Originally Posted by swarick

UPDATE#6

Guys,
Just received a call from AMA headquarters. The FAA has been in contact with them, and agrees with us in our situation with the Chandler tower. They, the FAA, will be contacting the tower today to "set him straight"
The FAA will notify the AMA once this has been done, and then we will be notified.

Thank you for your patience. Hopefully I will be posting the "Launch the fleet " message before Saturday.



Rick H.

So what is it exactly we are waiting on?

Based on the updates and reviewing FAA Part 107 and Section 336, I don't understand what the issue is?

I will speak for myself but I am not flying under Part 107. I am not compensated for my flying ability or lack thereof. I am not flying any aircraft more than 100MPH, nor beyond 400' AGL. I can go on and on re Part 107.

My planes and heli do not fall under Part 107, I, like everyone that I know, are flying under Section 336. I fly strictly for hobby or recreational use, I am not compensated. None of my aircraft are over nor near 55 pounds. I operate in accordance with community based set of safety guidelines and within the programming of a nationwide community based organization AMA. I operate in a manner that does not interfere with and give way to any manned aircraft. And we all know about tower notification. Yes, notification, not request for permission.

Based on previous updates, FSDO says we are good, AMA says we are good, FAA DC says we are good.

Please inform us specifically what we are waiting on and how can we be of assitance? I along with many others are ready and willing to make phone calls, send emails, whatever it is to not further delay our quickly eroding time to enjoy GQF.

Another question, when you meet with Gilbert Parks, are you planning on discussing with them a new location? I am hoping we can start discussions and planning now.

AZ Heli Crasher,

I agree with what you said about Part 107. I agree we are hobbyists. The FSDO agrees with us. The AMA agrees with us. Big FAA supposedly agrees with us. So what's the problem?

The problem is an order known as: Order JO 7200.23 that has a clause in it that says that if operating within 5 miles of an airport and the airport facility determines that you are a safety hazard they can deny the operation. FAA, FSDO, AMA, and myself agree that we are excluded as hobbyists, but the tower chief is still insisting that this order gives him the authority to make a blanket declaration that we are safety hazard. By the way I just found out from another member that the Williams tower is also interpreting this regulation incorrectly.

I was informed on Thursday by the AMA Governmental Affairs guys that they had spoken to big FAA, and that they (FAA) would be calling the tower chief Thursday or Friday. They promised to get back to me as soon as they heard that it had been done. I didn't hear anything Friday, and then the weekend happened. Tomorrow is Monday, and I will once again be on the phone trying to get a definitive ruling on what calls were made, and as to wether this matter is settled.

I have had several members ask me why we cant just fly if we are so confident we are right. Well the easy answer is Part 336 which requires notification is not in dispute, and we must call and notify. The tower folks will then say no you cant. If we ignore them I fear this particular gentleman will raise a stink with our landlords, the Town of Gilbert. And I am not confident that given a public relations stink the town would side with us. Our already short tenure could become even shorter.

I don't know that there is anyone you can call, email, or speak to that has any bearing on this that I haven't already spoken to. If you have the FAA chief's number and want to pass it to me I can call him. He has my same last name so maybe he will take my call.

Long story short. What specifically are we waiting for? We are waiting for confirmation that the FAA has corrected this gentleman's interpretation of the regulation. Then, and only then, will I speak to him again, and notify him we are resuming operations.

I don't know what else I can tell you.

Rick H.

Almost forgot. As to your final point concerning a new field.

Yes I plan on bringing it up at my meeting Tuesday. There was a site available when we picked our current location.. It is right across the street from Williams/Gateway airport. (What could possibly go wrong) I don't know if it is still available or if the city has other land available.

Rick H.

Your earlier post #95 sounds right on the money from what I got told today by the tower at Chandler Municipal and Williams Gateway and got a lengthy explanation as to Why we are being denied ops, plus they are now required by FAA to collect individuals Name, Phone #, FAA # , Number and type of aircraft, How long Flying, and Location and record it all on an official FAA record form.

