Register

If this is your first visit, please click the Sign Up now button to begin the process of creating your account so you can begin posting on our forums! The Sign Up process will only take up about a minute of two of your time.

Page 6 of 38 FirstFirst ... 4567816 ... LastLast
Results 126 to 150 of 941

  1. #126
    Silent-AV8R's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Orange County, CA
    Posts
    4,850
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Regulation passed the House


    ORIGINAL: Sport_Pilot


    ORIGINAL: Silent-AV8R

    Interestingly enough, the FAA never intended to include or address free flight, since they are only concerned about aircraft that are capable of navigation. But they do have rules about rockets, especially high altitude rockets.

    So a 10,000 pound free flight would be OK?

    Beats me. All I know is that from what I have been told the coming regulations only apply to aircraft that are capable of being navigated. Free flight and control line are not considered to meet the definition of a sUAS according to the FAA. Perhaps you can contact them and ask your question.
    Team Futaba - RClipos.com

  2. #127
    Silent-AV8R's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Orange County, CA
    Posts
    4,850
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Regulation passed the House


    ORIGINAL: KidEpoxy

    wow
    again, we see the Silent Standard could be used for FPV:

    Your snide inference aside, I have not made any statements regarding FPV, or BLOS FPV other than to say that from what I can glean the FAA is not going to allow BLOS FPV for models or civil/public use sUAS. So please do not twist what I have written in an attempt to further your own arguments.
    Team Futaba - RClipos.com

  3. #128
    KidEpoxy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    San Antonio, TX
    Posts
    6,681
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Regulation passed the House

    Your snide inference aside, I have not made any statements regarding
    snide? what snide?
    you (Silent) seem to have your own logical parameters / qualifiers (a standard) for what is safe,
    and you demonstrate the Silent Standard as applied to a particular MA Discipline (soaring).

    If you want to say your logical standard can justify one discipline as Safe,
    how can you say your logic is flawed / inapplicable when just judging a different discipline?

    It was your standard of
    I do know that based on the safe, accident and incident free flying of thousands of soaring pilots doing literally 10's of thousand of flights per year for the past 30 years that soaring can, and is, done safely.
    ok, what happens when we plug in other types of flying that we can "Base" whether it "can, and is, done safely"

    you want to say your standard of basing future safety on accident-free past is valid
    yet you shy away from your own logic when we just change who is being judged
    by your Silent Standard


    Just what happens when we plug another discipline into the Silent Standard?
    Based on the UNsafe, accident and incident history flying of 3DHovering, it canT, and isNT, done safely. (colorado)
    Based on the safe, accident and incident free history flying of FVP, it can, and is, done safely.
    Based on the safe, accident and incident free history flying of Soaring, it can, and is, done safely.

  4. #129

    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    AugustaGA
    Posts
    288
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Regulation passed the House

    as far as  i am concerned AMA  is the NCBO  wheither you like it or not just like ABC is the american bowling congress  AMA has always taken care of our sport and i see no reason that they will not contuine doing so as for me i'm going to fly   ,  and support AMA as i have always done  , as for you guys who want to bash AMA  have at it  , thats your right  , but it is also my right to support AMA  and i will and do!!!!!!!!!!  one question why do you not want to belong to AMA ?  why would you not want to belong to it ?  and why are you flying with no protection and at a chartered field??????AMA  has been meeting with FAA  they are involved to protect the hobby  , so just keep on worrying  and worrying  90% of all we worry about we can't change  and the other 10% doesn't matter at all

  5. #130

    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Fort Worth, TX
    Posts
    1,254

    RE: Regulation passed the House

    ORIGINAL: KidEpoxy

    does your club go above the 400' cap in the House text?
    ..........................
    Where do you see anything about any 400 foot altitude cap anywhere int he House of Representatives verbage?

    (Hint: you will not see it as it is not in there, so read it again. I have reposted it for your reading pleasure.)


