MajorTomski

Please wait, lets discuss the original intent of this thread. Let's not run off on the over 55 pound limit yet. Lets please just discuss the one point: The agreement/notification required by the law to notify the airport if you are within 5 miles.

Simple yes or no: Does the LAW require you as an individual modeler, or your club with a permanent site, to have some sort of agreement with the local airport/airt raffic tower? It's a simple yes or no answer.

Can we start with that one simple point?

phlpsfrnk

That ruling is on appeal and besides it has nothing to do with contacting/notifying the local airport.

After that ruling Dave Morton, an FAA aviation inspector was quoted; “We are taking enforcement action against those [incidents] that we think are egregious.” Morton said the FAA plans to issue a public notice reaffirming its “oversight authority” of small unmanned aircraft.


Frank

bradpaul

The answer is NO. The LAW says "should" not "must", it is the FAA Interpretation not the LAW that in a footnote implies must. And it is only in the instance of permanent location that the "recommended" agreement comes into play.

Top_Gunn

My Feedback: (6)

[QUOTE]Simple yes or no: Does the LAW require you as an individual modeler, or your club with a permanent site, to have some sort of agreement with the local airport/airt raffic tower? It's a simple yes or no answer[QUOTE]

No. The law does not require any modeler to do anything. It is addressed to the FAA, and it tells them that they can't write regulations that govern models if certain things occur. One of those "if" things is notifying airports: what doing that will supposedly get us (if we also meet the other requirements) is the right to be governed by CBO rules instead of whatever regulations the FAA issues for models. And even then, as bradpaul points out, the statute doesn't say there must be an agreement to get the exemption, it just says there "should" be one. Bad drafting: It is extraordinarily rare for a statute to say someone "should" do something.

MajorTomski

Ok, tell me where my thinking is wrong. Congress, two years ago, told the FAA in the middle of PL 112-95 to create operating procedures for UAV's. In that two year old law the congress told the FAA it can't do anything to interfere (promulgate any rule ) with model airplanes, so long as, ie IF the model airplane and it's operators met 8 specific requirements. The spirit and intent of one of those requirements on the individual model operator is to cooperate with the local airport and control tower if you are within 5 miles of the airport and give them notice prior to operating your model in their 'airspace' for lack a better description.

IS this part correct; does the law require you, as an individual, to give the airport/tower notice prior to you flying your model within 5 miles?

bradpaul

Geez do you even know that the question you asked and I answered was:

Quote:

Simple yes or no: Does the LAW require you as an individual modeler, or your club with a permanent site, to have some sort of agreement with the local airport/airt raffic tower? It's a simple yes or no answer.

The question was "is an agreement required" NOT if prior notice is required .................................. And as the FAA has not released the regulations/requirements for RC model aircraft that don't comply with the Law, I cannot answer the question. In fact NO MODEL AIRCRAFT COMPLIES WITH THE EXEMPTION FROM THE LAW AS THERE IS NO FAA RECOGNIZED NATIONWIDE CBO.

So you tell me, 3 miles per AC 91-57 or 5 miles from a law that no model aircraft can meet the criteria for exemption?

Top_Gunn

My Feedback: (6)

No. Laws that require people to do things provide penalties for not doing them. Does this law impose fines, jail sentences, or other penalties on modelers who don't notify airports before flying within five miles? No.

It may well be true that the "spirit" if this law is to encourage modelers to cooperate with airports, and when the regulations are issued those regulations will require them to do that, though we don't know all the details yet. But nothing in the statute requires them to do that, and no final regulations have been issued. If you begin reading section 336 at the beginning, you will notice that what it does is tell the FAA what kind of regulations it can (or, better, cannot) write. It never tells modelers they must do anything. The notice business is something that modelers will have to do to come within the CBO "exemption" from some of the regulations. Until those regulations are written it has no legal effect on modelers.

MajorTomski

Let’s try this again. Last night’s version of this post had too many thoughts going too many places

First issue:

bradpaul, please explain why you keep trying to apply the reference to a CBO, which has to do with how the model is operated in 336(a)(2), and for model aircraft over 55 pounds336(a)(3), with 336(a)(5) to the five mile radius issue? The first two have nothing to do with the third issue, they are separate specifications in the law.

The second issue, kinda shuts this whole thread down, The AMA wants us to have an agreement with the local airports, heliports and seaplane bases. (they left no issue uncovered) The only point left is three or five miles.

From last night:
Now ironically, after only 32 and a half years, the AMA Safety code and the old AC91-57 which in the past have never said the same thing NOW read the same.

The AC:
Do not fly model aircraft higher than 400 feet above the surface. When flying aircraft within 3 miles of an airport, notify the airport operator, or when an air traffic facility is located at the airport, notify the control tower, or flight service station.

