cj_rumley

HoundDog, I'd like to answer your post and what I perceive to be misconceptions therein. Firstly, I am not bad mouthing AMA and it is not an organization that I do not like, though I do have some differences with a position taken by it's management. AMA membership is required by the club that controls use of the publicly owned property where I usually chose to fly. I am a plank holder in that club, the only one that remains as of now. I wouldn't have the opportunity to use that facility of my choice without being an AMA member. I have met with Rich Hanson on several occasions, and consider him very intelligent, conscientious, credible, and capable in the the capacity he is is charged with. Not the least by any means, I consider him a friend. I don't agree with him on this issue. Honestly, do you really think I should quit AMA and be refused renewal because I don't agree with AMA's stance on this instance?

Sport_Pilot

A model aircraft can fly as high as the pilot wants if outside 5 miles from an airport and if he does not endanger the NAS. We need more detail I assume that endanger is that you stay clear of all full scale aircraft. But the FAA might not see it that way.

jrf

My Feedback: (551)

The FAA and congress have repeatedly made it clear that a "Model Airplane" can not legally fly above 400' agl anywhere in the USA. The fact that it is unenforceable does not make it invalid. Get spotted by a full scale airplane at 1000' and get caught, then see what happens.

It is interesting that FAA is proposing that a commercial UAS under 55 pounds can fly up to 500' where flight is not prohibited.

JohnShe

No they haven't, there is nothing documented anywhere that makes such a flat statement. However, if you are caught invadeing teh NAS and creating a nuisance or danger, they will hang you by the balls.


And, your point being?

jrf

My Feedback: (551)

I apologize for the use of the word "legally". It is an interpretation of the FAA and a guideline of the CBO. I refer you to he FAA's guidelines for Model Aircraft at https://www.faa.gov/uas/model_aircraft/ and the AMA (and others) "Know Before You Fly" at http://knowbeforeyoufly.org/for-recreational-users/

I have not read the NPRM, but I would be surprised if that limit (or the 500' limit used for commercial UAS) does not come up.

Then of course there is the FAA's "AC 91-57, Model Aircraft Operation Standards", (which may or may not have been rescinded), which says:
Do not fly model aircraft higher than 400 feet above the surface.

bradpaul

From the "Official" AMA 2015 Safety Code
Let's just leave it as being subject to further clarification, from both the FAA and the AMA.

Sport_Pilot

Per the FAA the NAS goes down to the ground so what do you mean by invading the NAS?

TimJ

That is fine and dandy. But section 336 does not require you to join a CBO. It requires you to follow the safety guidelines of a CBO.
I'm not a lawyer, so my interpretation of "Programming" may be different than a legal definition. "Programming" would be the keyword in interpreting sec. 336 in requiring one to join a CBO, by law, to play with a toy airplane.

I have not stated anything in this thread that I am representing the AMA.

Now you have changed the question to "does the AMA" That was not the original question asked. Do you think after reading 336 that you are required to join a CBO or only follow CBO safety guidelines?

KaP2011

My Feedback: (17)

I admit that I have not read all 30 pages of this thread and someone has likely already asked this question but I'm going to throw it out anyway.

How would you propose that we stop the drones?

Do we stop buying products from companies that sell drones?
Do we take matters into our own hands and shoot down every drone we see?
Do we outlaw them at our clubs?

I'm not sure how one of these drones can kill someone unless one was sucked into the engine of a passenger jet and in that case I think we need to outlaw ducks as well.

jhicks112562

What the hell is a "drome"?

airraptor

My Feedback: (66)

kapa2011 what is your definition of a drone? if you are referring to a mulit-rotor aircraft then call them what they are dont give in to the media and call them a drone. look up the definition of a drone and then you will see.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmanned_aerial_vehicle

we in this hobby need to stop calling these things drones.... the word drone gets everyones' attention because of the media. I personally dislike the word drone used in our/my hobby.

cj_rumley

Never mind, Tim, bradpaul understood the question and answered it. Oh, I see you didn't understand his post either.

TimJ

Whats wrong did you not want to go down that path?

cj_rumley, Bradpaul's comment above would be the appropriate response, but it seemed like you wanted to go down some other path.

I will just leave it at that...............

JohnShe

When you lift words out of context you can make them mean anything you want. Try again!

N410DC

Technically, the AC and the FAA's interpretation are suggestions, not law. Even the "Know Before you Fly" publication explicitly states that the suggestions are "safety guidelines," not mandatory laws.

