will the FAA know if i fly over 400Ft?

[msinger]

That does not seem to add to or contradict anything in the actual AMA Safety Code that you linked earlier. Appropriate circumstances presumably require following the rest of the safety code

Right on -- it just goes to show it's not as cut and dry as some people think. And you're right -- we can only presume since we don't know. Furthermore, none of this back and forth is really useful until we see the AMA on the list of nationwide community-based organizations (which doesn't even exist).

 

[sar104]

Right on -- it just goes to show it's not as cut and dry as some people think. And you're right -- we can only presume since we don't know. Furthermore, none of this back and forth is really useful until we see the AMA on the list of nationwide community-based organizations (which doesn't even exist).

I'm still not following your reasoning. In what way is it not clear?

You can question whether the AMA Safety Code represents a set of "community-based guidelines" but, especially given the interactions with the FAA and the letter from the FAA to the AMA on this specific issue, that seems a rather moot question. It is arguably the only set of community-based guidelines in the US and, in their letter that has been referenced a couple of times in this thread, they explicitly acknowledge the AMA Safety Code as such (see attached). I don't see how that point is open for debate.

You can also poke at my "presumption" but, if we accept that AMA Safety Code as an appropriate set of community-based guidelines then I see nothing obviously ambiguous in terms of interpretation. They are pretty clearly stated.

 

[msinger]

I'm still not following your reasoning. In what way is it not clear?

Between your presumptions and the rules not being presented in a straightforward way that any hobbyist can understand, I'm not sure any of this is clear to most people. I suppose that's why we often see lengthy FAA-related threads like this one.

if we accept that AMA Safety Code as an appropriate set of community-based guidelines then I see nothing obviously ambiguous in terms of interpretation

When I asked the FAA for a list of community-based organizations and/or to confirm the AMA is a community-based organization, this is the response I received:

"The FAA has no defined authority for the recognition of a nationwide community-based organization."

So, no, I don't think we can blindly accept the AMA Safety Code as an appropriate set of community-based guidelines. If they are to be recognized as such, it should be clearly defined on the FAA's website and/or the appropriate government website/document.

 

[sar104]

Between your presumptions and the rules not being presented in a straightforward way that any hobbyist can understand, I'm not sure any of this is clear to most people. I suppose that's why we often see lengthy FAA-related threads like this one.


When I asked the FAA for a list of community-based organizations and/or to confirm the AMA is a community-based organization, this is the response I received:

"The FAA has no defined authority for the recognition of a nationwide community-based organization."

So, no, I don't think we can blindly accept the AMA Safety Code as an appropriate set of community-based guidelines. If they are to be recognized as such, it should be clearly defined on the FAA's website and/or the appropriate government website/document.

OK - did you read the letter from the FAA to the AMA? I quote:

Section 336, the provision specifically addressing model aircraft in the 2012 FAA Modernization and Reform Act, does not contain a definitive altitude limitation for model aircraft operations. Rather, it requires operation of model aircraft "in accordance with a community-based set of 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 foot AGL altitude recommendation.​

In what sense is that not a straightforward FAA endorsement of the AMA Safety Code as an FAA-accepted set of community guidelines? That is a formal, attributed, written response from the FAA. Should we prefer your unattributed FAA comment to that as a definitive position?

It appears to me that we often see lengthy threads such as that due to a reluctance on the part of many people to read the relevant laws and legal positions.

 

[msinger]

That is a formal, attributed, written response from the FAA. Should we prefer your unattributed FAA comment to that as a definitive position?

My point is that other FAA employees sing a different tune and the FAA website (where a majority of pilots are probably referencing) doesn't mention that and/or include a list of recognized community-based organizations. Perhaps there is no list since the FAA apparently is not in charge of creating/maintaining such a list (per my FAA contact). It would be interesting to know which list Mr. Lawrence is referencing in his letter.

It appears to me that we often see lengthy threads such as that due to a reluctance on the part of many people to read the relevant laws and legal positions.

And here lies the problem. The relevant laws are quite vague. We shouldn't need to rely on legal positions and/or presumptions from forum members.

 

[sar104]

My point is that other FAA employees sing a different tune and the FAA website (where a majority of pilots are probably referencing) doesn't mention that and/or include a list of recognized community-based organizations. Perhaps there is no list since the FAA apparently is not in charge of creating/maintaining such a list (per my FAA contact). It would be interesting to know which list Mr. Lawrence is referencing in his letter.


And here lies the problem. The relevant laws are quite vague. We shouldn't need to rely on legal positions and/or presumptions from forum members.

