ECHO24

In the video is a link to a memo asking Congress to raise the 250 gram exemption to 1 kilogram in the upcoming FAA 2023 reauthorization bill, with links your state's local Representative and 2 Senators. The memo can be copy/pasted by adding the names of the various reps on their websites or printed out and mailed.

Josh Bixler points out that it's going to take 5 years to sort out the present rules and Remote ID, dragging out a continuing decline in the hobby.

franklin_m

Out of curiosity, I took a look at drone regs in the western world. What I noted immediately was that the US is an outlier. Most countries limit altitude to 120/150 meters for example.

Since the historical precedent with respect to aviation rules and regs is to harmonize, I predict that over the next 10 years or so we'll see drone flying in the US look a lot more like drone flying in other countries rather than "fly as you always have" rhetoric out of the AMA.

mongo

My Feedback: (15)

just my personal opinion:

at this point, all asking/complaining about what we have, probably makes us the mosquito buzzing around somebody's head in the dark, something to be swatted and forgotten about, forever.

might be in "OUR" best interest, right now, to just lay low and let things settle out where they will.
might be opportunities the ask/suggest changes at a later time.

like i said, just one man's opinion.

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

Probably not a bad approach. Although I’ve been tagged as one of the “ law breakers “ the fact remains that all the sites I fly at are AMA chartered sites, away from any populated areas and in a safe manner. In other words, I’m not attracting as much attention as someone who flies in a public place.

franklin_m

If memory serves, you did admit to flying higher than 400 AGL in class G, in violation of law. And you do this despite: "In addition to operating within our safety programming, AMA members should comply with any and all applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations (emphasis added) - AMA Safety Handbook, page 4, under heading "Regulatory Compliance."

Meanwhile, I'm looking for the place in the law that says violation of this part of the law is permissible if flying at an AMA chartered site, or if away from populated areas, or in the opinion of the toy plane flyer that they're violating the law "in a safe manner."

Oh, that's right. It's not there.

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

LOL, you never fail to deliver.

ECHO24

The the status quo, like Josh Bixler says, is the continuing decline in the hobby over the next 5 years while the present rules and Remote ID are sorted out. One kilogram would save the biggest part of the RC flying hobby. Doing it online takes maybe two minutes each. I'm going to print and mail mine with a cover letter. I hardly see how contacting your representatives could make it worse.

On the one hand the FAA has invested a lot on the current scheme. On the other, one kilogram would cut the administrative and enforcement expense to a fraction of what it's going to cost going forward as is.

franklin_m

Nor do you. I suggest you look at what just happened in Canada to MAAC exceptions due to cavalier attitudes that seem very similar to yours ... operating in violation of law.

What I don't understand, and help me please, is that if this hobby is so important to you, why do you continue to operate in violation of law, bragging about it even, despite knowing it is handing regulators the stick to beat the hobby with?

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

I wouldn’t call being truthful about the situation bragging. The fact is that during an IMAC or Pattern flight, most of the flight is under 400’. I know that is going to mean nothing to you. However when you go and fly at a schoolyard or other public use facility that is not purpose set up for R/C flying you are breaking the law as well.


2. The aircraft is operated in accordance with or within the programming of a community-based organization’s set of safety guidelines that are developed in coordination with the Federal Aviation Administration.

• I will use an established safety line to separate all model aircraft operations from spectators and bystanders.


While flying in a public use facility, you are not able to establish and enforce a safety line. Clearly a violation and clearly attracting more attention to yourself than someone flying at a site that is designated for model flight and breaking 400’ maybe 6 times for a few seconds each time. Not to mention that you can have an incursion of foot traffic at any time. I recall you being pretty hard on a club that admitted flying over people.

franklin_m

First, I'm not required to follow AMA's safety code. Only the code of a CBO. The one I'm following has no requirement for a safety line.

Second, even if I did follow the AMA's code, how do you know I am "not able to establish and enforce a safety line?" What are the requirements for "establish[ing]" and "enforce[ing]" a safety line? They're non-existent. It's whatever one believes it to be. I can't help but notice on the other forum you were silent on that club talking about how they fly over people riding horses and walking on paths. But you were. So either criticize them the same way you criticized me (above), or get off your high horse.

Third, since establishing and enforcing a safety line is completely undefined. IF I were to use your beloved AMA's code, I'd ensure that I have a clear view of the surrounding area to a distance at least twice the zero drag possible trajectory of what I'm flying, worst case. The safety line is defined as that line 180 degrees in front of me to the limits of the flying area. How I enforce it? If anything enters that bubble, I direct the velocity vector AWAY from the person that entered, and land immediately. People appear at the PERIMETER of my flying, they don't just pop up suddenly in the middle. I see them well in advance.

So while you admit to exceeding the limits of the law, albeit briefly, it's still a violation. And it's a violation at a time when the hobby you say you love so much has a target painted on it. And it's a violation at a time when the country to our immediate north just revoked exemptions for similar activities. And while you accuse me of violating the law, over the undefined and poorly worded "establish and enforce a safety line", you've yet to prove how I'm in violation.

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

What CBO safety code are you following?

