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

Wed Jan 20 07:00:14 AKST 2016

Big picture vs small screen: consider the constituent groups who have big skin in the UAS integration game that also weigh heavily on the Administration:

Manned Aviation: Airlines, Airline Pilots/ALPA, Air Traffic Controllers/ATC, branches of the military flying training missions, airports, passengers, etc.

State and Local Governments: Agriculture, fire fighting and law enforcement organizations; Police Departments that want to fly UAS as a low cost alternative to traditional aviation which is extremely expensive.  Think of all the public good arguments where Small UAS may be useful, etc.  These constituents all have organizations like AMA pushing their agendas and special interests: they are asking for regulation so they can begin to operate.

Commercial: This actually includes the above since non-hobbyists will need at least a Commercial Pilots license to fly anything outside of recreational use.  Now I know that more than a few of us on this list are likely in favor of free enterprise and critical of regulation, so this may be counterintuitive but the aerospace industry needs regulation in place to begin to sell their wares to those with commercial or municipal applications for Small UAS flight.

Manufacturers: The current COA and waiver processes are cumbersome and inefficient.  They want to start producing products and need a viable regulatory pathway for aircraft certification for UAS flight in the NAS.  This is a complex and costly challenge that they are pushing hard to solve for.

Back to the first group: If you work in Air Traffic Control (civilian or military), how does your work change with UAS integration?  How to safely manage your traffic around the proliferation of Small UAS flying their missions?  What are the impacts on the ATC systems that you use today?  Are we safe?

Guys, with all due respect to the kind of posts we favor here amongst ourselves as pattern pilots, and the kind of distinctions we like to make between drones, model airplanes, etc. that are so important to us and our hobby (but perhaps not so important within the beltway), I think the time has come when we need to appreciate as fully as possible the big picture of UAS integration into the NAS, because that’s what’s going on all around us.  Legislators and regulators are being pushed by much larger constituent groups who want to fly unmanned missions and cannot despite the arrival of the technology.  They have seen so many U too videos that demonstrate proof-of-concept (as well as some stupidity) and want the regulations that will allow them to fly.  Heck, even some of us AMA type hobbyists may be planning a small business but have to wait till this gets done to begin in earnest (not me btw).  ATC and the Administration is trying to find a way to cope with a potentially enormous amount of new air traffic that perhaps resists control or exceeds ATC resources.

There is a lot being discussed out in the world that we are not discussing within our little hobby space that is no longer outside of the system.  We are in it now by definition.  Time to check out the new neighborhood and learn what concerns our new neighbors in the NAS have.  We can play a very positive role within this space if we choose to do so.  Or we can ignore the larger trend, rant and rave about whatever makes us feel good; but we will not be taken seriously if we do not appreciate the big picture.  Our small numbers and rather modest needs for airspace over our AMA club fields may actually be our best advantage if our goal is to hold on to that, rather than escape registration or regulation altogether.  What are our true airspace needs now in AMA?

