WAKE UP AMA. Another field closed!!
11-16-2015, 08:15 AM
#251
My Feedback: (22)
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: palm harbor,
FL
Posts: 2,232
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
First I don't have my head stuck where the sun don't shine.I am foward looking and post I've about most tech advances but yes but I have been upset about drone activity being lumped with traditional rc activity.the public is not educated about drones and all too often mix the the two together.I have flown rc nearly 40 yrandfriends who know what i do often ask me about drones .I don't fly them primary because I have no real interest.I have no objections to others that love them.unlike planes they can fly drones just about anywhere and now don't even need to see them.unfortunately not every operator has the publics right to privacy and public safety at heart.rogue flyers usually Yong people push the boundaries of common and legal sense.I credit the ama for its attempt to be inclusive and accepting but not unlike some of these posts it's time the ama separate it's self from drones.flying rc planes is simply about flying for the sheer enjoyment it gives.drones are more and more looking at commerce and other mostly legitimate endeavors.it's not being anti drone but for many obvious reasons flying warbirds scale and sport aircraft is so much different.the only common bond is that both are remote controlled.regrettably we we lose support and fields will come under fire having been around many yearama stop caving in to the droneget back to our roots for being.the ama should have been proactive years ago helping procure flying sites .we have always lost fields for the usual reasons of noise and housing development creep but now the drones will likely accelerate that problem.In many urban parts of the country rc will be negatively impacted and sites reduced.our hobby is being threatened and regrettably the ama is heading in the wrong direction with respect to drone activites.
11-16-2015, 08:17 AM
#252
Repeating a lie (there is not other word for repeating an untrue and undocumented statement over and over) which comes as a conclusion obtained by faulty logic does not make it true, even if you repeat it "ad nauseam".
The only concern we all have is that the AMA is taking Model Aviation association down a path of government regulation which we do not want or deserve, as the targeted group for this regulation (which has already begun and will only become increasing) is Drones, an not Model Aviation as it has been practiced for 78 years under the AMA.
For the record, Dave Johnson, owner and CEO of Desert Aircraft, has a huge vested interest in Drones: he nevertheless completely agrees that drones need to have their own organization separate from the AMA.
The only concern we all have is that the AMA is taking Model Aviation association down a path of government regulation which we do not want or deserve, as the targeted group for this regulation (which has already begun and will only become increasing) is Drones, an not Model Aviation as it has been practiced for 78 years under the AMA.
For the record, Dave Johnson, owner and CEO of Desert Aircraft, has a huge vested interest in Drones: he nevertheless completely agrees that drones need to have their own organization separate from the AMA.
11-16-2015, 10:02 AM
#254
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Orange County,
CA
Posts: 5,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
11-16-2015, 02:09 PM
#257
11-16-2015, 06:37 PM
#258
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Hither & Yonder, USA
Posts: 188
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
11-16-2015, 08:30 PM
#259
My Feedback: (60)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Mooresville, NC
Posts: 1,480
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The wonderful City of Los Angeles just passed a new law that codifies their misinterpretation of AC 91-57A and the AMA Safety Code. Among the highlights:
1) No FPV at all, even with a spotter as allowed by the AMA
2) 400 foot hard altitude cap everywhere in the City
3) No flying within 5 miles of any airport with a tower without express permission
4) No night flying. Period.
This effectively ends some long time activities within the City limits and jeopardizes more than one long time flying site. It also ends soaring in the City and stops night flying at a few well attended helicopter events.
But at least they stopped short of a total ban. So I guess that is "good" news.
1) No FPV at all, even with a spotter as allowed by the AMA
2) 400 foot hard altitude cap everywhere in the City
3) No flying within 5 miles of any airport with a tower without express permission
4) No night flying. Period.
This effectively ends some long time activities within the City limits and jeopardizes more than one long time flying site. It also ends soaring in the City and stops night flying at a few well attended helicopter events.
