Fear mongering? AMA members with airman certificates?
10-20-2014, 10:42 PM
#151
I am currently an EMS rotor pilot, I hold an ATP RW and FW PVT SEL
I assure you, if an inspector wanted to warrant a complaint along 91.13 against a rated pilot for reckless or careless UAV/RC/drone operations, he could. And, if you don't think its possible, then operate at will.
I am always leery of the FAA when I am flying RC. While I would never give any credence to it, I wouldn't put it past some FAA inspectors. To most, it is about their power and using it!
Only a matter of time before a rated pilot is made an example of.
Wouldn't surprise me at all if in the future an airmans certificate will be required to operate RC aircraft. Silly I know, but it is coming, at least for commercial ops of drone and UAV. We will see if the AMA has enough grit to protect the hobbyist.
I assure you, if an inspector wanted to warrant a complaint along 91.13 against a rated pilot for reckless or careless UAV/RC/drone operations, he could. And, if you don't think its possible, then operate at will.
I am always leery of the FAA when I am flying RC. While I would never give any credence to it, I wouldn't put it past some FAA inspectors. To most, it is about their power and using it!
Only a matter of time before a rated pilot is made an example of.
Wouldn't surprise me at all if in the future an airmans certificate will be required to operate RC aircraft. Silly I know, but it is coming, at least for commercial ops of drone and UAV. We will see if the AMA has enough grit to protect the hobbyist.
10-21-2014, 04:38 AM
#152
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Spring Hill, FL
Posts: 893
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe you know. Are you aware of any formally trained aviators that were involved in the writing of the 'AMA’s Understanding the FAA's Interpretation of the Rule and How to Comment'?
Frank
10-21-2014, 04:57 AM
#153
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Spring Hill, FL
Posts: 893
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tim,
I'm assuming that your comment was meant for me and the 'rule' you are referring to is the Compliance and Enforcement Bulletin 2014-2 Change Order 2150.3B Chg 6 and yes I read it and I believe I've answered Al's question carefully enough. I also compiled the CFRs that the change document references in the attached .pdf. Would you care to discuss how they might affect model aviation?
Regards
Frank
I'm assuming that your comment was meant for me and the 'rule' you are referring to is the Compliance and Enforcement Bulletin 2014-2 Change Order 2150.3B Chg 6 and yes I read it and I believe I've answered Al's question carefully enough. I also compiled the CFRs that the change document references in the attached .pdf. Would you care to discuss how they might affect model aviation?
Regards
Frank
10-21-2014, 06:56 AM
#155
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Orange County CA
Posts: 1,170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hoss,
Maybe you know. Are you aware of any formally trained aviators that were involved in the writing of the 'AMA’s Understanding the FAA's Interpretation of the Rule and How to Comment'?
Frank
Maybe you know. Are you aware of any formally trained aviators that were involved in the writing of the 'AMA’s Understanding the FAA's Interpretation of the Rule and How to Comment'?
Frank
10-21-2014, 07:25 AM
#156
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Spring Hill, FL
Posts: 893
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have no problem with being aware and on top of the ball as you say. What I do have a problem with and is the subject of this thread is the use of inflammatory statements like "your full-scale license may be jeopardized" that provides no value added to the discussion other than its fear factor or "FAA working to make radio control flight illegal” with no supporting evidence to back up the false misleading statement.
Frank
10-21-2014, 08:10 AM
#157
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Orange County CA
Posts: 1,170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This seems like an attack Frank......
First off, I don't recall saying/typing "your full-scale license may be jeopardized"
Second, the tile of "FAA Working to Make Radio Control Flight Illegal?" I will agree was a little extreme. The title is not too far from the intention of the original title of the supporting article. I did this to attract attention to the fact that the FAA canceled a very important A.C. for the model aviation community. Your claim of no supporting evidence is completely wrong.
Okay, so now that's out of the way, lets get back to the topic.......
