RunRyder RC
WATCH
 4 pages [ <<    <     1     ( 2 )     3      4     NEXT    >> ] 2314 views POST REPLY
HomeMy Site✈️Aircraft🚁HelicopterHelicopter Main Discussion › FAA authorization law and drones/model aircraft
10-19-2018 01:45 AM  9 months ago
JuanRodriguez

rrProfessor

The Villages, Florida

MyPosts All Forum Topic
Heli_Splatter
There is a new sheriff in town and the AMA does not rule anything.

Try to stay up.
I see you found a spell checker..... you should use it before you post .....

You failed English in school didn’t you ??? LOL !!!
Been there, done that and old enough to know better.....
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
10-19-2018 01:10 PM  9 months ago
Heli_Splatter

rrElite Veteran

USA

MyPosts All Forum Topic
Well, it looks like the spelling police have arrived. You have nothing but spelling to pick on. Empty of ideas to argue?? You have never made a single spelling mistake. #it.
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
10-19-2018 01:33 PM  9 months ago
chopper37

rrVeteran

NJ and Long Island

MyPosts All Forum Topic
Back on topic, this new regulation can effectively screw us all down the road, why am I paying ama dues?
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
10-19-2018 01:57 PM  9 months ago
JuanRodriguez

rrProfessor

The Villages, Florida

MyPosts All Forum Topic
Heli_Splatter
You have never made a single spelling mistake
Noo, neever !

No need for me to add to the discussion as you’re already providing the entertainment !!!!
Been there, done that and old enough to know better.....
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
10-19-2018 03:30 PM  9 months ago
Heli_Splatter

rrElite Veteran

USA

MyPosts All Forum Topic
Why Even Keep AMA?
The FAA has made it reasonably simple to avoid needing the AMA as a CBO. I think that the door is open to competing startup organizations.

One would have to admit that the number of existing fields and membership would take time to overcome, but it is possible.
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
10-19-2018 04:39 PM  9 months ago
TMoore

rrMaster

Cookeville, TN

MyPosts All Forum Topic
Heli_Splatter
Why Even Keep AMA?
The FAA has made it reasonably simple to avoid needing the AMA as a CBO. I think that the door is open to competing startup organizations.

One would have to admit that the number of existing fields and membership would take time to overcome, but it is possible.
They still need AMA because they don't have the manpower to enforce any of this BS. They can make rules all they want but first and foremost; rules have to make sense, otherwise they will be ignored. Then there are still the rights of property owners that have not been adjudicated and right now the FAA can't do anything about that because precedent has established that property owners do have airspace rights and that's going to be a hotly contested subject.
Delayed Response Operator Not Engaged
AMA SECTION 336 = Gone, replaced by the FAA
Drones = EVIL
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  HOMEPAGE  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
12-19-2018 05:35 AM  7 months ago
ChrisO

rrNovice

Barron, WI USA

MyPosts All Forum Topic
Old thread now, but it's interesting to read some of the reactions to the reauthorization act. I doubt this will have much effect on the world of model aircraft, if any at all. Things will go on like they always have at RC clubs and events.

What it does affect is commercial operators of UAV's. Like it or not the market for UAV's in commercial use is huge. And this includes not only multi-rotor "drones", but also fixed-wing and helicopters. The FAA has to figure out how to integrate these aircraft into the NAS and do it safely. I'm a Part 61 commercial pilot, over 35 years in commercial aviation, and I certainly don't want to see these things flying in the same airspace as manned aircraft. I don't expect that waivers will be granted to operate UAV's in Class B, C, D or E airspace for a very long time, if ever. But they do operate in Class G space with manned aircraft. This is a problem we didn't have 10 years ago. So some sort of common sense regulation of these UAV's has to take place, as the NAS is not now, nor ever has been, a free-for-all. And the FAA is not about to allow it to turn into one.

For anybody that thinks the FAA doesn't enforce anything, I got news for ya. I've dealt with these guys on a daily basis for better than 35 years and they'll nail you to the wall for a worn fuel placard on a certificated aircraft. A FSDO Inspector shows up at a local GA airport, which they do on a quite regular basis, and 20% the airplanes on the flight line will end up with red tags on them, declared unairworthy for various infractions.

