173
HoundDog
 
HoundDog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Apache Junction AZ. WI 0WI8
Posts: 4,470
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Model airplanes over NYC bad idea.

How big can one make one of these things?



http://news.cnet.com/8301-11386_3-57369480-76/see-nano-quadcopter-robots-swarm-video/

HoundDog is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2012, 06:26 AM
  #174
Silent-AV8R
 
Silent-AV8R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 5,308
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Model airplanes over NYC bad idea.


Quote:
ORIGINAL: AugerDawger

Quote:
ORIGINAL: Silent-AV8R

As a matter of fact I have been saying that the term ''commercial'' has no relevance to the operating authority that must be used. You are either a recreational/sport/hobby (model), a civil, or public use sUAS. Right now the only Special Airworthiness certificates that are considered are defined as follows:

This.

The uSAS AC defines and distinguishes between model aircraft (a/k/a R/C) and sUAS.

The FAA Des not see models as separate from sUAS. RC hobby models are a type of sUAS. Not sure what "uSAS AC" means or what you are talking about.
Silent-AV8R is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2012, 06:32 AM
  #175
H5487
 
H5487's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 1,080
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Model airplanes over NYC bad idea.

Quote:
ORIGINAL: Silent-AV8R


Quote:
ORIGINAL: AugerDawger

Quote:
ORIGINAL: Silent-AV8R

As a matter of fact I have been saying that the term ''commercial'' has no relevance to the operating authority that must be used. You are either a recreational/sport/hobby (model), a civil, or public use sUAS. Right now the only Special Airworthiness certificates that are considered are defined as follows:

This.

The uSAS AC defines and distinguishes between model aircraft (a/k/a R/C) and sUAS.

The FAA Des not see models as separate from sUAS. RC hobby models are a type of sUAS. Not sure what ''uSAS AC'' means or what you are talking about.
Silent, I think he was referring to the sUAS Advisory Circular. We all do typos occasionally.

Harvey
H5487 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:30 AM.