FAA's Enforcable 400 Feet = Death to Jets?
12-23-2015, 12:37 PM
#102
What I understand from the latest video is that Sectiom 336 clearly states that the FAA cannot push rules on CBO (AMA) operators. That's us. So if any FAA inspector were to tell you not to fly over 400' he/she would be in violation of an existing rule. I believe all current registration BS is directed solely at non CBO/AMA pilots.
12-23-2015, 01:06 PM
#103
How can anyone comply with unwritten specifications? Franklin, I am employed by a government agency, and, like you, work with other government agencies at the federal, state, and local level. We both know that an agency cannot expect an individual or group to comply with unwritten specifications. Until such time that the FAA has a list of requirements on how to become a CBO, how does one know whether they qualify or not? I would suggest that, at some point, an administrative law judge will recognize the AMA as a CBO by virtue of it's history and the fact that the FAA has no existing standards to determine, in their eyes, what is a CBO. How can the FAA, or any agency, provide a signed letter indicating that someone, or a group, has complied, or not complied, with unknown standards. The FAA will only be on solid ground on this matter as long as no one challenges them. As always, this is my opinion and worth just what you paid for it.
Last edited by f106jax; 12-23-2015 at 01:08 PM.
12-23-2015, 01:48 PM
#104
My Feedback: (28)
Why does it seem no one cares about the fact that Congress told the FAA they are not allowed to do this at all? Everyone is arguing over the semantics of it instead of getting a hold of their US representatives in the Senate and in Congress to enforce their rules on the FAA instead of the FAA forcing illegal rules on us? Part 336 is not vague.
12-23-2015, 01:54 PM
#105
Why does it seem no one cares about the fact that Congress told the FAA they are not allowed to do this at all? Everyone is arguing over the semantics of it instead of getting a hold of their US representatives in the Senate and in Congress to enforce their rules on the FAA instead of the FAA forcing illegal rules on us? Part 336 is not vague.
12-23-2015, 02:00 PM
#106
We both know that an agency cannot expect an individual or group to comply with unwritten specifications. Until such time that the FAA has a list of requirements on how to become a CBO, how does one know whether they qualify or not? I would suggest that, at some point, an administrative law judge will recognize the AMA as a CBO by virtue of it's history and the fact that the FAA has no existing standards to determine, in their eyes, what is a CBO. How can the FAA, or any agency, provide a signed letter indicating that someone, or a group, has complied, or not complied, with unknown standards.
In this case, had the AMA not formally asked the FAA to recognize them as a CBO, then I think the argument is stronger. However, they did ask and the FAA did not say yes, which I fear is a "no." I also can't help but think when the AMA filed a lawsuit against the FAA, that made them even less inclined to say yes. Now, AMA is telling its members to hold off registering.
I can only imagine how that's viewed from DC.
Last edited by franklin_m; 12-23-2015 at 02:53 PM.
12-23-2015, 03:22 PM
#108
12-23-2015, 03:47 PM
#109
Gentlemen! Thank you for a very civil and informative chat. I especially respect Franklin for your opinions. I have seen some of your other forum info. And, Thanks Mike for your input, and all others too! To me, this is crazy as hell. I started to fly r/c at 11, and of course c/l prior to 11. I truly never thought in my life time of being in Aviation, that the FAA would be concerned and trying to control our hobby. I do truly get the technology of the quadcopters/ MR Copters. I don't have one, but truly think it is a fascinating step in aviation! We are witnessing history of aviation here, even though it is a pain in the ass to us. Don't get me wrong, I do think we need some control over this technology and the operators. But, I can see a quad-car-vehicle that will be like a car to fly! Others do too. . BUT! It is interfering with my retirement and fun!!!
To me, now, is the FAA and Congress seeing the AMA as a CBO, and of course always this altitude issue.
To me, now, is the FAA and Congress seeing the AMA as a CBO, and of course always this altitude issue.
