400 foot? NOPE
#1
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (11)
400 foot? NOPE
If you're on the side of the fence that there is a 400 foot limit you can drop that case and move on to your next.
The AMA is in possession of a letter, from the FAA, on FAA letterhead that states in part that members operating under the AMA safety code are not subject to a 400 foot limit.
They are required to operate safely, not endanger the NAS, see and avoid and all that good stuff but we are not under a 400 foot limitation.
This should be disseminated sooner rather than later but it's a fact.
The AMA is in possession of a letter, from the FAA, on FAA letterhead that states in part that members operating under the AMA safety code are not subject to a 400 foot limit.
They are required to operate safely, not endanger the NAS, see and avoid and all that good stuff but we are not under a 400 foot limitation.
This should be disseminated sooner rather than later but it's a fact.
#3
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
If you're on the side of the fence that there is a 400 foot limit you can drop that case and move on to your next.
The AMA is in possession of a letter, from the FAA, on FAA letterhead that states in part that members operating under the AMA safety code are not subject to a 400 foot limit.
They are required to operate safely, not endanger the NAS, see and avoid and all that good stuff but we are not under a 400 foot limitation.
This should be disseminated sooner rather than later but it's a fact.
The AMA is in possession of a letter, from the FAA, on FAA letterhead that states in part that members operating under the AMA safety code are not subject to a 400 foot limit.
They are required to operate safely, not endanger the NAS, see and avoid and all that good stuff but we are not under a 400 foot limitation.
This should be disseminated sooner rather than later but it's a fact.
#4
If you're on the side of the fence that there is a 400 foot limit you can drop that case and move on to your next.
The AMA is in possession of a letter, from the FAA, on FAA letterhead that states in part that members operating under the AMA safety code are not subject to a 400 foot limit.
They are required to operate safely, not endanger the NAS, see and avoid and all that good stuff but we are not under a 400 foot limitation.
This should be disseminated sooner rather than later but it's a fact.
The AMA is in possession of a letter, from the FAA, on FAA letterhead that states in part that members operating under the AMA safety code are not subject to a 400 foot limit.
They are required to operate safely, not endanger the NAS, see and avoid and all that good stuff but we are not under a 400 foot limitation.
This should be disseminated sooner rather than later but it's a fact.
Kudos to everyone at the AMA who made this possible and for all the work they've done on behalf of their members.
#5
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (11)
So, I'm in a hotel and don't have the capability to scan and post it right now but I imagine HQ will get getting this out as a release in the beginning of the week.
It's something the FAA has been "saying" for a while but now it's on paper and on record which should satisfy most of the clubs and other members that despite what we have been telling them seem to feel otherwise
It's something the FAA has been "saying" for a while but now it's on paper and on record which should satisfy most of the clubs and other members that despite what we have been telling them seem to feel otherwise
#9
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga,
CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#11
#12
Well, what the FAA actually did was clarify that persons operating under Section 336 of P.L. 112-95 are not bound by some of the guidelines that the FAA has put out, specifically the altitude guideline. This was done to resolve the confusion their poor wording has caused. No special privileges were bestowed on the AMA or its members beyond what exists for any person operating in compliance with Section 336 (and now Part 101.41 as of 8/29/2016).
#14
Junior Member
My Feedback: (50)
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Ridgewood,
NJ
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flying above 400 and abiding with the CBO guidelines while not being a member of such is a null point ......
#16
What I can see is very specific language that allows people who comply with the code to exceed 400 feet. Now, AMA may spin that language to stretch the meaning toward implied membership, but I'll have to see the exact language of the letter.
#17
I agree. It's the taxpayer's airspace, and I don't see the FAA allowing only members of a private dues collecting organization to enjoy privileges in that airspace that other taxpayers do not. It would be like allowing AAA members to exceed all posted speed limits on public roads by 10mph.
