Go Back  RCU Forums > RC Airplanes > AMA Discussions
Reload this Page >

Ending mini-lawyering ... is it past time for AMA to require members follow the law?

Notices
AMA Discussions Discuss AMA policies, decisions & any other AMA related topics here.

Ending mini-lawyering ... is it past time for AMA to require members follow the law?

Old 05-22-2020, 04:35 AM
  #1  
franklin_m
Thread Starter
 
franklin_m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 3,497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default Ending mini-lawyering ... is it past time for AMA to require members follow the law?

In other forums, the subject of "mini-lawyering" has come up as something that undermines AMA credibility with the FAA. The premise is simple. On one hand, AMA is telling FAA, Congress, the media, and the public that it's members are not the problem. On the other hand, they are tacitly, if not openly, looking the other way at blatant violations of law. It seems to me that in order to interact with FAA and other stakeholders, and EARNING credibiility, would be to ensure that members' actions match the rhetoric. And I argue that starts by making AMA policy explicit instead of allowing the ambiguity to encourage the mini-lawyering and non-compliance with law - the latter which will always serve as a "stick to beat us with" by others.

Public Law 115-254 amended 49 US Code Chapter 448 and added section 44809, Exceptions for limited recreational unmanned aircraft. By exceptions, its referring to exceptions from the FARs. All arguments as to whether this language has force of law or not are moot. Link appended below as note 1 is from US House official site for US Code (Law). 49 USC 448 S44809(a)(6) states the following, clearly and unambiguously:
"In Class G airspace, the aircraft is flown from the surface to not more than 400 feet above ground level and complies with all airspace restrictions and prohibitions."
With that in mind, is it time for AMA to establish and enforce three simple policies, both of which should be added to the "safety code":
(1) It is a condition of AMA individual or site insurance that AMA members explicitly comply with the FARs and specifically 49 USC 448.

(2) Contest Directors, when acting in their official capacity as a "representative of the Academy of Model Aeronautics," shall ensure events comply 49 USC 448 as a condition of sanction and insurance coverage.

(3) Clubs, as a condition of insurance coverage, shall ensure that members comply with 49 USC 448.
That way, the AMA can not only SAY that their members are not lawbreakers, but can PROVE it with policies that explicitly require following the law.


Note 1: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?...edition=prelim

Last edited by franklin_m; 05-22-2020 at 06:08 AM.
Old 05-22-2020, 09:16 AM
  #2  
jcmors
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Yankton, SD
Posts: 191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Agreed that for the sake of credibility and demonstrating that we are responsible modelers, it would be best to encourage adherence to the rules. I have found this to be true in any area of life, superiors and rules or ways of doing things at my job, rules and regulations imposed by a government agency, etc.

There is nothing wrong with having the opinion that regulations need to be changed or adjusted and working towards such adjustments. The specific individual LOAs that are negotiated with the FAA on a case by case basis allowing flight somewhat higher than the 400' limit at a specific field is a good example. The concept is to follow the rules as they exist until such time as you can affect the changes. I believe there is a greater chance that the Authority we need to deal with in these issues will be much more likely to sit down at the table and discuss potential changes with us if we show that we are following the regulations as they exist. This gives the impression that any exceptions we agree to will be followed and adhered to as well making it more likely that the regulating agency (the FAA in this case) will be willing to listen to proposals.

Seems like sound logic to me!

So, we believe that there should be a retrofit option to RID devices for our legacy models. It seems the FAA doesn't trust us to actually install such a retrofit device into our models, perhaps because we haven't followed the rules they have set in other areas. If we show that we are willing to follow the existing rules, that lends itself to the perception that we will follow any changes we propose if those changes are considered.

