phlpsfrnk

Hoss,
Thank you for the kind words. My major issue is that I think it is the AMA that should be providing this type of education to the membership and not me on some internet forum. The AMA leadership needs to work within the system to affect change, not challenge the system with law suits. It does not help the FAA do their job and I believe it will hurt the AMA in the long run, not to mention wasting our money.

The AMA spent our money lobbing congress for recognition and exemption from the FAA rulemaking of sUAS integration in the NAS and we got it. The FAA in turn said fine based on Section 336 here are your rules to maintain exemption status and we will not write new rules for model aircraft. I don’t know what the AMA leadership expected but I never expected them to throw up their hands and cry foul. Did they think congress gave us a pass to do anything we want anywhere we want because we are only playing with toys? Don’t get me wrong some of the interpretation needs clarification/negotiation but to challenge it in total I do not think will end well for us and I believe the AMA leadership has made a grave misstep here.

Sorry, I will now step down from the soap box.

Regards
Frank

PS All this drama is tiring, I need a nap.

phlpsfrnk

HHmmmmmmmmmm.......... Indeed!

Sport_Pilot

Yes. But what are you getting at?

Sport_Pilot

I am an expert but only with part 77. Preservation of navigable airspace. I have been commenting on higher level laws that may overule the FAA and their regulations. They will of course say I am wrong and maybe I am. However I understand that most of the points I am making will likely be brought up in court. In fact some of them have but the decision was not based on them (though they may have swayed the judge).

You and others think that I am ignorant of the regulations. But I am in fact saying that they or the way they are applied violate the US Code.

In fact the banning of drones without regulations violates the entire Constitution. Not saying they should not be regulated, but till then they are free to use the airspace.

Sport_Pilot

I understand your concern but considering the current politics, and the fact that the regulations are to be written next year there is no time left to be nice. I think they did the right thing.

TimJ

Darn. He figured out the trap. LOL

JoeEagle

My Feedback: (26)

Frank. I just copied and pasted from the interpretation. Based on this document and the reference to 400 feet don't you think the FAA is stipulating a 400 foot limit which applies o everywhere?? And for anyone else reading I am not trying to be controversial just trying to understand people's different POV.

As as for the TAM/BVM F18v I bought it wit every intention of flying it but got talked out of it by people I
trust. Sold it to a dude in Canada. He was going to put a big motor in it and make other changes.
I guess we would have tried it at KJ or Mississippi AB



Discussion of the Interpretation
I. Background of FAA Oversight of Model Aircraft OperationsHistorically, the FAA has considered model aircraft to be aircraft that fall within the
statutory and regulatory definitions of an aircraft, as they are contrivances or devices thatare “invented, used, or designed to navigate, or fly in, the air.” See 49 USC 40102 and 14CFR 1.1. As aircraft, these devices generally are subject to FAA oversight andenforcement. However, consistent with FAA’s enforcement philosophy, FAA’soversight of model aircraft has been guided by the risk that these operations present. TheFAA first recognized in 1981 that “model aircraft can at times pose a hazard to full-scaleaircraft in flight and to persons and property on the surface,” and recommended a set ofvoluntary operating standards for model aircraft operators to follow to mitigate thesesafety risks. See Advisory Circular 91-57, Model Aircraft Operating Standards (June 9,1981). These operating standards included restricting operations over populated areas,limiting use of the devices around spectators until after the devices had been flight testedand proven airworthy; restricting operations to 400 feet above the surface; requiring thatthe devices give right of way to, and avoid flying near manned aircraft, and usingobservers to assist in operations.
These guidelines were further clarified in 2007, when the FAA issued a policystatement regarding unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) operations in the NAS. See 72Fed. Reg. 6689 (Feb. 13, 2007). In this policy statement, the FAA also recognized thatUAS fall within the statutory and regulatory definition of “aircraft” as they are devicesthat are “used or [are] intended to be used for flight in the air with no onboard pilot.” Id.;see also 49 U.S.C. 40102; 14 CFR 1.1. The FAA noted that they can be “as simple as a




remotely controlled model aircraft used for recreational purposes or as complex assurveillance aircraft flying over hostile areas in warfare.” The FAA then stated itscurrent policy regarding UAS based on the following three categories: (1) UAS used aspublic aircraft; (2) UAS used as civil aircraft; and (3) UAS used as model aircraft.
With respect to UAS used as model aircraft, the FAA reiterated the operatingguidelines in AC 91-57, and further noted that to qualify as a model aircraft, the aircraftwould need to be operated purely for recreational or hobby purposes, and within thevisual line of sight of the operator. The policy statement also clarified that AC 91-57applied only to modelers and “specifically excludes its use by persons or companies forbusiness purposes.” 72 FR at 6690.

phlpsfrnk

Who writes and enforces VFR flight rules in class G airspace of the NAS? Would you agree that the airspace classifications (except Class A) of the NAS goes to the ground (begins at the surface)?

Frank

phlpsfrnk

Sport,
Would you care to share with us what certifications you have that qualifies you as an "Expert"? Have you been called into court as an "expert" witness? Maybe if we knew your background on the subject your statements/comments would hold more validity.