But at least they stopped short of a total ban. So I guess that is "good" news.
11-16-2015, 10:59 PM
#260
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Orange County,
CA
Posts: 5,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, nothing in the new law would cause the Basin to close. VNY is already well aware of them, so that is not an issue, They already use an altitude below 400 feet, so that is not an issue either. About the only things that will be banned at the Basin are any FPV flying that may be going on and night flying, which mostly was done at heli events. The vast majority of Basin pilots will notice almost no differences at all.
11-17-2015, 03:08 AM
#261
The wonderful City of Los Angeles just passed a new law that codifies their misinterpretation of AC 91-57A and the AMA Safety Code. Among the highlights:
1) No FPV at all, even with a spotter as allowed by the AMA
2) 400 foot hard altitude cap everywhere in the City
3) No flying within 5 miles of any airport with a tower without express permission
4) No night flying. Period.
1) No FPV at all, even with a spotter as allowed by the AMA
2) 400 foot hard altitude cap everywhere in the City
3) No flying within 5 miles of any airport with a tower without express permission
4) No night flying. Period.
11-17-2015, 03:40 AM
#262
11-17-2015, 04:28 AM
#263
11-17-2015, 04:38 AM
#264
11-17-2015, 04:50 AM
#265
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: El Paso,
TX
Posts: 5,277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mike
11-17-2015, 09:47 AM
#266
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Orange County,
CA
Posts: 5,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
11-17-2015, 10:08 AM
#267
11-17-2015, 10:17 AM
#268
That's NOT what the SCOTUS said in Causby VS the US. Also there is nothing that says where the NAS is. It is simply defined as the network of airspace services and airspace, but does not say where FAA authority starts or stops. Per Cassby it stops at the lower minimum altitude limits.
11-17-2015, 12:17 PM
#269
Yes they can. Look at traffic speed laws. If the feds say the limt is 75 the states ca say it is65 and the cities can say it is 35. I would think that most people not trolling would know that.
11-17-2015, 01:37 PM
#270
Too bad the local municipalities have always lost when they tried to override the FCC in regards to amateur radio.
11-17-2015, 01:38 PM
#271
11-17-2015, 02:30 PM
#272
It appears that the Federal pre-emption is not absolute. Scroll down to several examples where the courts held that local ordnances were not necessarily pre-empted by Federal law. Any number of noise cases. However, in terms of municipalities restricting certain types of operations, I see Hoagland vs. Town of Clear Lake (prohibition of heliports), National Helicopter Corporation of America vs. City of New York et. all (zoning to restrict heli operations), People vs. Valenti (dangerous and reckless flying), and Riggs vs. Burson (prohibit land use as airport within distance of state park) as potentially applicable.
Thus it's not absolute that only the FAA can restrict operations.
http://airportnoiselaw.org/preempt.html
Thus it's not absolute that only the FAA can restrict operations.
http://airportnoiselaw.org/preempt.html
11-17-2015, 03:38 PM
#273
This is a true statement , when we have "temporary flight restrictions" it's not the FAA who issues them , it's the department of homeland security , and these TFRs apply to full scale operations as well when something like a presidential visit is the reason behind the TFR .
11-17-2015, 03:50 PM
#274
This is a true statement , when we have "temporary flight restrictions" it's not the FAA who issues them , it's the department of homeland security , and these TFRs apply to full scale operations as well when something like a presidential visit is the reason behind the TFR .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federa...on_Regulations
11-17-2015, 04:09 PM
#275
"The Federal Aviation Regulations, or FARs, are rules prescribed by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) governing all aviation activities in the United States."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federa...on_Regulations
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federa...on_Regulations
Yes , Crispy , they do control all aviation , But ! They ain't the ONLY ones that have control over every thing that flys ! Yes , they control everything that flys , and now so too does homeland security .
Or are you disputing the fact that the homeland security folks have the right to issue TFRs ?
