Go Back  RCU Forums > RC Airplanes > AMA Discussions
Reload this Page >

FAA Issues "Interpretation of the special rule for model aircraft"

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

FAA Issues "Interpretation of the special rule for model aircraft"

Old 08-20-2014, 07:22 AM
  #726  
aeajr
My Feedback: (2)
 
aeajr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 8,573
Likes: 0
Received 11 Likes on 11 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by littlecrankshaf
Nothing like having a moderator with an obvious political bias weighing in.

Anyway... as for as the radio frequency stuff goes...I hear tell it was Hoss that met with the FCC in a dark, smoke filled room to administer a bribe of $10,000 to an agent of the FCC, and that bribe instantly saved us all, if my memory serves... Heck, maybe ole Hoss will weigh in and give us a refresher for old times sake.
Interesting,

Funny,

I am asked for information. Rather than give my interpretation of the information, I provide the source so anyone can read it and draw their own conclusions. And, because I am a moderator my action presents an obvious political bias? I feel bad for you.

Last edited by aeajr; 08-20-2014 at 11:25 AM.
Old 08-20-2014, 07:32 AM
  #727  
littlecrankshaf
My Feedback: (58)
 
littlecrankshaf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: here
Posts: 5,413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by aeajr
Interesting,

Funny,

I am asked for information. Rather than give my interpretation of the information, I provide the source so anyone can read it and draw their own conclusions. And, because I am a moderator my action presents an obvious political bias? I feel bad for you.
Come on now...your posts are full of your opinions...get real!

Anyway I remeber an article you wrote for the AMA rag...gave me some real insight about. I can only paraphrase now but exact words shouldn't be hard to find. In that article you were talking about flying at your site. You said something like "an occasional roll well over the tress is allowed but aerobatic maneuvers are generally discouraged"... It occurred to me you are one of those that appear to want a common denominator no greater than yourself...If true that is exactly what I despise in so many within AMA...that's the problem within AMA but not of AMA itself.
Old 08-20-2014, 07:57 AM
  #728  
cj_rumley
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga, CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by aeajr
For those who are uninformed about the efforts AMA has put forth around government relations over the past few years I would point you to the AMA government relations blog. If you are really interested, I am sure you will find this very informative.
http://amablog.modelaircraft.org/amagov/

AMA has a long history of advocating for the model aviation community with the FAA and the FCC. It was partially through the efforts of AMA that we have had designated frequencies for flying over the years.

...............
Somewhat limited by the lack of transparency, I think I'm as well informed about AMA government relations as the next Joe member. I don't question the efforts, or the $1,000,000 expended on it so far. I do question what has resulted from investment of those resources. We have lost some freedom to enjoy flying model airplanes to government control by federal statute (not FAA regulation that might be tempered via the NPRM process), and abandoned advocacy for the great majority of the model aviation community by limiting it the small subgroup that are AMA members. To me, those are additional and very substantial 'costs' to modelers, not benefits. What have we gained?
Old 08-20-2014, 08:22 AM
  #729  
Propworn
My Feedback: (3)
 
Propworn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,477
Received 28 Likes on 23 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by littlecrankshaf
Come on now...your posts are full of your opinions...get real!

Anyway I remeber an article you wrote for the AMA rag...gave me some real insight about. I can only paraphrase now but exact words shouldn't be hard to find. In that article you were talking about flying at your site. You said something like "an occasional roll well over the tress is allowed but aerobatic maneuvers are generally discouraged"... It occurred to me you are one of those that appear to want a common denominator no greater than yourself...If true that is exactly what I despise in so many within AMA...that's the problem within AMA but not of AMA itself.
Wow according to cranky I guess if you’re a moderator you are not entitled to an opinion and it best you be seen and not heard from.

