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

Comment on tbe FAA NPRM

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

Comment on tbe FAA NPRM

Old 01-08-2020, 05:40 PM
  #1  
tp777fo
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (28)
 
tp777fo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Greer, SC
Posts: 3,178
Received 15 Likes on 12 Posts
Default Comment on tbe FAA NPRM

Easy guide to comment on the FAA NPRM.

comments for NPRM
Modelaircraft.org - enter

At top of page click on red - Urgent message. This will turn to "Government regulations" page.

Click on the blue - "Please submit formal comment".

(For windows highlight the verbage then copy by control C)(Apple, Cmd C)

Back up to the Government Regulations page. 2nd papragaph click on the blue here. ("federal website here")

On the federal website page click on the green "submit a formal comment" .

When new page loads place cursor in comment box and press Control & V( windows) or Cmd B (Apple) The text will transfer the AMA suggested verbage. You may add anything else you want, just dont call the FAA stupid (counter productive to our efforts)

Fill out personal info,check the read and understand box then submit comment.
Edit Quote
Old 01-08-2020, 06:58 PM
  #2  
mongo
My Feedback: (14)
 
mongo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Midland, TX
Posts: 2,831
Received 11 Likes on 11 Posts
Default

remember, all the cut and paste form letters actually only count as 1 comment.

ya have to change it up enough that it does not appear to be the same as the others that they are going to get.

and i will reiterate, keep it civil.
Old 01-09-2020, 05:21 AM
  #3  
rgburrill
 
rgburrill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Dallas, Tx CT
Posts: 2,405
Received 21 Likes on 20 Posts
Default

There is a very simple solution to the remote ID issue - join a club and fly by the rules. Remote ID not required.
But some have been ignoring that for years and that is why we now have this situation.
Old 01-09-2020, 03:32 PM
  #4  
tedsander
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: White Bear lake, MN
Posts: 364
Likes: 0
Received 15 Likes on 15 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by rgburrill View Post
There is a very simple solution to the remote ID issue - join a club and fly by the rules. Remote ID not required.
But some have been ignoring that for years and that is why we now have this situation.
Read the NPRM!

1. Virtually ALL models will need to have remote ID. Nope, assembly of components, even if bought from a variety of sources, will not count as "amatuer built". If it has parts, and instructions, it is not "fabricated". From what they describe in the preamble to the rules, that clearly seems to cover even balsa kits, let alone ARF's, etc. To qualify as "amatuer built" you have to fabricate at least 50% of the model - mounting components you bought elsewhere doesn't cut it as "fabrication". Guess you get to learn how to solder PCB boards, and cast engines!
2. Since your plane is not "amatuer built", you are the producer and have to comply with all the certification/inspection etc. requirements as outlined in Subpart F for manufacturers.
3. No flying sites will be ever authorized after the initial 12 month registration period. Bye-bye clubs that have to move, or any new clubs.
4. No provisions for temporary sites - events, contests, etc.
5. 48 months after registration ends, ALL flying sites go away, and it has to be remote ID all the time, everywhere.
6. Oh yeah - pay $5 each to register every single aircraft you have.
7. And presumably, pay some kind of fee to the service you have to subscribe to that handles authorizing each flight you want to make.

I refer you to these snips from the NPRM about amateur built:

"As currently proposed, amateur-built UAS
would not include unmanned aircraft kits where
the majority of parts of the UAS are provided to the
operator as a part of the sold product."

"The FAA
anticipates that some model aircraft
enthusiasts may assemble UAS entirely
from pre-fabricated parts and that
commercial vendors may wish to sell
UAS parts, including packages that
contain more than 50 but less than 100
percent of the parts necessary to build
a UAS. The resulting UAS would not
qualify as amateur-built because the
person building it would be fabricating
and assembling 50 percent or less of the
UAS. The UAS would not qualify as
built from a kit because it did not
include 100 percent of the necessary
parts."

