Regulation passed the House
02-20-2012, 03:51 PM
#526
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Round Hill, VA
Posts: 1,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Regulation passed the House
ORIGINAL: KidEpoxy
sheesh, again you are ignoring the text and installing your agenda in its place
No, congress did NOT say we are required to have the Serf relationship with the FAA you keep describing. First you tell us that you consider the act of Liaisoning to be surrendering to, and now you show how you consider us Giving Notice to airports as somehow asking them to be our pal. No, the airport is just on the recieving end of our NOTICE to them of our operations.... that is the congress requirement- to give them notice.
Dont believe me?
Here, read it yourself
See?
It dont say we beg for permission.
It dont say we have to get special preferential treatment cause we are their buddy.
It says we provide them notice.... not ask them to review/accept/approve/ordain the notice we give.
now, should a cbo modeler find themselves at a fixed base of ops within 5m of airport,
congress also gave some advice of what we should do.
Note how the actuall words used are not saying Shall/Must/Will do.
so, the regular way its done
is that we modelers TELL them what the deal is, in the form of 'prior notice',
and we have the option to follow advice to agree on a set procedure.
Not just because of the new law, which does require us to maintain relationships with FAA controlled airports. That alone requires direct and indirect communications with the FAA . In the long long term, we will always be interacting with the FAA because of our shared use of the air space. So lets not burn our bridges behind us.
No, congress did NOT say we are required to have the Serf relationship with the FAA you keep describing. First you tell us that you consider the act of Liaisoning to be surrendering to, and now you show how you consider us Giving Notice to airports as somehow asking them to be our pal. No, the airport is just on the recieving end of our NOTICE to them of our operations.... that is the congress requirement- to give them notice.
Dont believe me?
Here, read it yourself
(5) when flown within 5 miles of an airport, the operator of the aircraft provides the airport operator and the airport air traffic control tower (when an air traffic facility is located at the airport) with prior notice of the operation
It dont say we beg for permission.
It dont say we have to get special preferential treatment cause we are their buddy.
It says we provide them notice.... not ask them to review/accept/approve/ordain the notice we give.
now, should a cbo modeler find themselves at a fixed base of ops within 5m of airport,
congress also gave some advice of what we should do.
Note how the actuall words used are not saying Shall/Must/Will do.
(model aircraft operators flying from a permanent location within 5 miles of an airport should establish a mutually-agreed upon operating procedure with the airport operator and the airport air traffic control tower (when an air traffic facility is located at the airport)).
so, the regular way its done
is that we modelers TELL them what the deal is, in the form of 'prior notice',
and we have the option to follow advice to agree on a set procedure.
Don't be silly, we are going to have a sound equal parties relationship that ensures safe operation of the airport and hobby activities. We are going to avoid the kind of near disaster when a full size biplane with two occupants smacked into a giant scale 3D model by actually coordinating with the airport. Somwething that the pilot and the 3D demo organizer completely failed to do.
02-20-2012, 07:55 PM
#527
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: San Antonio,
TX
Posts: 6,681
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Regulation passed the House
Don't be silly, we are going to have a sound equal parties relationship that ensures safe operation of the airport and hobby activities.
If congress wanted to say 'equal party relationship' they would have.
Actually, they did... but not for the compulsory first part of that item. In the first, non-optional part, they said we have to provide notice. You know how folks are provided a notice when they get evicted, and the recipients of the notice dont get equal party relationship status with the notifiers? Its like that, except WE are the ones giving notice and are not required to care about how it makes them feel. You are free to feel bad for the airport, and you are free to forego your standing and negotiate in stuff the other guys want, and you are even free to surrender your standing and rather than 'provide notice' you can beg permission. But dont presume to surrender the freedom of others because you dont want the freedom we paid for.
compare these two passages about the same thing
sUAS ARC 3.3(4) Model Aircraft shall not be operated within 3 NM miles of an airport, heliport, or
seaplane base without the permission of the ATC authority or airport manager
seaplane base without the permission of the ATC authority or airport manager
ccr s336a(5) when flown within 5 miles of an airport, the operator of the aircraft provides the airport operator and the airport air traffic control tower (when an air traffic facility is located at the airport) with prior notice of the operation
The other is what congress decided to say a couple years after the first was published.