Dennis
Old 08-20-2014, 08:32 AM
  #730  
Propworn
My Feedback: (3)
 
Propworn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,477
Received 28 Likes on 23 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by cj_rumley
Somewhat limited by the lack of transparency, I think I'm as well informed about AMA government relations as the next Joe member. I don't question the efforts, or the $1,000,000 expended on it so far. I do question what has resulted from investment of those resources. We have lost some freedom to enjoy flying model airplanes to government control by federal statute (not FAA regulation that might be tempered via the NPRM process), and abandoned advocacy for the great majority of the model aviation community by limiting it the small subgroup that are AMA members. To me, those are additional and very substantial 'costs' to modelers, not benefits. What have we gained?
What exactly has been lost? Please be specific. I don’t see anything different than what was before. Same people, same planes flown in the same manner.

Dennis
Old 08-20-2014, 08:57 AM
  #731  
RCKen
RCU Forum Manager/Admin
My Feedback: (9)
 
RCKen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Lawton, OK
Posts: 27,759
Likes: 0
Received 27 Likes on 24 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Propworn
Wow according to cranky I guess if you’re a moderator you are not entitled to an opinion and it best you be seen and not heard from.

Dennis
All of the Moderators of RCU are able to give their opinions on any subject that they wish. There is no reason whatsoever that they shouldn't be allowed to. The only thing I ask my Moderators to avoid is taking moderating actions in discussion that they are participating in. I ask that so that they can remain neutral in taking actions. Many of they long time members of RCU will remember the mess the AMA forum here was when I took it over and vowed to clean it up. At that time I told you that I would not participate in any of the discussions here so that I can remain absolutely neutral when I take moderation actions here. The only time that I will enter there is if it's to point people to a specific place or thing like documents or people at the AMA. So Aeajr's status as a moderator of RCU has nothing to do with his participation in this discussion and using it to attack his position is a low blow.

Ken
Old 08-20-2014, 09:04 AM
  #732  
porcia83
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Hartford, CT
Posts: 7,269
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by RCKen
All of the Moderators of RCU are able to give their opinions on any subject that they wish. There is no reason whatsoever that they shouldn't be allowed to. The only thing I ask my Moderators to avoid is taking moderating actions in discussion that they are participating in. I ask that so that they can remain neutral in taking actions. Many of they long time members of RCU will remember the mess the AMA forum here was when I took it over and vowed to clean it up. At that time I told you that I would not participate in any of the discussions here so that I can remain absolutely neutral when I take moderation actions here. The only time that I will enter there is if it's to point people to a specific place or thing like documents or people at the AMA. So Aeajr's status as a moderator of RCU has nothing to do with his participation in this discussion and using it to attack his position is a low blow.

Ken
Exactly. Attacking the person, rather than attempting to discuss the message.
Old 08-20-2014, 09:15 AM
  #733  
N410DC
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Cartersville, GA
Posts: 360
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by cj_rumley
Would you please cite a few specific examples of what has been accomplished? I just can't put my finger on it..............
Well, for starters. . . .
.
.
Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_20140820_125656_791.jpg
Views:	32
Size:	1.53 MB
ID:	2023977   Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_20140820_130427_895.jpg
Views:	44
Size:	1.89 MB
ID:	2023978  
Old 08-20-2014, 09:43 AM
  #734  
cj_rumley
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga, CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by N410DC
Well, for starters. . . .
.
.
ROFL! Yeah, that tale of woe is some twisted record of accomplishment........................
Old 08-20-2014, 10:33 AM
  #735  
cj_rumley
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga, CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Propworn
What exactly has been lost? Please be specific. I don’t see anything different than what was before. Same people, same planes flown in the same manner.

Dennis
See post #733 by N410DC
Old 08-20-2014, 10:55 AM
  #736  
aeajr
My Feedback: (2)
 
aeajr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 8,573
Likes: 0
Received 11 Likes on 11 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by littlecrankshaf
Come on now...your posts are full of your opinions...get real!

