[NSRCA-discussion] Update - UAS Registration Frequently Asked Questions | AMA Government Relations Blog
John Gayer
jgghome at comcast.net
Sat Jan 16 14:45:51 AKST 2016
That unit of measure being undefined with a possibility of the delay
being zero, I suggest using the holy hand grenade to eliminate the intruder.
On 1/16/2016 3:19 PM, DaveL322 via NSRCA-discussion wrote:
> I believe the appropriate unit of measure for the "return time" is 1
> migration cycle for an african swallow.
>
> Regards,
>
> Dave
>
> Sent on a Sprint Samsung Galaxy Note® 3
>
>
> -------- Original message --------
> From: Phil Spelt via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Date: 01/16/2016 16:14 (GMT-05:00)
> To: Keith Hoard <klhoard at outlook.com>, nsrca-discussion
> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Update - UAS Registration Frequently
> Asked Questions | AMA Government Relations Blog
>
> How long do we have to wait for them to surface, Keith? A week -- 2
> weeks? How long?
>
> Do we have free reign with them after they surface?
>
> /*Phil Spelt, KCRC Emeritus, Secretary
> AMA 1294, Scientific Leader Member
> SPA L-18, Board Member
> (865) 435-1476v (865) 604-0541c**
> */
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> We must give them the “float test”.
>
> Throw them and their multi-rotors in the AMA pond in Muncie. If they
> float, then they're a witch. If they don’t return to the surface,
> then they're OK.
>
> Sent from Outlook Mail <http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550987>
> for Windows 10 phone
>
>
> *From: *Ed Alt via NSRCA-discussion
> <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> *Sent: *Saturday, January 16, 2016 12:25
> *To: *Peter Vogel <mailto:vogel.peter at gmail.com>; NSRCA List
> <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Update - UAS Registration Frequently
> Asked Questions | AMA Government Relations Blog
>
> The multi-rotor scourge is in no way comparable to helis. Heli's
> require smarts, skill, patience. They exist for entirely different
> reasons than do autonomous multi-rotor stuff. This is entirely
> different. It's a completely incompatible activity at an RC field if
> a dozen or so Joe Blow's show up with them. They aren't hobbyists and
> you will scarcely get converts.
>
> Ed
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2016 18:17:35 +0000
> From: vogel.peter at gmail.com
> To: burtona at atmc.net; ed_alt at hotmail.com; nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Update - UAS Registration Frequently
> Asked Questions | AMA Government Relations Blog
>
> Same arguments were made regarding helicopters at many fields.
>
> Fundamentally, if a multi rotor pilot comes to the field (and they
> have), I'm going to welcome them and teach them the rules of the field
> (which includes the AMA safety code and how to react when full scale
> flys by low on their way to the airfield 6 miles down the road, or the
> police helicopter flies by very low doing speed control on hwy 101).
>
> It's our only hope: embrace and educate. The alternative is shun and
> lose all opportunity to discourage unsafe/irresponsible use.
>
> If you educate one in responsible use, there's a possibility they will
> spread that knowledge to others in the community of multi rotor pilots.
>
> Peter+
>
> Sent from Outlook Mobile <https://aka.ms/qtex0l>
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 10:05 AM -0800, "Ed Alt via NSRCA-discussion"
> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>> wrote:
>
> Dave:
>
> Yeah, I know that idiots are the problem. Until we figure out how
> to fix stupid, we should separate ourselves from the stuff that
> those idiots are drawn to. There's no particular reason for some
> clown from the non-modeling public to come to an AMA flying field.
> Nothing much to video, right? We'll never, ever attract them to
> the AMA in any kind of meaningful numbers and actually, God help
> us if we did. Good flying fields are hard enough to come by. Do
> you really want to be competing for air time against dozens of
> bozos who might show up just to fly a multi-rotor? No thanks.
>
> Ed
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> From: burtona at atmc.net
> To: ed_alt at hotmail.com; nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> Subject: RE: [NSRCA-discussion] Update - UAS Registration
> Frequently Asked Questions | AMA Government Relations Blog
> Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2016 12:48:12 -0500
>
> 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 <mailto:ldiamond at diamondrc.com>;
> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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>
> <mailto:vogel.peter at gmail.com>
> *Cc:* John Pavlick <jpavlick26 at att.net>
> <mailto:jpavlick26 at att.net>; General pattern discussion
> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> <mailto: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 <mailto: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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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
> <http://www.kingaeroaviation.com>
>
>
> On Jan 15, 2016, at 8:32 PM, John Pavlick via
> NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto:vogel.peter at gmail.com>>; John
> Gayer <jgghome at comcast.net
> <mailto:jgghome at comcast.net>>; NSRCA List
> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> <mailto: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
> <mailto:jgghome at comcast.net>;
> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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
> <http://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
> <mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> <mailto: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
> <mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> <mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> <mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> <mailto: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
> <mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________ NSRCA-discussion
> mailing list NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> <mailto: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 <http://www.avg.com>
> Version: 2015.0.6176 / Virus Database: 4489/11411 - Release Date:
> 01/15/16
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160116/1380b401/attachment.html>
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list