Last edited by jcmors; 05-22-2020 at 09:21 AM.
Old 05-22-2020, 10:03 AM
  #3  
rgburrill
 
rgburrill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Dallas, Tx CT
Posts: 2,358
Received 18 Likes on 17 Posts
Default

Couldn't agree more. I live in the Dallas area and have on several occasions flown into DFW from the Northwest. There is a field on Grapevine Lake just a few miles to the northwest of DFW on where I understand they regularly hold large aircraft meets. How they keep these things below 400 feet is beyond me. And DFW runway 31R points straight towards it.
Old 05-22-2020, 04:35 PM
  #4  
init4fun
 
init4fun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 3,573
Received 13 Likes on 10 Posts
Default

I'm sorry Franklin , but with all due respect , I think your reaching a bit too far here . You don't have to read all that much of the AMA safety code to find verbiage specifically relating to following all local and federal laws while flying as an AMA member . Sure , it uses the same kind of language as was found back in AC 91-57 where the FAA themselves used "should" where most would think they should have used "must" , but make no mistake the language is there , you should* be following all applicable laws while flying as an AMA member .

* "Should" being a word that I believe is being used by both the AMA and FAA in a manner of "You should , or else face the consequences of non compliance" .....



Old 05-22-2020, 04:47 PM
  #5  
Hydro Junkie
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Marysville, WA
Posts: 8,350
Likes: 0
Received 22 Likes on 22 Posts
Default

I like it, though Muncie won't. As you said, Franklin, it takes the "Our members are following the safety code" out of the equation. You know, however, the "Muncie Minions(I thought that was cute and appropriate, considering how many times I've been called a Franklin Minion) will try to find a way to spin it as anti-AMA, just like has been said in most of the other threads you've started.
Init, I think the verbage of the laws given kind of overrules the "should" in the AMA's safety code and shows that the "should" is nothing more than a way for the AMA to bypass that particular point and allows them to say "We are following the law and the safety code" when, in actuality, they aren't. I know, it's semantics and many will argue the point but, when you read the laws, as written, the word should does not apply. BTW, did you notice that the article you showed in your post talks about section 336 and both the 2012 and 2016 appropriations? Neither one now applies with the passing of the latest bill.
Been thinking about the RID issue. Something I've not seen is the suggestion of having AMA inspection sites set up to verify a plane has been retrofitted and compliant with the law. Spot checks by FAA inspectors could also be a simple way of making sure the planes stay compliant with the RID requirements. I know, I'll have someone say the FAA won't do any of that because they don't have the funding or the personnel, which is a way to spin it into a way of saying something can't be done. There are ways to make anything possible, even over the "nay sayers" objections

Last edited by Hydro Junkie; 05-22-2020 at 08:48 PM.
Old 05-22-2020, 07:21 PM
  #6  
ECHO24
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Posts: 194
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by init4fun View Post
I'm sorry Franklin , but with all due respect , I think your reaching a bit too far here . You don't have to read all that much of the AMA safety code to find verbiage specifically relating to following all local and federal laws while flying as an AMA member . Sure , it uses the same kind of language as was found back in AC 91-57 where the FAA themselves used "should" where most would think they should have used "must" , but make no mistake the language is there , you should* be following all applicable laws while flying as an AMA member .

* "Should" being a word that I believe is being used by both the AMA and FAA in a manner of "You should , or else face the consequences of non compliance" .....
AMA's safety code is a farce. It's a check-box on the application. The reality is, AMA turning a blind eye to the rules
for 8 years spawned a culture of non-compliance that destroyed the hobby and can now only be stopped by force.

Embry-Riddle just released a 30-day study on voluntary compliance for LAANC in the airspace around Daytona Beach
International Airport for both 107 and recreational operators.

Out of 271 drones detected, only 94 had LAANC approvals, meaning two thirds were flying illegally in controlled airspace.
Of those only 19 had approval to fly in the specific locations and times they were flying.

Over a third, 93, were above the legal altitude, which gets lower closer to the airport. 41 were higher than 500 feet, 32 were
between 500 and 1,000 feet, 6 were above 1,000 feet, and 3 above 1,500 feet - All around a major International airport. Only
DJI drones were detected using DJI's AeroScope, so there could have been more illegal flights not detected.

Now try telling the FAA that all "law abiding" hobbyists would make sure their add-on remote ID module was turned on.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edit:
**** Even now AMA does not recognize the 400' altitude limit, even though it is clearly spelled out in Section 349.
This is from Rich Hanson in the November 2019 issue of Model Aviation, just 7 months ago. Unbelievable.

"AMA also advises its members to not fly higher than is necessary to safely and
effectively operate their model aircraft."

