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

pending AMA call to action

Old 10-07-2019, 09:03 AM
  #1  
mongo
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (14)
 
mongo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Midland, TX
Posts: 2,705
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default pending AMA call to action

first post in this thread is important.

https://www.rcgroups.com/forums/show...rom-FAA-coming

probably going to be too little,too late, but we gotta try.

Last edited by mongo; 10-07-2019 at 09:04 AM. Reason: spelling
mongo is offline  
Old 10-07-2019, 01:25 PM
  #2  
DUCMOZ
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: , WA
Posts: 652
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

AMA just sent a letter to all members. Is AMA really surprised? When this all started, most of us asked that they don't mix Model Aircraft with Drones. Bob Violet wrote them a formal letter asking to stay course and predicted that this will happen. But they decided to chase the carrot and we see the result. Honestly, if they are surprised by the action of FAA, then they are more out of touch than it appears. They separated the Drones from Model Aircraft in Europe with decent result. Although might be late, still that needs to be done here. Otherwise, no letter to officials would resolve this issue.
DUCMOZ is offline  
Old 10-07-2019, 01:40 PM
  #3  
RCflyerCT
My Feedback: (13)
 
RCflyerCT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Southbury, CT
Posts: 108
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Originally Posted by DUCMOZ View Post
AMA just sent a letter to all members. Is AMA really surprised? When this all started, most of us asked that they don't mix Model Aircraft with Drones. Bob Violet wrote them a formal letter asking to stay course and predicted that this will happen. But they decided to chase the carrot and we see the result. Honestly, if they are surprised by the action of FAA, then they are more out of touch than it appears. They separated the Drones from Model Aircraft in Europe with decent result. Although might be late, still that needs to be done here. Otherwise, no letter to officials would resolve this issue.
Is sad...agree and can't see any way major jet events will be able to be conducted in the future as these are in controlled air space. Mr. Violet did indeed predict how it would play out.
RCflyerCT is offline  
Old 10-07-2019, 04:09 PM
  #4  
jetjon
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: dallas, TX
Posts: 66
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

The AMA outlived it's usefulness years ago......when it attempted to lure new money to it's coffers w/ trying to attract drone operators! People like myself, who worked for years in hobby shops, always knew this would be the end result! Politics and model airplanes DO NOT MIX!
jetjon is offline  
Old 10-07-2019, 05:08 PM
  #5  
highhorse
 
highhorse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Memphis, TN
Posts: 2,289
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Pontificating about roads not taken does not help now.

Guys, I have no argument that there may have been a better path in the past but since that’s already behind us how about we just do what we can with what we have now?

I’ve already responded to the CTA (Call to Action). It takes 60 seconds at most.
highhorse is offline  
Old 10-07-2019, 05:31 PM
  #6  
ravill
My Feedback: (11)
 
ravill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Granite Bay, Ca
Posts: 5,015
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Cut off the part that's killing you, ie the dead flesh. Let them fight for themselves now after we've tried to help the whole organism (organization) survive with them as part of us.

Many of us didn't want to be thrown in with quad copters. Detractors equated them to the reception control line models got. The difference is rather striking. The FAA didn't start breathing down our throats when control line came around.
ravill is offline  
Old 10-07-2019, 07:13 PM
  #7  
bodywerks
My Feedback: (4)
 
bodywerks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Tucson, AZ
Posts: 3,310
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

I answered the Call To Action!
bodywerks is offline  
Old 10-08-2019, 04:39 AM
  #8  
FalconWings
My Feedback: (57)
 
FalconWings's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Fort Worth, TX
Posts: 6,917
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Originally Posted by RCflyerCT View Post
Is sad...agree and can't see any way major jet events will be able to be conducted in the future as these are in controlled air space. Mr. Violet did indeed predict how it would play out.
All airspace within the US is "controlled", don't forget that. What changes is the reporting requirements.
FalconWings is offline  
Old 10-08-2019, 04:47 AM
  #9  
FalconWings
My Feedback: (57)
 
FalconWings's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Fort Worth, TX
Posts: 6,917
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

BTW, it's funny how you mention the 400' rule at any given forum and folks just lose it. It's like the Voldemort of model aviation, we can ignore it's there, but eventually Tom Riddle dies.
FalconWings is offline  
Old 10-08-2019, 05:32 AM
  #10  
why_fly_high
My Feedback: (19)
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Edmond, OK
Posts: 683
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

