Flying over mountain

[Strafe1]

But that's not controlling the restricted space, that's controlling the "fly for fun" people. You should answer his earlier question. Are all the listed "guidelines" on the FAA's site optional?

Perhaps you should state what the rules for hobby fliers are, in your view.

 

[AyeYo]

Another deduction by you. And again, incorrect.

In this thread and the other you've claimed that:

- 336 is the end-all, be-all of model aircraft regulation and the FAA cannot regulate outside of it

AND

- In spite of not saying it in the text, 336 has a hidden stipulation that no FAA rules apply to people "flying for fun", simply because the FAA says so, with no definition of what "flying for fun" means.

So which is it? Is 336 the final word on what hobbyists are allowed to do or are you magically exempt from any and all regulation as long as you're "flying for fun"?

 

[Strafe1]

I don't think you answered the question. Are people who are not members bound by the AMA rules as strafe would like to think?

I did not say that we are bound by the AMA rules. I just stated WHAT those rules were. There was confusion as to if there was a 400' rule established by the AMA. I am not one, but many would say the AMA is the community based guidline reference the Public Law means.

 

[AyeYo]

Perhaps you should state what the rules for hobby fliers are, in your view.

I already have. The law makes no definition of "hobbyist" or "flying for fun". What it does do is provide exemptions for MODEL AIRCRAFT flown in a certain manner - which is what 336 is all about. Therefore, in order to stay free of FAA regulation, a pilot must adhere to 336 to the letter.

Now here's where you keep missing the boat.

Part of adhering to 336 is "following a set of community guidelines". WHAT set of "community guidelines" are you following? Is the AMA's? Then you can't go over 400ft. Is the FAA's suggested flight restrictions? Then you can't go over 400ft. Is it something else? If so, we'd all LOVE to hear what set of guideline you follow.

 

[Strafe1]

In this thread and the other you've claimed that:

- 336 is the end-all, be-all of model aircraft regulation and the FAA cannot regulate outside of it

AND

- In spite of not saying it in the text, 336 has a hidden stipulation that no FAA rules apply to people "flying for fun", simply because the FAA says so, with no definition of what "flying for fun" means.

So which is it? Is 336 the final word on what hobbyists are allowed to do or are you magically exempt from any and all regulation as long as you're "flying for fun"?

You have completely misread my posts and failed to rephrase correctly what I've said. Perhaps you can post the exact quote I said? Also the context in which I said it.

 

[AyeYo]

You have completely misread my posts and failed to rephrase correctly what I've said. Perhaps you can post the exact quote I said? Also the context in which I said it.

Perhaps you can just walk us through your logic start to finish, because it is loaded with circular reasoning, contradictions, and general non-sense.

 

[Strafe1]

I already have. The law makes no definition of "hobbyist" or "flying for fun". What it does do is provide exemptions for MODEL AIRCRAFT flown in a certain manner - which is what 336 is all about. Therefore, in order to stay free of FAA regulation, a pilot must adhere to 336 to the letter.

Now here's where you keep missing the boat.

Part of adhering to 336 is "following a set of community guidelines". WHAT set of "community guidelines" are you following? Is the AMA's? Then you can't go over 400ft. Is the FAA's suggested flight restrictions? Then you can't go over 400ft. Is it something else? If so, we'd all LOVE to hear what set of guideline you follow.

The AMA Safety Code says 400' only within 3 miles of an airport.
The FAA's suggestions for safe flight are jsut suggestions.

 

[Strafe1]

Perhaps you can just walk us through your logic start to finish, because it is loaded with circular reasoning, contradictions, and general non-sense.

Or your inability to follow or understand is insurmountable.

 

[aesculus]

I don't think you answered the question. Are people who are not members bound by the AMA rules as strafe would like to think?

The FAA's intentional vagueness is the root of this whole debate. They have referred to "community" guidelines - ie the AMA, because those rules have proven adequate for many years. Because of this, we do not have specific laws governing model aircraft. They've always filled that need, without having to impose laws with penalties. It seems that the FAA doesn't really have any teeth regarding model aircraft. What exactly is the penalty for going over 400' AGL?

 

[AyeYo]

The AMA Safety Code says 400' only within 3 miles of an airport.
The FAA's suggestions for safe flight are jsut suggestions.

Do you need it screenshotted again?




And at the end of the day, it really doesn't matter whether you accept it or not, because what is also spelled out black/white in Section 336 is that visual line of sight be maintained, and there's no way you're properly seeing a Mavic that's over 400ft high anywhere but directly above you.

