400 foot? NOPE
07-21-2016, 07:58 AM
#201
Gee Sport , me defending my fellow AMA members from the insult of being called opportunistic petty thieves is a personal insult but shouting at someone ;
"What the heck is wrong with you!"
isn't ?????
"What the heck is wrong with you!"
isn't ?????
07-21-2016, 09:18 AM
#204
And your post proves you have no problem slinging the personal insults around , I find your demands intolerant of my view that what I read is pretty cut and dried .
"Can you imagine the number" doesn't speak to a small criminal fringe , it openly accuses VAST numbers of my fellow AMA members !
Now , you can continue browbeating over the fact that your friend DOES owe the AMA an apology for the rotten slam on our member's collective honesty or you can slink away from it like he did . Either way , I will not accept nor agree to a large number of my fellow AMA members being called crooks !
Yes Sport , you as a supposed self declared "Master Wordsmith" of all should know that WORDS MATTER !!!!!
"Can you imagine the number" doesn't speak to a small criminal fringe , it openly accuses VAST numbers of my fellow AMA members !
Now , you can continue browbeating over the fact that your friend DOES owe the AMA an apology for the rotten slam on our member's collective honesty or you can slink away from it like he did . Either way , I will not accept nor agree to a large number of my fellow AMA members being called crooks !
Yes Sport , you as a supposed self declared "Master Wordsmith" of all should know that WORDS MATTER !!!!!
07-21-2016, 09:18 AM
#205
So Sport , can you honestly tell me this post speaks of a small percentage of the criminal element , or does it say exactly what it appears to , that if conditions were easier such as having no police report to file and no showing of signs of forced entry , that the number of fraudulent claims filed by MY fellow AMA members would be too large to even imagine ? Sorry , Mr. intolerantly outraged poutyface, but NO ONE gets to call large numbers of MY fellow AMA members CROOKS without being called out on it ! Now , go do your reporting so that you'll feel better about yourself but the fact remains that anyone in the future who reads that post will be able to clearly determine it's intent , that the writer believes the only thing keeping MY fellow AMA members from filing a deluge of fraudulent claims is the difficulty in doing so , and not their own honesty for which I STILL say most DO deserve credit for .
07-21-2016, 10:07 AM
#208
Gee Sport , me defending my fellow AMA members from the insult of being called opportunistic petty thieves is a personal insult but shouting at someone ;
"What the heck is wrong with you!"
isn't ?????
"What the heck is wrong with you!"
isn't ?????
07-21-2016, 10:31 AM
#211
So , anyone feel like discussing the subject of 400 feet
That was the topic of this thread until you totally derailed another thread, again.
, or maybe even go off track a bit
Seems natural for some.
and talk about night flying ?
Perhaps there's an already existing thread for this. Or, perhaps you can start a new thread in the appropriate forum section.
That was the topic of this thread until you totally derailed another thread, again.
, or maybe even go off track a bit
Seems natural for some.
and talk about night flying ?
Perhaps there's an already existing thread for this. Or, perhaps you can start a new thread in the appropriate forum section.
07-21-2016, 10:32 AM
#212
07-22-2016, 07:18 AM
#215
really nothing to talk about. Silent and myself have been saying for years there's no real 400 foot limit, so after the FAA muddied the waters with the registration agreement page, we now have clarification, there is no 400 foot limit.
There is an affirmative duty to not create a problem for a manned aircraft but that applies at any altitude, even if the full scale is in the wrong.
There is an affirmative duty to not create a problem for a manned aircraft but that applies at any altitude, even if the full scale is in the wrong.
07-22-2016, 07:23 AM
#216
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Orange County CA
Posts: 1,170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SOoo , For anybody still talking about 400 feet , Does anyone here have any experience with those "how high" products that are sold to give a model's maximum altitude after the flight ? I don't need or want real time readings , just a unit that records the highest point of the flight .Personally I've researched Eagle Tree stand alone equipment as well as Altis equipment for ALES glider competition. But have yet to jump in and purchase.
07-22-2016, 07:55 AM
#219
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Orange County,
CA
Posts: 5,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
really nothing to talk about. Silent and myself have been saying for years there's no real 400 foot limit, so after the FAA muddied the waters with the registration agreement page, we now have clarification, there is no 400 foot limit.
There is an affirmative duty to not create a problem for a manned aircraft but that applies at any altitude, even if the full scale is in the wrong.