Last edited by RCFlyerDan; 12-23-2015 at 04:00 PM.
12-23-2015, 04:29 PM
#111
IMO, the main hurdles to AMA's formal recognition hinge on the following points:
(1) Membership requirement. NAS is owned by the taxpayers. I don't see FAA mandating membership as a condition of participation. AMA could clear the obstacle by formally announcing that membership is not required to participate in their "programming" under PL112-95 section 336.
(2) One set of rules vs. one for CBO another for non-CBO. This could largely be rendered moot by AMA not requiring membership to fall under their programming.
(3) Lawsuit. FAA can't be happy about it. One wonders that if AMA dropped the case and came to FAA with (1) and (2) above, would they find FAA more agreeable.
(4) Altitude limit. This is a tough one. Looking to the future, FAA expects a lot more commercial sUAS and UAS. It's difficult to imagine sUAS/UAS amongst normal civilian traffic, which means they either have to go really high (probably not realistic), or stay low. So if they stay low, where do you put them? How much vertical separation between manned aircraft and unmanned will be acceptable to the public? I can't say for sure, by 500' sounds reasonable, enforceable, and able to be implemented. That means, roughly 600' and below, but for safety sake I see the FAA going with 500 AGL. So now, where to put non-commercial sUAS? While it would be great if permanent special use airspace could be created, we already know AOPA will oppose it, and they'd probably get support from commercial air as well. So the only real option left is general rule of non-commercial sUAS at low altitude, with higher available upon request like high power rocketry uses.
Just my opinion.
(1) Membership requirement. NAS is owned by the taxpayers. I don't see FAA mandating membership as a condition of participation. AMA could clear the obstacle by formally announcing that membership is not required to participate in their "programming" under PL112-95 section 336.
(2) One set of rules vs. one for CBO another for non-CBO. This could largely be rendered moot by AMA not requiring membership to fall under their programming.
(3) Lawsuit. FAA can't be happy about it. One wonders that if AMA dropped the case and came to FAA with (1) and (2) above, would they find FAA more agreeable.
(4) Altitude limit. This is a tough one. Looking to the future, FAA expects a lot more commercial sUAS and UAS. It's difficult to imagine sUAS/UAS amongst normal civilian traffic, which means they either have to go really high (probably not realistic), or stay low. So if they stay low, where do you put them? How much vertical separation between manned aircraft and unmanned will be acceptable to the public? I can't say for sure, by 500' sounds reasonable, enforceable, and able to be implemented. That means, roughly 600' and below, but for safety sake I see the FAA going with 500 AGL. So now, where to put non-commercial sUAS? While it would be great if permanent special use airspace could be created, we already know AOPA will oppose it, and they'd probably get support from commercial air as well. So the only real option left is general rule of non-commercial sUAS at low altitude, with higher available upon request like high power rocketry uses.
Just my opinion.
12-23-2015, 05:04 PM
#113
IMO, the main hurdles to AMA's formal recognition hinge on the following points:
(1) Membership requirement. NAS is owned by the taxpayers. I don't see FAA mandating membership as a condition of participation. AMA could clear the obstacle by formally announcing that membership is not required to participate in their "programming" under PL112-95 section 336.
[snip]
(1) Membership requirement. NAS is owned by the taxpayers. I don't see FAA mandating membership as a condition of participation. AMA could clear the obstacle by formally announcing that membership is not required to participate in their "programming" under PL112-95 section 336.
[snip]
Bob
12-23-2015, 05:20 PM
#114
Registration It's Free Fast & Easy What more could any guy want.
If prohibited or restricted areas don't work then at leas give each Registered AMA or state Federal or city flying site an ALERT AREA or Warning Area 1/4 mile radius from the center of the runway in a semi circle with the center of the semicircle 50' behind the Pilot station to allow for over shooting the runway center line on TO or Landing. The semicircle would be a half Cylinder extending upto but not Including 1500'. If there were Multiple runways at the site make it a full Cylinder on the geographic center of where the Pilots stand. An Alert Area or Warning Area lets full scale Pilots know there is an unusually high number of air operations. i.e. a flight training eyc. and they should
take greater precautions or avoid the area if possible.
