"Drone" vs "Model Aircraft"
12-13-2015, 04:53 PM
#126
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga,
CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gotta wonder if the revised AC 91-57 and 336 no longer apply then. Does model aircraft authorization to fly and exemption from any new rules FAA may dream up still exist? Will drone flyers flock to AMA if drone = model airplane?
I don't hear the fat lady singing yet.......
12-13-2015, 05:02 PM
#127
What about having TFR's for registered AMA clubs holding events... and they could be on sectionals... For the already seasoned AMA RC flyers, the transition to SUAV's is no big deal. Its the people who have never had any part in RC aircraft hobby who just want to get a thrill out of flying and aerial photography, but do not realize the seriousness of occupying airspace.
Last edited by bRandom; 12-13-2015 at 05:07 PM.
12-13-2015, 05:21 PM
#128
All that think there should be separation between what the Public and News media refer to as Drones and Traditional model aircraft are wrong. Again it's just as dumb as GUN CONTROL. every one knows it's not the GUN but the person that is produced for it's misuse. So should it be the DUMMY flying anything Even a KITE where it is Prohibited. As for a 400' ceiling at other than an Airport Trafic Area doesn't make sense Because maned air planes are required to be 1000' above the highest object within 2000' of an open air assembly of people. 500' above any person place or object when in sparcily populated areas. In an airport Traffic Pattern airplanes even at Non-Towered airports are required to be at least 800' mostly 1000' AGL until in a position to land.
Air Port Traffic Patternshttps://www.faa.gov/regulations_poli...83-3a-4of7.pdf
So that being said if both Models and Full Scale adhere to their respective altitudes never the Twain Shall Meet. on another note When on an instrument flight plan approach and center controllers keep all aircraft 1500' or grater above the terrain except until the aircraft is establishes on an inbound segment of the (IFR) approach. And Again Never the Twain shall Meet.
garlandk's Idea of establishing an ALERT AREA on sectionals is very appropriate to warn pilots to be extra vigilant when in the area of a designated model flying area just as their warned about other HIGH traffic areas.. The Alert Area is more for the Full Scale Pilots Safety than any Model.
On the other hand as to what constitutes a (DRONE or R/C Model aircraft) well I say:
Come on guys ... U are all barking up the wrong TREE. If it's Radio Controlled or autonomous No Mater if it is a Traditional air craft / Heli / MR /Quad etc. and flown strictly for FUN or Education it's a Model airplane and it and it's pilot should NOT be regulated by the FAA or any other government authority when flown at a defined Model aviation area and all other places when flown below 400'. The exception being within an airport traffic area. (see definition of an ATF below)
On the other hand If flown for commercial purposes anywhere at any altitude, it's a DRONE. and should be subject to regulation by the FAA.
This is what the AMA and every AMA member and any other persons flying any form of R/C should be Petitioning their Representatives in congress the FAA and anyone else they can NEWS Media included that Model aircraft flown for fun or education is covered Under amendment #336. Also that the Interpretation of #336 by the FAA is completely inconsistent with the meaning and intent of congress & the AMA's purpose of #336.
But no we all choose to argue among our selves Which as an Idioact use of time and resources and accomplishes Nothing but to Frustrate the CRAP out of each other. Anyway there a bunch of us that seem to LIKE to show their Irritation with their fellow posters. Some being a little more thin skinned (Sensitive) than other hardened posters.
airport traffic area
Unless otherwise specifically designated, that airspace within a horizontal radius of five statute miles from the geographic center of any airport at which a control tower is operating, extending from the surface up to, but not including, an altitude of 3,000 feet above the elevation of the airport. Also called ATA.
Air Port Traffic Patternshttps://www.faa.gov/regulations_poli...83-3a-4of7.pdf
So that being said if both Models and Full Scale adhere to their respective altitudes never the Twain Shall Meet. on another note When on an instrument flight plan approach and center controllers keep all aircraft 1500' or grater above the terrain except until the aircraft is establishes on an inbound segment of the (IFR) approach. And Again Never the Twain shall Meet.
garlandk's Idea of establishing an ALERT AREA on sectionals is very appropriate to warn pilots to be extra vigilant when in the area of a designated model flying area just as their warned about other HIGH traffic areas.. The Alert Area is more for the Full Scale Pilots Safety than any Model.
