RunRyder RC
WATCH
 12 pages [ <<    <     10      11     ( 12 )    >    >> ] 7327 views POST REPLY
HomeAircraftHelicopterMain Discussion › Please go comment on FAA's Special Rule's
07-04-2014 04:05 AM  4 years agoPost 221
revmix

rrKey Veteran

NJ

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

The AMA is simply a secondary insurance policy. They do have very well thought-out guidelines though.
Effective January 1, 2014
(c) Not fly higher than approximately 400 feet above ground level within three (3) miles of an airport without notifying the airport operator.

although

PUBLIC LAW 112–95—FEB. 14, 2012
(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 (when an air traffic facility is located
at the airport) with prior notice of the operation (model aircraft
operators flying from a permanent location within 5 miles of
an airport should establish a mutually-agreed upon operating
procedure with the airport operator and the airport air traffic
control tower (when an air traffic facility is located at the
airport)).

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
07-04-2014 05:00 AM  4 years agoPost 222
LaDon

rrVeteran

Fort Dodge .Ia

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

mmm that is interesting.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
07-04-2014 05:02 AM  4 years agoPost 223
LaDon

rrVeteran

Fort Dodge .Ia

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

You are right the CD should have addressed that. For some reason tho everywhere I have gone it hasn't been. I don't understand that.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
07-04-2014 05:38 AM  4 years agoPost 224
TMoore

rrMaster

Cookeville, TN

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

It's been my experience that if the CD and the violator are friends, the CD oftentimes won't halt the activity. IMHO, friendship and being the CD aren't always simpatico. The safety of the entire event has to be maintained, otherwise being a CD will be a frustrating experience. In this case as always the CD must enforce the SC first.

Delayed Response Operator Not Engaged
AMA SECTION 336 = Good
Drones = EVIL

PM  EMAIL  HOMEPAGE  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
07-04-2014 01:16 PM  4 years agoPost 225
icanfly

rrElite Veteran

ontario

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

If you might allow me to interject
This does not necessarily mean your AMA coverage is Null & Void if the claim involves a modeling activity that was not in compliance with the Safety Code. It does mean, however, that AMA members are expected to abide by the Safety Code as a condition of membership."
Look at the first sentence, the AMA KNOWS all rc flying is not performed in a conscionable manner in controlled club space and is saying they are there to cover an accident outside of specially designated areas.

The second part asks members to abide by the sc as a member. Legally this makes protecting it's members less problematic in the event they are required to defend a member using non rc approved land/air space. They are there for all rc'rs regardless but cannot guarantee they can legally protect the member 100%.

As I read the last several pages of this topic it comes to realization that what the FAA is trying to do is control the increasing popularity of rc aviation, fpv, commerce, with scare tactics. Because the technology of fpv is still not totally safe and not everyone can afford a "return to home" device you are going to see guys like the New York kook who crashed on someone more often, something the FAA and authorities want to rein before all hell breaks loose and apv/fpv rc quads become a household item.

RC apv/fpv quads etc are becoming quite popular, use defined by the user, where when how unlimited, they amount to "drones" in the public eye, hysterical in the mind of a futurist, troublesome in the eye of the law.

There are plenty of meatballs in the stew of US of A (and the world), lets not have a double helping and be real sloppy about it, in so many words. The world is full of sloppiness, and show offs, accidents waiting to happen.

It would not be far off for an FAA investigator/consultant to be reviewing these forum topics on the matter and the various replies on the issue at hand.

BE REAL

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
07-04-2014 01:44 PM  4 years agoPost 226
Ace Dude

rrProfessor

USA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Look at the first sentence, the AMA KNOWS all rc flying is not performed in a conscionable manner in controlled club space and is saying they are there to cover an accident outside of specially designated areas.

The second part asks members to abide by the sc as a member. Legally this makes protecting it's members less problematic in the event they are required to defend a member using non rc approved land/air space. They are there for all rc'rs regardless but cannot guarantee they can legally protect the member 100%.
I think it means something a little different. It's saying the wording in the insurance policy may not necessarily be identical to the safety code. In other words, it may be possible that the safety code goes beyond what's on the insurance policy.