Now there's an iron-clad rule. Let's look at the legal theory. Rich says,


"The 400-foot limitation prescribed in the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018 has existed for many years as a
general safety guideline. It was first introduced by FAA’s Air Traffic Services in 1972, and further formalized
as an advisory circular (AC 91-57) in June 1981. It exists today as interim guidance in AC 91-57B.
AMA supports the 400-foot limit as a general safety principle."

It's not a "general safety principle". IT'S THE FRICKEN LAW. Hanson get's there by
implying AC 91-57B
somehow modifies Section 349. Here's the actual law,


``(a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (e), and
notwithstanding chapter 447 of title 49, United States Code, a person
may operate a small unmanned aircraft without specific certification or
operating authority from the Federal Aviation Administration if the
operation adheres to all of the following limitations: ``

(6) In Class G airspace, the aircraft is flown from the
surface to not more than 400 feet above ground level and
complies with all airspace restrictions and prohibitions.

Now you know why no one obeys any rules. My guess is the hobby will banned outright at some point over
Hanson's preposterous nonsense and AMA going along with it.




Last edited by ECHO24; 05-22-2020 at 09:02 PM.
Old 05-22-2020, 08:39 PM
  #7  
Hydro Junkie
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Marysville, WA
Posts: 8,350
Likes: 0
Received 22 Likes on 22 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by ECHO24 View Post
AMA's safety code is a farce. It's a check-box on the application. The reality is, AMA turning a blind eye to the rules
for 8 years spawned a culture of non-compliance that destroyed the hobby and can now only be stopped by force.

Embry-Riddle just released a 30-day study on voluntary compliance for LAANC in the airspace around Daytona Beach
International Airport for both 107 and recreational operators.

Out of 271 drones detected, only 94 had LAANC approvals, meaning two thirds were flying illegally in controlled airspace.
Of those only 19 had approval to fly in the specific locations and times they were flying.

Over a third, 93, were above the legal altitude, which gets lower closer to the airport. 41 were higher than 500 feet, 32 were
between 500 and 1,000 feet, 6 were above 1,000 feet, and 3 above 1,500 feet - All around a major International airport. Only
DJI drones were detected using DJI's AeroScope, so there could have been more illegal flights not detected.

Now try telling the FAA that all "law abiding" hobbyists would make sure their add-on remote ID module was turned on.
I NEED A LIKE BUTTON!!!!! Is there any chance of getting one added?
BTW, Echo, you're missing a few drones over the legal altitude. 41+32+6+3=82. You're missing 11 drones someplace

Last edited by Hydro Junkie; 05-22-2020 at 08:42 PM.
Old 05-22-2020, 08:42 PM
  #8  
R_Strowe
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by ECHO24 View Post
AMA's safety code is a farce. It's a check-box on the application. The reality is, AMA turning a blind eye to the rules
for 8 years spawned a culture of non-compliance that destroyed the hobby and can now only be stopped by force.

Embry-Riddle just released a 30-day study on voluntary compliance for LAANC in the airspace around Daytona Beach
International Airport for both 107 and recreational operators.

Out of 271 drones detected, only 94 had LAANC approvals, meaning two thirds were flying illegally in controlled airspace.
Of those only 19 had approval to fly in the specific locations and times they were flying.

Over a third, 93, were above the legal altitude, which gets lower closer to the airport. 41 were higher than 500 feet, 32 were
between 500 and 1,000 feet, 6 were above 1,000 feet, and 3 above 1,500 feet - All around a major International airport. Only
DJI drones were detected using DJI's AeroScope, so there could have been more illegal flights not detected.

Now try telling the FAA that all "law abiding" hobbyists would make sure their add-on remote ID module was turned on.
Link to the ERAU study?

R_Strowe
Old 05-22-2020, 09:09 PM
  #9  
ECHO24
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Posts: 194
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Hydro Junkie View Post
I NEED A LIKE BUTTON!!!!! Is there any chance of getting one added?
BTW, Echo, you're missing a few drones over the legal altitude. 41+32+6+3=82. You're missing 11 drones someplace
The altitude limit eventually goes to zero closer in.

@ R_Strowe
https://commons.erau.edu/ijaaa/vol7/iss2/4/

Last edited by ECHO24; 05-22-2020 at 09:13 PM.
Old 05-22-2020, 10:36 PM
  #10  
Hydro Junkie
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Marysville, WA
Posts: 8,350
Likes: 0
Received 22 Likes on 22 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by ECHO24 View Post
The altitude limit eventually goes to zero closer in.