A semicircle Cylinder of 1/4 mile radius up to 1500 ' high. The 5 mile radius No Fly Zones around airports are over 398 times the size of the proposed Alert Area or 2020% larger Than a semicircle of 1/4 mile radius covers a miniscule .197 SQ Miles.
If prohibited or restricted areas don't work then at leas give each Registered AMA or state Federal or city flying site an ALERT AREA or Warning Area 1/4 mile radius from the center of the runway in a semi circle with the center of the semicircle 50' behind the Pilot station to allow for over shooting the runway center line on TO or Landing. The semicircle would be a half Cylinder extending upto but not Including 1500'. If there were Multiple runways at the site make it a full Cylinder on the geographic center of where the Pilots stand. An Alert Area or Warning Area lets full scale Pilots know there is an unusually high number of air operations. i.e. a flight training eyc. and they should
take greater precautions or avoid the area if possible.
A semicircle Cylinder of 1/4 mile radius up to 1500 ' high. The 5 mile radius No Fly Zones around airports are over 398 times the size of the proposed Alert Area or 2020% larger Than a semicircle of 1/4 mile radius covers a miniscule .197 SQ Miles.
12-23-2015, 05:39 PM
#115
IMO, the main hurdles to AMA's formal recognition hinge on the following points:
(1) Membership requirement. NAS is owned by the taxpayers. I don't see FAA mandating membership as a condition of participation. AMA Membership is FREE for any one under the ae of 19 What more can U ask. AMA could clear the obstacle by formally announcing that membership is not required to participate in their "programming" under PL112-95 section 336.
(2) One set of rules vs. one for CBO another for non-CBO. This could largely be rendered moot by AMA not requiring membership to fall under their programming.
CBO's Are only at Registered R/C Fields whether AMA Federal state city Parks with registered flying sites.
(3) Lawsuit. FAA can't be happy about it. One wonders that if AMA dropped the case and came to FAA with (1) and (2) above, would they find FAA more agreeable.
(4) Altitude limit. This is a tough one. Looking to the future, FAA expects a lot more commercial sUAS and UAS. It's difficult to imagine sUAS/UAS amongst normal civilian traffic, which means they either have to go really high (probably not realistic), or stay low. So if they stay low, where do you put them? How much vertical separation between manned aircraft and unmanned will be acceptable to the public? I can't say for sure, by 500' sounds reasonable, enforceable, and able to be implemented. That means, roughly 600' and below, but for safety sake I see the FAA going with 500 AGL. So now, where to put non-commercial sUAS? While it would be great if permanent special use airspace could be created, we already know AOPA will oppose it, and they'd probably get support from commercial air as well. So the only real option left is general rule of non-commercial sUAS at low altitude, with higher available upon request like high power rocketry uses.
Just my opinion.
(1) Membership requirement. NAS is owned by the taxpayers. I don't see FAA mandating membership as a condition of participation. AMA Membership is FREE for any one under the ae of 19 What more can U ask. AMA could clear the obstacle by formally announcing that membership is not required to participate in their "programming" under PL112-95 section 336.
(2) One set of rules vs. one for CBO another for non-CBO. This could largely be rendered moot by AMA not requiring membership to fall under their programming.
CBO's Are only at Registered R/C Fields whether AMA Federal state city Parks with registered flying sites.
(3) Lawsuit. FAA can't be happy about it. One wonders that if AMA dropped the case and came to FAA with (1) and (2) above, would they find FAA more agreeable.
