bradpaul

If model aircraft are now "Aircraft" then do the requirements of FAR 157 as to notification to the FAA of the establishment of a airport/heliports apply to our club fields?

And does that mean that the FAA could establish a process by which all AMA club fields must apply for approval?

acdii

Dayum technologies! If it weren't for the advanced stabilization and miniaturization of components, we would be worrying about this.

JohnShe

Pretty funny, you do know that section 336 exempts us from all of that, don't you?

bradpaul

Well that is what the AMA lawsuit that you disagree with is all about. All the FAA needs to do is to say "safety of the NAS" and them 336 no longer applies.

acdii

I just read the http://www.ntsb.gov/legal/pirker/5730.pdf. They didn't reverse the decision, they are appealing the decision based on the fact that the thing in question is in fact an aircraft. Technically, it fits in the description of aircraft, and based on the allegations, they do have him dead to rights on this particular case.


Like I stated before, when flown in this manner, nail the idiot to the wall. For purposes of commercial use, obtain permits and adhere strictly to what the permit allows and pertains to, and operate in a safe manner. This idiot did neither of the two.


For the record I have no problems with the use of quads or more technically, multirotors, when used in a safe and legal manner, abiding by AMA rules, by an AMA member. I really dont see a problem either with a person needing to show an AMA membership card to purchase one either, though that would be difficult with online retailers. You have to show proof of insurance to buy a car, and the AMA membership really is nothing more than a form of insurance, one which is well worth having, it is stupid to fly without it considering how much damage an out of control plane or heli can do if it hits something. My friend has a small hole in the side of his barn where a plane hit it and put the motor through it.

binns aero

Well said ACdii, some states have regs for firearms purchase, Ie, to a dealer then to a licensed purchaser, in that state. AMA members to a FAA data base ,Dealers to a Regestered AMA pilot.(dealers,hobby shops,private online to data base)

binns aero

Just think about it, the NRA is for the rights of the american public the feds regulate laws state by state.The AMA is for the rights of the american public, the feds regulate flight nation wide.Both are being effected post 911.For reasons outstanding. Kids shooting kids at schools,people flying like fools.The feds are just doing what they can. So we csan still fly and stll shot. Both are our rights.Control is a good thing. And now we can still do both.

JohnShe

Throughout the history of the FAA they have never done anything like that. Until I see real evidence to the contrary I intend to persist with my beliefs.

bradpaul

You do not need to be a member of the NRA to buy or use a gun.

Requiring membership in the AMA in order to buy or fly a RC model airplane? That takes the cake for the dumbest idea so far. BTW it would also be impossible under the law.

Tony Iannucelli

My Feedback: (193)

I swear that was a hex flying over the Pittsburgh huddle the other night. And I saw my real estate lady flying one over a house she has for sale. And what used to be helicopter shots in the movies are now 'drone' shots. Hmmm, I wonder how any rules or regulations will be enforced?

I've been flying R/C for over 40 years. The Sheriff has been out to watch a few times, and we have police officers in our club. Never have seen anyone from the FAA or NTSB where I was flying. Never.

on_your_six

My Feedback: (11)

The sooner that the FAA issues rules and regulations for RC controlled aircraft the better. The AMA guidelines are a joke. In order to get compliance, there has to be civil and criminal penalties. Until that time, there will continue to be reckless pilots endangering other people, property and animals. So what if I need to pass a pilots exam, it proves that I know what the rules are and I am competent to fly an aircraft that I am certified to fly.

The FAA has a history of being able to regulate flight, so let them do it and let the AMA fade away. Maybe then we can get real RC flight insurance.

rcmiket

"Were from the government and were here to help".

Ya right when was the last time that worked out well?

Mike

phlpsfrnk

No, 336 does not exempt us. In fact in answer to Brad's post #26 question 336 (a.) (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)).

In my opinion this satisfies the requirements of FAR 157 as far as "model aircraft" are concerned. Also 336 only prevents the FAA from writing regulations specific to model aircraft that adhere to certain standards as specified in 336. It does not preclude the FAA from writing regulations for ALL Aircraft, including model aircraft.

Frank

acdii

Replace the AMA with a Government entity? Ya, Right, thats a real smart move. We need LESS government! As far as AMA and buying a plane, you need one to fly at a field, at least an AMA field. As far as I know, unless its someones back yard, all fields used for RC are AMA fields. There is no written law that says you HAVE to have AMA to fly there, but you are not able to fly there, unless you are given permission by a club member, correct? So how hard would it be to at least make the buyer beware they really should have AMA to fly what they bought. When they purchase the plane, multirotor, heli, or whatever, the place they purchased it from should at the very least include an AMA form with the rules. Every plane kit I bought to date has the AMA rules in the manual. What that will do is put the buyer in the awareness state that if they do not follow the AMA guidelines, they could be fined or worse if they do something stupid with it by not following those rules.

To me that would put less pressure on those of us who do follow AMA rules and fly in a safe manner.

JohnShe

The law says that teh FA may not regulate model aircraft if we meet that requirement. Since I have proof that the requirement is meetable I see no reason for concern.

Quote:

Originally Posted by phlpsfrnk

In my opinion this satisfies the requirements of FAR 157 as far as "model aircraft" are concerned. Also 336 only prevents the FAA from writing regulations specific to model aircraft that adhere to certain standards as specified in 336. It does not preclude the FAA from writing regulations for

Quote:

Originally Posted by phlpsfrnk

ALL Aircraft, including model aircraft.