On the other hand as to what constitutes a (DRONE or R/C Model aircraft) well I say:
Come on guys ... U are all barking up the wrong TREE. If it's Radio Controlled or autonomous No Mater if it is a Traditional air craft / Heli / MR /Quad etc. and flown strictly for FUN or Education it's a Model airplane and it and it's pilot should NOT be regulated by the FAA or any other government authority when flown at a defined Model aviation area and all other places when flown below 400'. The exception being within an airport traffic area. (see definition of an ATF below)
On the other hand If flown for commercial purposes anywhere at any altitude, it's a DRONE. and should be subject to regulation by the FAA.
This is what the AMA and every AMA member and any other persons flying any form of R/C should be Petitioning their Representatives in congress the FAA and anyone else they can NEWS Media included that Model aircraft flown for fun or education is covered Under amendment #336. Also that the Interpretation of #336 by the FAA is completely inconsistent with the meaning and intent of congress & the AMA's purpose of #336.
But no we all choose to argue among our selves Which as an Idioact use of time and resources and accomplishes Nothing but to Frustrate the CRAP out of each other. Anyway there a bunch of us that seem to LIKE to show their Irritation with their fellow posters. Some being a little more thin skinned (Sensitive) than other hardened posters.
airport traffic area
Unless otherwise specifically designated, that airspace within a horizontal radius of five statute miles from the geographic center of any airport at which a control tower is operating, extending from the surface up to, but not including, an altitude of 3,000 feet above the elevation of the airport. Also called ATA.
12-13-2015, 05:41 PM
#129
What about having TFR's for registered AMA clubs holding events... and they could be on sectionals... For the already seasoned AMA RC flyers, the transition to SUAV's is no big deal. Its the people who have never had any part in RC aircraft hobby who just want to get a thrill out of flying and aerial photography, but do not realize the seriousness of occupying airspace.
1, It would not be temporary
2. TFR's usually go up to FL180 18000'
3. TFR are not shown on sectionals
4.A better way would to have Alert Areas around Registered model air fields.
URL to Alert Areias
https://www.google.com/webhp?sourcei...ea%20sectional
12-13-2015, 06:30 PM
#130
Ever since 336 was passed I felt we (the AMA) really got nothing, as the FAA will just claim whatever regulation they are inventing for model aircraft is consistent with the language:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law
relating to the incorporation of unmanned aircraft systems into
Federal Aviation Administration plans and policies, including this
subtitle, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration
may not promulgate any rule or regulation regarding a model
aircraft, or an aircraft being developed as a model aircraft, if—
12-13-2015, 07:01 PM
#131
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga,
CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
12-13-2015, 07:27 PM
#133
If it's true that the FAA is going to charge and require all anything that Flies by R/C guess an awful toy airplanes will be relegated to the Basement. Good hing i fly the same type of model so they won't know witch one has the real Registration ... Once again what about fourgin pilots like the canadians flying unregistered craft in the USA?
Then anyone got a big R/C sail Boat for Sale?
Then anyone got a big R/C sail Boat for Sale?
Last edited by HoundDog; 12-13-2015 at 07:32 PM.
12-13-2015, 07:41 PM
#134
The reason for not using a TFR to designate Model air Fields is
1, It would not be temporary
2. TFR's usually go up to FL180 18000'
3. TFR are not shown on sectionals
4.A better way would to have Alert Areas around Registered model air fields.
URL to Alert Areias
https://www.google.com/webhp?sourcei...ea%20sectional
1, It would not be temporary
2. TFR's usually go up to FL180 18000'
3. TFR are not shown on sectionals
4.A better way would to have Alert Areas around Registered model air fields.
URL to Alert Areias
https://www.google.com/webhp?sourcei...ea%20sectional
TFR's don't usually go to 18000 MSL...most TFR's are limited to several thousand feet above the ground and a few miles in diameter. Typically you will find them around air shows, football games, NASCAR races, etc.
12-13-2015, 08:25 PM
#136
TFR's can be permanent...you will find them around all nuclear power plants.
TFR's don't usually go to 18000 MSL...most TFR's are limited to several thousand feet above the ground and a few miles in diameter. Typically you will find them around air shows, football games, NASCAR races, etc.
TFR's don't usually go to 18000 MSL...most TFR's are limited to several thousand feet above the ground and a few miles in diameter. Typically you will find them around air shows, football games, NASCAR races, etc.
An altitude of these Alert areas could be at 1500' agl ten pilots could keep clear by staying above 1501' AGL when near one.
