Official FAA Authorization Document - Flight in Controlled Airspace
06-01-2019, 02:52 AM
#1
Thread Starter
Official FAA Authorization Document - Flight in Controlled Airspace
On 17 May, FAA signed the official authorization for flight in controlled airspace at fixed sites. Although I've attached the document, I will include where to find it so others can find it for themselves. It makes it abundantly clear that AMA's "fly was you always have" for affected fixed sites - is not true. Beware of following AMA's advice if you're flying at one of these fields. The attached memo makes it clear that if you're not strictly adhering to the conditions in this formal FAA Authorization, you are violating the law.
This website:
https://www.faa.gov/uas/recreational_fliers/
Under the "Here's what you need to do:" go down to just past #11 and click on this link:
Read the Authorization for limited recreational operations as described in section 44809 (PDF).
This website:
https://www.faa.gov/uas/recreational_fliers/
Under the "Here's what you need to do:" go down to just past #11 and click on this link:
Read the Authorization for limited recreational operations as described in section 44809 (PDF).
Last edited by franklin_m; 06-01-2019 at 03:56 AM.
06-01-2019, 04:36 AM
#3
Banned
Looks to me like anyone flying at one of these sites needs to have a copy of this in their back pocket.
Also of interest is the statement: "Operations at the listed fixed sites are authorized up to the altitudes indicated on the unmanned aircraft system (UAS) facility map (UASFM)." Said map has a glider soaring site in CO held to 50 feet. And I don't see anything on the map (or in the pdf list of sites) that allows anything over 400 feet.
So what exactly has been won here?
Also of interest is the statement: "Operations at the listed fixed sites are authorized up to the altitudes indicated on the unmanned aircraft system (UAS) facility map (UASFM)." Said map has a glider soaring site in CO held to 50 feet. And I don't see anything on the map (or in the pdf list of sites) that allows anything over 400 feet.
So what exactly has been won here?
06-01-2019, 01:50 PM
#4
The scene at my new home field in Oregon. All of us there today flying " as usual ". I was there for 5 hours, FAA was a no show. I'm sure this was the case at hundreds of AMA chartered club feilds around the country today and I expect the same tomorrow. Maybe all the reports of FAA reps showing up at flying fields and issuing citations will come pouring in next week. I'm not holding my breath though.
06-01-2019, 05:05 PM
#6
Banned
The scene at my new home field in Oregon. All of us there today flying " as usual ". I was there for 5 hours, FAA was a no show. I'm sure this was the case at hundreds of AMA chartered club feilds around the country today and I expect the same tomorrow. Maybe all the reports of FAA reps showing up at flying fields and issuing citations will come pouring in next week. I'm not holding my breath though.
Just where exactly is this field located?
What class airspace is it in?
Does it appear on the FAA list of authorized sites? (Assuming it's close to an ATC Airport)
Some flying sites are OK. Like mine in my back yard.
Some flying sites appear on the FAAs list of approved sites.
Some flying sites don't appear on the list yet fall within that proximity to an airport where they "could" be on such a list. The fact that they are not however is a clear statement that they should not operate at that field. For now anyway.
And many flying sites I suspect are in class 'G' where it IS business as usual, At least up to 400 feet.
06-01-2019, 05:14 PM
#7
I am very familiar with that case, I have a few friends that fly there regularly. They are currently working an agreement with the FAA to keep the field open. The Basin has been on the radar quite frequently the past few years because it is one of the only fields that does not require AMA. According to the club members that I talk to on a regular basis, it is the non AMA members that have been creating the problems for the site.
However, keep things in perspective, that is one field out of over 2,500. I would never claim that all AMA members operate in a perfectly safe manner all the time, as a whole however members have a great safety record.
However, keep things in perspective, that is one field out of over 2,500. I would never claim that all AMA members operate in a perfectly safe manner all the time, as a whole however members have a great safety record.
06-02-2019, 01:38 AM
#9
Thread Starter
I am very familiar with that case, I have a few friends that fly there regularly. They are currently working an agreement with the FAA to keep the field open. The Basin has been on the radar quite frequently the past few years because it is one of the only fields that does not require AMA. According to the club members that I talk to on a regular basis, it is the non AMA members that have been creating the problems for the site.
