franklin_m

PL 115-254 section 349 (note 1) established specific criteria with which operators of recreational sUAS must comply if they do not want to comply with all aspects of part 107. Fail to meet any one of those criteria, and you are no longer operating under that limited exception, and must then meet all the requirements of 107.

One of those requirements, number 7, passage of "an aeronautical knowledge and safety test described in subsection (g) and maintains proof of test passage to be made available to the Administrator or law enforcement upon request." Now that the TRUST test is available, I do not see how you can comply with that section if you do not have a copy on you at the event. If you do not have that proof on you, then you are by default operating under 107 and not covered by the limited recreational exception. Which means you must have a 107 cert and comply with 107 operational limitations (100 mph limit for example). Similarly, if your sUAS is not marked per number 8, you are not operating under that exception. And so on with numbers 1-6 as well. And that is LAW, which AMA cannot waive, the CD cannot waive, the airport cannot waive, and per a response to my question - the FAA says they cannot waive. And even if they are issued somehow, are ALWAYS explicit and in writing on FAA letterhead over a signature.

One other thing to consider. AMA insurance covers damage / injury. AMA does NOT indemnify you from civil or criminal charges as a result of violation of law and regulation. So it's an issue of roll the dice and take your chances. If LEO shows up, or if there's a complaint, or God forbid a mishap, it'll get ugly fast . BTW, one of the questions on the test is the altitude limit in class G, which is 400 feet, as established in item number 6 of those limited exceptions to part 107. And Taylor County Airport (AAS) is in class G from the surface to the class E that begins at 700 AGL.

Note 1: (see page 113 of this pdf)
https://www.congress.gov/115/bills/h...15hr302enr.pdf

jvaliensi

My Feedback: (1)

The TRUST test takes about ten minutes to complete. Then you can print your certificate.
You have to have your FAA registration number on your airplanes. But there is no required size or location called out. I print them with my label maker and stick them where they are not an eye sore.

Quite easily done.

I sure wish I was going to JOK. Have fun!

rusty55125

My Feedback: (6)

The FAA has no idea what they are doing and are just trying to catch up with these new drones, which our aircraft are not. Plus they keep changing there requirements and what is to say that they won't continue? What is to stop them from doing something ridiculous, that is near impossible to comply with? I don't and will never trust the FAA and once they have your information, who know what they will doe with it. Plus, if you sign a form, you can no longer sue the FAA for wrongfully fining you because you should have known about that new obscure rule. Just a thought.

Anyway, I have been to plenty of events that don't require having a FAA number and nothing ever happened. SO, will Kentucky jets require prof of this, like checking my AMA number?

patf

My Feedback: (4)

Doesnt matter if you feel they know what they are doing or not, its happening. I still wonder if they would be overwhelmed if all the rc community really signed up.. mandates are one thing, enforcement is another, and I see this solely as a "if you screw up, here is a way to hammer the "perp" on the back end of the event" and not a real prevention tool...

edit, if the FAA would use these events to promote the changes, it would go a long way

FenderBean

Really sucks that the bad and negative things with our hobby or just anything now seem to get all the attention. You only seem to hear the bad in everything, in a room with 100 people talking and the negative loud mouth will get all the attention.

paulsf86

My Feedback: (52)

Franklin, you just don't get it. Nobody on this site cares about your verbal diarrhea. Your continued egotistical pontifications are nothing more than what you have copied from a book. All of us in the hobby at this point know the requirements. Not even sure if anyone has ever seen you at an event nor even fly an RC aircraft that you seem to know so much about.
As I said earlier, you have no vested interest in this event so go crawl back into you cave and do not poison this thread with your egotistical trivia.
Paul

franklin_m

I beg to differ. You see my colleagues and I share that airspace. Which means I'm a stakeholder and thus have a vested interest. Not that it matters whether you think I do or not. Widespread disregard for law, under the tacit approval of AMA and its agents (CDs) is endangering manned aircraft and aircraft on the ground. Copied from a book? No, copied from LAW. And yet the lack of knowledge of LAW, FARs, and how regulations work does nothing but prove my point. Just look at the comments in this thread where AMA members don't know the laws and regulations governing what they do. That just proves my point that these same people are imposing risk on others due to their ignorance of law, or even if they know it, their willful non-compliance.