Anyway I remeber an article you wrote for the AMA rag...gave me some real insight about. I can only paraphrase now but exact words shouldn't be hard to find. In that article you were talking about flying at your site. You said something like "an occasional roll well over the tress is allowed but aerobatic maneuvers are generally discouraged"... It occurred to me you are one of those that appear to want a common denominator no greater than yourself...If true that is exactly what I despise in so many within AMA...that's the problem within AMA but not of AMA itself.
I did write that article and I did make that statement. I believe it was in the context of how our glider club operates our glider field. I presume you did understand the context of the article.

It is unfortunate that our complying with the requirements of the landowner, to maintain this as a thermal soaring flying site, somehow offends you. There is nothing I can do about that. We would rather keep the flying site than address your feelings.

If you would like to fly thermal glides you would be welcome at our field. If you want to fly something else I believe there are 11 other clubs in the area. I am sure some of them would welcome the type of flying you enjoy.

In any case, this has absolutely nothing to do with AMA, but I am sure you know that too
. But if you want to try and make it an AMA issue, far be it from me to try to force you to base your opinions upon facts.

Last edited by aeajr; 08-20-2014 at 11:08 AM.
Old 08-20-2014, 11:13 AM
  #737  
TimJ
 
TimJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Orange County CA
Posts: 1,170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

AEAJR Leave it be. It's a waste of your time.
Old 08-20-2014, 11:40 AM
  #738  
aeajr
My Feedback: (2)
 
aeajr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 8,573
Likes: 0
Received 11 Likes on 11 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by TimJ
AEAJR Leave it be. It's a waste of your time.
It is not a waste of my time if I can help people understand what is going on with the FAA, which is after all the core of the topic of this discussion.

If I can inject some facts to offset some of the rhetoric than I feel that is worth my time.

It is up to each of us to decide if we want to be proactive in defending our ability to fly model aircraft. Or if we want to sit back and let the government tell us what we should be able to do. I prefer to be proactive rather than sit around and gripe about how the world is doing me wrong.

By choice, I support the only organization that is out there working on my behalf, AMA. And I will do what I can to insure that that effort is known so that others can make informed decisions about whether to join the effort. Some will see the value and add there voices and their dollars to the fight and the chance of success will go up.

Others will sit by and complain about how they are being victimized by an oppressive world, and do nothing about it, all the time fully expecting that they will reap the rewards of those who actually do the work. Sound familiar?

So, I will try to inject some facts or provide authoritative references to offset some of the rhetoric. If I am stating a personal opinion I will say so.

People can draw their own conclusions.

Last edited by aeajr; 08-20-2014 at 11:46 AM. Reason: fixed some typos
Old 08-20-2014, 12:19 PM
  #739  
Top_Gunn
My Feedback: (6)
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Granger, IN
Posts: 2,344
Received 6 Likes on 5 Posts
Default

There is a clause about flying within 5 miles of an airport. Based on what that says, a letter to an airport informing them that a model aviation flying field exists and where it is would seem to be enough to meet the requirement. Doesn’t imply need for permission. Of course if the airport wanted you to not fly then it might create an issue, but I don’t know how that would be addressed.
The FAA doesn't agree. Its "interpretation" says that if an airport operator says no flying, the FAA will consider flying within five miles of the airport to be endangering the safety of the NAS. So this will give the operator of any backyard airstrip a veto over modeling within five miles of that airstrip. In a lot of places, if you draw a five-mile-radius circle around every airport, there's not much left. In my county, there are thirteen airports. A lot of the discussion of this "rule" seems to assume that airports are places with paved runways. Those are a tiny fraction of all the airports listed on the FAA web site. Does it make sense to allow some farmer with a grass strip that he flies off of three times a year to shut down all modeling activity within five miles of his farm?