Over the years I've learned it's better to work with the FAA than against them. Because you'll never win. They'll yank your flying privilege in the blink of an eye. And the keyword is "privilege". It's not a right.
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
12-21-2018 12:19 AM  7 months ago
TMoore

rrMaster

Cookeville, TN

MyPosts All Forum Topic
ChrisO
Old thread now, but it's interesting to read some of the reactions to the reauthorization act. I doubt this will have much effect on the world of model aircraft, if any at all. Things will go on like they always have at RC clubs and events.

What it does affect is commercial operators of UAV's. Like it or not the market for UAV's in commercial use is huge. And this includes not only multi-rotor "drones", but also fixed-wing and helicopters. The FAA has to figure out how to integrate these aircraft into the NAS and do it safely. I'm a Part 61 commercial pilot, over 35 years in commercial aviation, and I certainly don't want to see these things flying in the same airspace as manned aircraft. I don't expect that waivers will be granted to operate UAV's in Class B, C, D or E airspace for a very long time, if ever. But they do operate in Class G space with manned aircraft. This is a problem we didn't have 10 years ago. So some sort of common sense regulation of these UAV's has to take place, as the NAS is not now, nor ever has been, a free-for-all. And the FAA is not about to allow it to turn into one.

For anybody that thinks the FAA doesn't enforce anything, I got news for ya. I've dealt with these guys on a daily basis for better than 35 years and they'll nail you to the wall for a worn fuel placard on a certificated aircraft. A FSDO Inspector shows up at a local GA airport, which they do on a quite regular basis, and 20% the airplanes on the flight line will end up with red tags on them, declared unairworthy for various infractions.

Over the years I've learned it's better to work with the FAA than against them. Because you'll never win. They'll yank your flying privilege in the blink of an eye. And the keyword is "privilege". It's not a right.
Doesn't matter what the FAA does with fullsize, that's a separate issue. They simply don't have the manpower to control the skies with stabilized GPS Multirotors pervading the airways. RC Models can't be lumped into that group because they aren't capable of autonomous flight. I know the FAA doesn't agree on this definition but I don't care. You can define anything to mean anything but it doesn't change facts. RC Models aren't drones. Only stabilized multirotor appliances can shutdown an airport like Gatwick. Look at the clusterframmus that's been created that could have been prevented if the Brits had just limited the proliferation of those devices through point of sale registration and stop code locking of the device which all the Drone Weenie manufacturers opposed. Wait until one of our airports is shut down. Can you say end of the line? How about; what was the date that all RC Modeling ended in the US for one thousand Alex? I think I heard the Daily Double go off.

The FAA and the USG had their chance to control the proliferation of the Drone Weenies and they didn't do it. Their problem, not mine. I'm tired of worrying about it and I don't give a $hit anymore. FAA is on their own. Good luck getting transponders to work, good luck getting people to follow rules that don't make sense and good luck to the AMA because it's clear that this all about money. If the FAA wants to wreck the livelihood of RC manufacturers, shops and peoples hobbies that's their prerogative. What we say, think or do won't matter. I'm not writing letters anymore to representatives that don't understand and won't listen. My registration will expire soon and I won't renew it. FAA wanted to control the skies and now they do or so they think but there is one more hurdle they haven't overcome; property rights, not yet. We'll see how that turns out. Modeling was never the problem but we got caught in an avalanche and became part of a huge rolling snowball that we never should have been part of.
Delayed Response Operator Not Engaged
AMA SECTION 336 = Gone, replaced by the FAA
Drones = EVIL
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  HOMEPAGE  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
12-21-2018 01:31 AM  7 months ago
dgoss999

rrApprentice

UK - Lancashire

MyPosts All Forum Topic
Well said Mr T.

