what is te faa up to, rules for us?
05-21-2009, 03:12 PM
#476
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2003
Location: St Augustine, FL,
Posts: 2,644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: what is te faa up to, rules for us?
ORIGINAL: littlecrankshaf
I'd like the distinction of being the first to join. Where can I apply?
ORIGINAL: abel_pranger
Sound good to me, barring any further conditions (fat chance!).
So, I'd like to take this opportunity to announce AP's Toy Airplane Group, and invite all to join <snip>
Sound good to me, barring any further conditions (fat chance!).
So, I'd like to take this opportunity to announce AP's Toy Airplane Group, and invite all to join <snip>
You're in, and most welcome. No paper work, no roster kept, no min or max limits on number of members to form chapters and crap of that ilk. I thought of you as someone sharing interest with the singular purpose of APTAG, but as you (and I) belong to a club with one rule, wasn't sure if you would associate with a group that has twice as many.
Abel
05-21-2009, 03:26 PM
#477
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: San Antonio,
TX
Posts: 6,681
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: what is te faa up to, rules for us?
Kid your wrong freq. sharing means the two groups get together anddecide which numbers are to be used by who. Not who turns on first
the Who Turned On First is the fed law of the land.
If I start using ch25 at 7:59, when there is no activity on that channel,
nobody, including AMA members at a club that opens at 8, can interfere with my use of it till I shut off.
The AMA prohibits it along with the FCC regs on public freqs, and the club might get shutdown by Muncie if the determin I am a recurring user that they might interfere with and we dont get a freq sgaring plan signed..... and I have no obligation or enticement to sign it if I am not a member of their org.
That is what I mean by Turn On First.
You misunderstand my case of Us vs Them:
"Us" should be everyone that enjoys the aeromodeling hobby,
"Them" is the folks that think there needs to be a them that is below us (usually members of some national org)
anyhoo...
back at he ARC and tossing the modeling public to the wolves-
The 400' limit has been in AC91-57 for decades
and AMA has not taken action to increase it. Now, that existing and unchallenged limit is set as precedence.
Even the AMA safety code infamous 400'Comma dont help the modeling americans due to the decades of accepting the 400' (or appearing to acceot it with the 400'Comma Trick)
The ARC would look a lot different for altitude cap if the 400' in AC91-57
was changed by AMA lobby action to 1000' a decade ago
05-21-2009, 03:50 PM
#478
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
RE: what is te faa up to, rules for us?
You guys are too busy looking at the past and the now to view the furure. That's too bad. BTW, I live in the country and fly on my own property and I'm not noted for kissing butt. Also voted for Palin with the other guy as a sideline. The fact that I cannot edit my posts should indicate how much butt I'll kiss. Ties in with my signiture line to a great extent, which is completly sarcastic in nature.
While the AMA may not be in favor of a two tiered system, the FAA is even less so. This is why the uav people are doing all they can to incorporate rules that will goven them into the existing FAR's. Wherever possible they are doing what they can to get their systems and personnel to comply with what has already been written and mandated. This is an area that could generate a lot of problems for us.
Ads a "stand alone" group that tries to subsist outside regulations we inadvertently open the door for severe regulation. We are outside the box in a manner of speaking, making us a prime target for more regulation. ARC will become a major problem for us if we do not put ideas in front of them for us to work with. Who cares who or what is joined as long a some type of community voice is established to speak for us? I hope people are not so dense that they can't understand the need for a community voice. To think that we are going to remain largely unregulated is ludricous.
05-21-2009, 03:56 PM
#479
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2003
Location: St Augustine, FL,
Posts: 2,644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: what is te faa up to, rules for us?
ORIGINAL: KidEpoxy
you need to have the 8 rules/policies (some have subparts) of 2.2 Standards to qual as a community organization,
otherwise... right on, amen brotha
you need to have the 8 rules/policies (some have subparts) of 2.2 Standards to qual as a community organization,
otherwise... right on, amen brotha
I knew there were going to be conditions...not to worry, we'll have to work on it bit.
