As far as I am concerned the way the AMA press release is worded thats what it says or at least implies, You of course are free to go with your own interpretation and I am free to go with mine. And
I am not the only one to come to that conclusion about the wording either also other people have posted that they were told by AMA leaders that in order to fly certain types of aircraft the FAA
will require AMA membership.

I just signed up and there is no reference whatsoever to the AMA. The FAA wants to know who you are, where you live, and that you understand the basic rules, which include: "I shall not fly over 400 feet". That's unconditional, by the way. Doesn't say "within 5 miles of an airport" doesn't say "jet, pattern, and glider guys get to go 1000AGL", and it does not say you can fly 1000AGL if you are AMA or any CBO. The AMA is irrelevant to the FAA.

At this point, the AMA has been totally outmaneuvered, and it is up to the courts to opine on the legality of the FAA's giant aeromodeling grab. Sorry guys, it's game over. Can't say I'm surprised.

FAA certificate FA 355XXXXX
AMA 795XXX

I registered tonight also. I will hope that after watching the hour+ video from the AMA Expo with the FAA that the CBO ie:AMA Clubs will be allow to fly as normal. when this is all said and done.

Right now the 400ft is a guide line not law but it may be when it's said and done. The one thing that was talked about is the consideration of the CBOs on the 400ft rule. That seems to be the killer one for the AMA and CBO flying sites.

I know it is a lot of other issues besides the 400ft rule like the DC guys being shut down for now. If they get those fields open back up then what was said on the video might be the truth and not a dog and pony show.

I have to agree with the FAA guy about trying to educate the public and yes it seems we the AMA flyers got walked on trying to get the registration out before the holiday sales but I really feel like they were scared to death and still are with issues of the FPV and drones that can be flown anywhere and are the cause for most of the recent problems.

I am not sure if anyone has a better answer right now because you know the ones that are going to break the rules and laws are the ones that will not register or read or even care about the know before you fly.

Last but not least the FAA needs to educate the local law enforcement and local officials of the difference in a CBO flying site and off site Drone pilot if they do decide to exempt the 400ft for us. That will make things better for everyone.

Unfortunately, this is not a guideline anymore. As certification holder, you have certified that you will not fly over 400AGL under any circumstances. There is a statement at the bottom that it is a felony to misrepresent any aspect of your registration. That's the teeth.

I will also point out that early language stated a 400ft guideline irrespective of proximity to an airport. Somewhere along the way, the comma got dropped and it became 400feet within 5 miles of an airport. It is clear from the registration that the FAA always intended for the 400 foot rule to apply unconditionally. And it is not a suggestion. Ignore, or pretend it is a polite suggestion at your own peril.

This whole registration crap is making us who don't do stupid things with our "drones" feel like we are the criminals. Idiocracy. Pure and simple.

Endangering the public is endangering the public, whether you do it with a multi-rotor or an AK-47. No new laws needed.

Sigh! Yet once again you are completely wrong - and yet you spout it as if it were the truth...

Bob

That is my take on things also, That being said IMO the 400' rule will not be a big deal at present unless you do something to draw attention to your self such as conflicting with full scale aircraft. The AMA is talking with the
FAA on this and may be able to work something out lets hope so. It has also been said that the FAA may allow AMA members only to fly above 400' so we will see where this goes.

As you can see below this is the 2nd half of my registration card. First it recognizes the Model Aircraft rule under sec 336 from 2012.

But to your point it says in bold plain English a safety guideline not rule or law.

They also got away from the AMA and sec 336 of 400 within 5 miles of an airport because they recommend you contact the air traffic controller. Again at this time it is not a Law. That is what the FAA said on the video but I believe it will be after the current open comment period and then it will be pass as sec 107. I am pretty sure that is the new ruling that they intent to put into the regulations that would be law. I am pretty sure that is what said by the FAA yesterday on the video.

JMHO


[TABLE="width: 3"]
[TR]
[TD]For U.S. citizens, permanent residents, and certain non-citizen U.S. corporations, this document constitutes a Certificate of Registration. For all others, this document represents a recognition of ownership.
For all holders, for all operations other than as a model aircraft under sec. 336 of Pub. L. 112-95, additional safety authority from FAA and economic authority from DOT may be required.
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]
[TABLE]
[TR]
[TD="colspan: 2"]Safety guidelines for flying your unmanned aircraft:
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]

• Fly below 400 feet
• Never fly near other aircraft
• Keep your UAS within visual line of sight
• Keep away from emergency responders

[/TD]
[TD="width: 50%"]

• Never fly over stadiums, sports events or groups of people
• Never fly under the influence of drugs or alcohol
• Never fly within 5 miles of an airport without first contacting air traffic control and airport authorities

[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

I would not say he is wrong but he just stating his take on the info that is out there. The way I see it is if there is nothing to the 400' foot rule then why did not the FAA rep at AMA EXPO when asked just say that but instead he
dodged the question. It is clear to me that the FAA wants everyone to believe they should fly below 400' feet even if the don't or cant enforce the rule but I say if because I don't know what the end result of all this will be.

