big fred

I disagree, have you not ever seen the posted speed limit for trucks as being lower than all other vehicles? Have you not seen trucks not allowed in certain lanes of traffic? Have you not seen rest areas that allow "No Trucks" ? You can separate all forms of traffic, not just ground based vehicles

HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

Biggy there is risk in everything. I'm much more afraid of the guy that can't use a rudder properly. to keep a plane straight on TO / Landing. We can't fly SWRA at our field because the left (West) Pylon can not be moved far enough left (because of a 20'deep 60' wide wash at the end of our runway. We do fly 40 size racers and war birds. Now Formula one electrics around 2 pylons well out past our 100' wide runway.
U are probably referring to the 25 foot AMA rule . No R/C craft closer than 25'. Wit FPV and the Ability to stand still I'd say the Majority of the club should put a minium of the other side of the Runway to operate anything Including Copters exceptor TO & anding. NO HIGH SPEED passes over the runway. What Say?

HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

No One said People were or should be able to fly up above the clouds unless tee tops are nder say 200'. If there is an air plain down at 400' or lower and not in a position to land, the pilots breaking several FAR's inkling Reculas flight.
Pilots (Drone operator) like air planes should not be operated over congested areas. A full Scale pilot must be at an altitude, where incase of a engine failure, can make a safe landing. If Not the pilot s breaking the FAR's Not the airplane. Like wise it's not the Drone that is in noncompliance with the FARs, It's the PILOT. Why do U think the FAA's want Pilots registered not DRONES? To be able to Prosecute Pilots Not the DRON. Like wise U can't separate Drones from any other Form of R/C Toys, No more than U can separate Trucks or motor cycles or bicycles. They are all on the roads and have the same right of way.

Yes I agree,there may be different lane speeds and rest areas but do U want Quads flying one Pattern and Your IMAC another LIKE they Usually do anyway, Because of their Arrogance they feel their are better than some stupid little trainer or war bird.

What do U think I just said? Quad (Drone) Operators Break FAR's not Quads. just like Guns don't shoot people People do? Like wise if it bad to fly a Quad over 400' it just as bad to fly "Traditional" R/C Toys over 400' AGL. That goes even More for JETS, Pattern, IMAC and trainers too. Would U disagree with that statement too?

big fred

I'm sorry, have you never been to the Nats? How many flight lines do they have going at the same time? And yes, It IS the fault of the flyer. for the life of me I do not know why they think they are better than the rest. But with that being said, I have seen a Top Gun pilot at our field tell me to have them get the f#$k out of his way cause he wanted to make a low pass over the runway, and this was after the others were cleared by flight line staff to remove a dead stick from the runway. Being the CD of the event, I informed him that he was done flying for the event. This just shows that they come in all shapes and sizes

Tseres

Lol

init4fun

Here ya go , hound , in print , YOUR mention of "Haters" and some other BS about "Puppies" .

Now , I truly have nothing more to say to you ................

combatpigg

My Feedback: (3)

Many years ago I took a rare sick day from work and stayed home to watch TV and wait for whatever I had to pass.
Flipping through the channels I came across the absolute worst Train Wreck I ever saw in my life called The Jerry Springer Show. Judging from appearances and from how the audience behaved, it really was sickening to think that these kids represented our next generation of citizens and leaders.

Oh yeah, one of their favorite expressions was to scream and yell "HATERS...!!" back and forth at each other. I'd be willing to bet some "Rap Artist" originally coined the term, it fits right in with the rest of that babble.

init4fun

Hi CP ,

Yea , the term Haters really makes me laugh sometimes because of how patently childish it makes someone who uses it look .

The bottom line is that both Hound and pkuray think they're funny following me around to different threads asking the same question , "where is it said the AMA endorses BLOS" like a couple of parrots . I have said repeatedly that I never said the AMA embraces BLOS , what I have said is that "the AMA has embraced BLOS able craft" . Now , the clear distinction being that any AMA #550 FPV equipped aircraft most certainly could be flown BLOS if the pilot so desires , and that the FAA seeks to regulate BLOS able craft due to the selfish acts of some of the flying camera crew . It's a fairly easy "connect the dots"

The FAA wants to regulate BLOS

There ARE BLOS able craft parked in the AMA's hangar , despite their "wink wink nudge nudge" admonition to remain in the spotter's sight . Yea , right ..