> On Jan 20, 2016, at 9:59 AM, Ron Hansen <rcpilot at wowway.com> wrote:
> 
> Based on the senator from florida's video the Feds are more concerned by the hobbyists than the commercial drone pilots. 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> On Jan 20, 2016, at 9:24 AM, ronlock--- via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>> wrote:
> 
>> Good thoughtful post.
>> Ron Lockhart
>> From: "Dana Beaton via NSRCA-discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>>
>> To: "Ron Hansen" <rcpilot at wowway.com <mailto:rcpilot at wowway.com>>, "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>>
>> Cc: "John Pavlick" <jpavlick26 at att.net <mailto:jpavlick26 at att.net>>
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2016 8:15:33 AM
>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Update - UAS        Registration        Frequently        Asked Questions | AMA Government        Relations Blog
>> 
>> The AMA has been fighting the good fight for years now, alas is outnumbered, outgunned and outspent by the aerospace industry that wants to further commercialize the NAS for UAS use; and the constituencies that wish to fly UAS in the NAS commercially.  The stuff going on in congress is the result of a lot of heavy-duty, big-spender lobbying efforts that largely overlook our hobby as irrelevant to their vision of the near future as they are setting-up shop.  While we see the FAA as the other side of things, in reality they are in the middle of a lot of well-funded UAS interests and uneducated drone consumers, as are we.
>> 
>> We are not winning and do not have the resources to win this battle against aerospace industry interests. We can become skillful and savvy users of the NAS with AMA’s continued advocacy, if we can see clearly where we have been as a hobby and where all this is going for the vast majority of non-hobbyists.  We need to re-align our expectations of success to something that is actually achievable by the AMA. Registration & regulation is not going away, it’s just starting. We need to switch gears to understand how to navigate the new era, both with our sUAS model airplanes and politically.  We need to work the system to our best possible advantage to salvage what is left of our hobby.  The Small UAS ship has sailed and we are down in the cargo hold.  Time to work our way up to the deck and avoid being thrown overboard.  We now need to work from the inside as responsible users of the NAS.
>> 
>> 
>> On Jan 20, 2016, at 7:58 AM, Ron Hansen via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>> wrote:
>> 
>> Paul,
>>  
>> That was the statement that really got me pissed too.
>>  
>> The other thing that troubles me is every time they show a picture of a drone they show a quad copter.  Do they realize that the FAA is also regulating airplanes of basically all sizes?  I think not.
>>  
>> In my view a drone should be defined as an aircraft (plane, heli, quad, etc.) that is equipped with a camera and gyro whether or not it can be piloted out of visual range using first-person-viewer technology.  All other aircraft under 55 lbs should be unregulated by the government.
>>  
>> The AMA is clearly not doing a good job of educating congress on what a drone really is.
>>  
>> This Senator was also not aware that the FAA just started requiring registration.
>>  
>> I guess we will have to pass the legislation to find out what is in it!!!!
>>  
>> From: NSRCA-discussion [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org <mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org>] On Behalf Of Paul Lukas via NSRCA-discussion
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2016 1:10 AM
>> To: 'Anthony Cornacchione'; 'General pattern discussion'; jpavlick at idseng.com <mailto:jpavlick at idseng.com>; 'John Pavlick'
>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Update - UAS Registration Frequently Asked Questions | AMA Government Relations Blog
>>  
>> “We probably don’t need to worry about the commercial users…because those users are going to be very careful, but for the hobbyist, or the kid, that can now go and purchase it, and you see the probabilities of an accident waiting to happen”.
>>  
>> Paraphrased but the most frightening words I’ve ever heard.  My blood ran cold when he said this.  What commercial sUAS company is located in Florida that wants hobbyists out of the way?
>>  
>> The argument about “drones” vs. “plankers” is moot.  These people don’t see or care about the difference.
>>  
>> I looked up the Commerce, Science, and Transportation committee. It is headed up by Sen. Thune from South Dakota.  I’m going to write Sen. Thune a letter (since his website would only give me 500 characters…)  The AMA may be talking to the FAA, but they are not talking to congressmen and senators as far as I’ve seen.  These are the people that will give the FAA the ammunition to end it all.  I might be overreacting, but I live a mile inside the Washington, DC FRZ and they just shut down 14 some odd AMA clubs in the DC SFRA (technically in September, 2015, but enforced in December).  If Senator Nelson has his way, I don’t think it will end there.
>>  
>> Paul “I haven’t been grounded this long since I was 12” Lukas
>>  <> 
>> From: NSRCA-discussion [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org <mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org>] On Behalf Of Anthony Cornacchione via NSRCA-discussion
>> Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2016 6:52 PM
>> To: jpavlick at idseng.com <mailto:jpavlick at idseng.com>; 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
>>  
>> It's going to get worse.  The one thing we've been clinging to is the language in a 4 year old Reauthorization Act that expires in two months.  Here's some senate floor action. Pay attention around the 430 mark to the end. 
>> http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4576550/senator-nelsons-speech-drones <http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4576550/senator-nelsons-speech-drones>
>> 
>> On Jan 17, 2016, at 12:58 AM, John Pavlick via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>> wrote:
>> 
>> But Matt, I AM building AND contributing to the nonsensical… uh, what you said! LOL
>>  
>> John Pavlick
>> Cell: 203-417-4971
>>  
>> <image001.png>
>> Integrated Development Services
>>  
>> From: NSRCA-discussion [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org <mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org>] On Behalf Of Matthew Kebabjian via NSRCA-discussion
>> Sent: Saturday, January 16, 2016 11:48 PM
>> To: John Gayer; General pattern discussion
>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Update - UAS Registration Frequently Asked Questions | AMA Government Relations Blog
>>  
>> I thought youse guys had no time to build. This nonsensical diatribe over the past month or so might hint otherwise.
>> 
>> Matt Kebabjian
>>  
>> 
>> On Jan 16, 2016, at 6:43 PM, John Gayer via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>> wrote:
>> 
>> 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> <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> 
>> Date: 01/16/2016 16:14 (GMT-05:00) 
>> To: Keith Hoard <klhoard at outlook.com> <mailto:klhoard at outlook.com>, nsrca-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 
>> 
>> 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 <mailto:vogel.peter at gmail.com>
>> To: burtona at atmc.net <mailto:burtona at atmc.net>; ed_alt at hotmail.com <mailto:ed_alt at hotmail.com>; 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
>> 
>> 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 <mailto:burtona at atmc.net>
>> To: ed_alt at hotmail.com <mailto:ed_alt at hotmail.com>; 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
>> 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 <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 <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 <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 <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 <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/ <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 <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 <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 listNSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org <mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion <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 <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 <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 <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 <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 <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 <mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion <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 <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 <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 <http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion>
>> 
>> 
>> __________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature database 12897 (20160120) __________
>> 
>> The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
>> 
>> http://www.eset.com <http://www.eset.com/>
>> 
>> 
>> __________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature database 12898 (20160120) __________
>> 
>> The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
>> 
>> http://www.eset.com <http://www.eset.com/>
>> 
>> 
>> __________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature database 12898 (20160120) __________
>> 
>> The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
>> 
>> http://www.eset.com <http://www.eset.com/>_______________________________________________
>> 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 <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 <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 <http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20160120/99cc0fbb/attachment.html>