I'm sure they don't sit there and read everything but if someone in the U.S posts something done with a drone that endangers people or aircraft i'm pretty sure they would see it rather quickly.
Flying with drone out of eyesight
- Thread starter mark farrell
- Start date
400' limit only applies to non-hobby use. It does not apply when exemptions are in place (commercial use usually).
If not as member of AMA those "codes" are meaningless. They _DO NOT_ govern anyone who is not a member and even if a member, you could choose not to follow them and the worse that would happen is the AMA might cancel your membership. The AMA is a _club_ nothing more.
The AMA is a "community-based organization" that the FAA uses as an arbiter of rules for drone pilots flying under Part 101. So yeah, you are obligated to follow their rules and it doesn't matter whether you're a member of the club or not. That's the FAA's position, not mine.
I agree. FAA doesn't require you to be a member although the AMA makes it sound that way in their mag and other publications (btw, I am a member). Pointing to a CBO just gives the FAA a reference that they can use to tell hobby fliers that "as long as you operate under these guidelines, you are okay to fly".
No... and those are two different things. If a person is not a member of the AMA they don't have to do anything the AMA states. Anyone can be a "community-based organization", it's not some magical thing that the FAA gave permission to, no forms were completed, no authority granted, etc. Nothing. It's just the FAA stating if a local organization wants to create additional, more restrictive rules that can be applied to someone, they can do this. It does not give anyone control over anyone that does not want that control applied to them.
The other aspect is that the AMA has been asked to sit on the FAA's Advisory Board which helps the FAA create regulations on model aircraft. But that is something different.
I'll give you an example of how your statement would not work. The AMA comes out with a rule that no one can fly higher than 10' unless they pay a $100 fee. You seriously think the AMA can create laws, rules and regulations beyond it's own members? If you do, I have some US Code that says otherwise that you may want to read. What you are als stating is that even non-members need to affix their AMA member number to all their aircraft... as this is an AMA requirement. Not sure how that would work if you are not a member.
Again, the AMA only puts out rules that they members are required to follow, no one else. The AMA has no control over non-members at all. The AMA does not make regulations and rules that apply to the public. They don't work for the FAA.
As I dont disagree with you on the FAA vs AMA, but you bring up a point....
According to Congress, FAA has NO more right to make law than the AMA
as per HR658 in 2012.
To be honest, and no offense meant, I'm not very concerned about what you believe to be true...your concept of legal drone operation doesn't affect me in the slightest, so...do what you think is best. The FAA is completely clear about their expectations, but you can reject them and believe what you want...I promise you that I'm OK with that. I've already stated my position on drone rules....be safe, be polite, and don't piss off the folks on the ground. I don't obsess over the FAA's rules, nor over the AMA's. I recommend that you don't either. I think you've already expended more mental energy on this than the subject warrants.
Actually that are _the_ body that has been put in charge to create regulations and inforce those regulations on US airspace. The AMA has no such authority.
49 U.S. Code § 40103 - Sovereignty and use of airspace
...
(b)Use of Airspace.—
(1) The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall develop plans and policy for the use of the navigable airspace and assign by regulation or order the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. The Administrator may modify or revoke an assignment when required in the public interest.
(2) The Administrator shall prescribe air traffic regulations on the flight of aircraft (including regulations on safe altitudes) for—
(A) navigating, protecting, and identifying aircraft;
(B) protecting individuals and property on the ground;
(C) using the navigable airspace efficiently; and
(D) preventing collision between aircraft, between aircraft and land or water vehicles, and between aircraft and airborne objects.
H.R. 658 provided additional funding to the FAA and allowed them to modernize their systems.
Technically you are wrong according to Congress...
SEC. 336. SPECIAL RULE FOR MODEL AIRCRAFT. (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law relating to the incorporation of unmanned aircraft systems into Federal Aviation Administration plans and policies, including this subtitle, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration may not promulgate any rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft, or an aircraft being developed as a model aircraft
As a non AMA member (I chose not to renew) I dont have to follow any "rules" that AMA imposes on its members unless Im on their property. Technically according to Congress we dont have to follow FAAs "rules" either. Dont get me wrong, I support flying safe and do not advise others to irresponsible.
I have been lucky to be personally close to a high level FAA official and spent many hours discussing all this, FAA is NOT the strong arm of the law, NOR are looking for rule breakers in model aircraft first hand. That was done by news media. Havent we learned over the last 6 mths how the corrupt news media here is??????
As he explained to me, outside of pilot licensing, and aircraft inspections, only time they enact actions other than this is
1. FAA gets contacted by a law enforcement division about a defendant
2. FAA are asked to find a legit infraction on the aircraft/ pilot to allow law enforcement to engage with the defendant
3. FAA acts as a 3rd party in court where LE can use to verify that the defendant broke a rule/ guideline/ etc.
I quote the US Code showing that the FAA does have the defacto control over all US airspace in the other thread where you mention this. H.R. 658 gave further funding and allowed for the FAA to update their systems.
I still see nothing on model aircraft by definition. Is this not a double standard,...How can drones be considered aircraft on 1 hand, yet when a clown shoots 1 out of the air we cant prosecute him because its not a real aircraft??
What MacCool means is that the FAA cannot make "law" (only Congress can do this). But it's really a moot point as the FAA creates "regulations". These regulations, for all intensive purposes, do the same thing as a law. They are just classified differently. Label them how you want... they do the same thing. The FAA is allowed (within limitations) to regulate all US airspace and they are the only organization that can do this (which is clouded by the FAA's own statements).
and I agree with him on that point.
As you said limitations, which were imposed on them. FAA has been used as a piece so LE can have a little more freedom and have someone they can reference to in court.
As this person at FAA has said off the record, "We the FAA are not the Boogyman the news media has made us out to be when it comes to drones" "we dont have any interest in hunting down drone owners nor have the man power"
The NTSB has ruled that they _are_ aircraft. So they currently are. How local judges apply the law can be a different matter. Yes... I agree with your next thought! Judges _should_ follow the laws! What we see, unfortunately is something different. I guess that you could argue that drones are aircraft when it comes to FAA have jurisdiction but that does not mean you need to treat all aircraft as the same thing. Drones and planes are aircraft but we treat manned aircraft differently.
.....actually NTSB giving a definition for the FAA is like a Sheriff giving definition so his guys can enforce what he wants.
So what is the penalty for shooting down a Gulfstream?
How about A P4? Not the same is it?
Im hoping the John Taylor case moves forward so we can see how this will unfold. Meannwhile........
Last edited:
Nope. Do you think the penalty should be the same? That is, we should treat some minor property damage and murder as the same. We can treat them differently but still allow FAA authority over drones. To be honest, I almost would rather have the FAA in charge. If not, it would probably be up to local municipalities to make the governing laws. We'd then have thousands of crap laws instead of just one that is half crap.
I do agree 100% that local judges usually completely ignore that it's illegal to shoot someone else's property just because you don't like what it's doing. If a car speeds down the road I live on, can I just shoot it?
My read on this drone attorney's assessment of Part 101 is Part 101 is in fact the law even if FAA doesn't have the authority to make laws. Until there is a court case which doesn't uphold Part 101, it's the law.
See the attorneys closing sentence here: Model Aircraft Operations
See the attorneys closing sentence here: Model Aircraft Operations
Similar threads