    SEC. 336. SPECIAL RULE FOR MODEL AIRCRAFT.
    (a) In General.Notwithstanding any other provision of law relating to the incorporation of unmanned aircraft systems into Federal Aviation Administration plans and policies, including this subtitle, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration may not promulgate any rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft, or an aircraft being developed as a model aircraft, if

    (1) the aircraft is flown strictly for hobby or recreational use;

    (2) the aircraft is operated in accordance with a community-based set of safety guidelines and within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization;

    (3) the aircraft is limited to not more than 55 pounds unless otherwise certified through a design, construction, inspection, flight test, and operational safety program administered by a community-based organization;

    (4) the aircraft is operated in a manner that does not interfere with and gives way to any manned aircraft; and

    (5) when flown within 5 miles of an airport, the operator of the aircraft provides the airport operator and the airport air traffic control tower (when an air traffic facility is located at the airport) with prior notice of the operation (model aircraft operators flying from a permanent location within 5 miles of an airport should establish a mutually-agreed upon operating procedure with the airport operator and the airport air traffic control tower (when an air traffic facility is located at the airport)).

    (b) Statutory Construction.Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the authority of the Administrator to pursue enforcement action against persons operating model aircraft who endanger the safety of the national airspace system.

    (c) Model Aircraft Defined.In this section, the term ``model aircraft'' means an unmanned aircraft that is

    (1) capable of sustained flight in the atmosphere;

    (2) flown within visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft; and

    (3) flown for hobby or recreational purposes.

    Electric Coolhunter

  6. #131
    bkdavy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    FrederickMD
    Posts
    2,113
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Regulation passed the House

    Committee report was agreed to in the Senate today by a vote of 75 to 20 (5 not voting). Next step should be Presidents signature.

    Interesting that the vote in the House on the committee report was pretty split along partison lines (Democrats mostly against), but an overwhelming majority in the Democrat controlled Senate.

    I suspect this legislation will further delay publication of the NPRM, as the FAA will have to reconcile the proposed rule against the legislation.

    For those that are interested, the version that was voted on is in the conferenc report, and can be located at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CRPT-11...112hrpt381.pdf

    Brad

  7. #132
    H5487's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    914
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Regulation passed the House

    ORIGINAL: Thomas B
    Where do you see anything about any 400 foot altitude cap anywhere in the House of Representatives verbage?
    Thomas,

    They're referring to the old FAA Advisory Circular 91-57(Read it Here) which, to date, is about the only guidance that the FAA has issued in regards to model airplanes. It deals primarily with keeping models and full-scale aircraft separated. At 31 years old, the AC is archaic and out of touch with current modeling technology and some of us suspect that the anticipated upcoming NPRM will replace the AC (in addition to the other issues that the NPRM will undoubtedly address).

    Harvey
    Weather Geek

  8. #133
    H5487's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    914
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Regulation passed the House


    ORIGINAL: bkdavy

    Committee report was agreed to in the Senate today by a vote of 75 to 20 (5 not voting). Next step should be Presidents signature.

    Interesting that the vote in the House on the committee report was pretty split along partison lines (Democrats mostly against), but an overwhelming majority in the Democrat controlled Senate.

    I suspect this legislation will further delay publication of the NPRM, as the FAA will have to reconcile the proposed rule against the legislation.

    For those that are interested, the version that was voted on is in the conferenc report, and can be located at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CRPT-11...112hrpt381.pdf

    Brad
    Thanks Brad!
    Weather Geek

  9. #134

    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Lorain, OH
    Posts
    1,614
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Regulation passed the House

    Just did a quick look see on line, and the earliest mention I found of a 400 foot altitude limit for model aircraft is in an FAA advisory document, 91-57, dated June 9, 1981. It references 400' above ground level. The AMA has recommended a 400' altitude limit when within 3 miles of an airport. FAA has never complained or objected that I'm aware of. One of my questions happens to be, how many people actually are capable of judging the altitude of their model, or any model, within 400'? We've tried this at our club a couple times, using a recording altimeter mounted in several different planes. On one occasion, 7 of us guessed the altitude of a 6' span Cub between 200' to 4000'. Nobody guessed the correct altitude, from the instrument, of 2260'. Another time, a Goldberg Falcon 56 was flown approximately where most of us spent most of out time. Guesses were from 20' to 500' Recorded altitue was 135'. Again, nobody was right. It's harder to do than you'd think.