That said, the AC and the FAA's voluntary guidelines are also a deceleration that the FAA may attempt to levy a fine against someone who flies above 400'. Though they are not legally binding, the safety guidelines, the AMA safety code, etc. could be used as evidence to compel a Judge to uphold a fine. The pilot may or may not win of the case goes to Court, but either way, if the pilot does not want to pay the fine, he/she will have to spend a great deal of time and money on legal defense.

Bottom line: I seriously doubt the the FAA will attempt to take legal action against a pilot, simply because he/she is flying a model aircraft higher than 400'. They never have in the past, that's for certain. However, if the pilot also gets to close to a full scale aircraft or too close to an airport, then the FAA is far more likely to take action.

An unintentional misspelling by the OP.

cj_rumley

Probably best that you do that, Tim. I was referring to his post #719 and you cite from one he posted later on another subject entirely.

Sport_Pilot

The 400 foot rule is broken at every NAT and the FAA has never complained. In fact some FAA officials are members and have been to the NAT's. I believe they have also said they have no problem with the AMA's rules.

Sport_Pilot

I simply asked a question, noting more. Please answer.

JerryEl

Many of those "drone" sightings are not model aircraft. I spent hours reading over the FAA's list of UAV reports and their are many of them. Almost all are government agencies or contractors for the government that have wandered into controlled airspace or the ground pilot lost control of the craft. Supposedly like the models they have a return to home or some kind of direction in the software for getting to safe airspace and trying to contact its ground controller in the case of losing communication. But...And this is a real problem they don't always do what they are supposed to do.

We as modelers need to get out of the habit of calling model aircraft "drones." Drones have a negative connotation usually mean deadly unmanned vehicles. We fly models, small RC operated planes, helicopters, and quadcopters, some with FPV, some without. We don't fly DRONES! The FAA has has just released the proposed rules for commercial use of small remotely piloted aircraft and they are very fair. They presently don't have the Congressional authority to regulate model aircraft although they are probably going to ask for it and will get it from Congress with all these negative news reports going on. It's my understanding the AMA and most of the multicopter groups have agreed to the present suggested rules, 400' altitude, line of sight, FPV only with a spotter, etc. Except for model gliders there doesn't seem to be much reason to fly higher than 400' above ground level especially with FPV because the camera can't really see identifiable objects much higher and have little value in the way of entertainment for recorded video other than to just say, "Yea, I did it!"

I've been flying models since I was a kid and now I'm almost 72 and yes I have a DJI Phantom 2 w/FPV but I live in a rural area and don't fly over 400' and fly a minimum 100' over any residence. Most people who have seen the aircraft stop and look in awe at the FPV monitor. If I show them recorded video they think it's "so beautiful" but I point out how from altitude no one is identifiable because it is a limitation of the cameras used so they don't need to worry about snooping. All I have seen here and in other places seem satisfied as far as privacy goes.

How to stop the bad guy flying? I think many who post on YouTube are being justifiably chastised for their dangerous flying. Especially the high altitude flights but many of them are not in the U.S. but at least it lets U.S amateurs know they not flying safely by doing such flights. I don't think we need more regulation, we need to enforce the laws on the books now that any law enforcement officer can write a violation for. And that violation is, public and property endangerment. IMO that covers everything and lets a judge sort it out. Like others have mentioned outlawing something doesn't stop it from happening. Even banning won't work when with the Internet there are ways to get around most everything. They tried on Internet gambling in the U.S. and that didn't work out so good. They've banned guns in some cases and that didn't stop the murder and mayhem as England and Australia have found out.

FPV with GPS stabilized model aircraft are the future of modeling. The cat's out of the bag so to speak and it's only going to keep growing. For the time being there are limitations on electric flight due to physics but that even may change in the near future. Look how many people are maimed or killed by automobiles. Should they be banned. Banning is not the solution.

TimJ

Instead of fighting the word "drone", why not welcome it with open arms? Use the term to your advantage to help educate the public. Thanks to the media, the public understands drone. They don't understand Multi-Rotor or Quad. That will not change anytime soon. What will change is the bad thoughts of what a drone really is. Public agency's are having events educating the public about sUAV, Clubs are hosting events for them. March 14, 2015 is International Drone Day. Across the world clubs are hosting events for "drones" (Multi-Rotors) to help educate people about "drones"

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

+1

A balanced and well reasoned response...I don't know if that's allowed here.

I hope you hang around here and help keep some sanity.

bradpaul

There seems to be a discrepancy between the 400' AGL limit stated in the FAA documents, https://www.faa.gov/uas/model_aircraft/ the "Know Before You Fly" website, http://knowbeforeyoufly.org/for-recreational-users/
and the 2015 AMA Safety Code that seems to only require: "(c) Not fly higher than approximately 400 feet above ground level within three (3) miles of an airport without notifying the airport operator. "

What is the AGL ceiling in order to comply with PL 112-95 Sec 336, by following the programming of the CBO (AMA)?