OK - I don't want to get into a protracted argument with you on this, so I'll make a couple more points and then we can leave it to the interested reader, if there are any left, to assess the evidence.

Firstly, why are you so hung up on the existence of a published list of organizations? There is no requirement, per se, for there to be a list. Apparently your FAA contact even told you that there isn't a list. The FAA, reluctantly or otherwise, has confirmed, in writing, that they recognize the AMA as such an organization. If you doubt the provenance of that letter then say so. If not, then why do you not accept it as the official FAA position? Other random, unattributed, unofficial comments from other FAA employees do not count.

Secondly, in my opinion, just continually restating that the laws are vague is not an argument. Could you be a bit more specific? Which law is vague, and in what way? And please stop asserting that this hinges on the legal opinion of forum members. The legal opinion in question is the one issued by the FAA to the AMA. It's right there, in black and white plain text, that you are studiously ignoring, and it is fully consistent with Section 336 and Part 101.

I agree that the FAA website, which is purely informational since websites are not legal documents, makes all kinds of suggestions regarding requirements that may well confuse people. They are hampered in regulating hobby UAVs in the NAS by the Special Rule, and so are clearly doing whatever they feel they can to encourage safe flying. That doesn't amount to law, and I'd expect you to know better and understand the distinction.

 

[msinger]

I don't want to get into a protracted argument with you on this

Oh, you thought we were in an argument? My apologies. If you are here to argue, then you'll have to battle with someone else. I'm only here to share some knowledge and (hopefully) learn more about this topic.

why are you so hung up on the existence of a published list of organizations?

I'm interested in learning how to follow section 336 so I'm able to legally operate as a hobbyist. The law requires that I operate in accordance with a community-based set of safety guidelines and within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization, so I'll need a list of those organizations so I can comply.

There is no requirement, per se, for there to be a list.

So, I'm required to choose one of these organizations, but the law is not going to tell me which organizations are recognized? That doesn't make much sense.

Apparently your FAA contact even told you that there isn't a list.

Per my comment above, my FAA contact simply stated the FAA does not have the authority to create such a list. Since Mr. Lawrence works for the FAA, that also means he and/or the FAA does not have the authority to recognize the AMA has one of those organizations (unless he's referencing this mysterious list).

The FAA, reluctantly or otherwise, has confirmed, in writing, that they recognize the AMA as such an organization.

That letter is pretty much useless since the FAA has no defined authority for the recognition of a nationwide community-based organization.

If you doubt the provenance of that letter then say so.

I'm not doubting the authenticity of that letter. I'm wondering what value it adds to this discussion though.

If not, then why do you not accept it as the official FAA position?

The FAA is free to share as many opinions as they'd like (in private letters and/or publicly on their website). However, since they are hampered in regulating hobby UAVs in the NAS by the Special Rule, it makes good sense that they also do not have the power to choose which organizations should be recognized.

Secondly, in my opinion, just continually restating that the laws are vague is not an argument. Could you be a bit more specific? Which law is vague, and in what way?

Again -- here's the section of 336 that I feel is vague:

"the aircraft is operated in accordance with a community-based set of safety guidelines and within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization"

Isn't the Boy Scouts of America a nationwide community-based organization? If so, can I follow their drone guidelines (assuming they have guidelines)?

please stop asserting that this hinges on the legal opinion of forum members.

I've stated nothing of the kind. I only said forum members should not be relying on legal opinions (as you suggested they should do above). The law should clearly define the list of nationwide community-based organizations so hobbyists can choose one and follow the guidelines (which is what seems to want us to do).

I agree that the FAA website, which is purely informational since websites are not legal documents, makes all kinds of suggestions regarding requirements that may well confuse people. They are hampered in regulating hobby UAVs in the NAS by the Special Rule, and so are clearly doing whatever they feel they can to encourage safe flying.

Since the FAA's job is to promote/ensure airspace safety, they should also be doing everything in their power to help hobbyists understand the laws that need to be followed. It makes little sense to create a page like this and not help hobbyists find a recognized nationwide community-based organization if such a list of organizations exists. And if that list doesn't exist, no hobbyist can be sure they are following that rule.

 

[WilsonFlyer]

You can argue about this until the cows come home, but the AMA is THE community based organization that actually worked via lobbyists with the FAA to get these regulations put in place. Further, as far as I know, the AMA is the ONLY "community based safety code" that is recognized by the FAA.