@ R_Strowe
https://commons.erau.edu/ijaaa/vol7/iss2/4/
I know the limit gets lower as you get closer. That must mean that those 11 unaccounted for drones were in a no-fly zone or close to it
Old 05-22-2020, 11:04 PM
  #11  
ira d
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Maricopa County AZ
Posts: 3,189
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

I agree the AMA needs to be more involved in club operations and needs away to actively enforce compliance to AMA rules by their members.
Old 05-22-2020, 11:37 PM
  #12  
Hydro Junkie
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Marysville, WA
Posts: 8,350
Likes: 0
Received 22 Likes on 22 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by ira d View Post
I agree the AMA needs to be more involved in club operations and needs away to actively enforce compliance to AMA rules by their members.
It's not following the AMA rules that's the problem, it's Rich Hanson telling everyone they can consider the federal laws to be "guidelines" that they "should" follow, if they can. As long as the AMA officers are putting out that message, the members that listen won't follow the law because they are being told they don't have to
Old 05-23-2020, 01:17 AM
  #13  
R_Strowe
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

1 major flaw in the reasoning: this study utilized DJI Aeroscope data, which is only applicable to DJI products. It is not retrofitable to legacy-type aircraft. So this data only applies to ‘drone’ operators, by default.

Additionally, it occurs to me that, since this study is, by default a drone-only study (because it links only LAANC data and DJI data), and that the drone community has shown a particular lack of interest in joining CBOs (of any stripe), that it is not accurate to apply this data to AMA legacy modelers, since unless this data also is correlated with persons/membership data (and I don’t seem to remember FAA registration asking for my AMA number, although maybe it should be), all it shows is a lack of compliance by DRONE operators, not legacy/AMA members.

I mean really, do you think that all those DJI operators out there are listening to RICH HANSEN? The vast majority aren’t even AMA members, let alone know who Rich Hansen is.

My conclusion after reading this? That DJI has created a device so easy to fly that any ignorant idiot can do it. And if they are that ignorant, I’m sure that they aren’t going to follow a few pesky rules. They’ll just do as they please.

And don’t give me crap about ‘they are all drones’. Only to the ignorant is that true.

R_Strowe

Last edited by R_Strowe; 05-23-2020 at 01:24 AM.
Old 05-23-2020, 01:54 AM
  #14  
Hydro Junkie
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Marysville, WA
Posts: 8,350
Likes: 0
Received 22 Likes on 22 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by R_Strowe View Post
1 major flaw in the reasoning: this study utilized DJI Aeroscope data, which is only applicable to DJI products. It is not retrofitable to legacy-type aircraft. So this data only applies to ‘drone’ operators, by default. True, but it shows that a majority either don't know or don't care to follow the laws

Additionally, it occurs to me that, since this study is, by default a drone-only study (because it links only LAANC data and DJI data), and that the drone community has shown a particular lack of interest in joining CBOs (of any stripe), that it is not accurate to apply this data to AMA legacy modelers, since unless this data also is correlated with persons/membership data (and I don’t seem to remember FAA registration asking for my AMA number, although maybe it should be), all it shows is a lack of compliance by DRONE operators, not legacy/AMA members. Agreeing with you on this one

I mean really, do you think that all those DJI operators out there are listening to RICH HANSEN? The vast majority aren’t even AMA members, let alone know who Rich Hansen is.
As you said, most AMA members don't know who he is. My argument was that those members that do know who he is and listen to him will be the ones that are not following the laws as he said, as posted above by Echo, that the law is only a guideline, not an absolute, which is 100% false. That being the case, how can we expect non AMA members to know and follow the law when members of the AMA EC tell their members that they don't have to if it's basically not convenient?

My conclusion after reading this? That DJI has created a device so easy to fly that any ignorant idiot can do it. And if they are that ignorant, I’m sure that they aren’t going to follow a few pesky rules. They’ll just do as they please. And that is only because, probably in most cases, they don't know what the law is. I do agree, there are those that will do what they want, regardless but, on the other hand, many will break the law because they don't know any better.