However, we need to keep in mind that insurance companies are in businesses to make a profit. They don't pay claims unnecessarily.

  

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
07-04-2014 01:46 PM  4 years agoPost 227
rpat

rrElite Veteran

Weirton, W. Va.

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

There is one way to slow the sales of these things and that is to require that all (quads, drones) have the return to home feature mandatory installed in them to get the price up and get the rift raft out of the market.

trex 700fbl cal30,minititan,, trx600fbl,trex250,logo 500,Velocity N2

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
07-04-2014 02:42 PM  4 years agoPost 228
Tyler

rrElite Veteran

Chicagoland area

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Unfortunately, monst of the careless and dangerous riff raff I have experienced are the guys at events with the deepest pockets. Price point won't deter the wealthy riff raff, especially when they buy off the legal heat and pay for attorneys.

Enjoy things that money can buy IF you don't lose the things money can't buy.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
07-04-2014 02:46 PM  4 years agoPost 229
rpat

rrElite Veteran

Weirton, W. Va.

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Agreed ..just a thought

trex 700fbl cal30,minititan,, trx600fbl,trex250,logo 500,Velocity N2

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
07-04-2014 03:04 PM  4 years agoPost 230
Stephen Born

rrElite Veteran

USA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

.....

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
07-04-2014 03:21 PM  4 years agoPost 231
revmix

rrKey Veteran

NJ

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

interesting
P.L. 112-95/336 is not even listed [only AC 91-57]

http://www.modelaircraft.org/documents.aspx

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
07-04-2014 04:04 PM  4 years agoPost 232
unclejane

rrElite Veteran

santa fe, NM, USA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

As I read the last several pages of this topic it comes to realization that what the FAA is trying to do is control the increasing popularity of rc aviation, fpv, commerce, with scare tactics. Because the technology of fpv is still not totally safe and not everyone can afford a "return to home" device you are going to see guys like the New York kook who crashed on someone more often, something the FAA and authorities want to rein before all hell breaks loose and apv/fpv rc quads become a household item.
I never like to defend the FAA, but believe it or not their rationale for their actions is sound. By "sound" I mean only that it's consistent with their mandate - I don't mean that it's necessarily good, or good for the hobby or us.

The concern over commercial operation is based on the additional risk-taking that attends being compensated/hired to take the risk. They know that it's simple human nature to cut more corners if necessary when you're being paid to fly something than when you're just doing it for your own enjoyment. The entire history of the FAA's treatment of commercial aviation is consistent with this, so this isn't strange in any way at all.

The concern over FPV is purely the mode of control and what it allows you to do. An RC model flown FPV is simply much more capable - it can be flown higher and farther, and it approaches a manned vehicle in terms of what it can do. This expansion in capability has obvious consequences for safety which is what's raising the hairs on the backs of the necks of the FAA.

So really, there's nothing Orwellian behind this. The rationale is actually pretty logical and -ish sensible.

I'm not 100% aligned with it, but I do at least understand why FAA is proposing to do what it's proposing...

LS

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
07-04-2014 04:34 PM  4 years agoPost 233
rexxigpilot

rrProfessor

Florida

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

The AMA is an 501(c)(3) organization and has their own Safety Code which is not law. In order to become become a member of the AMA you must agree to follow the AMA safety code.
In legalese, the word "code" means specific language used to administratively implement a law. AMA uses the modifier "safety" to distinguish its use of the word "code" from meaning legally mandated. But make no mistake about it, when it comes to government regulation the word "code" is legally binding and mandated. Breaking the code is the same thing as breaking the law. It can cause one to receive fines and/or criminal/civil charges. Don't break codes unless you relish the thought of going to jail/prison.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
07-04-2014 05:07 PM  4 years agoPost 234
revmix

rrKey Veteran

NJ

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

5. Why did the AMA decide to eliminate the buddy-box requirement for FPV flying?
The FPV Pilot is often more experienced and able to maneuver his FPV aircraft out of problem status
with verbal cues from the FPV Spotter rather than having the FPV Spotter take over control using abuddy-box. The FPV Pilot will know when the video link is lost before the FPV Spotter and will hand over the transmitter to the FPV Spotter. The cost and availability of compatible and programmable radio transmitters for use as a buddy-box for complex FPV aircraft systems may also preclude the use of a buddy-box. It is also possible that some of the more complex systems might require the buddy box port for flight/camera operations.