Items 1 and 2 are covered to the extent that it is any business of FAA. Item 3 is a personal responsibility and common sense thing. Obviously we can do it better being on location at our flying sites than somebody in Munchie can. Item 4 is N/A because we have not identified any weight or propulsion standards and 'ordinary' flight characteristics. Likewise Item 5 is N/A, as we'll leave those activities to other community based organizations. Item 6 is easy as there are't a lot of confusing, contradictory and changing rules, for Item 7 we'll pass MA and other available rags around, and Item 8 we'll rip off from AMA - what the heck is their methodology, anyhow? Only field I know that they have established is in Munchie. Guess we'll need some input from some of the 50% of AMA members that don't belong to clubs and see how they establish their flying sites.
Abel
05-21-2009, 04:12 PM
#480
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Orange County,
CA
Posts: 5,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: what is te faa up to, rules for us?
ORIGINAL: KidEpoxy
The 400' limit has been in AC91-57 for decades and AMA has not taken action to increase it.
The 400' limit has been in AC91-57 for decades and AMA has not taken action to increase it.
05-21-2009, 04:15 PM
#481
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Orange County,
CA
Posts: 5,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: what is te faa up to, rules for us?
ORIGINAL: Tired Old Man
ARC will become a major problem for us if we do not put ideas in front of them for us to work with.
ARC will become a major problem for us if we do not put ideas in front of them for us to work with.
05-21-2009, 04:25 PM
#482
Member
Join Date: May 2008
Location: LHC,
AZ
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: what is te faa up to, rules for us?
ORIGINAL: Sport_Pilot
If you don't own the airspace you cannot even build on the property. This can actually happen if you have property near the end of the runway for example. So you do own the airspace, but you cannot enforce FAR's.
If you don't own the airspace you cannot even build on the property. This can actually happen if you have property near the end of the runway for example. So you do own the airspace, but you cannot enforce FAR's.
There would be very little air traffic if every property owner "owned" unilimted airspace above their land. The US Government has exclusive sovereignty of airspace in the United States.
Since the FAA is the controlling body for USairspace, if they say no R/C flying above 400' that is it.
Of course you can build on your property, within reason. You do have surface rights. But you may not have the right to drill for oil under it, as that is usually covered under mineral rights.
Mike
05-21-2009, 04:26 PM
#483
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: The Ozarks,
MO
Posts: 1,921
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: what is te faa up to, rules for us?
ORIGINAL: Tinman!
I don't care what anyone does on their own property, as long as it doesn't affect others.
Here's an idea, don't join. Now someday, and that day may never come, you may not be legally permitted to fly above 400', yes even from your own property as you don't own the airspace above it. You probably won't be able to fly turbines, or above 100 MPH either. But aside from that you don't need to join any organization.
Now if you don't like those rules, the best way to prevent them from coming to pass is to join an organization like the AMA who at least has some voice in what is going on. But then again, you won't join as it's "kissing butt." So we're back to square-one. See how that works?
While I am certainly not an Acorn member, the (major) issues I have with them cannot be summarized as "my way or no way." I can't follow your logic, but at the same time am not surprised at the unwarranted insertion of political nonsense.
Mike
ORIGINAL: The Toolman
On their own property or somebody that has given them permission to use there property? This still makes them outlaws in your opinion?
On their own property or somebody that has given them permission to use there property? This still makes them outlaws in your opinion?
To the other guy that thinks everybody should be made to join the ama or some other group to fly, try living in the country like me where you don't hafta kiss everybodys butt.
Now if you don't like those rules, the best way to prevent them from coming to pass is to join an organization like the AMA who at least has some voice in what is going on. But then again, you won't join as it's "kissing butt." So we're back to square-one. See how that works?
By the way, you talk like an acorn member..."its my way or no way"
Mike
Tell ya what slick, I do belong to the ama, an have for several years!!!!!
Ron
05-21-2009, 04:48 PM
#485
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Left Coast ,
CA
Posts: 4,890
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: what is te faa up to, rules for us?
ORIGINAL: Silent-AV8R
Not sure people understand, the ARC is over and done with. They held their last meeting in March and published their final recommendations in April. It is entirely in the FAA hands now.
Not sure people understand, the ARC is over and done with. They held their last meeting in March and published their final recommendations in April. It is entirely in the FAA hands now.
05-21-2009, 05:11 PM
#486
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Orange County,
CA
Posts: 5,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: what is te faa up to, rules for us?
ORIGINAL: RTK
A good loud voice for the public never hurts.
ORIGINAL: Silent-AV8R
Not sure people understand, the ARC is over and done with. They held their last meeting in March and published their final recommendations in April. It is entirely in the FAA hands now.
