Go Back  RCU Forums > RC Airplanes > AMA Discussions
Reload this Page >

WAKE UP AMA. Another field closed!!

Notices
AMA Discussions Discuss AMA policies, decisions & any other AMA related topics here.

WAKE UP AMA. Another field closed!!

Old 11-16-2015, 08:15 AM
  #251  
cloudancer03
My Feedback: (22)
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: palm harbor, FL
Posts: 2,232
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

First I don't have my head stuck where the sun don't shine.I am foward looking and post I've about most tech advances but yes but I have been upset about drone activity being lumped with traditional rc activity.the public is not educated about drones and all too often mix the the two together.I have flown rc nearly 40 yrandfriends who know what i do often ask me about drones .I don't fly them primary because I have no real interest.I have no objections to others that love them.unlike planes they can fly drones just about anywhere and now don't even need to see them.unfortunately not every operator has the publics right to privacy and public safety at heart.rogue flyers usually Yong people push the boundaries of common and legal sense.I credit the ama for its attempt to be inclusive and accepting but not unlike some of these posts it's time the ama separate it's self from drones.flying rc planes is simply about flying for the sheer enjoyment it gives.drones are more and more looking at commerce and other mostly legitimate endeavors.it's not being anti drone but for many obvious reasons flying warbirds scale and sport aircraft is so much different.the only common bond is that both are remote controlled.regrettably we we lose support and fields will come under fire having been around many yearama stop caving in to the droneget back to our roots for being.the ama should have been proactive years ago helping procure flying sites .we have always lost fields for the usual reasons of noise and housing development creep but now the drones will likely accelerate that problem.In many urban parts of the country rc will be negatively impacted and sites reduced.our hobby is being threatened and regrettably the ama is heading in the wrong direction with respect to drone activites.
Old 11-16-2015, 08:17 AM
  #252  
Sport_Pilot
 
Sport_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 16,916
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by islandflyer View Post
Repeating a lie (there is not other word for repeating an untrue and undocumented statement over and over) which comes as a conclusion obtained by faulty logic does not make it true, even if you repeat it "ad nauseam".

The only concern we all have is that the AMA is taking Model Aviation association down a path of government regulation which we do not want or deserve, as the targeted group for this regulation (which has already begun and will only become increasing) is Drones, an not Model Aviation as it has been practiced for 78 years under the AMA.

For the record, Dave Johnson, owner and CEO of Desert Aircraft, has a huge vested interest in Drones: he nevertheless completely agrees that drones need to have their own organization separate from the AMA.
I believe the AMA sued the FAA a year ago to rid itself of regulation. Does anyone know what happened to that?
Old 11-16-2015, 08:39 AM
  #253  
BarracudaHockey
My Feedback: (11)
 
BarracudaHockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 26,193
Received 258 Likes on 207 Posts
Default

I believe the "suit" was a means to ask for a judicial review, not sure of the status of that.
Old 11-16-2015, 10:02 AM
  #254  
Silent-AV8R
 
Silent-AV8R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 5,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by BarracudaHockey View Post
I believe the "suit" was a means to ask for a judicial review, not sure of the status of that.
It is currently in legal limbo, aka "abeyance" while the FAA is given time to review all the comments received and the NPRM finalized into actual FARs.
Old 11-16-2015, 10:53 AM
  #255  
porcia83
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Hartford, CT
Posts: 7,269
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by combatpigg View Post
"...You are banking on the fact that I don't keep detailed records on hand of everything that I've ever witnessed or seen in print. ....."

No, I wasn't banking on that. Never in my wildest dreams would I have banked on that...because well, who in their right mind would. But thanks for clarifying the issue.
Old 11-16-2015, 01:05 PM
  #256  
combatpigg
Senior Member
My Feedback: (3)
 
