Looks like the Torrent will be FCC Accepted
04-27-2017, 03:19 PM
#1
Thread Starter
Looks like the Torrent will be FCC Accepted
Looks like the Torrent is designed such that it can be FCC Accepted under Part 15 of the Regulations, even with its 150Mw video transmitter.
This means that no Amateur Radio License is required and that it meets all the requirements to operate w/o any licensing other than the FCC pilot registration.
FCC Acceptance removes this model from all the operational restrictions of Amateur Radio operation (e.g. call sign transmissions, one way transmission restrictions, precluding interference, no financial gains, etc., etc.)
No mods are allowed. But, this appears to be an easy way out of the current Amateur Radio regulation restrictions and requirements.
Of course, one still has to be a member of a CBO (e.g. AMA) to be considered a hobbyist (Part 101). Otherwise its down the Part 107 path to get tested and licensed.
This means that no Amateur Radio License is required and that it meets all the requirements to operate w/o any licensing other than the FCC pilot registration.
FCC Acceptance removes this model from all the operational restrictions of Amateur Radio operation (e.g. call sign transmissions, one way transmission restrictions, precluding interference, no financial gains, etc., etc.)
No mods are allowed. But, this appears to be an easy way out of the current Amateur Radio regulation restrictions and requirements.
Of course, one still has to be a member of a CBO (e.g. AMA) to be considered a hobbyist (Part 101). Otherwise its down the Part 107 path to get tested and licensed.
04-28-2017, 06:03 AM
#2
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: El Paso,
TX
Posts: 5,277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
" Of course, one still has to be a member of a CBO (e.g. AMA) to be considered a hobbyist "
Just curious do you have a link to where the FCC says you need to belong to a CBO? I had no clue they could force people to join the AMA.
Thanks
Mike
Just curious do you have a link to where the FCC says you need to belong to a CBO? I had no clue they could force people to join the AMA.
Thanks
Mike
04-28-2017, 07:13 AM
#3
Thread Starter
At Toledo the AMA Districts held a forum. One of the topics discussed was the Hobbyist being addressed by Part 101 FAA Regulations and non-hobbyist being addressed by Part 107. A Part 107 License is what the commercial unmanned aircraft pilots have to get. According to the AMA Governmental Affairs Rep, to be considered a hobbyist you have to be a member of a CBO. Otherwise your are not a hobbyist and subject to the Part 107 FAA regulations, which requires the 60 question test and the part 107 License. He also referred to the FCC letter which recognized AMA as a CBO.
This whole CBO requirement in order to be considered a hobbyist appeared to be news to several folks. What was said is; If a person is out flying in park or someplace like that and not a member of a CBO, then that person is subject to Part 107 regs and requirements. So a non-CBO Member flying in the local park has to take the 60 question test and get the Part 107 License to fly any model heavier than the requirement for FAA registration.
So, ... we are either a hobbyist in a CBO or we are considered in the same class as commercial unmanned aircraft pilots. The Special Rule for Model Aircraft apparently separates us from the commercial folks. The FAA Regulations defines that separation based on several aspects. But, apparently not being in a CBO puts us in the Part 107 category, ... According to the AMA Reps.
I personally feel that most any organized group that follows AMA's or similar safety rules could be considered a CBO (e.g. Like a local club.) Only problem here is I have not personally seen the FAA's criteria for being a CBO. Also, there is still the insurance aspect that the AMA also addresses for us. . So, ... Given that we need insurance (a requirement to use our local RC Park), for me personally, it is best to belong to the AMA.
That is what I heard at the AMA District forum. I have since discussed this with several other folks who were at the forum. They came away with the same interpretation of what was said by the AMA Rep. This has been an evolving situation for at least 5 years. So I am sure that we are not yet at the endpoint in the evolution. Last year, I predicted that we will eventually be tested and licensed just like the FCC does for the Amateur Radio Operators. My bet is the FAA is eventually headed down that path for all of us. We'll see what the legislators come up with in their next law that may exclude hobbyist from certain FAA regulations, which I think may be due out this fall..
This whole CBO requirement in order to be considered a hobbyist appeared to be news to several folks. What was said is; If a person is out flying in park or someplace like that and not a member of a CBO, then that person is subject to Part 107 regs and requirements. So a non-CBO Member flying in the local park has to take the 60 question test and get the Part 107 License to fly any model heavier than the requirement for FAA registration.
So, ... we are either a hobbyist in a CBO or we are considered in the same class as commercial unmanned aircraft pilots. The Special Rule for Model Aircraft apparently separates us from the commercial folks. The FAA Regulations defines that separation based on several aspects. But, apparently not being in a CBO puts us in the Part 107 category, ... According to the AMA Reps.