However, keep things in perspective, that is one field out of over 2,500. I would never claim that all AMA members operate in a perfectly safe manner all the time, as a whole however members have a great safety record.
However, keep things in perspective, that is one field out of over 2,500. I would never claim that all AMA members operate in a perfectly safe manner all the time, as a whole however members have a great safety record.
Which would cause me to ask ... when you were flying at your field, did everyone obey the 400 foot limit? Of course they did. Yeah right. Again, proving to FAA that the hobby won't even follow simple rules.
06-02-2019, 02:01 AM
#10
Banned
And of course you're "very familiar." But there's a list of fields that are shut down (inside two miles) and therefore not authorized. Yet AMA is telling folks to fly normally. All the AMA is doing is handing the FAA the stick to beat them with. Proving that even when the rules are simple, nothing above 400 feet in class G, and inside controlled airspace up to the grid altitude, the AMA won't follow it.
Which would cause me to ask ... when you were flying at your field, did everyone obey the 400 foot limit? Of course they did. Yeah right. Again, proving to FAA that the hobby won't even follow simple rules.
Which would cause me to ask ... when you were flying at your field, did everyone obey the 400 foot limit? Of course they did. Yeah right. Again, proving to FAA that the hobby won't even follow simple rules.
It use to be great fun to go to the local RC field at the local airport and watch models and full size operate. Safety was indeed a consideration but everyone behaved like adults were supposed to. And when someone screwed up, they didn't get upset and run to mommy when called out. They owned up to it and took it like the men they were.
Not so today!
As for the so called safety record. When was it started? 1960's? 1950's? Before that? Whenever it was ask yourself this. How many full size were in the air at any one time over the US? And how many RC Models were there around the country? What were the chances of a mid air? You'll find that both numbers have grown considerably over the years with the biggest jump in RC being quite recently. After all some one million FAA registrants now vs a few hundred thousand not too many years ago. And how many full size are in the air today? 5000 to 8000 at any given moment during the day in the US. Like it or not, we've been lucky so far.
Citing the safety record is one thing. Understanding it is another. I believe we're simply riding on the momentum of what has gone before. But I also believe that based on shear numbers the unenforced rules and guidelines of the AMA will soon prove inadequate. And even the guidelines of the FAA, based in part on the AMA safety code, will prove to be too little.
It would not surprise me to find the FAA is simply biding their time. Waiting for an event with which they can come down hard on recreational RC flying. And I believe the long history of the AMA not enforcing their own rules will provide the path.
Going to be interesting if nothing else.
06-03-2019, 06:11 AM
#12
We obviously have different opinions. I agree that if we look at the registration numbers it would appear that there are more UAS in the air. In fact I would agree that outside AMA chartered club fields this very well may be the case as we see videos posted on YouTube etc. Mainly FPV guys. It however am willing to bet that a very high percentage of the people who have regestered with the FAA have lost interest in their toy or camera platform. It's the same scenario when I was working at hobby shops years ago. We knew that at least 50% of what we sold was never going to see the light of day. Guys bought stuff and got bored with it, life happened etc and the airplane never got finished. How many times do we see on social media outlets where somone was given a half built or built but never flown airplane?
As far as full scale, yes much more air travel but is that the issue? Civil GA is shrinking just like our hobby. Growing up in San Jose we were right on the short final approach. In the summer of '79 we would have a light aircraft pass over the house about every 10 minutes going into San Jose international. Far less when I moved 5 years ago. The same applies for Reed Hillveiw on the south side of San Jose.
Now traditional R/C models. As a teenager I would go to the local AMA field ( Pioneer club ) in Santa Clara. On any given Saturday or Sunday there would be at least a couple dozen guys. Working at the hobby shop, on the R/C side our sales supported 3 full time employees and 1 part time. Granted online sales took a huge toll out of the brick and mortar shops but look how even the online retailers are dropping like flies now. IMO just looking at registration numbers and AMA card holders ( a good percentage of card holders are not active ) is not a good indicator of how many UAS are being flown. That is where our opinions differ. IMO to get a good perspective on exactly what is happening you need to get out there and get involved. Sitting at a computer reading what is put out there and only flying in your back yard and /or the park down the street does not give you a complete picture of what is happening. This is one of the reasons most AMA members here on RCU couldn't care less about contributing to this forum, they know that most of what is published here in nonsense. The other reason why others don't participate in this forum is the response this post is going to get. Most guys don't want anything to do with the negativity, sarcasm and overall disrespect that is " business as usual " in this forum.
