Officer O'Malley pulls up to the club field and spots a man sitting at a table, staring into a TV monitor and wiggling the sticks of his transmitter. There is no airplane anywhere in sight.
Officer O'Malley is presented with a clear cut case of drone style flying and he informs this pilot of the NOTAM. He tells this man to land the plane ASAP.
Officer O'Malley witnesses the plane gradually appear from beyond a tree line that separates this field from a shopping center, a school and the interstate highway just 4 miles away. O'Malley knows that a presidential motorcade is due to pass through some time during the day.
Officer O'Malley then proceeds to the next field and spots a man flying a 4 channel RC plane. He watches the entire flight without the pilot's awareness and notices that the plane never flys beyond what look like the boundaries of the field. After the pilot lands, the officer asks the pilot if he is aware of the NOTAM and if he is involved with flying planes out of his field of view. The pilot ensures him that he does not have any equipment with him that could make that possible. The pilot adds that the boundaries of this field and the relatively small size of the model limit him to flying no more than roughly 1000 feet in any direction before it is time to turn around and "fly home". The officer is satisfied with this pilot's answers and so he drives off to the last RC field in his territory to pass on word of the NOTAM.

Yes, we were flying up to the start time of the NOTAM, they came to make sure we were down.

No, you are quite right. There have been three versions, the original written by Ilona Maine the AMA Safety director had four simple rules with 140 words. Version two was written by committee which was two pages of 910 words and the committee's second effort (current) contains 1185 words on three pages. Personally I'm a firm believer in the KISS principle. I can post all three versions and you can decide for yourself which is the most clear and concise.

Frank

PS: Please note in the current version the glaring error in the first sentence. I shudder to think what the 5 page document looked like.

Since the president is only Obama, neither Officer O'mally and the guy flying the "drone" really care about the NOTAM and have a good laugh at just how silly it is. The guy then teaches Officer O'Malley to fly the FPV. O'Malley and the guy continue flying the FPV and enjoy the rest of the day.

It is very obvious that you don't belong to the AMA or you would be getting these too. They are emailed FROM THE AMA to its members. But then you don't follow the AMA guidelines so why bother worrying about NOTAMs.

Just put a box of donuts and a thermos of coffee at the gate to the field and they will never get to the flight line.

I hope the police can find something a whole better to do than worry about such silliness. What a wonderful world this would be, if the when and where of flying model airplanes occurs takes precedence over all of the real threats.

Not ALL members are getting such from the AMA. I am a LIFE MEMBER, been a Contest Director since 1963, Leader since 1964, a 2-term DVP (Dist VI 1980+/-)
currently a candidate for AMA Executive Vice President, and I am not getting such e-mails from AMA. I get what I get from using AMA's web site.

You should be getting zip code based notifications. If you're not maybe your email address on file isn't up to date or its ending up in your spam by mistake?

Hey, Man, those guys know that a model airplane flier is probably an excellent place to get a day's credit for work performed, and about as SAFE as SAFE can be.

How about stating to whom you are addressing your statement, Mr. Barracuda H.

Whomever is saying they are an AMA member and not getting notified of local TFR's

We used to get a cop or two parked at the field watching models fly. They would be there about an hour, near lunch time, so maybe it was their lunch break.

Hey guys! Everyone seems to be getting careless with language.

First: A Drone is unmanned aircraft. It may be remote controlled or autonomous (ie. GPS controlled).

Second: A model airplane is a drone, by definition.

Section 336 of the 2012 FAA Modernization act, for the purpose of separating recreational model aviation from commercial drone use, created a separate subset of drones called recreational model aircraft. This is intended to prevent the FAA from applying commercial drone regulations to model aviation.

But, as far as the FAA is concerned, they have responsibility for the general safety of the all aviation activities and they have the obligation to limit any activity that they think is unsafe. Therefore, model airplanes are sometimes identified in NOTAMs So, get over it.

One thing we seem to forget is these notams were being applied to models long before FPV and the quad copters were popular. Also the FAA already knows that the
vast majority of RC craft has a range of only a couple of miles even with FPV.

Most .40 sized sport planes with a 6 ounce tank can cover 6 miles with ease at full throttle.
Long before FPV, Law Enforcement could not GAF about my .40 sized models that had a zero point zero percent chance of being flown via video link over populated areas.
The advent of dirt cheap, RTF DRONES has changed that. Now we have an epidemic of idiots who are doing their best to create problems for the other half of the RC fraternity who simply want to fly within a line of sight box and be happy with that.
The best way to avoid suspicion is to place as much distance as you can away from suspicious activity.