 

[Strafe1]

The FAA's intentional vagueness is the root of this whole debate. They have referred to "community" guidelines - ie the AMA, because those rules have proven adequate for many years. Because of this, we do not have specific laws governing model aircraft. They've always filled that need, without having to impose laws with penalties. It seems that the FAA doesn't really have any teeth regarding model aircraft. What exactly is the penalty for going over 400' AGL?

The way I understand it is if a pilot endangers the NAS, then an incident report may follow. Something would have to happen that would cause a report I believe.

 

[Strafe1]

Do you need it screenshotted again?

View attachment 9045


And at the end of the day, it really doesn't matter whether you accept it or not, because what is also spelled out black/white in Section 336 is that visual line of sight be maintained, and there's no way you're properly seeing a Mavic that's over 400ft high anywhere but directly above you.

Too bad your screen shot is not of the actual safety code, nor of the reference made in the ENTIRE AMA document.

 

[Strafe1]

Do you need it screenshotted again?

View attachment 9045


And at the end of the day, it really doesn't matter whether you accept it or not, because what is also spelled out black/white in Section 336 is that visual line of sight be maintained, and there's no way you're properly seeing a Mavic that's over 400ft high anywhere but directly above you.

Read the introduction. Read the section on FPV. Read the Safety Code.

 

[AyeYo]

The FAA's intentional vagueness is the root of this whole debate. They have referred to "community" guidelines - ie the AMA, because those rules have proven adequate for many years. Because of this, we do not have specific laws governing model aircraft. They've always filled that need, without having to impose laws with penalties. It seems that the FAA doesn't really have any teeth regarding model aircraft. What exactly is the penalty for going over 400' AGL?

Regarding model aircraft (which has very specific definitions according to Section 336), flown in a manner consistent with the stipulations spelled out in Section 336. That's what people keep missing. It's not a "model aircraft" and exempt from FAA regulation just because you bought it at a hobby store.

 

[AyeYo]

Read the introduction. Read the section on FPV. Read the Safety Code.

I don't need to. Maybe you (again intentionally) missed the summary of my post:

And at the end of the day, it really doesn't matter whether you accept it or not, because what is also spelled out black/white in Section 336 is that visual line of sight be maintained, and there's no way you're properly seeing a Mavic that's over 400ft high anywhere but directly above you.

 

[Strafe1]

I don't need to. Maybe you (again intentionally) missed the summary of my post:

Dude, I can easily see my Mavic at 400 feet and not just over my head. Perhaps you should get acquainted with the acronym: IMHO (In my humble opinion)

 

[aesculus]

The way I understand it is if a pilot endangers the NAS, then an incident report may follow. Something would have to happen that would cause a report I believe.

And so how many incident reports have precipitated from a model pilot exceeding 400' (without involving manned aircraft)? Well that's an easy one, it's zero. And further, if a plane hits a drone below 400' does that mean the drone pilot is in the clear? That's an easy one, too.

 

[Strafe1]

I don't need to. Maybe you (again intentionally) missed the summary of my post:

It should be painfully obvious that nothing is absolutely crystal clear with regards the Law and the FAA and the community guidelines, and especially their interaction. Intelligent people can easily disagree and have done so before this exchange between us. You may believe that you are right and others are wrong, and I may believe that as well. But I will never say that I am the absolute authority on this matter, and if you don't follow me then you are lost and confused. You should approach this the same. If I don't see it the way you do, I am not confused or stupid. I don't think that of you, but you come off as the only one right. You have posts which make a series of deductions that you project as indisputable fact, when in reality, it's just extrapolated opinion. I don't mind the discussion, but there may be no one who is exactly right.

 

[andy966]

The AMA Safety Code says 400' only within 3 miles of an airport.
The FAA's suggestions for safe flight are jsut suggestions.

Guidelines are not suggestions. It's interesting that you chose the word "suggestion" this time though even though you used the word guideline before.

Also, one of the definitions for "guideline" is "a general rule". Maybe that is what the FAA means by guidelines? Now I am pretty convinced that you are not interested in what is actually true, but just debating your point. Kind of like in HS in debate class, how you were asked to argue a point whether you agreed with it or not. If you were interested in the truth you would actually be open to other schools of thought and not just your own.

 

[Strafe1]

And so how many incident reports have precipitated from a model pilot exceeding 400' (without involving manned aircraft)? Well that's an easy one, it's zero. And further, if a plane hits a drone below 400' does that mean the drone pilot is in the clear? That's an easy one, too.

Yea. There is a lot of excessive zealousness in chastising other fliers when nothing bad has happened.