As far as full scale, yes much more air travel but is that the issue? Civil GA is shrinking just like our hobby. Growing up in San Jose we were right on the short final approach. In the summer of '79 we would have a light aircraft pass over the house about every 10 minutes going into San Jose international. Far less when I moved 5 years ago. The same applies for Reed Hillveiw on the south side of San Jose.
Now traditional R/C models. As a teenager I would go to the local AMA field ( Pioneer club ) in Santa Clara. On any given Saturday or Sunday there would be at least a couple dozen guys. Working at the hobby shop, on the R/C side our sales supported 3 full time employees and 1 part time. Granted online sales took a huge toll out of the brick and mortar shops but look how even the online retailers are dropping like flies now. IMO just looking at registration numbers and AMA card holders ( a good percentage of card holders are not active ) is not a good indicator of how many UAS are being flown. That is where our opinions differ. IMO to get a good perspective on exactly what is happening you need to get out there and get involved. Sitting at a computer reading what is put out there and only flying in your back yard and /or the park down the street does not give you a complete picture of what is happening. This is one of the reasons most AMA members here on RCU couldn't care less about contributing to this forum, they know that most of what is published here in nonsense. The other reason why others don't participate in this forum is the response this post is going to get. Most guys don't want anything to do with the negativity, sarcasm and overall disrespect that is " business as usual " in this forum.
06-03-2019, 07:16 AM
#13
Thread Starter
We obviously have different opinions. I agree that if we look at the registration numbers it would appear that there are more UAS in the air. In fact I would agree that outside AMA chartered club fields this very well may be the case as we see videos posted on YouTube etc. Mainly FPV guys. It however am willing to bet that a very high percentage of the people who have regestered with the FAA have lost interest in their toy or camera platform. It's the same scenario when I was working at hobby shops years ago. We knew that at least 50% of what we sold was never going to see the light of day. Guys bought stuff and got bored with it, life happened etc and the airplane never got finished. How many times do we see on social media outlets where somone was given a half built or built but never flown airplane?
As far as full scale, yes much more air travel but is that the issue? Civil GA is shrinking just like our hobby. Growing up in San Jose we were right on the short final approach. In the summer of '79 we would have a light aircraft pass over the house about every 10 minutes going into San Jose international. Far less when I moved 5 years ago. The same applies for Reed Hillveiw on the south side of San Jose.
Now traditional R/C models. As a teenager I would go to the local AMA field ( Pioneer club ) in Santa Clara. On any given Saturday or Sunday there would be at least a couple dozen guys. Working at the hobby shop, on the R/C side our sales supported 3 full time employees and 1 part time. Granted online sales took a huge toll out of the brick and mortar shops but look how even the online retailers are dropping like flies now. IMO just looking at registration numbers and AMA card holders ( a good percentage of card holders are not active ) is not a good indicator of how many UAS are being flown. That is where our opinions differ. IMO to get a good perspective on exactly what is happening you need to get out there and get involved. Sitting at a computer reading what is put out there and only flying in your back yard and /or the park down the street does not give you a complete picture of what is happening. This is one of the reasons most AMA members here on RCU couldn't care less about contributing to this forum, they know that most of what is published here in nonsense. The other reason why others don't participate in this forum is the response this post is going to get. Most guys don't want anything to do with the negativity, sarcasm and overall disrespect that is " business as usual " in this forum.
As far as full scale, yes much more air travel but is that the issue? Civil GA is shrinking just like our hobby. Growing up in San Jose we were right on the short final approach. In the summer of '79 we would have a light aircraft pass over the house about every 10 minutes going into San Jose international. Far less when I moved 5 years ago. The same applies for Reed Hillveiw on the south side of San Jose.
