Sport_Pilot

By rule I do mean the AMA rule which will no longer be voluntary when this new regulation takes place. The CBO rules can then be enforced by the FAA. It would be considered endangering the NAS I suppose, though it is not clear what that is.

thepamster

There is no AMA rule reguarding altitude except for flying within 3 miles of an airport and even then you can fly higher if you notify the airport.
If you think I am wrong please show me the document that says otherwise.

hairy46

My Feedback: (1)

Bringing nothing but negative to this ones great hobby!

Silent-AV8R

Got it. For the sake of accuracy, here is the actual rule:

So you can fly above 400 feet if you notify the airport operator. However, keep in mind, that regardless of altitude, Section 336 requires notification when within 5 miles of the airport:

BTW - Section 336 is actual law right now. There is no further action needed by the FAA or any other agency to make it so. It became effective the day it was signed into law in 2012.

flycatch

My Feedback: (26)

Did anyone take the time to watch the video of TV news crew that followed the drone operator to his home of residence? When the police and news station confronted the persons' living in the dwelling they denied the whole thing. This is how the story ended and it appears nothing was done. This, sorry to say, is the current state of the PC culture we are living under. Call me a racist but the video evidence bears out my conclusion.

Silent-AV8R

Last I read the FAA was investigating the incident, so no resolution yet. As far as anything else you said, I think you are reaching in order to sustain a clearly preconceived world view.

JohnShe

The FAA will never enforce CBO rules, they will enforce FAA regulations. The CBO guidelines, not rules, are there to keep smart people like us out of trouble.

HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

Johnny: & all commenting in this Forum.

Again that's the problem. All U brilliant people are "Preaching To The Quire" so to speak.
We all know "Where, How and When we are allowed to fly our TOY's. Again I'm (Beating a Dead Horse) But Still
the problem remains with people flying any R/C device with out this knowledge.
"WILL U AT LEAST AGREE TO THIS HYPOTHESIS".
Then this being the real Problem, How do we, as the knowledgeable R/C flyers, Disseminate or impart this knowledge to those that would, through Ignorance, of any rules or FAR's for flying R/C air craft in a manor that will cause the FAA/NTSB to attempt (Because of the Inevitable Disaster with a full scale air craft) try to limit all R/C flying through out the USA.
Make No Mistake this is the real problem, Not what the FAA or CBO/AMA set as rules/FAR's but how this info is imparted on any and all that fly some form of R/C in the NAS. Like Always JMHO

JohnShe

HD: Ya need to get back on your meds, your prophecy just ain't gonna happen. Wrap some more tinfoil around you head and hide under the blankets, why doncha?

Sport_Pilot

Which is why I was wondering about the two airports, as I do not believe you have to contact small private airports that are not active and no active manager. The 400 foot rule would apply if they are active and he did not contact them.

Sport_Pilot

I believe the FAA interpretation of 336 says otherwise. If not following the CBO rules they may fine you, so effectively they are enforcing the rules.

HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

Johnnie She**:
Instead of running every one down, why don't U attempt to come up with a solution to the Problems we all face (Not if but when) some uninformed R/C Quad flyer or what ever, Causes a disaster and has an incident or accident with a Maned aircraft. The problem is not what the FAA is doing with the NPRM. The FAA is going to do what the FAA wants to do. Period. We have to educate, first the uninformed R/C Flyers that jeopardize our Hobby/Sport. Then we have to get the LHS, whole salers, and Mail order company's to some how to get these people they sell these R/C TOY's to to understand where, When and How they may Legally fly their TOY's.

As for My Tin Foil bonnet, I think it would be better suited on your Head, but That would be difficult for U until U pull your head out of the Sand and become part of the solution instead of being part of the Problem. JMHO of course.

