ORIGINAL: Sport_Pilot



Incorparated by reference does not make the AC non voluntary, except to the extent that regulation or policy has done so. To my knowledge the only way that was done was toward sUAV's so it only applies to sUAV's. Which would apply here if this is a sUAV and not a model airplane. A sUAV may not be as capable to see and avoid as a model airplane. Of course this could be restricted airspace which is all over NYC. I believe there is a model flying site at an abandoned NAS not for from JFK but may be further than 5 or 6 miles. I believe this is Bennent Field?

I believe that FAA has been quite clear in categorizing model airplanes as sUAS. Authorization to fly MA is included in the interim guidance for sUAS.

ORIGINAL: Sport_Pilot

But they define model aircraft and that they fly under the AC, then for sUAS they say they will fly below the 400 foot limit of the AC. Not the same thing. Also recent law says model aircraft are not regulated so FAA policy does not confine model aiiplane other than airspace restrictions.

ORIGINAL: cj_rumley


Not going to argue with you, Sport. FAA will have clarified what they intended re the AC and model aircraft as contained in Interim Operational Approval Guidance 08-01 before you and I agree.

'They fly under the AC' is meaningless to me if they ignore it because compliance is voluntary. YMMV

ORIGINAL: Sport_Pilot


To say that the AC applies to model aircraft does in no way make a voluntary AC mandatory.

AMA standards require that model aircraft not interfere with and remain well clear of manned aircraft and prohibit members from acting in a careless or reckless manner that would endanger the life or property of others. Hovering, from what all indications appears to be, a larger domestic UAS near the approach path to one of the country’s busiest airports is neither safe nor responsible, is a clear violation of AMA’s safety programming, and AMA does not condone the actions of the person or people involved.

ORIGINAL: cj_rumley


Not what I said. I did suggest "..... when an AC has been incorporated by reference into regulatory material, compliance with its restrictions is no longer voluntary."

That is what FAA has said (you find the reference, I am not going to dig it out for you) , and I trust them on that. I think the event being discussed in this sub-thread has attracted enough attention from the media, Homeland Security, FBI, et al to prompt FAA to make a statement that will remove the ambiguity that exists for some that are grasping for it in current UAS regulatory policy IG 08-01.

I can wait and see...........

ORIGINAL: combatpigg

Typical.......
Space Cadet Mission Statement Speak.
The AMA will NEVER have ANY significant impact on the irresponsible and or stupid usage of these play things. These planes will only become more affordable and more capable of mayhem as time marches on.
Try to picture the AMA as a ''school crossing guard'' trying to hold back a convoy of drunk drivers careening through the neighborhood.
BTW, Youtube acts as the perfect stage for ''monkey see monkey do'' type stuff and also for inspiring some to set the bar at new heights.
Let the Chimpouts begin.

ORIGINAL: Luchnia

[X(]
I have to admit, I agree with combatpigg's assessment and just think how rare that is! I really like the ''Chimpouts'' statement. That means the end of the world as we know it is near. Is CP being assimulated into the fold? [X(]

ORIGINAL: littlecrankshaf

To bolster part of CP's post heres this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wbJn...layer_embedded looks like real fun but I am sure a good imagination can find a way to poo-poo on it.

ORIGINAL: cj_rumley


The flying weight is 180 g according to the distributor, 1/5 the allowed weight proposed for parkfliers by AMA, and which among other things would be unfettered by any regulation if FAA were to go with the ARC recommendations. The name is unfortunate in this day of epidemic paranoia over spies in the sky, though. AMA should ban them lest they soil the public image of our hobby.

ORIGINAL: crash99

Let me get this right. A RC quad with the flight time of 15 minutes was able to go out a mile or so from land and reach 1500 feet before running out of power? Is that right?

Here in Missouri there is one House member that wants to band Drons.


2. As used in sections 305.635 to 305.641, the following terms shall mean:
(1) “Drone”, any powered, aerial vehicle that:
(a) Does not carry a human operator;
(b) Uses aerodynamic forces to provide vehicle lift;
(c) Can fly autonomously or be piloted remotely;
(d) Can be expendable or recoverable; and
(e) Can carry a lethal or non-lethal payload.

This is to protect farmers from being watched performing tasks they might not want people to know about. If they can ban one RC group from flying who will be next.

Crash99

ORIGINAL: combatpigg




Maybe we can use you as the official ''Liason'' to speak face to face with the full scale pilots about how silly they are for reporting close encounters with these harmless toys.

ORIGINAL: HoundDog

AVwebFlash: Thursday, February 21, 2013

FAA Moves Ahead On Drone Test Sites

[img][/img]

The FAA will move forward with plans to establish six test sites for unmanned aerial systems, Administrator Michael Huerta said on Friday. ''We expect to learn how unmanned aircraft systems operate in different environments and how they will impact air traffic operations,'' he said. ''The test sites will also inform the agency as we develop standards for certifying unmanned aircraft and determine necessary air traffic requirements.'' The site selections are expected by the end of September. Last November, Huerta had delayed the test-site selection, citing privacy concerns.

Proposals will be accepted from state and local governments, universities and other public entities to develop the six sites. In selecting the sites, the FAA said it will consider geographic and climatic diversity, infrastructure and research needs, population density and air traffic density. The FAA also said the program will ''require ensuring that privacy is appropriately protected.'' The public is invited to review the proposed privacy policy (PDF) and comment on it. Michael Toscano, president of the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International, said the announcement is ''an important milestone on the path toward unlocking the potential of unmanned aircraft, and creating thousands of American jobs.'' States across the country are eager to develop a test site, Toscano said, ''because they recognize the incredible economic and job creation potential it would bring with it.'' AVweb's editorial director Paul Bertorelli recently explored the issue of the drone future; click here for his analysis.

ORIGINAL: combatpigg

Don't worry Hoss, The Fed will open more paper money printing facilities to pay for it all.
Open 24/7 till they either run out of ink or paper.
Just think of all the good this drone industry is doing to create more of those highly productive and essential gubmint jobs.