    And I seem to recall seeing somebody on a previous page during a discussion of LOS range, saying it wouldn't be hard to increase the transmitter power. Technically true, but completely illegal. The FCC would definitely object.

    Also, while searching the AMA site, a message came up that the Senate had approved the Bill. Seems all that remains to get the shadow at least partially lifted is for the President to sign it.

    This definitely won't be a blank check to start (or for some people) stupid, unsafe flying.

  10. #135
    littlecrankshaf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    here
    Posts
    4,971
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Regulation passed the House


    ORIGINAL: Silent-AV8R




    Beats me. All I know is that from what I have been told the coming regulations only apply to aircraft that are capable of being navigated. Free flight and control line are not considered to meet the definition of a sUAS according to the FAA. Perhaps you can contact them and ask your question.
    I love it... Tomorrow I am going model airplane naviagating...
    It is very important to understand that Jesus not only died for our sins but died because of our sins...even harder to understand now, exactly what were those sins???

  11. #136
    Silent-AV8R's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Orange County, CA
    Posts
    4,850
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Regulation passed the House

    In my mind the major win in the Congress passing the legislation is that it removes the FAA from the process of reviewing and accepting any alternative standards for models. Basically operate as the bill defines and the FAA is out of the picture. Of course, for those that choose not to participate in a CBO program there will be the default path of the FAA. Either way the CBO is the less restrictive path, but at least with the legislative bill we are out from under the FAA having a shot at our standards.

    And of course the added extra is this will no doubt drive a certain element out of their minds with conspiracy theories and talk of monopolies and so on. Because in all of this it is less important what the FAA could have done to us than it is that the AMA had any part in making anything better for anyone.

    Of course, for them, they can go and start their own organization and have an easier go of it since they do not have to go through the FAA to get their standards reviewed and accepted.
    Team Futaba - RClipos.com

  12. #137
    KidEpoxy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    San Antonio, TX
    Posts
    6,681
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Regulation passed the House

    Thomas
    you're right, some old text musta bled into my stream of thought when posting that
    ... OMG, ghost-regs[&:] ... bills trying to possess me from beyond the legislative grave

  13. #138

    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Lorain, OH
    Posts
    1,614
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Regulation passed the House

    Silent-AV8R, sad, but true. I wonder if the NRA has this kind of opposition among shooters.

  14. #139
    KidEpoxy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    San Antonio, TX
    Posts
    6,681
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Regulation passed the House

    Harvey
    They're referring to the old FAA Advisory Circular 91-57(Read it Here) which, to date, is about the only guidance that the FAA has issued in regards to model airplanes.
    you can get a more recent view of 400' in FAA texts-
    July 2011 (updated) sUAS Fact Sheet pg1 mentions models generally limited to 400'
    July 2010 sUAS Fact Sheet pg1 also had that 400'
    Apr 2009 sUAS ARC (just recomendations to FAA, not FAA telling us what to do) has 400'
    Feb 2007 'policy07' pg5 has the 400'

    no, I wasnt channeling the 30yo ghost of AC91-57, but the texts going on over past 5 years

  15. #140
    Silent-AV8R's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Orange County, CA
    Posts
    4,850
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Regulation passed the House


    ORIGINAL: KidEpoxy

    Harvey
    They're referring to the old FAA Advisory Circular 91-57(Read it Here) which, to date, is about the only guidance that the FAA has issued in regards to model airplanes.
    you can get a more recent view of 400' in FAA texts-
    July 2011 (updated) sUAS Fact Sheet pg1 mentions models generally limited to 400'
    July 2010 sUAS Fact Sheet pg1 also had that 400'
    Apr 2009 sUAS ARC (just recomendations to FAA, not FAA telling us what to do) has 400'
    Feb 2007 'policy07' pg5 has the 400'

    no, I wasnt channeling the 30yo ghost of AC91-57, but the texts going on over past 5 years

