Originally Posted by Sport_Pilot

We have been saying that "within the programming', is not a general requirement. And that it depends on what program. The one that matters most is general membership.

That said I don't think it should be just AMA part 101 or FAA part 107. The FAA has the power to put out rules for those that are not AMA members but do not fly commercially.

They have it, AC91-57. Anything in AMA SC that is relevant to safety in the NAS was lifted from that advisory nearly verbatim. Unfortunately it has been revised, and for some weird reason it now includes some of the CBO crap from Sec 338. It should be easy enough to take it back out after "within the programming of," the CBO language or Sec 338 in toto is scrapped by Congress. AMA won't be sneaking it into the FAA Re-authorization bill this time. They are being watched.

Originally Posted by franklin_m

WRONG.

Those were emails from the FAA, and per FAA's email policy:
"When are e-mail messages records? You should treat e-mail messages the same way you treat paper correspondence. "
"Do I have to manage incoming and outgoing e-mail as records? Yes, you should apply the standard described above to both incoming and outgoing e-mail."
"Are e-mail systems reliable enough for transmitting official messages? Yes, e-mail systems are highly reliable for transmitting messages."
"How can e-mail be an official record if it is not signed? A signature does not make something a record."

Clearly the FAA views emails as no different than written communications....

https://www.faa.gov/about/initiative...rds/faq/email/

e

STILL from the wrong office to be official FAA interpretation of the regulation.

helpdesk

part of the Administration & the staff represents the agency's policy, so as good as any other FAR rule

Originally Posted by Sport_Pilot

Working in one now! In engineering we write specifications and draw drawings for construction contractors to bid on. If we tell someone what the regulations mean it doesn't mean spit!

not familiar with the procedures of an Architect , /engineer , blueprints per say, but don't they have to be per code of whatever State, City whatever they are being constructed in ? and or wrote into the design of whatever is being constructed ( buildings-homes-roads-whatever ?)

say a wall has to be X feet and use X material and it is designed that way, does that have to be the rule in the blueprint drawings ?

whether or not the contractor does is not in question , isn't it written Within the designers plan that counts ? Rules-regulations etc ?

for example-in the U.S. must adhere to the International family of codes, specifically, the International Building Code (IBC) or, optionally for residential construction, the International Residential Code (IRC).

wrong office

take off is allowed

clear to operate that craft within the Model guidelines
Ref:MSG7615081

Originally Posted by kallend

e

STILL from the wrong office to be official FAA interpretation of the regulation.

So all those times I sat on a help desk on a government TS network and told a customer "Sorry but you can't do that."

I was in error simply because my office wasn't allowed to interpret the rules?







Bull!

Originally Posted by kallend

e

STILL from the wrong office to be official FAA interpretation of the regulation.

Thankfully, you do not get to decide. It's an individual decision, and I'm quite comfortable relying on the statements of the director and the multiple emails from his office consistent with his statement.

Originally Posted by KMK001

So all those times I sat on a help desk on a government TS network and told a customer "Sorry but you can't do that."

I was in error simply because my office wasn't allowed to interpret the rules?







Bull!

Reading comprehension is important. You should try it.

Originally Posted by franklin_m

Thankfully, you do not get to decide. It's an individual decision, and I'm quite comfortable relying on the statements of the director and the multiple emails from his office consistent with his statement.

"The director" is NOT the Chief Counsel of the FAA.

Originally Posted by kallend

Reading comprehension is important. You should try it.

I comprehend just fine. You're the one with no clue.

But we're use to that.

Originally Posted by kallend

"The director" is NOT the Chief Counsel of the FAA.

But has it ever occurred to you that the Director just might have talked to the Chief Counsel at some time and got their take on it all?

Got news for you, they do it ALL the time.

the Chief Counsel of the FAA

gives the directive to the UAS helpdesk, the director, the Safety Inspectors, etc.

Originally Posted by kallend

"The director" is NOT the Chief Counsel of the FAA.

Again, you don’t get to decide. He said they’d contacted their lawyers. That’s good enough for me.

comprehension is important

da dues disguised

The only exception to this rule is for those who fully participate in and follow the safety guidelines of a community-based organization such as AMA (this is known as Section 336 or the Special Rule for Model Aircraft). Anyone who is not following one of these two paths is breaking the law and should be held accountable for their actions. Unfortunately, many recreational drone pilots today don’t understand this.

http://amablog.modelaircraft.org/ama...ommercial-uas/

Even the chief council is not the be all end all of the subject. Was he not involved with the Taylor -FAA case? Isn't the FAA director his boss, or, at least have say in how he conducts himself? Hasn't courts overturned agency interpretations before?