Go Back  RCU Forums > Radios, Batteries, Clubhouse and more > The Clubhouse
Reload this Page >

AMA says, "Wait to register"

Notices
The Clubhouse If it doesn't fit in any other category and is about general RC stuff then post it here at the Clubhouse.

AMA says, "Wait to register"

Old 12-25-2015, 09:34 PM
  #301  
HoundDog
My Feedback: (49)
 
HoundDog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Apache Junction AZ. WI 0WI8
Posts: 4,501
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by ira d
The 400 ft rule has been around for years but neither the AMA or the FAA enforced it, As for the FAA it was in the form of a advisory but now they want to make it binding although I am not in total agreement with them
doing so and I hope something can be worked out with the FAA to allow a higher operating limit under certain conditions and maybe certain locations not just for AMA members but all modelers.
The 400 ft rule has been around for years
AC No. 91-57A Is Just that an Advisory Circular i.e.Advisory in nature only.
IT is NOT a Rule.


Subject: Model Aircraft OperatingStandardsDate: September 2, 2015Initiated by: AJV-115AC No. 91-57A1. PURPOSE. This advisory circular (AC) provides guidance to persons operating UnmannedAircraft (UA) for hobby or recreation purposes meeting the statutory definition of “modelaircraft” contained in Section 336 of Public Law 112-95, the FAA Modernization and Reform Actof 2012. This AC describes means by which model aircraft may be operated safely in theNational Airspace System (NAS). Nothing in this AC changes the requirement to comply withthe statute or any applicable regulations.2. APPLICABILITY. This AC provides information for any person who engages in modelaircraft operations using model aircraft as defined by statute. (See paragraph 6.)3. REFERENCES. Title 49 U.S.C. 40101; P.L. 112-95 (126 Stat. 77 et seq.).4. RELATED MATERIAL (current editions). Subtitle VII of Title 49, United States Code (49 USC) Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Subtitle B of Public Law 112-95 (Feb. 14, 2012) Aeronautical Information Manual (AIM) Temporary Flight Restriction (TFR) listing: http://tfr.faa.gov/tfr2/list.html Aeronautical Navigation Products (Charts):http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/flight_info/aeronav/
Old 12-25-2015, 09:53 PM
  #302  
HoundDog
My Feedback: (49)
 
HoundDog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Apache Junction AZ. WI 0WI8
Posts: 4,501
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Concerning AC No. 91-57a Sub paragraph c.(4)
So Long as
The aircraft operates in a manner that does not interfere with, and gives way to, any manned aircraft; I'd Say This means that if an R/C pilot gives way to a manned aircraft it is ok the share the same air space i.e. when not with in 5 miles of an airport may fly at any altitude so long as they give way to maned aircraft.

c. Determination of “Model Aircraft” Status. Whether a given unmanned aircraft operationmay be considered a “model aircraft operation” is determined with reference to section 336of Public Law 112-95:
(1) The aircraft is flown strictly for hobby or recreational use;

(2) The aircraft operates in accordance with a community-based set of safety guidelinesand within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization(CBO);

(3) The aircraft is limited to not more than 55 pounds, unless otherwise certifiedthrough a design, construction, inspection, flight test, and operational safetyprogram administered by a CBO;

(4) The aircraft operates in a manner that does not interfere with, and gives way to, anymanned aircraft; and

(5) When flown within 5 miles of an airport, the operator of the model aircraft providesthe airport operator or the airport air traffic control tower (when an air trafficfacility is located at the airport) with prior notice of the operation. Model aircraftoperators flying from a permanent location within 5 miles of an airport shouldestablish a mutually agreed upon operating procedure with the airport operator andthe airport air traffic control tower (when an air traffic facility is located at theairport).d. Public Law 112-95
Old 12-25-2015, 09:54 PM
  #303  
ira d
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Maricopa County AZ
Posts: 3,249
Received 5 Likes on 5 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by HoundDog
The 400 ft rule has been around for years
AC No. 91-57A Is Just that an Advisory Circular i.e.Advisory in nature only.
IT is NOT a Rule.