You are correct! I didn't have my reading glasses on the print on my "card" is tiny. The 400 feet is listed under "safety guidelines".

I have been reading through all their crap and there are inconsistencies everywhere. The support page for LEO does not reference altitude at all. Mention of altitude is also missing in other areas of guidance, even as a "guideline". And I know why: I just went back to the original text of 333 (a) and there is no mention of altitude.

Only the 55lb, avoid full scale traffic, the 5 mile proximity to the airports, in accordance with CBO, model aircraft.

What a mess.

So in your opinion there is nothing the FAA can do if someone caught not following the FAA guidelines I don't know you may be right but I have to wonder.

Simple question wise guy: have you registered and read the conditions?

I agree it is a mess and the FAA knows of the concerns that we modelers have and they could just issues a statement and end the confusion once and for all.

Yes that is the 6 million dollar question. I will hope that the FAA works as hard to educates the state and local government along with law enforcement as they are doing to educate the public. After watching the video of the former USAF jet pilot now with working for the FAA appears not to know what we have been doing for the past 30+ years of model aviation. Hopefully he got a big education and understand how big we are and how we can help the FAA to pass on the word because of the safety record we have. We can help control the problem not become a part of it.

I commend him for attending the expo and doing the Q&A. He didn't have too.

Hoot Gibson is huge good news for modelers. He is a lifelong modeler and probably will wind up in the AMA hall of fame at some point. Whether he can move the leviathan or not is the question, but he is definitely in our corner.

I am sorry but I am pretty sure this was not the Hoot Gibson you are referring to. I believe this guy just had the same name. That is what the AMA rep said when he introduce him. Also I don't think he had ever seen a RC airplane fly much less fly one. He is a recently retired USAF jet pilot.

USAF or Navy? Hoot Gibson is a F-18 driver.

Yes that is the six million dollar question and you are right the FAA rep did not have to attend but I was not at all impressed with most of his answers. The main thing I see is that until the FAA releases some consistent
and clear guidance many including local law enforcement and some clubs will be looking to enforce the guidelines as rules or laws and I will be honest I am not 100% sure they cant be enforced.

I am not sure. I really don't need to go back and watch the hour+ video to find out.

If that was the so called Hoot Gibson that you are referring to then he didn't act like he was a supporter much less involved in the hobby.

Your spot on..I agree

Unfortunately, you are correct. Same call sign, different guy. I just looked it up on the FAA site. Career FAA and USAF before that. Not our guy (who is also a former NASA shuttle commander in addition to many other accomplishments )

Well I knew it was coming. I recieved an email from the club I belong to and they are now saying that the club may make it mandatory to have FAA registration to have club membership. I'll have to read it again to be accurate about what they are saying.

In regards to the 400 foot limit, I'm curious why no one has mentioned that full sized planes can fly no lower than 500 feet when not taking off/landing. Isn't it true that full sized planes are allowed to fly that low? If so this is perhaps why they are listing the 400 max rule under all circumstances. Anyone know for sure the minimum alt. rules for full sized a/c. I think that's what the 400max for r/c is all about. Structures 400 feet or higher are listed on navigation charts, correct?

There is nothing in the AMA rules about registration and the AMA said there will not be any such rule. Also the FAA will now use AMA for their registration, so it would be a check of the AMA number now.

It says you are acknowledging a guideline. It really doesn't count for much. Also it does not say you cannot fly above 400 feet. The FAA even said it is just a guideline.

It says guideline right on the site, and certificate!

Susihunter

There was a couple times it was brought up about the 500ft limit for full scale. I take it from the video everything that has been done is to control the big rush of new drone pilots. I am hoping that once it all shakes out the CBOs will have different set of rules. I have a feeling that the current flying club sites that are AMA sanction will be approve but future sites that go to the AMA for approval will take a lot to get the FAA to approve them.

Right now that is the way I see it.

This Hoot Gibson?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_L._Gibson

FYI, there's literally thousands of of Military Training Routes around the country, VR routes, IR routes, and SR routes where aircraft can travel at high speeds and very low altitudes. Some of the VR routes I flew allowed you to be as low as 200' AGL and 420KIAS or more. Route widths vary by leg, but can be as much as 16 miles either side of centerline. And yes, some are even flown at night on NVGs or FLIR.

http://www.cfinotebook.net/notebook/...raining-routes

Yes. The AMA leadership has said it, the FAA UAS people have said it, the FAA FSDO people have said it, section 336 says it - if you go out to your AMA field and fly according to the AMA safety code, there is no rule, regulation or law that says you have to stay below 400'.