Regards
Frank

phlpsfrnk

Joe,
Yes, however as stated it is advisory and I'm sure the sUAS regs when published will include some altitude limits. 91-57 is slated to be canceled/superseded by PL and the FAA's interpretation. The AMA and the FAA have butted heads over 91-57 in the past as cited in AC 91-57 some history (see link below). While that thread is 4.5 years old it is still valid and may provide some understanding of how we got to where we are today. With certain precautions in place to address FAA concerns regarding model aircraft flights above 400 ft AGL I see no problem with continuing as we (AMA) have.

http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/ama-...e-history.html

Regards
Frank

Sport_Pilot

Yes but that only applies to full scale planes operating out of private airports and bush country, etc. Unless they intend to land then the NAS only goes down to 500 feet (1000 feet in populated areas).

Sport_Pilot

I have been called in court as an expert, but only on a particullar project. I testified in deposition but did not have to testify in court.
I have a couple of certifications, but not on this matter. The only aviation certification I have is a private pilot certificate which I have not used in just over 20 years and intend to never use again. But you may have a point I have no certification for PART 77, but then I am not aware of any such requirement. Not sure I could be used as an expert in court for that or not.

But then again experts are not required here and I never offered my opinion as an expert. I am offering this as devils advocate more or less, from a completely different perspective.

Again there seems to be no official definition of NAS, it is not even used for the airspace classifications in the regulations.

Top_Gunn

My Feedback: (6)

Please. Classes B, C, and D airspace go all the way to the ground (in some places: there are also places where they don't, but so what). Class E can, as well, and not just in "bubbles" around particular low-flying aircraft. According to the AMA, there are around 100 AMA club fields in class B airspace, and there must be hundreds more in classes C and D.

You keep telling us that the U.S. Code prevents the FAA from making rules below 500 feet, or for drones, etc. But you never cite or quote a specific U.S. Code section.

phlpsfrnk

Okay, I get it.



Frank

TimJ

Sorry Sport_Pilot, all of your claims are invalid. All of the documentation that I have read about the subject say contrary to what you believe.

I have posted evidence, and so has Frank to back up what we keep informing about. None of us have seen any evidence to back up your claims.

n1169g

My Feedback: (1)

I do have a pilot license and if you do you would remember that you can lose it for any felony such as DUI or a lot of tickets
A pilot license is viewed as a privilege that has to be earned by attending ground and flight school and by being a model citizen.
When you in the air you are placing the public at risk under you. So yes the government is going to control this privilege.
If you disagree with this view move to another country. Most won't give you the chance to fly

rrembert

Hi Sport...could you give the reference document that contains the description of this "bubble of navigable airspace". I've been getting paid to fly for 31 years now and don't recall reading it anywhere. Not saying you're wrong, just that I don't recall it. Also i think somewhere you reference "navigable airspace"...with the advent of "direct anywhere" via gps would that make virtually any airspace navigable? Minus terrain and obstructions of course..

Sport_Pilot

I know the FAA claims control of all airspace, but in fact that is not what their madate is. It has been mentioned in court cases as background material but I do not believe any court has ruled on it one way or the other. But here is your cite.

49 U.S. Code § 40103 - Sovereignty and use of airspace

(b) Use of Airspace.— (1)The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall develop plans and policy for the use of the navigable airspace and assign by regulation or order the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. The Administrator may modify or revoke an assignment when required in the public interest.

Sport_Pilot

Try reading documation and court filings from others, not from the FAA.

TimJ

Can you point to one in particular?

Sport_Pilot

Read the court filing of the Pirker case. Gotta go, will look for it later. Also there were some court cases for banner tow operations, arguments from the banner two lawers, but I think it was settled out of court.

Top_Gunn

My Feedback: (6)

Nothing in this language bars the FAA from regulating the use of any airspace, "navigable" or not. In fact, it says just the opposite. After referring to policy "for the use of the navigable airspace" it gives them the authority to regulate the use of "the airspace" (no "navigable" there), and later to "airspace," again without your favorite magic word. Furthermore, the 500-foot and thousand-foot rules you keep referring to were themselves created by FAA rules, they aren't there because Congress put them in. So if the FAA were to change them (and, in the regs for drones it likely will change them for drones, and that will enlarge the scope of navigable airspace. And, again, what about all that controlled airspace that goes all the way to the ground? All beyond the FAA's power to create? Certainly not.

Sport_Pilot

Yes regulation of non navigable airspace is allowed, but only for the purpose in red above. Restricting drones below 400 feet for any reason other than that is not allowed per that mandate. Doesn't matter if it is commercial either. The same goes to model aircraft.

Top_Gunn

My Feedback: (6)

Absolutely no one here (or anywhere else, so far as I know) has ever claimed that the FAA can make rules for purposes other than "ensur[ing] the safety and efficient use of airspace." Pointing that out does not support your repeated claims that the FAA has no Congressional authority to make rules about what happens in "non-navigable" airspace or rules concerning drones. You really ought to stop saying those things.

By the way, I'm still waiting for you to back up your claim that there are many court cases invalidating FAA regulations. Surely if there are many of those cases, as you said, you should be able to come up with a single example. If you can't, one might think you were just making things up.

Sport_Pilot

Yes it does because the drones are not interfering with the safety of the airspace when they are flying under 500 feet and staying clear of aircraft under tha airspace. Commercial operations do not make a difference in the safety of airspace. The FAA is only to make rules on safety of navigable airspace. That is why they can regulate the heighth of towers and buildings for example. The buildings are not in navigable airspace but it affects the safety of navigable airspace.