Subject: Model Aircraft OperatingStandardsDate: September 2, 2015Initiated by: AJV-115AC No. 91-57A1. PURPOSE. This advisory circular (AC) provides guidance to persons operating UnmannedAircraft (UA) for hobby or recreation purposes meeting the statutory definition of “modelaircraft” contained in Section 336 of Public Law 112-95, the FAA Modernization and Reform Actof 2012. This AC describes means by which model aircraft may be operated safely in theNational Airspace System (NAS). Nothing in this AC changes the requirement to comply withthe statute or any applicable regulations.2. APPLICABILITY. This AC provides information for any person who engages in modelaircraft operations using model aircraft as defined by statute. (See paragraph 6.)3. REFERENCES. Title 49 U.S.C. 40101; P.L. 112-95 (126 Stat. 77 et seq.).4. RELATED MATERIAL (current editions). Subtitle VII of Title 49, United States Code (49 USC) Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Subtitle B of Public Law 112-95 (Feb. 14, 2012) Aeronautical Information Manual (AIM) Temporary Flight Restriction (TFR) listing: http://tfr.faa.gov/tfr2/list.html Aeronautical Navigation Products (Charts):http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/flight_info/aeronav/
I Know AC- 97 -57 was a advisory I said as much but I also said now the FAA wants to make it binding.
Old 12-25-2015, 10:07 PM
  #304  
HoundDog
My Feedback: (49)
 
HoundDog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Apache Junction AZ. WI 0WI8
Posts: 4,501
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by ira d
I Know AC- 97 -57 was a advisory I said as much but I also said now the FAA wants to make it binding.
Then it no longer is an AC Advisory Circular. If U look at AC No. 95-57a
Section 6. MODEL AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS.
Sub Paragraph c (4)

(4) The aircraft operates in a manner that does not interfere with, and gives way to, anymanned aircraft;

Means to me that so long as you do not interfere with, and gives way to, any manned aircraft; U may operate at any reasonable altitude while sharing the NAS.
See below
AC No. 95-57a
Section 6. MODEL AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS.
Sub Paragraph b


b. Model Aircraft Hazards in the NAS. While aero-modelers generally are concerned aboutsafety and exercise good judgment when flying model aircraft for the hobby and recreationalpurposes for which they are intended, they may share the airspace in which manned aircraftare operating. Unmanned aircraft, including model aircraft, may pose a hazard to mannedaircraft in flight and to persons and property on the surface if not operated safely. Modelaircraft operations that endanger the safety of the National Airspace System, particularlycareless or reckless operations or those that interfere with or fail to give way to any mannedaircraft may be subject to FAA enforcement action.

Last edited by HoundDog; 12-25-2015 at 10:15 PM.
Old 12-26-2015, 07:13 AM
  #305  
Sport_Pilot
 
Sport_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 16,916
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by ira d
I Know AC- 97 -57 was a advisory I said as much but I also said now the FAA wants to make it binding.

If they want to make it binding ,why did they say just the opposite in the sUAV NPRM?
Old 12-26-2015, 08:54 AM
  #306  
ira d
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Maricopa County AZ
Posts: 3,249
Received 5 Likes on 5 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Sport_Pilot
If they want to make it binding ,why did they say just the opposite in the sUAV NPRM?
I don't have a answer to your question all I know is you have to Agree to stay below 400ft when you register with the FAA.
Old 12-26-2015, 09:15 AM
  #307  
HoundDog
My Feedback: (49)
 
HoundDog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Apache Junction AZ. WI 0WI8
Posts: 4,501
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by ira d
I Know AC- 97 -57 was a advisory I said as much but I also said now the FAA wants to make it binding.

If they want to make it binding why is it still an Adversary circular and not an FAR?


Originally Posted by Sport_Pilot
If they want to make it binding ,why did they say just the opposite in the sUAV NPRM?
It is now AC No AC-97-57a the previous AC with out the a is suspended.
http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/m.../AC_91-57A.pdf
This is the line fron AC-97-57a reverancing 400'
Again it's is an Advisory Circular and so is Advisory in nature

e. Model aircraft operators should follow best practices including limiting operations to 400 feetabove ground level (AGL).

But then this
AC 91-57A September 2, 20152
(2) Public Law 112-95 defines unmanned aircraft as an aircraft that is operated without the possibility of direct human intervention from within or on the aircraft.
(3) Section 336 of P.L. 112-95 defines a model aircraft as an unmanned aircraft that is capable of sustained flight in the atmosphere, flown within visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft, and flown only for hobby or recreational purposes.
b. Model Aircraft Hazards in the NAS. While aero-modelers generally are concerned about safety and exercise good judgment when flying model aircraft for the hobby and recreational purposes for which they are intended, they may share the airspace in which manned aircraft are operating. Unmanned aircraft, including model aircraft, may pose a hazard to manned aircraft in flight and to persons and property on the surface if not operated safely. Model Aircraft operations that endanger the safety of the National Airspace System, particularly careless or reckless operations or those that interfere with or fail to give way to any manned aircraft may be subject to FAA enforcement action.