I personally feel that most any organized group that follows AMA's or similar safety rules could be considered a CBO (e.g. Like a local club.) Only problem here is I have not personally seen the FAA's criteria for being a CBO. Also, there is still the insurance aspect that the AMA also addresses for us. . So, ... Given that we need insurance (a requirement to use our local RC Park), for me personally, it is best to belong to the AMA.
That is what I heard at the AMA District forum. I have since discussed this with several other folks who were at the forum. They came away with the same interpretation of what was said by the AMA Rep. This has been an evolving situation for at least 5 years. So I am sure that we are not yet at the endpoint in the evolution. Last year, I predicted that we will eventually be tested and licensed just like the FCC does for the Amateur Radio Operators. My bet is the FAA is eventually headed down that path for all of us. We'll see what the legislators come up with in their next law that may exclude hobbyist from certain FAA regulations, which I think may be due out this fall..
04-28-2017, 07:20 AM
#4
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: El Paso,
TX
Posts: 5,277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
" They came away with the same interpretation of what was said by the AMA Rep. "
So you don't have a link to the FCC or FAA Requiring AMA membership. To the best of my knowledge it's not a requirement and if you check with the AMA I'm pretty certain they will verify that..
Misinformation will be the death of us.
Thanks
Mike
So you don't have a link to the FCC or FAA Requiring AMA membership. To the best of my knowledge it's not a requirement and if you check with the AMA I'm pretty certain they will verify that..
Misinformation will be the death of us.
Thanks
Mike
04-28-2017, 08:58 AM
#5
Thread Starter
Never said anyone has to be a member of AMA. The statement made by the AMA was you have to be a member of a CBO. No miss-information there. Just some miss reading on your behalf.
BTW: The information came from the AMA in the AMA Forum.
BTW: The information came from the AMA in the AMA Forum.
Last edited by Len Todd; 04-28-2017 at 09:03 AM.
04-28-2017, 09:04 AM
#6
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: El Paso,
TX
Posts: 5,277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From the AMA site.
"In January of this year, the AMA requested that the FAA clarify the 400-foot issue in writing. We are happy to share that in a recent letter to the AMA, the FAA recognized AMA’s role as a community-based organization and acknowledged our safety program, including allowing flight above 400 feet under appropriate circumstance. In this letter, dated July 7, 2016, the FAA states:
- “…model aircraft may be flow consistently with Section 336 and agency guidelines at altitudes above 400 feet when following a community-based organization’s safety guidelines.”“Community-based organizations, such as the Academy of Model Aeronautics, may establish altitude limitations in their safety guidelines that exceed the FAA’s 400 AGL altitude recommendation.”
https://www.faa.gov/uas/faqs/#ffr
Mike
Last edited by rcmiket; 04-28-2017 at 09:13 AM.
04-28-2017, 09:14 AM
#7
Thread Starter
To get back on the thread here:
The Torrent manual says the Torrent is/will be FCC Accepted under Part 15. The Website says and Amateur Radio License is required. If it is "FCC Accepted" under Part 15 no license is required. It would be just like our transmitters. The Torrent manual and website are kind of contradictory on the issue. But, ... at this point the Torrent is not being shipped. Actually it looks like the expected shipping date slipped from late April to early May. This delay could be due to a delay in FCC Acceptance.
I believe for these run of the mill FPV aircraft, that FCC acceptance is a good way to go. For the folks who want more capability and/or want to modify and experiment, then I believe the Amateur Radio License is the way to go. But to use FPV under the auspices of an Amateur Radio License (Part 97), we need to either get some Amateur Radio restrictions changed or change our equipment and it operation to meet the Part 97 requirements.
The Torrent manual says the Torrent is/will be FCC Accepted under Part 15. The Website says and Amateur Radio License is required. If it is "FCC Accepted" under Part 15 no license is required. It would be just like our transmitters. The Torrent manual and website are kind of contradictory on the issue. But, ... at this point the Torrent is not being shipped. Actually it looks like the expected shipping date slipped from late April to early May. This delay could be due to a delay in FCC Acceptance.
I believe for these run of the mill FPV aircraft, that FCC acceptance is a good way to go. For the folks who want more capability and/or want to modify and experiment, then I believe the Amateur Radio License is the way to go. But to use FPV under the auspices of an Amateur Radio License (Part 97), we need to either get some Amateur Radio restrictions changed or change our equipment and it operation to meet the Part 97 requirements.
