Thread Tools
Jun 11, 2019, 01:17 AM
Registered User
Quote:
Originally Posted by dougmc
I thought this law went into effect May 20th, 2019 and the "§ 44809. Exception for limited recreational operations of unmanned aircraft" section seems to include a blanket 400' AGL limit for hobbyists?

(And this article says this went into effect May 20th.)

If I'm understanding this correctly, 1) this is now law, not advisory, and 2) there are not currently any exceptions to the 400' limit for hobbyists.

Have I misunderstood something?

This looks like a disaster for anybody who's not flying at a formal club field, and for club fields too ... though at least club fields might get the restrictions relaxed at some point.
It seems to me that the AMA is not that interested in clarifying the issue but only wording things to imply that you need to be
a AMA member to exceed 400 feet.
Sign up now
to remove ads between posts
Jun 11, 2019, 01:50 AM
Team Futaba
Silent-AV8R's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by ira d
It seems to me that the AMA is not that interested in clarifying the issue but only wording things to imply that you need to be
a AMA member to exceed 400 feet.
I think that is accurate.
Jun 11, 2019, 03:28 AM
BFMA #13, aka Rogue 13
mongo's Avatar
i can agree with that.
Jun 11, 2019, 06:18 AM
Commander, U.S. Navy (Ret.)
franklin_m's Avatar
Thread OP
As of this morning, AMA has changed the language of the blog post (without noting of course that they've changed it). The 400 foot reference in class G is gone now. Just an obfuscatory statement about flying as we always have or some dribble.

Why can't (or won't) AMA make a clear and unambiguous statement? Answer, because they know it won't go over well. So instead, they say something that can be read to be permission but without explicitly giving permission, thus all the risk is the individual's not the AMA's.

That should be telling us all something about the nature of AMA leadership ... "You go take the risk while we watch..."

(added) This statement was removed over the last 24 hours:
"Flying sites and individuals flying in uncontrolled airspace (Class G) can continue to fly up to 400’ AGL ... (empahsis added)"
(added): https://amablog.modelaircraft.org/am...ement-process/
Last edited by franklin_m; Jun 11, 2019 at 06:37 AM. Reason: Added link & addes statement that was removed by AMA
Jun 11, 2019, 06:22 AM
BFMA #13, aka Rogue 13
mongo's Avatar
starting to appear as though the interim period where FAA told us to continue as usual while they worked out implementation is just about over, if not already done...
Jun 11, 2019, 06:27 AM
Multirotors are models too!
Quote:
Originally Posted by franklin_m
As of this morning, AMA has changed the language of the blog post (without noting of course that they've changed it). The 400 foot reference in class G is gone now. Just an obfuscatory statement about flying as we always have or some dribble.

Why can't (or won't) AMA make a clear and unambiguous statement? Answer, because they know it won't go over well. So instead, they say something that can be read to be permission but without explicitly giving permission, thus all the risk is the individual's not the AMA's.

That should be telling us all something about the nature of AMA leadership ... "You go take the risk while we watch..."
I know you think we all should be mind readers, or should know what regulation/topic/post you are referring to, but it really is common net-etiquette
to link to a topic you are commenting on. That way we don't have to guess what blog post, and keep the con fusion to a minimum.

So.... Link to AMA blog post????


And if it is the same link as in the first post, then say that......
Latest blog entry: Test entry
Jun 11, 2019, 06:34 AM
Commander, U.S. Navy (Ret.)
franklin_m's Avatar
Thread OP
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rusty105
I know you think we all should be mind readers, or should know what regulation/topic/post you are referring to, but it really is common net-etiquette
to link to a topic you are commenting on. That way we don't have to guess what blog post, and keep the con fusion to a minimum.

So.... Link to AMA blog post????


And if it is the same link as in the first post, then say that......
It's the same link as the first post. Sorry, thought that was what I meant.
Jun 11, 2019, 09:03 AM
Commander, U.S. Navy (Ret.)
franklin_m's Avatar
Thread OP
AMA has updated the blog post yet again, second time today. Now there is absolutely no mention of class G airspace at all now. Gee, you think they know something they're not sharing? Question is, why are they not sharing what they know?

https://amablog.modelaircraft.org/am...ement-process/
Jun 11, 2019, 09:10 AM
Team Futaba
Silent-AV8R's Avatar
Because it gave the wrong impression that the AC was a rule/regulation/law. ACs are not laws. The "applicable laws" you harp about are registration, TFR/restricted/prohibitive airspace, reckless operation, etc.
Jun 11, 2019, 09:13 AM
Multirotors are models too!
Seems existing sites with a LOA may be ok, from AMA blog....

Quote:
During this new LOA process, the FAA will honor any existing verbal or written agreement the club has with local ATC.
Latest blog entry: Test entry
Jun 11, 2019, 09:16 AM
Team Futaba
Silent-AV8R's Avatar
https://amablog.modelaircraft.org/am...ement-process/

AMA modified their blog post to accurately reflect that the AC 91-57B, and the 400-foot limit are not in fact law/rule/regulation.
Jun 11, 2019, 09:24 AM
Fire Marshall Bill
Well that's not true Rusty, or does the honoring of agreements only pertain in Class G? Apollo for example.
Jun 11, 2019, 09:29 AM
Registered User
radfordc's Avatar
I can say that in years past the FAA granted waivers to organizations, not individuals (exemptions to Part 103 to allow two seat UL trainer operations). The organizations then authorized members to use the exemption.

Perhaps this is how it will be done with the AMA? I can see the FAA saying, "OK, we have these organized groups that have a history of flying at fixed operating sites in accordance with a written safety code....I think we're good to grant a waiver to the 400 foot ceiling".
Latest blog entry: Assembling a Spandau kit.
Jun 11, 2019, 09:39 AM
Registered User
Question: will LAANC be permitted for fixed club sites in uncontrolled airspace with possible waiver for greater than 400 feet?
Jun 11, 2019, 09:58 AM
Multirotors are models too!
All good questions, and as usual FAA is silent.

@ Elmo Te , Just quoting what the AMA blog said
Latest blog entry: Test entry


Quick Reply
Message:

Thread Tools

Similar Threads
Category Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Discussion NASA's vision of 200' to 400' AGL SFBC Model Aircraft & Drone Advocacy 20 Sep 29, 2018 08:58 AM
Article AMA's Safety Code Trumps FAA's Acknowledgement of Safety Guidance Matt Gunn Model Aircraft & Drone Advocacy 486 Jul 06, 2018 08:46 PM
Rant Chicago Homicides up 70% in 2016! Dems refuse to acknowledge real racism in America! SKYPILEIT Life, The Universe, and Politics 109 May 15, 2016 06:29 PM
Discussion 400 AGL foot rule? Scott C Model Aircraft & Drone Advocacy 5 Dec 18, 2015 08:59 AM
Discussion Amazon proposes 200' AGL hobbyist limit CV12Steve Sailplane Talk 0 Jul 30, 2015 01:46 PM