[NSRCA-discussion] Update - UAS Registration Frequently Asked Questions | AMA Government Relations Blog

Fri Jan 15 18:28:45 AKST 2016

6.e uses the word "should", not "must" and that's a very important legal
distinction, making that a guideline, not a requirement.  Further, as they
said on Sunday, they are aware they got that wrong and are working with the
AMA to fix it.

Peter+

On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 7:10 PM, Dana Beaton via NSRCA-discussion <
nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:

> 6.e is a real eye-opener, and a lot less ambiguous than 91-57 was in its
> original form. Will be interesting to see what AMA gas to say about it.
> Thanks for the link!
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Jan 15, 2016, at 7:59 PM, Mking via NSRCA-discussion <
> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
>
> Has anyone from the AMA commented on the new FAA Advisory Circular 91-57A
> Change 1?
>
>
> http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_91-57A_Ch_1.pdf
>
> Marty King
> A&P/IA
> mking at kingaeroaviation.com
>
> King Aero Aviation, Inc.
> 574-304-5781
>
> Shop:
> 24751 US 6
> Nappanee, Indiana 46550
>
> Office:
> 56632 Boss Blvd
> Elkhart, Indiana 46516
>
> www.kingaeroaviation.com
>
>
>
> On Jan 15, 2016, at 8:32 PM, John Pavlick via NSRCA-discussion <
> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
>
> And to that end I PROMISE not to shoot anyone unless they actually break
> into my house. Now is it OK if I buy some 30 round mag’s for my AR-15? LOL
>
>
>
> John Pavlick
>
> Cell: 203-417-4971
>
>
>
> <image001.png>
>
> Integrated Development Services
>
>
>
> *From:* NSRCA-discussion [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> <nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org>] *On Behalf Of *Ed Alt via
> NSRCA-discussion
> *Sent:* Friday, January 15, 2016 7:09 PM
> *To:* Dave Lockhart
> *Cc:* General pattern discussion
> *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Update - UAS Registration Frequently
> Asked Questions | AMA Government Relations Blog
>
>
>
> But Dave, did you like your doctor?  The promise was "if you like your
> doctor, you can keep your doctor".
>
>
> On Jan 15, 2016, at 7:06 PM, Dave Lockhart <davel322 at comcast.net> wrote:
>
> I have lots of video promising I can keep my doctor……
>
>
>
> *From:* NSRCA-discussion [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> <nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org>] *On Behalf Of *Ed Alt via
> NSRCA-discussion
> *Sent:* Friday, January 15, 2016 6:42 PM
> *To:* Peter Vogel <vogel.peter at gmail.com>; John Gayer <jgghome at comcast.net>;
> NSRCA List <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Update - UAS Registration Frequently
> Asked Questions | AMA Government Relations Blog
>
>
>
> Anyone get that on video?  It's just hearsay until they put it into their
> regulations.  Meanwhile, we're signing up to a promise not to exceed 400'.
>  It would be nice to have that video for the trial.  lol
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2016 15:39:07 -0800
> To: jgghome at comcast.net; nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Update - UAS Registration Frequently Asked
> Questions | AMA Government Relations Blog
> From: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>
> Yep.  This was brought up directly with the FAA guy at the AMA Expo, he
> indicated that they got the 400' thing wrong and will be working to clarify
> their guidance.  The guidance on the web site right now is for people not
> flying under an approved set of rules from a community based organization
> like the AMA.
>
>
>
> Peter+
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 3:32 PM, John Gayer via NSRCA-discussion <
> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
>
> This is what the AMA says about the 400 foot barrier on the FAQs page:
>
>
>
>
> *Q: Am I permitted to fly above 400 feet? What if I had to check a box
> saying otherwise on the federal registration website?*
>
> A: Yes. AMA members who abide by the AMA Safety Code, which permits
> flights above 400 feet under appropriate circumstances, and are protected
> by the Special Rule for Model Aircraft under the 2012 FAA Modernization and
> Reform Act. Checking the box on the federal registration webpage signifies
