[NSRCA-discussion] FAA Rules

Anthony Cornacchione acornacchione at hotmail.com
Wed Jun 25 11:17:12 AKDT 2014 

Trying again. http://www.change.org/petitions/the-united-states-federal-aviation-administration-rescind-your-latest-ruling-on-model-fpv-flying-and-the-personal-commercial-use-of-unmanned-aerial-vehicles?share_id=qzMhnyXWwi&utm_campaign=friend_inviter_chat&utm_medium=facebook&utm_source=share_petition&utm_term=permissions_dialog_true

> On Jun 25, 2014, at 12:49 PM, Anthony Cornacchione via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
> 
> A FPV group already has a change.org petition up. 
> 
> On Jun 25, 2014, at 10:19 AM, Peter Vogel via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
> 
>> I agree as well, but, in the event we are asked by the AMA to make comment, it behooves us to have read and discussed the document and attempted to make sense of the legalease
>> 
>> Sent from Acompli
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 2:47 AM -0700, "J N Hiller" <jnhiller at earthlink.net> wrote:
>> 
>>> I absolutely agree.
>>> Jim
>>>  
>>>  
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Steve Hannah [mailto:shannah1806 at gmail.com]
>>> Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2014 8:29 PM
>>> To: J N Hiller; General pattern discussion
>>> Cc: Peter Vogel
>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] FAA Rules
>>>  
>>> Having dealt with another branch of federal rulemaking (FCC) I think we should stop all of the armchair "lawyering".  Wait for the lobbying interests (including the AMA) to do their thing and interpret the recent statement from the FAA. 
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> On Jun 24, 2014, at 19:11, J N Hiller via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Thanks for the link.
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: NSRCA-discussion [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Peter Vogel via NSRCA-discussion
>>> Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2014 6:05 PM
>>> To: William Harden; General pattern discussion
>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] FAA Rules
>>> http://www.modelaircraft.org/files/FAAInterpretiveRule.pdf
>>> Bob Brown takes his usual non-productive aggressive stance:
>>> “The FAA interpretive rule effectively negates Congress’ 
>>> intentions, and is contrary to the law. Section 336(a) of the Public Law states that, ‘the Federal 
>>> Aviation Administration may not promulgate any rule or regulation regarding a model 
>>> aircraft…’, this interpretive rule specifically addresses model aircraft, effectively establishes rules that model aircraft were not previously subject to and is in direct violation of the 
>>> congressional mandate in the 2012 FAA reauthorization bill.” 
>>> On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 5:53 PM, William Harden via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
>>> What did the press release say?
>>> 
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>> 
>>> On Jun 24, 2014, at 7:49 PM, Astropattern via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> AMA just posted a press release a few minutes ago.
>>> J
>>> 
>>> Sent from my iPad
>>> 
>>> On Jun 24, 2014, at 8:44 PM, John Fuqua via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/uas/media/model_aircraft_spec_rule.pdf
>>>  
>>> Paragraph I.   last sentence.
>>>  
>>> From: NSRCA-discussion [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of SilentAV8R via NSRCA-discussion
>>> Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2014 7:05 PM
>>> To: Peter Vogel
>>> Cc: General pattern discussion
>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] FAA Rules
>>>  
>>> Can you tell me where that is?? The one and only pace the FAA ever mentioned 400 feet was in AC 91-57, which is no longer in effect based on their new "interpretation." Section 336 makes no mention of altitudes and based on what the FAA is saying is they will selectively apply specific sections of Part 1 in a case where enforcement action is required. They even said it would be a case by case basis.   
>>> 
>>> This thing is onerous enough without reading more into it than is there. AMA is crafting a response right now and I suspect that there will be more clarification coming shortly. One thing is certain, BLOS and FPV are dead as of yesterday. No exceptions or wiggle room there.
>>> 
>>> Bill
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 6/24/14, 4:57 PM, Peter Vogel wrote:
>>> There are several references to "rules for model aviation in the NAS already existing in section 91" (where the 400 foot rule exists) with the extended authorization of the modernization act to operations within 5 miles of an airport.
>>>  
>>> Peter+
>>>  
>>> 
>>> On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 4:48 PM, SilentAV8R <Silentav8r at cox.net> wrote:
>>> I have read it twice now and I have not seen any specific mention of the "400-foot rule."  Can you cite the section of the document since it appears I missed it??
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 6/24/14, 10:47 AM, Peter Vogel wrote:
>>> I read the full text of their interpretation of the "special rule for model aircraft" last night, I think the potential impact to pattern is their attempt to reinforce the 400 foot altitude limit (with no radius considerations for full scale airports) and extend the full scale airport notification radius to 5 miles (from 3 that was in 91-57) to require notification of model aircraft activity.
>>>  
>>>  
>>> Their absolute denial of goggle-based FPV (the pilot MUST always maintain LOS to their plane, it's not sufficient to have a spotter ready to take over) is going to create a lot of lawlessness in the FPV community but shouldn't impact pattern.
>>>  
>>> 
>>> On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 7:58 AM, SilentAV8R via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
>>> Actually, the FAA is now prohibiting FPV of any kind.
>>> 
>>> http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-faa-is-trying-to-ban-first-person-view-drone-flights?trk_source=recommended
>>> 
>>> http://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsId=16474&cid=TW223
>>> 
>>> http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/uas/media/model_aircraft_spec_rule.pdf
>>> 
>>> Bill
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 6/24/14, 7:27 AM, Scott McHarg via NSRCA-discussion wrote:
>>> Gentlemen,
>>>  
>>> This article was published in USA Today.  It doesn't really affect us as Pattern folk but it is something we should be cognizant of as well as be on the lookout at our local fields for.  The main thing is that the FAA is allowing FPV flight but not outside of visual range.  I've seen many many people take their quad copters far beyond visual range.  Big fines can happen for sure.
>>>  
>>> http://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/news/2014/06/23/faa-drones-rules-model-hobbyist-plane-pilots/11268597/
>>>  
>>>  
>>>  
>>> -- 
>>> Scott A. McHarg
>>> Sr. Systems Engineer - Infrastructure
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>>> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>>>  
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>>> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>>> 
>>> 
>>>  
>>> --
>>> Director, Fixed Wing Flight Training
>>> Santa Clara County Model Aircraft Skypark
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> 
>>>  
>>> --
>>> Director, Fixed Wing Flight Training
>>> Santa Clara County Model Aircraft Skypark
>>> 
>>>  
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>>> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>>> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>>> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>>> 
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Director, Fixed Wing Flight Training
>>> Santa Clara County Model Aircraft Skypark
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>>> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>> _______________________________________________
>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20140625/4089838d/attachment.html>

More information about the NSRCA-discussion mailing list