Now traditional R/C models. As a teenager I would go to the local AMA field ( Pioneer club ) in Santa Clara. On any given Saturday or Sunday there would be at least a couple dozen guys. Working at the hobby shop, on the R/C side our sales supported 3 full time employees and 1 part time. Granted online sales took a huge toll out of the brick and mortar shops but look how even the online retailers are dropping like flies now. IMO just looking at registration numbers and AMA card holders ( a good percentage of card holders are not active ) is not a good indicator of how many UAS are being flown. That is where our opinions differ. IMO to get a good perspective on exactly what is happening you need to get out there and get involved. Sitting at a computer reading what is put out there and only flying in your back yard and /or the park down the street does not give you a complete picture of what is happening. This is one of the reasons most AMA members here on RCU couldn't care less about contributing to this forum, they know that most of what is published here in nonsense. The other reason why others don't participate in this forum is the response this post is going to get. Most guys don't want anything to do with the negativity, sarcasm and overall disrespect that is " business as usual " in this forum.
Oh, can't know unless one gets involved? Well, declining paid membership revenue indicates that people aren't getting involved, in fact the opposite. Maybe it's because they see less and less value for their AMA dollar. On the "value" of their advocacy, they've gotten rolled on pretty much every issue so maybe folks don't see that much value. As for club fields, maybe people see less value because there's a lot of great options for flying away from club fields. While the temporary fixed site authorization has some benefit, it's temporary. Once FAA updates LAANC to allow ANY recreational user ANYWHERE to fly legally, put another stake in the value of AMA.
Future issues will be testing and waivers for the 400 foot class G. AMA is telling members that because PL115-254 is not a regulation, it does not need to be followed. I'm pretty sure that's wrong advice six ways to Sunday, but I've asked the FAA to be sure. And the AMA EC wonders why FAA doesn't take them seriously ... when AMA is putting out patently false information!
BTW, you never answered the question. Are you complying with the altitude limits of PL115-254 Section 349? I mean, AMA is telling everyone that their members aren't the problem. So I'm puzzled why you haven't answered.
06-03-2019, 07:36 AM
#14
PL115-254 section 349 has not been fully implemented because the FAA has not made all 8 conditions accessible to recreational users, example the required test. When it is possible to meet all the requirements I will do so and comply.
Of course this has been explained to you multiple times on RCG hasn't it?
Thinking on this a bit more:
Is it your position that the FAA is telling us to obey what we can while they sort out the rest? Of course this is going to be a priority while undergoing an FBI investigation and working with Boeing to get the Max 8/9 back in the air.
Then again if you have any reports of the FAA citing guys for breaking altitude limits I will gladly concede.
Of course this has been explained to you multiple times on RCG hasn't it?
Thinking on this a bit more:
Is it your position that the FAA is telling us to obey what we can while they sort out the rest? Of course this is going to be a priority while undergoing an FBI investigation and working with Boeing to get the Max 8/9 back in the air.
Then again if you have any reports of the FAA citing guys for breaking altitude limits I will gladly concede.
Last edited by speedracerntrixie; 06-03-2019 at 09:52 AM.
06-03-2019, 09:03 AM
#15
Banned
PL115-254 section 349 has not been fully implemented because the FAA has not made all 8 conditions accessible to recreational users, example the required test. When it is possible to meet all the requirements I will do so and comply.
Of course this has been explained to you multiple times on RCG hasn't it?
Of course this has been explained to you multiple times on RCG hasn't it?
06-03-2019, 12:06 PM
#16
Thread Starter
PL115-254 section 349 has not been fully implemented because the FAA has not made all 8 conditions accessible to recreational users, example the required test. When it is possible to meet all the requirements I will do so and comply.
Of course this has been explained to you multiple times on RCG hasn't it?
Thinking on this a bit more:
Is it your position that the FAA is telling us to obey what we can while they sort out the rest? Of course this is going to be a priority while undergoing an FBI investigation and working with Boeing to get the Max 8/9 back in the air.
Then again if you have any reports of the FAA citing guys for breaking altitude limits I will gladly concede.
Of course this has been explained to you multiple times on RCG hasn't it?
Thinking on this a bit more:
Is it your position that the FAA is telling us to obey what we can while they sort out the rest? Of course this is going to be a priority while undergoing an FBI investigation and working with Boeing to get the Max 8/9 back in the air.
Then again if you have any reports of the FAA citing guys for breaking altitude limits I will gladly concede.
06-03-2019, 12:54 PM
#17
Why just class G? For the record I have no issue with 400' in uncontrolled airspace. In controlled airspace I beleive that we can still function safely as we have without incident. Of course this would require evaluation on a site by site basis but should be possible. Please do not reply with an answer that would indicate that the effort required would be a waste on a bunch of guys flying toy airplanes. Refusing to do the evaluations would create that " seperate class of citizen " you are so vocal about avoiding.
