time to stop the dromes..........NOW
#726
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga,
CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All of U that bad mouth the AMA don't need to belong to an Origination U do not like. I definitely believe that those that Bad moth the AMA should give up their AMA member ship and be refused Renewal next January 1. If U don't believe in what an organization is doing than why in the world would U want to be part of it ...
Especially if U are not required to belong. JMHO
Especially if U are not required to belong. JMHO
#727
But a "recreational" RC modeller flying the same equipment (Drone and Camera) in the same area for private use can take off and fly under 400 feet all day without permission.
#728
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.
It is interesting that FAA is proposing that a commercial UAS under 55 pounds can fly up to 500' where flight is not prohibited.
#729
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Round Hill, VA
Posts: 1,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
And, your point being?
#730
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Then of course there is the FAA's "AC 91-57, Model Aircraft Operation Standards", (which may or may not have been rescinded), which says: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.
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.
Last edited by jrf; 02-17-2015 at 12:00 PM.
#731
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.
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.
Academy of Model Aeronautics National Model Aircraft Safety CodeEffective January 1, 2014
A. GENERAL: A model aircraft is a non-human-carrying aircraft capable of sustained flight in the atmosphere. It may not exceed limitations of this code and is
intended exclusively for sport, recreation, education and/or competition. All model flights must be conducted in accordance with this safety code and any
additional rules specific to the flying site.
1. Model aircraft will not be flown:
(a) In a careless or reckless manner.
(b) At a location where model aircraft activities are prohibited.
2. Model aircraft pilots will:
(a) Yield the right of way to all human-carrying aircraft.
(b) See and avoid all aircraft and a spotter must be used when appropriate. (AMA Document #540-D.)
(c) Not fly higher than approximately 400 feet above ground level within three (3) miles of an airport without notifying the airport operator.
(d) Not interfere with operations and traffic patterns at any airport, heliport or seaplane base except where there is a mixed use agreement.
(e) Not exceed a takeoff weight, including fuel, of 55 pounds unless in compliance with the AMA Large Model Airplane program. (AMA Document 520-A.)
(f) Ensure the aircraft is identified with the name and address or AMA number of the owner on the inside or affixed to the outside of the model aircraft. (This
does not apply to model aircraft flown indoors.)
(g) Not operate aircraft with metal-blade propellers or with gaseous boosts except for helicopters operated under the provisions of AMA Document #555.
(h) Not operate model aircraft while under the influence of alcohol or while using any drug that could adversely affect the pilot’s ability to safely control the
model.
A. GENERAL: A model aircraft is a non-human-carrying aircraft capable of sustained flight in the atmosphere. It may not exceed limitations of this code and is
intended exclusively for sport, recreation, education and/or competition. All model flights must be conducted in accordance with this safety code and any
additional rules specific to the flying site.
1. Model aircraft will not be flown:
(a) In a careless or reckless manner.
(b) At a location where model aircraft activities are prohibited.
2. Model aircraft pilots will:
(a) Yield the right of way to all human-carrying aircraft.
(b) See and avoid all aircraft and a spotter must be used when appropriate. (AMA Document #540-D.)
(c) Not fly higher than approximately 400 feet above ground level within three (3) miles of an airport without notifying the airport operator.
(d) Not interfere with operations and traffic patterns at any airport, heliport or seaplane base except where there is a mixed use agreement.
(e) Not exceed a takeoff weight, including fuel, of 55 pounds unless in compliance with the AMA Large Model Airplane program. (AMA Document 520-A.)
(f) Ensure the aircraft is identified with the name and address or AMA number of the owner on the inside or affixed to the outside of the model aircraft. (This
does not apply to model aircraft flown indoors.)
(g) Not operate aircraft with metal-blade propellers or with gaseous boosts except for helicopters operated under the provisions of AMA Document #555.
(h) Not operate model aircraft while under the influence of alcohol or while using any drug that could adversely affect the pilot’s ability to safely control the
model.
#733
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.
Being an AMA AVP doesn't mean you speak for AMA, Tim. Cite Bob Brown or Rich Hanson saying that. What does "fly under the umbrella of the AMA" mean? Are you equating that to "within the programming of a CBO?"
Simple Yes or No: Does AMA hold the position that Sect 336 only applies to CBO members? Provide citations for your answer.
Simple Yes or No: Does AMA hold the position that Sect 336 only applies to CBO members? Provide citations for your answer.
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?
Last edited by TimJ; 02-17-2015 at 01:53 PM.
#734
My Feedback: (17)
as we read each day the problems of dromes is hurting us all......been in the hobby for over 40 yrs and would like to see 50 yrs of enjoyment.......but its got to stop now,people who sell these things and the people who use them.........or better yet who misuse them it needs to stop today....we will all be hurt over a few who dont care and only look at what they want to do.....the clubs should out law these things and the hobby shops who sell them should stop......what is going to happen is someone is gooding kill someone and the FAA will ground all of us.i say we stop it befor it gets to that point........big hobby supplyers should wait up and understand that is going on...lets put a stop to this today befor its to late..............
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.
#736
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.
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.
#737
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga,
CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
#738
I will just leave it at that...............
#739
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Round Hill, VA
Posts: 1,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#740
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Cartersville, GA
Posts: 360
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
#741
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga,
CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
#742
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.
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.
#744
Junior Member
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
#745
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"
#746
My Feedback: (58)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: here
Posts: 5,413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
#747
Submitted this question to "ASK AMA" today
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?
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?
#748
Received this reply:
Hi Brad,
It’s important to note that the Know Before You Fly Campaign is not a change to the National Model Aircraft Safety Code and AMA’s safety program. The KBYF campaign is intended to provide safety guidance for the emerging community of thousands of non AMA members and non-modelers engaged in a new technology that is a bit different than the more traditional forms of model aviation.
Model aircraft enthusiasts operating under the “Special Rule for Model Aircraft” are still governed by PL 112-95, Sec 336 and AMA’s safety programming. AMA members should continue to operate in accordance with the AMA Safety Code and related safety documents.”
For AMA members... AMA's guidelines are to:
Not interfere with manned aircraft
Remain well clear of manned aircraft
See & Avoid all aircraft and obstacles in accordance with Doc 540-D
And, remain at or below 400' AGL when within 3 miles of the airport.
Hope this helps,
Rich Hanson
AMA Government and Regulatory Affairs
It’s important to note that the Know Before You Fly Campaign is not a change to the National Model Aircraft Safety Code and AMA’s safety program. The KBYF campaign is intended to provide safety guidance for the emerging community of thousands of non AMA members and non-modelers engaged in a new technology that is a bit different than the more traditional forms of model aviation.
Model aircraft enthusiasts operating under the “Special Rule for Model Aircraft” are still governed by PL 112-95, Sec 336 and AMA’s safety programming. AMA members should continue to operate in accordance with the AMA Safety Code and related safety documents.”
For AMA members... AMA's guidelines are to:
Not interfere with manned aircraft
Remain well clear of manned aircraft
See & Avoid all aircraft and obstacles in accordance with Doc 540-D
And, remain at or below 400' AGL when within 3 miles of the airport.
Hope this helps,
Rich Hanson
AMA Government and Regulatory Affairs
#749
Junior Member
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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"
#750
Junior Member
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.