rcmiket

Please remember the Safety Guidance:

• I will fly below 400 feet
  
• I will fly within visual line of sight
  
• I will be aware of FAA airspace requirements: faa.gov/go/uastfr
  
• I will not fly directly over people
  
• I will not fly over stadiums and sports events
  
• I will not fly near emergency response efforts such as fires
  
• I will not fly near aircraft, especially near airports
  
• I will not fly under the influence

To operate as a hobbyist, you must operate according to the safety guidance you have acknowledged and in accordance with a community based set of safety guidance. For further information on the safety guidance visit faa.gov/uas/model_aircraft
.
When you register with the FAA your agree to these rules. I doesn't say anything about joining that CBO just abiding to the rules.

Mike

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

LoL...seriously?

Sport_Pilot

It says "safety guidance you have acknowledged". How are you going to do that without joining?

Silent-AV8R

Once again, keep in mind that a guidance is not the same thing as a rule or regulation. As I have said many, many times, if it is NOT in the FAR's it is NOT a regulation. AC 91-57A said it best, the FAA views 400 feet as a "best practice", meaning they think most people should fly below 400 feet. But this letter makes clear that people operating under a CBO safety program in accordance with Section 336 are granted a bit more latitude when it comes to that guidance.

cj_rumley

By signing the registration form.

Interesting that it says you must operate in accordance with a community based set of safety guidance. Some will read into the phrasing that one must belong to a CBO operate as a hobbyist. Lots of lawless folks out there, in numbers far exceeding dues-paying members of any one of the CBOs extant or imagined.

mongo

My Feedback: (15)

i seem to remember the AMA telling us how they worked with senator Inhoi(however you spell his name) very closely in formulating the wordage for sec 336 in the bill.

GSXR1000

My Feedback: (7)

This is good news, exactly what I was hoping for. 400' is just a guideline and not a hardcap.... Jets, Sailplanes, etc... can rejoice.

There was just no way a turbine flyer will do a maneuver with his apex capped at 400', that would be unsafe and costly...

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

Preaching to the choir here.......

http://amablog.modelaircraft.org/ama...washington-dc/

I don't know how this link can be dismissed, but nothing surprises me anymore in terms of what lengths people will go to in ignoring what the AMA has done for us, and/or the energy that goes into finding fault with them. Some have mastered the head in the sand, or fingers in the ears technique.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

+1.

cj_rumley

Hmmm......“The senator has been a great advocate for AMA and all aeromodelers and we sincerely appreciate his efforts on our behalf,” said President Brown.

Chris P. Bacon

My Feedback: (4)

Double representation for me! Glad I'm getting my tax dollars and AMA membership out of it.

cj_rumley

Goodie for you. The public taxpayers that pay AMA's share of the tax burden get zip, zero, squat.

Chris P. Bacon

My Feedback: (4)

So the AMA isn't paying their fair share? Seriously? Did the AMA make up the 501(c)(3) rules too?

cj_rumley

Yes, yes and no. AMA gets the advantaged tax-exempt status in trade for providing a service for the public good per 501(c)(3) intent. Running a private members-only club that seeks special privilege under federal law for it's dues-paying members doesn't much resemble a service for the public good to me. YMMV, and I'm certain it does.

If you want to discuss it further, start another thread. This one has already taken enough off-topic trajectories.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

AMA=Bad,even when they are working on our behalf, (like even back in 2012).

Chris P. Bacon

My Feedback: (4)

I see, just your personal opinion because you're not benefiting. What a surprise.

Chris P. Bacon

My Feedback: (4)

More AMA = Bad, bad, bad.

cj_rumley

Yes, just my personal opinion. Whose opinions are you expressing? There has been some speculation about that in this forum. Inquiring minds want to know.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

Flying at 401 feet tomorrow!

Dokesflyer

A "members-only club" ? Do you have a club that does not have members? Or is it a club consisting of non-members? Do you know why AMA has 501(c) (3) status?

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

BarracudaHockey

My Feedback: (11)

I won't moderate my own thread but please settle down guys or someone will end up doing a clean up.

Chris P. Bacon

My Feedback: (4)

No matter how good the news for the AMA and its members there will always be a few that have to rain on someone's parade because they feel as though someone got something they didn't and they're entitled to it too.

Despite all the negativity towards the AMA they're the only voice we have and the only group lobbying on our behalf. I'm glad we got the letter from the FAA as this has been a bone of contention for many AMA members and clubs and I'm glad Andy was able to share it with us.

A huge thanks to everyone at the AMA who made this possible.

cj_rumley

Man, your previous input to the thread was cogent and well presented. Don't spoil it.

Chris P. Bacon

My Feedback: (4)

..