As far as enforcement is concerned, now is a great time for that discussion as the AMA Nats are taking place very soon. No events to my knowledge have been canceled. AMA pattern is being held in Blytheville Ak, an air base with an active runway and host to B-52 squadron. If the FAA was as dead set about 349 being carved in stone law would this not be a perfect opportunity for them to flex some muscle?
As far as enforcement is concerned, now is a great time for that discussion as the AMA Nats are taking place very soon. No events to my knowledge have been canceled. AMA pattern is being held in Blytheville Ak, an air base with an active runway and host to B-52 squadron. If the FAA was as dead set about 349 being carved in stone law would this not be a perfect opportunity for them to flex some muscle?
Last edited by speedracerntrixie; 06-03-2019 at 12:58 PM.
06-03-2019, 01:24 PM
#18
Thread Starter
Why just class G? For the record I have no issue with 400' in uncontrolled airspace. In controlled airspace I beleive that we can still function safely as we have without incident. Of course this would require evaluation on a site by site basis but should be possible. Please do not reply with an answer that would indicate that the effort required would be a waste on a bunch of guys flying toy airplanes. Refusing to do the evaluations would create that " seperate class of citizen " you are so vocal about avoiding.
As far as enforcement is concerned, now is a great time for that discussion as the AMA Nats are taking place very soon. No events to my knowledge have been canceled. AMA pattern is being held in Blytheville Ak, an air base with an active runway and host to B-52 squadron. If the FAA was as dead set about 349 being carved in stone law would this not be a perfect opportunity for them to flex some muscle?
As far as enforcement is concerned, now is a great time for that discussion as the AMA Nats are taking place very soon. No events to my knowledge have been canceled. AMA pattern is being held in Blytheville Ak, an air base with an active runway and host to B-52 squadron. If the FAA was as dead set about 349 being carved in stone law would this not be a perfect opportunity for them to flex some muscle?
In the meantime, I've yet to see any official document, website, public statement, etc. out of FAA that says anyone is allowed to exceed 400' AGL ... EVER. Only the AMA is saying that, and it's because someone's "friend's neighbor's cousin's husband" who works at the FAA said something. If AMA has a document in writing from FAA saying that they don't have to follow the law because it's not a regulation, don't you think they'd have posted it by now? The reality is they don't have it. They know or should know that their advice to members to "fly as we always have" is wrong.
Time is on the side of the arguments I'm making. It's pretty clear which direction FAA is headed. Even if AMA gets waivers in controlled airspace to go above 400 feet from fixed sites, there's what, a couple hundred of them? That's not enough to support membership. And a blanket to go above 400 feet in class G? Don't see the FAA over-ruling an explicit sentence in Federal law.
06-03-2019, 03:00 PM
#19
Thinking on this a bit more:
Is it your position that the FAA is telling us to obey what we can while they sort out the rest? Of course this is going to be a priority while undergoing an FBI investigation and working with Boeing to get the Max 8/9 back in the air.
Is it your position that the FAA is telling us to obey what we can while they sort out the rest? Of course this is going to be a priority while undergoing an FBI investigation and working with Boeing to get the Max 8/9 back in the air.
The -8 and -9 were only grounded because of public opinion, not whether the plane is safe or not.
When you look at the two that went down, Lion Air had only just been removed from the "don't fly" list due to several safety violations prior to their plane going down. Now, I'm not saying there wasn't an issue with the plane, there obviously is for reasons that I won't try to explain, but I will also say that there were training failures having to do with the flight crews AND ground maintenance crews. The first plane to go down only made it to an airport the prior flight because a third pilot was on board that knew how to manually over ride the system. When the plane went back up, the new crew wasn't as fortunate and the plane went down, even though the ground crew said it was good to go, which it wasn't. The second plane had the same issue as the first, lack of training on the new systems. The ground crews also didn't have the training to properly trouble shoot the system, the system being one of several new to the plane. These are known facts, not guesses. The FAA only told Boeing the series was grounded and to fix the issues, which Boeing is doing. They are rewriting software, changing/re-configuring hardware as needed and eliminating the issues, which takes time. Boeing rushed the roll out on the MAX series to keep up with Airbus, something they are now paying for. With all that said, the FAA has plenty of time and resources to enforce PL115-254 since the FAA has assets that are assigned to Boeing, as well as other manufacturers and maintenance companies, that go no where else. That leaves the rest of their field agents free to cover the airports and flying fields to make sure that J.Q. Public is following the laws put out by the FAA and Congress, REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE AMA HOME OFFICE SAYS
Last edited by Hydro Junkie; 06-03-2019 at 03:03 PM.