combatpigg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: arlington, WA
Posts: 20,356
Received 26 Likes on 24 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by porcia83 View Post
No, I wasn't banking on that. Never in my wildest dreams would I have banked on that...because well, who in their right mind would. But thanks for clarifying the issue.
Oh what a tangled web we weave...................huh Pinocchio...?
Old 11-16-2015, 02:09 PM
  #257  
Chris P. Bacon
Banned
My Feedback: (4)
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,762
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by porcia83 View Post
No, I wasn't banking on that. Never in my wildest dreams would I have banked on that...because well, who in their right mind would. But thanks for clarifying the issue.
Selective memory. No one remembers when you're right, no one forgets when you're wrong....
Old 11-16-2015, 06:37 PM
  #258  
Maximilionalpha
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Hither & Yonder, USA
Posts: 188
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nle2vhdSDvA
Old 11-16-2015, 08:30 PM
  #259  
smaze17
My Feedback: (60)
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Mooresville, NC
Posts: 1,480
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Silent-AV8R View Post
The wonderful City of Los Angeles just passed a new law that codifies their misinterpretation of AC 91-57A and the AMA Safety Code. Among the highlights:

1) No FPV at all, even with a spotter as allowed by the AMA
2) 400 foot hard altitude cap everywhere in the City
3) No flying within 5 miles of any airport with a tower without express permission
4) No night flying. Period.

This effectively ends some long time activities within the City limits and jeopardizes more than one long time flying site. It also ends soaring in the City and stops night flying at a few well attended helicopter events.

But at least they stopped short of a total ban. So I guess that is "good" news.
Does this mean that Sepulveda Basin is gonna close? Unbelievable.
Old 11-16-2015, 10:59 PM
  #260  
Silent-AV8R
 
Silent-AV8R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 5,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by smaze17 View Post
Does this mean that Sepulveda Basin is gonna close? Unbelievable.
No, nothing in the new law would cause the Basin to close. VNY is already well aware of them, so that is not an issue, They already use an altitude below 400 feet, so that is not an issue either. About the only things that will be banned at the Basin are any FPV flying that may be going on and night flying, which mostly was done at heli events. The vast majority of Basin pilots will notice almost no differences at all.
Old 11-17-2015, 03:08 AM
  #261  
franklin_m
 
franklin_m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 4,279
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by Silent-AV8R View Post
The wonderful City of Los Angeles just passed a new law that codifies their misinterpretation of AC 91-57A and the AMA Safety Code. Among the highlights:

1) No FPV at all, even with a spotter as allowed by the AMA
2) 400 foot hard altitude cap everywhere in the City
3) No flying within 5 miles of any airport with a tower without express permission
4) No night flying. Period.
There's a distinct possibility that this could become a model for other municipalities (big and small), as they look for what's been put in place in other cities.
Old 11-17-2015, 03:40 AM
  #262  
Chris P. Bacon
Banned
My Feedback: (4)
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,762
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by franklin_m View Post
There's a distinct possibility that this could become a model for other municipalities (big and small), as they look for what's been put in place in other cities.
Are you implying state and local government is authorized to regulate the NAS?
Old 11-17-2015, 04:28 AM
  #263  
Sport_Pilot
 
Sport_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 16,916
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by Chris P. Bacon View Post
Are you implying state and local government is authorized to regulate the NAS?
Not actually in the NAS if below 1000 feet in populated areas, unless within 5 miles of an airport.
Old 11-17-2015, 04:38 AM
  #264  
Chris P. Bacon
Banned
My Feedback: (4)
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,762
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Sport_Pilot View Post
Not actually in the NAS if below 1000 feet in populated areas, unless within 5 miles of an airport.
So state and local municipalities have the authority to regulate the airspace below the NAS?
Old 11-17-2015, 04:50 AM
  #265  
rcmiket
 
rcmiket's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: El Paso, TX
Posts: 5,276
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Chris P. Bacon View Post
So state and local municipalities have the authority to regulate the airspace below the NAS?
As far as airspace I have no clue but they can regulate by ordinance just where you can fly inside city or county jurisdiction, For example banning flying in city or county parks.

