Not to mention, our field is on private property. Law enforcement or not, they are not welcome there without a warrant of some type, or they are witnessing a crime. Since there is no law being broken, they will have no right to even be there. We still have private property rights in this country? Right?

True. And might I also add that a tin foil hat also prevents you from being seen/detected by aliens and police radar.

We do up to a point - if the airspace is controlled, it's still under the jurisdiction of the FAA. Even Class G requires the 400 ft AGL be respected.

NOTAM/TFR Issued for New Haven/Bridgeport, CT - 11/2


A FAA NOTAM/TFR has been issued for the area surrounding New Haven/Bridgeport, CT for Sunday, 11/02, from 2:00p until 5:30p EST. The TFR is issued for security purposes to cover VIP movement in this area. Outdoor radio control model aircraft operations are prohibited within the 30nm circle for the specific times listed below. Control Line and Free Flight modelers should use discretion when operating within the TFR. Please note that TFRs are subject to change with very short notice. Check back often for the most current NOTAM/TFR information. Timely alerts are also available on the web at: www.modelaircraft.org/membership/clubs/notams.aspx or on your cell phone at: Twitter.com/amagov.
See the link to the TFR below for more detailed information regarding the restrictions:
Map View of the Affected Area
View the TFR in Google Earth
(Open the KML file or download and open in Google Earth)

• Area 1 (11/2, 2:00p – 5:30p EST)
  (30nm radius from Latitude: 41º13'19"N, Longitude: 73º03'12"W)
• Area 2 (11/2, 2:00p – 3:00p EST)
  (10nm radius from Latitude: 41º15'50"N, Longitude: 72º53'09"W)
• Area 3 (11/2, 2:15p – 5:00p EST)
  (10nm radius from Latitude: 41º10'53"N, Longitude: 73º10'49"W)
• Area 4 (11/2, 4:30p – 5:30p EST)
  (10nm radius from Latitude: 41º15'50"N, Longitude: 72º53'09"W)

TFR - 4/5891
Regards

Government Relations Support Team

I think you give that agency far to much credit.

As for the NOTAMs being bogus, I think not. I know I wouldn't want to test that premise out, that's for sure. I'm not paranoid in general, but there isn't a doubt in my mind that any RC field within at least 10 miles of that NOTAM location have been scoped out by some type of LE this week. Willing to bet they have some type of technology to detect anything in the air too.

Is 30 NM a reasonable distance? It seems like extreme overkill to me. My largest aircraft never get more than 300 yds away. If that. Just shutting things down for the sake of it.

When Obama's campaign shut down our field, the airport was 2 towns away. Close to 25 miles. I did get the NOTAM to my email, through the AMA. As they have my info being a member. Not sure that the park flyer guys would get the memo, but I agree that I am sure they will know if you are in the air. Especially if you are at a recognized RC field. There were only 3 shut down by the NOTAM I received.

VG that's you though (speaking of the 300 yards)

There's folks flying these things (mainly multi rotor but some fixed wing stuff) with hopped up transmitters and illegally operated (for the most part) video equipment. Then they post the videos on youtube and get on the forums say they are exercising their rights or, as has been pointed out "having fun". Sadly that same crowd probably doesn't know anything about the TFR and aren't on the AMA mailing list.

The Secret Service and FAA WILL work with folks if there's planned events that their TFR threatens to quash though.

I have couldn't have put it any better.

While I realize the FAA keeps issuing NOTAMs like this, we as R/C pilots are not required to make ourselves aware of such NOTAMs or check the AMA website every day we fly planes. Nor are NOTAMs made available to us. So, in my opinion, the FAA attempt to impose "rules" onto a membership/organization they don't regulate is bogus. Only pilots of full sized aircraft are required to take note of NOTAMs when operating aircraft.

Only a bureaucratic agency like the FAA could com up with a term TFR "Temporary Flight Restriction" and then issue a "Permanent Temporary Flight Restriction" like the one for stadiums and the Disney Parks.

"Permanent Temporary" you just can't give these guys enough credit for their ability to abuse............................................. ........

o

"Government intelligence", "Giant Shrimp"! lol

Their ability to grammatically abuse the English language? Yeah, they are "creative" in doing that. Uneducated is a word that I'd rather use. We should be laughing at them for their poor understanding and use of the English language.
Next they will introduce Temporary Permanent Rules and Yes/No Restrictions!

The FAA officials really need to take up a hobby and get girlfriends. They seem to be a bunch of old and angry people who hate the world.

Well, I'll note again what you claimed earlier:

Like R/C pilots read NOTAMS? Or NOTAMS are sent to R/C pilots??? What a joke!

So if you are an AMA member the answer is yes, NOTAMS are in fact sent to R/C pilots. Are you ultimately responsible for complying with this NOTAM? Of course. Claiming you don't get them, or don't have to read them, or comply with them etc etc I don't think is the best affirmative defense should you find yourself at the wrong end of a prosecution. The chances of that happening of course are slim and almost none, but they exist. You do have a duty to know what you are doing, and if it's in compliance with whatever rule/reg/law etc is on the books.

I believe the two guys in Brooklyn (who were flying close to the police chopper) were muttering something about there being no law against what they were were doing as they were cuffed and hauled off to jail. I gotta wonder if it's really worth it to find out if they were right or not. The simple solution of course, read the NOTAM you get, comply with it. Think Trappy would have gotten as far as he did without a free legal defense? Fees for that case are well into the hundreds of thousands of dollars. That fact alone may deter some of these people from taking the risks that they do. Civil, criminal, and financial reperructions are the real deal. My hats off to the first person who wants to challenge these NOTAMs and see how serious things are as they saying "I'm not required to do xyz". Ultimately they might be right, but how much are they willing to risk to find out?