Silent-AV8R

The CBO "rules" are the "community-based set of safety guidelines" spelled out in Section 336. What FAA is free to enforce is any modeler who does something that endangers the NAS. FAA has given guidance to their field personnel on how to do this and what FARs to focus on:

http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/m....3B_Chg_6_.pdf

So I agree, the FAA is never going to come after you for doing something contrary to the CBO/AMA Safety Code, UNLESS it results in endangering the NAS.

phlpsfrnk

You are correct, they are not towered however they are both open to the public and have combined average operations of 75+ per week about equally divided. The airport manager's contact information for both are in the directory as well as airport and Seattle APP/DEP communication frequencies;

http://www.airnav.com/airport/S44
http://www.airnav.com/airport/3B8

The nearest AMA club field is approximately 11 miles south and I'm willing to bet he did not call anyone including the towered JB Lewis-McChord (TCM) five miles away.

By the way did anyone happen to notice a spotter?

Frank

init4fun

I'll freely admit to , at times , strongly disagreeing with Mr. She's statements . I have , in the past , even been moved to wonder if we share the same planet .

BUT !!!!

I will fully stand with him on BOTH of these posts !!!!!

I've said it before in one of these "We're all DOOMED" threads , , , , That the FAA is NOT going to have the RC inspectors hiding behind every tree just waitin for ya to reach 401 feet ! Screw up big and attract attention and of course the FAA will enforce the law . As I would expect them to . But to think it'll be full cavity searches for hitting 401 feet really IS "tin foil hat' material and our resident "gloomy Gus" mr. Hounddog just don't see it . Dude , if you keep on with flying in a safe manner , as you have presumably done all these years already , you'll have nothing to worry about , the FAA truly has better things to do than to chase around a bunch of old "circle flyers" as the younguns call us . But go tryin to chase down a jetliner with your quad to get some AWESOME MAN !!! U tube video and you can most certainly expect a visit !

Thank You Mr. She for trying to bring a bit of common sense to this thread , I , for one , really appreciate it .

Silent-AV8R

If for no other reason than there is absolutely ZERO reason for them to enforce a non-existent altitude limit.

But in a more general sense the FAA is going to treat model aircraft that endanger the NAS the same way they treat manned aircraft. Which is to say that they will continue to enforce by exception. So cause an accident or reportable incident or have somebody turn you in, THEN they will take an interest.

HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

I sure Hope to He[[ that U guys are right ... but U don't really believe the Proverbial "SHEIT" hitting the fan, isn't going to happen (Not If but When) something serious happens to take down a man carrying aircraft with or with out lose of life .The Powers that be i.e. the FAA/NTSB, White House, News Media will go into PANIC MODE and they won't care if it's the fault of some "Uninformed Quad Flyer" or some AMA/CBO member Flying at his Local R/C Field way out in the desert/country,Minding his own business, when some (Low Flying Fighter Jet type Jock) crossing over the R/C field at 500' AGL or below, and get's "WACKED by a "TOY AIRPLANE". It won't matter one stink'n bit. All He[[ will break Loose.

It's much more likely that (when it Happens) it will be some ROUGE Quad flyer flying where and when against the RULES but then No one Informed him of the Rules, and there in is the real problem. Not if, Still Mistakenly, U think I believe there will be all kinds of R/C COPS behind every Tree, But that U/Me/AMA/CBO LHS and all the Sellers of Flying TOYS have DONE NOTHING TO TRY TO INFORM THOSE So Called "IDIOTS" of the Rules.
Again Still JMHO.

But maybe U guys should Pull your Heads out of (XXX XXX) the Sand and take a look around.
Just as a "SIDE NOTE" Take a servay of your fellow R/Cers. Just see how many have no Idea or could care LESS of the AMA/CBO Efforts to stem the tide of Federal legislation to control our Hobby/Sport. 90% have know Idea of any of this and ounce LIKE U GUYS don't believe it could become a real problem.

HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

Originally Posted by init4fun
But to think it'll be full cavity searches for hitting 401 feet really IS "tin foil hat' material



If for no other reason than there is absolutely ZERO reason for them to enforce a non-existent altitude limit.

But in a more general sense the FAA is going to treat model aircraft that endanger the NAS the same way they treat manned aircraft. Which is to say that they will continue to enforce by exception. So cause an accident or reportable incident or have somebody turn you in, THEN they will take an interest.

This is absolutely True but, answer me this, why is it WRONG to try and do something about the inevitable. What's WRONG with trying to get the information to those Fly R/C Toys and have absolutely No Knowledge that there are RULEs with which they must comply.