See how in the second text they chose to completely abandon the permission requirement?
We are not required to ASK what we can do, we are required to TELL what we are doing.
As for negotiating, and 'equal parties',
well, congress did mention that in some non-compulsory advice in the second part of the new law,
but no mandate to negotiate/beg in the first part of the new law
02-21-2012, 05:41 AM
#528
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Round Hill, VA
Posts: 1,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Regulation passed the House
ORIGINAL: KidEpoxy
Where do you get such nonsense?
If congress wanted to say 'equal party relationship' they would have.
Actually, they did... but not for the compulsory first part of that item. In the first, non-optional part, they said we have to provide notice. You know how folks are provided a notice when they get evicted, and the recipients of the notice dont get equal party relationship status with the notifiers? Its like that, except WE are the ones giving notice and are not required to care about how it makes them feel. You are free to feel bad for the airport, and you are free to forego your standing and negotiate in stuff the other guys want, and you are even free to surrender your standing and rather than 'provide notice' you can beg permission. But dont presume to surrender the freedom of others because you dont want the freedom we paid for.
compare these two passages about the same thing
ONE of them is a requirement for modelers to get permission.
The other is what congress decided to say a couple years after the first was published.
See how in the second text they chose to completely abandon the permission requirement?
We are not required to ASK what we can do, we are required to TELL what we are doing.
As for negotiating, and 'equal parties',
well, congress did mention that in some non-compulsory advice in the second part of the new law,
but no mandate to negotiate/beg in the first part of the new law
Don't be silly, we are going to have a sound equal parties relationship that ensures safe operation of the airport and hobby activities.
If congress wanted to say 'equal party relationship' they would have.
Actually, they did... but not for the compulsory first part of that item. In the first, non-optional part, they said we have to provide notice. You know how folks are provided a notice when they get evicted, and the recipients of the notice dont get equal party relationship status with the notifiers? Its like that, except WE are the ones giving notice and are not required to care about how it makes them feel. You are free to feel bad for the airport, and you are free to forego your standing and negotiate in stuff the other guys want, and you are even free to surrender your standing and rather than 'provide notice' you can beg permission. But dont presume to surrender the freedom of others because you dont want the freedom we paid for.
compare these two passages about the same thing
sUAS ARC 3.3(4) Model Aircraft shall not be operated within 3 NM miles of an airport, heliport, or
seaplane base without the permission of the ATC authority or airport manager
seaplane base without the permission of the ATC authority or airport manager
ccr s336a(5) when flown within 5 miles of an airport, the operator of the aircraft provides the airport operator and the airport air traffic control tower (when an air traffic facility is located at the airport) with prior notice of the operation
The other is what congress decided to say a couple years after the first was published.
See how in the second text they chose to completely abandon the permission requirement?
We are not required to ASK what we can do, we are required to TELL what we are doing.
As for negotiating, and 'equal parties',
well, congress did mention that in some non-compulsory advice in the second part of the new law,
but no mandate to negotiate/beg in the first part of the new law
02-21-2012, 06:41 AM
#529
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: San Antonio,
TX
Posts: 6,681
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Regulation passed the House
Adversarial relationship never work. Such relationships always end in conflict.
You do realize there is like a gazillion different points between
the Serf relationship that you advocate and falsely claim is mandated,
and this 'adversarial' that you misinferred.
If you believe
one party having the power while the other party has to do what they say
cannot work,
then explain the relationship modelers have had with the government for the 70 years prior to this new law.
How do you figure we've been adversaries to the FAA because we were not 'equal party' as you demand in the relationship?
For the past decades
the FAA has notified us of stuff that we were not equal party in devolping,
and now there is one lil aspect that WE can be the ones doing the notifying.
(But keep in mind that after we deliver non-negotiable notice... after that... then you may sit and chat with the airport (with lil choc donuts and coffee) about the best ways to SAFELY do what we gave notice of. If the airport advises you of hazards to your operations, you had better plan on mitigating those hazards. After all, the law that requires we give notice also requires elsewhere that we dont endanger the NAS, but has no compulsory communications method/relationship on how to avoid that NAS danger.)