And don’t give me crap about ‘they are all drones’. Only to the ignorant is that true. You mean like the politicians in Washington DC?

R_Strowe
I responded above

Last edited by Hydro Junkie; 05-23-2020 at 01:57 AM.
Old 05-23-2020, 01:59 AM
  #15  
R_Strowe
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Hydro Junkie View Post
It's not following the AMA rules that's the problem, it's Rich Hanson telling everyone they can consider the federal laws to be "guidelines" that they "should" follow, if they can. As long as the AMA officers are putting out that message, the members that listen won't follow the law because they are being told they don't have to
A question: Can a full-size aircraft exceed 250kts below 10,000’ legally (outside of an emergency)?

R-Strowe
Old 05-23-2020, 02:12 AM
  #16  
Hydro Junkie
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Marysville, WA
Posts: 8,350
Likes: 0
Received 22 Likes on 22 Posts
Default

Below 10,000 feet (or within 2,500 feet AGL of the surface), these transponders are not required. If you're not flying with a transponder, ATC can't easily determine your speed or track, and they have no way of knowing your altitude. This is another reason why speeds are restricted below 250 knots at altitudes below 10,000 feet.

In Europe there is no
general limitation to 250 knots below 10000 ft. There is no EASA airspace restrictions, every country has their own set of rules. There are airspaces that have speed restrictions below 10000 ft, others don't and sometimes aircraft are allowed to go faster than 250 knots

With all that said(via cut and paste), unless you have a "hotrod" or a turbine powered plane, the speed at altitude limit is basically a mute point. Since there aren't many single engine planes that can hit 250 knots, most private pilots don't need to worry about it. That said, I know the Glasair III Turbo CAN fly that fast and can top 30,000 feet when equipped with onboard oxygen for the pilot and passenger, as can the Lancair IV

Last edited by Hydro Junkie; 05-23-2020 at 02:21 AM.
Old 05-23-2020, 05:02 AM
  #17  
astrohog
My Feedback: (1)
 
astrohog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Bellingham, WA
Posts: 2,100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by R_Strowe View Post
My conclusion after reading this? That DJI has created a device so easy to fly that any ignorant idiot can do it. And if they are that ignorant, I’m sure that they aren’t going to follow a few pesky rules. They’ll just do as they please.
Right? So why, pray tell, did the AMA try to embrace them years ago?
Many of us came to this conclusion YEARS ago. Why didn't the AMA? And why did it take you so long?

Astro
Old 05-23-2020, 06:18 AM
  #18  
ECHO24
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Posts: 194
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by R_Strowe View Post
1 major flaw in the reasoning: this study utilized DJI Aeroscope data, which is only applicable to DJI products. It is not retrofitable to legacy-type aircraft. So this data only applies to ‘drone’ operators, by default.

Additionally, it occurs to me that, since this study is, by default a drone-only study (because it links only LAANC data and DJI data), and that the drone community has shown a particular lack of interest in joining CBOs (of any stripe), that it is not accurate to apply this data to AMA legacy modelers, since unless this data also is correlated with persons/membership data (and I don’t seem to remember FAA registration asking for my AMA number, although maybe it should be), all it shows is a lack of compliance by DRONE operators, not legacy/AMA members.

I mean really, do you think that all those DJI operators out there are listening to RICH HANSEN? The vast majority aren’t even AMA members, let alone know who Rich Hansen is.

My conclusion after reading this? That DJI has created a device so easy to fly that any ignorant idiot can do it. And if they are that ignorant, I’m sure that they aren’t going to follow a few pesky rules. They’ll just do as they please.

And don’t give me crap about ‘they are all drones’. Only to the ignorant is that true.

R_Strowe
You're forgetting ALL RC flyers can ostensibly comply following AMA's rules, or their tortured interpretation of them.
Ultimately, that would not be a viable excuse but you've got AMA putting it out there. Stop defending the indefensible.

**** Here is the pertinent language in AC 91-57B, which also puts to bed Hanson's BS:

"Recreational flyers should be able to explain to an FAA inspector or law enforcement official
which safety guidelines they are following."