Not sure people understand, the ARC is over and done with. They held their last meeting in March and published their final recommendations in April. It is entirely in the FAA hands now.
05-21-2009, 05:41 PM
#487
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Left Coast ,
CA
Posts: 4,890
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: what is te faa up to, rules for us?
Oops, I meant "from" the public, and I did mean to aim it at the FAA. Sorry for the confusion. Strong arm tactics included
05-21-2009, 07:38 PM
#488
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
RE: what is te faa up to, rules for us?
The ARC as it had been defined is now over, agreed. Those in the industry know that the ARC group was only the beginning. There is far more taking place in continued working groups and various corporate boradrooms that will have a far greater impact on us than what was seen in the ARC document. What you've seen so far are only the warning shots. The serious stuff will show up by 2012. I hope you don't have a plane over 55 lbs or a span greater than 120".
05-21-2009, 07:42 PM
#489
RE: what is te faa up to, rules for us?
ORIGINAL: Silent-AV8R
No, I said they do not have to join the AMA to qualify for Section 2 operations, and if they are OK with the Section 3 limits then they do not need to belong to any group. And do not construe the idea of a group as a membership organization. The FAA is not saying that it must be some sort of paid membership organization, at least according to what I have been told by a direct participant in the ARC.
ORIGINAL: KidEpoxy
Silent
You start with saying folks dont have to join any community org,
and follow that up with saying they can start a community org themselves..... which they would be in as a member?
That is still joining a community org, duh
Silent
You start with saying folks dont have to join any community org,
and follow that up with saying they can start a community org themselves..... which they would be in as a member?
That is still joining a community org, duh
05-21-2009, 08:29 PM
#491
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2003
Location: St Augustine, FL,
Posts: 2,644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: what is te faa up to, rules for us?
ORIGINAL: ira d
IMO the FAA is totaly wrong to put restrictions on someone because they are not a member of a certain organization.
IMO the FAA is totaly wrong to put restrictions on someone because they are not a member of a certain organization.
Abel
05-21-2009, 08:29 PM
#492
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Orange County,
CA
Posts: 5,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: what is te faa up to, rules for us?
ORIGINAL: ira d
IMO the FAA is totaly wrong to put restrictions on someone because they are not a member of a certain organization.
IMO the FAA is totaly wrong to put restrictions on someone because they are not a member of a certain organization.
To be clear, the ARC recommendations say absolutely nothing about being a member or requiring membership in any kind of organization. All they do say is that one tier applies to people who are operating in accordance with a recognized program:
RATIONALE: Reflects FAAís concept of regulating model aviation by
exempting Model Aircraft from regulation. Under this approach, modelers
participating within an aeromodeling structure/organization such as the
Academy of Model Aeronautics (AMA) may operate their Model Aircraft
in accordance with an accepted set of standards and operating
procedures. Based on a more rigorous attention to safety, risk assessment,
and risk mitigation, the accepted standards may provide greater latitude
in the Model Aircraft operations. Modelers not participating in the
additional safety programming established in an accepted set of standards
shall comply with the requirements of Section 3.
exempting Model Aircraft from regulation. Under this approach, modelers
participating within an aeromodeling structure/organization such as the
Academy of Model Aeronautics (AMA) may operate their Model Aircraft
in accordance with an accepted set of standards and operating
procedures. Based on a more rigorous attention to safety, risk assessment,
and risk mitigation, the accepted standards may provide greater latitude
in the Model Aircraft operations. Modelers not participating in the
additional safety programming established in an accepted set of standards
shall comply with the requirements of Section 3.
05-21-2009, 08:39 PM
#493
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: The Ozarks,
MO
Posts: 1,921
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: what is te faa up to, rules for us?
ORIGINAL: Silent-AV8R
To be clear, the ARC recommendations say absolutely nothing about being a member or requiring membership in any kind of organization. All they do say is that one tier applies to people who are operating in accordance with a recognized program:
ORIGINAL: ira d
IMO the FAA is totaly wrong to put restrictions on someone because they are not a member of a certain organization.
IMO the FAA is totaly wrong to put restrictions on someone because they are not a member of a certain organization.
