will the FAA know if i fly over 400Ft?

[tracer bullet]

Tell ya what. You fly by Boy Scout rules and that way, your Boy Scout lawyer can argue in court for you when you hit a helicopter and kill somebody.

FYI, I'm not sure you know how forums work. I finally figured out you are making replies to messages with many other posts between it and what you write. You need to quote the thing you are talking about, sometimes, it would really help.

 

[sar104]

I'm open to all ideas here. I just didn't have any reason to dismiss the statement I received from the FAA (made nearly a year after that letter was sent). It's quite odd that FAA employees responding to [email protected] would make such bold statements if they weren't certain they were true.

Can you share the actual email response that you received? Perhaps you should contact them again and ask them, specifically, about that letter.

So, it's your opinion (correct me if I'm wrong) that the FAA is allowed to interpret that vague statement in any way they choose. And since there is only one scanned document floating around on the Internet (that we know of) where the FAA mentioned the AMA (and there are no mentions of other organizations anywhere), all hobbyists must follow the AMA Safety Code.

The FAA gets to implement law, and specifically the Codes of Federal Regulations that they are responsible for implementing. That's simple fact, not opinion. Your previous example of registration is an example of that, and it wasn't overturned because they are not allowed to interpret CFR 14, it was overturned because their interpretation was found to be in conflict with Public Law 112–95 Section 336.

Aside from that, are you trying to argue that the AMA is not a nationally-based community organization for model aircraft, or that it does not have a set of safety guidelines? Because that is what the law requires and so it is not very surprising that the FAA used them as an example in that letter.

And you still appear to be attempting mental gymnastics in an attempt to discredit the letter. It's not some random letter "floating around on the internet"; it is published on the AMA website and, no doubt, accessible from the FAA via an FOI request. I get the impression that you are quite determined to defend a very weak position here, and I cannot figure out why.

As for my opinion, nowhwere have I said that all hobbyists must follow the AMA safety code. I've argued that if they do follow that code then they are defensibly meeting the requirements of Part 101, especially since the AMA has the written endorsement of the FAA in that role. But if there is another approach that arguable meets 101.41b (that "The aircraft is operated in accordance with a community-based set of safety guidelines and within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization") then that should be fine too. I would probably not go with the Boy Scouts of America though.

 

[Chip]

If you fly in Michigan, better figure out whose organization's rules or codes you're following because violating them may be misdemeanor!

MICHIGAN UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS ACT (EXCERPT)

259.311 Operation of unmanned aircraft system; person authorized by Federal Aviation Administration.
Sec. 11.

A person that is authorized by the Federal Aviation Administration to operate unmanned aircraft systems for commercial purposes may operate an unmanned aircraft system in this state if the unmanned aircraft system is operated in a manner consistent with federal law.

259.313 Operation of unmanned aircraft system; manner.
Sec. 13.

A person may operate an unmanned aircraft system in this state for recreational purposes if the unmanned aircraft system is operated in a manner consistent with federal law for the operation of a model aircraft.

History: 2016, Act 436, Eff. Apr. 4, 2017

 

[msinger]

And you still appear to be attempting mental gymnastics in an attempt to discredit the letter. It's not some random letter "floating around on the internet"; it is published on the AMA website and, no doubt, accessible from the FAA via an FOI request. I get the impression that you are quite determined to defend a very weak position here, and I cannot figure out why.

While the AMA probably thinks it's a huge win for them (hence the celebratory posting on their website), I couldn't care less about this letter. It does not answer my question (i.e. the list of organizations). I get it though -- you don't know the answer and/or how to find it. Thank you for trying to help anyhow.

 

[sar104]

While the AMA probably thinks it's a huge win for them (hence the celebratory posting on their website), I couldn't care less about this letter. It does not answer my question (i.e. the list of organizations). I get it though -- you don't know the answer and/or how to find it. Thank you for trying to help anyhow.

And I also still don't know why you are convinced there has to be a list. You've never explained that. But fine, if you want to hang your entire argument on that thread then so be it. In that case you are quite correct - I can't help you. Most likely no one can. You should probably cease flying immediately since under your argument there is no way for you to comply with Part 101.

 

[msinger]

And I also still don't know why you are convinced there has to be a list. You've never explained that.

