jws_aces

My Feedback: (33)

Bob,


This is just a registration at this time. I agree it can change but it is not the final rules or laws. If you read the complete docs produced by the FAA that looked at everything including recommendations from all the invited associations they looked at leaving out Community Based model aircraft from the commercial registration rules. Also considered them exempt from the 400ft regulation.

AMA has sent emails and asked the members not to registered because they are looking to challenge the model aircraft law,

read here http://amablog.modelaircraft.org/ama...odel-aircraft/

Just reading the print.

RCFlyerDan

My Feedback: (54)

2500 feet left and right of center, and 2500 feet high

jws_aces

My Feedback: (33)

Here is what the AMA is trying to do. I believe you will see they are asking the courts to rule on the proper definition of a model aircraft and a drone not flown at a community based flying site.

Hold Off On Registering

On Wednesday, December 16 the AMA Executive Council unanimously approved an action plan to relieve and further protect our members from unnecessary and burdensome regulations. This plan addresses the recently announced interim rule requiring federal registration of pilots who fly model aircraft and unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) weighing between 0.55 and 55 pounds.
AMA has long used a similar registration system with our members, which we pointed out during the task force deliberations and in private conversations with the FAA. As you are aware, AMA’s safety program instructs all members to place his or her AMA number or name and address on or within their model aircraft, effectively accomplishing the safety and accountability objectives of the interim rule. AMA has also argued that the new registration rule runs counter to Congress’ intent in Section 336 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, otherwise known as the “Special Rule for Model Aircraft.”
The Council is considering all legal and political remedies to address this issue. We believe that resolution to the unnecessary federal registration rule for our members rests with AMA’s petition before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. This petition, filed in August 2014, asks the court to review the FAA’s interpretation of the “Special Rule for Model Aircraft.” The central issue is whether the FAA has the authority to expand the definition of aircraft to include model aircraft; thus, allowing the agency to establish new standards and operating criteria to which model aircraft operators have never been subject to in the past.
In promulgating its interim rule for registration earlier this week, the FAA repeatedly stated that model aircraft are aircraft, despite the fact that litigation is pending on this very question. The Council believes the FAA’s reliance on its interpretation of Section 336 for legal authority to compel our members to register warrants the Court’s immediate attention to AMA’s petition.
While we continue to believe that registration makes sense at some threshold and for flyers operating outside of a community-based organization or flying for commercial purposes, we also strongly believe our members are not the problem and should not have to bear the burden of additional regulations. Safety has been the cornerstone of our organization for 80 years and AMA’s members strive to be a part of the solution.
As we proceed with this process, we suggest AMA members hold off on registering their model aircraft with the FAA until advised by the AMA or until February 19, the FAA’s legal deadline for registering.
Holding off on registration will allow AMA time to fully consider all possible options. On a parallel track, it also allows AMA to complete ongoing conversations with the FAA about how best to streamline the registration process for our members.
In the near future, we will also be asking our members to make their voices heard by submitting comments to the FAA’s interim rule on registration. We will follow-up soon with more detailed information on how to do this.
Thank you for your continued support of AMA. We will provide you with more updates as they become available.
Kind regards,
The AMA Executive Council
Bob Brown, AMA President
Gary Fitch, AMA Executive Vice President
Andy Argenio, AMA Vice President, District I
Eric Williams, AMA Vice President, District II
Mark Radcliff, AMA Vice President, District III
Jay Marsh, AMA Vice President, District IV
Kris Dixon, AMA Vice President, District V
Randy Cameron, AMA Vice President, District VI
Tim Jesky, AMA Vice President, District VII
Mark Johnston, AMA Vice President, District VIII
Jim Tiller, AMA Vice President, District IX
Lawrence Tougas, AMA Vice President, District X
Chuck Bower, AMA Vice President, District XI

RCFlyerDan

My Feedback: (54)

Wording of the 400 foot rule is in Black and white. Ask a Lawyer, so, how can this be misleading? Black and white still win over "mis-leading". I have been an ATP 121 Capt, and know how the, "if's, and's and but's" can screw the heck out of "misleading".

