Latest FAA Requthorization bill...
10-04-2018, 09:59 AM
#76
I can't believe AMA allowed this bill to go forward without fighting harder for us. I'm very disappointed. 400 feet in all uncontrolled airspace? Making people take exams to fly RC? Yeah right, I'm really interested to see how well that works for the $10 Walmart quads and the Harbor Freight foamies, sold by the thousands every day. This bill is a ridiculous shame that's going to be famously ignored by the majority of people who buy these toys. I'm also starting to wonder what good JPO is doing for us? It appears that we have been completely blindsided by this. WTH???
Since they have been emailing us constantly with updates, if you were blindsided - perhaps you need to check your spam folder for the AMA stuff.
Just remember: They are from the govmnt, and they're hea to hep! .....
10-04-2018, 05:50 PM
#77
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Redstone, CO, USA
Posts: 390
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry Bob & Greg, but the AMA fielded a sand lot baseball team against the Commercial Drone guys Major Leaguers.......
On this particular issue the AMA is the Chijuajua snapping at the Bull Mastif.
Bob, so the AMA will work with the FAA to bring “common sense” to the Congressionally mandated 400’ AGL restriction?
......I don’t think so.
BV was right.
- Mike
On this particular issue the AMA is the Chijuajua snapping at the Bull Mastif.
Bob, so the AMA will work with the FAA to bring “common sense” to the Congressionally mandated 400’ AGL restriction?
......I don’t think so.
BV was right.
- Mike
10-05-2018, 04:26 AM
#78
So we should all fly at airports! From what I see the 400ft limit is only in class G (uncontrolled) airspace. If you get permission to fly in class C etc. It is up to the controller of that space to set your altitude limit? I also see that we can fly in any airspace with permission. In the past we lost the right to fly at a low use airport because the airport took free money from the Government or FAA for upgrades. When they did this the FAA told them the airport could only be used for Full scale planes. It could not hold a car show on its grounds or allow RC planes or the Airport would have to pay the free money back so we were no longer allowed. Can you say blackmail! This is the crap that we are going to deal with.
10-05-2018, 05:26 AM
#79
Sorry Bob & Greg, but the AMA fielded a sand lot baseball team against the Commercial Drone guys Major Leaguers.......
On this particular issue the AMA is the Chijuajua snapping at the Bull Mastif.
Bob, so the AMA will work with the FAA to bring “common sense” to the Congressionally mandated 400’ AGL restriction?
......I don’t think so.
BV was right.
- Mike
On this particular issue the AMA is the Chijuajua snapping at the Bull Mastif.
Bob, so the AMA will work with the FAA to bring “common sense” to the Congressionally mandated 400’ AGL restriction?
......I don’t think so.
BV was right.
- Mike
Yes, I think that they will. There are provisions in the bill to do just that.
The AMA fielded what they could afford - and did as much as they could. The scales were totally unbalanced by the *COMMERCIAL* (i.e., MONEY) interests on the other side.
As far as BV (and others) are concerned, what did they do to help - NOTHING! For that matter, where are our manufactures/suppliers in all this? Why didn't they bring their political power to bear. What did we get from them? CRICKETS...
Bob
Last edited by rhklenke; 10-05-2018 at 05:29 AM.
10-05-2018, 05:58 AM
#80
My Feedback: (53)
Guys, yes I’m Canadian.....but follow some USA/Canada mailing list..... I’m guessing AMA doesn’t send anything about what they are doing in the background......the same applied for MAAC.
Here’s a snip from this morning names removed since I don’t know if I can...all seem good for the future.
So let relax until the statement is out......I do like going to event in the USA as well 
Here’s a snip from this morning names removed since I don’t know if I can...all seem good for the future.
Chad B********* and Tyler D**** returned from DC with great news – we’re going to be all good. The AMA will issue a statement later this morning and then a joint AMA/FAA release will follow. Go fly!
10-05-2018, 07:49 AM
#81
So we should all fly at airports! From what I see the 400ft limit is only in class G (uncontrolled) airspace. If you get permission to fly in class C etc. It is up to the controller of that space to set your altitude limit? I also see that we can fly in any airspace with permission. In the past we lost the right to fly at a low use airport because the airport took free money from the Government or FAA for upgrades. When they did this the FAA told them the airport could only be used for Full scale planes. It could not hold a car show on its grounds or allow RC planes or the Airport would have to pay the free money back so we were no longer allowed. Can you say blackmail! This is the crap that we are going to deal with.