Frank

Current FAA actions and documents say that they aren't going in that direction. I don't think that any interim or final regs for sUAS or UAS will regulate model aircraft.

acdii

Curious the definition of "airport" as stated in this. An airport would be a place where passengers embark on a plane, and an "airfield" would be a place where planes take off and land, regardless if they have a passenger, and usually are only for small planes, with out any control tower, usually a grass strip with a few hangers on it.

Around by me we have several "airfields" but no "airports" within the 5 mile radius of our field. Does that make them exempt from the 5 mile rule if there is no control tower, visual rules, no passenger terminal? If there is no control tower, nor any airport operator, how would you be able to even abide by that rule?

rgburrill

And people like you do not accept that exceptions can be made, and in fact were made, WITH SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS LIKE FOLLOWING THE RULES SET UP BY AN ORGANIZATION DEVOTED TO OUR CAUSE.

bradpaul

And people like you do not accept that there has been huge over reach by government agencies like the EPA, BLM and now the FAA. And I guess you are referring to the CBO that the FAA says they cannot recognize as a CBO. Interesting that the AMA is taking the FAA to court over the FAA's Interpretation of the exception.........................................

acdii

Jut wait until DHS gets involved, then FEMA, we are dooooooommmmmmmmedd

franklin_m

Interesting, I made two posts to the AMA blog yesterday. The first one was approved in a couple hours, the second has been "awaiting moderation" for more than 12 hours. Could it be that I had the audacity to ask what we got for the money AMA spent lobbying - and they don't want people asking that qestion in public? Things that make you go "hummmmmm.
"

FLAPHappy

My Feedback: (209)

Acdii: I know you know the rules, just want tp bring up one point. The AMA Insurance it a must have, but it is Secondary to your Homeowners Insurance, so... you pay deductible, your homeowners pays the rest up to your Max Limit on your insurance policy . If it is a very serious accident, involving a lawsuit and runs into big money, then the AMA Insurance kicks in.

http://www.modelaircraft.org/files/H...portaclaim.pdf

Just thought I would bring it up again.

phlpsfrnk

If you think that is bad you should have been posting on the AMA forum awhile back when they had their own forum. The moderation and editing of posts got so bad they finally closed it in favor of the Blogs which provide more control over the content they allow. Controlling the content allows one to control the "spin/direction" the discussion takes. I for one personally do not like the current direction the AMA appears to be headed but that's just my opinion.

Frank

on_your_six

My Feedback: (11)

In the long run, the AMA muddied the waters and delayed the inevitable. We got to pay for the ride.

acdii

True, but still a form of insurance to protect you in the event something did happen. After all, these are moving objects that work off a radio signal, anything that can interfere with it, will interfere with it, and all it takes is loss of signal and a plane or quad(was going to say heli, but those usually will just crash) could quickly run away, especially if you did not set a fail safe, and if on a climb it could continue climbing and get into the path of a plane. Or continue on a straight line, and wind up in the path of an expressway and hit a car or truck and cause a wreck. It doesn't matter if its a lightweight foamy like an Apprentice, if someone sees something like this heading right at their windshield, while doing the typical 80+ in a 55, their reaction will be to swerve to avoid it. Incidences like this are what having AMA is about. Homeowners may not cover you if you are at a flying field, and some fliers may not even have homeowners insurance since they rent and never considered getting renters insurance.

I still think that places that sell airborne RC should be at least required to provide a flyer or form for AMA with the rules. As long as that piece of paper is in the hands of the buyer, they have been made aware that there are rules to follow. Deviate from them, and you could wind up in court with heavy fines. Most adults buying these for their children are clueless unless they themselves are RC flyers, and should know the risks involved. These are not TOYS as stated before, they are real aircraft that can cause real harm to people and property. Does not matter that they are small, and weigh a few pounds, the fact that they can leave the ground under their own power, and perform maneuvers similar to full scale make them real aircraft. This is what the NTSB is claiming, and they are in the right track, unfortunately for all of us who do follow the rules.

To me a model aircraft is made of plastic and sits on a shelf, the planes I fly are RC aircraft, some are Scale RC aircraft, but they are all considered aircraft, not models. There are a lot of gray areas that will need to be defined, both by the AMA and FAA, and now the NTSB. If the AMA can get their crap together and come up with RC aircraft definitions that cover not only airplanes and heli's, but also the multirotors that are out there now, and a fixed set of rules to fly by, and have NTSB and fAA agree on them, then this whole shebang will go away.

not holding my breath though.

raptureboy

There was another news story on today of 2 more close calls at JFK by "drones" with 1 coming as close as 100ft and another being in the path of another on final. The news source used stock images of a jetliner and military drone overlapping to accentuate the story. I think a few well placed ad's on TV by the AMA clearly stating what the hobby and the hobbiest is all about, similer to what the NRA does would go a long way to counter the medias scare stories.Also to show that quads are not "drones" like the public imagines. The public is not as dumb as the Gruber's of the world think. Clear rules defining what a model aircraft is and where it may and may not be flown would also help. We all know what is and is not acceptable when driving a car or owning a gun, and that there are laws stating what the penalty is for violating them, so why not for model aircraft. I saw a really good program on a local cable station showing the benefits of multirotor aircraft in locating missing people, making movies, crime prevention etc. How about this headline for a change.. " Local FPV owners help locate missing child" Sticking our head in the sand or taking a defiant stand against the government will not help the problem. The truth will always triumph.