Thread Tools
Oct 17, 2019, 03:30 PM
Registered User
kell490's Avatar
Thread OP
Discussion

LIVE from the FAA Drone Advisory Committee


3 part video live today of the FAA drone Advisory Committee meeting not a peep from AMA I saw Rich Hanson sitting at the table. All I heard was how bad drones have been one lady representing LAX Airport claimed they had 3000 drone incursions into their airspace had only caught one operator. The rest of them talked about how we need remote ID someone from Intel was going to sell a product which would be mandated by the FAA. The Airline pilots had a guy there at 1:14:50 minutes into the video he said they fly metal tubes around millions of people not one fatality, "Oh but wait one with the fan blade came apart" all he could remember. There are 3 videos here 2 more you can find on FAA YouTube Channel. Here is the first one.

LIVE from the FAA Drone Advisory Committee! (1 hr 21 min 59 sec)
Last edited by kell490; Oct 17, 2019 at 03:51 PM.
Sign up now
to remove ads between posts
Oct 17, 2019, 05:51 PM
BFMAC Founding Member
Kell, did this confab have any discussion of recreational drones in particular, apart from those regulated under part 107? It's a lot to sit through and watch, as you have. Just looking for summary of anything you may have found pertinent, though from what you mentioned it seems not. In part, I'm wondering why Hanson was there and is on the committee.
Oct 17, 2019, 07:38 PM
Registered User
A summary would be nice. I am burned out on this subject pretty much as I have followed it since the Charlottesville, VA saga. Attempted to get two clubs advised on the matter ( they took the "head in the sand" approach ) and decided this week to take a break from it for the most part.

Too many keyboard lawyers, too many that just "believe" some entity will come to the rescue and too many trolls. I am going to watch for a while and see what sifts down but remain aware of events.
Oct 17, 2019, 07:54 PM
Team Futaba
Silent-AV8R's Avatar
Skip to the end for hobby related section. Remote ID section just before worth it too.
Oct 17, 2019, 11:32 PM
Registered User
kell490's Avatar
Thread OP
There wasn't much on recreational flying it was all about industry wanting to fly the way they want BVLOS, and how remote ID might work so they could do it. What I saw was 99% of the people sitting at that table never picked up a remote control transmitter in their lifetime. I saw Rich Hanson falling asleep at 53:10. The woman from the FAA says the vast majority of Illegal drone sightings are "UN-confirmed" . This reminds me of UFO sightings.
LIVE from the FAA Drone Advisory Committee! Up next is the U.S. DOT Update, #DroneWeek and Remote ID (1 hr 2 min 26 sec)
Oct 18, 2019, 01:05 AM
AeroDan
So this is what prompted the FAA to impose the STRICT 400’ cap?
Oct 18, 2019, 06:33 PM
Registered User
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bell47G2
So this is what prompted the FAA to impose the STRICT 400 cap?
The FAA wants the strict 400' cap because it keeps the riff-raff (us) out of the way of Real Pilots, who are mostly at 500' and above. (I guess they have no love for helicopter operators). They've always wanted this.
Oct 18, 2019, 07:11 PM
Team Futaba
Silent-AV8R's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bell47G2
So this is what prompted the FAA to impose the STRICT 400 cap?
FAA has not done anything. Section 349 of P.L. 115-254 did it. All the FAA is doing is implementing the law as written by Congress. In fact, if they are allowing 400 in controlled airspace that may be more liberal than the grid altitude as published on the UASFM maps.

AMA is trying to make people believe that the FAA has done something here, and they have not, other to signal that they plan to ignore the AMA's pleading for higher altitude allowances.
Oct 18, 2019, 07:59 PM
Registered User
FAA AC 91-57 dated 1981 recommended 400 feet. Everything since then from the FAA has called for 400 feet. The AMA published a procedure to fly above 400 without the approval of the FAA. They did not ask for the FAA position because they did have to. Oct 2018, this all changed.
Oct 19, 2019, 12:11 AM
Registered User
kell490's Avatar
Thread OP
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray93J
FAA AC 91-57 dated 1981 recommended 400 feet. Everything since then from the FAA has called for 400 feet. The AMA published a procedure to fly above 400 without the approval of the FAA. They did not ask for the FAA position because they did have to. Oct 2018, this all changed.
The FAA must have had something on RC flying clubs inside 3 miles of non Class G airports the club I'm with said they had to get a LOA but hadn't for years did get one about 7 years ago.

Being my club is on county property the airport would complain to the county which would in turn hold the lease over the RC club. I'm still wondering where the AMA is getting 700 and 1200 feet from.
Oct 19, 2019, 12:18 AM
BFMA #13, aka Rogue 13
mongo's Avatar
wishful thinking
Oct 19, 2019, 12:20 AM
Team Futaba
Silent-AV8R's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by kell490
I'm still wondering where the AMA is getting 700 and 1200 feet from.
It's their Make-A-Wish dream of getting the FAA to play nice with them. They actually want more, but appear to be willing to settle for top of Class G likely with some caveats to account for specific local circumstance. This would only apply to fixed locations as well.

So far the FAA does not appear to be playing ball. Hence the panicked emails of this past week.
Oct 19, 2019, 01:49 AM
Registered User
kell490's Avatar
Thread OP
The only way I see fixing this is to start back with congress and get the law re-written to accommodate VLOS aircraft such as model aircraft.

What we need is the NRA for RC aircraft who can get business done in Washington.
Oct 19, 2019, 05:24 AM
Registered User
Quote:
Originally Posted by kell490
The FAA must have had something on RC flying clubs inside 3 miles of non Class G airports the club I'm with said they had to get a LOA but hadn't for years did get one about 7 years ago.

Being my club is on county property the airport would complain to the county which would in turn hold the lease over the RC club. I'm still wondering where the AMA is getting 700 and 1200 feet from.
It could be the AMA flying site in Munice is located in Class G with a ceiling of 700 feet. 400 feet could have dramatic impact on the event held there. I doubt they want a special case just for the AMA site, therefore they picked the limits of Class G 700/1200.

People need to start to use the correct terms, airports are either towered or non towered. Airspace is classified as A, B, C , D, E and G. Controlled and non controlled airspace has nothing to do with airports and towers. Class E and above is controlled, no matter where it is.
Oct 19, 2019, 11:36 AM
Registered User
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray93J
People need to start to use the correct terms, airports are either towered or non towered. Airspace is classified as A, B, C , D, E and G. Controlled and non controlled airspace has nothing to do with airports and towers. Class E and above is controlled, no matter where it is.
Even pilots aren't consistent here; they'll refer to an airport according to the class of airspace it is in. And class E is sort of weird, being subdivided into various subclasses and with VFR flights not requiring clearance.


Quick Reply
Message:

Thread Tools

Similar Threads
Category Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Discussion Watch the FAA Drone Advisory Committee in Action Thursday aeronaut999 Model Aircraft & Drone Advocacy 31 Oct 24, 2019 12:51 PM
Discussion FAA Seeks New Drone Advisory Group Members Papa Echo Model Aircraft & Drone Advocacy 7 Dec 27, 2018 10:50 AM
Discussion FAA Advisory Group *** 4/6/16 Update*** THEolfart Model Aircraft & Drone Advocacy 15 Apr 07, 2016 07:22 PM
Discussion Does This FAA Advisory Look Familiar? Rhea Model Aircraft & Drone Advocacy 6 Feb 07, 2016 11:21 PM