Go Back  RCU Forums > RC Airplanes > RC Jets
Reload this Page >

FAA's Enforcable 400 Feet = Death to Jets?

Notices
RC Jets Discuss RC jets in this forum plus rc turbines and ducted fan power systems

FAA's Enforcable 400 Feet = Death to Jets?

Old 01-13-2016, 05:31 AM
  #351  
rhklenke
My Feedback: (24)
 
rhklenke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 5,997
Likes: 0
Received 33 Likes on 20 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by TTRotary
Yes, you are being an ass Bob. Information from a reliable source... that's precious coming from the guy who was instructing people 10 days ago that they could meet FAA registration requirements through the AMA, among other completely incorrect comments. You are NOT a subject matter expert here, and you are in no position to be "correcting" others or imposing your own opinion. You made a comment elsewhere about numb-nuts behavior and people doing things they know are wrong. That includes you bragging on a public forum about flying to 1000AGL after right after you agreed in a certification that you would maintain flight ops at or below 400AGL. That's just plain stupid, in addition to being irresponsible. I certainly hope your stance does not represent the official position of the JPO, since it is an AMA SIG.
First, I NEVER said at that point that AMA registration would meet FAA registration requirements - only that the AMA was working to make it so, and guess what, that looks like it will come to pass. Stay tuned for more information from the reliable source - the AMA.

Second, I never "bragged" about flying to 1000' AGL, in fact I stated that I rarely do, and always according to the AMA safety code and with a spotter. What I did say was that you were incorrect in saying that there was an absolute limit of 400' as a result of "signing" the FAA "guidlines" on a website. Guess what, you were incorrect on that as well, as confirmed by the AMA in its latest posting.

Nowhere that I can see have you acknowledged your errors... Mine was engaging in an argument with someone who was incorrect and could not be convinced otherwise.

Bob
Old 01-13-2016, 05:49 AM
  #352  
rhklenke
My Feedback: (24)
 
rhklenke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 5,997
Likes: 0
Received 33 Likes on 20 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by TTRotary
I know exactly who he is, and that is why I am criticizing him. Bob is an accomplished and expert modeler and I have enjoyed and appreciated his threads on building and so on. But that does not dispense him from responsible behavior. I am sorry this has gone in the direction it has, but I am not one to hold my tongue.
To the rest of you out there, I do not think its "irresponsible" to state what I KNEW was the case - that at this time, flying according to the AMA safety code is legal just as it has been in the past. Perhaps when the revised Part 101 comes out, that will change, but hopefully not, and I believe that it will not. Unfortunately, Mr. TTRotary is unconvinced, but that is his issue, which I will not attempt to deal with any longer. I apologize for the "mess" it created, but my purpose was to prevent my fellow jet flyers from being discouraged by the misinformation in this thread - which you will note that I did not start...

To mackyjones, I do spend a great deal of time promoting the jet hobby. This year, we achieved a significant change in the turbine thrust rules in the US, we completed a survey of all AMA turbine waiver holders to get their opinion on future directions for the JPO, I am working on a new website for the JPO, and we have a few additional initiatives we are working on.

Back to it...

Bob
Old 01-13-2016, 06:03 AM
  #353  
jws_aces
My Feedback: (33)
 
jws_aces's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Salem, Va
Posts: 1,048
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by junkjet
I don't think it's going to be that easy. If you fly over 55lbs none of the regs apply!! Really. If you use your model for Comercial or if you are going to fly outside the US or if you fly over 55lbs and on and so forth. You must do a paper registration.
I really don't want to debate about it but I will do what I understand has been said by the FAA Representative on Camera. I have not read anything in writting as of now to suggest anything different. If you know of a publish rule or law please post so I can read it.

So with that being said I will fly until the AMA or FAA puts out in writing anything different. I understand if you feel differently about the rules. That is basically what is wrong in the whole thread like I said before. Don't worry about the others only yourself. If they become a danger to your safety that is a different subject.
Old 01-13-2016, 06:20 AM
  #354  
BarracudaHockey
My Feedback: (11)
 
BarracudaHockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 26,960
Received 343 Likes on 274 Posts
Default

I spoke with the FAA rep at Expo personally and he knows or at least says, WE the AMA guys are NOT the problem. They want us, and this is his quote "In the tent when the rules are made, not outside the tent".