Frank has shined light on a good point on CFRs Change 6. This is what everyone needs to pay attention to. The FAA is posturing themselves to be able to penalize people whom are flying their model aircraft for hire, or their multi-rotor in a way the FAA believes unsafe, such as near bridges or buildings, over people and such. If you are flying your radio control aircraft in accordance to AMA guidelines and PL 112-95 sec 336, you have nothing to worry about. If you are the person that does not follow those guidelines, then you do need to worry about the FAA and all of the new rules, guidelines and policies and other loop holes the FAA is trying to go through to make sure they can penalize.
In simple terms, If you plan to fly a radio control aircraft for hire, (the FAA is laying the ground work to make sure the FAA does not loose future legal cases). you should be worried. If you plan to fly your radio control aircraft for pleasure at an AMA field or following AMA safety guidelines, you have nothing to worry about.
First off, I don't recall saying/typing "your full-scale license may be jeopardized"
Second, the tile of "FAA Working to Make Radio Control Flight Illegal?" I will agree was a little extreme. The title is not too far from the intention of the original title of the supporting article. I did this to attract attention to the fact that the FAA canceled a very important A.C. for the model aviation community. Your claim of no supporting evidence is completely wrong.
Okay, so now that's out of the way, lets get back to the topic.......
Frank has shined light on a good point on CFRs Change 6. This is what everyone needs to pay attention to. The FAA is posturing themselves to be able to penalize people whom are flying their model aircraft for hire, or their multi-rotor in a way the FAA believes unsafe, such as near bridges or buildings, over people and such. If you are flying your radio control aircraft in accordance to AMA guidelines and PL 112-95 sec 336, you have nothing to worry about. If you are the person that does not follow those guidelines, then you do need to worry about the FAA and all of the new rules, guidelines and policies and other loop holes the FAA is trying to go through to make sure they can penalize.
In simple terms, If you plan to fly a radio control aircraft for hire, (the FAA is laying the ground work to make sure the FAA does not loose future legal cases). you should be worried. If you plan to fly your radio control aircraft for pleasure at an AMA field or following AMA safety guidelines, you have nothing to worry about.
Last edited by TimJ; 10-21-2014 at 08:13 AM.
10-21-2014, 08:30 AM
#159
Tim,
I have no problem with being aware and on top of the ball as you say. What I do have a problem with and is the subject of this thread is the use of inflammatory statements like "your full-scale license may be jeopardized" that provides no value added to the discussion other than its fear factor or "FAA working to make radio control flight illegal” with no supporting evidence to back up the false misleading statement.
Frank
I have no problem with being aware and on top of the ball as you say. What I do have a problem with and is the subject of this thread is the use of inflammatory statements like "your full-scale license may be jeopardized" that provides no value added to the discussion other than its fear factor or "FAA working to make radio control flight illegal” with no supporting evidence to back up the false misleading statement.
Frank
10-21-2014, 08:40 AM
#160
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Orange County CA
Posts: 1,170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is very common practice in journalism now. It's like having an inflatable flailing arm man out side of your business.
Last edited by TimJ; 10-21-2014 at 09:11 AM.
10-21-2014, 10:22 AM
#161
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Spring Hill, FL
Posts: 893
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry if it seems like an attack but it is the method of spinning a topic that the facts do not support that I have problems with and I’ve stated my opinion of it.
You did not, the AMA did, see post #1. Your post advising that I answer carefully was directly after Al’s question regarding the state of my opinion of post #1.
The article was titled “The FAA Is Trying to Erase the 1981 Document That Legalized Hobby Drones” which is only partially true because that document never “legalized Hobby Drones” and if the author had done some research he would have found several FAA documents stating it was not to be used for sUAS beyond LOS or commercial uses as implied by the author.
Okay, now I’m in agreement with what you are saying. What I don’t understand is the AMA’s insistence on fighting the FAA over its authority over the NAS. I think our money would be better spent on clarifying the requirements where necessary educating AMA members and assisting clubs in compliance.
Regards
Frank
PS Sorry about the bold type, can't seem to be able to turn it off.
Second, the tile of "FAA Working to Make Radio Control Flight Illegal?" I will agree was a little extreme. The title is not too far from the intention of the original title of the supporting article. I did this to attract attention to the fact that the FAA canceled a very important A.C. for the model aviation community. Your claim of no supporting evidence is completely wrong.
