mike1974

My Feedback: (1)

True enough porcia, but we would still have prohibition if everybody just rolled over and played dead for every law and regulation the gov't wants to put upon us. Of course it is in the name of safety.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

Sure, no doubt. And some cases are made to be precedent setting as well. I don't think this was one of them though. It's hard to argue that the FAA doesn't have jurisdiction over the national airspace though....that one is just not going to fly. Ha..sorry!

mike1974

My Feedback: (1)

lol. Oh, I agree with you about the airspace being controlled by the FAA. I just meant the registration enforcement. I feel RC should be left left alone without registration and deal with the problem fliers as they come.

Chris P. Bacon

My Feedback: (4)

AMA and FAA Reach an Agreement: DC SFRA Back Open to Model Aircraft

http://view.exacttarget.com/?j=fe701...007b761d73&r=0

mike1974

My Feedback: (1)

That's great news!!!! The FAA should have never done that in the first place, but great news nonetheless.

rcmiket

Good and about time.

Mike

Chris P. Bacon

My Feedback: (4)

Good things take time and leadership. Thank god the AMA stepped in to assist in teh resolution. We don't need another Y'all Quaeda situation on our hands.

Sport_Pilot

I suggest you read the FAR and report back what the definition of NAS is. Because it does not say it is from any surface and it is not used to describe any jurisdiction. While you are at it read the USC which overrules the FAR if there is any discrepancy.

rcmiket

http://www.faa.gov/news/updates/?newsId=84787


Great the fields will be reopened but with restrictions we haven't seen before. Is this what we will be dealing with in the future?
What are " specific operating conditions"? I'd like to see just what they are.

Thought the 400 foot rule was taken care of per the AMA. "require them to fly 400 feet or lower above the ground" Pretty much no IMAC, Jets or larger air frames.

Who determines this? "fly in clear conditions"

Mike

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

Right...because the AMA wasn't really doing anything here, just hanging out while all the other advocacy groups worked on our behalf.

I guess you'll ask the same questions in every thread, the answer will probably be the same. You know from following the AMA blogs the fields in the DC area will be looked at differently than 99.99% of the other fields in the country. You know why as well. Rather than look at the opening of the fields as a success by the AMA, or be positive about the members being able to fly, you appear to be complaining about the 400 foot level. Probably expecting the AMA to waive the magic wand and get everything they want, but it ain't to be. I know, it's another AMA failure I'm sure. I'd have to say an open field with some limitations (the 400 ft being the worst of it) is better than a CLOSED field with no flying.

Since the 400 foot issue has been dealt with already in the concessions noted here and in the AMA blogs, that's looks to be settled. Of course things may change in the future, but rather than forecast more of the same doom and gloom...why not consider where the hobby is at now. Almost identical in terms of rules/regs as it was last year. A simple 5 minute reg, and that's pretty much it.

rcmiket

I've already answered you in the other threads.

Mike

Chris P. Bacon

My Feedback: (4)

..

rcmiket

Which are contrary to what the AMA says about the 400 foot rule. Is FPV forbidden even with a spotter? What constitutes "fly in clear conditions"?
I see what you saying but there are questions to be asked.
I'd also like to now why these "conditions " were not mentioned in the AMA statement regarding resuming flying in DC, seems like this is pretty important information. I've already asked about that with the powers to be and am awaiting a response.


Mike

Rob2160

This article was on the front page of USA Today yesterday.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2...anes/80002730/

HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

Why in the world would these 14 AMA fields be subjected to a 400 foot ceiling if not inside the 5 mile radius of a towered air port. The SFR from 30 to 60 miles out from DC has to be the safest area in the USA because No one but airlines are allowed to fly in and out and all are way above the 400' ceiling.

We/U/me/AMA must fight for our GOD given right to our share of the NAS. We need so little less than 1/10 of a square mile in area up to 1500' AGL. 2/10ths of a Square mile for fields with 2 or more runways. Mark them on sectionals like towers mine blasting areas stadiums, towers etc. If U figure that no GA aircraft are allowed with in 3 miles of an occupied stadium at less than 3000' AGL certainly not too much to require for R/C TOYS.

If U read FAR 91.119(b) it all ready "REQUIRES all GA except LE and Medical, to stay more than 1000' AGL when within more than 3/8 of a mile and even higher if there are any higher objects near your field i.e. tall trees Power lines High tension towers cell towers. Even your Flag Pole, when the field is occupied by as few as 2 people.

Far 91.119(b) Says
(b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft.

So having an extra 400' is not too much to ask. Besides if Med copters and Law enforcement even crop dusters, are operating in the area they are required by the FARs to be compleatly briefed on every aspect of their intended route of flight etc. This includes restricted air space even if only part time or when occupied. Besides 2400 1 to 2 tenths of a SQ Mile airspace is less area than just 6 towered Airports and half the height of the least towered airports sir space extends to.