You say six miles but show me a of the shelf RC radio system that can control a model that far out. Also with a battery powered model most don't
have the battery life to cover six miles especially if carrying any extra weight. I know there are larger far more expensive craft that could go the
distance with a payload but 99% of the RC flyers are not using those types of craft. I would bet that if someone wanted to do a terrorist act they
most likely would not launch from a RC field and would want to launch as close to the target as possible.

IMO these notams really don't do munch to stop a would be terrorist but I do agree there are some irresponsible people flying FPV that need to
be dealt with and I think that could best be accomplished by the FAA and AMA working togather.

Since when was a stadium an aviation activity?

Ira d,
Do you think suing the organization you wish to be "working" with is conducive to a good working relationship?

Frank

Hi Sport ,

I'd be willing to bet , in the very near future , the minute you go zipping around some stadium with any kinds of RC flying device of which you are in control , the FAA will most certainly take the view of it being an Aviation related activity and punish you accordingly . The Pirker case has demonstrated to the FAA that there are holes in their absolute control of the skies , and I'm sure that when the dust settles on all this rulemaking business , that the FAA will have those holes plugged so as to be able to punish anyone flying anything with impunity . That's what the "letter" departments do , FAA , FCC , ETC , they further their iron grip with each new opportunity to do so and the Pirker example is a loss I'm sure the FAA didn't take lightly . I know some see Pirker as some kind of Hero , to me I see him as yet another POS who came , crapped in OUR playground , and left caring not of all he screwed in the future by his antics .

Just remember , with all this "He Man" talk of what "They" can or can't do , The wrong place to fight ANY injustice is at the losing end of the Law's guns . Protesting a NOTAM to a local officer sent on the call is going to have exactly zero effect on whether or not the FAA can tell you when to fly your RC model . At best you'll end up with a criminal record , at worse maybe even end up clubbed like the earlier mentioned seal ,

I doubt it. I suspect that the courts will make it clear that the FAA does not control the sky below altitude minimums, except for certified aircraft.

I agree that protesting will not result in anything, at least not for two more years. But law suits in court may.

Yes sir , it has been for many years now that public policy is not established through the majority's opinion , but rather by either Lawsuit or outright buying the favorable outcome you desire (The PAC) . This has been long before us and will exist long after we're gone . Now since we don't have the political or financial clout to buy our way favorable , the Lawsuit seems to be the way this will be played out , and God help us when we gotta resort to the courts for any kinds of "fair" or even "informed" decision ....

To put forth the idea that

Quote:

Now we have an epidemic of idiots who are doing their best to create problems for the other half of the RC fraternity

or


implies a motive or intent that just is not there.......................... it is simple ignorance at play.

Sure it is easy to say that there is some sort of conspiracy to damage LOS RC, simple but in this case just plain wrong.

All concerned, the FAA, AMA, manufactures, the media, the Congress have taken the easy path of publish a regulation, satiety code, instructions, law, etc. and that solves the problem. It does not.

My solution, like with getting a conceal carry permit for a firearm you must take a class on safety and regulations before the permit is issued. So I suggest that a online class with a test be created by the industry for any FPV pilot to take and show proof of passing the test before given possession or shipment of FPV equipment.

Would it stop the dedicated few that just wont follow the rules, NO that is where the police will be needed.

This will go to NTSB courts, at least initially. They are very informed, not always fair, but more fair than the FAA.

If the FAA wont get you, the EPA will. With the Nitromethane and synthetic oils spewing out and landing on the ground, surprised they aren't involved too. I can understand some of what they are doing, but it is a government organization, and they will go too far. As far as distance, my T-Clips with a FG-11 on it will go for an hour at 3/4 throttle, and that is moving fast for that plane. Add in a heading hold and altitude gyro, it can fly a straight line for an hour or more. How far can it travel in that time, I dont know, but I bet it is going to be more than 6 miles. Also with the 2.4 radios, they can shoot 6 miles line of sight, which is exactly what the curvature of the earth is. The plane only needs to receive the signals, and with a boosted radio, it can easily be flown for a longer distance. Large planes that can easily carry additional weight, or those that require a pound or more of lead to balance can be turned into small flying bombs by replacing the lead with C4. Yeah sounds Tom Clancyish, but imagine what 2-3 pounds of C4 can do, or Semtex, or any of those plastiques. Some of these planes can have enough power for unlimited verticals too, and one placed in just the right spot in front of an airplane on approach can create one hell of a mess if timed right. This is the thinking of Homeland, FBI, etc. I am quite certain they have run these possibilities over and over, so some of what this is about is justified. Unfortunately it impacts everyone involved in this hobby.

I can understand their reasoning for NOTAMs in most cases, but this one, over Disney, is just plain ridiculous.