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

Thu Jan 21 12:14:33 AKST 2016

Having our own airspace would also have significant financial graft appeal for the AMA, thus motivating them to pursue this option.

Right now the AMA is trying to make their “scope” the entire surface of the U.S.A. as well as every modeler and moron with a credit card.  By spreading themselves so thin they are setting themselves up for failure.

If the AMA would limit their “scope” to folks who operate at designated model fields within protected airspace, then they would funnel anyone who wishes to operate legally to an AMA field – “$$Cha$$-$$Ching$$” - $75/year.   However, that also means that they need to tell the FAA that they are not responsible for anyone operating outside Class “M” airspace and they are on their own.

-Keith Hoard

-klhoard at outlook.com

From: Dana Beaton [mailto:danamaenia at me.com] 
Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2016 14:59
To: Keith Hoard <klhoard at outlook.com>; General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Update - UAS Registration Frequently Asked Questions | AMA Government Relations Blog

You missed your big opportunity Keith!  Class F airspace is not yet defined in the good old US of A!  Go for it!!!

On Jan 21, 2016, at 3:55 PM, Keith Hoard via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> > wrote:

Actually, you could write the rules for Class “M” airspace so that those type licenses and restrictions wouldn’t apply.

-Keith Hoard

- <mailto:klhoard at outlook.com> klhoard at outlook.com

What class of airspace are you asking for Keith and do we really need that much?  If we ask for the same airspace access as licensed private or commercial pilots have, then we will need to get those tickets.  

On Jan 21, 2016, at 3:09 PM, Keith Hoard < <mailto:klhoard at outlook.com> klhoard at outlook.com> wrote:

Why cant we be granted 2000 AGL?  We're frickin’ full fledged tax payin’ grown up users of the stinkin’ National Airspace System, right? 

If the FA&A has upgraded our planes to Full Scale Status, then they need to provide us the proper airspace protections we deserve.

Sent from  <http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550987> Outlook Mail for Windows 10 phone

From:  <mailto:danamaenia at me.com> Dana Beaton
Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2016 13:54
To:  <mailto:klhoard at outlook.com> Keith Hoard;  <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Update - UAS Registration Frequently Asked Questions | AMA Government Relations Blog

BINGO!!!  Way to go Keith!

Hint, we’ll never be granted 2,000’ AGL.  But if we could get airspace exceptions up to say, 900’-1,000’ AGL, that would solve a lot of problems for all.

On Jan 21, 2016, at 2:20 PM, Keith Hoard via NSRCA-discussion < <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:

If that were true, then full-scale could never land . . . 

The only way out I can see is to get our own airspace, say ½ mile radius up to 2000 feet centered on every AMA field and published with the FAA.  There are already NOTAMS for designated UAS activity published in the regular system, so there is no reason we couldn’t get our own permanent NOTAM published for each field.

Instead of acting like the victims here, the AMA needs to start demanding our own chunks of the NAS.  If we are now full-fledged users of the NAS, then we need to start acting like it.

“Give me a Vector, Victor . . . “

-Keith Hoard

- <mailto:klhoard at outlook.com> klhoard at outlook.com

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 < <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> 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 < <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> 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> 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' < <mailto:paul.lukas at live.com> paul.lukas at live.com>; 'General pattern discussion' < <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>; 'Anthony Cornacchione' < <mailto:acornacchione at hotmail.com> acornacchione at hotmail.com>;  <mailto:jpavlick at idseng.com> jpavlick at idseng.com; 'John Pavlick' < <mailto:jpavlick26 at att.net> 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> 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';  <mailto:jpavlick at idseng.com> 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:  <mailto:jpavlick at idseng.com> jpavlick at idseng.com; 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

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 < <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> 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 < <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> 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  <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> 
Date: 01/16/2016 16:14 (GMT-05:00) 
To: Keith Hoard  <mailto:klhoard at outlook.com> <klhoard at outlook.com>, nsrca-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 

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  <http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550987> Outlook Mail for Windows 10 phone

From:  <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> Ed Alt via NSRCA-discussion
Sent: Saturday, January 16, 2016 12:25
To:  <mailto:vogel.peter at gmail.com> Peter Vogel;  <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> NSRCA List
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:  <mailto:vogel.peter at gmail.com> vogel.peter at gmail.com
To:  <mailto:burtona at atmc.net> burtona at atmc.net;  <mailto:ed_alt at hotmail.com> ed_alt at hotmail.com;  <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

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  <https://aka.ms/qtex0l> Outlook Mobile

On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 10:05 AM -0800, "Ed Alt via NSRCA-discussion" < <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> 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:  <mailto:burtona at atmc.net> burtona at atmc.net
To:  <mailto:ed_alt at hotmail.com> ed_alt at hotmail.com;  <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
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:  <mailto:ldiamond at diamondrc.com> ldiamond at diamondrc.com;  <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> 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:  <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> 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  <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 < <mailto:vogel.peter at gmail.com> 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 < <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> 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 < <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> 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

 <mailto:mking at kingaeroaviation.com> 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

 <http://www.kingaeroaviation.com/> www.kingaeroaviation.com

On Jan 15, 2016, at 8:32 PM, John Pavlick via NSRCA-discussion < <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> 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 < <mailto:davel322 at comcast.net> 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 < <mailto:vogel.peter at gmail.com> vogel.peter at gmail.com>; John Gayer < <mailto:jgghome at comcast.net> jgghome at comcast.net>; NSRCA List < <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

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:  <mailto:jgghome at comcast.net> jgghome at comcast.net;  <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
From:  <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> 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 < <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> 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:  <http://www.faa.gov/go/uastfr> 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-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
 <mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> 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
 <mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> 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  <mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> 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
 <mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> 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
 <mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> 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
 <mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> 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
 <mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> 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  <mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> 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 -  <http://www.avg.com/> www.avg.com
Version: 2015.0.6176 / Virus Database: 4489/11411 - Release Date: 01/15/16

_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
 <mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> 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
 <mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> 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
 <mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> 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
 <mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> 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
 <mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> 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
 <mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> 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
 <mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> 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  <mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> 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
 <mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> 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/20160121/cee0fc58/attachment.html>