Come ON AMA Fight for our "GOD" given right to our share of the NAS.

Sport_Pilot

Not much area left around the 5 mile circles of the airports. So I expect most fields had a 400 foot restriction anyway.

HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

Anyone got a map other than a sectional i.e. Google Maps depicting both the 519 Towered air ports with their 5 mile circles and their relationship to all AMA fields in the USA. Might be a nice thing to have supplied by the AMA.

Might add the 1/2 mile diameter depictions of the AMA fields. A D shape perimeter for those with a single run way and a 1/4 mile radius full circle for those with multiple runways.

ira d

I think the FAA really wants the 400' limit everywhere and this was their chance to enforce it in the DC area as a condition to reopen the RC sites in that area, I think as time passes we will see more of the
actions taken in DC done elsewhere.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

If they wanted the 400 ceiling, why not say it now and leave it at that? Why give the AMA latitude? They already instituted the registration, why not get out what they want to get out now in one move rather than take an approach of a little bit here, then a little bit there. It's not as if we went in with tons of leverage. I see this as a goal they have set, but allows for a reasonable approach to deviation, for groups such as the AMA who have a longstanding history of safety. I'd like to think the continued dialog with them AMA helped in some way too since at the end of the day, the FAA can pretty much do what it wants and not be told otherwise for some time.

rcmiket

Yep.That's the bottom line.

Mike

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

I knew we'd agree on something again, eventually!

It's hard to fight city hall...and they are more like statehall!

HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

In Full Scale it means a minimum of 1000' AGL Ceiling and 3 miles visibility i.e. Minimum VFR.

There is no reason that all 2500 + AMA fields can't have a 1/2 mile dia circle upto 1500' pf prohibited air space. It's such a small area and we are Paying thru our taxes for the FAA to control the NAS it's our GOD given right to our fair share. Besides if there over 1 Million people flying some sort of R.C TOYs. Just 1million are almost twice as many current Pilots of all ratings in the USA estimated in 2014 at 593,433. Full Scale Pilots. The FAA own numbers show a 190160 decrease in licensed pilots since 1980 for a 28.2% decrease. While the number of R/C TOY pilots has increased over 500% just in the past few years. if there were More Prohibited areas for R.C Toys to be separated from Full Scale aircraft we wouldn't likely be even thinking of this. KEEP FULL Scale planes away from Prohibited R/C Flight areas op to 1500' and 1/2 mile in diameter.

Besides there is no reason on God's Green Earth that any GA Pilot should endanger his him self or the Lives of his passengers to JOY Ride down at 500' Where he can't make a save landing in case of an engine failure. From 500' AGL at best glide speed of most Light GA aircraft, the Pilot must diagnose the Problem switch tanks check gages pick out a safe and suitable landing place. All in just 37.5 seconds to impact with the ground, I don't know about U but it took more than that amount of time when the Instructor Pulled the Power to Ideal, at 3000' AGL to go through Engine Out Procedures then to pick a suitable landing spot. Which I later deduced was Usually right below us.
I was taught to always enter an airports 5 mile ring at 1000' AGL and the proper airspeed (Small increments of Power reduction), Then maintai pattern altitude (1000' AGL) until abeam of the Point where I was going to land.

As of the end of 2014, in the US, there were an estimated 593,499 active certificated pilots. This number has been declining gradually over the past several decades, down from a high of over 827,000 pilots in 1980. There were in 1990 and 625,581 in 2000.


Now let's get off the whiney track forget what U think is wrong stop bickering about nothing but personalities and FIGHT for what is Rightfully OURS. i.e. Our fair share of the NAS.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

Sheesh...cabin fever there HD?

franklin_m

I think they're using it as a template for future implementation. Right now the FAA looks like they're trying to work with the AMA/modelers.

Unfortunately, if there continues to be reports of near misses around other airports (and I think there will be), the FAA will then be able to use those as justification for implementing something similar at all class B and C airports. They'll look like the reasonable ones - trying to work with the CBOs, but darned if the problems didn't continue. It won't matter whether offenders are AMA members or not, that fine distinction will get lost in the clamor from lawmakers, pilots, and the media. Through it all, FAA will look reasonable and measured. Then, in the not too distant future, they'll finally say "See, this 400' thing didn't eliminate the hobby, why don't we just do it nationwide - that way everyone is following the same rule."

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

But they don't need justification, or games, or false pretenses to "flex their muscle" as someone else has said. They can do what they want, when they want, why wait? Even you presented all this "proof" of near misses and just in the past 30 days. Didn't you just find a slew of Google with in just the past 30 days? Why can't they use the hundreds and hundreds (or even thousands) of reported near misses over the past few years as justification for what they do?

Your premise is that this is a big ruse, a con if you will just to turn around and do what they really want to do later? Would you say this is done to intentionally inflict some type of harm to the AMA/Hobby, or just to wield some type of force (that I would say they already can and have used already)?