Secondly does the CBO programming comply with FAA AGL limits for sUAS?

bradpaul

Received this reply:

JerryEl

But when they see them close up in person or in the media they look at them as "toy drones". I respect your opinion but I don't think they are "toys" or "drones". 95% of these multicopters have a range less than 2km due to the limitations of the batteries and radio frequency but you would have to have some spectacular vision or maybe flashing strobes to see one that far away. That doesn't really meet a definition of a "drone". In the public's mind a drone is something that flies from Arizona or places like Djibouti or some other foreign country traveling thousands of miles to kill terrorists with missiles or bombs. IMO we shouldn't call our flying machines with FPV drones for that very reason. While model multicopters could seriously hurt someone it isn't very likely nor could they do much damage to property. That's a big difference between drones and model aircraft with FPV. However, there is a real danger to manned aircraft especially general aviation. If a small plane hits one of these multicopters it could easily penetrate the windscreen and kill the pilot or passenger. They probably wouldn't cause an airliner to go down but it could cause an engine failure or other problem that could cause the pilot to declare an emergency. That's the main thing that scares the public and government rule makers. If only these idiots would stay under 500' maximum AGL we wouldn't be having all these supposed sightings. Many of the reports that come from general aviation are false reports of nothing more than "seeing" a small done or model aircraft. Not necessarily that they were over 400'. I also have a private pilot's license and if I didn't know better it would scare me too.

JerryEl

Here is the latest info from AMA regarding any proposed rules:

FAA Releases Proposed sUAS Rule
After years of delays, the FAA released its notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for sUAS on February 15, 2015. Although we are still sifting through the 195-page proposed rule, at first glance we are cautiously optimistic.
Since the beginning of the regulatory process in 2008, the path that got us to where we are today took several unusual twists and turns.
AMA's position from the very beginning was, and will always be, "No modeler left behind!" Along the way, AMA and the FAA were able to address a number of concerns and came together to find reasonable solutions. We were able to resolve these concerns because the FAA looked favorably on AMA and our strong safety program that has stood the test of time for nearly 80 years.
In 2008, the FAA's initial thoughts were that it would "regulate model aviation by exempting it from regulation." As the process progressed, the FAA changed direction and began leaning toward a comprehensive set of "operating standards" that would be the guidance for modelers.
AMA and some dedicated AMA volunteers representing many of the aeromodeling disciplines worked for over two years alongside the FAA in developing those standards. The work was tedious, sometimes tense, and was made more difficult by frequent turnover in personnel within the FAA's Unmanned Aircraft Systems Integration Office (UASIO), the office within the FAA charged with drafting these new rules.
In 2010, recognizing the challenges we were facing, AMA asked Congress for its support. In February 2012, after nearly two years of hard work, Congress passed the 2012 FAA Modernization and Reform Act. Within this act is Section 336, titled the Special Rule for Model Aircraft (the AMA amendment).
This amendment, while recognizing the FAA's authority over anyone-including model aviation enthusiasts-who could be an eminent danger to other users of the airspace, limited the FAA's ability to create any new rule or regulation for model aircraft. Shortly after the passage of this act-and in part due to a change in management within the UASIO-the FAA's position began to shift away from the concept of a hard set of standards for model aircraft.
We find ourselves today, nearly seven years after the process began, looking at a proposed rule from which, for the most part, model aviation is exempt. As the FAA administrator said, "... this proposed rule does not affect those who want to fly model aircraft as a hobby or for recreation." It appears AMA and the FAA found a way to regulate model aviation by exempting it from regulation.
Although we are optimistic, there is a long way to go before this proposed rule is finalized. There is a period for public comment, and it's possible that the FAA may make some modification to the proposed rule.
AMA is also intent on working with the FAA to resolve the differences we have with the FAA's Interpretive Rule issued in June 2014. The Interpretive Rule is the FAA's interpretation of the provisions in the Special Rule for Model Aircraft, and there a few areas where we believe the FAA may be misinterpreting Congress' intent when it included the special rule in the 2012 act.
As the country's premier community-based organization representing model aviation enthusiasts, AMA has invested significant resources in both manpower and dollars in advocating for, and working toward, the goal of aeromodelers continuing to enjoy model aviation much as we have in the past. The NPRM is a good step toward making that happen.
Once we have had a chance to fully digest the NPRM we will report back to our membership.
VISIT WWW.MODELAIRCRAFT.ORG/GOV
for updates on AMA's Government advocacy efforts.