12-14-2015, 04:40 AM
#137
My Feedback: (6)
Hi all
Just a comment seams the news media only tell part of the story, as I have never seen or heard them mention the AMA :Academy of model Aeronautics and the rules for its RC fliers and drones, and the ones flying out side of those rules are by the vary uninformed or.renegade flyers
So why don't we the hobbyist and AMA member write to the local news mida about there bad reporting instead of bashing one another
Cheers Bob T
AMA13377
Just a comment seams the news media only tell part of the story, as I have never seen or heard them mention the AMA :Academy of model Aeronautics and the rules for its RC fliers and drones, and the ones flying out side of those rules are by the vary uninformed or.renegade flyers
So why don't we the hobbyist and AMA member write to the local news mida about there bad reporting instead of bashing one another
Cheers Bob T
AMA13377
12-14-2015, 07:45 AM
#138
CJ, I am surprised to hear that most "drones" do not have what I consider to be drone capability [BLOS capable].
So let's not worry about them, they are Drones in name only if they are not capable of being piloted into any more mischief than what I can do with a Traditional RC craft.
At any rate, the aircraft that we need to separate Traditional RC from are the ones that ARE capable of being flown behind my neighbor's fence.
So let's not worry about them, they are Drones in name only if they are not capable of being piloted into any more mischief than what I can do with a Traditional RC craft.
At any rate, the aircraft that we need to separate Traditional RC from are the ones that ARE capable of being flown behind my neighbor's fence.
12-14-2015, 09:32 AM
#139
I agree with you. It's language that makes people feel good, but what they didn't consider was how the government agency would interpret it in implementation (hence the AMA lawsuit on the subject). With some powerful members of Congress, i.e. Feinstein and Schumer, pushing for FAA to do more rather than less, I think this is just the beginning.
Soon I predict the FAA's focus will shift from administrative controls (registration) to operational controls. If one considers that the vast majority of full scale operations are at 500' AGL or above (with a few exceptions like SVFR for helos and Military Training Routes), my prediction for some operational restrictions that we'll eventually see applied to sUAS operated as model aircraft:
- No flight above 400' anywhere regardless of whether the CBO would otherwise allow it (safety of NAS is inherently governmental)
- No flight within horizontal limits of Class B, C, & D airspace w/o written prior permission
- No flight within some distance, say 3nm, of hospital with helipad
- No flight within horizontal limits of Military Training Routes during published hours of operation
- No flight in Military Operating Areas (MOAs) during published hours of operation
Lastly, with all the discussion of kinetic energy potential in the rule, I suspect that large and/or fast (or both) sUAS operated as models will face increasing scrutiny. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that a LTMA-1 at 200mph represents a lot of kinetic energy (equivalent to a compact car at about 20mph or so).
Soon I predict the FAA's focus will shift from administrative controls (registration) to operational controls. If one considers that the vast majority of full scale operations are at 500' AGL or above (with a few exceptions like SVFR for helos and Military Training Routes), my prediction for some operational restrictions that we'll eventually see applied to sUAS operated as model aircraft:
- No flight above 400' anywhere regardless of whether the CBO would otherwise allow it (safety of NAS is inherently governmental)
- No flight within horizontal limits of Class B, C, & D airspace w/o written prior permission
- No flight within some distance, say 3nm, of hospital with helipad
- No flight within horizontal limits of Military Training Routes during published hours of operation
- No flight in Military Operating Areas (MOAs) during published hours of operation
Lastly, with all the discussion of kinetic energy potential in the rule, I suspect that large and/or fast (or both) sUAS operated as models will face increasing scrutiny. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that a LTMA-1 at 200mph represents a lot of kinetic energy (equivalent to a compact car at about 20mph or so).
12-14-2015, 10:00 AM
#140
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga,
CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with you. It's language that makes people feel good, but what they didn't consider was how the government agency would interpret it in implementation (hence the AMA lawsuit on the subject). With some powerful members of Congress, i.e. Feinstein and Schumer, pushing for FAA to do more rather than less, I think this is just the beginning.
Soon I predict the FAA's focus will shift from administrative controls (registration) to operational controls. If one considers that the vast majority of full scale operations are at 500' AGL or above (with a few exceptions like SVFR for helos and Military Training Routes), my prediction for some operational restrictions that we'll eventually see applied to sUAS operated as model aircraft:
- No flight above 400' anywhere regardless of whether the CBO would otherwise allow it (safety of NAS is inherently governmental)
- No flight within horizontal limits of Class B, C, & D airspace w/o written prior permission
- No flight within some distance, say 3nm, of hospital with helipad
- No flight within horizontal limits of Military Training Routes during published hours of operation
- No flight in Military Operating Areas (MOAs) during published hours of operation
Lastly, with all the discussion of kinetic energy potential in the rule, I suspect that large and/or fast (or both) sUAS operated as models will face increasing scrutiny. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that a LTMA-1 at 200mph represents a lot of kinetic energy (equivalent to a compact car at about 20mph or so).
