rcmiket

Chad's reply to my 400 ft question on the AMA Government Relations Blog.



Hi Mike,
The FAA acknowledged that AMA members should continue to follow AMA’s community-based safety code. We also discussed and the FAA confirmed that the language on the FAA registration site is a guideline, not regulation. This guideline is not directed at the AMA community but rather, it is a simplified set of safety guidelines geared to the general public. We specifically addressed the 400 foot altitude limitation and explained how under appropriate circumstances some modeling activity necessarily occurs above 400’ and other activity occurs at altitude to protect modelers and spectators on the ground. The FAA understands that this community flies higher than the guideline and acknowledged that AMA pilots can abide by their own safety code which is proven to provide safe aeromodelling operations.
You can read about the FAA mandatory language at https://www.faa.gov/about/initiative...les/mandatory/.


Mike

Sport_Pilot

There is no rule that we fly below 400 feet period. There is no regulation. There is no law allowing them to enforce words on the preregistration certificate and even if there were it is poorly worded. So anyone who gets in trouble should sue the FAA.

franklin_m

One of the biggest risks in the bill's language is the requirement for FAA to meet with stakeholders under the "Updates" provision of the Special Rules for Model Aircraft.


‘‘(b) UPDATES.— (1) IN GENERAL.—The Administrator, in collaboration with government and industry stakeholders, including nationwide community-based organizations, shall initiate a process to update the operational parameters under subsection (a), as appropriate."

Subsection (a) are the rules about altitude, etc.

Now, remember how well things worked out last time the FAA gathered stakeholders to come up with rules? Wonder how well it'll work out next time? AMA vs Amazon, Airline Pilots, AOPA, etc. Yep, Congress was clever and found a way to appease AMA and yet give FAA the tools to restrict as they please.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

By that logic the AMA was able to convince congress to give them something they wanted? Huh.

TimJ

Because it is the truth. How hard is that to understand? it is simple logic.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

It's another classic can't win. They don't answer the questions, they get hammered. They answer the question (with information that is helpful to modelers), and still they can't hammered. As if someone from the AMA is going to give absolutely incorrect and wrong information...what in gods name would be the motive for that? None of course. Just more of the same anti AMA /FAA narrative, and nothing new either. That information has been out there for months, so it's just an attempt to start up the whole discussion again. Wasted effort and energy.

TimJ

https://youtu.be/fOeoHJZdwuw?t=56m15s

And lets add some facts to the conversation.

https://youtu.be/fOeoHJZdwuw?t=56m15s

rcmiket

I posted his reply Post #40. The expo video just proves how little the FAA rep knew about the hobby nothing more.

Mike

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

Even that won't be enough. Now some here want it it writing from the FAA. Meanwhile, flying continues just as it did last year.

Sport_Pilot

So you don't believe the FAA rep? You need a letter from Obama?

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

So far word from the AMA and FAA isn't sufficient.

rcmiket

Done wasting my time with you Sport.

Mike

TimJ

If you know the facts, then why not take them for face value? I'm not sure why there would be an argument about it.

mongo

My Feedback: (15)

with government,
facts are not facts until,
the agency puts out an official statement of just what the facts are.
statements from employees, are just that, and are not FACTS.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

When an appointed rep for the FAA goes to a function soley put together for RC folks and says we can exceed 400 feet....it's a done deal. If some want to wait for a proclamation from on high in written form, well I guess they can wait.

skylark-flier

First, I agree - the FAA website DOES say "I will fly below 400 feet".

Question, just for the sake of argument - is there anything there that actually says I CAN NOT FLY ABOVE 400 FEET? If so, I haven't seen it.

Just asking.

rcmiket

I agree with what your saying and that's the reason I went to Chad to get a explanation and then posted his response here. This whole thing is a joke and getting worst all the time.

Mike

rcmiket

Ain't that the truth.

