Thread Tools
Oct 07, 2019, 01:32 AM
Team Futaba
Silent-AV8R's Avatar
Thread OP
Discussion

Looks Like Bad News from FAA coming.


Eric Williams posted this today:

Quote:
Here's the news...

In recent weeks negotiations for various Letters of Agreement (LOAs) for AMA clubs in controlled airspace, as required by new federal legislation, are not going as well as expected.

It appears that the Air Traffic Organization (ATO) within the FAA will be arbitrarily setting 400 feet as the maximum altitude allowed at all sites within controlled airspace. The FAA also appears to be ready to set certain unilateral and unrealistic limits in Class G, uncontrolled airspace. These actions do not meet previous assurances given to AMA. Many AMA members who fly aerobatic, soaring, sailplanes, jets, IMAC, pattern, and other classes that require higher altitudes to operate will be significantly affected if not grounded. A 400 foot limit will also adversely affect training activities at many local club fields.

A call to action email to all AMA members is scheduled to be issued tomorrow, Monday, October 7, 2019. It is critical that everyone respond and contact their representatives in Congress to express dissatisfaction with the FAA's intentions. The call to action email message will include call to action instructions.

AMA members, friends, family, and anyone else may contact their representatives to voice their objections to the expected limits. Please encourage all your contacts to take action!

Best regards,
Eric
Sign up now
to remove ads between posts
Oct 07, 2019, 03:15 AM
Registered User
I would like to see what the FAA's plans are for Class G airspace. What would be some of the unrealistic limits?
Oct 07, 2019, 04:32 AM
Registered User
smoothvirus's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorfolkSouthern
I would like to see what the FAA's plans are for Class G airspace. What would be some of the unrealistic limits?
Probably something like this:

Quote:
The flight limit will be zero feet AGL. You little pissants don't deserve to use our nations precious airspace. Please report to the local landfill with all your flying models so they can be mulched.
...or something to that effect.
Oct 07, 2019, 06:10 AM
Commander, U.S. Navy (Ret.)
franklin_m's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Silent-AV8R
Eric Williams posted this today:
Wow. Go figure. FAA following the law that Congress wrote. And AMA, for MONTHS, painting an unrealistically rosy picture. Let's see, has that ever happened before? Let me check. Oh yeah...
- Registration requirement for AMA members
- Preserving 336
- No impact from new FAA bill
- Continue flying "as always have"
Last edited by franklin_m; Oct 07, 2019 at 08:32 AM.
Oct 07, 2019, 06:12 AM
Registered User
I would also like to see the term unrealistic limits defined. The FAA has been saying 400 feet since 1981. AC 91-57B has 400 feet. There has been a lot of talk about waivers; this would suggest these will not be part of the final regulations. My bet is Eric definition of unrealistic is 400 feet.
Oct 07, 2019, 06:35 AM
Commander, U.S. Navy (Ret.)
franklin_m's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by franklin_m
Wow. Go figure. FAA following the law that Congress wrote. And AMA, for MONTHS, painting an unrealistically rosy picture. Let's see, has that ever happened before? Let me check. Oh yeah...
- Registration requirement for AMA members
- Preserving 336
- No impact from new FAA bill
- Continue flying "as always have"
My point in this is that AMA has a well established pattern. Something happens related to laws, regulations, etc. They meet with the FAA, lawmakers, etc. repeatedly. For months the AMA communicates to members how much they're accomplishing, how they've been assured, etc. And then, REPEATEDLY, what actually gets published, written into law, etc. is considerably different than the picture AMA painted for members.

As I've said before, government does not do these things w/o clearly communicating their intentions beforehand. So it's my opinion that there are two possible reasons for this:
Reason 1. Those AMA officials meeting with government reps are not perceiving the signals the FAA and others are sending. In other words, they're in over their heads. Big picture, that means that membership dollars are being given to someone, in the form of a salary, for work they're clearly unable to do. The money is effectively wasted. Or...

Reason 2. Those AMA officials meeting with government reps are properly perceiving the signals, but the EC and other AMA leaders are deliberately choosing to communicate something different to members. To me, that is much more serious. These "negotiations", talks, etc. have been ongoing for MONTHS, and yet the EC is about to drop this info now? AFTER the flying season? AFTER the spike in renewals they probably see in the spring? And why is that important? Think revenue flow to Taj-Muncie.
So pick one ... either incompetence or deceit.
Last edited by franklin_m; Oct 07, 2019 at 08:32 AM.
Oct 07, 2019, 08:43 AM
Hey Guys, Watch This.......
mike2663's Avatar
"In recent weeks negotiations for various Letters of Agreement (LOAs) for AMA clubs in controlled airspace, as required by new federal legislation, are not going as well as expected."

