franklin_m

FAA just issued two National Security TFRs, grounding ALL AIRCRAFT (and per FAA ... "All Aircraft" includes recreational sUAS") within the vicinity of Wilimington, Charleston, and Myrtle Beach. Any "aircraft" (all types) currently airborne must exit area by most efficient means. See FDC 3/1028 and FDC 3/1029.

Any bets the AMA doesn't even know, let alone get word to all the clubs to NOT FLY.

Not a single urgent email from AMA. Crickets.

What a bunch of clowns. Just get named a CBO, and first big test of their ability to communicate urgent flight safety info to their members - is an epic fail.

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

franklin_m

Ugh, that's for DELAWARE, not North Carolina. You posted the wrong one. I guess you didn't read it. The two National Security TFRs just issued: FDC 3/1028 and 3/1029.




And AMA knows, because I shot a note to the Dear Leader, his sidekick, and the knights of the toy plane roundtable - complete with the two FDC numbers above and the text saying it applies to UAS operators. And yet still NOTHING on AMA's web page.

https://tfr.faa.gov/save_pages/detail_3_1028.html
https://tfr.faa.gov/save_pages/detail_3_1029.html

init4fun

Anyone remember when I specifically asked the FAA about C/L during a TFR? From this correspondence, I'd say the FAA don't want any CL flying during TFRs......

"Yes, control line model aircraft are considered “unmanned aircraft” under FAA rules and regulations and statutory (legal) definitions. The FAA has made similar determinations for “tethered” unmanned aircraft where the UA is tethered with a cable to a fixed point on the ground or another ground-based object (such as a vehicle). These tethered unmanned aircraft are also subject to all the FAA rules and regulations applicable to unmanned aircraft. Since the control line model aircraft is considered an “aircraft”, the operator must comply with all TFS applicable to “aircraft” or “all aircraft”.





From: my actual Email address redacted >
Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2022 6:59 AM
To: 9-AJE-ADSB (FAA)
Subject: From www.faa.gov: [email protected]



This email was sent through the Federal Aviation Administration's public website. You have been contacted via an email link on the following page: https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/tech...resources/faq/

Message

Hi, I have a question regarding UAS . Are "Control Line" model airplanes (typically flown on 100 foot or less steel lines attached to a plastic handle held in the pilot's hand) subject to the same regulations as Remote Controlled UAS are? My question centers on TFRs specifically, are control line models grounded during a TFR that grounds all RC UAS ?

franklin_m

As I said, they're a bunch of clowns. They want to act like big shots, but when they are tested (short notice TFR communications), we see they're just a bunch of empty suits. Maybe clowns is generous. They are utterly unprepared to communication short notice information to their members.

Incompetent that they didn't have a system in place - proves they're so clueless they never even anticipated the need to ever do this.

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

While I would agree that it would be nice if AMA was more diligent with TFR’s, the FAA could send emails just as easily and reach MORE UAS operators in the process. Did Flite Test send out notices? Now that there are 3 recognized CBO’s shouldn’t they all be judged by the same criteria?

franklin_m

FAA send emails? What planet are you on? For the last several decades they haven't done that for full scale aviation. And you're saying the toy plane flyers are so inept that they can't be expected to know without an engraved notification from FAA? Again, it's the AMA that CHOOSES to post TFRs of interest to its members, thus conditioning them to check the AMA page. But then epic fail when they can't get the page updated. As I said above, the Dear Leader, his sidekick, and the Knights of the Toy Plane roundtable clearly didn't even anticipate this might be needed. Just proves they're incompetent and have no understanding of how this stuff works.

Also, your post doesn't give me much confidence. You've touted your vast toy plane operational experience and keen safety awareness any number of times, and yet you didn't even read the TFR before you posted it. For if you had, you'd have noticed it was for the WRONG STATE. If someone with your vast AMA experience and keen safety awareness can't get it right, what does it say about the majority of AMA members that are not five digit members like you?

The AMA is touting itself as know all be all of CBOs, and that it's members are "not part of the problem." I'd arguing the inability to read a TFR correctly proves that's not the case.

franklin_m

And I just checked the District IV website, nothing there either ... and their clubs are DIRECTLY affected.

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

Good God, first I was out to breakfast with my wife and gave your post more attention then I should have in the first place. Secondly the TFR has zero effect on my region and even if it were in my area it raining cats and dogs anyway. Unlike you I am not poised at my computer looking for things to Karen over.

