AMA Discussions Discuss AMA policies, decisions & any other AMA related topics here.

Perspective From the FAA

Reply

Old 05-04-2019, 04:44 AM
  #1  
Appowner
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 945
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default Perspective From the FAA

Interesting article in spite of being a year old. Provides some insight into how the FAA has viewed the whole sUAS mess.

Link
Appowner is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-2019, 09:53 AM
  #2  
Stickslammer
 
Stickslammer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 318
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Yes, it was interesting. I often marvel when reading about such people in these positions of authority, of just how daunting some of the tasks that they are assigned to can be. If you are very good at multitasking than the world is definitely your oyster.
I am of the opinion that there can be no distinction between a "drone" and a model aircraft. An unmanned aircraft system is an unmanned aircraft, whether it has 4 propeller blades or 1.
A balsa and ply high wing trainer can be fitted for operation as FPV (First Person View) the same as a quad copter that's ready to fly out of the box. With all of the new technology almost anything is possible. Of course what it all comes down to is safety. Those among us who do harm, whether by intent or through carelessness, ignorance, or both, provide the ultimate challenge for those tasked with trying to prevent or dealing with such instances.
I feel confident that in time these issues will be resolved. I don`t think the big bad FAA wants to take away our privilege of flying model aircraft for pleasure or profit. We`re all realizing the benefits of FPV model aircraft in breathtaking movie scenes and the advantage it gives law enforcement, just to name a couple.
It seems to me that here is a level of hysteria that is making it a lot more difficult for those in charge of trying to keep everyone safe. I don`t have a problem with putting a sticker on my plane. Hopefully it won`t come to this, but if some type of transponder is required for all models, than it won`t be cost prohibitive for low budget balsa bashers like myself.

Last edited by Stickslammer; 05-05-2019 at 09:55 AM.
Stickslammer is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-2019, 11:57 AM
  #3  
init4fun
 
init4fun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 3,280
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

[QUOTE=Stickslammer;12523171].....A balsa and ply high wing trainer can be fitted for operation as FPV (First Person View) the same as a quad copter that's ready to fly out of the box.

I distilled your post down to it's pertinent part , and here's my belief ;

You want to fly beyond line of sight , with anything remotely controlled or preprogrammed (fixed wing , rotorcraft , etc) , then you should deal with the whole FAA airspace regs thing .

You want to fly TRUE line of sight only , NO fpv or preprogrammed flight , great , slap some ID numbers on it and stay out of the way of commercial BLOS and manned operations .

But that it could be so simple .....
init4fun is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-2019, 04:26 PM
  #4  
Stickslammer
 
Stickslammer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 318
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Sorry I bored you with all the rest of the impertinent blather.
Stickslammer is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2019, 12:39 PM
  #5  
init4fun
 
init4fun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 3,280
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Originally Posted by Stickslammer View Post
Sorry I bored you with all the rest of the impertinent blather.

Ok , I'll let you off easy this time , but next time , you'll have to pertinent police yourself
init4fun is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2019, 01:19 PM
  #6  
speedracerntrixie
My Feedback: (29)
 
speedracerntrixie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 6,716
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default







This just in. This is what I was hoping for but in all honesty I'm not feeling 100% about it just yet. I'm sure there will be some clarification in the coming weeks.
speedracerntrixie is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2019, 03:37 AM
  #7  
Appowner
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 945
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

This is doing nothing other than proving that AMA clubs must do the same thing everyone else must do. GET PERMISSION! Establishing long term agreements with the local authorities has and continues to be the suggested way of doing things for regularly used flying sites. I have one with my local FBO (no ATC) for my back yard.

It's good sense actually. No big deal.
Appowner is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2019, 09:11 AM
  #8  
speedracerntrixie
My Feedback: (29)
 
speedracerntrixie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 6,716
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Yes, very good sense. I do know that my home field in Sacramento has a standing agreement with the closest airport ( Mather AFB ) and has had that agreement for decades. I will need to check what is in place at the field in Oregon. My main point is that it would appear that the AMA has been successful in their efforts to negotiate for their members an exception that will allow us to continue to fly above 400'. It would be nice if the FAA would clarify this but every time I go checking on the FAA website I see a fair amount of conflicting information. The FAA website still makes reference to 336 when searching for information on recreational flying.
speedracerntrixie is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2019, 03:10 AM
  #9  
Appowner
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 945
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Originally Posted by speedracerntrixie View Post
Yes, very good sense. I do know that my home field in Sacramento has a standing agreement with the closest airport ( Mather AFB ) and has had that agreement for decades. I will need to check what is in place at the field in Oregon. My main point is that it would appear that the AMA has been successful in their efforts to negotiate for their members an exception that will allow us to continue to fly above 400'. It would be nice if the FAA would clarify this but every time I go checking on the FAA website I see a fair amount of conflicting information. The FAA website still makes reference to 336 when searching for information on recreational flying.
And this is where so many people screw this up. Where IS the 400 foot the limit? Hint: Class 'G' UNCONTROLLED airspace. i.e. NO ATC or airport.

If you are in CONTROLLED airspace then you need to get clearance. And in doing so you can negotiate the altitude limit with them. So when you're flying in controlled airspace (other than class 'G') and such an agreement is in place, it is quite likely you can fly higher than 400 feet. And if not, well maybe that's a comment on someones negotiation skills. Or their over all knowledge and understanding of the rules.

Why people insist on making this so difficult is beyond me.
Appowner is offline  
Reply With Quote

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service