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.

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.

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!

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.

I answered the Call To Action!

All airspace within the US is "controlled", don't forget that. What changes is the reporting requirements.

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.

I am betting that all the drone pilots that the AMA added don't care about a 400ft limit either.

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.

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".

Spot On Frank!!

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/

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.

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

copied fron the LM call to action of 8 Oct 19

"

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.

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)

...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.