Okay, so now that's out of the way, lets get back to the topic.......
Frank has shined light on a good point on CFRs Change 6. This is what everyone needs to pay attention to. The FAA is posturing themselves to be able to penalize people whom are flying their model aircraft for hire, or their multi-rotor in a way the FAA believes unsafe, such as near bridges or buildings, over people and such. If you are flying your radio control aircraft in accordance to AMA guidelines and PL 112-95 sec 336, you have nothing to worry about. If you are the person that does not follow those guidelines, then you do need to worry about the FAA and all of the new rules, guidelines and policies and other loop holes the FAA is trying to go through to make sure they can penalize.
In simple terms, If you plan to fly a radio control aircraft for hire, (the FAA is laying the ground work to make sure the FAA does not loose future legal cases). you should be worried. If you plan to fly your radio control aircraft for pleasure at an AMA field or following AMA safety guidelines, you have nothing to worry about.
Frank has shined light on a good point on CFRs Change 6. This is what everyone needs to pay attention to. The FAA is posturing themselves to be able to penalize people whom are flying their model aircraft for hire, or their multi-rotor in a way the FAA believes unsafe, such as near bridges or buildings, over people and such. If you are flying your radio control aircraft in accordance to AMA guidelines and PL 112-95 sec 336, you have nothing to worry about. If you are the person that does not follow those guidelines, then you do need to worry about the FAA and all of the new rules, guidelines and policies and other loop holes the FAA is trying to go through to make sure they can penalize.
In simple terms, If you plan to fly a radio control aircraft for hire, (the FAA is laying the ground work to make sure the FAA does not loose future legal cases). you should be worried. If you plan to fly your radio control aircraft for pleasure at an AMA field or following AMA safety guidelines, you have nothing to worry about.
Regards
Frank
PS Sorry about the bold type, can't seem to be able to turn it off.
10-21-2014, 11:06 AM
#162
This seems like an attack Frank......
First off, I don't recall saying/typing "your full-scale license may be jeopardized"
Second, the tile of "FAA Working to Make Radio Control Flight Illegal?" I will agree was a little extreme. The title is not too far from the intention of the original title of the supporting article. I did this to attract attention to the fact that the FAA canceled a very important A.C. for the model aviation community. Your claim of no supporting evidence is completely wrong.
Okay, so now that's out of the way, lets get back to the topic.......
Frank has shined light on a good point on CFRs Change 6. This is what everyone needs to pay attention to. The FAA is posturing themselves to be able to penalize people whom are flying their model aircraft for hire, or their multi-rotor in a way the FAA believes unsafe, such as near bridges or buildings, over people and such. If you are flying your radio control aircraft in accordance to AMA guidelines and PL 112-95 sec 336, you have nothing to worry about. If you are the person that does not follow those guidelines, then you do need to worry about the FAA and all of the new rules, guidelines and policies and other loop holes the FAA is trying to go through to make sure they can penalize.
In simple terms, If you plan to fly a radio control aircraft for hire, (the FAA is laying the ground work to make sure the FAA does not loose future legal cases). you should be worried. If you plan to fly your radio control aircraft for pleasure at an AMA field or following AMA safety guidelines, you have nothing to worry about.
First off, I don't recall saying/typing "your full-scale license may be jeopardized"
Second, the tile of "FAA Working to Make Radio Control Flight Illegal?" I will agree was a little extreme. The title is not too far from the intention of the original title of the supporting article. I did this to attract attention to the fact that the FAA canceled a very important A.C. for the model aviation community. Your claim of no supporting evidence is completely wrong.
Okay, so now that's out of the way, lets get back to the topic.......
Frank has shined light on a good point on CFRs Change 6. This is what everyone needs to pay attention to. The FAA is posturing themselves to be able to penalize people whom are flying their model aircraft for hire, or their multi-rotor in a way the FAA believes unsafe, such as near bridges or buildings, over people and such. If you are flying your radio control aircraft in accordance to AMA guidelines and PL 112-95 sec 336, you have nothing to worry about. If you are the person that does not follow those guidelines, then you do need to worry about the FAA and all of the new rules, guidelines and policies and other loop holes the FAA is trying to go through to make sure they can penalize.
