TimJ

I realize that legally the FAA can drag us around by the balls, if you register. But I will refer you to this video. Scroll to 3:35

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZwmGVtmgjM

cj_rumley

On further consideration..........you have brought up something that is important, and perhaps has been hidden right under our noses. In the act of registering, one is agreeing to comply with section 336 as well as the operating limits stated that were lifted from KBYF. Point is, everyone that registered is operating under 336. FAA needs to make this unequivocally clear to ALCON.

Silent-AV8R

Saw the video when it first came out. Regardless Tim, what the FAA has done is very clear and this idea that AMA operating under 336 makes no exclusions for us since EVERYBODY has to be operating under 336 to even register. Not sure why this seems to be such a difficult point to grasp. And the video is speaking more to the Know Before You Fly campaign, where it is clear they are simply guidelines. THis is an entirely different situation. You are agreeing to an operational limit.

Prop_Washer2

My Feedback: (26)

I guess one of them doesn't have a name...

TimJ

Section 336 doesn't have any altitude restrictions. Only the circular and the FAA interpretation have altitude limitations.

So, unless you have agreed to the terms on the registration page, then section 336 applies to us. Then we follow AMA safety guidelines, NOT the know before you fly or FAA interpretation of 336.

The registration process isn't valid as far as I'm concerned. The reason I state that is due to it's creation after the passing of section 336.

Silent-AV8R

Valid or not, unless they back off we will have to register by 2/19/16.

And I'm glad I finally made my point that the registration process requires us to accept 400 feet as an operational limit. Unless the AMA can get the FAA to back off from that a whole lot of this hobby is screwed (IMAC, pattern, soaring, jets, etc.).

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

Those exceptions, as well as the fields opening back up in the DC area may be what they are working on now...and will hopefully prevail on.

Luchnia

My Feedback: (21)

It would totally suck to have tons of buckos invested in jets right now.

bokuda

My Feedback: (7)

http://www.forbes.com/sites/johngogl...ar-risk/print/

LEGAL ADVICE

http://www.avweb.com/news/avlaw/181881-1.html


quotes below:


There is rarely a circumstance which requires an immediate verbal response to an FAA inquiry. Indeed, without a subpoena, the FAA does not have the power to force you to say anything. Therefore, it would be prudent to postpone any interview, phone call or other response until you have had an opportunity to sit down and reflect on what happened, check data, and possibly consult with an aviation lawyer.


An immediate response is not required, nor is it usually prudent. Before saying anything, you should first find out why the inquiries are being made. Are you or your business being investigated on suspicion of a certificate violation?


If any FAA, NTSB or law enforcement officer demands more from you verbally, politely refuse, until you have had an opportunity to check with an aviation lawyer. On the other hand, if an FAA, NTSB, law enforcement officer, or government official presents you with a subpoena or a search warrant, you may have to comply immediately and allow an inspection of records, equipment, aircraft, and premises.

mr_matt

My Feedback: (10)

The other thing would be register, but to mark up the registration page, line out the parts you don't like, initial it and send it to the FAA via certified mail.

TimJ

awesome........

TimJ

Exactly what I was trying to help you with.

init4fun

To be honest , I see the 400 foot restriction as being far worse than the registration requirement , and yet everyone wants to complain about the registration requirement only . I'm surprised more folks haven't noticed this , unless they are putting their faith in the arm chair lawyers who claim there is no 400 foot limit . The sentence I saw left no wiggle room , no flying above 400 feet above ground level .

TimJ

The 400 foot deal is a guideline, not actual law.

init4fun

Not the way I read it ....

Tell Ya what Tim , I think I'll follow that "guideline" , and let some other deep pocketed hobbyist challenge the "guideline" .

ira d

Agreed.

Silent-AV8R

And the circle is complete. It is just a guideline until you agree to comply with it as part of the mandatory registration process.

TimJ

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

Great legal advice to folks, a hodge podge of information from the internet. I sure hope the people who do get stopped or questioned, and lets face it, there will probably be a good reason why this is happening, will have the common sense to be respectful and complaint. Nothings funnier than watching these videos online where people are being complete idiots to what is usually a respectful officer trying to ask them some questions. Inevitably most are arrested and carted away screaming about some "rights" they think they had. 99.99% of the time, the cops know the law better than the wikilegal scholars in cuffs.

Right? LoL.

init4fun

Silent , you and I both see this the same way . I am left to wonder how many of the folks that insist the 400 foot limit is only a "suggestion" have actually dealt with the FAA ? Anyone who has , and has studied the federal aircraft regulations in any great detail , knows that the FAA's use of the word "advisory" in ACs , and "should" in other text , really does in fact mean "you will" . I have tried in past posts here to explain to those not familiar with the FAA's use of certain terminology that most of this language was left over from the days where airmen were considered "a cut above" and really didn't need to be addressed in such a direct manner as seems to be needed today . It is of note that the 400 foot mention in the registration agreement has no ambiguous wording , it is very direct and concise in it's meaning of no UAS are to be above 400 feet above the earth's surface .

It is this 400 foot limit I most want to see the AMA get the FAA to remove , even as one who would likely be least affected by it (circle flying old warbird guy here) . I love watching sailplanes and pattern , even if I'll never fly them myself , and I'd really like to see those subsets of the hobby continue .

A blanket 400 foot limit goes unnoticed by most here , and a $5 every three year registration is met with pitchforks and torches ? Methinks a few priorities are kinda out of order with some .....

VF84sluggo

My Feedback: (55)

^^^^ +1...Absolutely spot on

radfordc

My Feedback: (14)

Well, then that solves our problem. My model is "property" and no full size plane can fly within 500 ft of it!

Silent-AV8R

Yep, we are on the same page. I am feeling less and less optimistic as well. I am coming to think that the FAA has purposefully mounted a campaign to impose a de facto 400 foot limit by creating the impression in the minds of everyone like the media, public and local governments that there is a limit. They would simply prefer that everybody stay below 400 feet. In the end, the actual number of people who are involved in IMAC, pattern, soaring is a small slice of the AMA, which is itself a small slice of the population.

So if maybe 5,000 people cannot fly their pattern planes, IMAC planes or gliders above 400 feet, I really think the FAA could not care less. Too few people to be an issue for them compared to the larger group of idiots who want to fly their MR/AP aircraft anywhere they want to in any manner they please. And it is the larger group the FAA desperately wants and needs to control. I think they are using a "greater good" approach.

foodstick

Lets face it, if there is a 400 foot limit Jets and gliders are pretty much done for.. unless you like to basically fly the pattern like you are on approach to land, or do a high speed flyby. Giant scale planes will be at the limit to do a stall turn , loop , Immelman,Split S ....

I know a few pilots, and they tell stories of the insane things people are tempted to do to avoid the FAA hearing about ANY type of incident out of the normal.

JPMacG

My Feedback: (2)

RC Universe seems to be a magnet for the disaffected curmudgeons among us. The attitude at my club and the attitude on other RC forums is more positive.