To me this says
we may share the NAS with Maned AC if we operated safely and we give way to maned AC.

So if we can share the NAS above 400' and if we can operate safely and give way to maned AC when above 400' we may fly above 400'. jmho.

Sporty Please reference the URL for the
sUAV NPRM

Last edited by HoundDog; 12-26-2015 at 09:39 AM. Reason: correct spelling and punctuation I Hope.
Old 12-26-2015, 09:42 AM
  #308  
VF84sluggo
My Feedback: (55)
 
VF84sluggo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Gulf Breeze, FL
Posts: 2,367
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Friend of mine just posted on Facebook a picture of him with his brand-new-in-box-from-Santa quad-copter, grinning from ear to ear.

Nice guy, but no rc experience, no knowledge of the AMA, no clue about FAA registration.

Yeah, refusing to register, AMA lawsuits, civil disobedience...a tempest in a teapot. These self-flying contraptions (as we all know) are exploding all over the place. IMO, no way I see the FAA easing off. If anything, this may just be the beginning. Let a few more airliners get dusted off, a few more "cool" YouTube fly-by videos pop up, etc. etc., and it's Katy-bar-the-door.
Old 12-26-2015, 09:45 AM
  #309  
BobH
My Feedback: (2)
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Springfield, VA,
Posts: 8,049
Received 21 Likes on 21 Posts
Default

Please understand that your Govt. often make competing statements. One Department may completely contradict another. This is nothing new.
What is being discussed here is the FAA and their recent decree regarding the rc community, period.
All the other BS simply obfuscates the issue.
Old 12-26-2015, 10:07 AM
  #310  
HoundDog
My Feedback: (49)
 
HoundDog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Apache Junction AZ. WI 0WI8
Posts: 4,501
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by VF84sluggo
Friend of mine just posted on Facebook a picture of him with his brand-new-in-box-from-Santa quad-copter, grinning from ear to ear.

Nice guy, but no rc experience, no knowledge of the AMA, no clue about FAA registration.

Of Course U Offered your insight and expertise to help him follow the FAR's etc so he doesn't end Up dirt Poor and in the Pokey. Right?


Yeah, refusing to register, AMA lawsuits, civil disobedience...a tempest in a teapot. These self-flying contraptions (as we all know) are exploding all over the place. IMO, no way I see the FAA easing off. If anything, this may just be the beginning. Let a few more airliners get dusted off, a few more "cool" YouTube fly-by videos pop up, etc. etc., and it's Katy-bar-the-door.
Sluggo that is why we must endorse the FAA's Registration of pilots policy 100% if for any other reason but to show we are one solid CBO behind the Safety of the NAS and we believe the FAA is doing every thing possible to keep us with the least legislation as possible.

The only way out of this dilemma is to convince the FAA there is With in the Definition of AirCraft, as the FAA DOES NOT sees it, a distinct division between Traditional R/C TOYS and the DRONES i.e. Quads etc that are 99.999% the reason for the turmoil and should be treated as such when flown any place BUT a Registered Flying Site be it Federal, State, City park or Private Property away from areas where all R/C TOY flying is prohibited by Rule Safety Code of a CBO or FAR.

Any one agree or do U have a better plan?

Last edited by HoundDog; 12-26-2015 at 10:10 AM.
Old 12-26-2015, 10:58 AM
  #311  
VF84sluggo
My Feedback: (55)
 
VF84sluggo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Gulf Breeze, FL
Posts: 2,367
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

^^^^^ Hound, yessir, I did indeed let him know of the FAA's new requirement. Even sent him the FAA registration link.

Felt like I was raining on his Christmas parade, but so it goes. We can thank all the pinheads in the last few years, and their love to post on-line their idiotic antics, for this whole crapstorm...

Sluggo
Old 12-26-2015, 12:26 PM
  #312  
benjack71
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: , IL
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by HoundDog
SEC. 336. SPECIAL RULE FOR MODEL AIRCRAFT.(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law relating to the incorporation ofunmanned aircraft systems into Federal Aviation Administration plans and policies, includingthis subtitle, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration may not promulgate anyrule or regulation regarding a model aircraft, or an aircraft being developed as a model aircraft,

Requiring People that wish to fly an R/C Toy in the NAS to register is "NOT" promulgate any rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft.It is only a Regulation for the Person/owner/operatorof the R/C TOY i.e.Not for the model air plane.