I'd be shocked if you don't understand by now, but I'll give it another shot since you were so kind to try to answer my question. While the law does not require anyone to create such a list, nobody can be sure they are satisfying the rule (for those that care to) since there is no definition of a "nationwide community-based organization" and/or a list of organizations.

You should probably cease flying immediately since under your argument there is no way for you to comply with Part 101.

Again -- I'm not arguing anything. I'm only trying to understand the law. Thinking you're complying with the law (what you're doing) is one thing. Knowing you're complying with the law is what I'm trying to figure out.

 

[sar104]

I'd be shocked if you don't understand by now, but I'll give it another shot since you were so kind to try to answer my question. While the law does not require anyone to create such a list, nobody can be sure they are satisfying the rule (for those that care to) since there is no definition of a "nationwide community-based organization" and/or a list of organizations.


Again -- I'm not arguing anything. I'm only trying to understand the law. Thinking you're complying with the law (what you're doing) is one thing. Knowing you're complying with the law is what I'm trying to figure out.

We will just have to agree to disagree unfortunately.

You cannot understand how this can work without a list of organizations.

I cannot understand why you are unwilling to accept written confirmation from the FAA that they recognize the AMA as one such organization and that accordingly, anyone flying under the AMA guidelines satisfies 14 CFR 101. I don't see how that is even remotely ambiguous, or open to any other interpretation, but apparently you do. Let everyone know if you manage to resolve your concerns.

 

[msinger]

You cannot understand how this can work without a list of organizations.

If you choose not to follow the AMA Safety Code (assuming the AMA is one of these organizations), how can you be sure the guidelines from a different "nationwide community-based organization" are satisfying that rule?

I cannot understand why you are unwilling to accept written confirmation from the FAA that they recognize the AMA as one such organization

Why are you so hung up on this letter? It doesn't answer my question. Even if the FAA is responsible for choosing these organizations and the AMA is one of those organizations, that still doesn't give me a list of organizations I can choose to follow so that I can be sure I am satisfying the rule.

 

[sar104]

If you choose not to follow the AMA Safety Code (assuming the AMA is one of these organizations), how can you be sure the guidelines from a different "nationwide community-based organization" are satisfying that rule?

You cannot be sure, unless the FAA happens to confirm that they recognize them but, if they satisfy the description (nationwide community-based organization) then you would have a defensibile position. Not as strong as if you used the AMA guidelines, of course.

Why are you so hung up on this letter? It doesn't answer my question. Even if the FAA is responsible for choosing these organizations and the AMA is one of those organizations, that still doesn't give me a list of organizations I can choose to follow so that I can be sure I am satisfying the rule.

Nice try, but no - I'm not hung up on the letter, I'm hung up on why you don't recognize the letter as confirmation that the AMA meets the definition. And agreed - you do not have a list of organizations to choose from. But the law does not mention requiring a list, no one promised you a list, and no one owes you a list. A published list would be nice, even if it only had one entry but for now, what you have, is a letter from the FAA confirming that the AMA meets the definition. You can accept that as clear evidence that following their guidelines will keep you in compliance with Part 101, or you can continue to rail against the lack of a list and fret about being out of compliance. It's completely up to you.

 

[msinger]

if they satisfy the description (nationwide community-based organization) then you would have a defensibile position

A worthy presumption, but nobody wants to be left to defending their position in a court of law (in a worst case scenario).

I'm hung up on why you don't recognize the letter as confirmation that the AMA meets the definition

This letter is of little importance since the AMA is most likely not the only "nationwide community-based organization". If they are the only organization, then it seems the rule would have stated that organization by name.

you can continue to rail against the lack of a list and fret about being out of compliance

I'm not railing or fretting about anything. It's a simple question and I asked it here since it was on topic and I thought someone might know something about it. Why would you attack someone who is trying to gain a better understand of the law? Acts like that should be encouraged.

 

[sar104]

A worthy presumption, but nobody wants to be left to defending their position in a court of law (in a worst case scenario).

Then use AMA guidelines and you don't have to presume anything.

This letter is of little importance since the AMA is most likely not the only "nationwide community-based organization". If they are the only organization, then it seems the rule would have stated that organization by name.

