This is why it's a mistake to continue to allow multi-rotor (actual) drones at any AMA flying field. It doesn't matter that most AMA members are very responsible. It takes perhaps only one full scale incident and we could be done. I think that if you've got them, take them somewhere else.
Ed
To: ldiamond at diamondrc.com; nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2016 09:19:42 -0700
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Update - UAS Registration Frequently Asked Questions | AMA Government Relations Blog
From: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
The only time there will be a problem is with full-scale incidents.
You then have a pilot saying he was at 600 feet and this "drone"
shot past him vertically and it looked like the "drone" was trying
to hit him. Then the only issue is who was flying the model. That is
relatively simple at an AMA field given a description of the model.
A few incidents like that and we will have a hard 400 foot limit (or
lower).
John
On 1/16/2016 3:25 AM, Larry Diamond via
NSRCA-discussion 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
_______________________________________________
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/20160116/298b9860/attachment.html>