    And every single one of those reference AC 91-57. Which will be null and void for the most part once the President signs the FAA Reauthorization Bill. Section 336 of that bill has no mention of altitude limits of any kind. Of course the Bill does require participation in a CBO program, which to many is an evil unto itself, but for those folks they can sit back and wait for what the FAA has in store for them, and then complain that the AMA did not do more for them. It is a true "Win-Win" for the AMA haters.
    Team Futaba - RClipos.com

  16. #141
    Silent-AV8R's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Orange County, CA
    Posts
    4,850
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Regulation passed the House

    And Congress took the time to outline what they mean by a CBO in the notes on the Conference Committee report:

    In this section the term ``nationwide community-based organization'' is intended to mean a membership based association that
    represents the aeromodeling community within the United States; provides its members a comprehensive set of safety guidelines that underscores safe aeromodeling operations within the National Airspace System and the protection and safety of the general public on the ground; develops and maintains mutually supportive programming with educational institutions, government entities and other aviation associations; and acts as a liaison with government agencies as an advocate for its members.
    Team Futaba - RClipos.com

  17. #142
    H5487's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    914
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Regulation passed the House

    Guys,

    The way I understand it, the FAA's not out of the picture. The bill still charges the FAA with writing UAV guidelines (the NPRM) and presenting them to congress within the next 8 months or so. As near as I can tell, the House and Senate bills only clarified that recreational models won't be lumped in with UAVs; it didn't exclude us completely did it?. AC91-57 is 31 years old and is hardly out of step with current modeling capabilities. I see either an updated AC91-57 or a completely different, more comprehensive one come out before all the dust settles.

    Guys, don't trash me for my speculations. I've already decided to step back from this thread and mostly disengage myself from participating because of all the venom, senseless arguing, bullheadedness, childishness, and downright hatred for one another that I've seen here. The above is ONLY my speculation. If you don't like it, then ignore it.

    Harvey
    Weather Geek

  18. #143
    H5487's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    914
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Regulation passed the House

    ORIGINAL: Silent-AV8R


    ORIGINAL: KidEpoxy

    Harvey
    They're referring to the old FAA Advisory Circular 91-57(Read it Here) which, to date, is about the only guidance that the FAA has issued in regards to model airplanes.
    you can get a more recent view of 400' in FAA texts-
    July 2011 (updated) sUAS Fact Sheet pg1 mentions models generally limited to 400'
    July 2010 sUAS Fact Sheet pg1 also had that 400'
    Apr 2009 sUAS ARC (just recomendations to FAA, not FAA telling us what to do) has 400'
    Feb 2007 'policy07' pg5 has the 400'

    no, I wasnt channeling the 30yo ghost of AC91-57, but the texts going on over past 5 years

    And every single one of those reference AC 91-57. Which will be null and void for the most part once the President signs the FAA Reauthorization Bill. Section 336 of that bill has no mention of altitude limits of any kind. Of course the Bill does require participation in a CBO program, which to many is an evil unto itself, but for those folks they can sit back and wait for what the FAA has in store for them, and then complain that the AMA did not do more for them. It is a true ''Win-Win'' for the AMA haters.
    Silent,

    I don't recall the FAA Reauthorization Bill voiding previous guidance such as AC91-57. I saw where the FAA has been instructed to present its proposed UAV rules to Congress within 8 months but I didn't see where 91-57 will become void immediately upon the president signing the bill. That wouldn't make sense. Did I miss something?

    Harvey
    Weather Geek

  19. #144

    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Lorain, OH
    Posts
    1,614
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Regulation passed the House

    Or does the AMA Safety Code now eventually replace the AC91-57? Seems that right now, the AMA is the only member based organization in the country with such a set of guidlines. I don't have any problem with that! The Safety Code specifies the 400' limit only up to 3 miles from an airport, not beyond, and suggests, or requests, that a flyer operating within that distance notify the airport operations people. Seems now that the situation leaves us fairly free to operate pretty much as we have been doing. Of course, some parts of that situation still kind of worries me, considering what some people on a couple forums have written about what they like to do.

