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

[John Gayer]

Dana,
Of course we need to see and avoid. That is true for anything in the sky 
that is controlled.
The FAR relating to airspace has no reference that requires the pilot to 
be onboard.

I was referring to class G airspace rules below 500 feet.

John

On 1/21/2016 2:51 PM, Dana Beaton via NSRCA-discussion wrote:
> @ John Gayer, the thing is, regardless of what the FARs dictate to 
> pilots of manned aircraft, the smaller more maneuverable craft is 
> alway obligated to give way, and that will always be the Small UAS 
> with respect to anything manned.  We will always be obligated to see 
> and avoid when flying our models.  The legal basis for this goes back 
> to antiquity probably as a custom of the high seas, or whenever 
> mariners started making right of way rules for each other.  Aviation 
> follows in this time honored tradition of navigation, smaller craft 
> seeing and avoiding larger vessels for practical reasons.  The onus 
> will always be on us and guess what, we are up to the task because we 
> have been doing it for decades now. Amazing actually!  Safe flying 
> guys!  Dana
>
>
>> On Jan 21, 2016, at 4:14 PM, Keith Hoard via NSRCA-discussion 
>> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org 
>> <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>> wrote:
>>
>> 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 <mailto: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> wrote:
>>> Actually, you could write the rules for Class “M” airspace so that 
>>> those type licenses and restrictions wouldn’t apply.
>>> -Keith Hoard
>>> -klhoard at outlook.com <mailto: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 <klhoard at outlook.com 
>>>> <mailto: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 fromOutlook Mail 
>>>> <http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550987>for Windows 10 phone
>>>>
>>>>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20160121/12ff5dca/attachment.html>