Does not look good. No other details yet, and this is only the first page.

Ah, the FAA again announcing rules outside the regulatory process. Guess since no one will hold them to it, it works for them

Originally Posted by nybbler

Ah, the FAA again announcing rules outside the regulatory process. Guess since no one will hold them to it, it works for them

Ummmm.... are you familiar with Section 349 of P.L. 115-254 signed into law last year?? They are not writing "new rules" and even if they did, the new law explicitly allows them to do so. All this memo does is instruct how they intend to move forward.

In case people are not familiar with UASFM here is the link. It shows grids in controlled airspace with a number in each one showing the max allowed altitude.

https://faa.maps.arcgis.com/apps/web...06ebf6a06754ad

Originally Posted by Silent-AV8R

Ummmm.... are you familiar with Section 349 of P.L. 115-254 signed into law last year?? They are not writing "new rules" and even if they did, the new law explicitly allows them to do so. All this memo does is instruct how they intend to move forward.

Section 349 is not self-implementing. The FAA, if it were to follow the law, has to actual write the regs and go through the notice-and-comment process. Just sending out memos doesn't do it.

The AMA is going to scream when they learn all sites within 2 miles of a runway are being shut down, too.

Well, Section 349 is actually law since it was not included in the Transitional exemption in Section 380 of P.L. 115-254. This according to what several aviation lawyers have written.

remember all those folks saying, well, we can just call the local tower for each and every flight to "inform" them, they will get tired of it and drop the idea...

well, they dropped the idea all right...

yall happy now?

Originally Posted by mongo

yall happy now?

I didn't call and was in violation. Now I'm still not going to call and still be in violation. Nothing's changed.

Originally Posted by Silent-AV8R;41853889}

In case people are not familiar with UASFM here is the link. It shows grids in controlled airspace with a number in each one showing the max allowed altitude.

[url

https://faa.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=9c2e4406710048e19806ebf6a06754ad[/url]

OK so what if there's no grid shown around someones local airport? It looks to me like any airport without a tower is not included.

The grids only show up on Class B, C, D, E (surface) airports with controlled airspace. Outside controlled airspace is generally Class G airspace and the altitude limits is 400 feet and no need to contact anyone.

Originally Posted by nybbler

The AMA is going to scream when they learn all sites within 2 miles of a runway are being shut down, too.

And all those outside 2 miles and inside the controlled airspace have to abide by the published altitude limits (most cases less than 400’ as I recall)

With class G capped at 400 feet by law, that looks like the future....

I gotta ask, since all this happened despite all the “AMA influence” I keep hearing about, at what point do we demand some kind of fundamental change in AMA? The people doing government affairs are clearly not getting the job done.

Originally Posted by franklin_m

And all those outside 2 miles and inside the controlled airspace have to abide by the published altitude limits (most cases less than 400’ as I recall)

With class G capped at 400 feet by law, that looks like the future....

I gotta ask, since all this happened despite all the “AMA influence” I keep hearing about, at what point do we demand some kind of fundamental change in AMA? The people doing government affairs are clearly not getting the job done.

Well, their influence is evident in that only AMA club sites are addressed in the memorandum. Big win for AMA!

Here is the entire document. Effective May 17, 2019

Originally Posted by abel pranger

Well, their influence is evident in that only AMA club sites are addressed in the memorandum. Big win for AMA!

So shut down inside two and capped at max of 400 feet or less inside controlled airspace and 400 in class “G” is a “win”?

I’d sure hate to see a loss!

And the fixed site exception, if it is one, is only until FAA realizes they can’t compel membership in private dues collecting organizations to enjoy privileges in public airspace.

I sent UASHelp an email moments ago asking a question that will highlight that issue.

Originally Posted by franklin_m

I gotta ask, since all this happened despite all the “AMA influence” I keep hearing about, at what point do we demand some kind of fundamental change in AMA? The people doing government affairs are clearly not getting the job done.

You are quite the hypocrite. You do everything you can to work against the AMA (and most modelers) and then turn around and demand their heads on a plate for not being effective.

I am very unhappy with the result, but then again I did not take great pleasure in working with my local Congress people to get some of the bad crap included in the law.

Originally Posted by Silent-AV8R

You are quite the hypocrite. You do everything you can to work against the AMA (and most modelers) and then turn around and demand their heads on a plate for not being effective.



I am very unhappy with the result, but then again I did not take great pleasure in working with my local Congress people to get some of the bad crap included in the law.

Not hypocritical at all.

Creating carve outs only for members of private dues collecting organizations is neither Constitutional nor proper. It creates two classes of citizens.

The policy objective that I have been and will continue to pursue is ALL citizens able to participate equally in the hobby whether or not they are members of private dues collecting organizations.

If AMA members can fly legally from a site inside controlled airspace, then non-AMA members need to be able to do they same from other sites inside controlled airspace.

Anything else creates two classes of citizens under the law, something case law clearly prohibits.

AMA should have been smarter than to pursue policy objects that will fail on legal challenge. They chose not to follow NRA and ARRL models, which is advocating for all participants - not just their members.

They knew or should have known their position was inconsistent with case law, which is why I think it’s long past time for a change in AMA leadership.