DG...
"Believe none of what you hear, and only half of what you see." • Benjamin Franklin
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
12-21-2018 01:36 AM  7 months ago
JuanRodriguez

rrProfessor

The Villages, Florida

MyPosts All Forum Topic
I see that the drone weenies are at it again overseas ......Been there, done that and old enough to know better.....
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
12-21-2018 04:04 AM  7 months ago
ChrisO

rrNovice

Barron, WI USA

MyPosts All Forum Topic
TMoore
If the FAA wants to wreck the livelihood of RC manufacturers, shops and peoples hobbies that's their prerogative.
If you look at the big picture, the "drones" are just as viable as a hobby, and as a market, as model aircraft. Due to technology cheaply available there is people flying fixed-wings miles BVLOS on FPV with no autonomous controls at all. And these people doing this present a serious hazard to manned aircraft because these things are usually equipped with a battery that has sufficient density and size to take the compressor and/or fan out of a turbine engine if it were ingested. It is not soft material like birds.

So where you do you draw the line?

Doesn't appear that your influence has been very effective in education of these pilots doing this. So since Plan A didn't work, now you have to deal with Plan B. It's easy to point your finger and say "the FAA did it". The FAA is just dealing with it the best they can. Where was the "leadership" of AMA and all its members when these things first appeared on the market and got into the hands of untrained pilots? There was none. Instead there was just rejection - the local RC club says "we don't allow drones" because we're pro's". Guess what? None of the young kids are interested in model aircraft anymore. They are all interested in "drones". They got all the mindshare, and the market.
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
12-21-2018 06:53 PM  7 months ago
ChrisO

rrNovice

Barron, WI USA

MyPosts All Forum Topic
I logged into my account on the FAA website and if you are a Part 61 pilot with Remote Pilot rating, they now have it linked. They have a 336 section for modelers (to become Section 349) and a Part 107 section for commercial.

If you didn't request to have your registration info removed from the database when it was repealed on the basis of Section 336, they have now extended your model registration to reflect the original registration period. If you requested to have it removed you have to re-register.

The requirements under Section 349 are
Aircraft must be flown strictly for recreation, and:
Must be flown within a Community Based Organization’s (CBO) safety guidelines
Must be flown within visual line of sight (VLOS)
Must stay out of the way of manned aircraft
Must be flying in Class G airspace under 400 feet
Must be registered and marked
The pilot must pass an Aeronautical Knowledge Test

The test likely won't be the same as Part 107 where you have know every detail of reading Sectional Charts, METAR's, TAF's, SIGMET's, know aircraft radio communications procedures, ATC procedures, etc.. It will be an online thing for modelers. But the difference is that Part 107 commercial pilots CAN fly in controlled airspace with the appropriate qualifications and equipment. And Part 107 can fly over 400AGL within 400 feet laterally of structures, and up to 400 feet over the top of that structure.

So there's really nothing different from before, other than lawmakers want to know who you are for accountability purposes. Section 336 is being grandfathered in the interim while Section 349 is phased in. You can also select to fly Part 107 recreationally if you chose to not fly under the guidelines of a CBO.

The law now states:
To fly under the Special Rule for Model Aircraft, you must follow community-based aero-modeling club safety guidelines AND fly within the programming of a nation-wide community-based aero-modeling organization. I currently have both due to the grandfathering of Section 336. But I'll drop the 336 and just go 107, as I'm a commercial pilot anyway and have no interest in joining the likes of AMA.

SHARE  PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
12-22-2018 07:11 AM  7 months ago
TMoore

rrMaster

Cookeville, TN

MyPosts All Forum Topic
ChrisO
TMoore
If the FAA wants to wreck the livelihood of RC manufacturers, shops and peoples hobbies that's their prerogative.
If you look at the big picture, the "drones" are just as viable as a hobby, and as a market, as model aircraft. Due to technology cheaply available there is people flying fixed-wings miles BVLOS on FPV with no autonomous controls at all. And these people doing this present a serious hazard to manned aircraft because these things are usually equipped with a battery that has sufficient density and size to take the compressor and/or fan out of a turbine engine if it were ingested. It is not soft material like birds.

So where you do you draw the line?