I was on the phone with the tower for about 45 minutes, also that they really despise having to do that and how much a hassle it is for them since they have more important things to do than fill out forms about RC pilots calling in to notify. I'm sure that has a lot to do with the new general "Safety" blanket call they have now made...and now have ceased our operations to make their life a little more hassle free.

One of their big concerns, as it was expressed to me, is what they are calling "Loss Link" (Loosing radio Communications with the aircraft) and it being a safety hazard to air traffic and personnel safety.

NOTE: I was also not denied flight ops until after he recorded all my information I was asked to give him.

Brandon
Another misreading of the regulations concerning information to be collected. As modelers operating from a FIXED location they can opt for a blanket one time letter of agreement type of notification.

The loss of link is also applicable to commercial UAS operations. As modelers we are exempt.

Rick H

Originally Posted by swarick

Brandon
Another misreading of the regulations concerning information to be collected. As modelers operating from a FIXED location they can opt for a blanket one time letter of agreement type of notification.

The loss of link is also applicable to commercial UAS operations. As modelers we are exempt.

Rick H

I agree with you....I've read through it all myself, but just posting what I was told and required to do....

Plus I work at Williams Gate Way Airport.... and they are backing up and supporting Chandler Municipal in this call.

It's all to apparent that the "Gray Area" and this "Order JO 7200.23" is being taken advantage of here.

Originally Posted by tallhalf

rick, i just checked my email, no notices received, i know you have my email address???

You all should have received and email from: gilbertquietfliers@gmail.com. I received many thank you's so know that it went out to the majority.

Check your junk mail and save as a contact so it won't go to Junk next time if that was the case.

If you did not receive one please send an email to that address with your name so I can update the list. Some of the membership forms were tough to read if I made a mistake I apologize.

Shannon Gallagher
GQF Secretary

email with my email address sent

Thanks Shannon

As former prez, PLEASE let the board do their job. They are far from stupid and always work on behalf of us.
Also, READ THE THREAD before posting. The info is usually there.
Rick did a good job cleaning up this thread last week and BTW, there is never a reason to say PM sent to a board member. If you sent it they got it. It just adds yet another post for others to read when playing catchup and the thread moderator spends sometimes more time deleting a thread (cleaning up) than the person spent that posted such.

Ugly Rick

Originally Posted by rampman

As former prez, PLEASE let the board do their job. They are far from stupid and always work on behalf of us.
Also, READ THE THREAD before posting. The info is usually there.
Rick did a good job cleaning up this thread last week and BTW, there is never a reason to say PM sent to a board member. If you sent it they got it. It just adds yet another post for others to read when playing catchup and the thread moderator spends sometimes more time deleting a thread (cleaning up) than the person spent that posted such.

Ugly Rick

PLEASE let the members make statements and ask questions. They are far from stupid and you do work for them.

I believe we work together here. I believe we are very thankful for the work being done by Rick. I have read some great questions and learned more than I ever wanted to know on this subject.

I certainly understand that questions will come up.

If "be patient" was meant as an end all thoughts and conversations then close the thread and only post updates.

Originally Posted by FM

PLEASE let the members make statements and ask questions. They are far from stupid and you do work for them.

I believe we work together here. I believe we are very thankful for the work being done by Rick. I have read some great questions and learned more than I ever wanted to know on this subject.

I certainly understand that questions will come up.

If "be patient" was meant as an end all thoughts and conversations then close the thread and only post updates.

Well said....I agree.

UPDATE #8

Just received emails from both the FSDO and HQ AMA.
They both stated they were told the SW Regional UAS office of the FAA was going to contact the tower SOON. This is also what they told me last Thursday.
After what Brandon Moon posted above about the Williams tower guys doing the same as the Chandler tower person, this issue appears to be bigger than just one person.

I wish I had better news to share.

On another note. If you know other members that may not be up to date on what is going on , please point them to this thread.

Rick H.

Thanks Rick for the follow up and up date. Much appreciated

I'm going out this week after work and this weekend to scout possible new possible locations outside the 5 mile perimeter of each towers to avoid this delima....looking out in the queen creek area and south gilbert

Any further Away And I won't be going out to that gqf. F.a.a. is ruining r.c. for me.