Thread Tools
May 21, 2019, 02:52 PM
The Mr. Rogers of RC soaring
rdwoebke's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crashbound
There simply isn't available to us "different takes on the law". It isn't ambiguous, we are adding the ambiguity.
Are you a lawyer?


Ryan
Sign up now
to remove ads between posts
May 21, 2019, 03:04 PM
Registered User
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdwoebke
Are you a lawyer?


Ryan
No, are you? There ya go.

So seriously, explain to me Ryan why the 400' altitude limitation for recreational flyers that was written into the legislation and signed into law last year, may not actually mean 400' altitude limitation for recreational flyers? And does the FAA who is charged with implementing and enforcing that which has been written into law per the legislation they at least had a hand in drafting, have the authority to redefine the law to apply to some instances, individuals, organizations, and not apply to others? Do they have that authority?

Seriously I want to know. Because if, per the law, we won't be limited by a 400' altitude restriction or the law doesn't actually mean 400' , then I am embarrassingly inept at comprehension.
May 21, 2019, 03:46 PM
Registered User
How many clubs met with their Representative or Senator? If they wanted to have impact they should set up meeting with their representative. Our club did with Representative. Writing letters is well and good but talking to a person face to face is better. It is better late than never to meet with them. Maybe most will not take the time but it is worth a try.

The limit is not just a problem in our country and the rest of the world seem to adapt.

The worst is yet to come when drones are being used to make deliveries. There are millions of drones out there flying and they do not care about 400 ft or any rules. Let see FPV drone does not cost much and it may not pay any attention to height or distance.

RC sailplanes are small fish in a big pond.

In my old free flight days I've had planes returned 20, 30 miles from the field when DT did not work. I do not know how high my plane went when it was caught in a dust devil. In 20 seconds it was out of site.

Plan on flying in a contest this week end.

Art
May 21, 2019, 04:02 PM
Registered User
Quote:
Originally Posted by old1104


Plan on flying in a contest this week end.

Art
So am I. We're all setting our CAM devices for 400' cutoff.
May 21, 2019, 04:09 PM
That thing almost hit me
Tahoed's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crashbound
So am I. We're all setting our CAM devices for 400' cutoff.
Good idea. That will keep those pesky planes under 400 ft. for sure...
May 21, 2019, 04:13 PM
Registered User
Quote:
Originally Posted by tahoed
good idea. That will keep those planes under 400 ft. For sure...:d
Name: download.jpg
Views: 0
Size: 11.4 KB
Description:
May 21, 2019, 04:55 PM
Registered User
We all will fly and enjoy while we can.

Art
May 21, 2019, 05:00 PM
The Mr. Rogers of RC soaring
rdwoebke's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crashbound
No, are you? There ya go.
If neither of us are lawyers then how do we decide who's legal opinion is accurate when our legal opinions don't match?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crashbound
So seriously, explain to me Ryan why the 400' altitude limitation for recreational flyers that was written into the legislation and signed into law last year, may not actually mean 400' altitude limitation for recreational flyers? And does the FAA who is charged with implementing and enforcing that which has been written into law per the legislation they at least had a hand in drafting, have the authority to redefine the law to apply to some instances, individuals, organizations, and not apply to others? Do they have that authority?
We established you and I are not lawyers. I'm pretty sure the FAA has lawyers. The AMA posted this regarding a meeting they had with the FAA after the president signed the re auth bill:

https://amablog.modelaircraft.org/am...reauthorizion/

They said the FAA told them to share with their members a guidance of status quo for the time being. My belief given that I believe the FAA has lawyers is they wouldn't have said that to the AMA if that isn't accurate. I also believe the AMA has legal counsel and I believe that counsel would be against them posting a lie to the AMA website. Given those beliefs then I believe that means that until the FAR is republished none of this is legally binding. I could be wrong on that of course but that is my read of things.