Trisquire

Thanks. Its not easy to find that figure online.

rhklenke

My Feedback: (24)

Dan,

What is on the registration web site is NOT a rule. The rule is here:https://www.federalregister.gov/arti...anned-aircraft

If you read it (I have) or even search for the word "altitude" or "400" you will see that this is NOT mentioned anywhere in the rule. It is mentioned in the comments to the rule - where the FAA (tried) to address all of the comments they received regarding the rule, but it is not mentioned in the rule - period.

You are familiar with FARs and that the rules of the FAA are published as FARs. There is NO FAR regarding the operation of UAS at this time. When it comes out, it will be FAR Part 107 - but its not out yet (see https://www.faa.gov/regulations_poli..._signature.pdf).

There is no FAA rule mandating a 400' altitude restriction for UAS (model aircraft) at this time.

Bob

RCFlyerDan

My Feedback: (54)

Since you are a "Power to Be", please reiterate this feeling to the "Powers to Be". If this is over looked, it will become a major issue.

rhklenke

My Feedback: (24)

Dan,

When you have a chance, read section 6 "Model Aircraft" of the Part 107 NPRM - it starts on page 45. Its too difficult to quote here (because the source is a PDF), but this interpretation of "section 336 of Public Law 112 - 95" is what the ARC recommended some 5 years or so ago, what Congress put into law, and what the FAA itself admitted they are bound to, as section 6 of the NPRM describes.

Now they may very well go ahead and ignore this, but because they themselves have admitted that section 336 limits their authority to regulate "model aircraft" being operated safely, one would think (hope!) that would leave them in an untenable position.

I believe that is the reasoning that the "powers to be" are working under. As I understand it, they worked pretty hard to get section 336 adopted, so I would give them some credit for that...

Bob

RJE

My Feedback: (13)

Common sense guys.. After all, lack of it, is what has got us here... Everybody needs to just settle down.I agree with Bob..

SECRET AGENT

My Feedback: (18)

I guess this means all model rockets are now banned since they normally fly up to 1500 feet.

I think everyone needs to take a deep breath and have a stiff drink. In my many years of government service and numerous encounters with the FAA, everyone is safe flying in a safe way no matter the altitude. Just use common sense around full scale aircraft and nobody will ever care that you went up to 1000 feet for a few seconds.

Now where did I put the rum?

SunDevilPilot

Model Rockets are unguided... Not banned / subject to any FAA registration.. Go figure!

TTRotary

Don't worry Dan. I prove to myself every day at the flying filed that my abilities are lacking!!

A rule. See "Safety Regulations for Model Aircraft Powered by Gas Turbines", Rev 7/18/15:

"For RC Fixed-wing Aircraft: the maximum velocity will be 200mph."

I agree that this seems arbitrary, since the condition of the airframe and pilot ability should be more important factors. Nonetheless, it is what it is. At my field, which is not Apollo (thank god), one of our jet pilots lost his waiver for unsafe flying, due to excessive speed among other things. A CD observed this and reported it. Our ability to continue allowing turbines was also under threat because of this incident and two others observed by full-scale pilots. As with most SoCal locations, we are within 5 miles of a towered airport.

Again, I'm not trying to be the police here. The point is that this is our reality in the hobby as of today, and that failure to follow "recommendations" will quickly get them turned into rules, and then outright bans. And unfortunately, the AMA and the FAA are not the most serious threats. Local communities are. One incident with a crashed and burning plane on someone's property, one call into the tower from a panicked student pilot, and we lose our rights to fly. Complaining about it won't change a thing.