Not surprised one bit. It's bee one disappointment after another from the AMA and this one just in time for the AMA election .

Mike.
Oct 07, 2019, 09:17 AM
Registered User
Here is another of the AMA predictions that will also turn out not to be true.

"FAA testing boards seem to agree that the proposed tests need to be on the level of a 13-year-old. Eric has worked with the FAA from the perspective of a modeler. He expects the testing result to be something along the line of possibly a 1-hour informational presentation and then the test.
Oct 07, 2019, 09:19 AM
Team Futaba
Silent-AV8R's Avatar
Thread OP
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorfolkSouthern
I would like to see what the FAA's plans are for Class G airspace. What would be some of the unrealistic limits?
I take this to mean that they plan to enforce 400-feet agl as the highest altitude in Class G airspace per Section 349.
Oct 07, 2019, 09:22 AM
Team Futaba
Silent-AV8R's Avatar
Thread OP
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray93J
I would also like to see the term unrealistic limits defined. The FAA has been saying 400 feet since 1981. AC 91-57B has 400 feet. There has been a lot of talk about waivers; this would suggest these will not be part of the final regulations. My bet is Eric definition of unrealistic is 400 feet.
There are no "final regulations." Section 349 set 400 feet agl as the max altitude allowed in Class G airspace. The post appears to indicate that any waivers AMA was hoping to secure will not happen. But again, this is a done deal. There are no regulations that need to be written. Section 349 establishes a set of conditions that if followed exempt a person from complying with Part 107.
Oct 07, 2019, 09:58 AM
BFMAC Founding Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Silent-AV8R
There are no "final regulations." Section 349 set 400 feet agl as the max altitude allowed in Class G airspace. The post appears to indicate that any waivers AMA was hoping to secure will not happen. But again, this is a done deal. There are no regulations that need to be written. Section 349 establishes a set of conditions that if followed exempt a person from complying with Part 107.
AMA got just what they asked for in their the end run around FAA. Congress makes the rules now.
Oct 07, 2019, 11:05 AM
Registered User
First call of action to membership should be to one set of lawyers to rid us of current AMA leadership.

Second call should be to another set of lawyers to take on the FAA.

My only consulation is I get to gloat at the members of two clubs that blew me off everytime I brought this situation up. I lost friends and left one club.
Oct 07, 2019, 11:14 AM
Hey Guys, Watch This.......
mike2663's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by roids
First call of action to membership should be to one set of lawyers to rid us of current AMA leadership.

Second call should be to another set of lawyers to take on the FAA.

My only consulation is I get to gloat at the members of two clubs that blew me off everytime I brought this situation up. I lost friends and left one club.
They already have a lawsuit that's going nowhere fast. When I questioned them for a update on it I was told "it's complicated" .....LOL

Mike
Oct 07, 2019, 11:24 AM
Registered User
Did the AMA just wake up?
By the way, a week or so back I downloaded the list of "blue dot" sites. Non was approved for over 400 feet. One as low as 50 foot. I have no problem with 400 foot, I usually top out around 200. 50 foot, I would have to work at.
Oct 07, 2019, 11:33 AM
Commander, U.S. Navy (Ret.)
franklin_m's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by mike2663
They already have a lawsuit that's going nowhere fast. When I questioned them for a update on it I was told "it's complicated" .....LOL

Mike
Yeah, standard AMA response to members who ask questions:
"You, the 'unwashed masses' couldn't possibly understand ... by the way, have you sent your payment in yet?"


Quick Reply
Message:

Thread Tools

Similar Threads
Category Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Discussion Don't assume what comes up as current news from Google is, in fact, current news. rcposter Life, The Universe, and Politics 0 Jan 15, 2018 07:39 PM
Discussion FAA registration is a joke(coming from a law enforcement perspective) Wreckn Model Aircraft & Drone Advocacy 64 May 29, 2016 01:32 PM
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
Bad news! New big brushless motors and ESCs are coming out in 2 months! jetkkman Electric Heli Talk 27 Aug 03, 2006 12:45 PM