[NSRCA-discussion] FAA Meeting in Columbus OH on Small UAS

Wed Feb 10 09:37:41 AKST 2016

It doesn’t seem that the FAA got the AMA’s memo.  Perhaps they should try “please”?

-Keith Hoard

-klhoard at outlook.com

From: Peter Vogel [mailto:vogel.peter at gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2016 12:25
To: Keith Hoard <klhoard at outlook.com>
Cc: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>; Phil S. <chuenkan at comcast.net>; Ron Hansen <rcpilot at wowway.com>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] FAA Meeting in Columbus OH on Small UAS

Intimidation isn't the point or the goal.  Working together to create an environment where we can enjoy our hobby and the safety of the NAS is maintained is.

Will it take a while to iron out the "bugs" in the system (like the guy in Columbus) -- absolutely.  And that will require more cooperation between the AMA and FAA to get the FAA to be a little clearer than they are today on the registration web site about when FAA "guidelines" apply and when community based organization safety codes that have been approved by the FAA (we have a letter of understanding that says exactly that) apply.  

Peter+

On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 6:50 PM, Keith Hoard <klhoard at outlook.com <mailto:klhoard at outlook.com> > wrote:

I’m sure the FAA was shaking in their boots . . . 

-Keith Hoard

-klhoard at outlook.com <mailto:klhoard at outlook.com> 

From: Peter Vogel [mailto:vogel.peter at gmail.com <mailto:vogel.peter at gmail.com> ] 
Sent: Tuesday, February 9, 2016 20:50
To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> >; Keith Hoard <klhoard at outlook.com <mailto:klhoard at outlook.com> >; chuenkan at comcast.net <mailto:chuenkan at comcast.net> ; Ron Hansen <rcpilot at wowway.com <mailto:rcpilot at wowway.com> >

Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] FAA Meeting in Columbus OH on Small UAS

You mean the ones who just got the right to fly returned to them as a result of AMA action?

Sent from Outlook Mobile <https://aka.ms/qtex0l> 

On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 6:35 PM -0800, "Keith Hoard via NSRCA-discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> > wrote:

It doesn’t matter if the gubbermint has their act together . . they hold the trump card.  Just ask the clubs around Washington D.C. area.

-Keith Hoard

-klhoard at outlook.com <mailto:-klhoard at outlook.com> 

From: NSRCA-discussion [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Phil Spelt via NSRCA-discussion
Sent: Tuesday, February 9, 2016 20:33
To: Ron Hansen <rcpilot at wowway.com <mailto:rcpilot at wowway.com> >; nsrca-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> >
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] FAA Meeting in Columbus OH on Small UAS

C'mon, Ron.  Surely you didn't expect the gummint to have their act together, did you?

I am also not sure the AMA does, either...

However, many thanks for the update!

Phil Spelt, KCRC Emeritus
AMA 1294, Scientific Leader Member
SPA L-18, Board Member
(865) 435-1476v  (865) 604-0541c

  _____  

I just attended a FAA meeting at the Columbus, OH Airport on Small UAS.

Several AMA members including Mike Barbee and numerous full scale pilots were in attendance.

The powerpoint presentation was given by:

John P. Welsh

Aviation Safety Inspector Maintenance

Flight Standards District Office

Great Lakes Region

A couple of very important takeaways:

1.      He stated that you could not fly above 400 ft even if you are an AMA member.  I pressed him on this.  He said if you want to fly according to the rules you must stay below 400 ft.  If you need to fly above 400 ft, he suggested you apply for a COA.  I told him that is not what the AMA is telling us.  He said the AMA is not well informed.

2.      He stated that FPV with a spotter does not meet their requirements even if you are an AMA member.  He said FPV flyers must be able to see the plane and not through a video screen.

This does not surprise me because the Small UAS Certification states this.  What AMA is telling us is only their interpretation of their discussions with the FAA.

The AMA needs to obtain a letter from the FAA that states clearly that AMA members are exempt from all of the requirements for Small UAS and are only required to comply with AMA rules.  Every member would need to carry this letter on their person because the FAA is not going to enforce these regulations local law enforcement will.  If a police officer sees you flying above 400 ft, he isn’t going to care if you are an AMA member.  All he knows is you are flying above 400 ft and the card you’re carrying says you can’t do that.

It is possible this person from FAA is ill informed.  However, this person is on the front lines educating local law enforcement, full scale pilots and model airplane enthusiast.

__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature database 13004 (20160209) __________

The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.

http://www.eset.com

_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org <mailto: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

Associate Vice President, Academy of Model Aeronautics District X

Treasurer, National Society of Radio Control Aerobatics (NSRCA)

  <http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7163/6513778381_5569cc985d_m.jpg>   <https://googledrive.com/host/0B4LOPeyGAgOJUVJmU1dJMVl6WWc/AcademyModelAeronauticsLogo.png> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20160210/fcb4fa57/attachment.html>