However I can report that we fly at a full scale low use airport, our operations parameters states to notify airport manager, carry radio to monitor air traffic, we must fly with spotter who is cognizant of full scale operations (not all aircraft call in! ), yield to full scale, i.e. land and get back behind hold line to maintain safe distance from runway during full scale operations. Common sense solutions.
The local FAA field agent had no issues with this set up, and the airport has accepted FAA grants.
It could be that the attitude has been changing on the use of full scale airports, or may have been interpreted differently by various people.
To that end, there are a few rather large Jet meets being held successfully at full scale airports with the cooperation of the airport managers (working with FAA) who are typically very pleased to see activity at their facility, a public relations coup for them and a win for all jet flyers in attendance.
10-05-2018, 07:59 AM
#82
My Feedback: (5)
As I heard it the AMA had met over two days with Senators and the FAA and "all were agreed to let AMA members fly under our (AMA) safety program and continue to be able to fly above 400'". I was and remain cautiously optimistic.
I also read some quotes by flyers in other countries, like Germany, who said that they had the same kind of arrangement through their CBO when similar regulations came down. If true, I expect that the AMA was aware of how it worked in other countries and pitched that we should do the same here.
We will see what the forthcoming communication says but this sounds like good work by the AMA and great news!
I also read some quotes by flyers in other countries, like Germany, who said that they had the same kind of arrangement through their CBO when similar regulations came down. If true, I expect that the AMA was aware of how it worked in other countries and pitched that we should do the same here.
We will see what the forthcoming communication says but this sounds like good work by the AMA and great news!
10-05-2018, 07:59 AM
#83
Rich,
You are 100% correct, thanks for chiming in.
I have said the same things before, and I would add that in Virginia, the Department of Aviation (DOAV) is developing a standard operating procedure for flying sUAS (which model airplanes are, by definition) at full-scale airports.
There are very few airports that do not receive federal funding. The law says that you can not shut down such an airport for a non-aviation event. It DOES NOT say that you can not have such events at the airport. Stafford County airport, like many municipal airports, host a "Wings and Wheels DAY" which includes a CAR SHOW - perfectly accepted, allowed, and even encouraged as it brings the general public out to see their airport in their community and it brings a lot of money into the airport to help support it - thus making even better use of the federal funds that pay for airport improvements...
Bob
You are 100% correct, thanks for chiming in.
I have said the same things before, and I would add that in Virginia, the Department of Aviation (DOAV) is developing a standard operating procedure for flying sUAS (which model airplanes are, by definition) at full-scale airports.
There are very few airports that do not receive federal funding. The law says that you can not shut down such an airport for a non-aviation event. It DOES NOT say that you can not have such events at the airport. Stafford County airport, like many municipal airports, host a "Wings and Wheels DAY" which includes a CAR SHOW - perfectly accepted, allowed, and even encouraged as it brings the general public out to see their airport in their community and it brings a lot of money into the airport to help support it - thus making even better use of the federal funds that pay for airport improvements...
Bob
10-05-2018, 08:00 AM
#84
As I heard it the AMA had met over two days with Senators and the FAA and "all were agreed to let AMA members fly under our (AMA) safety program and continue to be able to fly above 400'". I was and remain cautiously optimistic.
I also read some quotes by flyers in other countries, like Germany, who said that they had the same kind of arrangement through their CBO when similar regulations came down. If true, I expect that the AMA was aware of how it worked in other countries and pitched that we should do the same here.
We will see what the forthcoming communication says but this sounds like good work by the AMA and great news!
I also read some quotes by flyers in other countries, like Germany, who said that they had the same kind of arrangement through their CBO when similar regulations came down. If true, I expect that the AMA was aware of how it worked in other countries and pitched that we should do the same here.
We will see what the forthcoming communication says but this sounds like good work by the AMA and great news!
Bob
10-05-2018, 02:04 PM
#85
I really hope that the AMA and JPO can work together to help guide the FAA on this new law and ruling. Right now it doesn't really do any good to point fingers. It is what it is and we need to find a way to work with the FAA to help them be comfortable with the idea that we are not the same as the commercial guys and that we are willing to work with them to ensure the safety of the national airspace. It just feels like a punch in the gut to see this get moved forward so fast with these provisions put in the bill.
I'm told by a good source that these rulings most likely won't have any affect on what we are already doing outside controlled airspace. They had to have them to give the FAA some enforcement capability as it relates to the really populated areas where people have already proven themselves to be irresponsible fools flying around controlled airspace. Time will tell.