There is an affirmative duty to not create a problem for a manned aircraft but that applies at any altitude, even if the full scale is in the wrong.
07-22-2016, 08:02 AM
#220
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Orange County,
CA
Posts: 5,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One thing I will say, people who say that most modelers never exceed 400 feet have no clue how low 400 feet really is. And while a Phantom quad might be hard to see at 400 feet I can assure you that the average model aircraft is very easily seen at that height. At Prado Airpark, where Tim and I both fly, the road in is 800 feet from the pilot's stations and I regularly see even small sport planes well past the road.
07-22-2016, 08:34 AM
#222
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga,
CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tim I assumed nothing of what my fellow flyers think of their altitude , my purpose for asking was to see if anyone had experience with any of these devices . Even though the 400 foot Dragon has been slain I still am wondering exactly how high my average flights are , as we all know it's not easy to guess an altitude from the ground while tending to the business of actually flying the model . Sure , I've seen all kinds of methods suggested using protractors and measuring angles to determine height , none too practical while holding a TX with both hands ...
07-22-2016, 09:21 AM
#223
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: El Paso,
TX
Posts: 5,277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
really nothing to talk about. Silent and myself have been saying for years there's no real 400 foot limit, so after the FAA muddied the waters with the registration agreement page, we now have clarification, there is no 400 foot limit.
There is an affirmative duty to not create a problem for a manned aircraft but that applies at any altitude, even if the full scale is in the wrong.
There is an affirmative duty to not create a problem for a manned aircraft but that applies at any altitude, even if the full scale is in the wrong.
Mike
07-22-2016, 09:23 AM
#224
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: El Paso,
TX
Posts: 5,277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
07-22-2016, 12:05 PM
#225
------- 10 Jul 2016 email from me to FAA UAS Itegration Office ------
"Public law 112-95 section 336 paragraph (a)(1) through (a)(5) details five conditions that must be met for a sUAS / sUAS operation to be considered a "model aircraft" under the law. Paragraph (a)(2) discusses a community-based organization and uses the word "and" on two conditions within that sentence. In the FAA's "Interpretation of the Special Rule for Model Aircraft" the question of a membership requirement was left unanswered.
It is an important question as to whether the FAA will require citizens to be members in private dues collecting organizations in order to enjoy the privilege of operating a "model aircraft" in the public airspace. Requiring membership in the AMA to operate as a "model aircraft" as defined in PL112-95 Section 336(a)(2) would be the legal equivalent of requiring membership in AOPA to operate as a private pilot. Therefore, this is an important ambiguity to be resolved.
Therefore, Yes or no, does the FAA interpret PL112-95 Section 336 paragraph (a)(2), "the aircraft is operated in accordance with a community-based set of safety guidelines and within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization;" to mean that to be considered a "model aircraft" under the law, the operator must be a member of a community-based organization? [emphasis added]"
----- 12 July 2016 FAA UAS Integration Office response --------
"The FAA does not interpret PL 112-95 Section 336 (a) (2) as requiring membership in a CBO, nor does the FAA list any CBOs. You must only follow the guidelines of a CBO. [emphasis added]"
"Public law 112-95 section 336 paragraph (a)(1) through (a)(5) details five conditions that must be met for a sUAS / sUAS operation to be considered a "model aircraft" under the law. Paragraph (a)(2) discusses a community-based organization and uses the word "and" on two conditions within that sentence. In the FAA's "Interpretation of the Special Rule for Model Aircraft" the question of a membership requirement was left unanswered.
It is an important question as to whether the FAA will require citizens to be members in private dues collecting organizations in order to enjoy the privilege of operating a "model aircraft" in the public airspace. Requiring membership in the AMA to operate as a "model aircraft" as defined in PL112-95 Section 336(a)(2) would be the legal equivalent of requiring membership in AOPA to operate as a private pilot. Therefore, this is an important ambiguity to be resolved.
Therefore, Yes or no, does the FAA interpret PL112-95 Section 336 paragraph (a)(2), "the aircraft is operated in accordance with a community-based set of safety guidelines and within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization;" to mean that to be considered a "model aircraft" under the law, the operator must be a member of a community-based organization? [emphasis added]"
----- 12 July 2016 FAA UAS Integration Office response --------
"The FAA does not interpret PL 112-95 Section 336 (a) (2) as requiring membership in a CBO, nor does the FAA list any CBOs. You must only follow the guidelines of a CBO. [emphasis added]"