Mike

Sport_Pilot

The guidelines on your registration card is just that. Guidelines are not enforceable. Only regulations are enforceable and the sUAV regulations are not yet complete. At least not last I looked.

rgburrill

Must be a lawyer. Any average law abiding person understands that I WILL NOT fly above 400 feet is the logical opposite of I WILL fly below 400 feet. Anybody is doesn't understand this is being obnoxious.

init4fun

Untill I see a paper with the FAA letterhead on it that says specifically "Model aircraft are permitted to fly above 400 feet" I have to go with what it says right now on the FAA website . Under the "model aircraft operations" heading it couldn't be much clearer , it says an RCer is "strongly encouraged" to follow the safety guidelines , one of which is to fly no higher than 400 feet . Others listed are to avoid flying over stadiums and to not interfere with full scale operations . So Sport , we are to believe that only SOME of those are for real and others we don't like or don't want to abide by are OK to disregard just cause we don't like them ? Just as I don't want to be mandated to fly under 400 feet I also don't want to call the tower whenever I fly within 5 miles of an airport , can I disregard that as being a mere "suggestion" also ? Now , since I highly doubt that either Sport , Chad , or the FAA official speaking "off the cuff" on that video are going to pay to represent someone who hits a full scale at 800 feet with their model , I will stick to the FAA's written text with regards to 400 feet .

Believe me Sport , I really DO wish you were right , but that passage at the FAA's site couldn't be much clearer . And as to the "one FAA employee said it , so it's gotta be God's law accurate" argument you tried to use to validate your belief , let me tell ya buddy , I've been told LOTS of things by government employees that turned out to be "somewhat less that correct" over the years , or is it now that ALL government employees are always to be considered 100% infallibly correct just because this one employee's off the cuff statement fits into the mistaken notion your trying to push here ?

If it ain't specifically written on the FAA's site , it ain't worth even the paper it ain't printed on .

Sport_Pilot

Well if so then the FAA should be fining the Nationals participants shouldn't they? Nothing has changed since then, no new regulations just the illegal registration with the "guideline". The AMA said we can fly above 400 feet and the FAA rep agreed. What else do you want?

init4fun

Sport my Friend , I've already said what I want , that if we ARE allowed over 400 feet , for the FAA's website to reflect that fact .

Right now , it says 400 feet , and I have to go with what's written by the FAA on their official site over what one FAA employee and one AMA employee say , no matter how much I hope they are both right .

Sport_Pilot

The website said it was a guideline. where does it say it is regulation?

skylark-flier

Actually, not so. If I say I will drive my car 50 mph, I have said absolutely nothing about driving at any other speed - only that I will drive it at some point at 50 mph. If I say I will eat fish, I have said nothing about what kind, how much, where or when - only that I will eat fish.

With planes, I say I will fly below 400 feet. As I take off, I am below 400 feet. With MY planes, most of my flying is actually around 150-250 feet (that's MY choice). Once again, I have not said anything other than that I will fly below 400 feet - taking off and landing satisfies that statement. Anything else is extraneous and not of the subject.

No, I'm not a lawyer - just a free-thinking American.

Init4fun - IMHO, your thinking is slightly flawed. You say, "Untill I see a paper with the FAA letterhead on it that says specifically "Model aircraft are permitted to fly above 400 feet" I have to go with what it says right now on the FAA website ." - OK, your choice. Actually, probably mine too. However, there is NO law prohibiting flight above 400 feet - only guidelines, suggestions, encouragement. Remember, laws are passed by the US Congress, not FAA. There is no law against many things - but there ARE guidelines, suggestions, encouragement. Don't touch a hot stove burner - no law, but also not a good idea. Don't play in traffic - no law, but also not encouraged.

Flight above 400 feet - no law, your choice.

And, as far as the FAA website - it's like any other website, government or not. There are no laws there, you don't have to ask permission of the FAA. It says absolutely NOTHING about many subjects, many activities. Are you going to NOT eat because they don't specifically give you permission to eat? Are you NOT going to build a model plane until they specifically give you permission to build a model plane?

That's today's submissive society showing. I grew up in a free society. I actually defended that free society for 22+ years in uniform. I will continue to exercise my rights under the laws of that free society - not asking permission of ANY government minion or organization.

Obnoxious? No, the term is FREE. I earned that right. Did you?