I am betting that all the drone pilots that the AMA added don't care about a 400ft limit either.
why_fly_high is offline  
Old 10-08-2019, 06:01 AM
  #11  
jetjon
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: dallas, TX
Posts: 66
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Don't be fooled by the jokes..........the FAA has been visiting local fields here in the DFW area looking for registration numbers and watching the flying........the 114th Aero Squadron was visited 3 times,(per the President of our local club)..... I guess, no harm,no foul..........but this is a first in my lifetime of flying model airplanes.
jetjon is offline  
Old 10-08-2019, 06:30 AM
  #12  
sysiek
My Feedback: (176)
 
sysiek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Chicago , IL
Posts: 1,744
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

We need younger people in AMA more energetic and on top of everything , this might be a good start for change something,just my 1 cent
sysiek is offline  
Old 10-08-2019, 07:20 AM
  #13  
RC Larry-RCU
My Feedback: (1)
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 858
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

https://amablog.modelaircraft.org/am...19/10/07/4029/

Modelers and clubs really need to read this. Like most, I am really disappointed with the direction the AMA decided to go with this in the early days. Like the post above, I seriously doubt ANY of the drone guys are concerned with this latest action from the FAA. No doubt, the majority of quad/drone flyers out there are still renegades flying wherever, whenever. Probably too late at this point, but we really need to be separated from the quad/drone crowd if at all possible. What little revenue the AMA may have generated trying to pull these guys in with us will be washed when the rest of us loose our ability to fly our models above 400 ft. Park flyers are cool, but not where my main interest is. Loosing the ability to fly my turbines and larger aircraft will no doubt have me questioning "Do I need AMA anymore".
RC Larry-RCU is offline  
Old 10-08-2019, 07:34 AM
  #14  
Frank Alvarez
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Summerville, SC
Posts: 299
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Gentlemen,

Your right, there is no point in beating the “proverbial” dead-horse now!

Lets regroup...
Our letter campaign “may” catch an interest, however, having dealt with the FAA for nearly 33 years professionally, I believe
we have a struggle on our hands in convincing them to alter course in our favor!
Not throwing in the towel, but on the contrary... rolling up my sleeve!
Time to call, write, text etc etc... time to “turn up the volume”!
Franko
Frank Alvarez is offline  
Old 10-08-2019, 07:35 AM
  #15  
RC Larry-RCU
My Feedback: (1)
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 858
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Originally Posted by Frank Alvarez View Post
Gentlemen,

Your right, there is no point in beating the “proverbial” dead-horse now!

Lets regroup...
Our letter campaign “may” catch an interest, however, having dealt with the FAA for nearly 33 years professionally, I believe
we have a struggle on our hands in convincing them to alter course in our favor!
Not throwing in the towel, but on the contrary... rolling up my sleeve!
Time to call, write, text etc etc... time to “turn up the volume”!
Franko
Spot On Frank!!
RC Larry-RCU is offline  
Old 10-08-2019, 08:56 AM
  #16  
rcjetsaok
My Feedback: (7)
 
rcjetsaok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Texas
Posts: 2,561
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Ya'll might want to watch Joel's video.... sounds like he might know something.... I don't know enough to know one way ore the other...

https://www.facebook.com/joel.a.wils...5094509938935/
rcjetsaok is offline  
Old 10-08-2019, 10:42 AM
  #17  
Frank Alvarez
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Summerville, SC
Posts: 299
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Hey folks,

I have just finished watching Joel’s compelling video presentation.
I’ll second the recommendation to view it!
It certainly brings to bear the reality of what we are up against.
While many of us are chomping at the bit to begin the battle, including me, as I alluded in my previous note. His thorough debrief
illiterates the importance of looking at the issue collectively with the Feds, as apposed to the “you against I” syndromes.
I stand ready to do my part...how may I assist?
Franko
Frank Alvarez is offline  
Old 10-08-2019, 11:12 AM
  #18  
RC Larry-RCU
My Feedback: (1)
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 858
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Wow!!!
Thanks for posting this link Frank. First time seeing this and I have heard nothing of this until viewing it. I have to say that it has me stepping back and looking at this with more hope than before, and rethinking how we must all approach this issue. I think rcjetsaok may have hit on a good point that Joel obviously has a lead on some very good and useful information, and I believe we need to all take a deep breath and follow his lead.
Put me in the line up Joel! I'm ready to assist as well.
RC Larry-RCU is offline  
Old 10-08-2019, 11:51 AM
  #19  
rhklenke
My Feedback: (24)
 
rhklenke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 5,808
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

The FAA has been granting permission for "public entities" to fly UAS in the NAS for over a decade under a process called Certificate of Authorization (CoA). I have worked within the CoA process since soon after its inception and up until recently, I have maintained CoAs for our research work as a public university.