(4) Altitude limit. This is a tough one. Looking to the future, FAA expects a lot more commercial sUAS and UAS. It's difficult to imagine sUAS/UAS amongst normal civilian traffic, which means they either have to go really high (probably not realistic), or stay low. So if they stay low, where do you put them? How much vertical separation between manned aircraft and unmanned will be acceptable to the public? I can't say for sure, by 500' sounds reasonable, enforceable, and able to be implemented. That means, roughly 600' and below, but for safety sake I see the FAA going with 500 AGL. So now, where to put non-commercial sUAS? While it would be great if permanent special use airspace could be created, we already know AOPA will oppose it, and they'd probably get support from commercial air as well. So the only real option left is general rule of non-commercial sUAS at low altitude, with higher available upon request like high power rocketry uses.
Just my opinion.
Just appease the FAA/DOT and
Register: It's Free Fast & Easy
What more could any guy want.
12-23-2015, 07:10 PM
#116
IMO, the main hurdles to AMA's formal recognition hinge on the following points:
(1) Membership requirement. NAS is owned by the taxpayers. I don't see FAA mandating membership as a condition of participation. AMA could clear the obstacle by formally announcing that membership is not required to participate in their "programming" under PL112-95 section 336.
(2) One set of rules vs. one for CBO another for non-CBO. This could largely be rendered moot by AMA not requiring membership to fall under their programming.
(3) Lawsuit. FAA can't be happy about it. One wonders that if AMA dropped the case and came to FAA with (1) and (2) above, would they find FAA more agreeable.
(4) Altitude limit. This is a tough one. Looking to the future, FAA expects a lot more commercial sUAS and UAS. It's difficult to imagine sUAS/UAS amongst normal civilian traffic, which means they either have to go really high (probably not realistic), or stay low. So if they stay low, where do you put them? How much vertical separation between manned aircraft and unmanned will be acceptable to the public? I can't say for sure, by 500' sounds reasonable, enforceable, and able to be implemented. That means, roughly 600' and below, but for safety sake I see the FAA going with 500 AGL. So now, where to put non-commercial sUAS? While it would be great if permanent special use airspace could be created, we already know AOPA will oppose it, and they'd probably get support from commercial air as well. So the only real option left is general rule of non-commercial sUAS at low altitude, with higher available upon request like high power rocketry uses.
Just my opinion.
(1) Membership requirement. NAS is owned by the taxpayers. I don't see FAA mandating membership as a condition of participation. AMA could clear the obstacle by formally announcing that membership is not required to participate in their "programming" under PL112-95 section 336.
(2) One set of rules vs. one for CBO another for non-CBO. This could largely be rendered moot by AMA not requiring membership to fall under their programming.
(3) Lawsuit. FAA can't be happy about it. One wonders that if AMA dropped the case and came to FAA with (1) and (2) above, would they find FAA more agreeable.
(4) Altitude limit. This is a tough one. Looking to the future, FAA expects a lot more commercial sUAS and UAS. It's difficult to imagine sUAS/UAS amongst normal civilian traffic, which means they either have to go really high (probably not realistic), or stay low. So if they stay low, where do you put them? How much vertical separation between manned aircraft and unmanned will be acceptable to the public? I can't say for sure, by 500' sounds reasonable, enforceable, and able to be implemented. That means, roughly 600' and below, but for safety sake I see the FAA going with 500 AGL. So now, where to put non-commercial sUAS? While it would be great if permanent special use airspace could be created, we already know AOPA will oppose it, and they'd probably get support from commercial air as well. So the only real option left is general rule of non-commercial sUAS at low altitude, with higher available upon request like high power rocketry uses.
Just my opinion.
of altitude reporting or recording equipment on board I don't think we have much to worry about from the FAA.
12-23-2015, 09:26 PM
#117
I agree, Also I don't see the FAA making a big deal about the 400ft limit unless there starts to be a lot of conflicts between models and full scale craft, IMO until the FAA starts to require all small UAS to have some type
of altitude reporting or recording equipment on board I don't think we have much to worry about from the FAA.
of altitude reporting or recording equipment on board I don't think we have much to worry about from the FAA.