As far as my personal safety record while flying models for 45 years now you have plenty of information ( Shawn Berkheimer AMA 22554 ) I invite you to find any accident associated with me. For that matter, any AMA or FAA rule infraction other then 400’ which for the sake of honesty I have admitted to.


In regards to my home planet, FAA has not regulated model airplanes in the past either. They are going to have to adopt new methods. I realize you expect them to regulate the same as full scale but that hasn’t been working out too well for them or you.

franklin_m

And once again, you refer to concern about National Security as "Karen?" Unlike you I take it seriously. Sitting by a computer? Actually I'm visiting friends in Myrtle Beach right now and in the affected area. Thank God I don't rely on the AMA, for they've just demonstrated they can't inform members of important information like this in a timely manner.

Another example of a complete lack of. understanding of how aviation safety works. ""The fact that this danger did not lead to a catastrophe before is no guarantee that it will not the next time, unless it is completely understood. When playing Russian roulette the fact that the first shot got off safely is little comfort for the next." - Richard Feynman, Rogers Commission.

Not working out so well? Let's see. Recreational flyers now required to demonstrate (i.e. PROVE) a modicum of knowledge about the airspace (TRUST test). Recreational flyers soon to be required to confine activities to a few specific sites OR transmit identification. Recreational flyers required to register sUAS with the FAA (if over 250g). Recreational flyers required to remain below specific altitudes (and out of majority of most manned aircraft) without specific authorization to do otherwise. None of this was in place before. It's there now, and thanks to things like AMA's complete failure to demonstrate ability to quickly notify members ... they'll be more to come. And it's not "IF" but just rather "WHEN."

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

You criticized MY lack of safety concern directly, so go find evidence that I am not safety minded. And all because you feel that I didn’t take this particular TFR as serious as you think I should have. Do you not see hoe silly that sounds. Let me ask the question again, DID FLITE TEST ALERT IT’S MEMBERS TO THE TFR? Or do you just want to gripe about one CBO and give the others a free pass?

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

Laughable.

Trust: I’ve flown at 8 different clubs since Trust was required. Not asked for it once.
FAA registration: again not been asked for it once.
RID: Not in use. Only one currently available is Drone Tag which has issues. Horizon simply complied by removing the battery out of their RTF models.
400’: zero enforcement.

Yep, it’s working real well ain’t it.

franklin_m

See above. Couldn't recognize that the TFR you quoted wasn't the one just issued. Not only was the one you posted THE WRONG STATE it was also THE WRONG DAY (posted yesterday).

This thread is not about Flite Test. YOU of all people should be aware of off topic posts. And FYI, Flite Test has not spent the last few years conditioning its members to expect emails from them if a TFR is applicable or checking the Flite Test website. No, AMA has conditioned its members to NOT check the authoritative sources. And when AMA's ability to pass short notice TFRs is tested, they failed in an epic manner.

franklin_m

And the FAA is famous for giving people plenty of rope. I have zero confidence in AMA's willingness to hold its members accountable for compliance (hence your notes about not being asked once for trust or registration at clubs). So it's not "IF" an AMA member screws up badly, it's when. And if FAA pulls the string, what they'll find emanating from Taj-Muncie is a pattern of conduct that chooses NOT to notice compliance issues - all in the name of membership revenue.

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

I did recognize that this TFR had nothing to do with me or any of my clubs.

I do recognize that your grudge is with the AMA and it’s members and not Flite Test.

I am well aware of TFR’s that directly affect me and my clubs without having to rely on the AMA.

franklin_m

At least you can tell the left coast from the right coast. I guess that's something.

Yet again, Flite Test is not conditioning its members to go to them for TFR info like the AMA is doing. Big difference. Especially when AMA can't manage to respond to a short notice National Security TFR like this one.

Nice try. The discussion from the very beginning was not your club, but rather those impacted by the short notice TFR. And you took the time to screenshot, apparently without even reading it. Not much attention to detail. And why should we not think that lack of attention extends to others - say ones that may impact you? Just because you say so? Oh, so saying it makes it true.

What we have is that when confronted with an issue related to a recently issued urgent TFR, you went to AMA site looking for one applicable, and grabbed the wrong one.