How can someone have such good eyesight to fly staring into a little set of goggles , and still be so blind as to not see the big picture ?

combatpigg

My Feedback: (3)

Yes, AMA sanctioned FPV flight is where you have $100s to $1000's worth of equipment that is capable of BLOS Drone Ops but all you promise to ever do with it is fly it in a monotonous grid pattern directly over the rectangular shaped AMA field over and over and over, hour after hour, day after day, year by year..and be completely satisfied with how you have been able to explore the capabilities of your investment into the "future of flight" ...!

init4fun

And that right there is the disconnect that got us caught in the middle of the FAA's rulemaking . The AMA allows equipment that's BLOS able , and then expects folks to remain cooped up over the launch field only . Kinda like giving a motorhead a Corvette with a 454 and telling him he can't break the speed limit of 70 MPH . The FAA wasn't having any part of any BLOS able craft being out of their regulatory reach and we got caught trying to hide those types of craft under the guise of being model aircraft .

combatpigg

My Feedback: (3)

Init....Nice recap of what should be so painfully obvious to everyone.

HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

Is that a PROMISE? I can only Hope. anyways U win I capitulate to your wisdom but remember sticks and stones.

Hope U got your New Drone for Christmas. Seasons Greetings & Happy landings.
Over & Out.

Renegade_2k

My Feedback: (1)

Reading this discussion, and other recent media articles, has prompted me to write and share my thoughts on this heated topic. Though I'm not a current AMA Member, I have been in the past, beginning in 1972. My first R/C Model was built and flown at the age of 12 (yes, I'm 55), and I have flown Fixed Wing and Helicopters since then. While I have not flown any of my models since 2006, mostly due to work commitments, involving relocation and extensive travel, I still enjoy building (even an ARF) when I can, and I WILL fly again when I have the time and proper place to do so. I will also most likely renew my Membership with the AMA, for the Insurance, the Magazine, and to enable me to fly at AMA Fields and events if I so desire. If mandated by the FAA, after the AMA Lawsuit is settled, I will have to register with them too.

With this in mind, I also have to say that the rules for model flight have not changed much since I became active in Modeling. These rules for operation include ANY Models, whether they are Free Flight, Control Line, or Radio Controlled, whether fixed or rotary wing. I'm very sure that somewhere in a box, I have some very old AMA materials to prove this. Since that first Youth Membership with the AMA, a few changes have obviously been made to "The Rules" to deal with evolving Model Aviation technologies, such as Turbine Powerplants and larger gasoline powered model aircraft, however the "common sense" and safety rules have remained unchanged. Now, with publicly available Autopilots, FPV, BLOS capability, etc, perhaps these types of Air Vehicles need to be reclassified to something other than a common “model”, as they are certainly much more capable, technically, than anything I’ve ever flown (as a Modeler).

Like it or not, the FAA is now requiring registration of Modeling "Operators" and their registration number is now going to be required to be displayed on ANY model Aircraft falling inside the Rule guidelines, or be in violation of the new "law", with very stiff penalties for non-compliance. When I read this, I was stunned! It has actually happened! Reading these recent FAA rules for Model Flight on their UAS Registration Page, I observed that their rules mostly parroted the same "common sense" rules I've seen for years, as originally published by the AMA, and agreed to by everyone upon becoming an AMA member, to include displaying our "number" on the Air Vehicle. I immediately called the AMA, and spoke with Tony Stillman, who verified everything I've read, and he also explained the current position on this from the AMA's perspective. As well, on the FAA webpage, the Feds are taking the stance that AMA Membership is not a viable alternative (at this point), and they also seemed to allude to the lawsuit in process, by the AMA, and that this point should be ironed out in the future. Either way, there WILL be a future requirement to "register", whether it be with the AMA, the FAA, or both. The "drone" topic has become quite a hot topic, and has recently drawn way too much negative attention from the public and media.

