Flying Toy Planes Now Allowed in DC Area.
02-10-2016, 04:51 AM
#26
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: El Paso,
TX
Posts: 5,277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DId you read the announcement? It was pretty clear. You do realize that the fields in the DC area are different than 99.99% of the other clubs right?
Is it any different than the way the AMA worked with the FAA before? What is unclear about the rules? The 400ft issue was worked out for 99.99% of the membership. It's different for this group of clubs given the proximity to the DC area. That's just the way that it is. I'm guessing this is somehow the AMA's fault, another failure of theirs, their inability to get everything they want..... but I believe this will be the best result the folks in DC area can hope for as of now.
Is it any different than the way the AMA worked with the FAA before? What is unclear about the rules? The 400ft issue was worked out for 99.99% of the membership. It's different for this group of clubs given the proximity to the DC area. That's just the way that it is. I'm guessing this is somehow the AMA's fault, another failure of theirs, their inability to get everything they want..... but I believe this will be the best result the folks in DC area can hope for as of now.
The AMA release says nothing about the new restrictions does it?
http://www.faa.gov/news/updates/?newsId=84787
Got it. Every time we lose a little we should be happy we did not lose a lot. With that mindset you'll be smiling ear to ear down the road.
Mike
02-10-2016, 05:01 AM
#27
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
Did you read the FAA statement on the FAA site or just the AMA release?
The AMA release says nothing about the new restrictions does it?
http://www.faa.gov/news/updates/?newsId=84787
Got it. Every time we lose a little we should be happy we did not lose a lot. With that mindset you'll be smiling ear to ear down the road.
Mike
The AMA release says nothing about the new restrictions does it?
http://www.faa.gov/news/updates/?newsId=84787
Got it. Every time we lose a little we should be happy we did not lose a lot. With that mindset you'll be smiling ear to ear down the road.
Mike
"We" haven't lost much in the overall scheme of things, notwithstanding the wailing and gnashing of teeth noted here. Other than the registration, 99.99% of the members and clubs will be no different. Naturally you want to focus on the .01 affected and springboard that into more AMA=BAD and "every time we lose" narrative.
I'd rather be smiling ear to ear than going through life looking for the negative in everything, constantly wondering and worrying about how horrible and bad the future will be.
The sky still isn't falling. The hobby continues on.
02-10-2016, 05:11 AM
#28
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: El Paso,
TX
Posts: 5,277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wait what, even more criticism of the AMA, now on their press release? Color me shocked.
"We" haven't lost much in the overall scheme of things, notwithstanding the wailing and gnashing of teeth noted here. Other than the registration, 99.99% of the members and clubs will be no different. Naturally you want to focus on the .01 affected and springboard that into more AMA=BAD and "every time we lose" narrative.
I'd rather be smiling ear to ear than going through life looking for the negative in everything, constantly wondering and worrying about how horrible and bad the future will be.
The sky still isn't falling. The hobby continues on.
"We" haven't lost much in the overall scheme of things, notwithstanding the wailing and gnashing of teeth noted here. Other than the registration, 99.99% of the members and clubs will be no different. Naturally you want to focus on the .01 affected and springboard that into more AMA=BAD and "every time we lose" narrative.
I'd rather be smiling ear to ear than going through life looking for the negative in everything, constantly wondering and worrying about how horrible and bad the future will be.
The sky still isn't falling. The hobby continues on.
Mike
02-10-2016, 05:57 AM
#29
02-10-2016, 06:11 AM
#31
One more thing...might be wise to pay attention to what's happening in the UK. When I was searching for reports over the last year, there was a lot of reporting on how UK is also struggling with the same problem. One legislator introduced proposal to limit all sUAS to no higher than 400'. If we think that folks on this side of the Atlantic aren't watching that, I think we're deluding ourselves.
02-10-2016, 06:44 AM
#32
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: El Paso,
TX
Posts: 5,277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
02-10-2016, 09:36 AM
#33
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Orange County,
CA
Posts: 5,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While not trying to defend the FAA in this whole deal, people need to grasp the differences between the DC SFRA and everywhere else. We also need to understand that we were not alone in this. GA took a big hit and they have seen very little relief.
But as to worrying about the FAA doing this anywhere else in the US on a permanent basis (non-TFR) I would not lose sleep over that.
But as to worrying about the FAA doing this anywhere else in the US on a permanent basis (non-TFR) I would not lose sleep over that.
