The registration link
12-21-2015, 12:58 PM
#11
Well, they came online earlier than they said they would and it was running perfectly fine..until it wasn't.
Can't think of a perfect system out there, we'll have to add this one to the list. They can beta test over and over but there is probably only so much bandwidth here to deal with the influx. With the two month window I'd say we have enough time.
12-21-2015, 01:48 PM
#12
Maybe I missed something also. AMA is asking us to wait till further notice. The prior model aircraft rule is being challenged.
http://view.exacttarget.com/?j=fe4f1...017a721171&r=0
http://view.exacttarget.com/?j=fe4f1...017a721171&r=0
12-21-2015, 02:34 PM
#16
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga,
CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
added for Astro: Yes you do have to "sign" the Ack of Safety Guidance to register
Last edited by cj_rumley; 12-21-2015 at 03:18 PM. Reason: as noted
12-21-2015, 02:44 PM
#17
I looked only at the home page and it says "register my drone." I thought OPERATORS had to register. The FAA can't properly word their own website.
Also, if we must agree to fly below 400 feet everywhere, most r/c competition is dead. Pattern, IMAC, sailplanes, turbines... all fly over 400 feet. Sailplane flying is no longer practical. Riding thermals is gone.
Also, if we must agree to fly below 400 feet everywhere, most r/c competition is dead. Pattern, IMAC, sailplanes, turbines... all fly over 400 feet. Sailplane flying is no longer practical. Riding thermals is gone.
Last edited by bokuda; 12-21-2015 at 06:20 PM.
12-21-2015, 03:16 PM
#18
Hi Astro , Since the 1981 date on FAA Advisory Circular 91-57 , the FAA has maintained that there be no model aircraft operations above 400 feet . The wording is pretty explicit , Doesn't use "Should" or say anything about any kinds of exclusions , in paragraph 3 subsection c the exact wording is ;
"Do not fly model aircraft higher than 400 feet above the surface ."
You will note that period at the end makes it a complete sentence . The next sentence goes on to state that when flying closer than 3 miles to an airport the airport operator must be notified . For years folks have been claiming that to read that it's ok fly above 400 feet as long as your further than 3 miles from an airport , and nothing could be further from the truth ! The way I read that passage since 1981 the FAA thinks per their directive that we have been staying under 400 feet , so to reinforce their 34 odd year old position on the 400 foot limit they have again expressly stated it in these new documents .
Can anyone honestly read paragraph 3 subsection c and tell me that 400 feet hasn't been the FAA's requirement on us all these years , ignored as it was up till this most recent bucket of gas was thrown on the fire ?
12-21-2015, 03:32 PM
#19
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Sydney, AUSTRALIA
Posts: 4,786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All good here. Had to wait about 20 minutes for the email to come through but after that it just took 2 minutes.
Last edited by Rob2160; 12-21-2015 at 03:56 PM.
12-21-2015, 03:32 PM
#20
Hi Astro , Since the 1981 date on FAA Advisory Circular 91-57 , the FAA has maintained that there be no model aircraft operations above 400 feet . The wording is pretty explicit , Doesn't use "Should" or say anything about any kinds of exclusions , in paragraph 3 subsection c the exact wording is ;
"Do not fly model aircraft higher than 400 feet above the surface ."
You will note that period at the end makes it a complete sentence . The next sentence goes on to state that when flying closer than 3 miles to an airport the airport operator must be notified . For years folks have been claiming that to read that it's ok fly above 400 feet as long as your further than 3 miles from an airport , and nothing could be further from the truth ! The way I read that passage since 1981 the FAA thinks per their directive that we have been staying under 400 feet , so to reinforce their 34 odd year old position on the 400 foot limit they have again expressly stated it in these new documents .
Can anyone honestly read paragraph 3 subsection c and tell me that 400 feet hasn't been the FAA's requirement on us all these years , ignored as it was up till this most recent bucket of gas was thrown on the fire ?
of not being practical to do so and most full scale don't fly below 2,000 ft unless taking off and landing with the exception being search and rescue police and fire ect. I do know with larger models and turbines and also
sail planes it can be more likely they will exceed the 400ft mark but not by a lot I don't think most of the time.
12-21-2015, 03:37 PM
#21
I am not a legal scholar so I cannot say for certain either way on the FAA advisory circular 91-57. It has been explained to me that an FAA advisory circular is just that, an ADVISORY, it is not LAW. I am not sure I want to be the one that tests that theory!
Astro
Astro
12-21-2015, 03:56 PM
#22
Agreed, Anyway registration was a simple process I am good to go.
12-21-2015, 04:03 PM
#23
Hi Astrio , No my friend , it is not voluntary , despite having advisory in it's name . In my A&P training we studied FARs for a month straight and both Advisory Circulars and Airworthiness Directives can be enforced by the weight of law if compliance is not voluntary . Remember , these things were written at a time when airmen were still seen as "a cut above" and as such , when addressing such upstanding citizens , the FAA didn't need to expressly spell out what force will be applied to insure compliance , it was generally understood and pretty much taken for granted that there would always be voluntary compliance , and so threats of fines and jail weren't needed in bold face like in today's documents .
12-21-2015, 06:12 PM
#25
My Feedback: (26)
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: El Paso,
TX
Posts: 677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apparently RC airplanes don't have to be registered...only "Drones"...??? I have 4 drones and 78 airplanes so I registered anyway at least for the drones...err...Quadcopters....