Ryan
May 21, 2019, 06:51 PM
Registered User
John Lueke's Avatar
Ryan
Go back to the first post in this thread that has a link to the FAA memo to ATC. It says that in the summer the LAANC system will be used to authorize recreational flights for the fixed sites in controlled airspace, but no, none, zip etc authorizations will be authorized for recreational flights above 400ft in uncontrolled airspace. It also says “all recreational flyers” in another paragraph. The only mention of the AMA is in reference to the fixed flying sites in controlled airspace. It also says that implementation and following the guidance in the memo is part of their job description. This is all pretty strong language. Now if we we could get a leaked copy of the memo to the FSDOs we would have a clearer picture of the overall situation. But none of this matches the optimism be published by the AMA.
If it was going so well, why has it been six months since the law passed and the AMA has not been recognized as a CBO? Could it be that the FAA will not approve a safety plan that allows flying over 400ft?
May 21, 2019, 06:56 PM
Registered User
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Lueke
Ryan
Go back to the first post in this thread that has a link to the FAA memo to ATC. It says that in the summer the LAANC system will be used to authorize recreational flights for the fixed sites in controlled airspace, but no, none, zip etc authorizations will be authorized for recreational flights above 400ft in uncontrolled airspace. It also says “all recreational flyers” in another paragraph. The only mention of the AMA is in reference to the fixed flying sites in controlled airspace. It also says that implementation and following the guidance in the memo is part of their job description. This is all pretty strong language. Now if we we could get a leaked copy of the memo to the FSDOs we would have a clearer picture of the overall situation. But none of this matches the optimism be published by the AMA.
If it was going so well, why has it been six months since the law passed and the AMA has not been recognized as a CBO? Could it be that the FAA will not approve a safety plan that allows flying over 400ft?
Yes
May 21, 2019, 06:59 PM
Registered User
AMA doesn't care about us...soaring is dead...its all about the catering to Drones now, that's where the money is..they probably figure if they dont tell us the 400' ceiling is a done deal we'll all pay our membership renewal at least one more time
May 21, 2019, 07:05 PM
Sonoran Laser Art

Drone Testing by NASA in Reno


I saw a news clip today on TV. It was stated that NASA says there is going to be 100's of 1000's of drones in the air. NASA is testing and determining when where they can fly and provide a recommendations to the FAA.

https://www.ktvn.com/story/40510988/...sting-in-reno1

https://www.cnbc.com/video/2019/05/2...s-in-reno.html

Check it out
May 21, 2019, 07:31 PM
The Mr. Rogers of RC soaring
rdwoebke's Avatar
Hey John, great hearing from you as always.

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Lueke
Go back to the first post in this thread that has a link to the FAA memo to ATC. It says that in the summer the LAANC system will be used to authorize recreational flights for the fixed sites in controlled airspace, but no, none, zip etc authorizations will be authorized for recreational flights above 400ft in uncontrolled airspace.
I read it. I also read the response to this that the AMA posted on their website: https://amablog.modelaircraft.org/am...rol-education/ where they said that they contacted the FAA about this memorandum and that the FAA said that AMA members can continue to fly within the rules of the safety code as before for at least the time being.

I totally respect if you and others are reading the situation differently. I'm just posting how I am reading the situation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Lueke
If it was going so well, why has it been six months since the law passed and the AMA has not been recognized as a CBO? Could it be that the FAA will not approve a safety plan that allows flying over 400ft?
John you have worked with the AMA and with the FAA in previous working groups. You have specific evidence this is the case? Or is this speculation?



Ryan
May 21, 2019, 07:44 PM
Registered User
John Lueke's Avatar
Speculation.
May 21, 2019, 07:56 PM
Registered User
Randy Reynolds's Avatar
Those are pretty chilling news stories. I have always suspected that the Amazon drone delivery scheme was just smoke and mirrors. Maybe not. So if there are millions of commercial drones across the country controlled by sophisticated software, why wouldn’t what happens in a similar technology in RC Soaring find more acceptance with the powers that be?

Maybe we should develop delivery bays in our sailplanes.


Quick Reply
Message:

Thread Tools

Similar Threads
Category Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Discussion December Jobs Report - Good News, Bad News Pipemajor Life, The Universe, and Politics 8 Jan 05, 2019 01:50 AM
Bug Good news My Ads works now, tnx, bad news? scale_only Site Suggestions / Complaints 2 Dec 02, 2016 05:00 AM
Discussion Now This Is Good News. Bad News For Stupid Multi Rotor Pilots skip63 Model Aircraft & Drone Advocacy 3 Jun 02, 2016 01:07 AM
Discussion Bad News + Bad News + Bad News = Good News - Go Figure???? cheap daddy Electric Plane Talk 10 Jun 01, 2015 03:02 PM
Discussion It SOUNDS like the good news is, the bad news isn't so bad. dll932 Life, The Universe, and Politics 0 Mar 04, 2014 09:19 AM