Doesn't appear that your influence has been very effective in education of these pilots doing this. So since Plan A didn't work, now you have to deal with Plan B. It's easy to point your finger and say "the FAA did it". The FAA is just dealing with it the best they can. Where was the "leadership" of AMA and all its members when these things first appeared on the market and got into the hands of untrained pilots? There was none. Instead there was just rejection - the local RC club says "we don't allow drones" because we're pro's". Guess what? None of the young kids are interested in model aircraft anymore. They are all interested in "drones". They got all the mindshare, and the market.
I don't know what you're reading into this but I have no influence. FAA are big boys; they'll figure this out. The difference between modelers and Drone Weenies is huge. We're the responsible ones. We don't fly around airports, don't fly beyond VLOS and don't cause trouble. Look around a little, you'll recognize us. We're not the ones flying at Gatwick or similar facilities.

I never tried to educate the Drone Weenies. As far as I"m concerned let them do what they are going to do. Nothing that I say or do will make a difference here. The FAA are the experts now. This is their ballgame. Time to tee it up and see what happens.
Delayed Response Operator Not Engaged
AMA SECTION 336 = Gone, replaced by the FAA
Drones = EVIL
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  HOMEPAGE  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
12-22-2018 07:16 AM  7 months ago
TMoore

rrMaster

Cookeville, TN

MyPosts All Forum Topic
ChrisO
I logged into my account on the FAA website and if you are a Part 61 pilot with Remote Pilot rating, they now have it linked. They have a 336 section for modelers (to become Section 349) and a Part 107 section for commercial.

If you didn't request to have your registration info removed from the database when it was repealed on the basis of Section 336, they have now extended your model registration to reflect the original registration period. If you requested to have it removed you have to re-register.

The requirements under Section 349 are
Aircraft must be flown strictly for recreation, and:
Must be flown within a Community Based Organization’s (CBO) safety guidelines
Must be flown within visual line of sight (VLOS)
Must stay out of the way of manned aircraft
Must be flying in Class G airspace under 400 feet
Must be registered and marked
The pilot must pass an Aeronautical Knowledge Test

The test likely won't be the same as Part 107 where you have know every detail of reading Sectional Charts, METAR's, TAF's, SIGMET's, know aircraft radio communications procedures, ATC procedures, etc.. It will be an online thing for modelers. But the difference is that Part 107 commercial pilots CAN fly in controlled airspace with the appropriate qualifications and equipment. And Part 107 can fly over 400AGL within 400 feet laterally of structures, and up to 400 feet over the top of that structure.

So there's really nothing different from before, other than lawmakers want to know who you are for accountability purposes. Section 336 is being grandfathered in the interim while Section 349 is phased in. You can also select to fly Part 107 recreationally if you chose to not fly under the guidelines of a CBO.

The law now states:
To fly under the Special Rule for Model Aircraft, you must follow community-based aero-modeling club safety guidelines AND fly within the programming of a nation-wide community-based aero-modeling organization. I currently have both due to the grandfathering of Section 336. But I'll drop the 336 and just go 107, as I'm a commercial pilot anyway and have no interest in joining the likes of AMA.
Good for you. I don't need a lesson on the requirements, thank you. I've read them. I don't plan on extending my FAA registration, don't plan on taking the test if it ever comes, don't care one damn bit about Part 107 pilots and the requirements and will be watching with the gusto of a hound dog while the FAA implements or tries to implement ADS-B onto RC models. Got popcorn and Captain Morgan at hand when the show starts. Anything else you'd like to update us on? I don't mean to sound snippy, well yes I do but here's the deal; I don't care anymore. The FAA is going to do what they are going to do. If I was AMA I wouldn't help them in the least and just let them do what they want to do. They're going to do it anyway. They didn't listen to modelers the first, second or third time. Is the fourth time the charm? Big biz wants to control the airways so my thought is let them.

As long as I have enough property of my own to fly on that's what I'm going to do.
Delayed Response Operator Not Engaged
AMA SECTION 336 = Gone, replaced by the FAA
Drones = EVIL
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  HOMEPAGE  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
12-22-2018 08:51 AM  7 months ago
ChrisO

rrNovice

Barron, WI USA

MyPosts All Forum Topic
TMoore
while the FAA implements or tries to implement ADS-B onto RC models.
Actually, it's already implemented on UAV's, and it works. I have it on my commercial helicopter in the form of a PING 21si with Mode S transponder. It's not illegal to fly around airports with a UAV for Part 107. You just need ATC authorization and the proper equipment to fly in controlled airspace, identical to manned aircraft. It's only illegal for recreational pilots to fly around airports. And that was the intent of the law.