I'm sorry, but that statement is a non sequitur. Whether or not the AMA is the only such organization, the letter is important because it confirms that it is one such organization. Prior to the existence of that letter there was no confirmed, recognized organization. Now there is, if you wish to take advantage of it.

The rule (I assume that you mean the Special Rule, Public Law 112-95, Section 336) provides a definition. That definition clearly permits the possibility of more than one organization and perhaps organizations that don't yet exist and, since laws are not easily updated, that would be a most inappropriate place to constrain the issue with a fixed list.

I'm not railing or fretting about anything. It's a simple question and I asked it here since it was on topic and I thought someone might know something about it. Why would you attack someone who is trying to gain a better understand of the law? Acts like that should be encouraged.

No one is attacking you - I agree that it is a relevant topic and I've been trying to reason with you. And now I'm going to drop it, firstly, because I have exhausted all avenues I can think of to explain that reasoning and, secondly, because I am now pretty certain, since you haven't attempted any reasoned counter-arguments and instead just keep deflecting from my points, that you made up your mind on this long before we even started the discussion.

 

[msinger]

Then use AMA guidelines and you don't have to presume anything.

I know this is going to blow your mind (and I apologize in advance) -- my FAA contact said the FAA does not endorse the AMA and the AMA is a community-based organization because that's how the AMA defines their organization. If those things are true, then that letter is most likely not an endorsement from the FAA.

And now I'm going to drop it

Thank you.

 

[sar104]

I know this is going to blow your mind (and I apologize in advance) -- my FAA contact said the FAA does not endorse the AMA and the AMA is a community-based organization because that's how the AMA defines their organization. If those things are true, then that letter is most likely not an endorsement from the FAA.

The only thing that "blows my mind" is the realization that you, and presumably your FAA friend, cannot read and parse plain English.

 

[msinger]

Feel free to reach out to [email protected] yourself to confirm any of the facts I've shared with you. I'm sure they will be happy to help you.

 

[L.L.]

Interesting discussion.

My first impression was that @msinger was intentionally refusing to accept that the AMA is indeed the community-based organization the FAA is referencing in their literature. In my interaction with folks familiar with UAV regulations in my area, they all specifically mention the AMA by name when they recite the five guidelines for recreational operators. Some can construe it as an endorsement but some others might not see it that way.

That said, he is right in pointing out that the FAA has not officially endorsed the AMA as "the" community-based organization on paper. I feel it was done intentionally to be ambiguous and left up to interpretation when the time comes. As with other hotly debated interpretations (2A laws for example, especially in CA), gray areas are a PITA when it comes time to defend your position in court. We can debate all of the possible interpretations online but what sticks in court is what ultimately counts. Any volunteers?

Frustrating, yes, but we don't gain a better understanding of these vague FAA guidelines if it weren't for the debates and discussions. I'm glad @msinger is bringing up very good points.

 

[Rogue.Aircraft]

A Hobbyist has like two laws to abide by. Yield to commercial aircraft and stay out of no fly zones. Correct or no? The rest are just "recommendations" that they want you to follow. Right?

 

[msinger]

A Hobbyist has like two laws to abide by. Yield to commercial aircraft and stay out of no fly zones. Correct or no? The rest are just "recommendations" that they want you to follow. Right?

Hobbyists must follow these rules. It's a good idea to also follow these recommendations.

 

[Greatfullded]

I know the regulations...but sometimes i like to fly over 400ft. Does DJI reports our flights to the FAA?

Most of my good video shots and or photo shots are 400ft and below.. plus when you go way beyone 400ft it really eats the battery.. at least mine even when i go to 400 ft my battery like gone down 20%, or i may have a bad battery.. its new like my drone.

 

[Conservative Nihilist]

Most of my good video shots and or photo shots are 400ft and below.. plus when you go way beyone 400ft it really eats the battery.. at least mine even when i go to 400 ft my battery like gone down 20%, or i may have a bad battery.. its new like my drone.

I hear ya about 400 feet of height being pointless for video shooting. I fly my drones at 150 feet all the time unless there are obstacles looming above that altitude.

 

[MS Coast]

Or any other VFR aircraft that has not filed a flight plan and/or is not transponder equipped.

Or most military aircraft.