http://www.techenstein.com/faa-claim...orting-events/

How about it?

It also includes within 3 nautical miles of the Disney Parks. (wonder what got paid to who for that). So for the ~100,000 citizens that live within 3.5 miles of a border to Disney World in Florida, you just lost the capability to fly model planes, kites, balloons, etc. and enjoy those safe activities on YOUR PROPERTY!

And all without any compensation, yes the FAA is the agency that just keeps on taking..........................................

Thank traditional R/C's tie to FPV/quadcopter toys for this. Another example of why the AMA needs to separate itself from such toys. I wonder how they enforce such rules?

Is the Apopka field impacted?

I know most of the actual parks are probably surrounded by nearly that much property.

RCACF (Apopka) is OK, as is Osceola Flyers, the impact is on hundreds of square miles of public property, parks and private property that are now under a perpetual NOTAM .

Sorry DAD just don't try to fly a RC plane on your property! Mickey Mouse needs protection from RC.

Vertical, correct me if I am reading you wrong, but,
are you saying that had AMA shunned multi-rotor/fpv,
AMA members and/or non-members who only fly "traditional RC" would
be exempt from this NOTAM?

I feel that anything we can do to separate ourselves from the aircraft that are flying inside these stadiums and around these sporting events would certainly strengthen our position to be or get exempt from such policies. The public will continue to think that we are all one in the same, and then subject to the same guidelines. Line of sight flying, is not FPV and autonomous flying. We need to make that clear, otherwise the whole lot will be made illegal or heavily restricted.

What's the big deal, DC has a permanent NOTAM that covers a much larger area, a circle of 30 NM radius (About 1927.431 Sq NM). 3 NM is nothing, only 28.27431 Sq NM, barely a postage stamp.

How is a NOTAM "overstepping boundaries"?

NOTAMs have existed for decades without issue, including many that specifically notify pilots of model aircraft (and kites, birds, rockets, etc) in the area. If I'm flying there, I want that information available to me.

These stupid "drones" and their irresponsible pilots are gonna be the death ot responsible RC flying.

It's not really. Sometimes these stories and the interpretations of clearly involved, and to some degree biased participants, are as alarmist and hyperbolic as the news stories we keep seeing on these machines. CBS did one this morning that had some obvious gaps in it. I couldn't find a full link to the segment on CBS this morning, but this is a summary of it:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/drone-te...cern-for-nypd/

Of course this is going to be a concern of theirs, and it's a valid one. Sure the small units can barely carry a 2200 battery, but most folks have seen the larger ones that can carry much heavier payloads. And if it ever happens it's not so much the payload, it's going to be the fact that it was done, and god forbid LE didn't at least try to get out ahead of it before it happened. It's a no win for them if they do nothing, and the same if they do something.

I have no issues with a NOTAM for a sporting event, who would want one of these flying over their head if they were at a game. And I mean any RC aircraft, helis and planes too. It would also be a temp thing, not a standing one like DC. And the AMA being involved or not involved is irrelevant, this is a LE deal. AMA distancing itself from UAV's would have no bearing on anything. The technology, some seriously irresponsible people, and the scary possibility of what might happen has gotten us to this stage. Anyone remember this:

http://torrentfreak.com/pirate-party...merkel-130917/

Ya, they were smirking and smiling because it looked like a toy and crashed harmlessly and caused no damage to person or property. What if it had been more sinister though?

As for Disney, they have plenty of legitimate reasons to not have RC stuff flying over their property. As someone alluded to, no doubt they pulled strings to make that happen. Wouldn't be surprised to see other outfits like that do it as well.

It's a shame that specific rules and laws have to be carved out, and our freedoms curtailed because of a few. I'd like to see the folks that ignore these rules/laws, or damage property or injure someone be held accountable, financially and criminally. Fine them, then throw of couple of these people in jail and set a big example.