You're right that the FAA is big boys and they can figure it out. They've been doing it for many years. The US has the safest airspace in the world and it didn't happen thru anarchy.

The sudden influx of unmanned aircraft raised a new challenge because they have dozens of potential commercial uses. Especially in areas where UAV's are safer to fly and pose less risk to the general public and aircrews than manned aircraft operating in dangerous flight profiles. So the FAA has been tasked with integrating these unmanned aircraft into the NAS, safely, with manned aircraft. Which means defining airspace and establishing rules for separation in that airspace because the two don't mix.

Labeling one group of recreational pilots as "Drone Weenies" doesn't solve the problem. If the recreational RC world can't solve it on their own, they'll be regulated out of existence. Change is inevitable.
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
12-22-2018 05:04 PM  7 months ago
JuanRodriguez

rrProfessor

The Villages, Florida

MyPosts All Forum Topic
ChrisO
Labeling one group of recreational pilots as "Drone Weenies" doesn't solve the problem.
No, but at least it’s calling a spade a spade.......

If the shoe fits , wear it !!!
Been there, done that and old enough to know better.....
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
12-22-2018 06:26 PM  7 months ago
TMoore

rrMaster

Cookeville, TN

MyPosts All Forum Topic
ChrisO
TMoore
while the FAA implements or tries to implement ADS-B onto RC models.
Actually, it's already implemented on UAV's, and it works. I have it on my commercial helicopter in the form of a PING 21si with Mode S transponder. It's not illegal to fly around airports with a UAV for Part 107. You just need ATC authorization and the proper equipment to fly in controlled airspace, identical to manned aircraft. It's only illegal for recreational pilots to fly around airports. And that was the intent of the law.

You're right that the FAA is big boys and they can figure it out. They've been doing it for many years. The US has the safest airspace in the world and it didn't happen thru anarchy.

The sudden influx of unmanned aircraft raised a new challenge because they have dozens of potential commercial uses. Especially in areas where UAV's are safer to fly and pose less risk to the general public and aircrews than manned aircraft operating in dangerous flight profiles. So the FAA has been tasked with integrating these unmanned aircraft into the NAS, safely, with manned aircraft. Which means defining airspace and establishing rules for separation in that airspace because the two don't mix.

Labeling one group of recreational pilots as "Drone Weenies" doesn't solve the problem. If the recreational RC world can't solve it on their own, they'll be regulated out of existence. Change is inevitable.
Great news about ADS-B then. I'm sure we'll all have it on our models in no time.

Are you just another fullsize pilot that likes to come on model forums and tell us how it's supposed to be done or are you a real modeler? Do you really think that just because you get your Part 107 that anyone should fly around an airport with permission or not? That's the type of hubris that has endangered the modeling community from the start with the proliferation of the Drone Weenie's in general. That's like a newly minted General class Amateur radio operator trying to work a CW DX contest with little to no CW skills or trying to do it with a decoder. The skills have to be there or you get pounded. A decoder won't cut it and you'll get found out quick. Same thing with the Drone Weenie's; they get their Part 107 and the vast majority of them have no LOS skills and are patently unsafe at any speed.

The Drone Weenie label fits. It is very appropriate because the FAA have unleashed a group of operators on to the landscape with little to no flying skills and no mechanism to learn them. They won't join a club, won't join the AMA and won't learn any type of flying skills that will make them safer and more responsible. IOW they are the "I want it now generation" at all costs with none of the effort to get real skills. I see this everyday in the work world. The biggest mistake that AMA made was trying to court the Drone Weenie's with insurance and other benefits and thinking they would do the right thing. AMA should have told the FAA to get stuffed and watch this thing snowball because that's what is going to happen. In the coming years we will be able to see the FAA bring new meaning to the term clusterf@@@. Which BTW is a highly technical military term much in the same vein as SNAFU.
Delayed Response Operator Not Engaged
AMA SECTION 336 = Gone, replaced by the FAA
Drones = EVIL
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  HOMEPAGE  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
12-22-2018 08:39 PM  7 months ago
Heli_Splatter

rrElite Veteran

USA

MyPosts All Forum Topic
UAVs
Seven Million sold, only a very few causing problems.
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
12-22-2018 08:53 PM  7 months ago
JuanRodriguez

rrProfessor

The Villages, Florida

MyPosts All Forum Topic
Here is the answer for all of the Drone Weenies out there....