  20. #145
    littlecrankshaf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    here
    Posts
    4,971
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Regulation passed the House


    ORIGINAL: Silent-AV8R





    And every single one of those reference AC 91-57. Which will be null and void for the most part once the President signs the FAA Reauthorization Bill.
    Not sure how you see an advisory would be mitigated or have less weight if the bill is signed into law...or how it has more weight now... I can only image you meant if FAA were to make "the advisory" into a compulsory regulation in an attempt not regulate model aviation as per AMA. Dang, what did I just say? (shaking head)
    It is very important to understand that Jesus not only died for our sins but died because of our sins...even harder to understand now, exactly what were those sins???

  21. #146
    KidEpoxy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    San Antonio, TX
    Posts
    6,681
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Regulation passed the House

    LCS
    I think you were alluding to
    the way that regardless of AMA (or other CBOs) getting an exclusion rfom new FAA regs,
    the FAA is still free to go ahead and make up any new toy airplane reg they want,
    be that 400', 20lb, No-Turbine, or even requiring all MA pilots to eat lil chocolate donuts.

    As we went over last year when the senate did this,
    for it to be good that US Legislature gave CBOs an exclusion from upcoming oppressive new MA regulations,
    it kinda implies there are going to be oppressive new MA regulations

    As Harvey just reminded us
    The way I understand it, the FAA's not out of the picture.
    as was said last year
    If at some future time FAA says it wants CBOs to stop doing XXX,
    this bill says the FAA cant make a rule or reg to stop CBOs from doing it.
    However, if (as folks her like to believe) the FAA is allowed to control CBOS by having Accept/Decline power over the cbo standards,
    then the FAA will not need a reg or rule to end cbos doing XXX,
    they simply no longer Accept cbo standards that have XXX in them
    &
    Regs have a NPRM and comment period,
    what this bill does is let FAA take all those regs they would have had to go thru procedures to make,
    and let them just 'decline' any cbo standards that have that activity in it.

    This bill could actually be removing CBOs ability to NPRM Comment protest whatever restrictions the FAA feels like putting on models. S233 dont stop the FAA from making whatever regs it wants against models, and s223 does nothing to protect cbos from those regs from being imposed onto CBO modeling by simply not accepting their standards

    With this bill, The FAA still has an unchecked free reign to impose the "burden of FAA regs over the Model Hobby",

  22. #147
    KidEpoxy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    San Antonio, TX
    Posts
    6,681
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Regulation passed the House

    Silent
    In this section the term ``nationwide community-based organization'' is intended to mean a membership based association that
    represents the aeromodeling community within the United States; provides its members a comprehensive set of safety guidelines that underscores safe aeromodeling operations within the National Airspace System and the protection and safety of the general public on the ground; develops and maintains mutually supportive programming with educational institutions, government entities and other aviation associations; and acts as a liaison with government agencies as an advocate for its members.
    great,
    I was afraid there was going to be some kind of actual certification or form to fill out,
    but I dont see any requirement for DoT/FAA/Congress/AnyGovernmentOffice to actually recognize/authenticate as CBO
    a group of guys that do that stuff and just declare themselves to be a CBO.

    Last time I checked, average americans can correspond with the 'government', and can do so as 'liaison' for their group. And you should see how comprehensive the rule in my bowling teams safety code is... its like really really comprehensivy. I guess I will have our liaison (thats Joe) 'liaison' with the FCC in requesting more freqs (of course not all request interaction with the government yields positive results),... I suppose LiaisonJoe wont get fruits from his FCC correspondences (or single correspondence), but whats important is that he liasioned

    Now, you may try to say the rule in the teams code isnt comprehensive ENOUGH,
    but I didnt see how many Comperes (or kiloComperes) the code must rank on the Comprehensivometer.
    Nope, dont see any metric at all for just how comprehensive rules must be
    in order to meet some amount thats NOT in the above quoted NCBO Definition