That is game playing. That is how bureaucracies. get away with writing law. Having a requirement of the pilot of a model airplane is absolutely regulating the hobby. The intent of Congress was clear. Everyone knows it. Even the FAA. This will end up in court. They will be forced to define a model aircraft and a "drone". That has been the key to this the whole time. No one wanted to step up and define the difference. All of us in the hobby absolutely know the difference between a scale fixed wing or fixed wing model and a multi rotor. Without listing all the differences, its next to impossible for a person, who has no model flying experience to grab up a fixed wing trainer slap it together and run out and fly it over the stadium. Everyone knows that. The multi-rotor on the other hand a moron can go and buy one and fly it around. Yes i did go ahead and register, but I fully expect the AMA to get a provision out of this. The FAA, in my opinion, would not want this to go to court. I think, that the model aircraft will be allowed to fly as before at AMA designated fields without a registration process. I also suspect that the 55 pound giant scale will be able to as well without registering. The FAA has no data to support fixed wing or even giant scale model aircraft as being a threat to the public good. All the FAA has, is a bunch of reports of near misses with multi rotor drones. News media coverage of multi rotors etc. etc. To be honest, the majority of the close call drone reports are bunk.The following excerpt from the AMA is a Elephant in the room. But it stands to reason. This is how fear mongering from the Government gives them more control. Create or expand a problem, create a sense of fear, then jump into regulate the problem you have created or exasperated. Bureaucracy 101.
https://www.modelaircraft.org/gov/do...ata_091415.pdf
Old 12-26-2015, 12:41 PM
  #313  
n1169g
My Feedback: (1)
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Franklin, NC
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

I find it hard to believe that AMA is going to convince the FAA that it's 500K members should be exempt from the other 2M others.
The government like to lump groups together to hold control and impress the public that they are right on the problem.
I have all ready registered to my surprise the number came as 10 caricatures and only one is a number.
But I did find one flaw so far. The is no rule on how big the numbers/letters have to be.
I can make it read FAA regestration #
XXXXXXXXXX
so small it is only .75" X .25"
on a big plane it will be hard to see
Old 12-26-2015, 01:11 PM
  #314  
porcia83
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Hartford, CT
Posts: 7,269
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by n1169g
I find it hard to believe that AMA is going to convince the FAA that it's 500K members should be exempt from the other 2M others.
The government like to lump groups together to hold control and impress the public that they are right on the problem.
I have all ready registered to my surprise the number came as 10 caricatures and only one is a number.
But I did find one flaw so far. The is no rule on how big the numbers/letters have to be.
I can make it read FAA regestration #
XXXXXXXXXX
so small it is only .75" X .25"
on a big plane it will be hard to see
Might wanna double check the requirements on the numbers. Also, where did you get that there are 500k members in the AMA. I'm sure they would be thrilled with even half of that. AMA last released numbers and noted 180,000 members, about 30k of those are "youth" memberships ie non voting and non dues paying.
Might wann
Old 12-26-2015, 01:59 PM
  #315  
n1169g
My Feedback: (1)
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Franklin, NC
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

So with less members the chances are even less of AMA able to change FAA mind
Have you seen size required for the numbers? Copy and paste it here please.
Old 12-26-2015, 02:23 PM
  #316  
porcia83
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Hartford, CT
Posts: 7,269
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by n1169g
So with less members the chances are even less of AMA able to change FAA mind
Have you seen size required for the numbers? Copy and paste it here please.
Q49. How do I mark my unmanned aircraft with the unique registration number?
A. You may use any method to affix the number, such as permanent marker, label, engraving, or other means, as long as the number is readily accessible and maintained in a condition that is readable and legible upon close visual inspection. If your unmanned aircraft has an easily accessible battery compartment you may affix the number in that compartment.

While it doesn't have font and size specs, the numbers have to be readable and legible. If it's inside the unit, it's o/k as well, just needs to be clear.
Old 12-26-2015, 02:53 PM
  #317  
SunDevilPilot
 
SunDevilPilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Gilbert, AZ
Posts: 2,025
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by porcia83
Q49. How do I mark my unmanned aircraft with the unique registration number?
A. You may use any method to affix the number, such as permanent marker, label, engraving, or other means, as long as the number is readily accessible and maintained in a condition that is readable and legible upon close visual inspection. If your unmanned aircraft has an easily accessible battery compartment you may affix the number in that compartment.

