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

Sat Jan 16 08:50:53 AKST 2016

Multi rotors are not the problem. Idiots are the problem. We have a few
idiots flying every type of model. I've seen an idiot chasing after a small
full scale trying to get close. That was with some kind of sport airplane.
Would you keep a guy away from an AMA field if he brought out a Giant scale,
a pattern plane, and a multi rotor to fly all of them. I'm of the opinion
I'd rather have multi rotors at an AMA field environment rather than a mall
parking lot or somewhere else just a stupid.

Dave

From: NSRCA-discussion [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On
Behalf Of Ed Alt via NSRCA-discussion
Sent: Saturday, January 16, 2016 11:31 AM
To: John Gayer; Larry Diamond; NSRCA List
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Update - UAS Registration Frequently Asked
Questions | AMA Government Relations Blog

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  <mailto:vogel.peter at gmail.com> <vogel.peter at gmail.com>
Cc: John Pavlick  <mailto:jpavlick26 at att.net> <jpavlick26 at att.net>; General
pattern discussion  <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
<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.pd
f

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

 <http://www.faa.gov/uas/publications/model_aircraft_operators/> 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.

*
<http://www.faa.gov/exit/?pageName=More%20information%20about%20safety%20and
%20training%20guidelines&pgLnk=http://www.modelaircraft.org/> More
information about safety and training guidelines
*
<http://www.faa.gov/exit/?pageName=Visit%20knowbeforeyoufly.org&pgLnk=http:/
/www.knowbeforeyoufly.org/> 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-f
requently-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)

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

_______________________________________________
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

  _____  

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2015.0.6176 / Virus Database: 4489/11411 - Release Date: 01/15/16

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20160116/47294415/attachment.html>