Anybody willing to do the research can easily find that the above is true. I am the AMA, and I have fought these arguments until I am blue in the face. I've been flying full scale and RC for over 35 years and I've been an AMA member the entire time. It gets tiring arguing with people that think they know everything about RC flying when RC experts (I think 35 years and thousands and thousands of hours of PIC time afford me that title) tell them they're wrong and actually try to help clarify the rules.

Buying a white box from Best Buy doesn't make you an RC pilot. Declaring yourself some sort of RC vendor/expert because you have a TaxID and a placard on some internet door somewhere doesn't either. Stick time and hours invested in the hobby make you an RC pilot, as well as being a member of the AMA and your local RC Flying Chapter.

 

[sar104]

You can argue about this until the cows come home, but the AMA is THE community based organization that actually worked via lobbyists with the FAA to get these regulations put in place. Further, as far as I know, the AMA is the ONLY "community based safety code" that is recognized by the FAA.

Anybody willing to do the research can easily find that the above is true. I am the AMA, and I have fought these arguments until I am blue in the face. I've been flying full scale and RC for over 35 years and I've been an AMA member the entire time. It gets tiring arguing with people that think they know everything about RC flying when RC experts (I think 35 years and thousands and thousands of hours of PIC time afford me that title) tell them they're wrong and actually try to help clarify the rules.

Buying a white box from Best Buy doesn't make you an RC pilot. Declaring yourself some sort of RC vendor/expert because you have a TaxID and a placard on some internet door somewhere doesn't either. Stick time and hours invested in the hobby make you an RC pilot, as well as being a member of the AMA and your local RC Flying Chapter.

Agreed - if there are any other community-based safety codes that the FAA recognizes then I haven't seen any indication of it either.

 

[WilsonFlyer]

The AMA IS the "community based organization". Stop being so damned contrary and admit you don't know everything and try listening for a change instead of just arguing (stupidly, I might add) about things you obviously know nothing about.

 

[sar104]

Oh, you thought we were in an argument? My apologies. If you are here to argue, then you'll have to battle with someone else. I'm only here to share some knowledge and (hopefully) learn more about this topic.


I'm interested in learning how to follow section 336 so I'm able to legally operate as a hobbyist. The law requires that I operate in accordance with a community-based set of safety guidelines and within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization, so I'll need a list of those organizations so I can comply.


So, I'm required to choose one of these organizations, but the law is not going to tell me which organizations are recognized? That doesn't make much sense.


Per my comment above, my FAA contact simply stated the FAA does not have the authority to create such a list. Since Mr. Lawrence works for the FAA, that also means he and/or the FAA does not have the authority to recognize the AMA has one of those organizations (unless he's referencing this mysterious list).


That letter is pretty much useless since the FAA has no defined authority for the recognition of a nationwide community-based organization.


I'm not doubting the authenticity of that letter. I'm wondering what value it adds to this discussion though.


The FAA is free to share as many opinions as they'd like (in private letters and/or publicly on their website). However, since they are hampered in regulating hobby UAVs in the NAS by the Special Rule, it makes good sense that they also do not have the power to choose which organizations should be recognized.


Again -- here's the section of 336 that I feel is vague:

"the aircraft is operated in accordance with a community-based set of safety guidelines and within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization"

Isn't the Boy Scouts of America a nationwide community-based organization? If so, can I follow their drone guidelines (assuming they have guidelines)?


I've stated nothing of the kind. I only said forum members should not be relying on legal opinions (as you suggested they should do above). The law should clearly define the list of nationwide community-based organizations so hobbyists can choose one and follow the guidelines (which is what seems to want us to do).


Since the FAA's job is to promote/ensure airspace safety, they should also be doing everything in their power to help hobbyists understand the laws that need to be followed. It makes little sense to create a page like this and not help hobbyists find a recognized nationwide community-based organization if such a list of organizations exists. And if that list doesn't exist, no hobbyist can be sure they are following that rule.

Again -- here's the section of 336 that I feel is vague:

"the aircraft is operated in accordance with a community-based set of safety guidelines and within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization"

Isn't the Boy Scouts of America a nationwide community-based organization? If so, can I follow their drone guidelines (assuming they have guidelines)?​

I'm going to make the assumption that you are joking with that comment.

As for being here to argue - we have been arguing different interpretations of this situation. That is, by definition, a process of argument so yes, we have being arguing. Nothing wrong with that at all.