Anyways it 8:02 AM and it 73 degrees with a predicated high of 83 wind light and variable and not a cloud in the sky ... Gota SSS and get a little breakfast on the way to the R/C Field for a day full of good old conversation with all the flying buds. but Like the sign says ... "Leave U R Feelings at Home" Hope U ALL has a goods day. Springs and Summers "JUS"S ROUND THE CORNER"

init4fun

Hey HoundDog ,

Look , buddy , I can get from your posts that you very well care about the future of our hobby , and you see this whole NPRM/drone/FPV stuff as a threat to our hobby . What I see in this is that the camera jockeys have already been identified as a separate entity apart from us regular ol line of sight circle flyers . Any further incidents from the flying camera crew very well could result in some more or differently tweaked regulations concerning their operations but I really doubt the FAA or anyone else is gonna be pushing for enhanced regulations on those not causing any problems (us) .

Look at the world of recreational boating , for example . When "jetski" small watercraft first appeared , many lake and pond boaters were convinced that the jetskis were what it was gonna take to get the public and environmentalists to push for boating restrictions on small waterways . What actually happened is a few fools made a menace of themselves with them and now a LOT of small lakes and ponds outright prohibit jetski use . "regular" recreational boating , however , has not been affected in the least .

I don't think we have anything to worry about , and just to cover all bases yes I did use the AMA's NPRM comment form . Strength in numbers .....

HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

and you see this whole NPRM/drone/FPV stuff as a threat to our hobby

Init4Fun ...
U couldn't be more wrong ... I don't see any TOY R/C things as a threat. I see the Posibility of the Powers that Be Coming down on all of us, Not because of Quads them selves, but because U me and all AMA/CBO LHS and sellers of R/C TOYs have not and were unwilling to find a way to INFORM the so called " IDIOTS", that there is a right place time and operating procedures
i.e. Rules to comply with. Simple straight forward nothing else.
But then again it's so aptly true how phlpsfrnk Endes all his Posts:

"It is not possible to write in such a way that cannot be misinterpreted by a reader determined to do so".

phlpsfrnk:

For give me for stealing your material but it is so appropriate in this case.
Thanks for understanding.

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

H
Hound Dog,

I wish you would direct your energy to getting those same idiots off the road...LOL Most pass a test to get their permission slip (aka drivers license)...and one the most dangerous things we all do as modelers is drive to the flying field... Take a stance on something that really matters!!!

init4fun

To HoundDog ;


Oh no my friend , you've got it ALL wrong !

No way in HELL am I gonna take any unpaid , unauthorized duty to crusade for safe operation of anything from toy airplanes to aircraft carriers !!!!!

Now if the FAA wants to PAY me and give me official authorization to police model aircraft operations well then maybe I might , iffin' I were lookin for work in the law enforcement field .

But to take it on myself to "teach the unwashed masses right from wrong" ????

Sorry pal , but such "crusaders" usually suffer a sad wake up call at the end of someone's boot !

Do you honestly believe that education is the key to getting knuckleheads to quit endangering people for kicks ? Really ? As though they just don't know chasin down a jetliner with a flippin toy plane is unsafe ? Come on buddy , you really can't believe that , can you ?

thepamster

Its really up to the manufactures and dealers who sell these quad products, if they want to keep on selling them and stay in business, to educate the users of them as they are already in a position to put the information about safety out there. It is impracticle for individuals and virtually impossible to do this ourselves for them.
Way back in November, post 293, I posted about AMA clubs getting involved in schools to have drone programs for education and teaching safety and that is about as far as we individual modelers can go with this. I really don't see how yelling in bright red letters that the sky is falling is any help to anyone.

microdon2

My Feedback: (47)

"quire"? - four sheets of paper or parchment folded to form eight leaves, as in medieval manuscripts. So, "Preaching to the Manuscripts"? Please explain - I'm losing thrust here.

MTmags

I didn't read every post..... But with all the sensor technology today, could they not install a altitude limit for R/C aircraft, quads and drones in the radio system? With a telemetry system, there should be a way for the system to know where the plane, quad or drone is.

Or maybe I'm off my rocker??