With the above in mind, we seriously need to think about how to "police" our own. To date, it has been nothing, or at best, the honor system, and it has recently failed. Miserably.. Mostly by non-members. As a for instance, in the past 15-ish years, small electric RC's have become a large segment in Modeling. These models are largely referred to as "Park Fliers", and are relatively cheap to obtain and operate. The Manufacturers are just as much to blame, as their advertisements proclaim the ease of flying anywhere, even one’s own back yard! Although these models are usually small, and made of foam, or very lightweight balsa/plywood construction, no Modeler in his right mind would ever actually take an electric (or glow/gas) powered model (fixed wing or heli) into a public Park and operate it around others not involved in Modeling. We Modelers know that this given Park is a public place, and given the chances for an accident, involving property damage, or worse yet, personal injury, due to glitches, lockouts, structural failures, or just plain carelessness, the risk is simply NOT worth it. Note that I'm speaking of a Modeler, flying with prudence, common sense, and a basic grasp of situational awareness, regarding ones surroundings and airspace when flying any model. Adult Modelers are held accountable to some degree for accidents or infractions, but what about unsupervised children? They have not even made it through their formative years, yet they are released by negligent parents, unsupervised, to go fly their "toy airplanes" anywhere they can. The parents need to be held liable.

When we see these incidents on the news, examples of which include the people in a park who felt "spied upon" by the quad copter operator, or someone flying too close to a Manned Aviation Airport, near a Sporting Event, or even in the area of a large scale emergency such as the recent Forest Fires, it is abundantly clear that it comes down to a lack of education of what the actual rules are, and/or a complete disregard for rules combined with no common sense, in contrast of the dollars the maverick operator will make with their Payload video or camera snapshots. Either way, ANY model flying in this manner becomes a hazard to Manned Aviation or the general public. As we know, these scenarios have happened, and that those operators were blatantly disregarding safety, with respect to flying in close proximity of the general public, in an area not designated as a formal "Flying Field", as experienced modelers would. Again, this is a gross mode of failure, with the elements of education, no common sense, or simply monetary greed, coming into play.

It does appear that the FAA's current stance is largely aimed at the "Drone" or Multi-Rotor Camera or Video Platforms, while including all forms of Modeling. I'm very sure, in today’s litigious society, if the FAA were to target only "drone" operators, they would have many many more lawsuits than the current AMA suit. Their overall purpose I'm sure is not to pick on any one group, or type of flight, but to keep all Model Aviation vehicles separated from Manned Aviation vehicles (and Military and Commercial UAVs), with the secondary purpose of protecting the general public, and out of the airspace above residential areas, recreational areas, or areas of emergency response.

I can also see the AMA's stance (aside from the obvious money they would make from another one million-ish memberships). It would be the AMA's requirement to educate "drone" operators, and provide insurance in the event of an accident, provided that the operator was in compliance with the rules in the first place. So, is the AMA now moving into the Commercial Insurance business? Time and legislation will tell.

The AMA is however, not an "Enforcement Agency" for airspace, and the FAA is. Given the requirement by both agencies to "label" our models with Registration numbers, in the future event that someone is breaking the rules in the future, the FAA, Military, or perhaps Law Enforcement, could use jamming techniques to ground the offending air vehicle, recover it, and pursue the operator, hence the enforcement. Any enforcement actions will still bring bad media publicity to those of us who are doing the right thing, exercising caution, and flying where we should be, in much the way "white hat" Gun owners are vilified by the Media when a "black hat" operator of a gun shoots up a public place. Perhaps it is time for those of us "white hats" to begin policing the "black hats" among us. Shades of vigilantism? No.. How about Modelers helping ourselves and preserving our privileges by reporting obvious offenders.

Unfortunately, the Registration requirement is NOT going to go away. The only variable is whether registration will be with the AMA, or the FAA, or both. And yes if the AMA is involved in the FAA process, the Membership Database will most likely be a shared one, and publicly available. Hopefully only by the Vehicle registration number, with limited personal information available unless there is Law Enforcement involvement. As for those of us who have a Pilot’s License, or other FAA credentials, any violation of the rules on the Modeling side, may unfortunately carry over to our Manned side licensing, as we are most likely going to be held to that standard of responsibility and airspace education.