06-03-2019, 09:43 PM
#20
I've now been to six different fields in the US so far this year. Met more than a few US pilots some of which were law enforcement, some were military and ex military and a few worked at the local airport. In a polite manner I inquired about the FAA rules and the impact expected. No one and I mean no one seemed to concerned and the opinion was that they would keep flying as they have always done until told by the authorities otherwise. I only had models with me at four of the fields but I flew with them and other than a spotter standing with me (at my request) there was no concern about speed, altitude or anything else except safety.
Shortly I will be traveling across the North East part of the US I wonder if the feelings are going to be the same. I am by the way having a great time flying in Canada without any restrictions hoping it works out the same in the end for those of you who fly rather than beat the keyboard,
I mentioned all the arguing I read on this and other forums and got a lot of laughter and less than kind remarks about keyboard jockeys who have nothing better to do. I guess every site has a half dozen or so with nothing better to do than attempt to cause dissension. A few even noted that some of the same guys show up on other sites trying to stir similar pots. Lot of these guys have stopped actively participating because of this.
Sounds to me like they have you guys pegged. Speed I wonder if everyone stopped arguing with them if they would eventually turn on their own and eat each other LOL!!!!!
Shortly I will be traveling across the North East part of the US I wonder if the feelings are going to be the same. I am by the way having a great time flying in Canada without any restrictions hoping it works out the same in the end for those of you who fly rather than beat the keyboard,
I mentioned all the arguing I read on this and other forums and got a lot of laughter and less than kind remarks about keyboard jockeys who have nothing better to do. I guess every site has a half dozen or so with nothing better to do than attempt to cause dissension. A few even noted that some of the same guys show up on other sites trying to stir similar pots. Lot of these guys have stopped actively participating because of this.
Sounds to me like they have you guys pegged. Speed I wonder if everyone stopped arguing with them if they would eventually turn on their own and eat each other LOL!!!!!
Last edited by Propworn; 06-04-2019 at 02:25 PM.
06-03-2019, 10:13 PM
#21
I'm sorry but I only eat Canadians that are spit roasted to well done.
BTW, I don't think there's anyone on any site that tries to cause "distention". Here's the definition of that word:
Distention: The state of being distended, enlarged, swollen from internal pressure. For example, on inhalation there is distention of the lungs due to the increased air pressure within the lungs. The word "distention" comes from a Latin root "tendere," to extend.
BTW, I don't think there's anyone on any site that tries to cause "distention". Here's the definition of that word:
Distention: The state of being distended, enlarged, swollen from internal pressure. For example, on inhalation there is distention of the lungs due to the increased air pressure within the lungs. The word "distention" comes from a Latin root "tendere," to extend.
06-04-2019, 01:54 AM
#22
Banned
I've now been to six different fields in the US so far this year. Met more than a few US pilots some of which were law enforcement, some were military and ex military and a few worked at the local airport. In a polite manner I inquired about the FAA rules and the impact expected. No one and I mean no one seemed to concerned and the opinion was that they would keep flying as they have always done until told by the authorities otherwise. I only had models with me at four of the fields but I flew with them and other than a spotter standing with me (at my request) there was no concern about speed, altitude or anything else except safety.
Shortly I will be traveling across the North East part of the US I wonder if the feelings are going to be the same. I am by the way having a great time flying in Canada without any restrictions hoping it works out the same in the end for those of you who fly rather than beat the keyboard,
I mentioned all the arguing I read on this and other forums and got a lot of laughter and less than kind remarks about keyboard jockeys who have nothing better to do. I guess every site has a half dozen or so with nothing better to do than attempt to cause distention. A few even noted that some of the same guys show up on other sites trying to stir similar pots. Lot of these guys have stopped actively participating because of this.
Sounds to me like they have you guys pegged. Speed I wonder if everyone stopped arguing with them if they would eventually turn on their own and eat each other LOL!!!!!
