400 foot elevation?

[Jackcutrone]

There will be a 400 AGL limit for recreational flyers at some point this year. In the meantime, the FAA is asking recreational flyers to do this.

Actually the community guidelines specifically the AMA Safety Guide says that you shouldn’t fly over 400 feet within 3 miles of an airport though you can contact the airport for permission

 

[msinger]

Actually the community guidelines specifically the AMA Safety Guide says that you shouldn’t fly over 400 feet within 3 miles of an airport though you can contact the airport for permission

Do you think everyone is choosing the AMA as their CBO?

 

[sar104]

Do you think everyone is choosing the AMA as their CBO?

Currently I don't think there is any other choice.

 

[msinger]

Currently I don't think there is any other choice.

Oh? I'm still waiting for an authoritative source (like the FAA) to publish a list of all acceptable CBOs. I asked them directly for a list (multiple times) and they wanted nothing to do with it.

 

[Jackcutrone]

Doesn’t matter what you choose. I believe that the AMA is the only organization that has been recognized by the FAA as a CBO. May be wrong.

Here is what AMA says:

FAA Acknowledges AMA as a CBO and our Safety Program
Our hobby has faced many challenges this year as we address an increase in government intervention and proposed regulations. AMA has been aggressively advocating for our hobby, and during the past few weeks, we’ve been happy to report successful progress.
Today, our members have yet another AMA government advocacy victory to celebrate.
There has been confusion among our members as to whether operations above 400 feet are permitted by the FAA. AMA has remained steadfast that the Special Rule for Model Aircraft (Section 336 of the 2012 FAA Modernization and Reform Act) permits operations above 400 feet if conducted within our safety program requiring the pilot to be an AMA member, to avoid and not interfere with manned aircraft, and to keep the model in visual line of sight of the pilot/observer. It should be noted that the AMA Safety Code requires model aircraft to remain below 400 feet above the ground when within 3 miles of an airport unless there is notification or an agreement with the airport that allows models to safely go higher.
In January of this year, the AMA requested that the FAA clarify the 400-foot issue in writing. We are happy to share that in a recent letter to the AMA, the FAA recognized AMA’s role as a community-based organization and acknowledged our safety program, including allowing flight above 400 feet under appropriate circumstance.
In this letter, dated July 7, 2016, the FAA states:

1. 
   “…model aircraft may be flow consistently with Section 336 and agency guidelines at altitudes above 400 feet when following a community-based organization’s safety guidelines.”
   “Community-based organizations, such as the Academy of Model Aeronautics, may establish altitude limitations in their safety guidelines that exceed the FAA’s 400 AGL altitude recommendation.”

Essentially, this letter confirms that sailplanes, large model aircraft, turbines, and other disciplines can responsibly operate above 400 feet if the AMA member is operating within our safety programming. Equally important, the FAA again acknowledges AMA as a community-based organization.
This victory falls on the heels of other successful AMA efforts, including an AMA member exemption from the FAA’s Final sUAS Rule (Part 107), the removal of problematic text in the 2016 FAA Reauthorization Bill, and preserving the Special Rule for Model Aircraft through 2017.
These successes do not transpire easily and our advocacy efforts are not over. We will continue to work with the FAA toward reducing the burden of registration requirements on AMA members. Throughout the next 14 months, we will continue to work with Congress toward a long-term reauthorization bill that will further strengthen the Special Rule for Model Aircraft.
We want to extend our appreciation to all of our members and donors for your support throughout this process. To read the letter from the FAA clarifying the 400-foot guidance, click here.

 

[msinger]

I believe that the AMA is the only organization that has been recognized by the FAA as a CBO. May be wrong.

Here's exactly what the FAA told me through via email ([email protected]):

"The FAA has no defined authority for the recognition of a nationwide community-based organization. Unfortunately, we cannot provide you with any criteria."

"In order to operate under section 336 of Public Law 112-95, a model aircraft must, among other things, be “operated in accordance with a community based set of safety guidelines and within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization.”? Currently, the largest nationwide community-based organization that operates model aircraft is the Academy of Model Aeronautics (AMA)."

