Thread Tools
Oct 10, 2019, 05:38 PM
Registered User
speed2004's Avatar
Maybe we should be lobbying Congress to put a muzzle on the FAA dogs?
Sign up now
to remove ads between posts
Oct 10, 2019, 05:55 PM
Team Futaba
Silent-AV8R's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by speed2004
Maybe we should be lobbying Congress to put a muzzle on the FAA dogs?
Why? All the FAA is doing is implementing Section 349 as written by Congress. They are not doing anything on their own. What this latest flap is about is AMA is panicked that things are not going their way with respect to getting something other than what Congress wrote.
Oct 10, 2019, 09:29 PM
Registered User
kell490's Avatar
Thread OP
Even if you don't think it will change anything still click on the link and send in the email to your senator and congressmen.
Oct 10, 2019, 10:14 PM
Registered User
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottrc78
File under Part 107 as a drone pilot, then only THAT pilot and THAN drone can fly under the waiver.
And don't forget the requirements for getting a waiver even under 107. You need to read the FAAs mind to see what they're worried about, and then stroke them until they're calm. The sample they have includes things like a cell phone AND a satellite phone for contacting the local ATC, geofencing, a spotter, and various other things that will ruin your day.
Oct 10, 2019, 10:28 PM
Team Futaba
Silent-AV8R's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by kell490
Even if you don't think it will change anything still click on the link and send in the email to your senator and congressmen.
Already have.
Oct 11, 2019, 09:18 AM
Registered User
kingwoodbarney's Avatar
Every Air Traffic Control Center has an airspace specialist for every specialty, (cluster of sectors). Which means each Center has at least 5, but usually 6 airspace specialist. Their job is to adapt airspace to the user needs. Each Approach control has at least one airspace specialist. That means there are hundreds of FAA employees in this country whose job it is to modify procedures and airspace to suit the needs of users and to interface with adjoining facilities.

It is outrageous that one office in D.C. would have the authority to say "no". We will not allow hundreds of FAA employees to do their jobs. We will not allow them to develop LOA's. We will not allow the users to even make requests.

This is NOT how the FAA is suppose to work. When a user has a request the answer should be YES unless there is an operational reason why they can't do it . The philosophy has always been the default is YES. That's the attitude in the rank and file air traffic system. Its very sad to learn it is different when someone gets to Washington.

It sounds like there is a problem with the personnel in ATO at this time. I would like to learn specific names of the personnel associated with this decision.
Oct 11, 2019, 07:39 PM
Registered User
Quote:
Originally Posted by kingwoodbarney
This is NOT how the FAA is suppose to work. When a user has a request the answer should be YES unless there is an operational reason why they can't do it .
We're not users. We don't have airman's certificates, which is what makes you a legitimate user in the FAAs eyes. We're interlopers.
Oct 11, 2019, 10:10 PM
Registered User
To allow flights up to the ceiling of Class G is just unrealistic. Depending where the RC filed is located relative to airports in both distance and elevations could cause a safety hazard. For example, if the RC field and the airport are within 5 miles of each other and the RC field was at a higher elevation of 500 to 1000 feet above the airport elevation, then RC aircraft would be flying higher than the traffic pattern altitude of the airport.

If you were a greater distance from the airport or the airport was at a higher elevation than the RC field, then there may not be a problem. But, to establish a 700/1200 AGL general limit would not work in all cases.
Oct 11, 2019, 10:32 PM
Registered User
aeronaut999's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray93J
To allow flights up to the ceiling of Class G is just unrealistic. Depending where the RC filed is located relative to airports in both distance and elevations could cause a safety hazard. For example, if the RC field and the airport are within 5 miles of each other and the RC field was at a higher elevation of 500 to 1000 feet above the airport elevation, then RC aircraft would be flying higher than the traffic pattern altitude of the airport.