Mike
Old 11-17-2015, 09:47 AM
  #266  
Silent-AV8R
 
Silent-AV8R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 5,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Sport_Pilot View Post
Not actually in the NAS if below 1000 feet in populated areas, unless within 5 miles of an airport.
Not actually what the FAA says. Their position is that their authority starts at one molecule off the ground. And their opinion is the one that matters.
Old 11-17-2015, 10:08 AM
  #267  
Chris P. Bacon
Banned
My Feedback: (4)
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,762
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Silent-AV8R View Post
Not actually what the FAA says. Their position is that their authority starts at one molecule off the ground. And their opinion is the one that matters.
That's what I figured, thanks for confirming. Would not make sense otherwise.
Old 11-17-2015, 10:17 AM
  #268  
Sport_Pilot
 
Sport_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 16,916
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by Silent-AV8R View Post
Not actually what the FAA says. Their position is that their authority starts at one molecule off the ground. And their opinion is the one that matters.
That's NOT what the SCOTUS said in Causby VS the US. Also there is nothing that says where the NAS is. It is simply defined as the network of airspace services and airspace, but does not say where FAA authority starts or stops. Per Cassby it stops at the lower minimum altitude limits.
Old 11-17-2015, 12:17 PM
  #269  
warningshot
 
warningshot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: OU-OSU OK
Posts: 548
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Chris P. Bacon View Post
So state and local municipalities have the authority to regulate the airspace below the NAS?
Yes they can. Look at traffic speed laws. If the feds say the limt is 75 the states ca say it is65 and the cities can say it is 35. I would think that most people not trolling would know that.
Old 11-17-2015, 01:37 PM
  #270  
Chris P. Bacon
Banned
My Feedback: (4)
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,762
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by warningshot View Post
Yes they can. Look at traffic speed laws. If the feds say the limt is 75 the states ca say it is65 and the cities can say it is 35. I would think that most people not trolling would know that.
Too bad the local municipalities have always lost when they tried to override the FCC in regards to amateur radio.
Old 11-17-2015, 01:38 PM
  #271  
Chris P. Bacon
Banned
My Feedback: (4)
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,762
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Silent-AV8R View Post
Not actually what the FAA says. Their position is that their authority starts at one molecule off the ground. And their opinion is the one that matters.
Their opinion is the only one I care about.
Old 11-17-2015, 02:30 PM
  #272  
franklin_m
 
franklin_m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 4,279
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by Chris P. Bacon View Post
Their opinion is the only one I care about.
It appears that the Federal pre-emption is not absolute. Scroll down to several examples where the courts held that local ordnances were not necessarily pre-empted by Federal law. Any number of noise cases. However, in terms of municipalities restricting certain types of operations, I see Hoagland vs. Town of Clear Lake (prohibition of heliports), National Helicopter Corporation of America vs. City of New York et. all (zoning to restrict heli operations), People vs. Valenti (dangerous and reckless flying), and Riggs vs. Burson (prohibit land use as airport within distance of state park) as potentially applicable.

Thus it's not absolute that only the FAA can restrict operations.

http://airportnoiselaw.org/preempt.html
Old 11-17-2015, 03:38 PM
  #273  
init4fun
 
init4fun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 4,234
Received 44 Likes on 38 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by franklin_m View Post
Thus it's not absolute that only the FAA can restrict operations.

This is a true statement , when we have "temporary flight restrictions" it's not the FAA who issues them , it's the department of homeland security , and these TFRs apply to full scale operations as well when something like a presidential visit is the reason behind the TFR .
Old 11-17-2015, 03:50 PM
  #274  
Chris P. Bacon
Banned
My Feedback: (4)
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,762
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by init4fun View Post
This is a true statement , when we have "temporary flight restrictions" it's not the FAA who issues them , it's the department of homeland security , and these TFRs apply to full scale operations as well when something like a presidential visit is the reason behind the TFR .
"The Federal Aviation Regulations, or FARs, are rules prescribed by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) governing all aviation activities in the United States."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federa...on_Regulations
Old 11-17-2015, 04:09 PM
  #275  
init4fun
 
init4fun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 4,234
Received 44 Likes on 38 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Chris P. Bacon View Post
"The Federal Aviation Regulations, or FARs, are rules prescribed by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) governing all aviation activities in the United States."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federa...on_Regulations
Yes , Crispy , they do control all aviation , But !

They ain't the ONLY ones that have control over every thing that flys ! Yes , they control everything that flys , and now so too does homeland security .

Or are you disputing the fact that the homeland security folks have the right to issue TFRs ?

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2023 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.