Shortly I will be traveling across the North East part of the US I wonder if the feelings are going to be the same. I am by the way having a great time flying in Canada without any restrictions hoping it works out the same in the end for those of you who fly rather than beat the keyboard,
I mentioned all the arguing I read on this and other forums and got a lot of laughter and less than kind remarks about keyboard jockeys who have nothing better to do. I guess every site has a half dozen or so with nothing better to do than attempt to cause distention. A few even noted that some of the same guys show up on other sites trying to stir similar pots. Lot of these guys have stopped actively participating because of this.
Sounds to me like they have you guys pegged. Speed I wonder if everyone stopped arguing with them if they would eventually turn on their own and eat each other LOL!!!!!
AMA claims some 2000 plus club fields and how many non-AMA fields might there be? To include parks, local school yards etc. Point is, 6 fields are a drop in the bucket. Less than one half of one percent (point 3%) of just the AMA fields.
Changes are coming to be sure. I don't believe people should be concerned but they should be prepared. Judging by the amount of pure BS going on in some of these discussions (to include intentionally leaving out pertinent facts in order to confuse the audience), there are a lot of people in for some surprises over the next couple of years.
06-04-2019, 08:28 AM
#23
Thread Starter
I've now been to six different fields in the US so far this year. Met more than a few US pilots some of which were law enforcement, some were military and ex military and a few worked at the local airport. In a polite manner I inquired about the FAA rules and the impact expected. No one and I mean no one seemed to concerned and the opinion was that they would keep flying as they have always done until told by the authorities otherwise. I only had models with me at four of the fields but I flew with them and other than a spotter standing with me (at my request) there was no concern about speed, altitude or anything else except safety.
Shortly I will be traveling across the North East part of the US I wonder if the feelings are going to be the same. I am by the way having a great time flying in Canada without any restrictions hoping it works out the same in the end for those of you who fly rather than beat the keyboard,
I mentioned all the arguing I read on this and other forums and got a lot of laughter and less than kind remarks about keyboard jockeys who have nothing better to do. I guess every site has a half dozen or so with nothing better to do than attempt to cause distention. A few even noted that some of the same guys show up on other sites trying to stir similar pots. Lot of these guys have stopped actively participating because of this.
Sounds to me like they have you guys pegged. Speed I wonder if everyone stopped arguing with them if they would eventually turn on their own and eat each other LOL!!!!!
Shortly I will be traveling across the North East part of the US I wonder if the feelings are going to be the same. I am by the way having a great time flying in Canada without any restrictions hoping it works out the same in the end for those of you who fly rather than beat the keyboard,
I mentioned all the arguing I read on this and other forums and got a lot of laughter and less than kind remarks about keyboard jockeys who have nothing better to do. I guess every site has a half dozen or so with nothing better to do than attempt to cause distention. A few even noted that some of the same guys show up on other sites trying to stir similar pots. Lot of these guys have stopped actively participating because of this.
Sounds to me like they have you guys pegged. Speed I wonder if everyone stopped arguing with them if they would eventually turn on their own and eat each other LOL!!!!!
As of now they have the luxury of not being concerned. As news of more and more fields being limited, I suspect your sampling at one point in time may not hold true for too long.
Last edited by franklin_m; 06-04-2019 at 08:33 AM.
06-04-2019, 02:23 PM
#24
I'm sorry but I only eat Canadians that are spit roasted to well done.
BTW, I don't think there's anyone on any site that tries to cause "distention". Here's the definition of that word:
Distention: The state of being distended, enlarged, swollen from internal pressure. For example, on inhalation there is distention of the lungs due to the increased air pressure within the lungs. The word "distention" comes from a Latin root "tendere," to extend.
BTW, I don't think there's anyone on any site that tries to cause "distention". Here's the definition of that word:
Distention: The state of being distended, enlarged, swollen from internal pressure. For example, on inhalation there is distention of the lungs due to the increased air pressure within the lungs. The word "distention" comes from a Latin root "tendere," to extend.
06-06-2019, 08:49 AM
#25
Hey Propworn, If you`re ever around Portland, Maine in your travels, check out Ray and Robins Hobby Shop and/or Propsnappers R/C club. That's where I got my Sig LT 40 and where they taught me to fly it. It`s a real nice grass field.