14. Can FPV model aircraft be flown by AMA members at altitudes above 400’ and is there any chance that we might someday be able to fly beyond VLOS?
In 1981 FAA Advisory Circular AC 91-57 advised that model aircraft not exceed altitudes of 400ft. At this time there is no FAA regulation/rule preventing model aircraft from flying above 400’ AGL. For the past 32 years the AMA applied this FAA advisory only within 3 miles of an airport in the AMA National Safety Code. The AMA will continue to use all its resources to prevent the FAA from making 400’ a regulation/rule for all locations of model aircraft flying. Public Law 112-95 Sec 336 requires model aircraft be flown within VLOS. As you might expect this is acceptable by the majority of AMA members but limiting to FPV activity. We are looking into alternative methods to support FPV activity beyond VLOS as new FPV technology (perhaps sense and avoid) becomes available and risks assessed and mitigated to a safe and acceptable level to perhaps someday fly beyond VLOS.

http://www.modelaircraft.org/files/570.pdf

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
07-04-2014 05:18 PM  4 years agoPost 235
unclejane

rrElite Veteran

santa fe, NM, USA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Good information. Point #9 is a really good one as well that er, some people, should read...

LS

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
07-04-2014 05:22 PM  4 years agoPost 236
Ace Dude

rrProfessor

USA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

http://www.modelaircraft.org/files/570.pdf
Revision 01/14/2013

  

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
07-04-2014 05:34 PM  4 years agoPost 237
revmix

rrKey Veteran

NJ

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

DATE June 9, 1981
In 1981 FAA Advisory Circular AC 91-57 advised that model aircraft not exceed altitudes of 400ft. At this time there is no FAA regulation/rule preventing model aircraft from flying above 400’ AGL. For the past 32 years the AMA applied this FAA advisory only within 3 miles of an airport in the AMA National Safety Code. The AMA will continue to use all its resources to prevent the FAA from making 400’ a regulation/rule for all locations of model aircraft flying.
?

Do not fly model aircraft higher than 400 feet above the surface. When flying aircraft within 3 miles of an airport, notify the airport operator, or when an air traffic facility is located at the airport, notify the control tower, or flight service station.

http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/...cular/91-57.pdf

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
07-05-2014 01:00 AM  4 years agoPost 238
unclejane

rrElite Veteran

santa fe, NM, USA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

I believe AMAs concern with the 400' limitation is for reasons independent of FPV and commercial ops. Some larger models can get above 400' just doing normal aerobatics, so they don't want a blanket limit. I think that concern is probably justified....

LS

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
07-07-2014 12:31 PM  4 years agoPost 239
Ace Dude

rrProfessor

USA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

When you signed up as a AMA member you agree to follow the AMA Safety Code and rules no matter where you fly. Does not matter whether it is at a Club, Sanctioned event, park or backyard. The card in your wallet says that you personally agree with following those rules.

All of this is about being a responsible person and doing what is the right thing to do and not doing stuff that could hurt people or property.

Also you should not purposely go post stuff that will hurt the hobby or our ability to fly. AMA has done a great job over the years and we should support what they are trying to do.
Hi Mark, Thanks for setting the record straight and providing recommendations so folks don't cause additional damage to the hobby and further jeopardize our ability to fly.

When you posted earlier I was not aware you are the AMA District VIII Vice President.

AMA District VIII Officials

For those who may not be aware, AMA District VIII covers, Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas.

  

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
WATCH
 12 pages [ <<    <     10      11     ( 12 )    >    >> ] 7327 views POST REPLY
HomeAircraftHelicopterMain Discussion › Please go comment on FAA's Special Rule's
 Print TOPIC  Make Suggestion 

 13  Topic Subscribe

Monday, July 23 - 1:34 am - Copyright © 2000-2018 RunRyder   EMAILEnable Cookies

Login Here
 New Subscriptions 
 Buddies Online