RCU Forums

RCU Forums (https://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/)
-   AMA Discussions (https://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/ama-discussions-74/)
-   -   FAA FOIA Request Results (https://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/ama-discussions-74/11698240-faa-foia-request-results.html)

franklin_m 04-05-2022 12:54 PM

Final results:
  • FAA forwarded 632 pages in response to my FOIA request
  • 629 pages of agreements (156) w/ CBOs, clubs, AMA, etc. in response to my FOIA request
  • Average agreement is 3.9 pages in length
  • 11 sites forwarded to DoD for response (still pending)
  • Most recent agreement forwarded by FAA was 29 Oct 2021 (less than 6 months ago)
  • 10 agreements with 2021 dates
  • 62 agreements with 2020 dates
  • 41 of the clubs had specific agreement expiration dates
  • Of 41 clubs with agreement expiration dates, 38 are expired (i.e. invalid)
  • If club had multiple max altitudes based on conditions, I gave credit to the highest (best case)

The impact of AMA's "Influence"?
  • 96.7% of agreements (151 clubs) limited to 400 feet or less
  • 11.5 % of agreements (18) limited to 200 feet or less
  • 3.2% of agreements (5) were greater than 400 (3x600, 1 ea 1000 & 2000)
  • All but one site approved for >400 comes with additional requirements

(added) Of 134 dated after LAANC in effect (23 July 2019 per AMA - when AMA started working to get high altitudes):
  • 96.2% (129) at or below 400 feet

One more thing:
In the entire package, there is no agreement with any entity that gives authority to operate above 400 AGL at "Taj-Muncie"

franklin_m 04-05-2022 12:58 PM


Originally Posted by speedracerntrixie (Post 12722659)
So June 15,2021 is the last agreement you have record of. The next question in my mind is what date was the first agreement implemented? Correct me if I am wrong here but I don’t think this process goes back very far. Possible that you have 50% to 60% of the actual data?

See above, the most recent agreement is less than six months old. There are six agreements that date back to 2016. Nothing older than that.

mach5nchimchim 06-27-2022 09:44 AM


Originally Posted by franklin_m (Post 12722660)
final results:
  • faa forwarded 632 pages in response to my foia request
  • 629 pages of agreements (156) w/ cbos, clubs, ama, etc. In response to my foia request
  • average agreement is 3.9 pages in length
  • 11 sites forwarded to dod for response (still pending)
  • most recent agreement forwarded by faa was 29 oct 2021 (less than 6 months ago)
  • 10 agreements with 2021 dates
  • 62 agreements with 2020 dates
  • 41 of the clubs had specific agreement expiration dates
  • of 41 clubs with agreement expiration dates, 38 are expired (i.e. Invalid)
  • if club had multiple max altitudes based on conditions, i gave credit to the highest (best case)

the impact of ama's "influence"?
  • 96.7% of agreements (151 clubs) limited to 400 feet or less
  • 11.5 % of agreements (18) limited to 200 feet or less
  • 3.2% of agreements (5) were greater than 400 (3x600, 1 ea 1000 & 2000)
  • all but one site approved for >400 comes with additional requirements

(added) of 134 dated after laanc in effect (23 july 2019 per ama - when ama started working to get high altitudes):
  • 96.2% (129) at or below 400 feet

one more thing:
in the entire package, there is no agreement with any entity that gives authority to operate above 400 agl at "taj-muncie"

fake news

Hydro Junkie 06-27-2022 12:44 PM


Originally Posted by mach5nchimchim (Post 12732894)
fake news

Really? And what is it, specifically, that you are basing that statement on?

franklin_m 07-03-2022 05:12 AM


Originally Posted by mach5nchimchim (Post 12732894)
fake news


Originally Posted by Hydro Junkie (Post 12732923)
Really? And what is it, specifically, that you are basing that statement on?

Yeah, I'm kinda curious too. Can't help but notice that never responded!

astrohog 07-03-2022 05:48 AM

Trolls will troll.......