While it doesn't have font and size specs, the numbers have to be readable and legible. If it's inside the unit, it's o/k as well, just needs to be clear.
This is what I did. The registration # is just below the rudder servo. Stamped into a tiny aluminum plate. Letters are 1/16".

SunDevilPilot

Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version

Name:	Edge Reg 1 - 1.jpg
Views:	167
Size:	1.57 MB
ID:	2137769  
Old 12-26-2015, 03:22 PM
  #318  
Rob2160
Senior Member
 
Rob2160's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Sydney, AUSTRALIA
Posts: 4,786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by VF84sluggo
Friend of mine just posted on Facebook a picture of him with his brand-new-in-box-from-Santa quad-copter, grinning from ear to ear.

Nice guy, but no rc experience, no knowledge of the AMA, no clue about FAA registration.

Yeah, refusing to register, AMA lawsuits, civil disobedience...a tempest in a teapot. These self-flying contraptions (as we all know) are exploding all over the place. IMO, no way I see the FAA easing off. If anything, this may just be the beginning. Let a few more airliners get dusted off, a few more "cool" YouTube fly-by videos pop up, etc. etc., and it's Katy-bar-the-door.

I think 50% of the Toy "drones" acquired over Christmas won't even survive a week. I see it all the time at the park I fly. Dad (or Mum) and son arrive with their new toy. Obviously with no experience.

They either can't get it off the ground and give up or it flies for a few minutes drifting in the wind and crashing into trees bordering the park. This happens almost on a monthly basis. I'd say many of these Christmas presents are already in the trash can.
Old 12-26-2015, 06:11 PM
  #319  
HoundDog
My Feedback: (49)
 
HoundDog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Apache Junction AZ. WI 0WI8
Posts: 4,501
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by benjack71
That is game playing. That is how bureaucracies. get away with writing law. Having a requirement of the pilot of a model airplane is absolutely regulating the hobby. The intent of Congress was clear. Everyone knows it. Even the FAA. This will end up in court. They will be forced to define a model aircraft and a "drone". That has been the key to this the whole time. No one wanted to step up and define the difference. All of us in the hobby absolutely know the difference between a scale fixed wing or fixed wing model and a multi rotor. Without listing all the differences, its next to impossible for a person, who has no model flying experience to grab up a fixed wing trainer slap it together and run out and fly it over the stadium. Everyone knows that. The multi-rotor on the other hand a moron can go and buy one and fly it around. Yes i did go ahead and register, but I fully expect the AMA to get a provision out of this. The FAA, in my opinion, would not want this to go to court. I think, that the model aircraft will be allowed to fly as before at AMA designated fields without a registration process. I also suspect that the 55 pound giant scale will be able to as well without registering. The FAA has no data to support fixed wing or even giant scale model aircraft as being a threat to the public good. All the FAA has, is a bunch of reports of near misses with multi rotor drones. News media coverage of multi rotors etc. etc. To be honest, the majority of the close call drone reports are bunk.The following excerpt from the AMA is a Elephant in the room. But it stands to reason. This is how fear mongering from the Government gives them more control. Create or expand a problem, create a sense of fear, then jump into regulate the problem you have created or exasperated. Bureaucracy 101.
https://www.modelaircraft.org/gov/do...ata_091415.pdf
Of course U are absolutely right about That is how bureaucracies. get away with writing law. Having a requirement of the pilot of a model airplane is absolutely regulating the hobby. The intent of Congress was clear. Guess What It doesn't really mater or Congress would have stepped in by now. Congress enacted #336 because they had No Idea that the FAA would Interpert (TWIST Congress intent) of a simple amendment (To protect R/C Toy airplanes) would be Interpreted as the FAA has. Furthermore Congress will wash their hands of the whole thing And with the way the FAA interprets anything that flys in the NAS as an airplane and so is subject to any rules/FAR's they make for Full Scale maned air planes.

