Originally Posted by
speedracerntrixie
Why just class G? For the record I have no issue with 400' in uncontrolled airspace. In controlled airspace I beleive that we can still function safely as we have without incident. Of course this would require evaluation on a site by site basis but should be possible. Please do not reply with an answer that would indicate that the effort required would be a waste on a bunch of guys flying toy airplanes. Refusing to do the evaluations would create that " seperate class of citizen " you are so vocal about avoiding.
As far as enforcement is concerned, now is a great time for that discussion as the AMA Nats are taking place very soon. No events to my knowledge have been canceled. AMA pattern is being held in Blytheville Ak, an air base with an active runway and host to B-52 squadron. If the FAA was as dead set about 349 being carved in stone law would this not be a perfect opportunity for them to flex some muscle?
Other than class G is being worked right now. In fact if you read the authorization posted above, it says that the fixed site thing is temporary. It also adds that in all cases, the maximum altitude is per the LAANC grid sector. I don't see a local guy over-ruling what came out of the FAA administrator's office. As for the pattern nats in mid July, it's entirely possible that shoe just hasn't dropped yet. It's still six weeks out. You see what's happening in Sepulveda. That's the harbinger of things to come. Eventually LAANC will be available in all cases to recreational folks, whether or not flying from a fixed site.
In the meantime, I've yet to see any official document, website, public statement, etc. out of FAA that says anyone is allowed to exceed 400' AGL ... EVER. Only the AMA is saying that, and it's because someone's "friend's neighbor's cousin's husband" who works at the FAA said something. If AMA has a document in writing from FAA saying that they don't have to follow the law because it's not a regulation, don't you think they'd have posted it by now? The reality is they don't have it. They know or should know that their advice to members to "fly as we always have" is wrong.
Time is on the side of the arguments I'm making. It's pretty clear which direction FAA is headed. Even if AMA gets waivers in controlled airspace to go above 400 feet from fixed sites, there's what, a couple hundred of them? That's not enough to support membership. And a blanket to go above 400 feet in class G? Don't see the FAA over-ruling an explicit sentence in Federal law.