They never have anything to substantiate their claims, they just shout and call names alot.

Astro

dionysusbacchus 09-01-2022 11:53 AM


Originally Posted by franklin_m (Post 12722355)
I have an additional FOIA out to DOD on a separate but related question. To answer that question, there will be some engagement of groups within DOD that heretofore may not have been aware that certain groups we being afforded use of DOD facilities in ways prohibited by regulation.

I would like to know more about this, what are the regulations for use of DOD facilities as pertaining to civilian groups? Not only RC but car clubs using unused runways for car driving courses on DOD property.

franklin_m 09-01-2022 03:25 PM


Originally Posted by dionysusbacchus (Post 12742339)
I would like to know more about this, what are the regulations for use of DOD facilities as pertaining to civilian groups? Not only RC but car clubs using unused runways for car driving courses on DOD property.

Based on personal experience from the 2006-2009 period, here's what I can say. Whatever we did had to comply with our own (base) policies, Navy Region Southwest (our boss), Commander Naval Installations Command (NRSW's boss), Department of the Navy (CNIC's boss), and DoD (ultimate authority) policies. For this type of thing, these were policies on Anti-Terrorism/Force Protection, physical security, access, air operations, Morale Welfare & Recreation, land use, financial (use of government funds, time, etc.), facilities, and ethics. The major considerations were ATFP, access, security, and financial. Air Ops policies were involved as well, but I had a lot of authority with respect to local operational procedures, so that one was relatively easy.

Generally speaking, if something is 100% active duty, dependents, retirees, & government civilians (hereafter referred to as authorized patrons), things get much easier. We had a dirt-bike club that used a big area in one part of the base, but that club was open only to the above group. Even then, 100% doesn't mean approvals are automatic. The further you get from 100% of the above mentioned group, the more difficult it becomes (note 1). And then you have the guiding principle that even if you navigate all the policies and find out you CAN do something, you still have one more very important decision, and that deals with setting precedent. As my Staff Judge Advocate explained to me with respect to allowing anything but 100% authorized patrons to use my facilities, "What you do for one, you must do for all similar groups." And that gets difficult really fast.

In very rare circumstances, you can get permission to do things outside these, but it takes approval way up the chain of command. And it comes with a lot of "guidance." For example, during the three years I was at the base, each year Road & Track used one of my runways (13,500 feet long) to do acceleration tests on big dollar (quarter million dollar plus) exotic cars. I've attached a YouTube link at the end (I was out on the runway observing for some of the runs in the film). Those fall into a special category of event, and there's lots of consideration given to the message sent by such events. For example, we (again, with Dept of Navy approval) allowed R&T to do this, but when the motorcycle magazine came to us asking the same, we didn't even ask higher HQ. The reason why was simple: we were having a rash of Sailors killed and injured riding motorcycles off duty (including one assigned to one of our tenant squadrons). Although the bikes they wanted to run were expensive, they were ones within the financial means of Sailors. WE didn't want to send a mixed message by facilitating that kind of event with motorcycles.

Each service, each subordinate HQ, and each base can be different based on physical configurations and such. But generally speaking, I think you'll find fewer and fewer groups that aren't 100% authorized patrons being permitted use of DoD facilities. Not saying there are none, but it's highly dependent on situational issues.

Note 1: There are two exceptions to this, BSA & GSA. And both of those are spelled out in law. They're the only ones

https://www.roadandtrack.com/new-car...8/speed-kings/

Charlie P. 09-01-2022 04:13 PM

400 ft? Above the pilot? Below the model? If I am at the base of a 200 ft slope, then there is 600 ft in altitude separation when the model may be 400 ft AOL.

What was used to establish 400 ft? Sounds capricious. Have there been dozens of collisions at 600 ft or 700 ft?

My Lentus 2.4M weighs the same as a turkey vulture (3.3 lbs w/battery) and stands out better. Have they been notified? They fly a lot higher than 400 ft.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:33 PM.


Copyright © 2023 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.