02-10-2016, 12:30 PM
#34
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
As for Muncie...if only your comparison were valid and on point. Nothing remotely close, but wondering and worrying about what if seems to be easier to deal with than the here and now
02-10-2016, 01:37 PM
#36
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: El Paso,
TX
Posts: 5,277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Since Chad seems to be the main man I'll go right to the source. I don't see Harville on any of the blogs ( and I can't blame him) .
02-10-2016, 03:22 PM
#37
As for the Muncie comment, there's nothing at all invalid about it. They have a field there, if it were impacted the same as those around DC, I would be interested in what they said about it.
02-10-2016, 03:42 PM
#38
I also noticed that the NOTAM said "...OPERATIONS MUST BE CONDUCTED UNDER VISUAL METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS..." (and done only during daylight).
Sounds like they have to meet FAR weather requirements based on airspace category at their specific field location:
http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Gu...f!OpenDocument
Sounds like they have to meet FAR weather requirements based on airspace category at their specific field location:
http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Gu...f!OpenDocument
Last edited by franklin_m; 02-10-2016 at 03:48 PM.
02-10-2016, 04:34 PM
#39
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
I just searched "near miss" and "drone" with results limited to the last 30 days.
As for the Muncie comment, there's nothing at all invalid about it. They have a field there, if it were impacted the same as those around DC, I would be interested in what they said about it.
As for the Muncie comment, there's nothing at all invalid about it. They have a field there, if it were impacted the same as those around DC, I would be interested in what they said about it.
But heck, I'll bite anyway. They would probably do the same thing they did hear. Announce to the membership that they would seek a solution to whatever the problem was, then go right ahead and do it and try to work out the best deal possible. That's what leaders do, they do....they act. They don't just whine and complain and wonder what could/shoulda/woulda been, or how the horrible the future might be.
02-10-2016, 04:37 PM
#40
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
I also noticed that the NOTAM said "...OPERATIONS MUST BE CONDUCTED UNDER VISUAL METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS..." (and done only during daylight).
Sounds like they have to meet FAR weather requirements based on airspace category at their specific field location:
http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Gu...f!OpenDocument
Sounds like they have to meet FAR weather requirements based on airspace category at their specific field location:
http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Gu...f!OpenDocument
Special locations will obviously require special situations. Nothings shocking here is it?
02-10-2016, 04:53 PM
#41
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Canisteo,
NY
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Serious question. Did something happen in the DC area related to RC for the FAA to put a temp ban on flying in that radius at AMA fields? Was it that they where worried about all the RC craft sold at Christmas? Just was curious what the temp ban was actually for. Trying to figure out why they would close AMA fields.
02-10-2016, 05:48 PM
#42
Announce to the membership that they would seek a solution to whatever the problem was, then go right ahead and do it and try to work out the best deal possible. That's what leaders do, they do....they act. They don't just whine and complain and wonder what could/shoulda/woulda been, or how the horrible the future might be.
02-10-2016, 05:53 PM
#43
02-10-2016, 06:11 PM
#44
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: El Paso,
TX
Posts: 5,277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Serious question. Did something happen in the DC area related to RC for the FAA to put a temp ban on flying in that radius at AMA fields? Was it that they where worried about all the RC craft sold at Christmas? Just was curious what the temp ban was actually for. Trying to figure out why they would close AMA fields.
Nope just the FAA flexing it's muscles. There was already a permanent No Fly in the DC area they just extended it out a bit. I have no clue why but it was right when the FAA announced the whole drone thing was brought out as a issue and they were going to tackle the problem.
Mike
Last edited by rcmiket; 02-10-2016 at 06:14 PM.
02-10-2016, 06:22 PM
#46
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: El Paso,
TX
Posts: 5,277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
02-10-2016, 06:56 PM
#47
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
Well, I'll restate that. Perhaps "wrong" was too harsh given that it was your opinion I suppose rather than fact, but given the documented reasons why that happened your distilling everything down to "so they could flex their muscle" seemed sort of a simple conclusion.
It's illogical that they would just summarily "flex" at that point. They could do it whenever, yes of course they can, they are the FAA. They don't react on a dime, nor do they seem to go about things quickly. They announced that the fields would be closed for a period of time, not forever. They also explained part of the reason for that, namely the holiday period and movement of VIPs and the state of the union among other reasons. Although not specifically published (I don't think) increased threats might have had something to do with it. So in short, SECURITY. Perhaps it was also the thought of hundreds of thousands of new drones cruising around, who knows. Perceived or otherwise, that was one of the reasons. At the end of the day, they don't really need to give a reason, they can just do it.