Very thoughtful post, Porcia83

The problem is these NOTAM's are now effecting line of site RC because of what a completely different type of model is doing. So what happens if I am flying at my model airplane club, and a NOTAM has been issued, that I was not aware of? In all reality, this would have no effect on anyones safety, but I would be subject to arrest for not complying to the NOTAM? Again, who would I be dealing with? Feds in black suits, local law enforcement? Someone has to enforce this unreasonable set of rules.

I don't have a problem with laws that control what you can overfly but saying you can't fly within 3 miles of someplace is just wrong.

In general it is a quad etc that is flying in that manner, but that doesn't preclude a heli or fixed wing from doing the same. Brad has mentioned numerous times before it's the method of flying that's the issue, not the type of craft. As for the NOTAMS, you're responsible to know. The chances that one gets sprung up suddenly is extremely rare. As to the sporting event, one would know about them well in advance. They are usually issues for VIP travel, we get them in CT all the time. Well in advance, and if you are an AMA member, you normally get a notice from them. In addition, our club secretary sends out a second notice to our members alerting them to this. If you are not a club or AMA member, it's still going to be up to you to be aware.

You bring up a good point though in terms of enforcement. Unreasonable or not, someone is going to enforce them. I'm guessing it would be local LE, and depending on the situation, perhaps federal. And the chances of being caught might be slim, but I don't know that I would want to be the one to find out how serious the laws will be enforced.

I get that you want the AMA to distance themselves from uav's, but that issue aside what do you think should be done about people who fly recklessly. Forgot the craft they fly, are you against having laws on the books to hold these folks accountable? If not, what would you suggest in terms of enforcement and punishment?

double post, difficult systems issues!

What would be the appropriate distance then? I don't know that a shorter distance would be any better, but I don't know where the 3 miles came from. Gotta figure it has something to do with their ability to respond and take some type of protective measures? The CBS report seemed to indicate that the NYC LE folks were coming up with specific plans to deal with UAVs. I'm guessing it would be impossible for a heli to get up in the air and be able to do anything to deal with a uav, just not enough time. Then again they also mentioned the possible use of radar to detect anything flying in a small area. Who knows!

Wow. Just how stupid and ballsy can the FAA be?
And what a stretch of their authority!

And to try to issue that "rule" in a NOTAM???
Like R/C pilots read NOTAMS? Or NOTAMS are sent to R/C pilots??? What a joke!

This hobby is completely outside the authority of the FAA. What a bunch of ignorant people!
What will those fools try next? Require licenses for the purchase of simulators? Or voilate Santa under some FAR Part 121 or Part 61 rule on Christmas Eve? Or perhaps go after Barbie and Ken dolls?
Geeze!

Appropriate distance ZERO. Disney is a corporate, i.e. PRIVATE ENTITY. I have no issue with a "private entity" restricting the use of THEIR PROPERTY. I do have an issue with a "private entity" getting the government to restrict the peaceful enjoyment of other citizens use of their property.

I guess if a company and it's executives give enough money to the right political party anything is possible.

In the appropriate words of Martin Niemoller (post war Germany)

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
[h=1][/h]

Obviously not as stupid as people who do not think they have any "authority".

Frank

If you have a problem with something, you focus on that which is giving you trouble. Line of sight RC is not the problem and has not been giving anyone trouble. FPV has been. That is the problem. Go after them, not line of sight.

It would seem this may be an excuse to go after line of sight RC as well. Even though we are not creating an issue.

Kind of reminds me of fire arms, except we do not have a constitutional right protecting our ability to fly.

I feel like reposting this 20 times. But I won't.

So if you go to a major sporting event which is the greater danger:

1. being hit by a guadcopter?
2. getting into a fistfight with the beer sodden drunk sitting next to you?

Ironic that it is the stadium that profits by selling beer

They could put the limit at ten miles or twenty miles it would not help anything, If someone wanted to fly a model over a venue they would still do it. As I
said I understand saying you can't overfly someplace but if you are flying on your own property that just happens to be within three miles of a venue
that should be OK.