The link in your post doesn't work. The text of the FAA "interpretation" is here:

http://www.regulations.gov/#!documen...2014-0396-0001

It's certainly true that the AMA is trying to save the hobby. I wish them well. I also wish that they were doing it more adeptly. By drafting a sloppily worded "exemption" for some modelers, and then getting a senator who had a personal feud with the FAA because of his landing at a closed airport to get that "exemption" put into a law, the AMA seems to have annoyed the FAA, which is retaliating by proposing rules which, if adopted, will have serious effects on most modelers.
Old 08-20-2014, 12:52 PM
  #740  
aeajr
My Feedback: (2)
 
aeajr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 8,573
Likes: 0
Received 11 Likes on 11 Posts
Default

Sorry that link did not work. It worked when I first posted it but it did not work when I just tried it. I fixed it in the original post, but let me repost it here.

My comments were only related to what is on this page at the FAA site. Let's hope it works this time.


http://www.faa.gov/uas/publications/...aft_operators/


Here is the main text of the page:

[h=1]What Can I Do With My Model Aircraft?[/h][h=1]Hobby/Recreational Flying[/h] Having fun means flying safely! Hobby or recreational flying doesn't require FAA approval but you must follow safety guidelines. Any other use requires FAA authorization.
Avoid doing anything hazardous to other airplanes or people and property on the ground.
[h=2]"Dos"[/h]
  • Do fly a model aircraft/UAS at the local model aircraft club
  • Do take lessons and learn to fly safely
  • Do contact the airport or control tower when flying within 5 miles of the airport
  • Do fly a model aircraft for personal enjoyment
[h=2]"Don'ts"[/h]
  • Don't fly near manned aircraft
  • Don't fly beyond line of sight of the operator
  • Don't fly an aircraft weighing more than 55 lbs unless it's certified by an aeromodeling community-based organization
  • Don't fly contrary to your aeromodeling community-based safety guidelines
  • Don't fly model aircraft for payment or commercial purposes
[h=2]Model Aircraft Operations Limits[/h]According to the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 as (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; (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…with prior notice of the operation; and (6) the aircraft is flown within visual line sight of the operator.
The FAA welcomes comments from the public on its Interpretation of the Special Rule for Model Aircraft, which may help further inform its interpretation of the statutory language in Section 336 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 regarding Model Aircraft operations. Please visit the Federal Rulemaking Portal and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically.

Last edited by aeajr; 08-20-2014 at 12:55 PM.
Old 08-20-2014, 01:33 PM
  #741  
Top_Gunn
My Feedback: (6)
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Granger, IN
Posts: 2,344
Received 6 Likes on 5 Posts
Default

OK, but that page is complete nonsense. And it is not what this thread was originally about. Take the part about notifying an airport if you are flying within five miles. No law or regulation requires that, and they can't (yet) possibly penalize anyone for not doing it. The five-mile thing comes from the text of the 2012 law on FAA regulations, which purports to limit what they can regulate. It imposes no duties whatever on modelers. What we have to worry about is not this nonsense, but what the FAA will do when it writes the regulations, which will impose limits on us. So far, the only real clue about what those limits will be is their "interpretation," which is far from encouraging.
Old 08-20-2014, 02:07 PM
  #742  
HoundDog
My Feedback: (49)
 
HoundDog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Apache Junction AZ. WI 0WI8
Posts: 4,501
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Model Aircraft Operations Limits

According to the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 as (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; (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…with prior notice of the operation; and (6) the aircraft is flown within visual line sight of the operator.

These are not FAR's YET There is nothing that says anything about getting Approval to fly when with in 5 miles of a controled airport with an active control tower. Just " prior notice of the operation"

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Oc...2f7545fd?hl=en

We fly here for the last 44 years and have never had so much as any conflicts. In the summer when we are surrounded by 10' corn, we station a person by the Wind Tee, that watches for aircraft coming from the hangers to the north and departing on runway 18.

Last edited by HoundDog; 08-20-2014 at 02:14 PM.
Old 08-20-2014, 02:07 PM
  #743  
Charley
My Feedback: (2)
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Kerrville, TX
Posts: 2,127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by cj_rumley
Shhhh, Charley, the program has changed and y'all need to get with it.