The AMA Safety Code:
(b) See and avoid all aircraft and a spotter must be used when appropriate. (AMA Document #540-D.)
(c) Not fly higher than approximately 400 feet above ground level within three (3) miles of an airport without notifying the airport operator.
(d) Not interfere with operations and traffic patterns at any airport, heliport or seaplane base except where there is a mixed use agreement.

So as of January of this year the AMA now calls for a mixed use agreement, exactly what this thread has been talking about for 263 posts now.

So if the safety code is now asking for it what's the problem?

Top_Gunn

My Feedback: (6)

Have you read the law? What it says about the five-mile radius issue is that the CBO rules, rather than any rules the FAA makes about models, will apply to models that meet a number of requirements. (More technically, it says that the FAA can't issue regulations that say otherwise, but that's a minor detail.) One of these requirements is the notice if flying within five miles of an airport. It is absurd to say that the CBO reference has to do only with models over 55 pounds. I suppose you got that idea from the FAA's "What Can I Do with My Model Airplane" posting. That document mentions the CBO only in connection with the weight limit. But that isn't the law: Section 336 is.

Sport_Pilot

Well where is the regulation about contacting the local airport?

What does the statement about enforcement action have to do with notifying airports? Besides they have now lost at least two court cases and more than likely lose the appeal.

phlpsfrnk

So which it. Is it the law or not? Everyone seems to like what if’s so let’s try a hypothetical.

What if I received a brand new DJI Phantom 2 quad with a GoPro and I want to do a Dronie. I drive close to (38.976610, -76.917701) and park at the west end parking next to the tennis courts. I walk out in the field to the Lat/Lon above and film myself from various angles and altitudes out to 600ft.

Have I broken any laws?

Location: http://www.vpike.com/?place=38.97661...treet+View&r=e

Frank

Top_Gunn

My Feedback: (6)

OK, one more try. You say the law prohibits the FAA from making rules about models. That is not true. It says the FAA can't adopt rules about models IF a number of conditions are satisfied. It then goes on, after the "if," to list the things that must happen for a model to come within the "no (new) FAA rules" provision. So, the law does not prohibit the FAA from making rules about all model aircraft. It just prohibits them from making rules about model aircraft that meet all the requirements listed in §§ 336(a)(1) through 336(a)(5). Section 336(a)(2) is the requirement that the model be flown in accordance with the CBO guidance and "within the programming of" the CBO. Section 336(a)(3) is the requirement that the model not exceed 55 pounds unless it's been certified by a CBO safety program. Section 336(a)(5) is the bit about notifying airports within five miles. If a model meets all five of these requirements, the FAA can't make rules about it. But it can make rules about models that do not satisfy all of the requirements. Now, as many people have noted, the part of the law that says the FAA can't make rules about models that meet the five requirements is undermined (perhaps totally) by section 336(b), which says the FAA can pursue enforcement action against persons who endanger the safety of the NAS. Of course it can, so § 336 may end up doing us little or no good.

I've never said that section 336 is not a law. I have said, accurately, that it's a law that (apparently, anyway) prohibits the FAA from adopting regulations about model aircraft that meet all the requirements of §§ 336(a)(1) through 336(a)(5). It does not require any modeler to do anything. It just says that they may be subject to one set of rules if they don't satisfy all five of the conditions, and to the CBO rules if they do. Would you argue seriously that it currently requires all modelers to follow CBO rules (section 336(a)(2)? That would be impossible, since we do not yet have a CBO.

What I did say was "not a law" is the FAA press release from which Major Tomski seems to have gotten his views on what the law says. That press release refers to a CBO only in connection with the 55-pound limit, and that fact seems to be what led Major Tomski to the erroneous conclusion that the law referred to a CBO only in that context.

phlpsfrnk

Hope this helps you understand where I'm comming from on this issue.

Frank

bradpaul

Frank just how are you going to claim "Model Aircraft" and meet SEC 336 (a) (2)? Do you know of a "nationwide commumity-based organization" that has been recognized by the FAA to meet that requirement?

As for notifying a airport as the requirements of SEC 336 are moot in that at present they cannot be met, the only document relevant to airport notification is AC 91-57 and that is 3 miles and just a suggestion.

The FAA is yet to publish the requirements for sUAS/UAV which all our models fall under.