My profession is a Field Service Engineer, or "Tech-Rep" on the Shadow 200 Tactical Unmanned Aerial System. I personally know someone I work with on occasion, who has never been a traditional modeler, and who has purchased a Quadcopter (DJI Phantom). He flies this Phantom from his back yard, FPV style, over his densely populated neighborhood. No spotters. This neighborhood street location is also a mere 3/10's of a mile from the Tether Point of a US Air Force Aerostat. When the Aerostat is launched and active, there is also an FAA Restricted Area, from the ground surface, to 15,000 feet MSL, for a radius of 2 Statute Miles from its Center. This Restricted Area is listed as R-2312 on the Phoenix Sectional. Take a look here.. https://skyvector.com/ Drill down to see what I’m talking about. This Aerostat Restricted Area also sits inside another Military Restricted Area, R2303C, which encompasses R2303A and R-2303B. This neighborhood is approximately 4 Miles from the Libbey Army Air Field, at Ft Huachuca, AZ. There is also Manned Aviation, Military and Civilian, flying in and out of Libbey Army Air Field. TUAS activity in these areas include the Unmanned Aerial Training Battalion on the West side of Ft Huachuca, training on the “Shadow” Platform, and at Libbey AAF training on the “Grey Eagle” Platform, and the US Border Patrols flight operations for their “Predator B” Aircraft, flown for Border Security and other DHS sorties. We are 12 Miles from the Mexican Border, and we are just North of an Air Defense Identification Zone, separating our CONUS from Mexico. Military Manned Training Flights are also active in this area. So, FPV flight, with no spotter, in a very active area like this, means a highly increased chance of an incursion between this guy’s Phantom and something else. Sierra Vista also has a City Owned Flying Field, that requires AMA Insurance to fly there. Note that this is NOT listed on the Sectional.

I've spoken to this guy about his “drone” flight activities, and his attitude is that he does not care, and it is not illegal (in his uneducated belief). His wife is also a Real Estate Agent, and he plans to use his Phantom to photograph and video her current properties, for her use on her listings. Again, when queried about commercial use, he says that it is not enforced, and there is money to be made from his activities. When all of this Registration and Enforcement comes to fruition, will I bust his A**? .. you bet! It is this cavalier, money driven attitude that reflects badly on ALL of us. Arrogance and cavalier stupidity needs to be costly and painful!

February is coming..

HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

Renagade_2k

Renegade_2k

My Feedback: (1)

Thank you HoundDog.

I hope all goes well at your Site. I read some of your other posts, and it appears that "Joe" may already be looking into things to see what is going on in his County.

Red Raider

My Feedback: (86)

I'm not going to go on and on, as a lot of you have already done an admirable job of making some very good points both logical and political. Most of us agree that the current fed. Administration has egregiously over reached in many areas with regulations and court rulings that have negatively impacted personal freedoms. The most recent and worst of them all is the prohibition of employers to exclude convicted felons from employment. Texas is currently suing the EEOC and the Obama administration to be allowed to exclude convicted felons from jobs as teachers and first responders. Where is it going to end?!?! Anyway, here's my 2 cents worth -

AMA should've never endorsed or supported FPV or Drones as they do not reflect the TYPE of flying that AMA and the membership have traditionally embraced. Just because a new technology is available, doesn't mean it fits with previously existing environments. For years there were many clubs that excluded helicopters at their fields because of the difference in the flight parameters - they didn't fit. That's why there's IRHCA. That's why there's IMAC. I think they (AMA EC) jumped on the drone bandwagon looking to cash in on a potential revenue stream instead of protecting the "modelers". They came up with a different class for the park fliers, if they wanted to bring them into the AMA fold they should've done the same for the drones. I don't know how many of the "new drone owners" from this holiday season are going to join AMA, but I bet the number is close to zero. Instead, what they accomplished, was to lump us all together and not just blur the line between models and drones, but completely erase it. Why would/should we (AMA members) spend a million dollars to protect a class of RCers that have no intention of embracing anything that we do or stand for???? The mess we're in now was completely avoidable. The AMA EC is to blame for making poor decisions in the beginning that led us down this road. Had we circled the wagons and clearly said that drones are not "model aircraft" the registration fiasco would more likely be focused where it belongs. If the EC has not figured out their error, we should identify those who are specifically responsible for making those decisions and make sure we replace them with modelers who protect OUR interests and not those who operate outside our organization.

Renegade_2k

My Feedback: (1)

More Food for thought. All of the below Videos are found on YouTube, and were viewed within a couple of hours of my initial search (the first is 48 minutes long).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZV8IfJm-MI - Military Drone Technology:2014(full documentary)HD - This first Video is a PBS Documentary. It is very enlightening, especially if you have no inkling of what Military TUAS is about. There is a lot of cutting edge stuff in here. I work in this business, and I haven’t seen or been aware of a lot of it!