Big SNIP

Nearly all liability claims are paid from AMA coffers anyway (IOW AMA is for all practical purposes the underwriter), and it's no longer in the game plan to deny it.
AMA pays "Low Dollar" claims. Big ones are paid by the insurance company. All that other stuff you quoted is not germane.

CR
Old 08-20-2014, 02:41 PM
  #744  
aeajr
My Feedback: (2)
 
aeajr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 8,573
Likes: 0
Received 11 Likes on 11 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Top_Gunn
OK, but that page is complete nonsense. And it is not what this thread was originally about. Take the part about notifying an airport if you are flying within five miles. No law or regulation requires that, and they can't (yet) possibly penalize anyone for not doing it. The five-mile thing comes from the text of the 2012 law on FAA regulations, which purports to limit what they can regulate. It imposes no duties whatever on modelers. What we have to worry about is not this nonsense, but what the FAA will do when it writes the regulations, which will impose limits on us. So far, the only real clue about what those limits will be is their "interpretation," which is far from encouraging.

All correct. Let's not read into things. The page is what it is and it was put there by the FAA. All I did was point out that the FAA has this page, that they make recommendations, not regulations, and that they provide a link to the AMA. They even provide a poster that you can take to your club meeting or post at your field house.
http://www.faa.gov/uas/publications/...nfographic.png


What is the significance?

They have made a statement that if you do these thing, we won't bother you.

They have made the statement that the FAA recognized community based organization is the AMA. This is HUGE!

This is the first time I have seen them incorporate "line of sight" as part of the definition of recreational model aircraft flying. This is similar to what the British do.

It is my opinion, ( note that I called out that this is an opinion) that, if you follow the recommendations on the site you will be OK with the FAA. Of course it does not address pilots who are flying away from an "RC club Field". It doesn't say you can't or you shouldn't, it says that they recommend you fly at an RC club field.

Note that the model weight restriction they cite is the AMA's model weight restriction and they recognize that the AMA can provide waivers for models over this weight. They are giving a lot of credence to the AMA on this page.

On this page they ONLY ask you to notify the airport of your model flying operations. They don't say you have to get permission. That was the basis of my OPINION that a letter to the airport telling them where your flying field is would probably meet this requirement. Whether the airport has the power to tell you you can't fly is another matter.
Old 08-20-2014, 02:42 PM
  #745  
cj_rumley
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga, CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Charley
AMA pays "Low Dollar" claims. Big ones are paid by the insurance company. All that other stuff you quoted is not germane.

CR
AMA pays claims until a threshold of $250,000 is reached, and the insurance pays any amount of a single claim in excess of that figure (AMA still pays the first $250,000). That ain't Low Dollar to me..........

In the latest claims history on the AMA web site, the total of all liability claims for the year was about $50,000. The insurance company didn't pay a dime of it.
Old 08-20-2014, 02:48 PM
  #746  
aeajr
My Feedback: (2)
 
aeajr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 8,573
Likes: 0
Received 11 Likes on 11 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by cj_rumley
AMA pays claims until a threshold of $250,000 is reached, and the insurance pays any amount of a single claim in excess of that figure (AMA still pays the first $250,000). That ain't Low Dollar to me..........

In the latest claims history on the AMA web site, the total of all liability claims for the year was about $50,000. The insurance company didn't pay a dime of it.
That may be true but it does not make them an insurance company. To be an insurance company requires very specific legal status and AMA doesn't fit.

If I have an accident with my car and chose to pay for the repairs out of my own pocket does that make me an insurance company? No. If my daughter has an accident and I choose to pay for the repairs, does that make me an insurance company? No!
Old 08-20-2014, 02:56 PM
  #747  
cj_rumley
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga, CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by aeajr
That may be true but it does not make them an insurance company. To be an insurance company requires very specific legal status and AMA doesn't fit.