04-28-2017, 09:44 AM
#8
Thread Starter
If you were at the forum you would have heard it for yourself. If you were at the forum and did not hear what was said, maybe you were too busy jumping to conclusions. If you were not at the forum, how do you even know what was or was not said? Maybe you might want to give the AMA a call and ask them what was said, and then constructively contribute to our discussion..
BTW: Thanks for posting the statement from the FCC's Letter. You may want to consider stepping back a minute and actually reading what was previously posted and then take another look at the letter. Again, I never said anyone had to be an AMA member to be a Part 101 flier. I specifically said Part 101 fliers have to a CBO member, which is exactly what the AMA's Governmental Affairs Rep. said! (Ref. Section 336)
Like I said, the AMA's conclusions about either being a Part 101 or Part 107 flier was news to a lot of us. According to them, there are no fliers in between Parts 101 and 107 (i.e. Non-CBO member fliers who are not required to meet the Part 107 requirements.) Apparently, one has to apply the 2012 law that excludes hobbyist and the two FAA Regulations and the FAA's Letter to piece together the conclusion that the AMA's Governmental Affairs Rep stated. Like I said, the AMA's statements were news to us!
On a personal note: You are exhibiting the classic shoot the messenger syndrome here. I posted this for a friendly discussion. Apparently you are beyond that. If you want verification from the AMA, please do give them a call. And, ... don't forget to correct yourself here after you get the facts from them. Otherwise some uniformed individual could come along an accuse you of miss-informing folks. For me: I am done with you.
Now back to thread's subject.
BTW: Thanks for posting the statement from the FCC's Letter. You may want to consider stepping back a minute and actually reading what was previously posted and then take another look at the letter. Again, I never said anyone had to be an AMA member to be a Part 101 flier. I specifically said Part 101 fliers have to a CBO member, which is exactly what the AMA's Governmental Affairs Rep. said! (Ref. Section 336)
Like I said, the AMA's conclusions about either being a Part 101 or Part 107 flier was news to a lot of us. According to them, there are no fliers in between Parts 101 and 107 (i.e. Non-CBO member fliers who are not required to meet the Part 107 requirements.) Apparently, one has to apply the 2012 law that excludes hobbyist and the two FAA Regulations and the FAA's Letter to piece together the conclusion that the AMA's Governmental Affairs Rep stated. Like I said, the AMA's statements were news to us!
On a personal note: You are exhibiting the classic shoot the messenger syndrome here. I posted this for a friendly discussion. Apparently you are beyond that. If you want verification from the AMA, please do give them a call. And, ... don't forget to correct yourself here after you get the facts from them. Otherwise some uniformed individual could come along an accuse you of miss-informing folks. For me: I am done with you.
Now back to thread's subject.
04-28-2017, 10:00 AM
#9
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: El Paso,
TX
Posts: 5,277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"On a personal note: You are exhibiting the classic shoot the messenger syndrome here. I posted this for a friendly discussion. "
Nothing personal but as a AMA member, Club Officer and Leader Member I try and stop misleading information from spreading when I can
I'm well aware of what our organization says and doesn't say along with what and what is not required by them along with the FAA..
Sorry your offended and please don't take it personally.
Regards
Mike
Nothing personal but as a AMA member, Club Officer and Leader Member I try and stop misleading information from spreading when I can
I'm well aware of what our organization says and doesn't say along with what and what is not required by them along with the FAA..
Sorry your offended and please don't take it personally.
Regards
Mike
04-28-2017, 04:10 PM
#10
Thread Starter
Hey Mike;
On page 140 of the current (May 2017) Model Aviation, in the lower right corner is a picture of the afore mentioned AMA Forum Meeting. I am the guy in the light shirt sitting next to the gentleman with the white hair. Go figure! The guy next to me with the white hair is Mac, our current Club President.
