ORIGINAL: crashproof

I think I understand just fine. Trust me I was taught to keep my head out of the sand. The rub is it seems that had this been handled properly by the folks predetermined to do so we might not be getting schooled and lined up for this fight, THAT WE CAN NOT WIN.

It is not SPIN, it is exactly what was stated in the ARC Recommendations and <..>

ORIGINAL: CottcoRC

<span style="font-size: medium">
</span><span style="font-size: small">Minnesota is as colorful in many ways as our seasons. But beforebashing our GREATSTATE, take a look at your own 2008 presidential race - seems the social agenda pervaded Florida as well - http://www.usatoday.com/news/politic...ion2008/fl.htm

As to theprogressive movement andthose embracing more regulations- you believe you are entitled to an opinion,it is my RIGHT to tell you to stuff it!

Speaking of movements..............

</span>

ORIGINAL: hook57

[disregard], you clearly did not read the post Sport.

It backfired because the FAA thought the restrictive rules would be better for everybody- now the AMA is scrambling to try to save us from their screw up......

ORIGINAL: Redleg
For the folks that want to fly UAVs, I say let the FAA regulate them, but as long as I can see my plane from where I am standing, I see no reason for the FAA to regulate me more than the existing rules and that regulations I currently fly under.

ORIGINAL: apwachholz

@Bradpaul -

You are correct. I did start that additional thread as you mentioned. As a matter of fact I've started several threads on RCU and will continue to do so.

They are all under the guise of conversing with my fellow hobbyists about topics that are important to me. And I'm trying to find out how important they are to you. I'm not attempting to raise eyebrows or start fires. I'm simply trying to gain insight from you all.

However, thanks for noticing my threads. I hope you reply.... [img][/img]

<div>@K-Bob</div><div> </div><div>''Well, you have received a small sample. So far I would say you stand pretty much alone in your beliefs.''</div><div> </div><div>I don't think I do.</div><div> </div><div>Bob, what you might be misconstruing about what I'm saying is an understanding that I want hard and fast rules on our hobby. As a matter of fact I don't. However, in order to avoid conflict or issues with the FAA, I believe it's best to put some things in place before something happens and then we really get locked down. </div><div> </div><div>Times have changed and now more then ever we need to have a continued dialogue with the FAA. We're too closely tied to them thanks to improved technology (which is good!) so by natural progression we’ll begin to walk the line of falling under their jurisdiction; at some small level.</div><div> </div><div>Interestingly enough, the Gen Av. community in the wake of 9/11 had very hard and fast rules applied instantly, much to their distain. However, as things progressed and AOPA worked with the FAA, rules were lifted and freedoms regained. This is what the AMA is working towards however; the support from underneath them (i.e. us) is somewhat lack-luster from what I've been experiencing thus far.</div><div> </div><div>@jonkoppisch</div><div> </div><div>''If you feel this way, I think you should be lobbying the ama or even by starting at your local club for those regs''</div><div> </div><div>I am currently a Team Lead member of the Strategic Task Force reviewed and assembled by the AMA whose sole objectives are to increase our AMA memberships and impact within our communities. One of our current tasks is reviewing AMA sanctioned clubs and how to better involve them and grow memberships and increase visibility.</div><div> </div><div> I am indeed active in what I am passionate about.</div><div> </div>

ORIGINAL: Sport_Pilot

I know you were refering to the eventual full acceptance of sUAS into the entire (or most of) the NAS. But I did not like the premise you were implying.

ORIGINAL: Bird of Paradise

All:

The intent of the AMA is to maintain all of disciplines and conditions that we currently enjoy. You may be interested in the webinar presented by Rich Hanson and Dave Mathewson for Jet Pilots Organization (JPO) members. The slides from the webinar are posted on the JPO http://www.jetpilots.org/ website and an audio transcript is being developed. One of the listeners developed the synopsis below, note several important points More presentations will be scheduled in the future.

Mike Harrington, member AMA/FAA Standards Workgroup


\quote: =rhklenke

On Wednesday the AMA and JPO conducted a webinar to discuss the current state of the FAA sUAS regulation process. I believe that there were approximately 56 JPO members who attended the webinar. It was interesting and informative so I thought that I’d post some of my impressions from attending.

AMA Government and Regulatory Affairs Representative, Rich Hanson was the main presenter for most of the webinar and gave a Powerpoint presentation of the process and results thus far. There were some audio problems early in the webinar, but I was able to get the jest of what he was presenting. After his presentation, Dave Mathewson, the AMA President, took questions from the attendees and he and Rich answered them. The webinar closed with a few comments from the JPO president, Keith Severs.

I believe that Keith is going to post the Powerpoint presentation and the audio from the webinar on the JPO site. For me, the question and answer period was the most interesting so my comments are mostly related to that. NOTE – THERE ARE MY COMMENTS/IMPRESSIONS OF WHAT WAS SAID AND ARE NOT MEANT TO PUT WORDS INTO ANYONE’S MOUTH!

