Notice that the AMA official states that it is OK to fly over 400' in some situations. Wrong.

No wonder so many are confused,

They are right! No rule against it except near airports!

The argument will be that the reg info doesn't say this. It's a no win...they don't want the rules...but then they don't see the rules and complain.

Only a AC says that and AC stands for Advisory Circular. They are advice and not a regulation.

Sport , I'm sorry friend , but you are wrong .........

the wording of the previously discussed Advisory Circular , with all of it's "Should , Shall , and other ambiguities has been replaced in the new directive that is requiring the registration .

I know you say you haven't registered so there is no way you could have seen the list of operating conditions a registrant is required to agree to as part of the registration process .........

Anyone else want to break the bad news to ol Sport here , or are ya gonna leave the dirty work up to me ?

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Ok , So I guess I gotta be the one to tell him ..... Sport , it says with no doubt , trick words , or possible loopholes ;

"I will not fly my UAS higher than 400 feet above ground level ."

That's it , no iffs ands or buts , it says what it says and if you do not check "yes" to the list of operating conditions it doesn't let you continue the registration . Now , I know you've argued for some time about the 400 feet when X distance from an airport only thing , but no such language exists to possibly be misconstrued in the wording the FAA has used .

Scream , Cry , kick your feet , the sad fact is that we ARE going to be in a world of deep doggie do do if we cause an accident while flying above 400 feet ! The FAA seems to have had a "wordsmith" of their own writing this set of operating conditions , and that sentence sadly looks pretty "bulletproof" to me ........

That is not a regulation either. And I have seen it. No law or regulation back's that up, The regulation proposed that does say that excludes model aircraft flown under a CBO. And it is certainly not valid if you don't register. As they said in the video the LAW says that model aircraft flown under CBO rules only have to stay below 400 feet when 5 miles from an airport. So far there is no regulation that says other wise.

Why does it seem no one cares about the fact that Congress told the FAA they are not allowed to do this at all? Everyone is arguing over the semantics of it instead of getting a hold of their US representatives in the Senate and in Congress to enforce their rules on the FAA instead of the FAA forcing illegal rules on us? Part 336 is not vague.

There is no doubt the multiplicity of terms is causing confusion. If it's designed to fly in the NAS, is controlled by a link from the ground, it is an UAS. Further, I do believe the FAA has already settled the issue that our RC aviating machines are indeed aircraft. This is one of the crucial issues surrounding the interpretation of Sec 336 of the 2012 FAA Modernization Act that the modeling community thought made us exempt from FAA meddling.

Sport , I hate to say this , but I think the whole #336 thing got blown by the AMA's inclusion of craft with BLOS abilities .


Believe me , it says what it says and you can argue with me till the cows come home and leave again , I am quite certain of what the FAA's intentions are with that sentence and don't think for a minute I'm happy with it cause I'm not . As already noted in some other thread , 400 feet kills sailplanes , a whole subset of the hobby wiped out with a stroke of a pen . Do you honestly believe come next July in the middle of flying season that if you were piloting a sailplane that went through a Cessna';s windshield at 900 feet or so that the FAA wouldn't use the 400 foot limit in your prosecution ? And please buddy , knock off the foolishness of "well I haven't signed it yet so it dont apply to me" all smug like , cause come springtime your gonna have to be registered and have agreed to the 400 foot limit in the process , or be ready to cough up 250K to uncle sam when you get caught flying a UAS without registration .

Like I said buddy , argue with me here all ya want , but you are wrong about this , no matter how you try to claim the FAA doesn't have the authority . I don't like it . I'm not on their side . But I know how the FAA operates , and you can take that 400 foot limit as being exactly what they want us to adhere to .

Finally, someone who understands it! Pray tell what does this mean, in particular the phrase I highlighted:

"the aircraft is operated in accordance with a community-based set of safety guidelines and within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization"

The AMA was trying to get it so you would have to be a AMA member to not be regulated by the FAA thats what the CBO language in the bill 336 was about. IMO neither the AMA nor the FAA has the right to force
anyone to join a certain org in order to fly RC or be exempt from FCC regulation.

As far as I know neither the AMA or the FAA has said exactly what that means but I think the AMA wants it to mean you have to be a AMA member I have wondered the same thing from the time I first had seen the language.

Sport: You are living in a world of your own and you should listen to itit4fun. Not registering certainly does not exempt anyone from obeying the law. Do you not have to obey traffic laws if you don't register your car or have a license to drive? The AMA safety code is in violation of the FAA's rule to stay below 400'. Which rule do you think is actually enforceable?

Do as you please, but you are wrong on this. I'm as PO'd as anyone as i really like flying sailplanes and was hoping to get back into competition next year.

I am not registering at this point.when does AMA finally divorce itself from these damn drones.

Hi Ira,

AMA (Rich Hanson, who probably wrote it) says it means you have to be a member. As far as I am concerned what it means to FAA is the only thing that counts and I haven't seen anything from them yet, not anything in the way of a simple direct answer, at least.

Hi bokuda ,

Yes Sir , it really sucks that things like sailplanes and pattern flying will be all but ruined by this 400 foot imposition . I have known for years that in spite of folks arguing that the word "advisory" in "Advisory Circular" means it's somehow optional , That it is in fact the FAA's decree that we stay below 400 ' . This has never been pushed as an issue because till now it hasn't been a problem . The flying camera crew has given the FAA no choice but to act since inaction leading up to an incident would be negligence on their part , seeing the evidence daily on Utoob and such .

To be honest , I'm surprised there hasn't been more angry mention of the 400 foot thing by those who've registered and agreed to the 400 foot limit ....

The 400 foot rule could end up killing small models that aren't capable of carrying some sort of an altitude limiting / controlling / reporting device.

Have you been following along on the issue. Wouldn't have mattered if they had previously, or would now, the FAA made the rules up as they saw fit. Now it's all conjecture and lamentations (and rightfully so to some degree). Register or not, that's a personal choice.

I don't doubt Rich Hanson said that but I have never seen anything in writing that says the same, I do agree what really matters is what it means to the FAA and I hope the FAA won't buy into having a separate set of rules
for AMA members.

Did you sign up? If so, your answer would have been there in black and white. 400ft limit, nothing vague or unclear about it.

That might be something the AMA is working on getting clarification on, we'll have to wait and see on that. Would be nice given the difference scenarios noted here, turbines, sailplanes etc.

I tend to think some are making a bigger deal out the FAA registration that it really is, I think for the vast majority of us it will business as usual as long as we don't do something to cause
the FAA to notice us. My largest concern is how some of the clubs will react will they try strictly enforce a 400 ft rule or will they mind their own business and let the FAA enforce things
which I doubt will be much of a problem.

Hey porcia83 ,

I think we may have two different conversations going on here . Some of us are talking about the 400 foot limit , where some others are talking about whether or not Rich Hanson said you must be an AMA member to be considered to be flying under (whatever's left of) the #336 exemption , AKA the whole "CBO" debacle . Anyway , I think you just answered the "Rich Hanson" topic with a "400 foot limit" topic answer .

Wait, there are only two different conversations going on...?

I think a day will come once we have been safely herded into the FAA's stewardship... they [or Congress] will decide that we need to carry a foolproof way to ensure compliance with the 400 foot rule.
The FAA can play SIMON SEZ with us whenever they please, now.

Well, that's because you are an American and have American values. Too bad you and I seem to be in the minority here.