Sport_Pilot

If they cannot get a warrant then they cannot inspect. Cannot prevent operations there. But if someone is operating a legal sUAV (something IRA may not have been aware of) then there may be grounds for their inspection. Something we need to be aware of if this is something the FAA will do.

I recall a link but can not seem to find it right now.

KidEpoxy

so you are proposing
that someone was operating a 'legal' sUAV (ok, lets just assume the commercial/public UAS reqs are met)
on an AMA club field where AMA rules are to be followed,
and the FAA was inspecting Just THAT uav,
yet gave the club a Pass rather than give that suAV operator a Pass??????


Would you please read the thread on what happened
before defending the FAA on an event you havent even looked at.
You say you didnt read the thread when Ira mentioned it,
nor any of the times I referred to it here,
yet now, finally, folks like you are starting to wonder just what happened and if that was unlawful by 336

KidEpoxy

If this was a 336(a)5 '5 Mile Notice',
notice dont mean Inspection, if the club notified them of their location, and operating box (which later got a Pass anyway)
then why an FAA's Inspection and Safety Team 90min examination
(other than to just call AMA club liars for no reason over the location and box notice given).
336 says we give notice, sounds like the notice was given & received 2 weeks prior

Sport_Pilot

Quote:

the FAA was inspecting Just THAT uav,

No the field. If someone was operating the sUAV (not model) from that fieldthen thenperhaps (not sure)theFAA may have a right to visit the airfield. But what ever unless I see it in the news or AMA site it's just hearsay.

KidEpoxy

Hearsay?
So I guess we'll just pidgeonhole you into the Ignore/RefuseToBelieve/DefendFAA slot.

When you read that guy saying what happened,
do you hold your hands over you ears and chant LaLaLaLaLaLaLaICantHearYou?

But that is a RCU classic-
Based on an absolute and utter lack of ANY information to the contrary,
you are confident to disparage that guys word as to what happened.


Sport,
if you want to not believe what that guy said happened actually did happen,
then tell us
in some hypothetical parallel world/worlds where it DID happen
wouldnt that appear to be a pretty blatant action made unlawful by 336?

ira d

I just got my April Model Aviation it seem the That even though the the new regulations have passed the AMA dont feel we are out of the woods yet and
have adopted a kind wait and see position which I also tend to agree with.

HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

Now you boys shake hands and at tde BELL come out fighting ... "DING"

KidEpoxy

Ira
Wait and see?
Wait for what? They want to see if FAA is going to start "inspecting' model fields at some point in the future?
Cause that aint a 'future' we need to wait for to act,
thats a 'done happened already' we need to act on

Odd, we hear there was an AMA seat holder there when the FAA committed that unlawful act,
yet we open members hear zip from AMA about it happening and what we are doing to stop it from happening again

IRA
you brought this up as looking like its a 336 violation,
and its hard to hear what happened and see it any any other light,
yet where are the guys that claim to be protecting the hobby (aka AMA),
and why is only KidEpoxy unhappy with the FAA unlawfully violating us ?


The WAITING is over, a 336 violation happened,
are we gonna use the congress protection we spent all that member money on,
or was that just a big waste of cash cause we will always just roll over and surrender when in the right

Sport_Pilot

Notice that they will revieve a NOTAM for the jet rally.  Although they mau not regulate models, I suppose they could require NOTAMs for large meets.

KidEpoxy

Sport,
how does the FAA 'require' NOTAMS for clearly cbo modeling meets?
Wouldnt there have to be a ffa RULE or REG requiring the cbo modeling ops get the notam?
After all, if there is no FAA rule or reg requiring, then it aint required, right?

As such, cause folks want to argue against anything I say,
If we refuse to get said notam,
a FAA rule or reg on cbo ops would have to exist
in order for us to be accused/charged of violating it by refusing.


we cant break rules that dont exist,
and congress made FAA Rules unlawful

Silent-AV8R

I'm wondering how many angels can dance on the head of a downwind turn [:@] Oh, and so we are on topic, what is the AMA policy on it.

KidEpoxy

Silent,
since you are so committed to the topic-
hows about you tell us if you think the FAA Inspection that happened
is an unlawful act
by the law this thread is about?

Yeah, lets talk about the law s336 that makes those inspections illegal,
and in particular how that thread subject law makes them illegal.

JohnShe

s336b says: "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."

Read it and weep. The FAA has the authority and responsibility observe, inspect, investigate and take appropriate action during any operation involving the use of the national Air Space. If the FAA inspectors observe any action that endangers the NAS, they may take immediate and appropriate action.

Bob Pastorello

My Feedback: (198)

John She - - Yep - and you'd be right - I was wondering when someone would just put it out there....probably the reason the AMA is saying "wait and see" is because NOTHING in all of this *takes away authority from the Administrator* (and that means persons the Administrator delegates/assigns as he/she sees fit to oversee various aspects of the business of keeping the NAS "safe")

I don't think, never have, that we have to "fear" the FAA.... we just must adapt to the rules, because the NAS does **NOT** belong to us, folks. Look up and research exactly the jurisdiction and scope of special TFRNOTAMs, and NOTAMs, in general.

If "we" do stuff (any stuff) that "they" perceive as endangerment of the safety of the NAS, then we will all be in real pickle.