To be clear, the ARC recommendations say absolutely nothing about being a member or requiring membership in any kind of organization. All they do say is that one tier applies to people who are operating in accordance with a recognized program:
RATIONALE: Reflects FAAís concept of regulating model aviation by
exempting Model Aircraft from regulation. Under this approach, modelers
participating within an aeromodeling structure/organization such as the
Academy of Model Aeronautics (AMA) may operate their Model Aircraft
in accordance with an accepted set of standards and operating
procedures. Based on a more rigorous attention to safety, risk assessment,
and risk mitigation, the accepted standards may provide greater latitude
in the Model Aircraft operations. Modelers not participating in the
additional safety programming established in an accepted set of standards
shall comply with the requirements of Section 3.
exempting Model Aircraft from regulation. Under this approach, modelers
participating within an aeromodeling structure/organization such as the
Academy of Model Aeronautics (AMA) may operate their Model Aircraft
in accordance with an accepted set of standards and operating
procedures. Based on a more rigorous attention to safety, risk assessment,
and risk mitigation, the accepted standards may provide greater latitude
in the Model Aircraft operations. Modelers not participating in the
additional safety programming established in an accepted set of standards
shall comply with the requirements of Section 3.
Kinda like they did to the Black people,Huh?
Ron
05-21-2009, 09:13 PM
#494
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Orange County,
CA
Posts: 5,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: what is te faa up to, rules for us?
ORIGINAL: The Toolman
Kinda like they did to the Black people,Huh?
Ron
Kinda like they did to the Black people,Huh?
Ron
05-21-2009, 09:18 PM
#495
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: The Ozarks,
MO
Posts: 1,921
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: what is te faa up to, rules for us?
You know what, you sure spout a lot of info over here, an I really have not seen anything to back it up. Just your opinions that you have heard from some source......By golly, thats heresay isn't it?
Ron
Ron
05-21-2009, 09:29 PM
#496
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2003
Location: St Augustine, FL,
Posts: 2,644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: what is te faa up to, rules for us?
ORIGINAL: Silent-AV8R
To be clear, the ARC recommendations say absolutely nothing about being a member or requiring membership in any kind of organization. All they do say is that one tier applies to people who are operating in accordance with a recognized program:
ORIGINAL: ira d
IMO the FAA is totaly wrong to put restrictions on someone because they are not a member of a certain organization.
IMO the FAA is totaly wrong to put restrictions on someone because they are not a member of a certain organization.
To be clear, the ARC recommendations say absolutely nothing about being a member or requiring membership in any kind of organization. All they do say is that one tier applies to people who are operating in accordance with a recognized program:
RATIONALE: Reflects FAAĆ*s concept of regulating model aviation by
exempting Model Aircraft from regulation. Under this approach, modelers
participating within an aeromodeling structure/organization such as the
Academy of Model Aeronautics (AMA) may operate their Model Aircraft
in accordance with an accepted set of standards and operating
procedures. Based on a more rigorous attention to safety, risk assessment,
and risk mitigation, the accepted standards may provide greater latitude
in the Model Aircraft operations. Modelers not participating in the
additional safety programming established in an accepted set of standards
shall comply with the requirements of Section 3.
exempting Model Aircraft from regulation. Under this approach, modelers
participating within an aeromodeling structure/organization such as the
Academy of Model Aeronautics (AMA) may operate their Model Aircraft
in accordance with an accepted set of standards and operating
procedures. Based on a more rigorous attention to safety, risk assessment,
and risk mitigation, the accepted standards may provide greater latitude
in the Model Aircraft operations. Modelers not participating in the
additional safety programming established in an accepted set of standards
shall comply with the requirements of Section 3.
To be clear, does AMA support the ARC recommendation that would require any interpretation that delegates regulation of model airplane operations to a so-called "community-based organization?"
AMA says they don't like the ARC recommendations and infers they were blindsided and railroaded into even discussing regulation of model aircraft, which was not on the publicly disclosed agenda for the ARC. When will AMA stop making excuses and disclose a clear affirmative position of their own for members and other modelers they claim to represent to get behind and support, rather than saying "trust us, we are here to help you" to fix this mess?
Not particularly directed at you Bill, but for the appearance that you have been tapped to be the AMA apologist here. Looking for input from anybody with a clue as to what will be the AMA position in reply to FAA that may result from ARC recommendations. Lacking a clear and unambiguous statement of purpose, it is disingenuous at best for AMA to ask for support from modelers.
Abel