And yet the solution is so easy, know and follow the law. It's just not that difficult. Yet many in these pages refuse. That is the hallmark of a reckless and dangerous safety culture. Something I will highlight to legislators and regulators whenever I deem necessary. Thankfully there's any number of methods by which concerned citizens to make their voices heard to FAA and others.

invertmast

My Feedback: (23)

I think you'd be surprised at just how many involved in the rc JET community are or have been full scale pilots during their lives. If these Jet events were such a "hallmark of a reckless and dangerous safety culture" i wonder how they got away with decades of operating at full scale airports without any Notable incidents outside of some RC model crashes?
Its not that the people here "refuse" to know and follow the law, i'm sure the vast majority of us do our best to maintain some professionalism in a hobby that requires some pretty strict adherance to SOP's with models that are the most technically involved and challenging within the RC culture. Its just not some random Nancy or Josh sitting in the middle of a highschool baseball field taking pictures of airplanes with their Walmart purchased whatever because they want to become Insta-famous (ala, Instagram) operating these types of aircraft.

You can get off the soap-box and stop beating the drum to the people who know damned well what they are doing and what is at stake if things go south. IF your truly interested in making sure "Drone" operators know what the hell they are doing, start doing Road-Shows to share your vast knowledge of the subject to the THOUSANDS of blissfully ignorant morons out there who routinely do something stupid and dangerous that truly do put the flying PUBLIC in danger with their charades.

paulsf86

My Feedback: (52)

Franklin, it is amazing how you continue to pontificate and puff out your egotistical chest. Why don't you ever attend an event and face the people you accuse of not following the law. You might find that the people in attendance are in fact following the law. It is those like you that hide in darkness that tend to be the law breakers and try to convince others that you really know what you are talking about.

Stop trying to poison our great hobby with your trash talk. You have done it on many threads, leave this one alone. You will not find a more law abiding group. We appreciate what we have and police ourselves so that we can keep participating in the great hobby we love.

I know first hand because I participate, I have never seen you at an event nor do I really want to. I have probably participated in more events in the last 3 months than you have in your entire life. As long as you live in a virtual world your input is worthless.,

sysiek

My Feedback: (176)

+1

Wclays

My Feedback: (85)

I am at JOK. I know that they have the FAA letter in hand . We start flying Sunday. Maybe not what people expected but a small victory for our hobby.
So the naysayers can move on and troll somebody's else thread

franklin_m

The gaslighting in the paras above isn't going to help when there's video and other evidence of operations in the community that are at best reckless, at worst in violation of AMA rules and/or law. Heck, even AMA EC minutes not that long ago speak openly about a compliance problem in the community. More recently, there's talk about wildly varying standards for issue of waivers, to the point of becoming meaningless at some locations. These do not align with the "police ourselves" or "more law abiding group" arguments above.

Lastly, where does it say that attending x number of events in y period of time count for anything?

paulsf86

My Feedback: (52)

Franklin, have a nice day in your dreamworld.

franklin_m

That's very nice of you. Although my world is quite real. I know because I've seen how a well placed letter can make a big impact. I also know it's real because I see proof every year that the regulatory tentacles are tightening their grip. No limits gave way to hard limits and formal agreements. No registration gave way to required registration. No testing gave way to required tests. No tracking gave way to flight at specific locations or electronic identification. An "and" in law became an "or," etc. And any degree of relief will be only at fixed locations which will, based on the culture of non-compliance on display in these pages, will fall victims to complaints from neighbors, zoning restrictions, and natural encroachment. And lets not forget the other pressure, namely the plummeting membership revenue.

What will grow in its place will be more Flite-Test like. I see it as the democratization of the hobby, breaking free from the Lords of Taj-Muncie and putting all those membership dollars into batteries and supplies instead of the AMA.

Wclays

My Feedback: (85)

People. Please move on, JOK has the FAA paperwork. If you are not attending the event, create a new thread and you guys can duke it out in your own space. If someone does not like the AMA. Don't join or don't renew, Move on.

So the naysayers can move on and troll somebody's else thread

DON'T try and spoil this event.

A lot OF hard work goes into an event, most members have never had to try and make all pilot's happy.. Welcome to a CD's nightmare.