> an understanding of the 400 foot guideline. This is an important safety
> principle that all UAS operators need to be aware of, and is the same
> guideline established in AC 91-57 published in 1981. However, the placement
> of this guideline on the FAA website is intended as an educational piece
> and more specifically intended for those operating outside of AMA’s safey
> program.  We have been in discussions with the FAA about this point and the
> agency has indicted that it will be updating its website in the next week
> to make clear that this altitude guideline is not intended to supplant the
> guidance and safety procedures established in AMA’s safety program.
>
>
> Sounds clear, right? No 400 foot barrier need apply.
> However, the following is what you have to "read, understand and follow",
> according to the FAA.
>
>
> Acknowledgement of Safety Guidance
>
>    - I will fly below 400 feet
>    - I will fly within visual line of sight
>    - I will be aware of FAA airspace requirements: www.faa.gov/go/uastfr
>    - I will not fly directly over people
>    - I will not fly over stadiums and sports events
>    - I will not fly near emergency response efforts such as fires
>    - I will not fly near aircraft, especially near airports
>    - I will not fly under the influence
>
> Learn More <http://www.faa.gov/uas/publications/model_aircraft_operators/>
>
> [ ] I have read, understand and intend to follow the safety guidance.
>
>
> Under the "learn more" link, we find the following:
>
>
>
> Model Aircraft Operations Limits
>
> According to the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 as (1) the
> aircraft is flown strictly for hobby or recreational use; (2) the aircraft
> is operated in accordance with a community-based set of safety guidelines
> and within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization;
> (3) the aircraft is limited to not more than 55 pounds unless otherwise
> certified through a design, construction, inspection, flight test, and
> operational safety program administered by a community-based organization;
> (4) the aircraft is operated in a manner that does not interfere with and
> gives way to any manned aircraft; (5) when flown within 5 miles of an
> airport, the operator of the aircraft provides the airport operator and the
> airport air traffic control tower…with prior notice of the operation; and
> (6) the aircraft is flown within visual line sight of the operator.
>
>    - More information about safety and training guidelines
>    <http://www.faa.gov/exit/?pageName=More%20information%20about%20safety%20and%20training%20guidelines&pgLnk=http://www.modelaircraft.org/>
>    - Visit knowbeforeyoufly.org
>    <http://www.faa.gov/exit/?pageName=Visit%20knowbeforeyoufly.org&pgLnk=http://www.knowbeforeyoufly.org/>
>
>
>
> This implies that the 400 foot barrier is not a limit for model aircraft
> and also refers you back to the AMA FAQs above.  Since the "learn more"
> link eventually refers you back to the AMA position on 400 feet under the
> "more info about safety"  link, it very fuzzily appears to be supporting
> the position that we can still fly pattern without lying to the FAA even
> though we appear to be agreeing to such a limit in the "Acknowledgement".
>
> Guess I'll register.
>
>
>
> On 1/15/2016 3:56 PM, Patternpilot One via NSRCA-discussion wrote:
>
> Here is what I got from Mark Radcliff just after  midnight Monday morning.
>
>
>
> He was at the Expo.  It has been posted all over Facebook.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> http://amablog.modelaircraft.org/amagov/2016/01/11/update-uas-registration-frequently-asked-questions/
>
>
>
> Sa.
>
>
>
>
>
> Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE smartphone
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> 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
>
> Associate Vice President, Academy of Model Aeronautics District X
>
> Treasurer, National Society of Radio Control Aerobatics (NSRCA)
>
> <image001.jpg><image002.jpg>
>
>
> _______________________________________________ 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
Associate Vice President, Academy of Model Aeronautics District X
Treasurer, National Society of Radio Control Aerobatics (NSRCA)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20160116/65fb7efd/attachment.html>