Soon I predict the FAA's focus will shift from administrative controls (registration) to operational controls. If one considers that the vast majority of full scale operations are at 500' AGL or above (with a few exceptions like SVFR for helos and Military Training Routes), my prediction for some operational restrictions that we'll eventually see applied to sUAS operated as model aircraft:
- No flight above 400' anywhere regardless of whether the CBO would otherwise allow it (safety of NAS is inherently governmental)
- No flight within horizontal limits of Class B, C, & D airspace w/o written prior permission
- No flight within some distance, say 3nm, of hospital with helipad
- No flight within horizontal limits of Military Training Routes during published hours of operation
- No flight in Military Operating Areas (MOAs) during published hours of operation
Lastly, with all the discussion of kinetic energy potential in the rule, I suspect that large and/or fast (or both) sUAS operated as models will face increasing scrutiny. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that a LTMA-1 at 200mph represents a lot of kinetic energy (equivalent to a compact car at about 20mph or so).
12-14-2015, 11:14 AM
#142
What is most ironic is, the AMA has the best tools to inform all members of this.
So are they going to say "while we don't like this" you have to register your plane......seems like the AMA would HAVE to encourage compliance, and of course it gives the club safety zealots another thing to harp about. ugh.
This was going to happen if we spent $1 or $1 million. The only way we had to possibly avoid this was the drone definition vs traditional model aircraft.
Maybe there is still time, but we have to convince our own "non elected" leadership (Mathewson/Hanson) to change course and they seem intent on doubling down (or maybe quadrupling down by now) their existing strategy.
12-14-2015, 11:28 AM
#143
My Feedback: (209)
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: right here
Posts: 867
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTE=HoundDog;12140868]If it's true that the FAA is going to charge and require all anything that Flies by R/C guess an awful toy airplanes will be relegated to the Basement. Good hing i fly the same type of model so they won't know witch one has the real Registration ... Once again what about fourgin pilots like the canadians flying unregistered craft in the USA?
Then anyone got a big R/C sail Boat for Sale?[
HD. I think everybody is getting all cranked up over nothing, or is this outdated??? I don't know.
http://www.faa.gov/licenses_certific...t_registry/UA/
Then anyone got a big R/C sail Boat for Sale?[
HD. I think everybody is getting all cranked up over nothing, or is this outdated??? I don't know.
http://www.faa.gov/licenses_certific...t_registry/UA/
12-14-2015, 11:33 AM
#144
Hi all
Just a comment seams the news media only tell part of the story, as I have never seen or heard them mention the AMA :Academy of model Aeronautics and the rules for its RC fliers and drones, and the ones flying out side of those rules are by the vary uninformed or.renegade flyers
So why don't we the hobbyist and AMA member write to the local news mida about there bad reporting instead of bashing one another
Cheers Bob T
AMA13377
Just a comment seams the news media only tell part of the story, as I have never seen or heard them mention the AMA :Academy of model Aeronautics and the rules for its RC fliers and drones, and the ones flying out side of those rules are by the vary uninformed or.renegade flyers
So why don't we the hobbyist and AMA member write to the local news mida about there bad reporting instead of bashing one another
Cheers Bob T
AMA13377
Not only should we here and every hobby shop and anyone involved with the Flying of R/C stuff should not only wright the news media but send PAPER copies to the NTSB/FAA/DOT/HLS/ and your senators congressmen and the local law enforcement officials and the dog catcher too. Inundate them with letters and ask for a written answer to your requests, A couple Million letters might get someones attention that we that fly on the reservation or responsibly are not the problem and registration is not the answer but education is..but up until today only a few people even knew that registration might happen nor did they care.
12-14-2015, 11:43 AM
#145
[QUOTE=FLAPHappy;12141215]
Sure seems to be outdated check these out below:
I think it all boils down to If after 21 Dec'`5 Unless U have an FAA/NTSB/DOT registration Number and it's on the plane U can not legally fly it out doors in the NAS. Period.
From news release located here:http://www.faa.gov/news/press_releas...9856&cid=TW378
Scroll down to the hyperlink to the registration site, which takes you here:http://www.faa.gov/uas/registration/
Then short scroll down to first bullet point that takes you here:http://www.faa.gov/uas/registration/faqs/
If it's true that the FAA is going to charge and require all anything that Flies by R/C guess an awful toy airplanes will be relegated to the Basement. Good hing i fly the same type of model so they won't know witch one has the real Registration ... Once again what about fourgin pilots like the canadians flying unregistered craft in the USA?