One of the first questions was about the small number of jet modelers vs. the total number of AMA members and if the AMA might “cut us loose� if you will, in order to save restrictions on the rest of the AMA membership. Both Dave and Rich stated that this was not in any way in the AMA plans and they talked about “no modeler left behind.� I was convinced of their sincere desire to work hard continue to allow all types of modeling to continue to operate as before. In fact, there was discussions of the safe operations of model aircraft for the past 75 years and a position of “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.� There were also several mentions of our turbine waiver program being held up, by both the AMA and the FAA, as a very positive safety program.

I asked a question regarding the latest articles from Rich and Dave, in MA and other places, that seemed to indicate that the process wasn’t going well. Dave discussed the lag between when he writes a column for the magazine and when it comes out, and the fact that when some of those columns were written, the process wasn’t going well – partly due to turnover in the FAA UAPO. Both he and Rich stated that things are going better these days and that the conversations are currently ongoing and more constructive. It appears that the FAA does not what to get into the business of regulating model aircraft and would prefer that the AMA does it. It does appear though, that they will insist on input into the rules that AMA uses to do that.

Originally, the proposal from the ARC for the sUAS regulation contained a “default� path that recreational models could take to operate without being under the “community-based� (i.e., AMA) rules. This “default� path had some serious restrictions in it concerning model weight, power, and maximum operating altitude. Rich stated that the current discussions from the FAA indicate that this path might be going away. Thus, a recreational modeler will have two paths to operate, one is follow the rules as if they were operating an sUAS, and the other is to operate under AMA rules. This second path would not require that a person join AMA, but that they follow the AMA rules. There was some discussion that there might be a “cost� for a non-AMA member to access those rules, but I didn’t understand exactly how that might work.

I asked about pressure from sUAS companies and if that was influencing the process. Rich indicated that was not the case and that the FAA was committed to maintaining a clear line between commercial and recreational use. He pointed out that you can see that now as commercial use has effectively been banned by the FAA since 2006 while we still continue to operate as before. However, he indicated that there is a significant amount of money and political influence in the sUAS community and that can not be ignored.

Rich was asked what possible restriction might be the toughest nut to crack, and his response, after some thought, was “altitude.� He reiterated that the FAA’s intent in writing AC 91-57 back in 1981, was that model aircraft should be operated under 400’ everywhere. The AMA’s interpretation of that has been 400’ within 3 miles of an airport. I have also heard the same opinion in my conversations with folks in the UAPO. Somehow that difference is going to have to be resolved before the FAA “approves� the AMA standards. I didn’t hear much about how that resolution will be approached, but there was acknowledgement that a 400’ ceiling is not acceptable and affects almost all model aircraft activities. Personally, I think the process of “see and avoid�(which is the FAA’s own terminology) is key to that and its worked for years and should continue to do so. I believe that there might be some additional requirements for spotters for higher altitude operations, but that would have little effect on jet modelers as we all use spotters routinely.

The question was asked if jet meets at airports might be banned. I believe that Rich said that he didn’t think so, but that a different approval process might be involved. Rich did discuss the FAA rule that an airport that receives federal money can not be closed for a non-aviation event (and the FAA had deemed model airplane flyins as non-aviation), but that’s old news to the jet community and we’re already working around that. There was a discussion of the collision in Colorado between the full-scale and the model, but it seems as if there were a number of factors that separated this incident from AMA sanctioned operations that the impact from that incident might not be too great.

There was much talk of the FPV incident in NYC recently and the general consensus was that guy is a (known) jack*****. There was some discussion that the incident has had some repercussions for operations at Floyd Bennet Field, but I’m not sure if that was the case. If it is, I hope that the AMA steps in and helps everyone realize that this was not the actions of any member of our community and was totally against the AMA rules – thus responsible modelers should not be punished for the actions of this foreign trouble maker.

Both Dave and Rich seemed to indicate that right now, the discussions with the FAA appear to be going in a constructive direction. We should allow that process to continue and see what the final result is. We don’t want to put additional pressure on the process, via calling our elected officials, etc. because it could cause the process to become adversarial at this time. However, Dave said that the AMA is actively making preparations for a campaign (lobbying, publicity, etc.) should a legislative relief measure become necessary.

In general, this was a very positive presentation and I left convinced that the AMA is being very proactive and doing the right things at this time to preserve all aspects of our hobby. The time might come when the membership is needed to help in efforts to avoid onerous restrictions, but that time does not appear to be here right now. I’m optimistic that, through the AMA and JPO’s efforts, this will not be necessary, but I’m prepared to help in any and every way necessary if it does. I’m going back to work in getting my new stuff ready for the next flying season and I think everyone else should do the same...

Bob


Read more: http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_10...#ixzz18g5f7f7r

ORIGINAL: jonkoppisch

I have telemetry on my planes and 400 ft isn't as high as one would think. If you do a loop you've probably broken 400 ft (unless it's a profile foamy)

ORIGINAL: PilotFighter

This is good news. Personally, I have no problem with the 400 foot rule. 400 feet is much higher than most people realize.

ORIGINAL: PilotFighter

The loop part isn't true. The bottom of the cistern of most city water towers is 125 foot. Most people flying models never even approach 400 feet high.