If were talking about creds: I am the founder and a current officer of our chartered AMA Gold Leader Club. We have 75 members, including 20 Jet pilots from all over the Midwest, even though we are based in the middle of nowhere in one the poorest counties in the US of A. I am also an AMA CD, our club's School Program Instructor, our club's flight instructor and primary new member greeter/recruiter. In my spare time, I am the club's primary fund raiser (i.e. $5K -$10K a year.) and fly jets, giants, electrics, helis and FPV Drones. I have also recently served as the Village President. The Village owns our RC Park. We have two turf RC runways, a fiber mat RC runway, a 3800' asphalt runway that we share with paved RC Taxiways and Pit Row. We also have a RC Car Track and are currently involved with establishing FPV Drone Zone race course, maybe two. We have member pilots that come here to fly at our five annual events from throughout lower MI and as far away as TN, OH, IN, IL and WI. We conduct two Jet Rallies, the West MI RC Expo, 44th Parallel Pylon Race, and West MI Soar In as annual events and many other informal rallies in between. I am either the CD or involved with the conduct of each of these annual events. We have several CDs. I also stay in touch with the AMA Leadership. Actually, ... our District VP is one of our club members, so we chat a lot. Oh, also I have been a Amateur Radio Operator and Life Member of ARRL for 47 years. I won't even go into the several statewide and other organizations I have run and or founded in the Amateur Radio community. But, ... As a Sr. Nuke Project Manager and Chair of the Statewide Amateur Radio Frequency Coordination Council in the past, I am well versed in interpreting government regulations. So there you have it. I have few "creds" also.
Even then, ... I have to admit that the AMA's conclusion/interpretation also took me by surprise a bit. So, no fowl. Not sure how the FAA will ever enforce it though. That is why I think we will all end up eventually just being tested and licensed. We'll maybe just have a different test than the Part 107 guys. Heck, we are already federally licensed. BTW: On page 85 of the same Model Aviation issue, there is a good article on a comparison of USofA's and China's requirements on the subject of Part 107 .
So, ... no problem Mike. Let's just keep it positive, factual and congenial!. Eh? In the meantime, I am looking at a couple Torrents for our school programs. It looks like we could use them indoors in the gym and outdoors at the RC Park. The Vusion House Racers don't have "model match." We have had several problems keeping them and the Ominus bound to the right transmitter. That is why were are looking at something else (e.g. Torrent.) But, ... if the Torrent winds up FCC accepted, then it looks like the for sure way to go.
On page 140 of the current (May 2017) Model Aviation, in the lower right corner is a picture of the afore mentioned AMA Forum Meeting. I am the guy in the light shirt sitting next to the gentleman with the white hair. Go figure! The guy next to me with the white hair is Mac, our current Club President.
If were talking about creds: I am the founder and a current officer of our chartered AMA Gold Leader Club. We have 75 members, including 20 Jet pilots from all over the Midwest, even though we are based in the middle of nowhere in one the poorest counties in the US of A. I am also an AMA CD, our club's School Program Instructor, our club's flight instructor and primary new member greeter/recruiter. In my spare time, I am the club's primary fund raiser (i.e. $5K -$10K a year.) and fly jets, giants, electrics, helis and FPV Drones. I have also recently served as the Village President. The Village owns our RC Park. We have two turf RC runways, a fiber mat RC runway, a 3800' asphalt runway that we share with paved RC Taxiways and Pit Row. We also have a RC Car Track and are currently involved with establishing FPV Drone Zone race course, maybe two. We have member pilots that come here to fly at our five annual events from throughout lower MI and as far away as TN, OH, IN, IL and WI. We conduct two Jet Rallies, the West MI RC Expo, 44th Parallel Pylon Race, and West MI Soar In as annual events and many other informal rallies in between. I am either the CD or involved with the conduct of each of these annual events. We have several CDs. I also stay in touch with the AMA Leadership. Actually, ... our District VP is one of our club members, so we chat a lot. Oh, also I have been a Amateur Radio Operator and Life Member of ARRL for 47 years. I won't even go into the several statewide and other organizations I have run and or founded in the Amateur Radio community. But, ... As a Sr. Nuke Project Manager and Chair of the Statewide Amateur Radio Frequency Coordination Council in the past, I am well versed in interpreting government regulations. So there you have it. I have few "creds" also.
Even then, ... I have to admit that the AMA's conclusion/interpretation also took me by surprise a bit. So, no fowl. Not sure how the FAA will ever enforce it though. That is why I think we will all end up eventually just being tested and licensed. We'll maybe just have a different test than the Part 107 guys. Heck, we are already federally licensed. BTW: On page 85 of the same Model Aviation issue, there is a good article on a comparison of USofA's and China's requirements on the subject of Part 107 .
So, ... no problem Mike. Let's just keep it positive, factual and congenial!. Eh? In the meantime, I am looking at a couple Torrents for our school programs. It looks like we could use them indoors in the gym and outdoors at the RC Park. The Vusion House Racers don't have "model match." We have had several problems keeping them and the Ominus bound to the right transmitter. That is why were are looking at something else (e.g. Torrent.) But, ... if the Torrent winds up FCC accepted, then it looks like the for sure way to go.
Last edited by Len Todd; 04-28-2017 at 04:13 PM.