If I have an accident with my car and chose to pay for the repairs out of my own pocket does that make me an insurance company? No. If my daughter has an accident and I choose to pay for the repairs, does that make me an insurance company? No!
If you were found liable by a civil court for $250,000 in damages and chose to pay it out of pocket, you would be either an insurance company or plain crazy.
Old 08-20-2014, 03:37 PM
  #748  
Top_Gunn
My Feedback: (6)
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Granger, IN
Posts: 2,344
Received 6 Likes on 5 Posts
Default

On this page they ONLY ask you to notify the airport of your model flying operations. They don't say you have to get permission. That was the basis of my OPINION that a letter to the airport telling them where your flying field is would probably meet this requirement. Whether the airport has the power to tell you you can't fly is another matter.
Fine. But why bring up this set of "recommendations" rather than the FAA's "interpretation," which seems to me to give us a line on what the regulations, when they are written, will say, unless the FAA changes its mind? The fact that their recommendations, which have no legal effect, speak only of notifying airports is not much comfort when their "interpretation," which is what they propose to put into the regulations, says the airports get a veto.. Perhaps I am taking the title of this thread too seriously, but I thought the subject was that "interpretation."
Furthermore, this recommendation is not the first time they have incorporated "line of sight" in the definition of recreational model flying. That, too, was in their "interpretation."
Old 08-20-2014, 03:53 PM
  #749  
Propworn
My Feedback: (3)
 
Propworn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,477
Received 28 Likes on 23 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by cj_rumley
See post #733 by N410DC
Don’t see anything that one can point to specifically that has been taken away. In fact the post that Aeajr (post 740) made looks like it’s very much the same as it’s always been. I can see them getting a little more restrictive around airports. Perhaps it’s because of an attitude many seem to have that no one can tell me what I can and cannot do. When outright defiance occurs often times the result is more rules. I can see where its going to be a nightmare to enforce but I would bet those who get caught up in the system will be made an example of and it may be costly win or loose.

Thank goodness I live and fly mostly in Canada, 7.5 million first party liabilities, excellent rapport with Transport Canada, 75lb limit, many clubs fly from small full size airports without any drama. The only restriction we have is we cannot participate by flying at full size air shows and that isn’t something that Transport Canada has decreed our insurance placed that condition because of damage to a Harvard that occurred during a RC demo flight at a full size air show.


Dennis

Last edited by Propworn; 08-20-2014 at 04:02 PM.
Old 08-20-2014, 04:36 PM
  #750  
cj_rumley
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga, CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Propworn
Don’t see anything that one can point to specifically that has been taken away. In fact the post that Aeajr (post 740) made looks like it’s very much the same as it’s always been. I can see them getting a little more restrictive around airports. Perhaps it’s because of an attitude many seem to have that no one can tell me what I can and cannot do. When outright defiance occurs often times the result is more rules. I can see where its going to be a nightmare to enforce but I would bet those who get caught up in the system will be made an example of and it may be costly win or loose.

Thank goodness I live and fly mostly in Canada, 7.5 million first party liabilities, excellent rapport with Transport Canada, 75lb limit, many clubs fly from small full size airports without any drama. The only restriction we have is we cannot participate by flying at full size air shows and that isn’t something that Transport Canada has decreed our insurance placed that condition because of damage to a Harvard that occurred during a RC demo flight at a full size air show.


Dennis
How's this for an example, from the statute being discussed:
" Model aircraft that do not meet these statutory requirements are nonetheless unmanned aircraft, and as such, are subject to all existing FAA regulations, as well as future rulemaking action, and the FAA intends to apply its regulations to such unmanned aircraft."
So I submit that something of considerable value has been taken away from modelers that are not CBO members (a condition in the statute for being excepted from regulation) that were excluded from AMA's advocacy, the freedom to fly as indies sans undue FAA regulation. We're talking about a large majority of modelers here, far outnumbering AMA members. Is that specific enough for you?

Good for you on flying in Canada. I presume Transport Canada doesn't require modelers to be MAAC members to fly model airplanes unfettered by such as "all existing FAA regulations."

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.