If you were a greater distance from the airport or the airport was at a higher elevation than the RC field, then there may not be a problem. But, to establish a 700/1200 AGL general limit would not work in all cases.
Of course it won't work in ALL cases. Some airports are in Class G airspace. A rc field located 1/10 of a mile away from the runway, in the same Class G airspace, would be a bad thing, regardless if it was cleared for operations to 100, 200, 400, 700, or 1200 feet.
Oct 11, 2019, 10:50 PM
Registered User
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray93J
To allow flights up to the ceiling of Class G is just unrealistic.
Didn't seem to be an actual problem until last year.
Oct 11, 2019, 11:09 PM
Registered User
kell490's Avatar
Thread OP
I sent an email to AMA asking what part of the 2018 FAA re-authorization act allows for the FAA to let hobbyist fly a UAS above 400 feet. Haven't heard back from them yet maybe next week. Congress put in a hard limit probably because they were told to by lobbyist who represented the commercial drone delivery business.

It will be a billion dollar business they want hobbyist to stay out of the way. If Congress wanted to just let the FAA figure it all out they would have just left it up to the FAA to write the rules. The video of transportation committee had panel of industry before it without anyone from the AMA there shows how they were shut out of the process Later the AMA claimed they were in the audience.

Should we blame the AMA no they did their best they don't have the experience, or the resources to fight off these other lobbyists who have had years on the hill. The only thing they can do now is try to get the law changed, but I suspect it will be difficult to do. Will people really stop flying above 400 feet with a model aircraft who knows how high it goes remote ID could stop that, but I suspect that will be nothing more then an app on your phone. If you fly at fixed site won't even need to do that since it will be known there. I think fixed sites within non class G airspace probably be most effected RC clubs far away from airports and aircraft who's going to be checking how high anyone goes.
Oct 11, 2019, 11:12 PM
Registered User
I'm expecting the result of all this to be the FAA not certifying the AMA as a CBO, declaring that there are no CBOs, thus no safety code, thus anyone who wants to fly needs a 107 full stop. Then the AMA will go back to saying "yes master".
Oct 11, 2019, 11:20 PM
Registered User
kell490's Avatar
Thread OP
According to the FAA own website they only have guidelines to fly up to 400 feet not regulation yet. They are saying until they can setup the CBO's that is what we are to follow. Maybe the AMA is correct the FAA will allow up to 1200 in some class G when the CBO's get setup. https://www.federalregister.gov/docu...anned-aircraft
Oct 11, 2019, 11:42 PM
Registered User
Quote:
Originally Posted by kell490
According to the FAA own website they only have guidelines to fly up to 400 feet not regulation yet. They are saying until they can setup the CBO's that is what we are to follow. Maybe the AMA is correct the FAA will allow up to 1200 in some class G when the CBO's get setup. https://www.federalregister.gov/docu...anned-aircraft

We have become a nation that does not understand DO NOT
I got my rights and no one is going to tell me what to do

FROM the POSTED WEBPAGE
Do not fly above 400 feet in uncontrolled (Class G) airspace
Oct 12, 2019, 05:22 AM
Registered User
Quote:
Originally Posted by longone
We have become a nation that does not understand DO NOT
I got my rights and no one is going to tell me what to do

FROM the POSTED WEBPAGE
Do not fly above 400 feet in uncontrolled (Class G) airspace
You got that right. Everything that has been documented by the FAA since 1981 has 400 AGL limit. Yes, some have been flying over 400 feet without a problem. The drone jackasses have shown how irresponsible people can be. The FAA is now regulating the hobby, we have to understand that. They have the responsibility for the safety of the NAS. You can say "yes but" all you want, the FAA has made it clear where this is going. Maybe, just maybe, the final regs will give clubs the ability to work with the local ATC to get higher altitudes. 700/1200 across the board is not going to happen.


Quick Reply
Message:

Thread Tools

Similar Threads
Category Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Discussion Senate Bill Could Ground Home-Built Drones; No Exceptions For Hobbyists Or Students Acer Life, The Universe, and Politics 31 Mar 20, 2016 04:38 AM
Discussion Some exceptions to FAA rules. RC Man FPV Talk 4 Jan 15, 2016 11:40 AM
Discussion FAA Altitude Limit and Sailplanes CV12Steve Sailplane Talk 21 May 14, 2015 07:49 PM
Discussion New FAA altitude limit--400 feet AeroHeadTW Electric Sailplanes 98 Aug 01, 2014 12:42 AM