Last edited by tedsander; 01-09-2020 at 08:58 PM.
Old 01-09-2020, 07:07 PM
  #5  
FUTABA-RC
 
FUTABA-RC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 871
Received 7 Likes on 7 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by tedsander View Post
Read the NPRM!
5. 48 months after registration ends, ALL flying sites go away, and it has to be remote ID all the time, everywhere.
This is not correct. That initial period is 48 months, but the NPRM clearly makes reference to renewals of FRIA sites.
Old 01-09-2020, 08:56 PM
  #6  
tedsander
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: White Bear lake, MN
Posts: 364
Likes: 0
Received 15 Likes on 15 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by FUTABA-RC View Post
This is not correct. That initial period is 48 months, but the NPRM clearly makes reference to renewals of FRIA sites.
My apologies. Thanks for calling me out. I jumped to conclusions, because of this: (numbers after are the page number from the Federal Register)
"Over time, the FAA
anticipates that most UAS without
remote identification will reach the end
of their useful lives or be phased out. As
these numbers dwindle, and as
compliance with remote identification
requirements becomes cheaper and
easier, the number of UAS that need to
operate only at FAA-recognized
identification areas would likely drop
significantly." 72486

"Under proposed § 89.225, the term of
an FAA-recognized identification area
would be 48 calendar months after the
date the FAA approves the request for
establishment of an FAA-recognized
identification area." 72487

"Under proposed § 89.230(b)(2), the
FAA would be able to terminate an
FAA-recognized identification area for
any reason,..."72487
Yes, there is a renewal section, that I did not include above. So, while not directly calling for an end to flying sites after a total of 5 years (and I was wrong to claim so), it is clear they fully expect "approved" flying sites to be gone relatively quickly, as planes crash and are replaced with RID models. And as illustrated, they retain the authority to terminate/not renew for any reason......
Old 01-09-2020, 11:06 PM
  #7  
FUTABA-RC
 
FUTABA-RC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 871
Received 7 Likes on 7 Posts
Default

It is clear that they intend to see these sites go away, but it is also clear because they envision recreational sUAS, including model airplanes, to eventually comply with either the Standard or Limited RID paths.

Old 01-10-2020, 01:02 AM
  #8  
franklin_m
 
franklin_m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 3,627
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by mongo View Post
remember, all the cut and paste form letters actually only count as 1 comment.

ya have to change it up enough that it does not appear to be the same as the others that they are going to get.

and i will reiterate, keep it civil.
You are correct. In fact, I venture a guess that FAA will dismiss all letters that are substantially similar to the AMA form letter. Which makes me wonder why AMA is encouraging folks to do the very thing that will be rejected. IMO, folks better write something from a blank sheet of paper. I believe that copying AMA's form letter, in whole or in part, will be a waste of time and it will be ignored. AMA doesn't get it.

Look at the pattern: Rich H sleeping on camera in parts of the last meeting in DC. FAA releases the NPRM and indicates form letters will be ignored, yet AMA encourages form letters. AMA sends a "nice lady" to CES, who is completely ineffective as an advocate on camera. All of this paints a picture of either incompetence or a half-hearted attempt to fight this. If we exclude the former, and assume AMA put some thought into this, you have to ask ask "Cui bono?" Translated from latin, that largely means "Who benefits" (from AMA's approach)?

Keep in mind, the rule as written means that for the initial three years at least, any of the 800,000 non-AMA members that want to fly will be compelled to do so at AMA clubs. That results in a potential infusion of up to $60 MILLION DOLLARS per year for AMA. And more if you add club membership. The AMA has a powerful financial incentive to NOT fight this all that hard. Sure they lose, and sure the fixed sites MAY eventually go away, but they see the big $$$ in the near term.
Old 01-16-2020, 01:06 PM
  #9  
beepee
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 1,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Franklin, I don't disagree with your point, but I feel the AMA is missing a much bleaker long-term future. Conventional RC modelers have no use for standard or limited RID as the NPRM is written. Both require serial numbered systems meeting FAA performance and design standards. By nature this will require the manufacturer to supply a fully integrated system. Something I think most current modelers will reject. Me in particular. I build kits, construct from plans, and occasionally scratch build. That puts my hobby strictly in the FRIAs. Though my club site is pretty solid (located in a county park), there are many that will go away over time. That includes 10% of AMA's applied sites that the FAA estimates will be rejected from the start. How many hobbyists does this turn away because they don't want to drive 50 miles to get to a field? How many hobbyist does it take to support the current industry or the AMA. The AMA will have to adjust in a major way and I don't think they have the financial fortitude to handle it.
Old 01-16-2020, 07:41 PM
  #10  
RCUer75345
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by franklin_m View Post

Keep in mind, the rule as written means that for the initial three years at least, any of the 800,000 non-AMA members that want to fly will be compelled to do so at AMA clubs.
No. During the initial three years, non Remote ID equipped UAS can still be legally operated as they are today. Key deadlines include:

- 12 months to submit a FRIA application
- 24 months before the "UAS production" provisions take effect
- 36 months for registration (unless the owner's registration as an individual expires before)
- 36 months before non-compliant UAS are restricted to FRIAs
Old 01-17-2020, 02:31 AM
  #11  
franklin_m
 
franklin_m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 3,627
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by grognard View Post
No. During the initial three years, non Remote ID equipped UAS can still be legally operated as they are today. Key deadlines include:

- 12 months to submit a FRIA application
- 24 months before the "UAS production" provisions take effect
- 36 months for registration (unless the owner's registration as an individual expires before)
- 36 months before non-compliant UAS are restricted to FRIAs
So what, the fact that they'll be restricted to FRIAs a little bit later than what I said? Doesn't change the fundamental point. Up to 800,000 current registrants, all with non-compliant equipment, will be forced to quit flying them, fly illegally, or be forced to join AMA so they can get access to an FRIA. The issue is forced membership to use an FRIA.

Just like forcing people to join AAA to use some roads in the US. Or allowing only AOPA members to use some airports. Or only BoatUS members to use some lakes.
Old 01-17-2020, 05:44 AM
  #12  
RCUer75345
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by franklin_m View Post
So what...?
The "So what" is that you posted inaccurate information. You made it sound like the day after the rule goes final, the "left-outs" will be forced to go to the nearest AMA field, cap in hand, and beg permission to fly. Fact is, they'll have a three-year grace period just like everyone else.

And you've still got it wrong. The fact is the AMA is not yet an approved CBO. Nor will it likely be the only CBO, a number of others are reportedly being organized. Your "left-outs" will have the same 12 months to organize their own CBOs and apply for their very own FRIAs just like everyone else.

So here's a question for ya: Let's assume one or two other organizations get their ducks in a row, get approved as CBOs and set up a number of FRIAs. And then let's assume the AMA submits their paperwork late, or leaves out a couple of commas or something, and gets turned down.

Would you then support the right of AMA members to fly at the FRIAs established by the other CBOs? Fee free of course, under "equal protection of the laws?"

Or is your true agenda just to take down the AMA by any means necessary?
Old 01-17-2020, 06:12 AM
  #13  
franklin_m
 
franklin_m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 3,627
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by grognard View Post
The "So what" is that you posted inaccurate information. You made it sound like the day after the rule goes final, the "left-outs" will be forced to go to the nearest AMA field, cap in hand, and beg permission to fly. Fact is, they'll have a three-year grace period just like everyone else.
Well, considering that your beloved AMA has people PAID to examine this rule, and they too made corrections from what they'd previously said (note 1), I don't see it as a big deal.

Originally Posted by grognard View Post
And you've still got it wrong. The fact is the AMA is not yet an approved CBO. Nor will it likely be the only CBO, a number of others are reportedly being organized.
AMA has 3,000 flying sites right now, and even FAA admitted in their NPRM that they expect 90% of these to become FRIAs. With just one year to acquire land (own, lease, or agreement for exclusive use), it is very unlikely that any other CBOs will have anything close to the AMA's numbers. So as a practical matter, which FAA is required to consider, the rule will all but require AMA membership to operate at those sites.

Originally Posted by grognard View Post
Your "left-outs" will have the same 12 months to organize their own CBOs and apply for their very own FRIAs just like everyone else.
See above. A "CBO" with 10% of the sites as AMA is an insignificant effect on the impact of the rule, for the vast majority of those 800,000, if they want to keep flying non-compliant equipment, it will all but require membership in ONE private dues collecting organization.

Originally Posted by grognard View Post
So here's a question for ya: Let's assume one or two other organizations get their ducks in a row, get approved as CBOs and set up a number of FRIAs. And then let's assume the AMA submits their paperwork late, or leaves out a couple of commas or something, and gets turned down.

Would you then support the right of AMA members to fly at the FRIAs established by the other CBOs? Fee free of course, under "equal protection of the laws?"
Yes. I am against any requirement for membership in any private dues collecting organization as a condition of exercising a privilege in public airspace (or roads, or waterways).

Originally Posted by grognard View Post
Or is your true agenda just to take down the AMA by any means necessary?
Nope. My agenda is to keep PRIVATE dues collecting organizations from functioning in an unaccountable (to taxpayers) quasi-governmental role. AMA is attempting to do this as the likely principle provider FRIAs, and thus I oppose that. Just as I would oppose it if AOPA tried to do the same for private airports.

Note 1: AMA Air, 15 January 2020 episode, starting approx 1:45.