I can also tell you that we opened his eyes to many of the issues facing us, including the ramifications of 400 feet to the hobby. I don't think he understood that clearly before. He was also invited to, and accepted an invitation from a VP and club to come see in his own eyes what we are all about and maybe get some buddy box time.
Old 01-13-2016, 11:10 AM
  #355  
FALCONSNEST
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by BarracudaHockey
I spoke with the FAA rep at Expo personally and he knows or at least says, WE the AMA guys are NOT the problem. They want us, and this is his quote "In the tent when the rules are made, not outside the tent".

I can also tell you that we opened his eyes to many of the issues facing us, including the ramifications of 400 feet to the hobby. I don't think he understood that clearly before. He was also invited to, and accepted an invitation from a VP and club to come see in his own eyes what we are all about and maybe get some buddy box time.
Thank you for your efforts!
Old 01-13-2016, 11:12 AM
  #356  
franklin_m
 
franklin_m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 4,561
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by BarracudaHockey
I can also tell you that we opened his eyes to many of the issues facing us, including the ramifications of 400 feet to the hobby. I don't think he understood that clearly before. He was also invited to, and accepted an invitation from a VP and club to come see in his own eyes what we are all about and maybe get some buddy box time.
The problem that concerns me is an "equal protection under law" with respect to the 400' limit and the dangerous ambiguity for any number and types of full scale aircraft operating at 500 AGL in many areas. These include general aviation aircraft over sparse areas or perhaps dealing with an emergency; it includes helicopters of all types, such as police, news, and LifeFlight; but most importantly it includes military aircraft operating on Military Training Routes (VR, IR, SR) - where they can be traveling at speeds of 400KIAS or more. But it also includes these same aircraft that may have to exit such routes VFR for any number of valid reasons, flying between 500' AGL or so and higher at 250KIAS until they establish a course of action, contact with ATC, etc.

My safety concern is how will the pilots of these aircraft know that the sUAS/UAS operating in the aircraft are flown by AMA members, thus enjoying a special privilege to fly above 400' AGL, or they are operated by unwashed masses of non-AMA members who have registered and shall remain 400' AGL and below.

A single nationwide standard for all non-commercial sUAS/UAS solves that problem. AMA member activities that have a special need to exceed that height can file a NOTAM - thus shifting an obligation of "knowing" that the activity exists in particular area to the full scale pilot.
Old 01-13-2016, 11:13 AM
  #357  
RCFlyerDan
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (54)
 
RCFlyerDan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: SWFL
Posts: 2,004
Received 68 Likes on 51 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by BarracudaHockey
I can also tell you that we opened his eyes to many of the issues facing us, including the ramifications of 400 feet to the hobby. I don't think he understood that clearly before. .
After watching the FAA's Mr. Marke Gibson's video, I went ahead and registered today. As Andy pointed out, Mr. Gibson was not aware of 400' being an issue until 3-4 days prior to the presentation to the AMA members at the Expo. This is the whole reason that I started this thread, is that the "AMA Power's to Be" had not conveyed our concerns well enough about the 400' to the FAA.
As of now, it is all status quo for flying. But, as Mr. Gibson said, it is under review.

I inserted the video for convenience. At 29:20 is where the question comes up for the 400', at 30:47, Mr. Gibson said that he just became aware of 400' as being an issue for AMA members and the detriment to the hobby for us.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOeoHJZdwuw

But, I am registered now, and life will hopefully go on!
Old 01-13-2016, 11:21 AM
  #358  
TTRotary
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 197
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by Sport_Pilot
I suggest you read page 173 of the sUAV NPRM. Find where they say to fly below 400 feet in part 101? See page 172.

http://www.faa.gov/regulations_polic..._signature.pdf
I have read it all, and this is not the point. The only thing that matters at our level, as FAA-certified UAS operators is: when you register with the FAA, one of the conditions you agree to is: "I will fly below 400 feet". In agreeing to that, you have just legally obligated yourself to such course of action, and any infraction of that can be interpreted by the FAA as an endangerment to the NAS. The FAA's enforcement path is very clearly stated in what I previously posted.

What they are basically telling you is: we cannot touch you unless we believe you are endangering the NAS, at which point you cease to be viewed as a "model aircraft" and fall under our enforcement purview. It is exactly the same legal framework as probable cause. When you certify that you will keep it below 400AGl, then violate that and are observed to do so, you are now subject to their enforcement. The fines are stiff, and I am sure the FAA is itching to make an example. Someone who shows intent to deceive (as per Bob's post) would be subject to additional sanctions.