MajorTomski

bradpaul, please see my comments up in 283, seems things at the AMA changed back in January of this year. It appears none of us read our own safety code year after year

Top_Gunn

My Feedback: (6)

Frank,

I give up. I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you. I'm not even sure if you believe the things you're saying, or if you're just throwing words around to try to conceal the fact that many of the things you've said are just plain wrong. You aren't even being consistent. In one post (286) you say, in bright red letters, that the FAA can't regulate models because of section 336. In another (288) you say they can regulate anything that flies (which plainly includes models) as long as those things aren't within the exemption of section 336(a). I'm not going to try to reason with someone who can take inconsistent positions on the same issue at the same time.

phlpsfrnk

Brad,
I remember some heated discussions concerning what the differences were between sUAS/UAV and our model aircraft and how we did not want model aircraft mixed in with regulations aimed at the sUAS/UAVs intended for use in the NAS. The AMA spent money lobbing congress for that distinction to be recognized and for the FAA to not write regulations specific to model aircraft. Well the AMA got its wish as of 14 Feb, 2012 with PL 112-95. The way I read it as it concerns this thread, on that day AC 91-57 MODEL AIRCRAFT OPERATING STANDARDS were superseded by PL 112-95 SEC. 336 SPECIAL RULE FOR MODEL AIRCRAFT. Subpart (a)(5).

As for the CBO issue, “Do you know of a "nationwide commumity-based organization" that has been recognized by the FAA to meet that requirement?” No I do not but I have to wonder, so what? In my opinion the AMA meets the definition of a Community Based Organization (CBO). Have one of our AMA lawyers that we are paying big bucks for draft the legal definition and declare ourselves a CBO for model aviation, end of problem.


Frank

phlpsfrnk

Okay.

Frank

PS; I notice that you did not try to refute any of my reasoning.

bradpaul

End of problem??????? I actually agree with your suggestion, and in a previous post in another thread also suggested that the AMA declare that they are A nationwide community-based organization for the purpose of providing compliance with SC 336 (a) (2). THEY HAVE NOT DONE THAT.

Would the FAA accept a self declaration of CBO status by the AMA? It would probably would end up in the courts if the FAA took action against a RC modeler that followed all the 5 rules................... Then of course the legal precedent of Chevron would be invoked by the FAA.

Not anywhere close to the end of problem

So as to the specific topic of this thread, 3 miles? 5 miles? just notify the airport at this juncture they DO NOT have a way to deny your flying as long you stay below 400' and do not endanger any full scale aircraft or airport operations.

bradpaul

Another perfect example of a poorly worded section of the AMA Safety Code

(d) Not interfere with operations and traffic patterns at any airport, heliport or seaplane base except where there is a mixed use agreement.

So the AMA is saying it is OK to interfere with operations and traffic patterns at airports as long as you have an agreement with the airport to interfere with operations and traffic patterns.

This says nothing about needing an agreement if you DO NOT INTERFERE WITH OPERATIONS AND TRAFFIC PATTERNS.

phlpsfrnk

Okay, bad choice of words. To be more specific end of the question of whether the AMA is or is not a CBO.

Who cares if they accept or not? If I'm not mistaken the FAA has already stated that they do not have the authority to grant CBO status to the AMA. Using that logic how can they then say they have the authority to say we are not if we legally declare it? Also please note that in several FAA documents when speaking about CBOs the FAA themselves have referenced the AMA.


Who determines when a model aircraft is endangering other users of the NAS? The CBO of model aircraft, the model aircraft PIC, or the agency tasked with the safety of flight in the NAS?

Frank

phlpsfrnk

Brad,
For once I think we are in complete and total agreement. Imagine that.

Frank

bradpaul

Frank, we actually disagree less then you think.

A concern should be the ability of the AMA to be a "nationwide community-based organization" that the FAA will recognize to meet the purpose of SEC 336 (a) (2).

We assume that it obviously does, but issues like the infamous comma difference in how the AMA for decades interpreted AC 91-57 and many poorly worded parts of the AMA Safety Code would concern the FAA. Is the AMA Safety Code ready for prime time? Keep in mind that RC modelers both AMA members and non members will be relying on the safety code to legally exempt them from further FAA regulation. Lawsuits over interpretation will happen.

3 miles?, 5 miles?, what is notice?, when is an agreement required?, etc. this is not an easy question.

phlpsfrnk

That's true, however when we have had disagreements they have usually been pretty heated.

Agreed. On the period/comma issue I have always mantained the AC 91-57 took precedent inspite of it's advisory status. The FAA's intent has always been for over 30 years to "encourage voluntary compliance with," ... i.e. contact the local airport. For the AMA to now state "This is a new requirement for model aircraft, contrary to Congressional intent" to me is just plain ludicrous. Whoever wrote that needs an AMA history lesson because as far back as 1976 then AMA Executive Director John Worth was discussing it.

http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1347138

http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/ama-...l#post10167291

Frank

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

LOL... Someone nailed it!

With that point in mind its no wonder why the FAA is in such a hurry (sarcasm) to find a means to crown a CBO... AMA kicked the lying dog...and in defense they immediately took out their gun and shot themselves in the foot. Only saving grace, AMA is persistent...and even if not formally named NCBO they will just assume the role and those that enjoy privileges based on someone else's validation will follow along merrily...all the while singing on the forums "how great thou art"... Same song, different verse... Rinse and repeat...