What I can see is very specific language that allows people who comply with the code to exceed 400 feet. Now, AMA may spin that language to stretch the meaning toward implied membership, but I'll have to see the exact language of the letter.
What I can see is very specific language that allows people who comply with the code to exceed 400 feet. Now, AMA may spin that language to stretch the meaning toward implied membership, but I'll have to see the exact language of the letter.
#18
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
I agree. It's the taxpayer's airspace, and I don't see the FAA allowing only members of a private dues collecting organization to enjoy privileges in that airspace that other taxpayers do not. It would be like allowing AAA members to exceed all posted speed limits on public roads by 10mph.
What I can see is very specific language that allows people who comply with the code to exceed 400 feet. Now, AMA may spin that language to stretch the meaning toward implied membership, but I'll have to see the exact language of the letter.
What I can see is very specific language that allows people who comply with the code to exceed 400 feet. Now, AMA may spin that language to stretch the meaning toward implied membership, but I'll have to see the exact language of the letter.
#19
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga,
CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, an AMA official has made that assertion. Something FAA should make clear, but has been recalcitrant about doing so.
#20
Well, let's look at what the people who wrote Section 336 had in mind:
So, if just any old person could avail themselves of the CBO safety program why didn't congress say that?? The Conference Committee report would have said " provides the general public a comprehensive set of safety guidelines".
But that's not what they said.
But the AMA haters will choose to willfully ignore the obvious and clear intent of Congress because it just annoys them to the end of the Earth that the AMA does anything positive.
https://www.fas.org/sgp/news/2012/02/faa-uas.html
In this section the term ``nationwidecommunity-based organization'' is intended to mean a membership based association thatrepresents the aeromodeling community within the United States; provides its members acomprehensive set of safety guidelines that underscores safe aeromodeling operations within theNational Airspace System and the protection and safety of the general public on the ground;develops and maintains mutually supportive programming with educational institutions,government entities and other aviation associations; and acts as a liaison with governmentagencies as an advocate for its members.
But that's not what they said.
But the AMA haters will choose to willfully ignore the obvious and clear intent of Congress because it just annoys them to the end of the Earth that the AMA does anything positive.
https://www.fas.org/sgp/news/2012/02/faa-uas.html
Last edited by Silent-AV8R; 07-17-2016 at 08:50 AM.
#23
Junior Member
My Feedback: (50)
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Ridgewood,
NJ
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As previously stated, some organizations are already doing so but it there are some beurocratic obstacles to overcome... Local CBO's are easy to form but they carry the same federal credibility as your local Home Owners Association...
I just laugh every time a Drone Gypsy Operator is confronted by the police and they rapidly bring out a copy of the AMA UAV Operations Manual.... Similar to not belonging but dressing like an USMC member... The only thing you get is candy on October 31....
#24
Why would his CBO need to lobby for the same exclusion since any one CBO that meets the definition of a CBO is supposed to be as good as any other ?
The bottom line here is that as it stands now , the CBO , OUR CBO , has done a good thing here with the elimination of the 400 foot cap , and I think the AMA deserves a rousing "Well Done !" .
Now , as to the numbers of CBOs , which seems today to stand at , one , well if any other CBOs come along and want to advocate for my ability to fly my model aircraft , they're more than welcome to do so , but as discussed in a different thread the AMA is serving the CBO need adequately and just like in an old western ; "This Town ain't big enough fer both of us !" , I really don't see any other organization having a chance in such a limited market .....
The bottom line here is that as it stands now , the CBO , OUR CBO , has done a good thing here with the elimination of the 400 foot cap , and I think the AMA deserves a rousing "Well Done !" .
Now , as to the numbers of CBOs , which seems today to stand at , one , well if any other CBOs come along and want to advocate for my ability to fly my model aircraft , they're more than welcome to do so , but as discussed in a different thread the AMA is serving the CBO need adequately and just like in an old western ; "This Town ain't big enough fer both of us !" , I really don't see any other organization having a chance in such a limited market .....