I thought I saw a NOTAM in the past few days, or something similar to it in one of these threads that had more detail. Couldn't find it just now, to tired to look for it. To much snow here, to much shoveling of same, and more to come tomorrow. Winter is finally here with a vengeance. Sat night is supposed to be like 35 below with windchill.
It's illogical that they would just summarily "flex" at that point. They could do it whenever, yes of course they can, they are the FAA. They don't react on a dime, nor do they seem to go about things quickly. They announced that the fields would be closed for a period of time, not forever. They also explained part of the reason for that, namely the holiday period and movement of VIPs and the state of the union among other reasons. Although not specifically published (I don't think) increased threats might have had something to do with it. So in short, SECURITY. Perhaps it was also the thought of hundreds of thousands of new drones cruising around, who knows. Perceived or otherwise, that was one of the reasons. At the end of the day, they don't really need to give a reason, they can just do it.
I thought I saw a NOTAM in the past few days, or something similar to it in one of these threads that had more detail. Couldn't find it just now, to tired to look for it. To much snow here, to much shoveling of same, and more to come tomorrow. Winter is finally here with a vengeance. Sat night is supposed to be like 35 below with windchill.
02-11-2016, 04:20 AM
#48
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: El Paso,
TX
Posts: 5,277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, I'll restate that. Perhaps "wrong" was too harsh given that it was your opinion I suppose rather than fact, but given the documented reasons why that happened your distilling everything down to "so they could flex their muscle" seemed sort of a simple conclusion.
It's illogical that they would just summarily "flex" at that point. They could do it whenever, yes of course they can, they are the FAA. They don't react on a dime, nor do they seem to go about things quickly. They announced that the fields would be closed for a period of time, not forever. They also explained part of the reason for that, namely the holiday period and movement of VIPs and the state of the union among other reasons. Although not specifically published (I don't think) increased threats might have had something to do with it. So in short, SECURITY. Perhaps it was also the thought of hundreds of thousands of new drones cruising around, who knows. Perceived or otherwise, that was one of the reasons. At the end of the day, they don't really need to give a reason, they can just do it.
I thought I saw a NOTAM in the past few days, or something similar to it in one of these threads that had more detail. Couldn't find it just now, to tired to look for it. To much snow here, to much shoveling of same, and more to come tomorrow. Winter is finally here with a vengeance. Sat night is supposed to be like 35 below with windchill.
It's illogical that they would just summarily "flex" at that point. They could do it whenever, yes of course they can, they are the FAA. They don't react on a dime, nor do they seem to go about things quickly. They announced that the fields would be closed for a period of time, not forever. They also explained part of the reason for that, namely the holiday period and movement of VIPs and the state of the union among other reasons. Although not specifically published (I don't think) increased threats might have had something to do with it. So in short, SECURITY. Perhaps it was also the thought of hundreds of thousands of new drones cruising around, who knows. Perceived or otherwise, that was one of the reasons. At the end of the day, they don't really need to give a reason, they can just do it.
I thought I saw a NOTAM in the past few days, or something similar to it in one of these threads that had more detail. Couldn't find it just now, to tired to look for it. To much snow here, to much shoveling of same, and more to come tomorrow. Winter is finally here with a vengeance. Sat night is supposed to be like 35 below with windchill.
"The FAA justifies its most recent action by stating that model aircraft are by definition aircraft and therefore subject to existing FAA rules. "
There was no logical reason for them to shut down R/C in area short of they could. Now if it posed a creditable threat than why not a permanent ban rather than the "temporary ban" ? Since this came right about the time the whole "drone" problem was being addressed by them and there was resistance along with questioning if they even could regulate Model Aircraft due to sec 336 maybe it was just to show everyone just who is and plans to be making the rules.
Mike
02-11-2016, 06:30 AM
#49
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
Again, there was a NOTAM that explained some of the reasons, you clearly want to hold on to the belief that this huge agency just decided willy nilly to flex it's muscles against 20 plus RC clubs just because they could, no matter any evidence to the contrary. Makes no sense...but at least in this case the AMA isn't being blamed. Yet. I think.
02-11-2016, 09:53 AM
#50
My Feedback: (12)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: reisterstown, MD
Posts: 1,864
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You guys that post in every forum about how terrible the AMA and FAA are; need a new hobby! The restriction was enforced by the FAA but not because they wanted too. Homeland security demanded it and some other issues I can't speak on other things I know going on regarding Drone technology from the industry I work. The ban was temporary to start with and as others have stated its time to be happy these clubs can fly at all and move forward and stop complaining if it didn't or doesn't effect you directly.
