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

400 foot? NOPE

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

400 foot? NOPE

Old 07-16-2016, 03:12 PM
  #1  
BarracudaHockey
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (11)
 
BarracudaHockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 25,249
Received 152 Likes on 123 Posts
Default 400 foot? NOPE

If you're on the side of the fence that there is a 400 foot limit you can drop that case and move on to your next.

The AMA is in possession of a letter, from the FAA, on FAA letterhead that states in part that members operating under the AMA safety code are not subject to a 400 foot limit.

They are required to operate safely, not endanger the NAS, see and avoid and all that good stuff but we are not under a 400 foot limitation.

This should be disseminated sooner rather than later but it's a fact.
Old 07-16-2016, 04:14 PM
  #2  
init4fun
 
init4fun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 3,919
Received 26 Likes on 21 Posts
Default

...

Last edited by init4fun; 08-15-2016 at 09:05 AM.
Old 07-16-2016, 05:36 PM
  #3  
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 BarracudaHockey View Post
If you're on the side of the fence that there is a 400 foot limit you can drop that case and move on to your next.

The AMA is in possession of a letter, from the FAA, on FAA letterhead that states in part that members operating under the AMA safety code are not subject to a 400 foot limit.

They are required to operate safely, not endanger the NAS, see and avoid and all that good stuff but we are not under a 400 foot limitation.

This should be disseminated sooner rather than later but it's a fact.
Great news, and once again again, the result of continuing work and advocacy by the AMA on behalf of it's members. It will be nice to see it in writing, but this has already been noted by the FAA and AMA. Just over a month ago I was at a sailplane event where a complaint was made to a tower 11 miles away about sailplanes at 1500-1800 feet. State Troopers came out and found nothing out of order, and FAA followed up as they were required too since a report was made, no problems. The club is over 11 miles from an airport. Next year a NOTAM will be requested, and notification send to to the tower well in advance of the event. Not because they have to, but because it's the prudent thing to do. Was back at that field today for another event, and even did a noontime demo flight....yee haw, it's a great time to be in the hobby!
Old 07-16-2016, 05:45 PM
  #4  
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 BarracudaHockey View Post
If you're on the side of the fence that there is a 400 foot limit you can drop that case and move on to your next.

The AMA is in possession of a letter, from the FAA, on FAA letterhead that states in part that members operating under the AMA safety code are not subject to a 400 foot limit.

They are required to operate safely, not endanger the NAS, see and avoid and all that good stuff but we are not under a 400 foot limitation.

This should be disseminated sooner rather than later but it's a fact.
Great news! Thanks for sharing.

Kudos to everyone at the AMA who made this possible and for all the work they've done on behalf of their members.
Old 07-16-2016, 06:02 PM
  #5  
BarracudaHockey
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (11)
 
BarracudaHockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 25,249
Received 152 Likes on 123 Posts
Default

So, I'm in a hotel and don't have the capability to scan and post it right now but I imagine HQ will get getting this out as a release in the beginning of the week.

It's something the FAA has been "saying" for a while but now it's on paper and on record which should satisfy most of the clubs and other members that despite what we have been telling them seem to feel otherwise
Old 07-16-2016, 06:05 PM
  #6  
porcia83
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Hartford, CT
Posts: 7,269
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Absolutely agree, it's great to have it on paper with the letterhead.

Now take it easy on the mini-bar.......
Old 07-16-2016, 06:06 PM
  #7  
BarracudaHockey
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (11)
 
BarracudaHockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 25,249
Received 152 Likes on 123 Posts
Default

LOL I dont drink so the only thing i have to worry about is sleeping after too much caffeine from the Diet Coke (my personal taste, not an official endorsement from any national organization )
Old 07-16-2016, 06:06 PM
  #8  
porcia83
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Hartford, CT
Posts: 7,269
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Lol..........
Old 07-16-2016, 06:43 PM
  #9  
cj_rumley
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga, CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Chris P. Bacon View Post
Great news! Thanks for sharing.