Seems you actually havent minded the absence of "equal party relationship" when we've been doing it so far,
you just appear like it when the FAA has the power and we bend knee,
and appear to have some problem with the roles reversed for even one minor aspect
When we go to the DMV
we are clearly NOT in an equal party relationship,
but that dont make the DMV our 'adversaries'
... yet I manage to get my licensed renewed without having to be buddys or pals or 'equals' with the DMV clerks.
(Actually, if it becomes easier to get my license renewed because we are beerbuddys, that preferential treatment by gov workers is forbidden)
02-21-2012, 07:39 AM
#531
RE: Regulation passed the House
Has this thread set the record for minutiae yet?
02-21-2012, 07:57 AM
#532
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Round Hill, VA
Posts: 1,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Regulation passed the House
ORIGINAL: KidEpoxy
Adversaries?
Blah, blah, blah...
Adversaries?
Blah, blah, blah...
The recognized CBO will negotiate a notification process with the FAA. The process will determine when notifications need to be made and what information the notification must contain. Clubs, belonging to the CBO, will plan their activities and follow the process. As a part of this planning process, a notification will be prepared and sent to the affected airport. The airport will review the notification, maybe ask questions, and will either accept the notification as is, accept it with changes or reject it. In almost all cases the event will occur as planned and people will have fun. In the very rare event that there is a conflict, changes will be made, the event will occur and people will have fun. This is how a fair and equitable process works.
If you really believe that you can just nail your notification to the tower door, here is what will happen. law enforcement agents will show up at your field, your equipment will be confiscated and you and your friends (if you have any) will be thrown in jail for endangering the NAS. These are the results of an adversarial relationship.
02-21-2012, 08:43 AM
#535
RE: Regulation passed the House
ORIGINAL: Sport_Pilot
I think one or more need to be muzzled. Not that they are saying things Idisagree with or or wrong or right. Just that there is too much about what is obvious or doesn't matter. I know that some want the AMA board to be more open, but this is too much and makes the AMA look bad.
Has this thread set the record for minutiae yet?
+1
02-21-2012, 09:27 AM
#536
My Feedback: (22)
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 2,972
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Regulation passed the House
[quote]ORIGINAL: KidEpoxy
(5) when flown within 5 miles of an airport, the operator of the aircraft provides the airport operator and the airport air traffic control tower (when an air traffic facility is located at the airport) with prior notice of the operation
Yep, before each flight, each pilot of each model must notify the airport and FAA, (when within 5mi and with a a tower).
It don't say nothing about any blanket approval.
02-21-2012, 09:41 AM
#537
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Apopka,
FL
Posts: 1,367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Regulation passed the House
Just so everybody can be clear on the fact that the FAA still calls the shots.......... even under this new FAA Authorization Law.
SEC. 336. SPECIAL RULE FOR MODEL AIRCRAFT.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other
provision of law relating to the incorporation of
unmanned aircraft systems into Federal Aviation
Administration plans and policies, including
this subtitle, the Administrator of the Federal
Aviation Administration may not promulgate
any rule or regulation regarding a model
aircraft, or an aircraft being developed as a
model aircraft, if—
(1) the aircraft is flown strictly for hobby or
recreational use;
(2) the aircraft is operated in accordance with
a community-based set of safety guidelines and
within the programming of a nationwide community-
based organization;
(3) the aircraft is limited to not more than 55
pounds unless otherwise certified through a design,
construction, inspection, flight test, and
operational safety program administered by a
community-based organization;
(4) the aircraft is operated in a manner that
does not interfere with and gives way to any
manned aircraft; and
(5) when flown within 5 miles of an airport,
the operator of the aircraft provides the airport
operator and the airport air traffic control
tower (when an air traffic facility is located at
the airport) with prior notice of the operation
(model aircraft operators flying from a permanent
location within 5 miles of an airport should
establish a mutually-agreed upon operating procedure
with the airport operator and the airport
air traffic control tower (when an air traffic facility
is located at the airport)).
(b) STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in
this section shall be construed to limit the authority
of the Administrator to pursue enforcement
action against persons operating model
aircraft who endanger the safety of the national
airspace system.
(c) MODEL AIRCRAFT DEFINED.—In this section,
the term ‘‘model aircraft’’ means an unmanned
aircraft that is—
(1) capable of sustained flight in the atmosphere;
(2) flown within visual line of sight of the person
operating the aircraft; and
(3) flown for hobby or recreational purposes.