The CoA approval process call for the FAA ATO to give final approval of the CoA based on the location of the activity in the NAS. In my involvement with CoAs, across several different organizations and different locations, the altitude limit is set at the top of the Class G airspace - i.e., the point where Class E airspace starts. This is either 1200' or 700' AGL, depending on where the location is. Universally, Class E airspace starts at 1200'. The 700' Class E airspace is a transition area which typically surrounds airports that are uncontrolled, but have a certain amount of traffic and/or have instrument approaches.

In my involvement in the CoA process, I have not seen a CoA approved for altitudes above the bottom of Class E airspace. I believe that it is (and has been) possible to request a CoA for higher altitudes, but I have not actually seen it done, or approved. Unfortunately, I'm not surprised that ATO is planning on putting the limit in Class G airspace at 700' or 1200', that's what they've been doing for over a decade.

Within Controlled airspace, (Class E to the surface, Classes B, C, and D) the FAA ATO already did an assessment of how high they could routinely allow UAS flights. That data is shown in the FAA's UAS Facility Maps (see link on https://www.faa.gov/uas/commercial_o...facility_maps/). I'm also not surprised that ATO is holding club fields in controlled airspace to the altitudes on the Facility Maps. They've already done the analysis on how high they should allow, so why would they do something different?

I'm fully in agreement that this sucks and doesn't take into consideration the safety record of MODEL AIRPLANES vs. drones.

I think what Joel is alluding to is creation of a "third" category between "recreational UAS flyer" and "commercial UAS flyer" - i.e., a licensed "model aircraft pilot" for those who want to go higher and/or faster than allowed under Section 349 or FAR Part 107. I hope he is right, and I wouldn't hesitate in doing what it might take to obtain such a license. I *teach* classes on commercial drone flying under Part 107, and its not rocket science (although certain parts are confusing to lay people off the streets with no aviation background or affinity). I'd be more than willing to teach fellow jet guys about airspace, regulations, etc. for free as necessary to pass such a test.

Bob

Last edited by rhklenke; 10-08-2019 at 11:54 AM.
rhklenke is offline  
Old 10-08-2019, 12:18 PM
  #20  
causeitflies
 
causeitflies's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: EASTERN OHIO
Posts: 2,134
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

The video also alludes to a whole new CBO possibly outside of the AMA.
causeitflies is offline  
Old 10-08-2019, 12:28 PM
  #21  
mongo
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (14)
 
mongo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Midland, TX
Posts: 2,705
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

copied fron the LM call to action of 8 Oct 19

"
Commonly Asked Questions for the October Call to Action



Q: How can I act? A: Visitwww.modelaircraft.org/higher-flightor www.modelaircraft.org/gov.Simply enter your name and location, AMA will populate the form with your elected legislators. We have also provided text you can use or edit to make your own. We encourage all of those who support the hobby to participate.

Q: What are the recreational UAS altitude restrictions found in this FAA policy? A: Recreational UAS users will only be permitted to fly up to 400 feet in controlled airspace. This altitude will vary depending upon the user's location. In uncontrolled airspace, recreational users will be permitted to fly up to 700 feet or 1,200 feet, depending upon the user's location. It is unclear at this time if these uncontrolled airspace altitudes will be permitted only at fixed flying site locations. Controlled and uncontrolled airspace locations can be found on the FAA's UAS Facility Map.

Q: This new FAA policy would restrict flights to 400 feet and below in controlled airspace. What is controlled airspace? A: Controlled airspace is typically found within 5 miles of an airport with air traffic control towers. However, keep in mind that there are some airports in controlled airspace that don't have control towers.

Q: Is there a waiver process to fly above 400 feet in controlled airspace? A: The policy is not finalized, but we are being told that there will not be a waiver process for flights over 400 feet in controlled airspace.

Q: Our flying site is located in controlled airspace. Should we continue working through the LOA process?A: Yes. Flying sites located in controlled airspace will still require a letter of agreement (LOA) with local air traffic control (ATC) facilities.

Q: The LOA we received from our local ATC is unsatisfactory. Should we still sign it?

A: No. If you have received an LOA that you are unhappy with, reach out to the AMA Government Affairs team before signing it.



Q: What is uncontrolled airspace?

A: Uncontrolled airspace, or Class G airspace, is typically found in rural areas away from airports.



