400 foot? NOPE
08-04-2016, 08:09 AM
#551
both turbine operations and over 55 pound operations require a waiver issued by the CBO, according to sec 336 as interpreted by the FAA. the only CBO has said it will not issue waivers to non members.
as to your question, some of us just are not social folk who like to be around others or want to join any type of organization.
as to your question, some of us just are not social folk who like to be around others or want to join any type of organization.
Addressing your first statement here, I have been an AMA member for 39 years and have always been quite active flying at at least 5 AMA sites yearly. To date I have only seen a 55 lb + airplane fly at one giant scale event ( Castle AFB giant scale fly in ) formerly an IMAA event that carried an AMA sanction. As far as turbine aircraft I can count them on a single hand as well, then again turbines are not my thing so I obviously do not attend their events. That brings up my point, those are two very specific type of airplanes that will just about always be flown at an event and/or a site that has been developed for model aircraft. As such I just don't see the validity of your example.
As for the second part. I understand that completly. There are all types and being non-social is one of them. However just because you have joined a club to access a flying site does not mean you have to interact, you are fully entitled to keep to yourself. You will not have the sky all to yourself and you will have to follow the rules established by the club and to be honest here, IMO that is the actual issue. Some people just feel they are above following rules and prefer to go somewhere where rules don't exist.
08-04-2016, 08:13 AM
#552
I fail to see where that e-mail said that only AMA members are exempt from the 400 foot rule. It does say that AMA members are exempt, but it does not say that non members who are following AMA safety rules are not exempt.
That said I think it would be hard to prove you are, even if you have the rules on hand.
That said I think it would be hard to prove you are, even if you have the rules on hand.
Right, my understanding of the FAA letter is that anyone flying a line of sight model is able to fly above 400' as long as they are following the safety guidelines of a CBO. It does not state which CBO or that one must be a card holding member of any CBO.
08-04-2016, 08:35 AM
#553
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga,
CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AMA has remained steadfast that operations above 400 feet are permitted, if conducted within our safety program requiring the pilot to be an AMA member, to avoid and not interfere with manned aircraft, and to keep the model within visual line of sight of the pilot/observer.
08-04-2016, 08:55 AM
#554
AMA has no enforcement authority. FAA does. And in the attached email, FAA UAS Integration Office said explicitly:
"The FAA does not interpret PL 112-95 Section 336 (a) (2) as requiring membership in a CBO … You must only follow the guidelines of a CBO. [emphasis added]”
A copy of the FAA's email is attached...note I even mentioned the AMA. Yet they still said membership NOT required.
08-04-2016, 08:57 AM
#555
That only says that AMA membership is required to be within their safety program. It does not say that non members using their rules cannot fly above 400 feet, only that AMA members can. The requirement is only for AMA's liability especially their insurance.
08-04-2016, 08:59 AM
#556
AMA has no enforcement authority. FAA does. And in the attached email, FAA UAS Integration Office said explicitly:
"The FAA does not interpret PL 112-95 Section 336 (a) (2) as requiring membership in a CBO … You must only follow the guidelines of a CBO. [emphasis added]”
A copy of the FAA's email is attached...note I even mentioned the AMA. Yet they still said membership NOT required.
"The FAA does not interpret PL 112-95 Section 336 (a) (2) as requiring membership in a CBO … You must only follow the guidelines of a CBO. [emphasis added]”
A copy of the FAA's email is attached...note I even mentioned the AMA. Yet they still said membership NOT required.
08-04-2016, 09:27 AM
#557
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Orange County CA
Posts: 1,170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Case Close.
08-04-2016, 09:59 AM
#558
We were always able to fly over 400 feet. Some folks thought that the registration sign up page or other nonsense that has propagated for years meant there was some sort of 400 foot limit.
What that letter says is members flying by the safety code may indeed fly over 400 feet despite the non-binding agreement on the registration page.
What that letter says is members flying by the safety code may indeed fly over 400 feet despite the non-binding agreement on the registration page.
08-04-2016, 10:13 AM
#559
Such a fine would be small say less than $1000 dollars, court would cost more if you lose, so most people would pay. I think you mean endangering the NAS not people.
08-04-2016, 10:14 AM
#560
We were always able to fly over 400 feet. Some folks thought that the registration sign up page or other nonsense that has propagated for years meant there was some sort of 400 foot limit.
What that letter says is members flying by the safety code may indeed fly over 400 feet despite the non-binding agreement on the registration page.
What that letter says is members flying by the safety code may indeed fly over 400 feet despite the non-binding agreement on the registration page.
08-04-2016, 02:45 PM
#561
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Orange County,
CA
Posts: 5,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Since there is no FAR that applies to hobby flying that sets any altitude limits, what exactly would they "charge" you with?? Part 107, which DOES have a 400 foot limit in ti does not apply to hobby operations under Part 101.41/Section 336.
