AMA Acknowledges 400 foot AGL Limit in Class G
12-14-2019, 07:28 PM
#51
Thread Starter
You get away with it because the standards were not even handedly applied. You knew that, then continued it here with the post above knowing you’d get away with it. Like I said, you gave me the incentive to put energy into various legislative and political communication efforts I would not have considered.
“Sherman’s March to the Sea”
12-14-2019, 11:40 PM
#52
Hello Dave Agar , you have said there will be no personal attacks allowed , so can you please tell me and the rest of the board why this poster has been allowed to post trolling personal attacks against another RCU member (Franklin M) in this thread since the thread's very beginnings ? Yes sir I would like to see the thread's discussion be returned to the topic of the the AMA acknowledging the 400 foot AGL limit in class G airspace VS seeing it be about Dennis' personal grudge against Franklin , and if your now the one to do the moderating around here I think censuring Dennis' anti Franklin posts would be a great place to start . I want you to know that my post here isn't meant to be anything more than a request that ALL of the posters be required to maintain the decorum of people who are supposed to share an interest in the AMA and model aviation , and not holding every member , Dennis included , to the rules of RCU is a recipe for nothing but more off topic thread derailing bickering .
Thank You for reading this
Thank You for reading this
12-17-2019, 04:14 PM
#56
Thread Starter
I’m sooooo sure this will reverse the AMA’s declining member trend right? Again. Doesn’t do a lot of good or have a handful of exceptions if you can’t pay the bills.
12-20-2019, 01:35 PM
#61
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Cookeville,
TN
Posts: 235
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
12-20-2019, 07:15 PM
#62
Thread Starter
We need to be careful what we wish for. If AMA is successful in negotiating approvals for flight above LAANC altitudes, that will establish “no kidding rules” that will need to be followed. It could also mean FAA reporting (to HQ) of violations.
Now multiply this by all the fields that get this. What happens when FAA goes to AMA and says “We see X violations of the agreements around the country at your sanctioned clubs/events and we want to know what you’re doing to reduce them?” AMA can’t say “We didn’t know.” Maybe AMA says “Well, each AMA club is independent .... “ to which FAA says “Then why are we bothering to talk to you at all?” Can’t have it’s both ways is what I’d be thinking if I were FAA.
Now, say a competitor takes a different approach than AMAs typical “Hands off.” And they respond to FAA’s question along the lines of “Yes, and our records show a few more near violations that aren’t in your data. We’ve engaged with the clubs showing unsatisfactory compliance and asked for additional measures and or re-training on the limits at those sites. We’ve completed this at all but one, which will be done next month.”
Now. Which of the two organizations do you think FAA would rather work with? Which sends the signal that “We’re watching ourselves and holding ourselves accountable w/o being asked? So I think AMA would be wise to have some system in place to know how many, nature, and dates there are per location.
Gee. Where have we heard that idea before?
Now multiply this by all the fields that get this. What happens when FAA goes to AMA and says “We see X violations of the agreements around the country at your sanctioned clubs/events and we want to know what you’re doing to reduce them?” AMA can’t say “We didn’t know.” Maybe AMA says “Well, each AMA club is independent .... “ to which FAA says “Then why are we bothering to talk to you at all?” Can’t have it’s both ways is what I’d be thinking if I were FAA.
Now, say a competitor takes a different approach than AMAs typical “Hands off.” And they respond to FAA’s question along the lines of “Yes, and our records show a few more near violations that aren’t in your data. We’ve engaged with the clubs showing unsatisfactory compliance and asked for additional measures and or re-training on the limits at those sites. We’ve completed this at all but one, which will be done next month.”
Now. Which of the two organizations do you think FAA would rather work with? Which sends the signal that “We’re watching ourselves and holding ourselves accountable w/o being asked? So I think AMA would be wise to have some system in place to know how many, nature, and dates there are per location.
Gee. Where have we heard that idea before?
