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

Fri Jan 15 18:50:11 AKST 2016

I haven't seen any lawyers weigh in yet, so the rank amateur opinions continue on.  Mine included.  This is similar to what I was saying about "shall" and "will" a couple of weeks ago.  There's a distinction in what the words mean in a contract, but I don't think that it guarantees that you won't find yourself in hot water that is expensive to get out of if someone, somehow determines that you've violated an "intent".  Don't get me wrong, this seems to be progress.Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2016 19:27:37 -0800
To: danamaenia at me.com; nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
CC: jpavlick26 at att.net
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Update - UAS Registration Frequently Asked Questions | AMA Government Relations Blog
From: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org

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 KingA&P/IA
mking at kingaeroaviation.com

King Aero Aviation, Inc.574-304-5781
Shop:24751 US 6Nappanee, Indiana 46550
Office:56632 Boss BlvdElkhart, 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] 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]
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

[ ] 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
 Visit
     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 listNSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.orghttp://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 TrainingSanta Clara County Model Aircraft SkyparkAssociate Vice President, Academy of Model Aeronautics District XTreasurer, National Society of Radio Control Aerobatics (NSRCA)

_______________________________________________
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/20160116/cef438a5/attachment.html>