  23. #148
    Silent-AV8R's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Orange County, CA
    Posts
    4,850
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Regulation passed the House


    ORIGINAL: littlecrankshaf


    ORIGINAL: Silent-AV8R

    And every single one of those reference AC 91-57. Which will be null and void for the most part once the President signs the FAA Reauthorization Bill.
    Not sure how you see an advisory would be mitigated or have less weight if the bill is signed into law...or how it has more weight now... I can only image you meant if FAA were to make ''the advisory'' into a compulsory regulation in an attempt not regulate model aviation as per AMA. Dang, what did I just say? (shaking head)

    It is all in the "if" in the legislation. "If" you meet all the requirements as set forth in the bill then you are an exempted from FAA hobby aircraft operations. Therefore you are not subject to regulations.

    "If" you are not operating as defined in the legislation, then you are still subject to any and all FAA regulations that pertain to models.

    Take some time to actually read the legislation itself and it is fairly clear.
    Team Futaba - RClipos.com

  24. #149

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Aguanga, CA
    Posts
    1,110
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Regulation passed the House


    ORIGINAL: Silent-AV8R


    ORIGINAL: KidEpoxy

    Harvey
    They're referring to the old FAA Advisory Circular 91-57(Read it Here) which, to date, is about the only guidance that the FAA has issued in regards to model airplanes.
    you can get a more recent view of 400' in FAA texts-
    July 2011 (updated) sUAS Fact Sheet pg1 mentions models generally limited to 400'
    July 2010 sUAS Fact Sheet pg1 also had that 400'
    Apr 2009 sUAS ARC (just recomendations to FAA, not FAA telling us what to do) has 400'
    Feb 2007 'policy07' pg5 has the 400'

    no, I wasnt channeling the 30yo ghost of AC91-57, but the texts going on over past 5 years

    And every single one of those reference AC 91-57. Which will be null and void for the most part once the President signs the FAA Reauthorization Bill. Section 336 of that bill has no mention of altitude limits of any kind. Of course the Bill does require participation in a CBO program, which to many is an evil unto itself, but for those folks they can sit back and wait for what the FAA has in store for them, and then complain that the AMA did not do more for them. It is a true "Win-Win" for the AMA haters.

    Ran out anything rational to respond with, so sink to name-calling. Not your usual form, Silent. Hope it's a transient lapse of civil demeanor.

    Makes me recall GWB tagging folks that opposed his undeclared war venturing un-American. Didn't win him any points either.



  25. #150
    H5487's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    914
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Regulation passed the House

    ORIGINAL: Silent-AV8R


    ORIGINAL: littlecrankshaf


    ORIGINAL: Silent-AV8R

    And every single one of those reference AC 91-57. Which will be null and void for the most part once the President signs the FAA Reauthorization Bill.
    Not sure how you see an advisory would be mitigated or have less weight if the bill is signed into law...or how it has more weight now... I can only image you meant if FAA were to make ''the advisory'' into a compulsory regulation in an attempt not regulate model aviation as per AMA. Dang, what did I just say? (shaking head)

    It is all in the ''if'' in the legislation. ''If'' you meet all the requirements as set forth in the bill then you are an exempted from FAA hobby aircraft operations. Therefore you are not subject to regulations.

    ''If'' you are not operating as defined in the legislation, then you are still subject to any and all FAA regulations that pertain to models.

    Take some time to actually read the legislation itself and it is fairly clear.
    The way that I read it was IF a person meets all of the requirements as set forth in the bill, then that person qualifies as a hobby/recreational modeler and will not fall under the soon-to-be-developed more-restrictive UAV regulations. He wouldn't be exempt from ALL regulations. I can still see hobby/recreational modelers falling under SOME guidance such as operating in proximity to airports, etc. That guidance will likely be in the form of an updated advisory circular that mirrors much of the AMA Safety Code.

    Harvey
    Weather Geek


Page 6 of 38 FirstFirst ... 4567816 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:49 PM.

SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1 ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.