7.1.2.1 ... An example is the AMA safety guidelines, ... These or existing safety guidelines of another
aeromodelling organization may be used for recreational operations, provided the guidelines do not
conflict with the other statutory conditions of 49 U.S.C. § 44809(a).


Do you know what 49 U.S.C. § 44809(a) is? Section 349, Exception for limited recreational operations of
unmanned aircraft, which spells out the 400' altitude limit.

-------------------

And before you get on the 107 vs. recreational kick, the second biggest fraud in RC flying are commercial
operators claiming to be flying under hobby rules.

Last edited by ECHO24; 05-23-2020 at 06:44 AM.
Old 05-23-2020, 07:05 AM
  #19  
jcmors
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Yankton, SD
Posts: 191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Since the hard and fast regulation for staying below 400' came into being I have attended and seen pictures and videos of events, AMA sanctioned events, that had folks flying above 400'. I know that the soaring part of our hobby really can't operate below 400' and there have been soaring competitions held as well as individuals still enjoying that facet of our hobby many of whom are AMA members. Other styles of flying continue to be practiced at events that, due to the size and speed of the models being flown, would actually be unsafe at below 400' in some cases.

So, question; did these events operate under a negotiated exception with the FAA? Serious question BTW, I have no idea if there was an exception or waiver in place or not.

I suppose there is something to be said for the fact that these events were well advertised and the FAA had to know that they were taking place and there has been no enforcement that I am aware of for this 400' limit at any of these events by the authorities. That said, if I regularly drive 85 in a 70 mile per hour stretch of road and am never stopped, that doesn't mean that I haven't broken the speed limit or that the law considers it to be ok for me to do that.
Old 05-23-2020, 08:15 AM
  #20  
speedracerntrixie
My Feedback: (29)
 
speedracerntrixie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Happy Valley, Oregon
Posts: 7,611
Received 41 Likes on 39 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by jcmors View Post
Since the hard and fast regulation for staying below 400' came into being I have attended and seen pictures and videos of events, AMA sanctioned events, that had folks flying above 400'. I know that the soaring part of our hobby really can't operate below 400' and there have been soaring competitions held as well as individuals still enjoying that facet of our hobby many of whom are AMA members. Other styles of flying continue to be practiced at events that, due to the size and speed of the models being flown, would actually be unsafe at below 400' in some cases.

So, question; did these events operate under a negotiated exception with the FAA? Serious question BTW, I have no idea if there was an exception or waiver in place or not.

I suppose there is something to be said for the fact that these events were well advertised and the FAA had to know that they were taking place and there has been no enforcement that I am aware of for this 400' limit at any of these events by the authorities. That said, if I regularly drive 85 in a 70 mile per hour stretch of road and am never stopped, that doesn't mean that I haven't broken the speed limit or that the law considers it to be ok for me to do that.
Prior to the 2019 Soaring Nats the LSF ( Soaring SIG ) approached the FAA and asked for a waiver to fly over 400' thus alerting the FAA directly of their intent to exceed 400'. The response I have heard from several sources is that the FAA came back with " You don't need a waiver, enjoy your event ". The Soaring Nats went forward as planned without interference from the FAA whom knew the event was happening AND were told straight up that they were going to exceed 400'.

Now before anyone puts words into my mouth, I DO NOT CLAIM THAT 400' IS NOT LAW! Simply that the FAA themselves are allowing us to violate said law. The question then is: If FAA themselves are not enforcing THEIR law, how do you suppose AMA is going to enforce it? With that said, I'm off to my Soaring club to get some practice in. I hope everyone has a pleasant Memorial Day weekend, to all the Veterans out there THANK YOU!
Old 05-23-2020, 08:22 AM
  #21  
ECHO24
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Posts: 194
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by speedracerntrixie View Post
Prior to the 2019 Soaring Nats the LSF ( Soaring SIG ) approached the FAA and asked for a waiver to fly over 400' thus alerting the FAA directly of their intent to exceed 400'. The response I have heard from several sources is that the FAA came back with " You don't need a waiver, enjoy your event ". The Soaring Nats went forward as planned without interference from the FAA whom knew the event was happening AND were told straight up that they were going to exceed 400'.