Registration: It's Free Fast & Easy What more could any guy want.
12-23-2015, 11:53 PM
#119
I did some more digging. The FAA does recognize the AMA as a CBO.
Please see post #1 in this forum.
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/ama-...-then-ama.html
and here's the snapshot if you don't care about the source document
Please see post #1 in this forum.
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/ama-...-then-ama.html
and here's the snapshot if you don't care about the source document
12-24-2015, 12:53 AM
#120
Junior Member
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To answer your question Is this death to Jets........No, it shouldn't be. A small investment into a Telemetry Altitude sensor is well worth it. I have a Spektrum radio, and invested in the a couple sensors, just so I'd know what my model was doing. The altitude sensor is set to 400', based on a standard atmospheric pressure of 29.92 in. hg at sea level, at 59 degrees F. That means that if the atmospheric pressure is higher than the standard, the alarm that sounds in my tx when it senses the plane is at 400', isn't really at 400'. It's lower than that. The opposite is true that if the atmospheric pressure is less than standard, the plane will be higher than 400' when the alarm goes off. The difference between standard day readings, and the current atmospheric pressure at your field usually isn't more than 50', either way. Let me also add that I had my altitude sensor in a plane with an 80" wingspan. When the alarm sounded in my tx, the plane was just a speck in the sky.
12-24-2015, 04:32 AM
#121
I'm willing to bet that there will be nowhere near the 700,000 plus estimated quads sold this Christmas registered (people)
400 ft isn't very high at all. I've also used telemetry to check the height. Another good way to estimate the height is by the length of your runway. Ours is 600ft and when we fly jets we quite often stand at one end of the runway to take off and land. I can tell you that my bandit is not a small speck by the time I reach the other end of the runway, 600 plus. The bandit is a small jet. If your airplane looks like a speck in the sky then you are way over 400 ft or you are a long way out from the pilots station..
400 ft isn't very high at all. I've also used telemetry to check the height. Another good way to estimate the height is by the length of your runway. Ours is 600ft and when we fly jets we quite often stand at one end of the runway to take off and land. I can tell you that my bandit is not a small speck by the time I reach the other end of the runway, 600 plus. The bandit is a small jet. If your airplane looks like a speck in the sky then you are way over 400 ft or you are a long way out from the pilots station..
12-24-2015, 05:12 AM
#122
12-24-2015, 06:43 AM
#123
I saw that. From an implementation perspective, Get that train rolling and so far down the track that it can't be pulled back. Actually, quite smart on the FAA's part.
12-24-2015, 07:20 AM
#125
To answer your question Is this death to Jets........No, it shouldn't be. A small investment into a Telemetry Altitude sensor is well worth it. I have a Spektrum radio, and invested in the a couple sensors, just so I'd know what my model was doing. The altitude sensor is set to 400', based on a standard atmospheric pressure of 29.92 in. hg at sea level, at 59 degrees F. That means that if the atmospheric pressure is higher than the standard, the alarm that sounds in my tx when it senses the plane is at 400', isn't really at 400'. It's lower than that. The opposite is true that if the atmospheric pressure is less than standard, the plane will be higher than 400' when the alarm goes off. The difference between standard day readings, and the current atmospheric pressure at your field usually isn't more than 50', either way. Let me also add that I had my altitude sensor in a plane with an 80" wingspan. When the alarm sounded in my tx, the plane was just a speck in the sky.
All the Planes I fly on a regular basis have GPS so I know my Ground speed and GPS altitude. I also have a plastic box and a bomb I have rigged up with every thing required to when placed in/on any R/C TOY i can see their GPS speed and altitude on my Xmiter. I can also se Air speed when using the bomb on someones war bird with a Bomb release. Very Interesting to see how Ground Speed and Air Speed very from one another.