Jets over Kentucky 2021 will be fun for all pilot's that attend.

franklin_m

Sure, they have FAA paperwork that permits the event during specific hours and days, but I seriously doubt it allows flight in violation of law. And given the willful disregard for the 400 foot class G limit at any number of jet events (often with "wink wink" comments in these pages), I think it needs to stop. The difference is that I believe any event that's not following the law should be spoiled. Why? Because those laws, altitude limits, are in place to protect manned aircraft flying in and through that airspace. Trust my life or the life of friends and colleagues to toy plane flyers that are so knowledgeable they don't even know if they have to take the TRUST test? That is a dangerous, yet another reason to spoil events until the culture changes.

I really don't care how much work goes into it, except to say that if it was that much work, or that important, then its important enough to follow the law. One plane through the airspace with toy planes flying above it can file a complaint and get the whole thing shut down. Sure would be a shame to have all those folks who drove all that way have to pack up and go home, when the solution is as simple as jut following the law. Or maybe well placed faxed letters to city officials giving them some specific questions to ask the event coordinator. If he's following the law and requiring participants to do the same, no problem. But if he hasn't, I'm pretty sure the answers will come as quite a surprise to these typically risk adverse city officials.

But hey, you're presumably a turbine waive holder. Are YOU following the 400 foot limit in class G? Don't bother to answer. Because I have no way of knowing whether you're telling the truth or not. But IF you're not, then you and I both know this is EXACTLY the problem and just proves my point. Which is the reason those who are violating the 400 foot limit should have their events spoiled.

sysiek

My Feedback: (176)

Please explain all this, I don’t understand,thank you.

ira d

People have been flying models while occasionally busting 400' for years with no risk to full scale aircraft, as I understand it the airport will be closed when the models are flying.
No full scale should be flying anywhere near the airport while the models are in operation at a altitude low enough to be in danger unless they have a emergency in which
case the models altitude be it 200' 400' or 500' wont matter if they cant avoid each other.

franklin_m

Not the full story. FAR 91.119 applies (note 1).

Per 91.119(c), over non-congested areas, aircraft can be as low as 500 feet AGL. And per that same section, over sparsely populated areas (looks pretty rural in satellite images), aircraft need to be 500 feet (slant range) from any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.

Per 91.119(d), helicopters may be operated at less than these altitudes.

Note 1: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/...-sec91-119.pdf

FenderBean

….

sysiek

My Feedback: (176)

Please tell me more, I want to know everything

ira d

What full scale aircraft can and should be doing is two entirely different thing's any full scale pilot with a ounce of common sense will not be flying as low as 500' over a closed airport where there is model activity present
unless he has some assurance it is safe to proceed. In case of some type of emergency it really dont matter what altitude the models may be at because in that case there could be a conflict.

gunradd

My Feedback: (9)

Dam long into RCU for the first time in a while and thought maybe we had useful info on a thread boy was i wrong. Nothing has changed around here. Every time this Franklin m dumb***** shows up the thread is lost. Back to Facebook I guess.

Halcyon66

Actually for days been trying to figure out the point of this thread.

Finally just realized there is not one.

Regards,

franklin_m

First, flight at 500 feet is routine in rural areas. Last time I took a Stearman out with my friend, I don't think we were above 500 feet the entire time. There's also crop dusters, helicopters, and even general aviation. And actually, there's nothing that prohibits flying over a closed runway. But Ah, you added "when there is model activity present."

Pilots check NOTAMs for the area and route of flight before flying. If you'd bothered to go read the NOTAMS for AAS airport (note 1), you'd see this: !LOU 07/127 AAS RWY 05/23 CLSD SUN 1400-1900 2107111400-2107161900. Riddle me this: how are pilots to know "there is model activity present" when it's not even listed in the NOTAM for the airport where the "model activity is present?"

That's a rural area, and there's nothing patently unsafe about flying at 500 feet. I've done it a lot. Stearman, 150's, H6s, H58s, H60, Beavers, Otters, heck even a Mustang transiting back from an outlying field. The reality is there's often a lot of traffic at 500 feet or so in rural areas.

Note 1: https://notams.aim.faa.gov/notamSearch/nsapp.html#/