Kudos to everyone at the AMA who made this possible and for all the work they've done on behalf of their members.
I think it is propitious for FAA to grant another special privilege to AMA members.
Old 07-16-2016, 06:45 PM
  #10  
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 cj_rumley View Post
I think it is propitious for FAA to grant another special privilege to AMA members.
indubitably
Old 07-16-2016, 06:59 PM
  #11  
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 cj_rumley View Post
I think it is propitious for FAA to grant another special privilege to AMA members.
You can think whatever you want. I'm glad my dues are benefiting me.

Of course, you could always start your own CBO and lobby for your own exclusion.
Old 07-16-2016, 08:24 PM
  #12  
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 cj_rumley View Post
I think it is propitious for FAA to grant another special privilege to AMA members.
Well, what the FAA actually did was clarify that persons operating under Section 336 of P.L. 112-95 are not bound by some of the guidelines that the FAA has put out, specifically the altitude guideline. This was done to resolve the confusion their poor wording has caused. No special privileges were bestowed on the AMA or its members beyond what exists for any person operating in compliance with Section 336 (and now Part 101.41 as of 8/29/2016).
Old 07-16-2016, 08:32 PM
  #13  
mongo
My Feedback: (14)
 
mongo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Midland, TX
Posts: 3,014
Received 28 Likes on 25 Posts
Default

glad to hear that at least one fellow believes that this applies to anyone operating under sec 336. all are exempted. not just AMA members.
Old 07-17-2016, 04:17 AM
  #14  
dr.E
Junior Member
My Feedback: (50)
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Ridgewood, NJ
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Chris P. Bacon View Post
You can think whatever you want. I'm glad my dues are benefiting me.

Of course, you could always start your own CBO and lobby for your own exclusion.
It has to be a Nationally Recognized CBO and at present AMA is the only one with that status... There are strict guidelines to meet for applying for that status and I'm sure in the future there will be others..

Flying above 400 and abiding with the CBO guidelines while not being a member of such is a null point ......
Old 07-17-2016, 05:11 AM
  #15  
BarracudaHockey
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (11)
 
BarracudaHockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 25,249
Received 152 Likes on 123 Posts
Default

Each member agrees when they sign up for AMA agrees to abide by the safety code.

So it could be argued that if you haven't signed that, you're not operating under the guidelines of the CBO/AMA
Old 07-17-2016, 06:21 AM
  #16  
franklin_m
 
franklin_m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 3,954
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by mongo View Post
glad to hear that at least one fellow believes that this applies to anyone operating under sec 336. all are exempted. not just AMA members.
I agree. It's the taxpayer's airspace, and I don't see the FAA allowing only members of a private dues collecting organization to enjoy privileges in that airspace that other taxpayers do not. It would be like allowing AAA members to exceed all posted speed limits on public roads by 10mph.

What I can see is very specific language that allows people who comply with the code to exceed 400 feet. Now, AMA may spin that language to stretch the meaning toward implied membership, but I'll have to see the exact language of the letter.
Old 07-17-2016, 07:39 AM
  #17  
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
I agree. It's the taxpayer's airspace, and I don't see the FAA allowing only members of a private dues collecting organization to enjoy privileges in that airspace that other taxpayers do not. It would be like allowing AAA members to exceed all posted speed limits on public roads by 10mph.

What I can see is very specific language that allows people who comply with the code to exceed 400 feet. Now, AMA may spin that language to stretch the meaning toward implied membership, but I'll have to see the exact language of the letter.
Why not create your own public non-dues collecting CBO and lobby for the same exclusion?
Old 07-17-2016, 07:41 AM
  #18  
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 franklin_m View Post
I agree. It's the taxpayer's airspace, and I don't see the FAA allowing only members of a private dues collecting organization to enjoy privileges in that airspace that other taxpayers do not. It would be like allowing AAA members to exceed all posted speed limits on public roads by 10mph.