I can assure you that the FAA is serious about enforcement, and they don't make any distinction whatsoever between AMA, non AMA, type of aircraft, or anything else. If it flies and violates, it gets prosecuted, period. At this point, aeromodelers have no friends. I fly full scale and I can assure you that most pilots consider RC air to be a nuisance at best and a safety threat at worst. Most would be fine having it banned altogether. Few FS fly RC, and vice-versa, so there is little mutual appreciation. Finally, air passenger safety trumps everything else. So RC will always lose to full scale in a conflict. It takes only one pilot-reported incident, even of that pilot was totally in the wrong, to get a field shut down. So poking sticks in the eye of the FAA, falsifying your air certificate etc., is a losing proposition.
Old 01-13-2016, 11:30 AM
  #359  
BarracudaHockey
My Feedback: (11)
 
BarracudaHockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 26,960
Received 343 Likes on 274 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by RCFlyerDan
After watching the FAA's Mr. Marke Gibson's video, I went ahead and registered today. As Andy pointed out, Mr. Gibson was not aware of 400' being an issue until 3-4 days prior to the presentation to the AMA members at the Expo. This is the whole reason that I started this thread, is that the "AMA Power's to Be" had not conveyed our concerns well enough about the 400' to the FAA.
As of now, it is all status quo for flying. But, as Mr. Gibson said, it is under review.

I inserted the video for convenience. At 29:20 is where the question comes up for the 400', at 30:47, Mr. Gibson said that he just became aware of 400' as being an issue for AMA members and the detriment to the hobby for us.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOeoHJZdwuw

But, I am registered now, and life will hopefully go on!
Dan, you have to understand a point. The FAA has turn over, as soon as the AMA feels like it's making progress, another appointment or dept move happens and that person has a different view or feel for things and to some extent the AMA starts over.

This particular person was unaware of our strong feelings and the ramifications to the hobby of 400 feet limits. That's not to say nobody in the FAA understands, that means this particular person was unaware. Now he is.
Old 01-13-2016, 11:35 AM
  #360  
TTRotary
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 197
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by rhklenke
What I did say was that you were incorrect in saying that there was an absolute limit of 400' as a result of "signing" the FAA "guidlines" on a website. Guess what, you were incorrect on that as well, as confirmed by the AMA in its latest posting.

Bob
You just don't get it. You certified to a federal agency that you would keep it below 400. Again, since you apparently failed to read this: you agreed to the following statement: "I will fly below 400 feet". The fact that your certificate says it's a guideline is moot. When you certified, you agreed that you would not do it. It is absolutely clear and unconditional. And they now have you on record as such. Why Bob do you think you have your own FAA number?

The other thing you don't get is that the AMA is irrelevant here, and what they say with respect to the "rules", does not matter once you have signed that certificate. All that matters, is what the FAA decides matters. When the FAA says on their website: "new rules allow certificate-holding UAS to operate to 1000 feet, you can believe that. Anything else is just hearsay. And by the way, that won't happen. The FAA has always believed in 400 for UAS and they will not change their stance, because they would have to completely rework the NAS thresholds if they did. Their only concern is the safety of full-scale aviation. Aeromodeling is just a collateral annoyance.
Old 01-13-2016, 11:57 AM
  #361  
TTRotary
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 197
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by franklin_m
My safety concern is how will the pilots of these aircraft know that the sUAS/UAS operating in the aircraft are flown by AMA members, thus enjoying a special privilege to fly above 400' AGL, or they are operated by unwashed masses of non-AMA members who have registered and shall remain 400' AGL and below.
This is why an exemption to the 400 will not happen IMO. As you know, there is enormous pressure on the FAA with respect to reducing pilot workload and at the same time even more pressure to reduce ATC workload and ensuing errors. NextGen ATS will actually ADD to pilot workload, because we will now have direct information on other aircraft in their area. Having to add additional layers of information-processing as it relates to sUAS operations is unacceptable to the FAA.

A single nationwide standard for all non-commercial sUAS/UAS solves that problem. AMA member activities that have a special need to exceed that height can file a NOTAM - thus shifting an obligation of "knowing" that the activity exists in particular area to the full scale pilot.
RC needs are unfortunately not the FAA's concern, in view of the above. Maybe I'm off base. I'd be interested to hear from another pilot.