Q: How high will I be able to fly in uncontrolled airspace? A: The FAA has stated that it is working on a blanket flying site waiver for uncontrolled airspace. This will allow AMA members to fly up to 700 feet or 1,200 feet depending upon the location within Class G airspace.

Q: Isn't flying up to 700 feet or 1,200 feet in Class G airspace good? A: Although these altitudes will be sufficient for most of our members, we have a number of disciplines that will need to go higher than these proposed heights. Thermal soaring, large model aircraft, turbine jets, and international competitions will suffer greatly if there is a hard cap at these heights. Not only will these disciplines suffer, but the industry supporting these disciplines will be negatively impacted.

Q: New recreational requirements were signed into law in October 2018. Why am I just hearing of this? A: The FAA has been working to implement the new recreational requirements for months. Until recently, the FAA has been telling AMA that our operations will not be negatively impacted. However, within the last week, the FAA informed us of a coming policy that will not allow altitude waivers for recreational fliers.

Q: I want to do my part. How can I help address these burdensome altitude restrictions? A: Use the link provided by AMA to contact your senators and representatives. Congress gave the FAA the flexibility to allow AMA operations to continue as they have for decades. It's time your congressional representatives inform the FAA that your voice needs to be heard.

Q: These altitudes will be perfect for the type of flying I do. Should I still contact Congress? A: Absolutely. We should show our support to all aspects of model aviation. Although these altitude restrictions only appear to impact a minority of the hobby, they will have a negative impact on the hobby as a whole once they are implemented."
mongo is offline  
Old 10-08-2019, 02:02 PM
  #22  
RCFlyerDan
My Feedback: (52)
 
RCFlyerDan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Cape Coral
Posts: 1,529
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

It still comes down to; you can’t enforce what can’t be visually and accurately determined. If there’s a laser gun that takes out slant range for altitude, I am not aware of it. We’ve all been through the exercise of putting a drone up at 400’. Most can’t believe how low it truly is above the ground. GPS reporting lags too much and the jet is up through and back down through 400, 700, 1200, before the gps relays the altitude. Every Club Officers just guess and yell if they think you are above 400, 700, or 1200. I just don’t know how they think it can be enforced.
This may sound dumb, but propose raising the minimum floor? For aircraft they need to be 1000’ above people and property instead of 500. 1000’ would go to 1500’. This I would think would help the commercial drones, UPS, Amazon, etc. Of course all IFR approaches would be protected. Most airliner and corporate jets are Fl350 and above, rather than Fl350 and lower with the older jets when the airspace was created. This opens up more airspace.
Just a thought.......
RCFlyerDan is offline  
Old 10-08-2019, 03:00 PM
  #23  
ira d
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Maricopa County AZ
Posts: 3,151
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

The AMA came up with this CBO language in the original 336 to attempt a end run around the FAA and to force anyone flying RC in the usa to be a AMA member. It appears that idea has backfired on the AMA
and if someone can come up with a new CBO that will work with the FAA on behalf of all RC flyers and not to try gain membership at the modelers expense will be moving in the right direction.

Last edited by ira d; 10-08-2019 at 03:02 PM.
ira d is online now  
Old 10-08-2019, 04:28 PM
  #24  
patrnflyr
My Feedback: (7)
 
patrnflyr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Lubbock, TX
Posts: 1,006
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Everybody's forgetting one thing=== ADS-B It's a requirement for full scale aircraft after December 31 of this year. My plane would've cost around $10K for a decent system. There is talk out there about miniaturizing this system and placing it in RC aircraft. It gives the owner's name, address, direction, speed and whether it's climbing or descending. If they eventually impose this on us, there'll be no cheating as these things report continuously. What's after that? Licensing of ALL RC pilots, physical exams including an eye exam, written examinations, flight tests. Remember, this is the way full scale started out and getting a license to fly now has a crazy path to it. You all can say I'm a "sky is falling" type guy which is true, but I've seen the government in action with full scale and it rarely ever gets easier (except sport planes)
patrnflyr is offline  
Old 10-08-2019, 04:46 PM
  #25  
Auburn02
My Feedback: (1)
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 787
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Originally Posted by patrnflyr View Post
Everybody's forgetting one thing=== ADS-B It's a requirement for full scale aircraft after December 31 of this year.
...in class A, B or C airspace or within the class B mode C ring. Personally I have no interest or want to ever fly an RC airplane in A, B or C airspace. The class B 30 mile ring would surely affect a number of clubs, however.
Auburn02 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

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

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.