02-21-2012, 10:29 AM
#538
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Orange County,
CA
Posts: 5,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Regulation passed the House
You keep quoting that section in bold, but seem to miss the all important phrase - ENFORCEMENT ACTION. This means they can come after you for doing something wrong. It does not mean they can impose other regulatory limits on you, which the Law prohibits. They are not "calling the shots", they are authorized to take enforcement action, i.e., prosecute you for endangering the National Airspace System.
02-21-2012, 10:50 AM
#539
RE: Regulation passed the House
It don't say nothing about any blanket approval.
02-21-2012, 11:03 AM
#540
RE: Regulation passed the House
ORIGINAL: Silent-AV8R
You keep quoting that section in bold, but seem to miss the all important phrase - ENFORCEMENT ACTION. This means they can come after you for doing something wrong. It does not mean they can impose other regulatory limits on you, which the Law prohibits. They are not ''calling the shots'', they are authorized to take enforcement action, i.e., prosecute you for endangering the National Airspace System.
You keep quoting that section in bold, but seem to miss the all important phrase - ENFORCEMENT ACTION. This means they can come after you for doing something wrong. It does not mean they can impose other regulatory limits on you, which the Law prohibits. They are not ''calling the shots'', they are authorized to take enforcement action, i.e., prosecute you for endangering the National Airspace System.
[8D] I read it that way also ......... Stay the hell out of the way of full scale , and we wont have any problems ...... Works for me ....
02-21-2012, 11:10 AM
#541
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Apopka,
FL
Posts: 1,367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Regulation passed the House
ORIGINAL: Silent-AV8R
You keep quoting that section in bold, but seem to miss the all important phrase - ENFORCEMENT ACTION. This means they can come after you for doing something wrong. It does not mean they can impose other regulatory limits on you, which the Law prohibits. They are not "calling the shots", they are authorized to take enforcement action, i.e., prosecute you for endangering the National Airspace System.
You keep quoting that section in bold, but seem to miss the all important phrase - ENFORCEMENT ACTION. This means they can come after you for doing something wrong. It does not mean they can impose other regulatory limits on you, which the Law prohibits. They are not "calling the shots", they are authorized to take enforcement action, i.e., prosecute you for endangering the National Airspace System.
Brad
02-21-2012, 11:30 AM
#542
RE: Regulation passed the House
ORIGINAL: bradpaul
The above would imply that the FAA can no longer regulate the airspace that a RC Model (under a CBO) can fly in.
Brad
ORIGINAL: Silent-AV8R
You keep quoting that section in bold, but seem to miss the all important phrase - ENFORCEMENT ACTION. This means they can come after you for doing something wrong. It does not mean they can impose other regulatory limits on you, which the Law prohibits. They are not ''calling the shots'', they are authorized to take enforcement action, i.e., prosecute you for endangering the National Airspace System.
You keep quoting that section in bold, but seem to miss the all important phrase - ENFORCEMENT ACTION. This means they can come after you for doing something wrong. It does not mean they can impose other regulatory limits on you, which the Law prohibits. They are not ''calling the shots'', they are authorized to take enforcement action, i.e., prosecute you for endangering the National Airspace System.
Brad
02-21-2012, 11:35 AM
#543
RE: Regulation passed the House
The above would imply that the FAA can no longer regulate the airspace that a RC Model (under a CBO) can fly in.
02-21-2012, 01:20 PM
#544
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Apopka,
FL
Posts: 1,367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Regulation passed the House
ORIGINAL: Sport_Pilot
The above would imply that the FAA can no longer regulate the airspace that a RC Model (under a CBO) can fly in.
That would be correct, and consistant with the 1958 FAA act which only gave them authority over navigable airspace.
The above would imply that the FAA can no longer regulate the airspace that a RC Model (under a CBO) can fly in.
02-21-2012, 02:52 PM
#545
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Orange County,
CA
Posts: 5,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Regulation passed the House
ORIGINAL: bradpaul
So as a model flyer no more need worry about airspace class or restriction.
So as a model flyer no more need worry about airspace class or restriction.
I'm not saying that by any means. For instance, when the FAA publishes a TFR that pertains to a number of aircraft, including models, we are still subject I am sure. I doubt that model operations will be OK in prohibited and restricted airspace as well.