In simple terms, If you plan to fly a radio control aircraft for hire, (the FAA is laying the ground work to make sure the FAA does not loose future legal cases). you should be worried. If you plan to fly your radio control aircraft for pleasure at an AMA field or following AMA safety guidelines, you have nothing to worry about.
10-21-2014, 11:07 AM
#163
Hoss,
Maybe you know. Are you aware of any formally trained aviators that were involved in the writing of the 'AMA’s Understanding the FAA's Interpretation of the Rule and How to Comment'?
Frank
Maybe you know. Are you aware of any formally trained aviators that were involved in the writing of the 'AMA’s Understanding the FAA's Interpretation of the Rule and How to Comment'?
Frank
I have not been a real part of AMA's "In crowd" for a number of years. As I have previously stated, I urged Rich to become a DVP. He Did. 'Nuff said!
10-21-2014, 11:35 AM
#164
I wish people would stop refering to NAS becasue it is not what people seem to think. It is not every bit of air over our land, it is actually only the system of air navigation and airspace used by commercial aircraft and as such is only navigable airspace.
http://en.mimi.hu/aviation/national_...ce_system.html
http://en.mimi.hu/aviation/national_...ce_system.html
10-21-2014, 12:08 PM
#165
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Orange County CA
Posts: 1,170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Frank, the reason I believe the AMA is fighting vigorously is due to the fact that the way the interpretations, policy changes, etc, are written, a person flying say a peanut scale airplane in front of his/her house could technically be penalized.
Sport_pilot, the FAA refers to the NAS constantly within their regulations. And the NAS is exactly what people think.
Just FYI, we (radio control pilots) fly in Class G air space of the NAS unless otherwise classified differently on navigation sectionals.
Going by your link:
Sport_pilot, the FAA refers to the NAS constantly within their regulations. And the NAS is exactly what people think.
Just FYI, we (radio control pilots) fly in Class G air space of the NAS unless otherwise classified differently on navigation sectionals.
Going by your link:
Last edited by TimJ; 10-22-2014 at 07:31 AM.
10-21-2014, 01:27 PM
#166
My Feedback: (26)
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Chicago,
IL
Posts: 794
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Frank do you think that flight above 400 feet is allowed by either the PL or the Interpretation of the PL? Do you think the FAA could not pull your cert for flights above 400 feet? If not why not
thanks
thanks
10-21-2014, 02:50 PM
#167
When they were published, I read with interest PL-112-95 SEC 336 and the FAA follow-up interpretation. I was confused by the AMA’s “The Academy of Model Aeronautics’ Areas of Concern FAA Interpretive Rule Regarding the Special Rule for Model Aircraft” and at the time wondered if they read the same documents I read. I have since reread these documents several times and at no time did I believe that my airman certificate was in “jeopardy”.
How many AMA members out there that also hold an FAA airman certificate feel that their certificate is in any way jeopardized by these documents?
Frank
I reference rule change 6
" For a deliberate, egregious violation by a certificate holder, regardless of whether the certificate holder is exercising the privileges of the certificate in connection with the violations associated with a UAS operation, certificate action, may be appropriate.
5
A certificate holder should appreciate the potential for endangerment that operating a UAS contrary to the FAA’s safety regulations may cause. Accordingly, a violator’s status as a certificate holder is an aggravating factor that may warrant a civil penalty above the moderate range for a single, first, time, inadvertent violation"
10-21-2014, 04:36 PM
#170
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Apopka,
FL
Posts: 1,367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
National Airspace System
A system involving everything on and in the air that has to do with airspace. Airports, rules and regulations, charts, navigation, and every instrument and piece of equipment related to air travel.
By that definition the golfers in the USA need to be looking to the PGA before the FAA shuts the Country Club down.
Are you guys really concerned that the FAA in black helicopters is going to shut down your club field?
A system involving everything on and in the air that has to do with airspace. Airports, rules and regulations, charts, navigation, and every instrument and piece of equipment related to air travel.