When Part 107 comes out, then perhaps that might change, but I doubt it (that would be contrary to section 336).

Your assertion that you have to fly below 400' everywhere is simply wrong and I hope people who read your "opinions" don't take it as anything but that. Arguing the point with you further is simply not worth the time...

Bob

Part 91 > Section 119 - Minimum safe altitudes: General

[HR][/HR] Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:
(a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.


(b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft.


(c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.


(d) Helicopters. Helicopters may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section if the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface. In addition, each person operating a helicopter shall comply with any routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the Administrator.

[HR][/HR]
Manned aircraft can fly lower than 400' legally in sparsely populated areas - which is were our AMA field is. We often have light aircraft, ultralights, and helicopters come by a relatively low altitudes - although I have yet to see one significantly lower than 400'.

Even if they are below 400', you still have to avoid them - that's part of "safely operating in the NAS" which we are all obligated to do.

WRT your first point, have you read the FAQ from the AMA that says that they have worked out a plan with the FAA that, in the future, AMA membership renewal will also result in FAA registration (they could not work the technical details out before the Feb. 19th deadline)? I would think that changing the club rules to deal with what looks like a temporary requirement is not really warranted. I'm very glad my club is not like that...

Bob

The rules for model aircraft will be in part 101 not 107 per the sUAV NPRM. Part 107 will be for commercial sUAV. Your recreational "drones" will be considered model aircraft. However, I suspect if BLOS is allowed that will require a commercial ticket.

Model fields with more than one person is an open assembly so that would require a minimum altitude of 1000 feet.

What is incorrect about what was said. I went to the site and while I did not complete the registration, it certainly appeared that you were certifying among other things "I will not fly over 400'" in order to obtain a registration number. While not flying above 400' is just a guideline, it would certainly seem that flying over 400' in violation of a certified agreement could nullify your registration and there are consequences for flying with out registration. Just because it's a guideline doesn't mean that there won't be consequences if you agree to follow it and then don't. I would certainly like some clarification before agreeing to something like that.

I does not say "I will not fly over 400'", it says "I will fly below 400 feet". That of itself does not say you cannot fly above 400 feet. It is a guideline and it says you will follow it. To follow means many things and one is to keep track of any changes. Of itself, It does not mean anything when used in law or contracts.

You are correct about Part 101, my mistake. As far as an "open assembly" I'm not sure what the interpretation there would be, but our field is grass on edge of a farmer's field and up against a line of trees. It is *very* hard to spot from the air and even though its out in the middle of nowhere, we have low-level aircraft that occasionally go by - at, or near 400-500'. When we fly jets there, we have spotters...

From what I've heard, BLOS will not be allowed for sUAS under Part107...

Bob

The AMA died long ago, the only this remaining is blood suckers.

I suspect most are at 1000 feet. A full scale at 1000 feet may seem a lot lower. Also when I flew full scale I did not take advantage of flying 500 feet above land, because the "sparsely populated" definition is not well defined, and 500 feet does not give enough time to get the plane to best glide speed and spot a field so I did not think that satisfied the part about being able to safely land. The only time I did that was during emergency landing practice, and close to the beach above water. If it is a problem I would call the FAA and complain about it, maybe post notices at the local FBO's.

Argue semantics all you like, it says that in order to receive your registration that you have AGREED that that you will fly below 400 feet which is exactly the same as agreeing to NOT fly above 400 feet. If you actually read what I wrote, I agreed 400 feet just a guideline but if you violate the terms that you have agreed to and certified as part of registering your model that would seem to possibly negate your registration if the FAA decided to push the issue for some reason. While flying above 400' is just a guideline, flying without registration DOES have consequences. You are certainly able to to view it however you wish but I really can't see how violating the terms of what could be construed as a signed, written contract between the registrant and the FAA means nothing as far as the law is concerned.

Exactly

It's like saying a glass is not to be filled more then half full or not to be filled more then half empty. Same exact thing with the same exact results and in the FAA issue.... 400 feet. But I'm sure the next argue point will be something like "well a glass that holds a maximum of 12 ounces will hold more half empty compared to a glass that holds a maximum of 6 ounces half full:)

A guide line and a phrase like "I will fly below 400 feet" is not something that would hold up in court. And the FAA in fact admitted as much. The registration is illegal as well so that might not hold up in court either.