The AMA has done, and continues to do everything possible to protect our right to fly, but the political climate is definitely not in our favor. Keep it safe and fun guys.

ira d

We can argue all day about the mandate to fly under 400ft that we had to agree to in order to register not being a enforceable rule but I would not be the one collides with a full scale and found to be over 400ft at
the time of the collision. Also I don't think the FAA wants to be in a position to have different rules just for AMA members and other rules for non members.

mr_matt

My Feedback: (10)

You can fly RC controlled rockets. Up to whatever altitude the launch is cleared for

rhklenke

My Feedback: (24)

Well, first, under "see and avoid" and "give way to full-scale aircraft," that we have operated under for years, a collision at ANY altitude is the model aircraft operator's fault (barring any unusual circumstances of course like the full-scale pilot buzzing the runway while knowing that a model was in the air - as has happened). Remember that aircraft are allowed to operate under 400 feet above the ground as long as they stay 500 feet away from people and structures. Thus if your field is in a rural area like ours is, an aircraft can come tooling by at 200' AGL off the end of the runway and be perfectly legal - and its our responsibility to avoid them - always has been.

You can talk about a "mandate," but I don't know what exactly that means. Words on a website that are not backed up by properly enacted regulations (i.e., FARs) are not enforceable rules.

As far as your statement about different rules for AMA members and non-members, that is exactly what section 336 is about, and the FAA has already said in several prominent places, that it understands this provision. Now the goal is to get them to live by it - as they have without problems for the past 80+ years...

Bob

SunDevilPilot

If a full scale came flying past you, and your field, at 200 feet he is in violation of the 500 foot people / property rule. You are a person I hope.

One of the guidelines I saw said don't fly your model near other aircraft. They just made our models "aircraft" requiring registration. Using that logic we'd have to fly alone. Other models would be aircraft.

HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

Take a look at FAR 91.119 (b) & (c)


[TABLE="width: 100%"]
[TR]
[TD="width: 100%, colspan: 2"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 50%"]Subpart B--Flight Rules[/TD]
[TD="width: 50%"][/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

Sec. 91.119

Minimum safe altitudes: General.

Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:
(a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.
(b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft.
(c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.
[ (d) Helicopters, powered parachutes, and weight-shift-control aircraft. If the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface--
(1) A helicopter may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section, provided each person operating the helicopter complies with any routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the FAA; and
(2) A powered parachute or weight-shift-control aircraft may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (c) of this section.]


According to the PHX FSDO when I asked what the FAA considered "any open air assembly of persons, I was told that it could be a stadium of over 32,000 to as few as two people on a blanket having a picnic.
If It is indeed the FAA's definition then No maned fixed wing aircraft can be lower than 1000' above the Highest Object within 2000' of that aircraft. So Example Your field has a 20' Flag pole or 150' Electric tower with in 2000' of your R/C Field then the Minimum Safe Altitude for that aircraft is 1150' AGL not 500'.

franklin_m

IMO, if AMA is going to win it's argument in court regarding the FAA's interpretation of PL112-95 section 336, then it comes down to two points:

(1) Under 49 USC, the FAA was granted authority to regulate "aircraft." And in 49 USC 40102(a)(6), it unambiguously states that "aircraft means any contrivance invented, used, or designed to navigate, or fly in, the air." It seems that for the AMA to prevail, then they have to somehow demonstrate that "model aircraft" are in fact NOT "a contrivance invented, used, or designed to navigate, or fly in, the air."

(2) Section 336 does mention CBOs and may provide some additional operational latitude not to conflict with the fundamental authority of the FAA as defined above. Of note though, despite claims about what is and is possible under the programming of a CBO, to date the AMA has not been formally recognized as one by the FAA despite the AMA's letter requesting it. Therefore, no such latitude exists yet as there are no CBOs.