08-05-2016, 04:41 PM
#563
"The FAA could apply several regulations in part 91 when determining whether to take enforcement action against a model aircraft operator for endangering the NAS. The FAA’s general operating and flight rules are housed in part 91 of the FAA’s regulations. These rules are the baseline rules that apply to all aircraft operated in the United States with limited exceptions, and are the appropriate rules to apply when evaluating model aircraft operations."
Last edited by franklin_m; 08-06-2016 at 07:05 AM.
08-06-2016, 05:33 AM
#564
Part 107 is hobby operations. They may consider flying above 400 feet as "endangering the NAS".
08-06-2016, 06:57 AM
#565
Made this for a client, and thought I'd share for anyone that's interested. It shows the relationship of PL112-95 Section 336 / 14 CFR 101.41 notification requirement vs. AMA Safety Code notification requirement. Also cited applicable law and FAA's interpretation of the same.
Note: I made a PDF version of the file. It's smaller, prints the text better. The shading looks a little funky, but still more than readable.
Last edited by franklin_m; 08-06-2016 at 03:48 PM. Reason: Added PDF for better text printing
08-06-2016, 07:03 AM
#566
"§ 107.1 Applicability.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section,this part applies to the registration, airman certification, and operation ofcivil small unmanned aircraft systems within the United States.
(b) This part does not apply to the following:
(1) Air carrier operations;
(2) Any aircraft subject to the provisions of part 101 ofthis chapter; or
(3) Any operation that a remote pilot in command elects toconduct pursuant to an exemption issued under section 333 of Public Law 112-95,unless otherwise specified in the exemption.
§ 101.41 Applicability. [emphasis added]
This subpart prescribes rules governing the operation of amodel aircraft (or an aircraft being developed as a model aircraft) that meetsall of the following conditions as set forth in section 336 of Public Law112-95:"
08-06-2016, 08:15 AM
#567
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga,
CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wrong. Straight from federal register:
"§ 107.1 Applicability.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section,this part applies to the registration, airman certification, and operation ofcivil small unmanned aircraft systems within the United States.
(b) This part does not apply to the following:
(1) Air carrier operations;
(2) Any aircraft subject to the provisions of part 101 ofthis chapter; or
(3) Any operation that a remote pilot in command elects toconduct pursuant to an exemption issued under section 333 of Public Law 112-95,unless otherwise specified in the exemption.
§ 101.41 Applicability. [emphasis added]
This subpart prescribes rules governing the operation of amodel aircraft (or an aircraft being developed as a model aircraft) that meetsall of the following conditions as set forth in section 336 of Public Law112-95:"
"§ 107.1 Applicability.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section,this part applies to the registration, airman certification, and operation ofcivil small unmanned aircraft systems within the United States.
(b) This part does not apply to the following:
(1) Air carrier operations;
(2) Any aircraft subject to the provisions of part 101 ofthis chapter; or
(3) Any operation that a remote pilot in command elects toconduct pursuant to an exemption issued under section 333 of Public Law 112-95,unless otherwise specified in the exemption.
§ 101.41 Applicability. [emphasis added]
This subpart prescribes rules governing the operation of amodel aircraft (or an aircraft being developed as a model aircraft) that meetsall of the following conditions as set forth in section 336 of Public Law112-95:"
08-08-2016, 07:22 AM
#569
Made this for a client, and thought I'd share for anyone that's interested. It shows the relationship of PL112-95 Section 336 / 14 CFR 101.41 notification requirement vs. AMA Safety Code notification requirement. Also cited applicable law and FAA's interpretation of the same.
Note: I made a PDF version of the file. It's smaller, prints the text better. The shading looks a little funky, but still more than readable.
08-08-2016, 10:15 AM
#570
Is there anything in it that is factually incorrect?
08-08-2016, 10:48 AM
#571
08-08-2016, 01:24 PM
#572
08-08-2016, 01:36 PM
#574
Come on every buddy it over the feds ain't going to bother you unless U screw up. Just keep on doing what we have been doing and the feds will leave us alone. ya screw with them and they can get real nasty. Look what happened when congress added #336 amendment to the moderation act. That just started the whole thing. Lay low don't make waves and just like rats, don't feed them and they'll go away.
08-08-2016, 02:26 PM
#575
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga,
CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Come on every buddy it over the feds ain't going to bother you unless U screw up. Just keep on doing what we have been doing and the feds will leave us alone. ya screw with them and they can get real nasty. Look what happened when congress added #336 amendment to the moderation act. That just started the whole thing. Lay low don't make waves and just like rats, don't feed them and they'll go away.