Last edited by TTRotary; 01-13-2016 at 12:05 PM.
Old 01-13-2016, 01:28 PM
  #362  
rhklenke
My Feedback: (24)
 
rhklenke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 5,997
Likes: 0
Received 33 Likes on 20 Posts
Default

http://amablog.modelaircraft.org/ama...ked-questions/

Q: Am I permitted to fly above 400 feet? What if I had to check a box saying otherwise on the federal registration website?
A: Yes. AMA members who abide by the AMA Safety Code, which permits flights above 400 feet under appropriate circumstances, and are protected by the Special Rule for Model Aircraft under the 2012 FAA Modernization and Reform Act. Checking the box on the federal registration webpage signifies an understanding of the 400 foot guideline. This is an important safety principle that all UAS operators need to be aware of, and is the same guideline established in AC 91-57 published in 1981. However, the placement of this guideline on the FAA website is intended as an educational piece and more specifically intended for those operating outside of AMA’s safey program. We have been in discussions with the FAA about this point and the agency has indicted that it will be updating its website in the next week to make clear that this altitude guideline is not intended to supplant the guidance and safety procedures established in AMA’s safety program.

Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version

Name:	ama_altitude_statement.jpg
Views:	61
Size:	200.6 KB
ID:	2141212  

Last edited by rhklenke; 01-13-2016 at 01:30 PM.
Old 01-13-2016, 01:31 PM
  #363  
RCFlyerDan
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (54)
 
RCFlyerDan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: SWFL
Posts: 2,004
Received 68 Likes on 51 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by BarracudaHockey
Dan, you have to understand a point. The FAA has turn over, as soon as the AMA feels like it's making progress, another appointment or dept move happens and that person has a different view or feel for things and to some extent the AMA starts over.

This particular person was unaware of our strong feelings and the ramifications to the hobby of 400 feet limits. That's not to say nobody in the FAA understands, that means this particular person was unaware. Now he is.

Yes, I understand that Mr. Gibson has only been with this position for the past 3 or 4 months; is what I thought I heard him say. But, this oversight, that seems small to the FAA, is a huge detriment to model aviation, should one of those many managers make 400' as a hard limit. Mr. Gibson is finding out kind of late if he is in charge of the UAS system and the representative to the AMA. So, at a pen stroke between these different managers, 400' becomes a hard limit. Then, again, the problem becomes enforcement and how to accurately measure 400 agl at every model flying field.
I went through 5 or 6 years of heated arguing with every new Club President that came to the power at fields that I flew. Ruins a good day at the field. AS you said, each new person comes in with a new interpretation of the 400'. I spent $10k of thousands this past summer to move from that field, only to possibly have the FAA come in and accidently "hard pen the 400' agl rule". due to the oversight of information passed to the next guy, or AMA hasn't told the next guy!!. In reality, it shouldn't even be mentioned anywhere as a "Safety Guideline.". And, yes, Bob, I understand it isn't a FAR Reg. or rule. But, as others have said, if something happens, that pilot will be hung out to dry, and possibly in a jail cell. Will JPO or the AMA come and help that pilot with legal cost? No. And, as I have said on other post, those who "swear" they don't fly above 400' are lying........period.

Last edited by RCFlyerDan; 01-13-2016 at 01:35 PM.
Old 01-13-2016, 01:50 PM
  #364  
rhklenke
My Feedback: (24)
 
rhklenke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 5,997
Likes: 0
Received 33 Likes on 20 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by RCFlyerDan
Yes, I understand that Mr. Gibson has only been with this position for the past 3 or 4 months; is what I thought I heard him say. But, this oversight, that seems small to the FAA, is a huge detriment to model aviation, should one of those many managers make 400' as a hard limit. Mr. Gibson is finding out kind of late if he is in charge of the UAS system and the representative to the AMA. So, at a pen stroke between these different managers, 400' becomes a hard limit. Then, again, the problem becomes enforcement and how to accurately measure 400 agl at every model flying field.
I went through 5 or 6 years of heated arguing with every new Club President that came to the power at fields that I flew. Ruins a good day at the field. AS you said, each new person comes in with a new interpretation of the 400'. I spent $10k of thousands this past summer to move from that field, only to possibly have the FAA come in and accidently "hard pen the 400' agl rule". In reality, it shouldn't even be mentioned anywhere as a "Safety Guideline.". And, yes, Bob, I understand it isn't a FAR Reg. or rule. But, as others have said, if something happens, that pilot will be hung out to dry, and possibly in a jail cell. Will JPO or the AMA come and help that pilot with legal cost? No. And, as I have said on other post, those who "swear" they don't fly above 400' are lying........period.
Dan,

I will respond to you directly because you seem like a reasonable person and you are a JPO member.