I'm told by a good source that these rulings most likely won't have any affect on what we are already doing outside controlled airspace. They had to have them to give the FAA some enforcement capability as it relates to the really populated areas where people have already proven themselves to be irresponsible fools flying around controlled airspace. Time will tell.
10-05-2018, 06:43 PM
#86
I really hope that the AMA and JPO can work together to help guide the FAA on this new law and ruling. Right now it doesn't really do any good to point fingers. It is what it is and we need to find a way to work with the FAA to help them be comfortable with the idea that we are not the same as the commercial guys and that we are willing to work with them to ensure the safety of the national airspace. It just feels like a punch in the gut to see this get moved forward so fast with these provisions put in the bill.
I'm told by a good source that these rulings most likely won't have any affect on what we are already doing outside controlled airspace. They had to have them to give the FAA some enforcement capability as it relates to the really populated areas where people have already proven themselves to be irresponsible fools flying around controlled airspace. Time will tell.
I'm told by a good source that these rulings most likely won't have any affect on what we are already doing outside controlled airspace. They had to have them to give the FAA some enforcement capability as it relates to the really populated areas where people have already proven themselves to be irresponsible fools flying around controlled airspace. Time will tell.
That is exactly the case - there was just too much pressure to do the same thing on the hobby side as the commercial side - that is, throw a 400' blanket over the whole thing. But, just like on the commercial side, there are holes poked in that blanket for demonstrated safe operations. That is the case with operations under the AMA safety code - many, many decades of demonstrated safe operation in the NAS. That is what allowed us to keep operating as we have been in the past and will do so in the future.
Personally, I do expect that in the future, the AMA is going to have to take a more "active" stand on following the rules, or we risk loosing those provisions. I have no desire to be the "police," but we're now "on the hook" for keeping our operations safe by following our rules, so we're going to have to at least have a policy of what to do when someone doesn't - which we currently do not have...
Bob
Bob
10-06-2018, 04:58 AM
#87
My Feedback: (21)
Ok I have stayed quite but I feel I need to speak up. I have contacted the AMA and Spoke with Angie. I was informed that the FAA DID NOT WANT this responsibility to moderate model airplanes. Congress and the senate shoved it down the FAA's throat. I was also informed that the FAA HAS TOLD THE AMA IT IS NOT GOING TO ENFORCE THE 400 foot limit or the testing. The FAA told the AMA that they simply DO NOT have the man power andhave more important things to do. The AMA is working on having these 2 rules removed as they did when they worked to keep section 336. The Identity program for aircraft is going to be for the commercial based industry for the drone delivery.
Joe Lewis
Joe Lewis
10-07-2018, 04:21 AM
#89
Yep. One only has to look in the forums to see how many know so little about the airspace and flight rules. I find it hard to believe that FAA will completely ignore a specific provision in law .. "Angie's" expertise in Federal Agency enforcement policy not withstanding of course. I think it's not "if" but just "when."
I would note that there's no better way to draw attention than to have hobbyists, members of the AMA, be seen not following the rules. I also can't imagine the AMA doing anything in the way of enforcement.
I would note that there's no better way to draw attention than to have hobbyists, members of the AMA, be seen not following the rules. I also can't imagine the AMA doing anything in the way of enforcement.
10-07-2018, 03:33 PM
#90
Yep. One only has to look in the forums to see how many know so little about the airspace and flight rules. I find it hard to believe that FAA will completely ignore a specific provision in law .. "Angie's" expertise in Federal Agency enforcement policy not withstanding of course. I think it's not "if" but just "when."
I would note that there's no better way to draw attention than to have hobbyists, members of the AMA, be seen not following the rules. I also can't imagine the AMA doing anything in the way of enforcement.
I would note that there's no better way to draw attention than to have hobbyists, members of the AMA, be seen not following the rules. I also can't imagine the AMA doing anything in the way of enforcement.
What the vast majority of AMA members have, that the majority of other "recreational" sUAS pilots (and a lot of the "commercial sUAS pilots as well) do not have, is an affinity and love of aviation that leads to respect for manned aviation that can not be taught in a simple "knowledge test." That is in fact why the Virginia Department of Aviation is developing an SOP for operating sUAS at full-scale airports. They want to bring the sUAS pilot community into the greater aviation community to develop the relationship with manned aviation that AMA members already have.
Bob
ps. the majority of AMA members I fly with have much more civilian aviation experience that anyone on the "commercial drone" side.
10-08-2018, 08:21 AM
#92
On the other hand, being a successful teacher of knowledge prep courses for the Remote Pilot in Command (i.e., Part 107) test, I can tell you that you indeed have to have some knowledge of the airspace rules to pass the test, but you can also easily see in the forums that having that knowledge and licenses does not in any way mean that the pilot is going to follow them.