Last edited by franklin_m; 01-17-2020 at 06:14 AM.
Old 01-17-2020, 02:57 PM
  #14  
RCUer75345
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by franklin_m View Post
I don't see it as a big deal.
I do. You misrepresented the NPRM as requiring immediate compliance, totally missing the grace period. Your 800,000 "left outs" are probably mostly drone enthusiasts who buy ready-to-fly systems anyway. They'll have Remote ID compliant solutions before traditional modelers will. In addition, many or most of them aren't interested in flying at fixed sites anyway -- so you are solving a non-problem.

Originally Posted by franklin_m View Post
My agenda is to keep PRIVATE dues collecting organizations from functioning in an unaccountable (to taxpayers) quasi-governmental role.
No, that is a rhetorical TACTIC you are using to accomplish your true agenda, which is "sticking a fork in the FRIA concept" (your words). Much the same as Lincoln using the Emancipation Proclamation to free slaves "only the rebellious areas" rather than asking for a Constitutional amendment. Only in your case, you're not HELPING anyone. You are merely "virtue signaling".

Of course you have the right to advocate for anything you like. The compulsory serving of peanut butter on spaghetti if you wish. But don't wrap yourself in "equal protection" when the goal is to take away FRIAs from everyone. That's not "protection" at all -- that's universal REPRESSION. Be honest about it.
Old 01-17-2020, 04:06 PM
  #15  
franklin_m
 
franklin_m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 3,627
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by grognard View Post
I do. You misrepresented the NPRM as requiring immediate compliance, totally missing the grace period. Your 800,000 "left outs" are probably mostly drone enthusiasts who buy ready-to-fly systems anyway. They'll have Remote ID compliant solutions before traditional modelers will. In addition, many or most of them aren't interested in flying at fixed sites anyway -- so you are solving a non-problem.
Clearly your threshold for “big deal” is much lower than mine. Regardless, there’s lots of assumptions in the above. Please cite source supporting your comment most of the 800,000 buy off the shelf. While your at it, please cite source for statement that they’ll have remote issues first anyway. And don’t forget to also cite source proving many or most not interested in fixed

Originally Posted by grognard View Post
No
that is a rhetorical TACTIC you are using to accomplish your true agenda, which is "sticking a fork in the FRIA concept" (your words). Much the same as Lincoln using the Emancipation Proclamation to free slaves "only the rebellious areas" rather than asking for a Constitutional amendment. Only in your case, you're not HELPING anyone. You are merely "virtue signaling".
Well, then I consider myself in good company given Lincoln’s standing and what he achieved. If reuniting at country and freeing people (the end result of his strategy) is virtue signaling, sign me up.

Originally Posted by grognard View Post
Of course you have the right to advocate for anything you like. The compulsory serving of peanut butter on spaghetti if you wish. But don't wrap yourself in "equal protection" when the goal is to take away FRIAs from everyone. That's not "protection" at all -- that's universal REPRESSION. Be honest about it.
You must be really concerned that this strategy will resonate with regulators. As you wouldn’t be spending so much focus on little old me. But then again, I guess it’s proof that the AMA pushed FRIAs for the reason I believe they did - it is, another attempt by AMA to use law or regulation to compel membership.
Old 01-17-2020, 05:05 PM
  #16  
RCUer75345
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by franklin_m View Post
Well, then I consider myself in good company given Lincoln’s standing and what he achieved.
I wonder what Lincoln would say of a Federal government so bloated and overreaching that it felt compelled to regulate a harmless hobby out of existence?

Originally Posted by franklin_m View Post
I guess it’s proof that the AMA pushed FRIAs for the reason I believe they did - it is, another attempt by AMA to use law or regulation to compel membership.
Again, I am not an AMA employee, spokesman, or officer of an AMA club. I joined a club to have a place to fly. If the club left AMA and found another insurance provider, that would be OK with me.

I see your proposed changes as a direct threat to my flying site, which means my flying privileges because most of my models need a fairly long runway. Of course I'll oppose it.
Old 01-17-2020, 05:43 PM
  #17  
speedracerntrixie
My Feedback: (29)
 
speedracerntrixie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Happy Valley, Oregon
Posts: 7,825
Received 50 Likes on 48 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by grognard View Post
I wonder what Lincoln would say of a Federal government so bloated and overreaching that it felt compelled to regulate a harmless hobby out of existence?



Again, I am not an AMA employee, spokesman, or officer of an AMA club. I joined a club to have a place to fly. If the club left AMA and found another insurance provider, that would be OK with me.

I see your proposed changes as a direct threat to my flying site, which means my flying privileges because most of my models need a fairly long runway. Of course I'll oppose it.