If a modeler was to have a collision with a manned aircraft, then the modeler would have an issue to deal with, and yes, lawyers would be involved - regardless of what altitude it occurred, because as the FAR Part 91 says (you know this) and others have pointed out here, 500' is not a hard deck for manned aviation. That is why, as modelers, we need to be good citizens and users of the NAS and not let it happen. "see and avoid"

Let's be clear, NOTHING as far as safety is concerned has changed here, so we need to continue to conduct ourselves safely, as we have for the past 80 years before registration with the FAA was mandated. Just because all of these "discussions" are happening on RCU, does not mean that what we did safely before is now unsafe.

The question is purely a legal one - does pushing a radio button on a website indicating agreement with a "guideline" trump many past years of precedent and a law passed by Congress. Only the courts can make the final call on that, but the AMA says it doesn't, lawyers will tell you it doesn't, and even the FAA themselves have indicated, in many of the documents that they've posted, that it doesn't.

I am perfectly comfortable in my ability to go out and exercise my ability to legally fly within the AMA safety code at my AMA field, or at an AMA sanctioned event, just as I did before I registered with the FAA. However for some people, they may not feel that way, and that is their right - be it right or wrong.

Thank you for your support of the JPO - we will be rolling out some new (or at least re-vamped) stuff this year...

Bob

Last edited by rhklenke; 01-13-2016 at 01:56 PM.
Old 01-13-2016, 02:17 PM
  #365  
RCFlyerDan
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (54)
 
RCFlyerDan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: SWFL
Posts: 2,004
Received 68 Likes on 51 Posts
Default

Thank you Bob for your response........Yes, I like JPO and what the organization is doing for the Jet community. I joined JPO when I first got into jets. Then, last year, due to a mistake on my part with the previous year, I joined twice in one year, so skipped last year, but back to a "renewal" member this year.
Bob, All I ask, is powers to be, as yourself, do your due diligence in our positions of protecting the Jet Community, and also the AMA community, since we normally belong to both. Most of us, don't have the time, energy, money, or authority to fight someone like the FAA, and we depend on those of you who are in charge of these hobby organization.
Back to the hobby room......
Old 01-13-2016, 02:36 PM
  #366  
Sport_Pilot
 
Sport_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 16,916
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by TTRotary
I have read it all, and this is not the point. The only thing that matters at our level, as FAA-certified UAS operators is: when you register with the FAA, one of the conditions you agree to is: "I will fly below 400 feet". In agreeing to that, you have just legally obligated yourself to such course of action, and any infraction of that can be interpreted by the FAA as an endangerment to the NAS. The FAA's enforcement path is very clearly stated in what I previously posted.

What they are basically telling you is: we cannot touch you unless we believe you are endangering the NAS, at which point you cease to be viewed as a "model aircraft" and fall under our enforcement purview. It is exactly the same legal framework as probable cause. When you certify that you will keep it below 400AGl, then violate that and are observed to do so, you are now subject to their enforcement. The fines are stiff, and I am sure the FAA is itching to make an example. Someone who shows intent to deceive (as per Bob's post) would be subject to additional sanctions.


I can assure you that the FAA is serious about enforcement, and they don't make any distinction whatsoever between AMA, non AMA, type of aircraft, or anything else. If it flies and violates, it gets prosecuted, period. At this point, aeromodelers have no friends. I fly full scale and I can assure you that most pilots consider RC air to be a nuisance at best and a safety threat at worst. Most would be fine having it banned altogether. Few FS fly RC, and vice-versa, so there is little mutual appreciation. Finally, air passenger safety trumps everything else. So RC will always lose to full scale in a conflict. It takes only one pilot-reported incident, even of that pilot was totally in the wrong, to get a field shut down. So poking sticks in the eye of the FAA, falsifying your air certificate etc., is a losing proposition.
..


