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

[Dana Beaton]

Looking back at your Part 91 post under uncongested areas, and thinking of the case John Ford mentioned earlier…

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.

This gives the pilot of a manned aircraft the latitude to fly below 500’ AGL over an uncongested area as long as adequate separation is maintained.  For example, helicopters, crop dusters, sight seeing, aerial photography or just plain old buzzing the field.  The nuance being that just because they are asking UAV to stay below 400’ doesn’t mean that other aircraft will always be expected to remain above 500’ AGL.  This expectation will vary with the local terrain and as charted.  Where we are in NJ/PA is almost always a congested area, which kinda works in our favor as it is rare, except for the life flight choppers who know well we are, to find aircraft below 1,000’-1,500’ over our club fields.  What kind of air traffic do others see and avoid locally?

> On Jan 21, 2016, at 6:27 PM, John Gayer via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
> 
> 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
>>> - <mailto:klhoard at outlook.com>klhoard at outlook.com <mailto:klhoard at outlook.com>
>>>  
>>> From: Dana Beaton [mailto:danamaenia at me.com <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 < <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>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
>>>  
>>> 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 < <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>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
>>>> -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 from Outlook Mail <http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550987> for Windows 10 phone
>>>>>  
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/b656337b/attachment.html>