You and I are in the same boat. I enjoy the hobby through competition. It's how I maintain the challenge so I don't become bored. Currently without AMA in the picture, competition would not be possible. Should the proposed FAA regulations move forward without the FRIA sites, competition would not be possible. Franklin's proposed solutions endanger my hobby as well so I too will oppose him. Now if he were to support a solution that would not end My or the other thousands of competitive pilots Hobby then I would consider it.
Old 01-17-2020, 06:47 PM
  #18  
RCUer75345
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

To me it's not about flying style; competitive, sport flying, whatever. It's also not about AMA vs. non-AMA, or club member vs. lone wolf.

It's about one thing: Runways.

Fixed wing model aircraft over a very small size need runways to land on. A bit larger and they also need them to take off. Models which need runways also need a correspondingly large flying area to be operated safely and comfortably. Translation: A fixed site.

Reading between the lines in Franklin's posts (all the stuff about violating lateral limits and flying over neighboring properties), it's pretty obvious he wants to restrict models to the smallest possible flying sites. Translation: small models only. We can speculate about his reasons (probably something about six figures per annum) but the effect is the same -- he wants to take our runways away.

If your flying style involves runways -- support FRIAs. The site you save may be your own.
Old 01-17-2020, 07:03 PM
  #19  
astrohog
My Feedback: (1)
 
astrohog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Bellingham, WA
Posts: 2,246
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by grognard View Post
Reading between the lines in Franklin's posts (all the stuff about violating lateral limits and flying over neighboring properties), it's pretty obvious he wants to restrict models to the smallest possible flying sites. Translation: small models only. We can speculate about his reasons (probably something about six figures per annum) but the effect is the same -- he wants to take our runways away.
Well, that may be obvious to you, but not to me. I believe what Franklin is promoting is fair access to public airspace for everybody; equally.
Do you think that because a club has a runway and a patch of grass that they have the right to fly over other peoples' property?

Astro
Old 01-17-2020, 07:22 PM
  #20  
RCUer75345
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by astrohog View Post
I believe what Franklin is promoting is fair access to public airspace for everybody; equally.
The key word is "public". I agree that FRIAs established on PUBLIC land and maintained at PUBLIC expense should be publicly accessible. FRIAs established on PRIVATE land and maintained at PRIVATE expense should not. Just like public and private airports for full-scale planes.

Originally Posted by astrohog View Post
Do you think that because a club has a runway and a patch of grass that they have the right to fly over other peoples' property?
I'm not a lawyer, but I think the answer is yes, within reason. Take a look here:

https://aviation.uslegal.com/ownersh...over-property/

Courts have ruled there is a statutory "right of overflight". If toy airplanes are now "UAS" according to the FAA, then they are also "aircraft" and the operators can claim right of overflight. Of course this does not justify flying directly over buildings or crowds of people or deliberately using a model airplane to annoy anyone.

Some will argue that these rulings were for manned aircraft and therefore do not apply to models or drones. I expect such issues to provide a fertile field for lawyers as commercial UAS become more common. But if models are UAS, and recreational flying is legitimate use -- then yes, traditional model aircraft should have the same overflight rights as commercial drones.
Old 01-17-2020, 08:14 PM
  #21  
astrohog
My Feedback: (1)
 
astrohog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Bellingham, WA
Posts: 2,246
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by grognard View Post
The key word is "public". I agree that FRIAs established on PUBLIC land and maintained at PUBLIC expense should be publicly accessible. FRIAs established on PRIVATE land and maintained at PRIVATE expense should not. Just like public and private airports for full-scale planes.



I'm not a lawyer, but I think the answer is yes, within reason. Take a look here:

https://aviation.uslegal.com/ownersh...over-property/

Courts have ruled there is a statutory "right of overflight". If toy airplanes are now "UAS" according to the FAA, then they are also "aircraft" and the operators can claim right of overflight. Of course this does not justify flying directly over buildings or crowds of people or deliberately using a model airplane to annoy anyone.