FAA.s Interpretation of the special rule for Model aircraft

Discussion of the InterpretationI. Background of FAA Oversight of Model Aircraft OperationsHistorically, the FAA has considered model aircraft to be aircraft that fall within thestatutory and regulatory definitions of an aircraft, as they are contrivances or devices thatare “invented, used, or designed to navigate, or fly in, the air.” See 49 USC 40102 and 14CFR 1.1. As aircraft, these devices generally are subject to FAA oversight andenforcement. However, consistent with FAA’s enforcement philosophy, FAA’soversight of model aircraft has been guided by the risk that these operations present. TheFAA first recognized in 1981 that “model aircraft can at times pose a hazard to full-scaleaircraft in flight and to persons and property on the surface,” and recommended a set ofvoluntary operating standards for model aircraft operators to follow to mitigate thesesafety risks. See Advisory Circular 91-57, Model Aircraft Operating Standards (June 9,1981). These operating standards included restricting operations over populated areas,limiting use of the devices around spectators until after the devices had been flight testedand proven airworthy; restricting operations to 400 feet above the surface; requiring thatthe devices give right of way to, and avoid flying near manned aircraft, and usingobservers to assist in operations.These guidelines were further clarified in 2007, when the FAA issued a policystatement regarding unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) operations in the NAS. See 72Fed. Reg. 6689 (Feb. 13, 2007). In this policy statement, the FAA also recognized thatUAS fall within the statutory and regulatory definition of “aircraft” as they are devicesthat are “used or [are] intended to be used for flight in the air with no onboard pilot.” Id.;see also 49 U.S.C. 40102; 14 CFR 1.1. The FAA noted that they can be “as simple as

This is what makes the FAA say that model airplanes and Drones are tha same by definition and are subject to the FAR's.

FAA has considered model aircraft to be aircraft that fall within the statutory and regulatory definitions of an aircraft, as they are contrivances or devices that are “invented, used, or designed to navigate, or fly in, the air.”
Old 12-26-2015, 06:22 PM
  #320  
HoundDog
My Feedback: (49)
 
HoundDog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Apache Junction AZ. WI 0WI8
Posts: 4,501
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by VF84sluggo
Friend of mine just posted on Facebook a picture of him with his brand-new-in-box-from-Santa quad-copter, grinning from ear to ear.

Nice guy, but no rc experience, no knowledge of the AMA, no clue about FAA registration.

Yeah, refusing to register, AMA lawsuits, civil disobedience...a tempest in a teapot. These self-flying contraptions (as we all know) are exploding all over the place. IMO, no way I see the FAA easing off. If anything, this may just be the beginning. Let a few more airliners get dusted off, a few more "cool" YouTube fly-by videos pop up, etc. etc., and it's Katy-bar-the-door.
All the more reason to comply with the Registration and appease the FAA an the responsible flyers.



Originally Posted by Rob2160
I think 50% of the Toy "drones" acquired over Christmas won't even survive a week. I see it all the time at the park I fly. Dad (or Mum) and son arrive with their new toy. Obviously with no experience.

They either can't get it off the ground and give up or it flies for a few minutes drifting in the wind and crashing into trees bordering the park. This happens almost on a monthly basis. I'd say many of these Christmas presents are already in the trash can.
I fear the other 50% they can only cause trouble for the traditional R/C TOY airplane flyer.
Old 12-26-2015, 06:31 PM
  #321  
SunDevilPilot
 
SunDevilPilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Gilbert, AZ
Posts: 2,025
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Default

Law enforcement guide.

The FAA blatantly says they will not have Federal Drone Police out and about. Just dumping it on local police who have no power to enforce Federal Law. There isn't even a mention of altitude in the LE guide.

Basically, fly safe and "Below the Radar" and it is life as usual.

This info directs the officer to use local ordinances, which the FAA banned to prevent a patchwork of rules governing aircraft.

https://www.faa.gov/uas/law_enforcem...dance_card.pdf

and

https://www.faa.gov/uas/law_enforcem...ement-FAQs.pdf

Last edited by SunDevilPilot; 12-26-2015 at 06:39 PM.
Old 12-26-2015, 09:53 PM
  #322  
skylark-flier
 
skylark-flier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: VA, Luray
Posts: 2,226
Received 15 Likes on 13 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by HoundDog
The answer to the whole Problem is for the FAA to define DRONE (Like every one in the country does, Especially the News Media) as a multi rotor flown any where but a registered Flying site for Model aircraft & flown strictly for fun and pleasure or education. Attack the Problem (Multi Rotors flown where when and how contrary to all FAR's,Rules and safety doces. that really exists not just blanket every thing every where because U don't like to be told How to do your Job there FAA.