And now that we have all of the above in mind, and we can see what Professionals in Government, Military, and Private Sector use this technology for, here are some videos of the “Common Joe” usage and the reactions that are being spawned by irresponsible and sometimes prurient usage of publicly available “hobbyist” equipment.. and why the government is looking at us Modelers so closely.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfxdeRx2fLA – DJI F550 Hexacopter crash after flight above the clouds. Not a USA operator, but the video is still viewable in the USA. This sure strengthens the FAA’s case.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KiJztMSDH4k - cops mad at my drone again. Be sure to read the description comments about the video. This is the exact attitude of my co-worker, and I’m seeing it all over YouTube. So is the Public and the Government..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AD5HiydeZEg - Police talking about my quadcopter breaking the road traffic act . *** – Yes, lets argue the point with the Police Officer, then post it on YouTube! Anarchy rules!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OueAb9YFaa0 - LAPD Upset With Drone Spying On Officers. Look at this guys other videos too. Wonderful public relations with the local PD.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JobRTBBvIKQ - Police Helicopter Harassment - Drone VS Cop. These Officers were trying to be nice.. They explained the common sense approach, and even offered an alternative flying site for the operator. Yet still, he argues with them. This is a perfect example of how to take things to the next level, and invite the creation of legislation, which will affect all of us.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLrh7f24Zz0 – Woman attacks Teen for operating a Drone, Assault caught on video. This example shows how flying on a beach can invoke privacy issue concerns, and cause someone to actually escalate, thereby inviting more Law Enforcement involvement and eventual legislation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-I2m89_hxNU - Peeping drone catches woman sunbathing topless. Again, it’s about public perception, not what is actually happening. The Real Estate guy was operating illegally anyway, but the woman thought he was imaging her.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9C-7_DBOY3o - Half-Naked Italian Model Meets Drone! This is most likely fake, but it’s about public perception.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AxkDHP59qlM - Bugging cops with my 350qx. Lets taunt the Police some more.. and post it on YouTube for the Public, and anyone in the Government to see. Nice!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4A8mErds5-c - SparrowHawk Rocket Drone - World's Cutest Killer UAV. How to combine two hobbies, Model Quadcopters and Model Rocketry.. and scare the hell out of the public (and the Government) with thoughts of what will happen next! Read the comments below the video. Interesting perceptions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QR7vwRC6SFE - Homemade Death Ray Laser DRONE BOT!!! Remote Controlled!! - At least he hasn’t put it on a flying platform. Yet.. Smart kid for his age, but again, did this really have to be built and posted on YouTube? Will DHS now get involved?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hmpEzg7_qvo - Getting Girls Number With Drone | Sam Pepper. This guy is just having fun, and in reality, its probably the only way he’s going to meet any women, but again, here we are, hovering a quadcopter over public areas, and even pissing one guy off for flirting with his girlfriend.

And there are literally hundreds, if not thousands more like these.. I’m not wasting any more time.

There are way too many AMA traditional style RC Plane and Helicopter Videos with some awesome workmanship and safe, accurate flying to be seen.

And to the AMA Executive Board, you really want to embrace all of this?

Seriously?

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

You had some great comments and points, to bad you had to reduce it all to a completely disingenuously absurd conclusion. And so I'll ask now, seriously?

There are an equal amount of stupid things people have done over the years, things that have actually caused significant injury and property damage, that were done with helis and fixed wing aircraft. Shall I take the same approach you did and arrive at the conclusion that the AMA has "embraced" that? A shame you conveniently wasted all that time looking for videos that fit your narrative, rather than looking at those that might contradict it as well. Not quite the same sizzle to your piece though right? Of course not. So please...stop already. The technology is only a small part of the problem, at the end of the day it's the user that has the issue. Focus on that no?

To save you some time, here's a video that's one of many many out there. Think the AMA "embraces" this? Does the AMA have to issue a press release saying so or can the average AMA member figure it out for themselves?

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=295_1419231994

Renegade_2k

My Feedback: (1)

Good evening Porcia,

Thank you for the compliments, even though I managed to disturb your sensibilities. For that, I apologize.

I watched the Video in the Link you provided.. Oddly, I recognized that area terrain in the video, as I was on a 6 month TDY at the MCAGCC, Twentynine Palms at that time, working with VMU-1. At one point, you could make out the Base in the Video. That snow was also the first snow seen in that area in quite some time. I can assure you, it beat the 100-120 degree temps we were working in during the ITX in September and October. November and December Flight Ops were much better!