Some will argue that these rulings were for manned aircraft and therefore do not apply to models or drones. I expect such issues to provide a fertile field for lawyers as commercial UAS become more common. But if models are UAS, and recreational flying is legitimate use -- then yes, traditional model aircraft should have the same overflight rights as commercial drones.
except they must stay 500' from buildings or people . With a 400' limit, that will be impossible. I also believe that the crash rate of UAS is MUCH greater than manned flight, so they should be regulated differently, and that it is just rude to fly over the neighbors buildings or people, just because, "you can".
Astro
Old 01-18-2020, 04:06 AM
  #22  
franklin_m
 
franklin_m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 3,627
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by grognard View Post
Courts have ruled there is a statutory "right of overflight". If toy airplanes are now "UAS" according to the FAA, then they are also "aircraft" and the operators can claim right of overflight. Of course this does not justify flying directly over buildings or crowds of people or deliberately using a model airplane to annoy anyone.
Ah ... but that is not the whole story. FAR 107.39 prohibits operation over people not directly involved in the operation (note 1), and FAA has interpreted "directly involved" VERY narrowly (note 2). Furthermore, FAR 107.19(c) requires that the remote pilot in command must ensure that the small unmanned aircraft will pose no undue hazard to other people, other aircraft, or other property in the event of a loss of control of the aircraft for any reason (note 3). And finally, NONE of these provisions are waived under Section 349 operations (note 4).

In summary: IF you don't fly over non-participants, and IF you pose no hazard to people or PROPERTY in event of loss of control for ANY reason, and IF you remain greater than 500 feet from buildings, and IF you meet all the provisions of 349 ... only then can you overflight as you indicate above. This is MUCH more restrictive than you would lead folks to believe. And by the way, PROPERTY includes crops, livestock, equipment, buildings, etc. So if your toy crashes while flying from a FRIA, and you damage someone else's "property," you are by definition in violation of FAR 107.19(c). This is why I suggest the FRIAs be limited to the lateral limits of land they own, lease, or otherwise have documentation that gives them exclusive use. In fact, it might benefit FAA to add a reporting requirement that FRIAs report not less than annually the number of toys that crash outside land owned, leased, or otherwise under direct control of the organization named in the FRIA.

And we already know the courts, at least here in Pennsylvania, are well aware of the risk to PROPERTY as a result of AMA clubs that can't keep their toys over land they control. In a ruling that's available for others to search and find, she said:

"The record is replete with testimony ․ evidencing the Club's inability to ensure the safety of [Landowners'] neighbors and the public at large. There have been numerous complaints, crashes, and trespasses by Club members retrieving fallen parts from neighboring land. The Club's actions are increasingly putting residents, workers, livestock, buildings, equipment, and crops in threatening situations [emphasis added] (note 5)"

So if you get your FRIAs, overflying other people and property in violation of FAR 107.39 and putting neighbors' PROPERTY at risk in violation of FAR 107.19(c), you are handing the neighbors the stick to beat you with, in the form of asking FAA to revoke the FRIA.

Note 1: Pg 607, RIN_2120-AJ60_Clean_Signed.pdf
Note 2: Ibid., 266 and throughout document
Note 3: Ibid., 602
Note 4: BILLS-115hr302enr.pdf
Note 5: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/pa-common...t/1757094.html
Old 01-18-2020, 06:36 AM
  #23  
RCUer75345
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default Oh the Humanity...

Here's my Nieuport 28 on approach last fall:



Gee, look at all the buildings and uninvolved people I'm flying over in the background! All that livestock and equipment!

This plane is too big (53" span) and too fast (~40 - 50 mph) to stay within the WIDTH of our runway. Which is what Franklin's ridiculously over-restrictive interpretation of the laws would ask me to do.

A plane like this (6-1/2 lb) is no credible threat to ANYONE. If it goes down in the soybean field, I'll walk out and get it. I'll step between the rows.

If too many crashes are a problem, the farmer will tell the club, and the club will pay additional rent.

There was a time in this country (and still is, in "less sophisticated" areas) when adults were expected to work things out between themselves. No need to get the Federal Government involved over a few toy airplanes.



Old 01-18-2020, 07:42 AM
  #24  
speedracerntrixie
My Feedback: (29)
 
speedracerntrixie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Happy Valley, Oregon
Posts: 7,825
Received 50 Likes on 48 Posts
Default


Pylon racing in Sacramento.

Slope soaring at Sunset State Beach.

IMAC contest in Walnut Grove.

IMAC practice in Morgan Hill




Nice airplane, I don't know where Franklin is getting that we all overfly buildings and such as well. It seems he and Astro don't actually go out and view field layouts.
Old 01-18-2020, 07:47 AM
  #25  
speedracerntrixie
My Feedback: (29)
 
speedracerntrixie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Happy Valley, Oregon
Posts: 7,825
Received 50 Likes on 48 Posts
Default


Pattern at Woodland

IMAC at Riverside

Pattern at Lincoln

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

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

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.