Hydro Junkie

Speed, if the TFR doesn't affect the Pacific Northwest, why did you bother to post anything? I could see it IF you lived in the area that is/was affected by the TFR but not when you're 3,000+ miles away. Or was this just a chance to try to show up/discredit Franklin again?

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

Hydro, it was an illustration that AMA are indeed posting TFR’s on their web site. Not really trying to discredit Franklin however now that there are three CBO’s shouldn’t they all be put on a level playing field? Keep in mind that Franklin doesn’t live in the affected area either. He is conveniently visiting friends in the area, which honestly I doubt. He has been known to fabricate details before. Did he not criticize my attitude towards safety? Does he have any evidence other then what he wants to read between the lines with his obvious bias?

oh and weren’t you fairly recently questioned about your right to post? Different set of rules?

franklin_m

"Conveniently...." Interesting.

I guess it's totally implausible that I could have friends staying at a rental Myrtle Beach and my wife and I spent the weekend there. When the news started reporting they were going to shutdown, I got on ADSBAware, Flight Aware, and Flight Radar and started looking at the mode3/callsign info. I thought "Holy Crap, we may be able to see it from here." Sure enough, once we walked down the street to the water, we could see it. Shot these with my iPhone!

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

Interesting how your pictures are almost identical to those posted on Face Book by a Brett Wilburn. How long were you into the retail industry? SterlingD

init4fun

What I believe to be a fair question here is;

If two, or ten, or ten thousand people all photograph the exact same event, wouldn't most of the pictures look almost identical?

PS, this is one time I'm happy to see both political parties in agreement, it had to be brought down if for no other reason than to send China the message that such espionage will not be treated lightly.

Anyone else wonder, , , with a Gondola supposedly the size of a couple of busses, , could it have possibly been manned?

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

These pictures were taken pretty close proximity to one another. Not impossible that two different photographers and Franklin just happening to be visiting the same location as the TFR and in all honesty I would give him the benefit of the doubt had he not been caught red handed a time or two.

init4fun

I do believe this to be a fair question, and it begs the further question of;

If any of the 3 currently recognized CBOs are gonna be posting TFRs to their members, shouldn't there be some type of regulatory framework in place that ALL TFRs pertaining to specific member's locations be required to be posted? Personally, I believe none of the CBOs should be posting anything more than the info on where their members can get the most updated TFRs at the FAA's website. If a CBO regularly posts TFR's, and accidentally misses one, and a member whose used to getting their TFR info from the CBO gets into TFR trouble, could the CBO be liable? Our CBO (AMA) regularly posts the C/L ops should "use discretion" when the FAA has sent me differing information, if I get into C/L trouble during a TFR, who here thinks the AMA is gonna stick up for me with the FAA?

franklin_m

Especially in this case, where the event is taking place at some distance at high altitude. Offshore from major destination spot for those of us east of the Mississippi. Quickest for me is DC then pick up I-95. We usually stop to see friends in Leesburg, so it's a long day. But in this case, my wife was already there (she drove down with them last week). Instead of me flying home from client site in New Orleans, I flew into Charleston on Friday. Spend the weekend, and this week she's coming to New Orleans with me straight from there. Next Friday we fly home together. Not that it matters though. But Speedy seems obsessed with trying to disprove photos that came off my iPhone!

He's searching for something to salvage his self esteem. In his zeal to try and defend the AMA, he didn't even bother to read the TFR. He certainly wouldn't be alone in not being "challenged" reading them. After all, Dave M told me a while back they found that most members didn't understand a sectional, etc., which is probably why AMA started filtering the NOTAMs/TFR content so they could dumb them down. Unfortunately, as others said above, that conditions members to look to AMA and not look elsewhere.

The other two CBOs are doing it right, they give the link to the OFFICIAL site for TFRs and nothing else.

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

Fair comments/questions. The only answer I can offer is my opinion.

At this time there is no requirement for any CBO to publish TFR’s. AMA does so out of courtesy. Could they have missed this one? Could this one have happened in a manner where the AMA wasn’t notified? IMO both are possible. Now that there are multiple CBO’s shouldn’t they all be held to the same safety standards? Could Franklin’s thread have been premature not knowing where the breakdown in communication happened. Yes he sent communication to Rich and Chad but with all the water under the bridge does anyone expect them to take him seriously? How does me mistakenly post the wrong TFR ( same city name ) somehow directly correlate to my apparent lack of safety? Doesn’t it seem that Franklin has been a bit quick to jump to conclusions during this thread?