As for the rest, sorry not buying it. You are not able to establish a safety line and keep people on the correct side at a public use facility. Thinking you can control that environment is a farce.

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

Call it a farce, if you will, but you have failed to define a safety line, so, absent a definition, your statement is absolutely baseless.

Who said anything about controlling the environment?

For the sake of having beneficial discussions, why don't you expound on your claims, instead of your usual vaguaries and wordplay? How about answering to the hypocrisies that Franklin pointed out, rather than slink behind your silly dismissals?

Astro

franklin_m

FTCA. And you will not find the term "safety line" in it anywhere. And since FAA approved them as a CBO, I am fully compliant.

Interesting given you raised no such concerns over your fellow AMA members and fellow "RCG cancel club" members when they described flying OVER non-participants, at a public use facility.

FUTABA-RC

So 393.7 feet to 492.1 feet. Seems 400 feet is towards the low end of what other countries do.

franklin_m

The US makes provision currently allow flight above 400 in controlled airspace if approved by FAA. I don't recall seeing any such provision in other countries. Hence if the US moves to harmonize with other countries regs, I could see that provision going away entirely.

ira d

Modelers have been flying over 400' for years with no ill effects to full scale and the main reason is that full scale almost never fly below 2,000' unless landing or taking off.
I am well aware that emergency traffic and crop dusters can sometime be lower than 400' but I'm not aware of any incidents with full scale so there is no legitimate
reason to expect modelers to always stay below 400' when not near a airport.

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

I agree it is unreasonable, not arguing that at all. Doesn't change the fact that it is the law, nonetheless.
400' is the law and that is what Franklin and speed are "discussing".

Astro

mongo

My Feedback: (15)

and NASA has rather thoroughly debunked that whole,
"we have always done it this way and nothing has gone wrong theory",
of operation.

ira d

Not sure what your point is but I think most people that fly RC know there is no larger risk to anyone by flying over 400' vs below 400' and no one has proved different.

mongo

My Feedback: (15)

until a shuttle blew up, there was no risk to using o-rings in cold weather conditions

until a shuttle came apart on re entry, there was no real risk to chunks of ice hitting the shuttle wings during lift off.

until there is no collision or other interaction with full scale above 400 ft, there is no risk there either,

but there is NO guarantee that it will not happen tomorrow, either.

one thing about life,
just because it has not happened yet, does not mean it will never happen.

ira d

There could be a collision between a model and a full scale at any altitude even below 400' but the fact is that such a collision is very unlikely below 2,000' except possible near a airport.
Most model flying except for gliders takes place well below 1,000' and that is the reason there has been so few incidents of conflict between models and full scale and telling models
they have to stay below 400' does not make anyone safer, however a case can be made to keep models below 2,000'.

FUTABA-RC

Given how few exemptions there are I would not be overly concerned by that. And given that those that do exist were only granted after intensive process involving the FAA I am also not concerned about that either.

ECHO24

400' is a theoretical 100' separation from the 500' minimum rule. But there is an exception over "sparsely populated areas" where F/S planes can be below 500", and where many (most) RC fields are located, making the 400' limit essentially meaningless since F/S planes can be expected at any altitude. Yes, there is a 400' rule, be aware of it. Other than that, much-a-do about nothing other than to argue about it on RC forums.

franklin_m

Keep in mind, bureaucracies down't like work. And being expected to sit down from time to time with AMA clubs all around the country to refresh LOAs is work. Work that goes away entirely if a national hard limit of 400 feet max w/o exception is established. And when budgets are tight, it's exactly that kind of message that gets transmitted to Congress by FAA's Congressional Liaisons. "We can save $xx milliions of staff time if we didn't have to negotiate with these pesky CBOs; but we'd need legislative language to support it."

Then there's also the other stakeholders, DHS & DOD. The former's "Friend or Foe" problem gets a lot easier if just a couple passages of law get changed: the first being the above to cap everyone at 400 AGL max, and the second to add that all recreational sUAS above 250g must have remote ID.

Maybe not right away, but I can foresee both of those happening in not to distant future.

ECHO24

The 250 gram exemption was thoroughly debated in the various ARCs and advisory committees. There needs be a reason to revisit it. I put in my cover letter that since the 250 gram limit was decided we have nearly a decade of real-world data, millions of recreational and RC model aircraft flights with only a handful of actual accidents and relatively little property damage considering the the amount of hobby activity. I mentioned a couple other things.

It's going to be a tough sell. Here are a few articles from last week. None are physical accidents.

FAA: Drones spotted near airports increase dramatically in the last two years
https://news.yahoo.com/faa-drones-sp...224630671.html

GAO pushes FAA for stronger drone strategy
https://www.safetyandhealthmagazine....-communication

Two men arrested for flying drone over chemical plants
https://unfilteredwithkiran.com/new-york-men-arrested-flying-drone-over-chemical-plant-st-charles-parish/

Mexican human smugglers using drones to spy on boarder patrol
https://newstalk870.am/mexican-human...border-patrol/

Man in UK caught flying a drone near a historic WWII plane fined, sentenced to 6 months in prison, suspended for one year
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-b2293213.html