By that definition the golfers in the USA need to be looking to the PGA before the FAA shuts the Country Club down.
Are you guys really concerned that the FAA in black helicopters is going to shut down your club field?
10-21-2014, 04:46 PM
#171
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Orange County CA
Posts: 1,170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who said anything about FAA wanting to shut down club fields?
I thought I was pretty clear about FAA intent.
I thought I was pretty clear about FAA intent.
Frank has shined light on a good point on CFRs Change 6. This is what everyone needs to pay attention to. The FAA is posturing themselves to be able to penalize people whom are flying their model aircraft for hire, or their multi-rotor in a way the FAA believes unsafe, such as near bridges or buildings, over people and such. If you are flying your radio control aircraft in accordance to AMA guidelines and PL 112-95 sec 336, you have nothing to worry about. If you are the person that does not follow those guidelines, then you do need to worry about the FAA and all of the new rules, guidelines and policies and other loop holes the FAA is trying to go through to make sure they can penalize.
In simple terms, If you plan to fly a radio control aircraft for hire, (the FAA is laying the ground work to make sure the FAA does not loose future legal cases). you should be worried. If you plan to fly your radio control aircraft for pleasure at an AMA field or following AMA safety guidelines, you have nothing to worry about.
In simple terms, If you plan to fly a radio control aircraft for hire, (the FAA is laying the ground work to make sure the FAA does not loose future legal cases). you should be worried. If you plan to fly your radio control aircraft for pleasure at an AMA field or following AMA safety guidelines, you have nothing to worry about.
Last edited by TimJ; 10-21-2014 at 04:49 PM.
10-21-2014, 06:43 PM
#172
Senior Member
Sorry if it seems like an attack but it is the method of spinning a topic that the facts do not support that I have problems with and I’ve stated my opinion of it.
You did not, the AMA did, see post #1. Your post advising that I answer carefully was directly after Al’s question regarding the state of my opinion of post #1.
The article was titled “The FAA Is Trying to Erase the 1981 Document That Legalized Hobby Drones” which is only partially true because that document never “legalized Hobby Drones” and if the author had done some research he would have found several FAA documents stating it was not to be used for sUAS beyond LOS or commercial uses as implied by the author.
Okay, now I’m in agreement with what you are saying. What I don’t understand is the AMA’s insistence on fighting the FAA over its authority over the NAS. I think our money would be better spent on clarifying the requirements where necessary educating AMA members and assisting clubs in compliance.
Regards
Frank
PS Sorry about the bold type, can't seem to be able to turn it off.
You did not, the AMA did, see post #1. Your post advising that I answer carefully was directly after Al’s question regarding the state of my opinion of post #1.
The article was titled “The FAA Is Trying to Erase the 1981 Document That Legalized Hobby Drones” which is only partially true because that document never “legalized Hobby Drones” and if the author had done some research he would have found several FAA documents stating it was not to be used for sUAS beyond LOS or commercial uses as implied by the author.
Okay, now I’m in agreement with what you are saying. What I don’t understand is the AMA’s insistence on fighting the FAA over its authority over the NAS. I think our money would be better spent on clarifying the requirements where necessary educating AMA members and assisting clubs in compliance.
Regards
Frank
PS Sorry about the bold type, can't seem to be able to turn it off.
The FAA has set the stage to expand it's control of anything that "flies" in air to space.
I can remember when the CAA/FAA had no or little authority over even full size aircraft operated over the owners land, and below
a certain altitude above the land.
Camel's nose and tent applies.
10-21-2014, 07:10 PM
#173
Sport_pilot, the FAA refers to the NAS constantly within their regulations
And where does this say that the NAS is all airspace? It does not.
10-21-2014, 07:14 PM
#174
By that definition the golfers in the USA need to be looking to the PGA before the FAA shuts the Country Club down.
10-21-2014, 08:50 PM
#175
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Orange County CA
Posts: 1,170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sport_pilot, please take the time to read all of the documents. It may help you. It may also be of good help for you to research and inform yourself of what the National Airspace System is.
Last edited by TimJ; 10-21-2014 at 09:28 PM.