Also make a concerted effort not only to make DRONNERS aware (responsible) for their actions but all PILOTS of small aircraft (Fighter Jock Types) that FAR 94.119 Prohibits them from flying closer than 1000' vertical with in 200' Horizontal of an OPEN AIR ASSEMBLY of PEOPLE. As defined by the FAA as few as 2 people on a blanket having a picnic in a park.

If Model AirCraft are so dangerous to the flying Public then specially designated (Prohibited, Restricted, Warning, Alert Ares) should be established and Marked on Sectionals and Incorporated in all GPS programs as so. Just as other sites as bird sanctuaries mines with blasting. Power plants National parks and a myriad of other obstacles are already noted on aeronautical sectionals. If for no other reason that to alert Pilots as to a potentially hazardous situation. Besides U will never see an airliner traveling over sparsely populated areas at 500' AGL (Unless in dire straights).
Sluggo that is why we must endorse the FAA's Registration of pilots policy 100% if for any other reason but to show we are one solid CBO behind the Safety of the NAS and we believe the FAA is doing every thing possible to keep us with the least legislation as possible.

The only way out of this dilemma is to convince the FAA there is With in the Definition of AirCraft, as the FAA DOES NOT sees it, a distinct division between Traditional R/C TOYS and the DRONES i.e. Quads etc that are 99.999% the reason for the turmoil and should be treated as such when flown any place BUT a Registered Flying Site be it Federal, State, City park or Private Property away from areas where all R/C TOY flying is prohibited by Rule Safety Code of a CBO or FAR.

Any one agree or do U have a better plan?


TWICE!!!!!!!!!!! When will you get it into your head that not all of us fly at one of your sacred REGISTERED FLYING SITES??????

Once again I state the fact - I've been flying models since 1955 and not one incident. And I DO NOT FLY AT YOUR SACRED REGISTERED FLYING SITE but you would still bar me from flying?

Truly, good luck with that.

Old 12-26-2015, 09:56 PM
  #323  
skylark-flier
 
skylark-flier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: VA, Luray
Posts: 2,226
Received 15 Likes on 13 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by VF84sluggo
Friend of mine just posted on Facebook a picture of him with his brand-new-in-box-from-Santa quad-copter, grinning from ear to ear.

Nice guy, but no rc experience, no knowledge of the AMA, no clue about FAA registration.

Yeah, refusing to register, AMA lawsuits, civil disobedience...a tempest in a teapot. These self-flying contraptions (as we all know) are exploding all over the place. IMO, no way I see the FAA easing off. If anything, this may just be the beginning. Let a few more airliners get dusted off, a few more "cool" YouTube fly-by videos pop up, etc. etc., and it's Katy-bar-the-door.
Two options here - educate him, or call FAA with his location. Either would work. First option would be best, but 2nd would be more interesting.
Old 12-27-2015, 07:18 AM
  #324  
CanDo
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: SoCal, CA
Posts: 510
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

RCKen, you are right, the AMA has made another bad call. When the AMA embraced multi-rotors with autonomous navigation and FPV capability, they added UAS capability to model aircraft. When the FAA decided to use model aircraft weight instead of their capabilities to define a UAV, they also made R/C pilots UAS pilots. The last time I checked, all UAS pilots must pass a FAA written test and a 2nd class physical. Anyone with diabetes, anyone who doesn't have 20/20 corrected vision, etc., will not pass the physical. The FAA's data base (with your name, address, etc.) is public information. Also, anyone could use your registration number on their aircraft and break the law. We are on a slippery slope.
Old 12-31-2015, 06:25 PM
  #325  
Checklst
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Alpharetta, GA
Posts: 792
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Hay guys maybe someone has answered the question already I just cant find it in all these Drone threads...........WHY IN THE HECK..........would the FAA make the addresses of registered Model planes a PUBLIC RECORD. Theirsgood reasons the DMV does not allow a search of a Plate on you car to the public. YOU know if the guy cuts you off in traffic run his number and you show up at his house for a spot of tea and crumpets.

Last scenario a drone pilot(not registered) is looking in your neighbor window and Mr upset looks on a date base and finds my address 3 doors down(registered) and decides to do a little street justice. Looks like my 1911 45 might come in handy if things should get out of hand. What do you guys think the reasoning for public search.........I don't mined law enforcement or FAA search but your neighbor......come-on FAA.

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.