What the vast majority of AMA members have, that the majority of other "recreational" sUAS pilots (and a lot of the "commercial sUAS pilots as well) do not have, is an affinity and love of aviation that leads to respect for manned aviation that can not be taught in a simple "knowledge test." That is in fact why the Virginia Department of Aviation is developing an SOP for operating sUAS at full-scale airports. They want to bring the sUAS pilot community into the greater aviation community to develop the relationship with manned aviation that AMA members already have.
Bob
ps. the majority of AMA members I fly with have much more civilian aviation experience that anyone on the "commercial drone" side.
What the vast majority of AMA members have, that the majority of other "recreational" sUAS pilots (and a lot of the "commercial sUAS pilots as well) do not have, is an affinity and love of aviation that leads to respect for manned aviation that can not be taught in a simple "knowledge test." That is in fact why the Virginia Department of Aviation is developing an SOP for operating sUAS at full-scale airports. They want to bring the sUAS pilot community into the greater aviation community to develop the relationship with manned aviation that AMA members already have.
Bob
ps. the majority of AMA members I fly with have much more civilian aviation experience that anyone on the "commercial drone" side.
AMA doesn’t have the will to enforce their rules.
10-08-2018, 09:29 AM
#93
I'm not sure that your second sentence is true either. Its a different world now, so we will see...
Bob
10-08-2018, 03:42 PM
#94
That's because you don't have enough real-world experience in this area to see the difference. If you did, you'd know, from experience that passing a Part. 107 knowledge test has no significant relationship to being a safe sUAS pilot. You'd also know that given an equal number of AMA members and commercial RPIC license holders you'll find more manned aviation experience and a greater sense of how to operate in the NAS safely in the group of AMA members than the commercial RPIC license holders.
I'm not sure that your second sentence is true either. Its a different world now, so we will see...
Bob
I'm not sure that your second sentence is true either. Its a different world now, so we will see...
Bob
I think we have to agree to disagree. But regardless, the demographics and the revenue trends are as constant as the northern star. So it’s not “if” but “when” the profound change will happen. And not following the rules will bring even more attention - deservedly so I would add.
10-09-2018, 05:00 AM
#95
Frank, c'mon
Airline pilots show up drunk or crash due to flying into icing or other short cuts to make schedule. Military pilots fly beyond their ability and common sense and take out cable cars or run landing gear legs up through the wing showing off.
Does it happen often given the number of flights that take place daily? NO, same with RC, there's a few idiots, no group that includes humans is perfect. But given the number of flights annually the incidence of idiots is relatively small and both cases you cite are the exception and the PA case was as much the neighbors issue as the clubs and the other one I dealt with as soon as it was brought to my attention when I was VP
Airline pilots show up drunk or crash due to flying into icing or other short cuts to make schedule. Military pilots fly beyond their ability and common sense and take out cable cars or run landing gear legs up through the wing showing off.
Does it happen often given the number of flights that take place daily? NO, same with RC, there's a few idiots, no group that includes humans is perfect. But given the number of flights annually the incidence of idiots is relatively small and both cases you cite are the exception and the PA case was as much the neighbors issue as the clubs and the other one I dealt with as soon as it was brought to my attention when I was VP
10-09-2018, 07:55 AM
#97
"The record clearly demonstrates that the speed, size and weight of the model airplanes and jets have increased over the past five decades to characteristics where safety needs to be the primary concern."
and
"The record is replete with testimony. . . evidencing the Club's inability to ensure the safety of [Landowners'] neighbors and the public at large. There have been numerous complaints, crashes, and trespasses by Club members retrieving fallen parts from neighboring land. The Club's actions are increasingly putting residents, workers, livestock, buildings, equipment, and crops in threatening situations."
And that was't the only thing. Here's an observation of these courteous and knowledgable "love of aviation" AMA club behaviors:"A couple of summers ago I took my young grandson to a publicized jet rally at this field. It was Sunday morning, and a show team was there from a big distributor, flying a pair of A-10's. The song they chose to fly to was "Highway to Hell", and it was played LOUD! The club sits up on a hill and the music drifted into the valleys, probably carrying for some distance. I thought it was a poor choice of music because here in rural Berks County, where I grew up, most still believe in keeping the Sabbath holy, and those less fervent still respect the beliefs of their neighbors. The judge may have cited safety concerns, but I think it was more than that." (note 1)
The overflights mentioned by the judge happened under the direct supervisor of the "Agents of the AMA" (CDs). Again, not a one time thing, it was happening for years. Online YouTube has a member of that club flying to over 1000 feet in class E at 700. When does a flyby of himself, the camera clearly shows nary a spotter anywhere. This is what a failure of self-regulation looks like.