"While the AMA is the largest community-based organization, guiding you to their resources should not be taken as FAA’s endorsement of their resources."

"The AMA is not a government entity. It is a community-based organization. That’s how they define their organization."

So, it seems the FAA does not endorse the AMA. Until you see said endorsement on the FAA's website, I don't think it's safe to assume any advertisement related material posted on the AMA's website is true.

 

[sar104]

Here's exactly what the FAA told me through via email ([email protected]):

"The FAA has no defined authority for the recognition of a nationwide community-based organization. Unfortunately, we cannot provide you with any criteria."

"In order to operate under section 336 of Public Law 112-95, a model aircraft must, among other things, be “operated in accordance with a community based set of safety guidelines and within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization.”? Currently, the largest nationwide community-based organization that operates model aircraft is the Academy of Model Aeronautics (AMA)."

"While the AMA is the largest community-based organization, guiding you to their resources should not be taken as FAA’s endorsement of their resources."

"The AMA is not a government entity. It is a community-based organization. That’s how they define their organization."

So, it seems the FAA does not endorse the AMA. Until you see said endorsement on the FAA's website, I don't think it's safe to assume any advertisement related material posted on the AMA's website is true.

They do accept the AMA as a community-based organization, as confirmed in a 2016 memo, even though they don't state it on their website:

http://amablog.modelaircraft.org/amagov/files/2016/07/FAA-400feet.pdf

The 2018 FAA Reauthorization Act finally requires them to specify the qualifications for such an organization, but they haven't done that yet.

(h) Community-based Organization Defined.--In this section, the​

term community-based organization' means a membership-based​

association entity that--​

(1) is described in section 501(c)(3) of the Internal​

Revenue Code of 1986;​

(2) is exempt from tax under section 501(a) of the​

Internal Revenue Code of 1986;​

(3) the mission of which is demonstrably the furtherance​

of model aviation;​

(4) provides a comprehensive set of safety guidelines for​

all aspects of model aviation addressing the assembly and​

operation of model aircraft and that emphasize safe​

aeromodelling operations within the national airspace system​

and the protection and safety of individuals and property on​

the ground, and may provide a comprehensive set of safety rules​

and programming for the operation of unmanned aircraft that​

have the advanced flight capabilities enabling active,​

sustained, and controlled navigation of the aircraft beyond​

visual line of sight of the operator;​

(5) provides programming and support for any local​

charter organizations, affiliates, or clubs; and​

(6) provides assistance and support in the development​

and operation of locally designated model aircraft flying​

sites.​

(i) Recognition of Community-based Organizations.--In​

collaboration with aeromodelling stakeholders, the Administrator shall​

publish an advisory circular within 180 days of the date of enactment​

of this section that identifies the criteria and process required for​

recognition of community-based organizations.''.​

 

[msinger]

They do accept the AMA as a community-based organization, as confirmed in a 2016 memo, even though they don't state it on their website

There is no question as to whether or not the FAA thinks the AMA will make the CBO list. In fact, I would be shocked if the AMA does not make the list (whenever it surfaces). However, the mention in that letter does not seem to mean the FAA is confirming the AMA is the only CBO today.

The 2018 FAA Reauthorization Act finally requires them to specify the qualifications for such an organization, but they haven't done that yet

And that's why we should not assume the AMA is the only choice right now. The quotes I posted above from the FAA are very clear and far different from the vague statement made in that letter to the AMA. As far as I know, that letter is using the AMA as an example (since it's relevant) and is only mentioning it since that's how the AMA defines their organization (as mentioned in my quotes above).

 

[SteveCA]

Great discussion! I can’t tell you how many times I’ve encountered “drone police” that were certain that night flights were illegal in the US. I stopped arguing with these ill informed self appointed police a long time ago.

 

[sar104]

There is no question as to whether or not the FAA thinks the AMA will make the CBO list. In fact, I would be shocked if the AMA does not make the list (whenever it surfaces). However, the mention in that letter does not seem to mean the FAA is confirming the AMA is the only CBO today.