I'm no lawyer, but I do have some experience writing and implementing public policy and specifically policy governing operations, from aviation, to law enforcement, and others. It will be interesting to see if the AMA prevails in front of the federal court.

ltc

My Feedback: (3)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't the AMA had a 400' altitude "rule" for several decades now?
The 400' number just sounds very familiar.

http://amablog.modelaircraft.org/ama...odel-aircraft/

Section 2(c)
https://www.modelaircraft.org/files/105.PDF

BTW, it the 400' is now a hard and absolute ceiling under any/all circumstances, it is going to be an issue for F3A 2m pattern flying as well.

jhicks112562

what does "ramped" mean?

757Driver

My Feedback: (90)

From one of my favs, " mine' fuhrer, I have a plan!"

Build a big wall around your club, member only access. Shoot trespassers on site. If the law can't see who's flying they can't get ya. I'm outta fuel in 7 minutes anyway....

I would rather fly on private club property, even if it required surrendering AMA charter, than be a subject under FAA rule. Yes that's extreme but as might be imagined by some.

To my knowledge, no UAS has not presented any significant impact to full scale aviation, especially commercial aviation.

It it has been my experience that birds, hail and lasers present a more significant threat to air safety than any model aircraft. I've killed lots of birds with my full scale operations but I haven't killed any drones.

FAA statistics indicate that the number of aircraft bird strikes reported in 2007 was 7,439. These strikes caused 3,094 precautionary landings, 1,442 aborted takeoffs, 312 engine shutdowns."Worldwide, crashes of more than 25 large aircraft were caused by bird strikes since 1960, according to a published study by Dolbeer. In 23 of these incidents, the strike occurred below 400 feet. More than 219 people were killed and more than 200 aircraft destroyed in accidents attributed to bird strikes since 1988"

Under current FAA thinking birds should be encouraged to register.
Has the FAA not gone after idiots pointing lasers into the sky? No. Laser owners haven't been required to register!

I know I got off topic but as a RC jet owner/operator and professional pilot I just had to point out how idiotic all of this has become. I hope the AMA can get the FAA out of our business.
The FAA has clearly wasted tax payer dollars with this minor threat to air commerce.

To to get on point, if 400' becomes a cap it will force jets to be flown further away from the operator and noise around operations areas will become a factor.

I suggest identifying all current AMA chartered clubs be designated as "special use" airspace or even even "prohibited" airspace. The limits could easily be defined as 1 mile diameter and up to 1200' (current upper limit of uncontrolled airspace). This would allow full scale pilots and air traffic control to know where these model aircraft will be operated and full scale aircraft would be required to stay clear.

Now with that in mind, stabilized approach criteria for most commercial operations basically stipulate a 3:1 profile. So for every 1 mile from the runway the airplane should be 300' AGL (above ground level). So as long as a chartered club were 5 miles away from an airport runway there would be NO CONFLICT.

Drone operations outside of my proposed designated AMA chartered club airspace could be handled by confiscation by law enforcement with a $10,000 fine and jail term substantial enough to eliminate non AMA club operations. Hobby shops could educate buyers as to civil penalties and encourage membership in local clubs.

757Driver

My Feedback: (90)

It is aviation slang for being ramp checked by the FAA. They check your pilots license your medical your aircraft registration etc.

If anything is out of compliance they violate you in a number of ways.

warbird_1

My Feedback: (61)

i know what the safety code reads but i was thinking i read somewhere that you may break the 400' limit as long as you get permission from the AP manager. As a jet pilot myself , i do pop over the limit but don't stay there. i plan on installing Altitude sensors in my birds to keep a better eye on what i'm doing
. WB_1

rhklenke

My Feedback: (24)

You highlighted the wrong part. This is appropos to where our field is (in the middle of farm land):

"...An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure."

A full-scale aircraft could easily fly 200 feet over the END of our runway (as I said in my example) and be 500' away from any PERSON or STRUCTURE at our field. Thus they would be "legal" and we'd need to avoid them...

Bob

MajorTomski

Just currious, anyone have any idea how the FAA intends to enforce 400 feet? How are they going to prove in a court of law that our models are higher than that? (Please, try to refrain from the obvious, like that it collied with a 1:1 scale plane at 1000 feet)