Yah, how many trivial laws exist so the cops can gain access into your car when they pull you over? In hopes of piling on with a felony or larger crime. Seatbelt laws come to mind. Thankfully they cannot pull you over in my state for that, yet.

The old saying, "Ignorance is no excuse", certainly applies here. Maybe a lawyer would like to be the one to challenge a NOTAM with his R/C activity, but then again you know what they say about being your own attorney!

To add another cliche', we are indeed on a slippery slope.

Needless to say, I'm a member of the AMA. However, I have never received a NOTAM from the AMA. Nor do I remember seeing any AMA rule that instructs me to be aware of a NOTAM.

NOTAM is an acronym for --- Notice To Airmen
Airmen are assigned Certificates (with a Certificate number) from the FAA.
The FAA did not issue me an Airmen Certificate when I joined the AMA. I don't need any form of a license to fly an R/C plane. So the FAA doesn't regulate me with NOTAMs.
We are not airmen. We are R/C "pilots" for the lack of a better term. (The word "pilot" really shouldn't be used in reference to us ... We who stand on the ground holding a transmitter.) We are simply hobbyists.

As I wrote earlier, "The FAA uses the concept that if they create a false premise and keep hammering at it, it will eventually fuel rumors that morph themselves into fact or accepted concepts."
In doing as the above, the FAA has convinced many people that they can govern organizations they don't regulate. And the NOATMs regarding the use of R/C aircraft that the FAA publishes is just another part of their arrogant dogma that many people have come to unfortunately accept.

The few people that have stood up to the FAA regarding these matters have succeded, but it did cost them thousands. Unfortunately, the FAA employs the schoolyard bully tactic with their lawyers. They have no case, but they will attempt to bury you with legal fees until you go away or give up. They are just a bunch of blow-hards.

And wasn't it just within the past year that the FAA actually dropped a case against someone for using an r/c FPV drone?

The FAA would have to completely re-write all their Rules & Regulations to align with each other in order to enforce their "rules" for R/C aircraft and the like. As it is now, a decent lawyer can punch holes their attempts to regulate our hobby or sanction anyone simply because the FAA "rules" or attempted rules are riddled with flaws and have no basis, and are contrary to their other rules.

John, would you please show this NOTAM? I'd like to read it

http://tfr.faa.gov/save_pages/detail_0_8326.html


Google made that easy.

Simply put, as the government grows larger our freedoms become restricted. It is happening now in all aspects of our lives. These flight NOTAMs are just an example of one such restriction.
Read your history books!

WAKE UP AMERICA!

Keep in mind that the United States Department of Homeland Security and The United States Secret Service are behind many of these NOTAMS. A pilot who violates on of these NOTAMS may wind up answering to the these two agencies, in addition to the FAA. A $10,000 fine (eg. our friend Pirker) is one thing. Being arrested and incarcerated by the federal government for suspected terrorism is another thing altogether. A suspected terrorist Pleading ignorance of a NOTAM that is available on any number of public websites (including the AMA's website) is simply not going to work.

To that end, lobbying the FAA is not going to work. The Secret Service and Homeland Security need to be convinced, beyond all doubt, that there is no conceivable way a unmanned aircraft could harm someone who is 30 miles away. Given the fact that the United States military had drones that are engineered, designed, built, and used for this exact purpose makes this a tough stance to take.

This has been an interesting discussion, but here's what I believe is the key language in Section 336 of Public Law 112-95, a.k.a. "FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012."

(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.

With very few exceptions, the air above most public and private land is part of the national airspace system. Regulations define the national airspace system and classifies all airspace in the US as class A, B, C, D, E, or G (F does not apply in US). Class G is defined as surface to 700 AGL (or 1200 AGL in designated mountainous areas). So even model aircraft that are operating 400 feet AGL and below over private property are indeed operating within the "national airspace system. The fact that ATC does not control class G ops is moot. So all FAA has to do is demonstrate that the aircraft is in the national airspace (i.e. airborne) and that it's being operated in a way that endangers.

That's more than enough to go after someone who may even be operating "over" private property. While some may get a lawyer and try to make a fight of it, on the issue of safety I expect the courts will defer to the FAA. Therefore, so long as the careless few continue to create media events that draw negative attention to our operations, then the FAA will continue to be under pressure to do something to address the perceived dangers.

Sure, it is posted on the AMA site at: http://www.modelaircraft.org/members...bs/notams.aspx

Here is the FAA PDF: [ATTACH]2044056[/IMG]

It would seem that this has many of the answers to the questions posed in this thread.

http://www.modelaircraft.org/files/IntheAir_TFRs.pdf

I wonder if the AMA ever got a reply to this one... http://www.modelaircraft.org/files/N...R-20100914.pdf


The effect on a large model aviation event would be profound by a TFR. Imagine if it canceled a national or world championship? Especially considering the fact that such an activity poses NO threat to the VIP's in question. It is truly a paranoid, over reach, by a power hungry gov.

How do you enforce your belief..?
By making it a requirement for all RC flyers to own a computer. ...?
This might sound silly, but little by little this is the direction that our society is moving if you want to be able to have full access to your government.
This is fundamentally wrong.
..

The problem is, I doubt the Gov cares if you have a computer or not. If you are in violation of their laws, they are going to come after you. To me, the scary thing is that the NOTAM's are getting more invasive. It is a mechanism to deny us our ability to fly. It is also another opportunity for them to deny anyone in violation of their law the offender of their freedom. The U.S. is good at incarcerating it's citizens.

This is where I wish a true visionary like Jules Verne or George Orwell could step in and show us what participating in this hobby / sport will be like in 20 years....