Been there, done that and old enough to know better.....
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
12-22-2018 09:37 PM  7 months ago
ChrisO

rrNovice

Barron, WI USA

MyPosts All Forum Topic
TMoore
Great news about ADS-B then. I'm sure we'll all have it on our models in no time.
No, you won't have it on your models in no time. That's not the intent and I'm not sure who thought that up. But it's not true. Commercial UAV's will certainly have it as a requirement. It is the NextGen replacing radar in TRSA's and Class E airspace. But even so, not even all full-size aircraft are required to be equipped with ADS-B Out if they fly in Class G airspace. Just like now, all full-size do not have to be equipped with Mode C transponder with encoding altimeter. You only need that equipment if you fly in certain classes of airspace.
TMoore
Are you just another fullsize pilot that likes to come on model forums and tell us how it's supposed to be done or are you a real modeler?
I fly a couple scale models for fun. And I see a lot of modelers over-reacting to the law. The reactions vary from thinking they are the prima donna and nothing applies to them, to it's not gonna work anyway. This implies a basic misunderstanding of aviation in general. The primary focus of FAR's is commercial - it is billions of dollars every year to move people and commerce quickly, efficiently and safely. Secondary is regulating General Aviation so all can enjoy flying, but they have to stay out of the way of commercial operators. And again, enjoy flying safely. Unmanned aircraft have entered our airspace now, there is problems, and they must be dealt with. This is nobody's fault. It is an evolution of technology that brought it about.
TMoore
Do you really think that just because you get your Part 107 that anyone should fly around an airport with permission or not?
Yes. I do it all the time. We get hired to do various surveys with UAV that's safer to do than with a full-size helicopter around airports. Again, that's the intent of the law - to make sure the people doing it have the training to do it. We operate in a different world from modelers, hence the separation in pilot and equipment requirements.

OTOH, if I'm making an approach into an airport the last thing I want to see is a UAV flying in my airspace. It's not the Part 107 pilots we worry about. It's the recreational pilots that are the problem, either doing it intentionally, or unintentional because they don't know any better.
TMoore
The Drone Weenie label fits. It is very appropriate because the FAA have unleashed a group of operators on to the landscape with little to no flying skills and no mechanism to learn them.
No, it is not an appropriate label. It infers some sort of inferiority complex imposed by one group of recreational pilots to another.

The new law imposes very minor requirements on long-time recreational pilots. So you have to register your helicopter for $5, and take a test to fly it. This is a very small price to pay to give enforcement the bite of law. If a pilot takes the test he/she acknowledges that he/she at least knows what the rules are by passing the test. Now, if that pilot decides to break the rules anyway, it won't be the FAA showing up. It will be the cops. And they no longer show up and tell the person, "you can't do that because we said you can't." They have concrete grounds for making an arrest of somebody breaking federal aviation laws. All aviation infractions, no matter how small, are prosecuted in U.S. District Court. It is not a local or state thing.

Unlike the FCC, the FAA is an arm of US DOT. They have vast enforcement resources thru local and state law enforcement, and the FBI. But they do need the legal channels to establish the requirements for enforcing it, which is the intent of the law.
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
WATCH
 4 pages [ <<    <     1     ( 2 )     3      4     NEXT    >> ] 2314 views POST REPLY
HomeMy Site✈️Aircraft🚁HelicopterHelicopter Main Discussion › FAA authorization law and drones/model aircraft
 Print TOPIC  Make Suggestion 

 10  Topic Subscribe

Tuesday, July 23 - 9:35 pm - Copyright © 2000-2019 RunRyder   EMAILEnable Cookies

Login Here
 New Subscriptions 
 Buddies Online