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

Sat Jan 16 03:16:55 AKST 2016

Sent from my iPhone

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Dana Beaton <danamaenia at me.com>
> Date: January 16, 2016 at 6:15:02 AM CST
> To: Larry Diamond <ldiamond at diamondrc.com>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Update - UAS Registration Frequently Asked Questions | AMA Government Relations Blog
> 
> Thanks for your reply, good stuff!
> 
> Law enforcement is a big industry and market for new tools & techniques as you know better than I.  UAS integration into the NAS is a business opportunity that entrepreneurs large & small are driving FAA towards for commercial purposes. What a lot of hobbyists misunderstand is who enforcement falls to, most wrongly assume FAA will enforce because they make the rules. Not so.
> 
> With UAS integration comes a new kind of police work so my concern is that we are on the right side of the public perception within our local communities where we fly.  We can be the good guys if we stay off the radar so to speak and be the last pilots that our local LEO suspect as needing policing. Or we can earn more scrutiny with bad behavior and risk losing more club airfields to needless non compliance issues like unregistered UAS flown.  Just like I prefer to avoid fighting a speeding conviction, I would prefer to be viewed as one of the good guys they don't have to worry about as an AMA club member.
> 
> One thing is clear, UAS regulation is not going away, it's just beginning, and it's a much much larger trend than most AMA hobbyists realize. We need to learn how to work within the system to hold on to our flying privileges. AMA has downplayed things a bit and is fighting a tsunami of better funded interests by proxy for many years now. We have been largely ignored, that handwriting is now on the wall. We comply to keep what is left to the hobbyists or we lose out of we are perceived as part of the problem. Safe flying! Dana
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
>> On Jan 16, 2016, at 5:41 AM, Larry Diamond <ldiamond at diamondrc.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Dana,
>>  
>> Having worked in and industry where Radar/Lidar training and expert witness testimony training is part of the business. I can say with certainty that knowing and proving in a court system beyond reasonable doubt is not the same and is not an easy standard to meet.
>>  
>> Taking speeding for instance. An officer knows from experience by watching a moving vehicle and knows it is speeding. Unless they have video evidence or were able to demonstrate the history with the actual speed of the vehicle tying the violation back to the violator it will not stand up in a court system. The fact that they were speeding may get a verbal warning. Beyond that the LEO is not able to write a citation that will be upheld in court if challenged.
>>  
>> Case and point. The LEO must have a device that triangulates to calculate altitude. This equipment is out there and very reliable and must be calibrated and certified and the operator must hold a current documented certification showing they were trained on that specific equipment. Without all those things, actual Altitude will not be admissible in court, resulting in a dismissal of the citation.
>>  
>> If you are at a flying site you will see this action and simply decrease your altitude below 400’ or land before the LEO has the evidence of actual altitude and history to write a citation. Otherwise a citation will not be issued. If they do, the court system will test the procedure and set the precedence by throwing it out of court for the UAS policy. This precedence is already established in the courts with speeding or moving violations.
>>  
>> Off the flying site, they must be able to demonstrate that the plane they have on video is identifiable and beyond reasonable doubt, you were the one flying the plane at the time the evidence is collected with video, altitude, and with visual confirmation. Once they lose site of the plane or lose sight of you or don’t have sight of you, none of the evidence collected can be tied to you beyond reasonable doubt.
>>  
>> Why do I keep using reasonable doubt. In the USA the statute for preponderance of the evidence only applies to civil litigation. Any act being criminal in nature including infractions must be demonstrated/shown beyond a reasonable doubt.
>>  
>> I know of a case in Owensboro Kentucky who had video evidence that the driver was in fact drunk and failed a sobriety test. It was on video, no question right? The case was thrown out and dismissed because the placement of the camera and the location of the sobriety test performed by the officer created a situation that the feet of the offender was not visible. Despite the officers testimony, physical evidence did not show the feet failing the sobriety. The driver refused the blood test and screen for blood alcohol level, thus again, no physical evidence. The driver was fined with suspended license for refusing to submit, but the DUI charges were dismissed because the testimony of the officer did not meet the standard beyond reasonable doubt.