What you don't get is that you acknowledged that there are guidelines. Guidelines by definition are open to interpretation and are not enforceable. The FAR's are enforceable and for model airplanes the 400 foot only exists in the AC which is also advisory and the AMA code.
Old 01-13-2016, 02:40 PM
  #367  
BarracudaHockey
My Feedback: (11)
 
BarracudaHockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 26,960
Received 343 Likes on 274 Posts
Default

Dan, if we haven't met it will be a pleasure to hang out with you at Gathering of Giants. Tony G there is a very good friend of mine and I'll be coming down for at least a few days for that event.
Old 01-13-2016, 02:50 PM
  #368  
ira d
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Maricopa County AZ
Posts: 3,249
Received 5 Likes on 5 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Sport_Pilot
..


What you don't get is that you acknowledged that there are guidelines. Guidelines by definition are open to interpretation and are not enforceable. The FAR's are enforceable and for model airplanes the 400 foot only exists in the AC which is also advisory and the AMA code.
As for some of us until the FAA puts out a statement in writing that the guidelines are not enforceable we will just follow what the FAA had put out. I think we all know if the FAA did not have a problem with RC being freely
operated over 400' they would just simply say so and they would have released a statement to that effect to the AMA.
Old 01-13-2016, 03:02 PM
  #369  
TTRotary
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 197
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by Sport_Pilot
..


What you don't get is that you acknowledged that there are guidelines. Guidelines by definition are open to interpretation and are not enforceable. The FAR's are enforceable and for model airplanes the 400 foot only exists in the AC which is also advisory and the AMA code.
Wrong. You have not acknowledged but instead certified , the following: "I have read, understand, and intend to follow the above safety guidance". I can assure you that the FAA does not believe anything is open to interpretation, and they certainly do intend to enforce them. You are either complying, or violating. There is no grey area. You are deluding yourself if you think otherwise. It's like trying to argue with a traffic cop that you thought the speed limit sign was just a suggestion. Do you really think that you will be just fine flying over stadiums and near law enforcement? I didn't think so. It is no different for the 400AGL, if you are observed doing it.

And once again, what the AMA says, or whether you are flying according to their guidelines when you were observed to violate NAS, is totally irrelevant, as far as the FAA is concerned. The AMA is nothing to the FAA. For better or for worse, and regardless of what we were before, we are all FAA certificate holders now.
Old 01-13-2016, 03:54 PM
  #370  
jws_aces
My Feedback: (33)
 
jws_aces's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Salem, Va
Posts: 1,048
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by TTRotary
Wrong. You have not acknowledged but instead certified , the following: "I have read, understand, and intend to follow the above safety guidance". I can assure you that the FAA does not believe anything is open to interpretation, and they certainly do intend to enforce them. You are either complying, or violating. There is no grey area. You are deluding yourself if you think otherwise. It's like trying to argue with a traffic cop that you thought the speed limit sign was just a suggestion. Do you really think that you will be just fine flying over stadiums and near law enforcement? I didn't think so. It is no different for the 400AGL, if you are observed doing it.

And once again, what the AMA says, or whether you are flying according to their guidelines when you were observed to violate NAS, is totally irrelevant, as far as the FAA is concerned. The AMA is nothing to the FAA. For better or for worse, and regardless of what we were before, we are all FAA certificate holders now.

TT give it up man! You are acting as if you were the LAW!!! Just worry about your self. Laws, rule, guidelines, what ever if you are so scared don't fly or follow what you believe. If others are wrong then so be it and they will have to deal with it.

You are sounding more and more like a lawyer or a snitch.

I don't know you and will probably never meet you in real life. I would like to have a good mental picture of who you are but I have to say it's not looking very good for now.

Chill out..Save all this for your defense with FAA if you make a mistake while flying.
Old 01-13-2016, 04:04 PM
  #371  
junkjet
My Feedback: (55)
 
junkjet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: louisville, KY
Posts: 317
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by jws_aces
I really don't want to debate about it but I will do what I understand has been said by the FAA Representative on Camera. I have not read anything in writting as of now to suggest anything different. If you know of a publish rule or law please post so I can read it.

So with that being said I will fly until the AMA or FAA puts out in writing anything different. I understand if you feel differently about the rules. That is basically what is wrong in the whole thread like I said before. Don't worry about the others only yourself. If they become a danger to your safety that is a different subject.
It's all good Jeff. Just keeping the discussion of the posabilities of what this will mean for us the regulated.
Old 01-13-2016, 05:14 PM
  #372  
TTRotary
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 197
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by jws_aces
TT give it up man! You are acting as if you were the LAW!!! .
There seems to be this mis-perception that the sky is falling and that I'm trying to discourage everyone from flying their jets. That is not at all the case. I personally have absolutely no issue flying under the FAA safety guidelines I have agreed to observe, and I fail to understand why others can't just deal with them as well. What I don't want, is people endangering the hobby for the rest of us by openly challenging the FAA and / or giving the impression that we are signing the certification with intent to mislead. I would hate to think that the FAA is seeing some of the ridiculous responses in this thread, because it would give them all the ammo they need to further tighten the noose.