Of course, this is only my opinion and worth only as much (or as little) as everyone else's on this thread.

RTK

My Feedback: (1)

I don't know if "WE" will be in trouble, but that particular individual might be.

I really doubt they (FAA) has the resources or care to send people to hang out at RC airfields and look for infractions.

KidEpoxy

that was not an Enforcement Action Against an operatopr that endangered the NAS,
it was an inspection of a field,
that was doing XXXX,
Said it was doing XXXX,
was inspected and cleared to continue doping XXXX
... where is the 'enforcement action against' the field or operators?
There WAS NO endangerment of the NAS to begin with, so there was no enforcement action to be initiated.

No, this was NOT a partB Enforcement Action Against Endangerment
never even came close to that

JohnShe

The FAA cannot enforce regulations unless they observe, inspect or otherwise identify a need for enforcement. They have the responsibility and authority to observe any action involving the use of the NAS any time they want to. They certainly don't have the resources to do it all of the time or even frequently, but they can and they will whenever they feel like it..

I should note that the behavior of the people at the field in question stood aeromodeling in good stead and reflects well on all of us. Those types of incidents should make our efforts at self regulating more likely to succeed.

Several people have tried to relate s336a to this event but that is not possible until it goes into effect. It won't go into effect until all of the IF clause conditions are met to the full satisfaction of the FAA. That could take a while since the AMAhas not finished writing the new safety guidelines and had them approved by the membership.

RTK

My Feedback: (1)

I missed it but could some one "briefly" get me up to speed on what inspection, observation, etc took place at a RC field???

JohnShe

quote:

Those of you who were at this year's DJS know that on Thursday afternoon we received a surprise visit by two members of the FAA's Inspection and Safety Team. Following their ninety minute visit they declared our operation "SAFE" and gave us a "Carry On" (whew). Two week ago we received a call from their "BOSS" the Regional Director, requesting an audience and a briefing. Tuesday we provided him a tour, briefing, and conducted a Jet Demo Flight. We're please to announce that we have received letter confirmation from him declaring and ensuring our field with a routine altitude to 1000' (agl). Additionally, that altitude will be raised to 2000' (agl) during Jet Events. YAHOO .

quote:

NOW, the rest of the story........Luke AFB maintains an auxilary field 5 miles west of Speedworld, thus advisory control of the airspace over us is maintained by Luke. Occasionally we will see an F=16 (or two) in the area but they are always at at least 3000' Very rarely a private aircraft may happen by but that is the case when our FAA inspectors were visiting on Thursday afternoon. We had 5 jets in the air at the time and as soon as the "very old Cessna" was seen one of the spotters yelled "Full Scale", our pilots brought their craft down to 2-300' until the "lookie lou" cleared the area. The "smoke" I was giving the inspectors about safety procedure became reality. It couldn't have been better orchestrated had it been done in Hollywood. And now, our field is protected and
"Charted", and we'll receive a NOTAM for our jet rally's. One other note; the day we did the demo for the "Director" our AMA AVP was present.

This is from a posting by KE at the top of this page. I cannot find the source of the quotes in this thread.

RTK

My Feedback: (1)

Thanks

At least it turned out well, maybe it was a once in a lifetime look see by the FAA

lopflyers

My Feedback: (12)

WOW, good job guys. Let's show them how safe and collected we are!!

KidEpoxy

uh, you guys are commenting like the FAA has never heard of modeling and wants to take a look.
Are you really sooo anti-ama and bashers
that you think AMA has done NOTHING to get the FAA to know what we do in the past several decades?

me?
I have every confidence the FAA ALREADY knows what we do,
that AMA has done what it claims to be doing,
and there is no need for a 'once in a lifetime' inspection because AMA has not been slacking.



Why would you guys consider an unlawful act against us to be ok as long as its just 'once in a lifetime'?
It either WAS unlawful, so even ONCE is still unlawful,
or it is NOT unlawful, so we can expect to see them all the time.
Stop trying to protect the lawbreakers.

It either WAS unlawful by 336, or it was NOT.

KidEpoxy

RTK
So you missed Ira's link to it,
you missed me pointing at Ira's link over and over,
and you missed my link to it
.... and you even missed me quoting in the interesting bits?

No problemo,
this is the mother of all Circle Threads after all,
so we will just repeat what has been repeated repeatedly already-



>>
If this was a 336(a)5 '5 Mile Notice',
notice dont mean Inspection, if the club notified them of their location, and operating box (which later got a Pass anyway)
then why an FAA's Inspection and Safety Team 90min examination
(other than to just call AMA club liars for no reason over the location and box notice given).
336 says we give notice, sounds like the notice was given & received 2 weeks prior
>>

TexasAirBoss

My Feedback: (22)

I suspect the FAA would prefer a detailed protocol (for traffic avoidance), in the Safety Code and not just some vague phrasing, (particularly for the faster Jet models). That would certainly be within the scope of thier authority.

Could you please include the source of your quotes. Your post are often difficult to follow without them.

Top_Gunn

My Feedback: (6)

All that section 336 bars the FAA from doing is promulgating rules about model airplanes when certain requirements are met. It does not prohibit their inspecting anything. If an inspection like this was legal before section 336 was enacted it remains legal today. As someone or other keeps telling us, if there's no rule against something, it's allowed.