>>  
>> How do I know this? I was the manager responsible for my company to adjust all cameras to prevent this from occurring again and to not accept direction from PD personnel for other locations of the camera. My company did nothing wrong as we placed the camera where the PD told us to.
>>  
>> Larry Diamond
>>  
>> From: Dana Beaton [mailto:danamaenia at me.com] 
>> Sent: Saturday, January 16, 2016 4:54 AM
>> To: Larry Diamond <ldiamond at diamondrc.com>; General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Update - UAS Registration Frequently Asked Questions | AMA Government Relations Blog
>>  
>> Law enforcement agencies are interested in acquiring and using UAS  for police work as a low cost alternative to traditional aviation which is very expensive. This is coming along with further commercialization of the NAS once the big boys get the rules in place to do so.  The pilots flying UAS as part of their police work will learn what too high looks like because they will be subject to the same airspace use restrictions we are. Think outside the AMA box a bit to see the possibilities for all these new users of UAS in the NAS on the commercial side who are pushing FAA so they can fly legally too.
>>  
>> We are already so far at the margin my friends: the trick is to turn our small numbers to our advantage as responsible hobbyists pilots, and avoid the behaviors that reflect poorly on us in the eyes of all the new users, including local law enforcement once they get drones of their own to fly. We should make friends with these guys as many will no doubt also love to fly, as do we!
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> 
>> On Jan 16, 2016, at 4:25 AM, Larry Diamond via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
>> 
>> The 400’ foot discussion has been interesting to follow.
>>  
>> Think about how they would enforce this if it were regulation and you were at a flying site.
>>  
>> 1)      If they show up to the flying site, they would be conspicuous with equipment trying to document the fact you are above 400’. They must have physical evidence for it to stand up in court if the citation is issued. You simply bring your plan down to 400’ or don’t fly.
>> 2)      If they were off site, it is no different than issuing speeding tickets. They must have evidence the plane they document belongs to you and they must be able to demonstrate a violation occurred and the history to show it is you without question. This will not be enforceable if they can’t testify you were physically flying the drone over 400’.
>> a.       Example: An enforcement officer locks there radar on you for speeding. The officer is charged with the responsibility of maintaining a visual on you (history) or have video to show your vehicle was the one speeding. If it is only a video correlation, they must be able to demonstrate (testify) it was you driving and not somebody else, typically pulling you over within a couple of minutes. If this can’t be demonstrated (testified) to the level of beyond reasonable doubt, the charge/citation will not stick and it will be dismissed.
>>  
>> Were the 400’ policy does get enforced with certainty will be a post mortem event. i.e. midair collision… Outside of this type of event, it will be very difficult to police and enforce.
>>  
>> It is one thing to have a policy out there. It is much different when the policy is executed and then tested in the court system.
>>  
>> Over simplified but the point is clear for me.
>>  
>> As my favorite comedian always says, “It is only my opinion, I could be wrong”.
>>  
>> Larry
>>  
>> From: NSRCA-discussion [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Dana Beaton via NSRCA-discussion
>> Sent: Friday, January 15, 2016 9:48 PM
>> To: Peter Vogel <vogel.peter at gmail.com>
>> Cc: John Pavlick <jpavlick26 at att.net>; General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Update - UAS Registration Frequently Asked Questions | AMA Government Relations Blog
>>  
>> I hear you but every time the 400' thing comes up again it's in the wrong direction and the reassurances carry no weight whatsoever in light of what has been published for us to observe to date.  The distinctions will be costly for any one individual to make if unlucky to find oneself in a process.  While our risk may be low flying at our club fields, times have definitely changed...
>>  
>> The ERAU UAS course is also a real eye-opener in many respects.  I think it is still open if anyone is interested.  
>> 
>> Sent from my iPad
>> 
>> On Jan 15, 2016, at 9:27 PM, Peter Vogel <vogel.peter at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> 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] 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 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)
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20160116/777534b1/attachment.html>