As to how I'm viewed personally, I really don't care. If I feel others are advancing ideas or behaviors that put the aeromodeling hobby at risk, then I will respond and challenge. If there are bloody noses and hurt feelings along the way, then so be it.
Old 01-13-2016, 07:37 PM
  #373  
HoundDog
My Feedback: (49)
 
HoundDog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Apache Junction AZ. WI 0WI8
Posts: 4,501
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by joeflyer
Here is AMA's position on the 400 ft. guideline, straight from "Update - UAS Registration FAQ's" on AMA's website.

Q: Am I permitted to fly above 400 feet? What if I had to check a box saying otherwise on the federal registration website?
A: Yes. AMA members who abide by the AMA Safety Code, which permits flights above 400 feet under appropriate circumstances, and are protected by the Special Rule for Model Aircraft under the 2012 FAA Modernization and Reform Act. Checking the box on the federal registration webpage signifies an understanding of the 400 foot guideline. This is an important safety principle that all UAS operators need to be aware of, and is the same guideline established in AC 91-57 published in 1981. However, the placement of this guideline on the FAA website is intended as an educational piece and more specifically intended for those operating outside of AMA’s safety program. We have been in discussions with the FAA about this point and the agency has indicted that it will be updating its website in the next week to make clear that this altitude guideline is not intended to supplant the guidance and safety procedures established in AMA’s safety program.
Also read AC9-57A carefully it states all through if flown safely Model aircraft may share airspace with Maned aircraft. so if Full scale are not to be below 500' AGL the Models then are allowed to fly safely and SHARE AIRSPACE with full scale maned aircraft. above 500'AGL.

AC 91-57A
https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/.../AC_91-57A.pdf
Old 01-13-2016, 08:24 PM
  #374  
Sport_Pilot
 
Sport_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 16,916
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by TTRotary
Wrong. You have not acknowledged but instead certified , the following: "I have read, understand, and intend to follow the above safety guidance". I can assure you that the FAA does not believe anything is open to interpretation, and they certainly do intend to enforce them. You are either complying, or violating. There is no grey area. You are deluding yourself if you think otherwise. It's like trying to argue with a traffic cop that you thought the speed limit sign was just a suggestion. Do you really think that you will be just fine flying over stadiums and near law enforcement? I didn't think so. It is no different for the 400AGL, if you are observed doing it.

And once again, what the AMA says, or whether you are flying according to their guidelines when you were observed to violate NAS, is totally irrelevant, as far as the FAA is concerned. The AMA is nothing to the FAA. For better or for worse, and regardless of what we were before, we are all FAA certificate holders now.
To follow a guideline means nothing. The FAA man said as much!
Old 01-13-2016, 09:23 PM
  #375  
TTRotary
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 197
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by Sport_Pilot
To follow a guideline means nothing. The FAA man said as much!


I seriously doubt an FAA made any such statement. Anyway, moot for you. When I typed that, I assumed you had registered. Since then I see you have proclaimed consistently in other threads that you refuse to register, will never register, or words to that effect. I commend you on your rebel stance, but I don't think that will work out for you in the long run. In the meantime, though, you are off the hook, since you didn't represent anything about how you would operate your UAS. I share your disgust with the whole thing, but I figured it's not worth the trouble and let's just get along with life and pursuit of the hobby, so I signed up.

I also think that this is in fact a decent outcome for aeromodeling, knowing what I know about how full scale pilots and the FAA think about the NAS and "intruders" in it (aeromodelers). It could have been a lot worse. In a sense, the future legislation that will come out of the NPRM will put legal fences around UAS and prevent more aggressive legislation against it from either federal or state activists. There are a lot of people out there that want us shut down completely, including soccer moms at the local park. As I said before, we don't have a lot of friends out there.

Again, I have no issue operating my UAS within the FAA safety guidelines.

Last edited by TTRotary; 01-13-2016 at 09:29 PM.

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.