Now before anyone puts words into my mouth, I DO NOT CLAIM THAT 400' IS NOT LAW! Simply that the FAA themselves are allowing us to violate said law. The question then is: If FAA themselves are not enforcing THEIR law, how do you suppose AMA is going to enforce it? With that said, I'm off to my Soaring club to get some practice in. I hope everyone has a pleasant Memorial Day weekend, to all the Veterans out there THANK YOU!
If the president of AAA stated in Traveler magazine that speed limits are only"general guidelines" he would be fired. So should Hanson.

No one said there aren't exceptions to the 400' limit. I'd say you're arguing yourself out of a hobby but it's a bit late for that.
The FAA isn't going to put up with AMA and Hanson disregarding the rules any longer with FRIAs.

Last edited by ECHO24; 05-23-2020 at 08:32 AM.
Old 05-23-2020, 08:25 AM
  #22  
astrohog
My Feedback: (1)
 
astrohog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Bellingham, WA
Posts: 2,100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by speedracerntrixie View Post
how do you suppose AMA is going to enforce it?
How does the AMA enforce their safety code?

Astro
Old 05-23-2020, 12:16 PM
  #23  
franklin_m
Thread Starter
 
franklin_m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 3,497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by astrohog View Post
How does the AMA enforce their safety code?

Astro
That's been a point I've been making for years, they do not.
Old 05-23-2020, 12:16 PM
  #24  
Hydro Junkie
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Marysville, WA
Posts: 8,350
Likes: 0
Received 22 Likes on 22 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by speedracerntrixie View Post
Prior to the 2019 Soaring Nats the LSF ( Soaring SIG ) approached the FAA and asked for a waiver to fly over 400' thus alerting the FAA directly of their intent to exceed 400'. The response I have heard from several sources is that the FAA came back with " You don't need a waiver, enjoy your event ". The Soaring Nats went forward as planned without interference from the FAA whom knew the event was happening AND were told straight up that they were going to exceed 400'.

Now before anyone puts words into my mouth, I DO NOT CLAIM THAT 400' IS NOT LAW! Simply that the FAA themselves are allowing us to violate said law. The question then is: If FAA themselves are not enforcing THEIR law, how do you suppose AMA is going to enforce it? With that said, I'm off to my Soaring club to get some practice in. I hope everyone has a pleasant Memorial Day weekend, to all the Veterans out there THANK YOU!
In this case, the people running the event WENT TO THE FAA FIRST, they didn't wait for the FAA to come out and have to deal with the situation. I'd be willing to bet that, if you approach the FAA and tell them what you want to do, if it's not a danger to full sized aviation, they will approve a waiver or, as in the case above, just give the okay. It's those that just ignore the altitude limit and say nothing to the FAA that cause an issue. Then again, not all "plank" pilots follow the rules either. We know, based on the study posted above that a majority of "droners" don't follow the rules, be it due to not knowing or not caring about them. We have video footage showing conventional aircraft being flown by AMA members unsafely at AMA sanctioned air fields, meaning some AMA members don't follow the rules or comply with the AMA's vaunted Safety Code either. We all know this is reality, not fiction. If the AMA EC isn't willing to require their membership to follow the laws and rules, not to mention encouraging members to break said law and rules, as shown above with the articles published by Rich Hanson, the hobby is going to die. Those that can't see it, the "Muncie Minions", can blame themselves for this as much as they can blame the EC.
One additional note to Speed:
Have fun and bring them home in one piece
Old 05-23-2020, 06:23 PM
  #25  
speedracerntrixie
My Feedback: (29)
 
speedracerntrixie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Happy Valley, Oregon
Posts: 7,611
Received 41 Likes on 39 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by astrohog View Post
How does the AMA enforce their safety code?

Astro
We've been through this before. At a club site when a rule gets broken any member can approach the party in question ( preferably when safe ) and remind them of the rule. If it's serious enough or repeat offenses the club safety officer gets involved. If need be it can be escalated to the entire club board where they can decide on a suspension or expulsion from the club. I've seen the process work multiple times, I myself have been safety officer during multiple events and have had to speak to guys. Most times they just needed a reminder or have it pointed out that they were flying on the wrong side of the dead line.

Whenever you get in a group setting regardless if it is at a flying field, a bar, concert hell even Disneyland there will be people who push the rules. Just because you can find a few bad apples don't mean you need to chop down the tree.

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.