Since the FAA's job is to promote/ensure airspace safety, they should also be doing everything in their power to help hobbyists understand the laws that need to be followed. It makes little sense to create a page like this and not help hobbyists find a recognized nationwide community-based organization if such a list of organizations exists. And if that list doesn't exist, no hobbyist can be sure they are following that rule.
​

This I completely agree with - I'm not defending their website. They could have done a much better job with it overall, and with being willing to point to the AMA as either the community-based organization or at least as an example of one.

 

[WilsonFlyer]

I don't give a **** what you feel is vague. Your feelings are totally irrelevant here, as they are in most things when it comes to the law. It doesn't change what it is.

Sell what you have and stop flying if you don't like it.

 

[WilsonFlyer]

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.

 

[msinger]

I'm going to make the assumption that you are joking with that comment.

No, it's really not a joke. While the law might not recognize them as a nationwide community-based organization under 336, they are a nationwide community-based organization. It boggles my mind how you can be so sure you know exactly which organizations the law is referring to when they vaguely state "nationwide community-based organization". While most people would probably agree the AMA should be on that list, there seems to be no such list.

 

[msinger]

I don't give a **** what you feel is vague. Your feelings are totally irrelevant here, as they are in most things when it comes to the law. It doesn't change what it is.

Who is trying to change the law? I'm just trying to understand it.

 

[sar104]

No, it's really not a joke. While the law might not recognize them as a nationwide community-based organization under 336, they are a nationwide community-based organization. It boggles my mind how you can be so sure you know exactly which organizations the law is referring to when they vaguely state "nationwide community-based organization". While most people would probably agree the AMA should be on that list, there seems to be no such list.

OK - but I still don't understand your insistence on ignoring the FAA letter. I can be sure simply because that letter explicitly states that they regard the AMA as a nationwide community-based organization that they recognize. There is nothing vague about it at all. If you have a similar letter in your possession confirming that the FAA also recognizes the Boy Scouts of America in that role then your comment makes sense. Otherwise it really doesn't.

 

[msinger]

I still don't understand your insistence on ignoring the FAA letter. I can be sure simply because that letter explicitly states that they regard the AMA as a nationwide community-based organization that they recognize. There is nothing vague about it at all.

I don't think that letter is vague at all. The FAA told me they have no defined authority for the recognition of a nationwide community-based organization. If I assume that statement is true (I have no reason not to), then that reference in the FAA letter doesn't mean anything.

Remember when the FAA told us we had to register our drones? That was in writing in many places.

If you have a similar letter in your possession confirming that the FAA also recognizes the Boy Scouts of America in that role then your comment makes sense. Otherwise it really doesn't.

Again -- the FAA does not make the law, so they cannot decide who is a nationwide community-based organization.

 

[msinger]

No. You're just arguing for argument's sake, because the only other discernible conclusion would be that you're an idiot.

If you have nothing nice to say, then I'd appreciate it if you'd keep your personal attacks to yourself.

 

[sar104]

I don't think that letter is vague at all. The FAA told me they have no defined authority for the recognition of a nationwide community-based organization. If I assume that statement is true (I have no reason not to), then that reference in the FAA letter doesn't mean anything.

Remember when the FAA told us we had to register our drones? That was in writing in many places.


Again -- the FAA does not make the law, so they cannot decide who is a nationwide community-based organization.

I'll state the obvious, again: the reason that you might doubt what the unnamed FAA employee told you is that it is contradicted by a formal FAA document - the letter in question. And yet instead, you seem determined to accept the informal information that you received and use that to dismiss the formal document. That seems perverse to me, but your prerogative, of course.

The registration example is a false equivalency. The FAA implemented a policy that was overturned in a court challenge as contrary to the FAA Modernization and Reform Act. If someone wishes to challenge the FAA letter in court and get their recognition of the AMA overturned, then you can come back with that argument.

Your final point confuses law with implementation. The law already exists - defined in PUBLIC LAW 112–95 Section 336 and implemented, with the same wording, in 14 CFR 101:

"...the aircraft is operated in accordance with a community- based set of safety guidelines and within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization;"​

14 CFR 101 falls under the DOT, specifically the FAA, and so they get to interpret it. They don't need to make a new law to do that.

 

[msinger]

you seem determined to accept the informal information that you received and use that to dismiss the formal document

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.

Your final point confuses law with implementation. The law already exists - defined in PUBLIC LAW 112–95 Section 336 and implemented, with the same wording, in 14 CFR 101:

"...the aircraft is operated in accordance with a community- based set of safety guidelines and within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization;"

14 CFR 101 falls under the DOT, specifically the FAA, and so they get to interpret it. They don't need to make a new law to do that.

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.