Absolutely correct - it doesn't rule out that there could be other CBOs recognized by the FAA. It is, however, the only confirmed, recognized CBO.

And that's why we should not assume the AMA is the only choice right now. The quotes I posted above from the FAA are very clear and far different from the vague statement made in that letter to the AMA. As far as I know, that letter is using the AMA as an example (since it's relevant) and is only mentioning it since that's how the AMA defines their organization (as mentioned in my quotes above).

The letter is not vague in relation to the AMA:

"Community-based organizations, such as the Academy of Model Aeronautics, may establish altitude limitations in their safety guidelines that exceed the FAA's 400 ft AGL altitude recommendation"​

That unambiguously recognizes the AMA as a qualifying CBO, the weasel words on their website notwithstanding.

 

[msinger]

That unambiguously recognizes the AMA as a qualifying CBO

After reading the quotes from my letter above, I don't think one could argue that there isn't more than one interpretation here. We can agree to disagree on this one though if you'd like. It won't matter soon since the FAA is now in charge of creating said list and will soon reveal it.

 

[sar104]

After reading the quotes from my letter above, I don't think one could argue that there isn't more than one interpretation here. We can agree to disagree on this one though if you'd like. It won't matter soon since the FAA is now in charge of creating said list and will soon reveal it.

There is clearly a potential difference of interpretation in that the message that you received explicitly declined to endorse the AMA. However, it only stated that the preceding statement should not be taken as an endorsement, which does not rule out that it has, separately, endorsed it, as is indicated in their letter to the AMA.

And you are quite right that this will soon (presumably) become a moot point once the FAA publishes a list. It will be interesting to see which other organizations make the cut.

 

[msinger]

Hopefully they will publish a set of requirements that one can follow to create an acceptable CBO. I don't think it makes sense for DJI drone owners to follow a CBO like the AMA that is trying to make a single list of rules for any type of electronic flying machine. For example, I doubt DJI drone owners who follow the AMA Safety Code are using "an established safety line to separate all model aircraft operations from spectators and bystanders".

 

[Bigbird48]

What other CBO's are currently out there????

 

[msinger]

Home - Drone User Group Network

 

[sar104]

Hopefully they will publish a set of requirements that one can follow to create an acceptable CBO. I don't think it makes sense for DJI drone owners to follow a CBO like the AMA that is trying to make a single list of rules for any type of electronic flying machine. For example, I doubt DJI drone owners who follow the AMA Safety Code are using "an established safety line to separate all model aircraft operations from spectators and bystanders".

Agreed.

 

[Guy Driver]

Apparently I have confused the issue. We are limited to 400’ elevation not only by law, but also by built in limits within the system. To inspect anything over 400’ AGL, how does one bypass the built in limit of 400’ and fly to a higher elevation? Flights would be under the part 107 licensing. Hope this makes better sense. Flights will be conducted in the USA.

I just put in 500 meters in the height menu and agreed to the warning. Up up and almost away. Low battery. Sure flies slow then it seems. Grin

 

[Sitka78]

how about flying up the side or slope of a hill or mountain. If you maintain 400' above the hilside while asending, could one legally fly up the slope if the top was, say 2000'? Weird question but curious if anyone has done this. I know the 400' radius from a structure and 400' AGL rules, but this seem to be a little different scenerio. Your thoughts please. One case could be flying up a recent slide are to video the damage to the area surrounding the slide.

 

[msinger]

I know the 400' radius from a structure and 400' AGL rules, but this seem to be a little different scenerio.

400 feet above ground level is 400 feet above the ground beneath the drone. The terrain of the earth does not matter.

 

[Sitka78]

400 feet above ground level is 400 feet above the ground beneath the drone. The terrain of the earth does not matter.

So if I understand you correctly, one could fly up the slope of a hill/mountain regardless of height, and as long as you stayed within 400' of the surface of the hill/mountain, that would be perfectly legal? I tried to find something on the FAA site but found no real explanation. Do you know or have that information that I may copy as to have a legal description on hand while flying in the area that I have spoken about? Thank you for your response.