What I can see is very specific language that allows people who comply with the code to exceed 400 feet. Now, AMA may spin that language to stretch the meaning toward implied membership, but I'll have to see the exact language of the letter.
I guess that's better than stating that the AMA is lying and trying to trick people.
Old 07-17-2016, 08:36 AM
  #19  
cj_rumley
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga, CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by BarracudaHockey View Post
Each member agrees when they sign up for AMA agrees to abide by the safety code.

So it could be argued that if you haven't signed that, you're not operating under the guidelines of the CBO/AMA
Yes, an AMA official has made that assertion. Something FAA should make clear, but has been recalcitrant about doing so.
Old 07-17-2016, 08:48 AM
  #20  
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

Well, let's look at what the people who wrote Section 336 had in mind:

In this section the term ``nationwidecommunity-based organization'' is intended to mean a membership based association thatrepresents the aeromodeling community within the United States; provides its members acomprehensive set of safety guidelines that underscores safe aeromodeling operations within theNational Airspace System and the protection and safety of the general public on the ground;develops and maintains mutually supportive programming with educational institutions,government entities and other aviation associations; and acts as a liaison with governmentagencies as an advocate for its members.
So, if just any old person could avail themselves of the CBO safety program why didn't congress say that?? The Conference Committee report would have said " provides the general public a comprehensive set of safety guidelines".

But that's not what they said.

But the AMA haters will choose to willfully ignore the obvious and clear intent of Congress because it just annoys them to the end of the Earth that the AMA does anything positive.

https://www.fas.org/sgp/news/2012/02/faa-uas.html

Last edited by Silent-AV8R; 07-17-2016 at 08:50 AM.
Old 07-17-2016, 10:32 AM
  #21  
cj_rumley
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga, CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Silent-AV8R View Post
Well, let's look at what the people who wrote Section 336 had in mind:
....................
Who were those people, Silent?
Old 07-17-2016, 11:21 AM
  #22  
init4fun
 
init4fun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 3,919
Received 26 Likes on 21 Posts
Default

...

Last edited by init4fun; 08-15-2016 at 09:04 AM.
Old 07-17-2016, 11:24 AM
  #23  
dr.E
Junior Member
My Feedback: (50)
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Ridgewood, NJ
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Chris P. Bacon View Post
Why not create your own public non-dues collecting CBO and lobby for the same exclusion?

As previously stated, some organizations are already doing so but it there are some beurocratic obstacles to overcome... Local CBO's are easy to form but they carry the same federal credibility as your local Home Owners Association...

I just laugh every time a Drone Gypsy Operator is confronted by the police and they rapidly bring out a copy of the AMA UAV Operations Manual.... Similar to not belonging but dressing like an USMC member... The only thing you get is candy on October 31....
Old 07-17-2016, 11:32 AM
  #24  
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
Why would his CBO need to lobby for the same exclusion since any one CBO that meets the definition of a CBO is supposed to be as good as any other ?

The bottom line here is that as it stands now , the CBO , OUR CBO , has done a good thing here with the elimination of the 400 foot cap , and I think the AMA deserves a rousing "Well Done !" .

Now , as to the numbers of CBOs , which seems today to stand at , one , well if any other CBOs come along and want to advocate for my ability to fly my model aircraft , they're more than welcome to do so , but as discussed in a different thread the AMA is serving the CBO need adequately and just like in an old western ; "This Town ain't big enough fer both of us !" , I really don't see any other organization having a chance in such a limited market .....
Perhaps we'll get some more clarification once the letter is posted. According to the OP, the letter is addressed to the AMA.
Old 07-17-2016, 12:37 PM
  #25  
rcmiket
 
rcmiket's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: El Paso, TX
Posts: 5,217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Interesting.I look forward to reading about it.

Mike

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

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

Copyright 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.