12-20-2019, 09:54 PM
#63
I will agree that whatever the FAA gives us will most likely be monitored by them more then it has in the past. I will agree that it would be best if the AMA supplies them with that information. I seriously doubt that the FAA has the manpower to be spot checking any flying fields once the dust settles on all this. They may investigate reports though. I don't see an AMA member reporting another AMA member unless there is an unrelated feud between two members. Putting a flying site at risk is not what 99% of us would do. Not going to comment if that is right or wrong but that is how it would play out. I still think you are over estimating the number of rules infractions happening on a regular basis. I may be wrong with this perception of yours but AMA club fields are not the " Wild West " situations you seem to claim they are.
One thing that came to mind a few days ago. You are under the impression that the AMA don't keep any incident reports. Perhaps not to the degree that you would wish for but there are records kept in the form of claims submitted to the AMA and their insurance carrier. I would have to venture a guess that is one of the reasons why the membership with liability insurance is only $75 per year. If there were more claims submitted then the insurance premiums would go up more then just to keep up with inflation. The rate should also reflect the history over the past 5 decades.
One thing that came to mind a few days ago. You are under the impression that the AMA don't keep any incident reports. Perhaps not to the degree that you would wish for but there are records kept in the form of claims submitted to the AMA and their insurance carrier. I would have to venture a guess that is one of the reasons why the membership with liability insurance is only $75 per year. If there were more claims submitted then the insurance premiums would go up more then just to keep up with inflation. The rate should also reflect the history over the past 5 decades.
12-21-2019, 08:22 AM
#64
I will agree that whatever the FAA gives us will most likely be monitored by them more then it has in the past. I will agree that it would be best if the AMA supplies them with that information. I seriously doubt that the FAA has the manpower to be spot checking any flying fields once the dust settles on all this. They may investigate reports though.
I told our club president I'd talk to FSDO as I knew most of the people in that office. It turned out that the report was from another club that's in close proximity to ours. The full scale was very low and the facts of the report were very much in question but little of that matters. I told the guy I knew in FSDO that I would give a full briefing to the pilots in our club and we would closely monitor full scale traffic. The most important message being to NEVER fly anywhere near a full scale aircraft....regardless what they're doing.
12-23-2019, 11:22 PM
#65
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Richland,
WA
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apparently Mr. Claus' application for a waiver from the FAA 400' rule was denied on the basis that his sleigh is for recreational use. It's unfortunate that being required to remain below the 400' ceiling may expose Mr. Claus to being spotted by sharp eyed children. Rumor is that Rudolf will not engage his nose to limit visibility. There is still the possibility that children residing in controlled airspace may not receive gifts this year as Mr. Claus is not allowed to operate his phone to secure LAANC permission while also operating his vehicle.
12-24-2019, 08:01 AM
#66
Apparently Mr. Claus' application for a waiver from the FAA 400' rule was denied on the basis that his sleigh is for recreational use. It's unfortunate that being required to remain below the 400' ceiling may expose Mr. Claus to being spotted by sharp eyed children. Rumor is that Rudolf will not engage his nose to limit visibility. There is still the possibility that children residing in controlled airspace may not receive gifts this year as Mr. Claus is not allowed to operate his phone to secure LAANC permission while also operating his vehicle.
Aw come on now , everyone knows Santa is just the frontman , and it's really the elves who do all the heavy lifting ....
12-26-2019, 03:55 PM
#70
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Richland,
WA
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
4 clubs with exception to 400' rule
I have had my inquiry regarding which clubs have received an exemption from the 400' rule.
All 4 sites are straddling the border of the controlled airspace.
They are:
All 4 sites are straddling the border of the controlled airspace.
They are:
- Brookfield in Clarence, New York, (is partially in Class C airspace)
- Fying pilgrims in MI, (is in Class D controlled airspace)
- Music City Aviators in Nashville, (is partially in Class C controlled airspace)
- Brunnerville PA. ((is partially in Class D controlled airspace)