Originally Posted by
init4fun
I'm sorry Franklin , but with all due respect , I think your reaching a bit too far here . You don't have to read all that much of the AMA safety code to find verbiage specifically relating to following all local and federal laws while flying as an AMA member . Sure , it uses the same kind of language as was found back in AC 91-57 where the FAA themselves used "should" where most would think they should have used "must" , but make no mistake the language is there , you should* be following all applicable laws while flying as an AMA member .
* "Should" being a word that I believe is being used by both the AMA and FAA in a manner of "You should , or else face the consequences of non compliance" .....
AMA's safety code is a farce. It's a check-box on the application. The reality is, AMA turning a blind eye to the rules
for 8 years spawned a culture of non-compliance that destroyed the hobby and can now only be stopped by force.
Embry-Riddle just released a 30-day study on voluntary compliance for LAANC in the airspace around Daytona Beach
International Airport for both 107 and recreational operators.
Out of 271 drones detected, only 94 had LAANC approvals, meaning two thirds were flying illegally in controlled airspace.
Of those only 19
had approval to fly in the specific locations and times they were flying.
Over a third, 93, were above the legal altitude, which gets lower closer to the airport. 41 were higher than 500 feet, 32 were
between 500 and 1,000 feet, 6 were above 1,000 feet, and 3 above 1,500 feet - All around a major International airport. Only
DJI drones were detected using DJI's AeroScope, so there could have been more illegal flights not detected.
Now try telling the FAA that all "law abiding" hobbyists would make sure their
add-on remote ID module was turned on.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edit:
**** Even now AMA does not recognize the 400' altitude limit, even though it is clearly spelled out in Section 349.
This is from Rich Hanson in the November 2019 issue of Model Aviation, just 7 months ago. Unbelievable.
"AMA also advises its members to not fly higher than is necessary to safely and
effectively operate their model aircraft."
Now there's an iron-clad rule. Let's look at the legal theory. Rich says,
"The 400-foot limitation prescribed in the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018 has existed for many years as a
general safety guideline. It was first introduced by FAA’s Air Traffic Services in 1972, and further formalized
as an advisory circular (AC 91-57) in June 1981. It exists today as interim guidance in AC 91-57B.
AMA supports the 400-foot limit as a general safety principle."
It's not a "general safety principle". IT'S THE FRICKEN LAW. Hanson get's there by implying
AC 91-57B
somehow modifies Section 349. Here's the actual law,
``(a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (e), and
notwithstanding chapter 447 of title 49, United States Code, a person
may operate a small unmanned aircraft without specific certification or
operating authority from the Federal Aviation Administration if the
operation
adheres to all of the following limitations: ``
(6) In Class G airspace, the aircraft is flown from the
surface to not more than 400 feet above ground level and
complies with all airspace restrictions and prohibitions.
Now you know why no one obeys any rules. My guess is the hobby will banned outright at some point over
Hanson's preposterous nonsense and AMA going along with it.