Then anyone got a big R/C sail Boat for Sale?[
HD. I think everybody is getting all cranked up over nothing, or is this outdated??? I don't know.
http://www.faa.gov/licenses_certific...t_registry/UA/
Then anyone got a big R/C sail Boat for Sale?[
HD. I think everybody is getting all cranked up over nothing, or is this outdated??? I don't know.
http://www.faa.gov/licenses_certific...t_registry/UA/
I think it all boils down to If after 21 Dec'`5 Unless U have an FAA/NTSB/DOT registration Number and it's on the plane U can not legally fly it out doors in the NAS. Period.
From news release located here:http://www.faa.gov/news/press_releas...9856&cid=TW378
Scroll down to the hyperlink to the registration site, which takes you here:http://www.faa.gov/uas/registration/
Then short scroll down to first bullet point that takes you here:http://www.faa.gov/uas/registration/faqs/
12-14-2015, 11:56 AM
#146
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga,
CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What is most ironic is, the AMA has the best tools to inform all members of this.
So are they going to say "while we don't like this" you have to register your plane......seems like the AMA would HAVE to encourage compliance, and of course it gives the club safety zealots another thing to harp about. ugh.
This was going to happen if we spent $1 or $1 million. The only way we had to possibly avoid this was the drone definition vs traditional model aircraft.
Maybe there is still time, but we have to convince our own "non elected" leadership (Mathewson/Hanson) to change course and they seem intent on doubling down (or maybe quadrupling down by now) their existing strategy.
So are they going to say "while we don't like this" you have to register your plane......seems like the AMA would HAVE to encourage compliance, and of course it gives the club safety zealots another thing to harp about. ugh.
This was going to happen if we spent $1 or $1 million. The only way we had to possibly avoid this was the drone definition vs traditional model aircraft.
Maybe there is still time, but we have to convince our own "non elected" leadership (Mathewson/Hanson) to change course and they seem intent on doubling down (or maybe quadrupling down by now) their existing strategy.
12-14-2015, 12:15 PM
#148
Originally Posted by mr_matt 
What is most ironic is, the AMA has the best tools to inform all members of this.
So are they going to say "while we don't like this" you have to register your plane......seems like the AMA would HAVE to encourage compliance, and of course it gives the club safety zealots another thing to harp about. ugh.
This was going to happen if we spent $1 or $1 million. The only way we had to possibly avoid this was the drone definition vs traditional model aircraft.
Maybe there is still time, but we have to convince our own "non elected" leadership (Mathewson/Hanson) to change courseand they seem intent on doubling down (or maybe quadrupling down by now) their existing strategy.
We get one last chance ... there will be a 30 day comment period on the NPRM
We've got to Inundate the FAA with Hundreds of thousands saying AMA members should be able to Use their AMA number as a FAA REgistration. This would call for coordination between the AMA and the FAA. One can find out from the AMA web site if any person is a current member of the AMA Link this to the FAA data base and if not a current AMA member To fly U ust comply with FAA registration/ Just a thought. If we can get off our DEAD Arashes this time and comment to the FAA.
After it appears in the federal register.
ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2015-7396 using any of thefollowing methods:Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructionsfor sending your comments electronically.Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30; U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT),1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, Room W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC20590-0001.Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket Operations in Room W12-140 of the WestBuilding Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at 202-493-2251.
Last edited by HoundDog; 12-14-2015 at 12:20 PM.
12-14-2015, 12:28 PM
#149
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga,
CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes; yes (primarily, via the 'rubber stamp'); don't know (preferably elected and so to some small degree answerable to the members)
12-14-2015, 12:30 PM
#150
What is most ironic is, the AMA has the best tools to inform all members of this.
So are they going to say "while we don't like this" you have to register your plane......seems like the AMA would HAVE to encourage compliance, and of course it gives the club safety zealots another thing to harp about. ugh.
This was going to happen if we spent $1 or $1 million. The only way we had to possibly avoid this was the drone definition vs traditional model aircraft.
Maybe there is still time, but we have to convince our own "non elected" leadership (Mathewson/Hanson) to change course and they seem intent on doubling down (or maybe quadrupling down by now) their existing strategy.
So are they going to say "while we don't like this" you have to register your plane......seems like the AMA would HAVE to encourage compliance, and of course it gives the club safety zealots another thing to harp about. ugh.
This was going to happen if we spent $1 or $1 million. The only way we had to possibly avoid this was the drone definition vs traditional model aircraft.
Maybe there is still time, but we have to convince our own "non elected" leadership (Mathewson/Hanson) to change course and they seem intent on doubling down (or maybe quadrupling down by now) their existing strategy.