[NSRCA-discussion] Update - UAS Registration Frequently Asked Questions | AMA Government Relations Blog
John Gayer
jgghome at comcast.net
Thu Jan 21 10:19:41 AKST 2016
Seems like the best way to comply is to stay above 500 feet. Clearly
that would be the case near a populated RC flying field in class g
airspace even though the airspace extends to ground level.
The entire ultralight "aircraft" family appears to have escaped
registration or regulation issues of any kind and are welcomed
throughout class g airspace.
from FAR 91.119
*Congested areas.*"Over any congested area of a city, town, or
settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of
1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of
2,000 feet of the aircraft." The FAA does not define congested area in
the FARs or in the/Aeronautical Information Manual/. Interpretations in
low-flight enforcement cases are not consistent for purposes of drafting
a precise definition. Such a determination is usually decided on a
case-by-case basis, and in the cases that we've seen,/congested/has been
interpreted rather broadly. For example, a highway with moderate traffic
was found to be "congested," as was a seaside area where 200 to 300
persons were sitting on the beach or bathing in the water.
*Other than congested areas.*In areas that are not considered congested,
but may otherwise contain some population, you must operate your
aircraft at least 500 feet above the surface. In the circumstance where
you are over open water or sparsely populated areas, you may operate
your aircraft at any altitude, but you must not fly closer than 500 feet
to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure (including electrical or
telephone wires). This 500-foot minimum distance requirement may be
measured horizontally, vertically, or at a slant angle.
On 1/21/2016 11:28 AM, John Ford via NSRCA-discussion wrote:
> I agree with Dan.
> Furthermore, the term "navigable airspace" extends up from the ground.
> Full-scale airplanes do NOT always have a glass "floor" of 500 feet,
> as some would think.
>
> J
>
>
> On Jan 21, 2016, at 8:40 AM, Dana Beaton via NSRCA-discussion
> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>> wrote:
>
>> The definition discussion is closed. If it flies in navigable
>> airspace, it is an aircraft. If the pilot is not on board, it is a
>> UAS. The term includes the ground station, support systems and the
>> aircraft itself. They are taking a systems approach to regulating
>> Small UAS. RC models are now Small UAS when flown in the NAS. This is
>> what we have to deal with now, what AMA has to deal with as they
>> fight to preserve our hobby. We need to get our heads around the new
>> realities if we are to remain relevant to hold on to what we can.
>> Respectfully, Dana
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Jan 21, 2016, at 8:23 AM, Dr. Mike Harrison via NSRCA-discussion
>> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>> <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>> wrote:
>>
>>> To engage the definition of a drone, especially the way you intend
>>> would be suicidal for us. The misinterpretations would be
>>> catastrophic. I would stay away from such.
>>>
>>> Mike
>>>
>>> *From:* NSRCA-discussion
>>> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] *On Behalf Of *Ron
>>> Hansen via NSRCA-discussion
>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 20, 2016 6:58 AM
>>> *To:* 'Paul Lukas' <paul.lukas at live.com
>>> <mailto:paul.lukas at live.com>>; 'General pattern discussion'
>>> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>>> <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>>; 'Anthony Cornacchione'
>>> <acornacchione at hotmail.com <mailto:acornacchione at hotmail.com>>;
>>> jpavlick at idseng.com <mailto:jpavlick at idseng.com>; 'John Pavlick'
>>> <jpavlick26 at att.net <mailto:jpavlick26 at att.net>>
>>> *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Update - UAS Registration
>>> Frequently Asked Questions | AMA Government Relations Blog
>>>
>>> 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] *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] *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
>>>
>>>
>>> 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] *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] *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)
>>>
>>> <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
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> __________ 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
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20160121/c024ffe8/attachment.html>
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list