You're very correct, the AMA, or the FAA for that matter, would not have approved of that particular flight, unless of course, the operator had the appropriate and specific waivers approved for his high altitude flight that day. It is hard to tell distance from the video, however I can assure you there is an active Manned Aviation Runway on the Base, and just adjacent to it is an active UAV runway. Given the glider operators apparent location, as seen in the video during the launch and initial climb out, he was probably on the ragged edge of a 5 mile distance from the Flight Line (EAF) Runways, which are on the west end of the base. During our ITX, we (TUAS) were flying the Shadow 200 and Integrator UAV's, and we were working with various manned Marine Aviation Squadrons, which were flying F-18 Super Hornets, AV-8 Harriers, V-22 Ospreys, UC-35's (Cessna Citations), UH-1 Hueys, AH-1 Super Cobras, CH-53 Sea Stallions, and of course their newer Command Helicopters. There were also random C-12 and C-17 traffic throughout the day. Our Ops were usually scheduled from 0600 to 2230. Thankfully, it appears that the operator posted this video on the 22nd of December, and that he probably flew that day before posting it. That particular date was 3 days after we had secured the ITX Flights for the Christmas exodus.

Even with the super clear sky's in Twentynine Palms, I'm reasonably sure that this operator could not see that 55" wingspan $60.00 powered GPS equipped glider at nearly 10,000 feet MSL. I'm also reasonably sure that none of the Military Pilots flying a complex Jet Aircraft like the F-18 or the AV-8, at the speeds they fly while inbound, looking for a ground target, would be able to see that tiny airplane at that altitude either, nor would they expect to encounter him there. Maybe the Rotary Wing guys in the Helicopters I mentioned would see it, but then again, maybe not.. I'm betting the Marines would be highly pissed if one of their multi-million dollar aircraft had an incursion with a $60.00 glider, especially given that that whole area is restricted airspace during Flight Operations.

My point in the previous post was not to slam the newer technology. It WAS however my point to say that there are a number of really stupid things people are doing with it. It was also my point exactly to chastise the EC of the AMA for not making a clear distinction, and separating sUAS models from our ranks. However, I fear even if they had previously done this, even a couple of years ago, it was still far too late to address, as the damage has already been done. Congress addressed this sUAS situation back in 2012, and the FAA didn't come up with all of this new legislation for sUAS overnight.

To answer your final question, Yes, I do think the average AMA Member can figure it out for themselves. Go back to your link and read the comments for the video. There were many people, even from other countries, chastising this guy for his stupidity.

Have a great evening.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

No sensibilities disturbed, all are in check, thanks! I saw the responses in that link, many were exactly on point. Oddly enough I saw none from the AMA that seemed to embrace it either. To see what they specifically condone, check out the AMA safety codes. Become a CD for further info as well. It's all good stuff!

Sport_Pilot

Actually that is a legitimate flight. You are allowed to fly over 400 feet and the rule is only to keep the NAS safe and avoid full scale aircraft. However it is not advisable because the higher you go the harder it is to avoid full scale. Also you cannot do this on a cloudy day or above clouds because there is no way to avoid a full scale aircraft.

Renegade_2k

My Feedback: (1)

Perhaps.

“Legitimate flight” depends on the Air Vehicle location, and it’s altitude, during the entire flight, not the operators physical location during the flight.. Because the flight may have started legitimately, doesn’t mean it remained that way for its duration, especially if he entered the airspace bounded by the Restricted Area, or the MOA. Please note the altitudes and airspace types on the sectional.

Just sayin..

https://skyvector.com/?ll=34.34474398683378,-116.14343075530466&chart=24&zoom=2&fpl=3425N11615W

https://skyvector.com/airport/NXP/Twentynine-Palms-Self-Airport

https://www.google.com/maps/@34.2943944,-116.1534173,2957m/data=!3m1!1e3

Judging an Air vehicle position relative to these areas is really hard, actually nearly impossible, without some kind of computerized Sectional / Map Display and an installed Transponder / GPS to provide the ground based operator tracking for the air vehicle.

Radar, especially Precision Approach, would pick it right up though. And then the trouble starts..

init4fun

Not if you've registered !

After Feb. 19 , unless the AMA pulls off the "Hail Mary Pass" , everyone flying a UAS has gotta register .

In order to register , you have to agree to the 400 foot limit , no ambiguous wording in that 400 foot limit to wordsmith around .

So , all who enjoy flight above 400 feet , you'd best hope the AMA does work some magic , else maybe we'll have to hire ol Sport here to be our lawyer arguing the 400 foot limit with the FAA ?

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

What are his rates? Will he work for foamies?

init4fun

Hmm , maybe we could pay him with , , , BACON ???