As for "Mayhem Field" or "Mayhem Park," I forget which. Ask Andy about "Fast Freddie." The guy posting online his 260 mph speed runs, to include high speed vertical dives at busy interstate exchanges filled with cars. Overflights of picnic areas in the park. Overflight of occupied buildings. And after he lands, you can see all the other members that stood by and did nothing while all this was happening. Oh, and the field requires AMA membership. Why wasn't it reported by any of the members? Clearly the guy wasn't making his first flight there (he's got other videos). Another example of the failure of self regulation (Note 2).
One doesn't have to look far to find videos with velocity vectors pointed at crowds, jets into pits causing 2nd degree burns (where small difference in vector means it in the crowd), or mid-airs where wreckage can end up anywhere. Or maybe a fire that required helicopter water drop response?
Note 1: (Post #5) https://www.rcgroups.com/forums/show...s#post36411309
Note 2:
and
"The record is replete with testimony. . . evidencing the Club's inability to ensure the safety of [Landowners'] neighbors and the public at large. There have been numerous complaints, crashes, and trespasses by Club members retrieving fallen parts from neighboring land. The Club's actions are increasingly putting residents, workers, livestock, buildings, equipment, and crops in threatening situations."
And that was't the only thing. Here's an observation of these courteous and knowledgable "love of aviation" AMA club behaviors:"A couple of summers ago I took my young grandson to a publicized jet rally at this field. It was Sunday morning, and a show team was there from a big distributor, flying a pair of A-10's. The song they chose to fly to was "Highway to Hell", and it was played LOUD! The club sits up on a hill and the music drifted into the valleys, probably carrying for some distance. I thought it was a poor choice of music because here in rural Berks County, where I grew up, most still believe in keeping the Sabbath holy, and those less fervent still respect the beliefs of their neighbors. The judge may have cited safety concerns, but I think it was more than that." (note 1)
The overflights mentioned by the judge happened under the direct supervisor of the "Agents of the AMA" (CDs). Again, not a one time thing, it was happening for years. Online YouTube has a member of that club flying to over 1000 feet in class E at 700. When does a flyby of himself, the camera clearly shows nary a spotter anywhere. This is what a failure of self-regulation looks like.
As for "Mayhem Field" or "Mayhem Park," I forget which. Ask Andy about "Fast Freddie." The guy posting online his 260 mph speed runs, to include high speed vertical dives at busy interstate exchanges filled with cars. Overflights of picnic areas in the park. Overflight of occupied buildings. And after he lands, you can see all the other members that stood by and did nothing while all this was happening. Oh, and the field requires AMA membership. Why wasn't it reported by any of the members? Clearly the guy wasn't making his first flight there (he's got other videos). Another example of the failure of self regulation (Note 2).
One doesn't have to look far to find videos with velocity vectors pointed at crowds, jets into pits causing 2nd degree burns (where small difference in vector means it in the crowd), or mid-airs where wreckage can end up anywhere. Or maybe a fire that required helicopter water drop response?
Note 1: (Post #5) https://www.rcgroups.com/forums/show...s#post36411309
Note 2:
Last edited by franklin_m; 10-09-2018 at 07:59 AM.
10-09-2018, 11:06 AM
#99
Well, that statement carries some profound implications then. You contend this body of members knows how to safely integrate. Does that imply that the Fairview Flyers and “Mayhem Park” types are then willfully violating those principles?
I think we have to agree to disagree. But regardless, the demographics and the revenue trends are as constant as the northern star. So it’s not “if” but “when” the profound change will happen. And not following the rules will bring even more attention - deservedly so I would add.
As far as your discussion of Farview Flyers and Markham Park, those two situations are in the vast minority of AMA sites and AMA flyers. As already pointed out, all segments of aviation, *including military aviation* have issues. We could post lots of videos here showing them and the smoking holes they generated, but that's not appropriate for this discussion.
BTW, AMA has "guidance" with respect to overflight of surrounding property, but no rules to that effect. The AMA rules in that regard are the same as for Part 107 (I wonder where those came from - oh, I know where they came from - the AMA rules - just like the 55lbs, and many other Part 107 rules) "I will avoid flying directly over unprotected people, moving vehicles, and occupied structures."
Bob