Beyond that, I am also betting that if you have a field within the surface area of Class B or C (maybe D) airspace that if you are within 5 miles of the airport the AMA rules are going to address that situation in a manner that minimizes the possibility of an incident that will require an FAA enforcement action.
02-21-2012, 04:03 PM
#547
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Round Hill, VA
Posts: 1,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Regulation passed the House
ORIGINAL: Granpooba
Hasn't this subject been beat to death yet !!!!!!???????? [&o]
Hasn't this subject been beat to death yet !!!!!!???????? [&o]
02-21-2012, 07:29 PM
#548
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: San Antonio,
TX
Posts: 6,681
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Regulation passed the House
United
please clean up your post-
cause your post is a ReplyTo me,
and starts a quote citation of me,
yet folks have no way of seeing what words are mine quoted in vs your words
... and I really dont like folks saying I typed stuff I never did
(heck, ask 804 how mad I got over his lies making up junk and telling folks I said it)
I believe the only text you are citing me as saying,
is the excerpt of the new law text, and the rest is all by you
ORIGINAL: United_Pilot
ORIGINAL: KidEpoxy
(5) when flown within 5 miles of an airport, the operator of the aircraft provides the airport operator and the airport air traffic control tower (when an air traffic facility is located at the airport) with prior notice of the operation
Yep, before each flight, each pilot of each model must notify the airport and FAA, (when within 5mi and with a a tower).
It don't say nothing about any blanket approval.
ORIGINAL: KidEpoxy
(5) when flown within 5 miles of an airport, the operator of the aircraft provides the airport operator and the airport air traffic control tower (when an air traffic facility is located at the airport) with prior notice of the operation
Yep, before each flight, each pilot of each model must notify the airport and FAA, (when within 5mi and with a a tower).
It don't say nothing about any blanket approval.
cause your post is a ReplyTo me,
and starts a quote citation of me,
yet folks have no way of seeing what words are mine quoted in vs your words
... and I really dont like folks saying I typed stuff I never did
(heck, ask 804 how mad I got over his lies making up junk and telling folks I said it)
I believe the only text you are citing me as saying,
is the excerpt of the new law text, and the rest is all by you
02-21-2012, 07:48 PM
#549
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: sheridan,
IN
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Regulation passed the House
ORIGINAL: KidEpoxy
United
please clean up your post-
cause your post is a ReplyTo me,
and starts a quote citation of me,
yet folks have no way of seeing what words are mine quoted in vs your words
... and I really dont like folks saying I typed stuff I never did
(heck, ask 804 how mad I got over his lies making up junk and telling folks I said it)
I believe the only text you are citing me as saying,
is the excerpt of the new law text, and the rest is all by you
United
ORIGINAL: United_Pilot
ORIGINAL: KidEpoxy
(5) when flown within 5 miles of an airport, the operator of the aircraft provides the airport operator and the airport air traffic control tower (when an air traffic facility is located at the airport) with prior notice of the operation
Yep, before each flight, each pilot of each model must notify the airport and FAA, (when within 5mi and with a a tower).
It don't say nothing about any blanket approval.
ORIGINAL: KidEpoxy
(5) when flown within 5 miles of an airport, the operator of the aircraft provides the airport operator and the airport air traffic control tower (when an air traffic facility is located at the airport) with prior notice of the operation
Yep, before each flight, each pilot of each model must notify the airport and FAA, (when within 5mi and with a a tower).
It don't say nothing about any blanket approval.
cause your post is a ReplyTo me,
and starts a quote citation of me,
yet folks have no way of seeing what words are mine quoted in vs your words
... and I really dont like folks saying I typed stuff I never did
(heck, ask 804 how mad I got over his lies making up junk and telling folks I said it)
I believe the only text you are citing me as saying,
is the excerpt of the new law text, and the rest is all by you
Is this really necessary?
02-22-2012, 05:48 AM
#550
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: San Antonio,
TX
Posts: 6,681
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Regulation passed the House
804
you could always try recanting your lie (+ maybe an apology),
or providing the quote to back it up when I called you out on it
you have done neither
you could always try recanting your lie (+ maybe an apology),
or providing the quote to back it up when I called you out on it
you have done neither