NorfolkSouthern - I was making a funny. Looks like it went ... hovered ... over your head.

SEEEE how annoying??

I think the FAA has already moved on from us and are completely focused on the commercial side. The concerns the AMA still has were already commented on with the last NPRM.
I will likely take exerpts from my previous comment on the first NPRM and post on this one which addressed the paid hobby operations not being hobby and recreational related as well as airport notifications.
Our hobby isn't going anywhere reguardless of what some here may believe.

I made a statement at one point, that I didn't care if the model flying hobby got drowned in its own bureaucracy. My main concern was that it would make more sense for me to use what skills I have to supplement my income. The AMA and the modeling community will do just fine, and I honestly don't feel the AMA did much good for its self getting tangled in a congressional act. Either way, the NPRM would still be where it is now and maybe would have contained even fewer restrictions for modelers than it already does at this point.

Here's what the FAA is giving you: There won't be any medical requirements to fly a small unmanned aircraft for profit, just a test and a license fee. It will in fact be easier than getting a driver's license. No mention is made of the word "pilot". It was replaced with "operator", which to me makes good sense. You're not in command of a full-scale aircraft, you are actually operating a robot that flies through the air. I may hate the FAA, but they were at least correct on that one item. That DJI Phantom that someone wants to use to photograph a real estate agent's house won't even need an inspection or certificate of airworthiness. No vetting or background check required. What more could a drone user want? And the clubs will continue to do what they've been doing since the stone ages.

So again, I really don't see anything with the NPRM that would need fixing. Why must the AMA be so upset?

I forgive you. Now go duck hunting, and sin no more.

You forgot to mention how entertaining it's going to be watching the Communal Bath Operator trying to herd cats. Pass the popcorn. ;)

Finally some one get's it .... comment on the NPRM. Perhaps we all should.
Thanks Mr.SHE

The fingers are typing and all I see is blah blah blah.

Good news for you - RCU rules don't require you to open a thread.

When one of these drones causes an accident with a manned aircraft or persons or property on the ground the person responsible will be charged at a minimum for endangering the National Air Space System.
We with our model airplanes at our club fields will not be charged with that crime since we were not there with our model airplanes and our lives will continue on just fine.

How about the CBO that made up the standards we are expected fly by? BTW, I think the answer will come from a civil court, not one that deals with criminal cases.

[h=1]Amazon says US too late on drone rules
Washington (AFP) - Online giant Amazon told Congress on Tuesday the US government is lagging in implementing rules for commercial drones, making it hard to make plans for its quick delivery system by air.[/h]Amazon's vice president for global public policy Paul Misener said in remarks prepared for a Senate hearing that the US approval granted last week for the company's drone testing program came so late that it had already moved on to a new technology.

The rest of the story :https://www.yahoo.com/tech/s/amazon-...190614044.html

I have not read the NPRM yet, but I believe they are concerned that testing models for a manufacture is considered commercial. As is winning prizes and cash for winning contests. As is demonstrating a model if employed by the company or paid directly. The 400 foot rule is either not clear or in effect everywhere so aerobatic and sailplane contests cannot be held. And I think the list is a bit longer.

Come on Sporty get with the Program Read The NPRM read the AMAs concerns form your own opinion and domment in an informed coherent & intelligent courteous manner.


PLZ !

I have more important things to do, but will read it and comment before the deadline. I suggest you calm down till about a week before the deadline. drink decaf or something. However the AMA in their statement said the NPRM does not change what was said in their interpretation of 336. I suspect they would be right.

Yes and that creates a very interesting situation. WARNING SPECULATION AHEAD.

As the AMA IS THE ONLY CBO at this tine.

1. Does a pilot of a model aircraft have to be a member of the CBO?
2. If not, does the CBO (AMA) have any potential liability for court ordered civil damages by a non member that followed the CBO programming?
3. It there is potential liability, how will the CBO (AMA) insurance carriers factor that into the insurance premium?
4. What effect would a huge increase in insurance costs have on AMA dues?

Just something I hope the business oriented people at the AMA are thinking about.

Flight Risk/I-fly-any-and-all,
I’ll not comment on Nerys so called interesting points but I’ll state some pertinent facts.

Looking at the video and the area he was flying in on the Seattle Sectional Chart 88[SUP]th[/SUP] edition effective from 11 Dec 2014 to 28 May 2015;

• Point 1. He was flying an RC aircraft (drone) over yellow area of the sectional which is a category 1 densely populated area.
• Point 2. He was approximately 8 statute miles inside the mode C vail for the Seattle Tacoma International airport Class B airspace (see note below).
• Point 3. He was operating between two (S44 & 3B8) hard surface airports that are approximately 3 statute miles apart.
• Point 4. He was operating approximately 5 statute miles from JB Lewis-McChord, a tower controlled airport.

Here are some assumptions that I’m willing to bet are fact;

• Point 1. The two news helicopters involved were equipped with Mode C transponders.
• Point 2. The helicopter pilots were in communications with and were following the instructions of air traffic controllers.
• Point 3. The quad (drone) was not equipped with a transponder.
• Point 4. The quad operator was not communicating with air traffic control nor did he provide prior notification of his intentions.

Now I’m also willing to bet many of you will say none of this applies to this quad operator but you would be wrong because the FAA believes it does apply.

Frank

Good points, time will tell.

Frank

Thanks for additional info, Frank. From the video I couldn't see anything wrong with how the guy was flying. It's not how though, but where.

Correct;

http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/atta...mentid=2084079

Frank

And the FAA is always right! At least till a judge says otherwise.

Hard surface does not mean there is an airport operator there to get permission from. Those are purple on the chart, I believe that still means there is not control tower. It does not say if it is active or not. So are they airports he would have informed permission from, and any chance he did or is part of a club that had a standing agreement with? Still I do not believe this negates the 400 foot rule, unless those are private one use airports with hardly any use. And not sure if that is a reason for or against. Just something that is out there not hammered down.

You keep talking about this. What "rule" are you referring to? There is zero mention of altitude limits in Section 336 and AC 91-57 is not a rule, it is a voluntary guidance that carries no enforcement weight and has never been used by the FAA even when warning a person . So what "rule" are you referring to here??

i have to stop reading about drones i get what do i get

I believe the altitude limits are for commercial operations.