AMA Report on new FFA ruling

[JoeJust]

Got lengthy email from AMA yesterday. FAA says ABSOLUTLY NO FLYING ABOVE 400 FT.! The airport at Pasco,, just a very few miles from one of the best slope soaring sites is 300 ft above sea level. the ridges they fly sailplanes from is over 700 feet high. Does that mean that gliders are already above the 400 foot max, even when the plane sits on the ground?
I know that this doesn't apply to our flying, but this type of ruling can morph into some terrible situations.

[john e. holliday]

When are the college educated idiots at the FAA and AMA going to learn that radio control models are the only thing that a person can control the altitude.  The drones are being abused by idiots that don't care about safety in some areas.  Free flight planes depend on engine runs, but I don't think many, other than the NATS are flown close to airports.   Gliders flying in dedicated sites should not be penalized if some full size real plane flies over an area he should not be in.  I have seen where RC gliders and real gliders have flown in the same area with out mishaps.  I think some people in the FAA needs to go takes lessons on what a model plane is.   I just wonder how many people are flying RC and FF with out any knowledge of what the FAA is trying to do.

[Tom Vieira]

it's 400' AGL, not ASL.

[peabody]

The Academy recommends that people contact their Representatives.
This is a real threat to ALL Airmodeling! Most CL sites are shared facilities with RC fields, or on government property
Here's the letter I got:

Dear member –   
   
We need your assistance in an urgent matter. Late last week, the FAA unexpectedly informed us that, contrary to earlier commitments to AMA, the agency is planning to limit all recreational model aircraft operations to 400 feet in controlled airspace – with no exceptions. Additionally, the FAA is proposing restrictions in uncontrolled airspace to altitudes that could present safety issues as well as limit some model aircraft operations altogether. We were stunned by this proposal and are pushing back, but we need your help.   
   
We urge you to send a letter to your elected representatives in Congress and ask them to contact the FAA on this critical issue. Please visit www.modelaircraft.org/higher-flight  to contact your representative.
 
Congress specifically granted the FAA the flexibility to allow operations over 400 feet if safety would not be affected. The FAA has not provided AMA with any data that proves that our operations are a safety risk. As you know, our model aircraft operations do not pose any safety or security risk to local airports or aircraft. The FAA needs to honor the Congressional directive to work with AMA on these issues.     
   
Because of the negative impact on so many AMA members and clubs, we are going to fight this proposal with every resource at our disposal. You, our members, are our best resource.   
   
To have the maximum impact on this proposed policy as possible, please share this message with your friends, family and fellow club members who love our hobby. To learn more about this policy, please click here. Also monitor your emails for new information as we work to fight this restrictive policy. As always, we are committed to doing everything possible to protect the model aviation hobby. If you have questions, please contact us at (765)287-1256 or amagov@modelaircraft.org.
   
Sincerely, 
   
The AMA Government Affairs Team 
 

[Brett Buck]

   
We need your assistance in an urgent matter. Late last week, the FAA unexpectedly informed us that, contrary to earlier commitments to AMA, the agency is planning to limit all recreational model aircraft operations to 400 feet in controlled airspace – with no exceptions.
 

   This is what I predicted to Dobbs and Budreau in a email about a year ago, so I am not sure how "unexpected" it is. Things are progressing along the lines I expected, and the AMA's vaunted "influence" has proven, again, to be about like a small town Chamber of Commerce visit to Washington.

    BTW, the drone manufacturers are directly opposing most of these AMA carve-outs, because they know that they can't make a deal for themselves that is compatible with the AMA. Of late, some of the desperate pleas for assistance have changed tone, now, all of a sudden, drones are the enemy.

  Brett

[FLOYD CARTER]

I suggest we wait until someone is arrested and charged for flying over the altitude limit.  Then, we shall see if AMA wants to assist in defending the person in court.  If they ignore this, then we will have a benchmark on how AMA REALLY intends to fight for the modeler, as they claim.

I wonder if the FAA and/or the Feds will appoint special deputies to monitor flying sites.  How else can they enforce the rule?

[Dave_Trible]

This is really tough news and could mostly end some of the R/C and most FF events.  It isn't too hard to get a hand launch glider that high in a thermal.  You can make noise but I doubt it will have much affect on your congressman or the FAA.  This will cut deep into the suppliers who provide things WE use too.  To make some lemonade from lemons,  it seems like a good time to reach out to some of those guys and suggest they try a Ringmaster...............

Dave

[Brett Buck]

I suggest we wait until someone is arrested and charged for flying over the altitude limit.  Then, we shall see if AMA wants to assist in defending the person in court.  If they ignore this, then we will have a benchmark on how AMA REALLY intends to fight for the modeler, as they claim.

I wonder if the FAA and/or the Feds will appoint special deputies to monitor flying sites.  How else can they enforce the rule?

  In general, they won't. They will use this to hang someone out to dry if there is an "incident". So it's not really about safety, it's about tagging someone after the fact for it.

    Brett

[Avaiojet]

I wish there were more "full size" pilots in the Forum.

[Jim Kraft]

This will completely kill the SAM events as most all of their activities are over 400'. As I recall, the Australians had to shut down all SAM events a year ago as they could not get a waiver.

People have been arrested for flying control line because Barney did not know a model airplane from a turnip. They did get released as someone knew the difference at the station.

We are in a transition mode, and no one knows for sure where we stand. I think that is the plan. Keep us in the dark until they bring down the other foot.

[Perry Rose]

Who is/was the PAMPA rep. that helped in this long exhausting effort?

[Brett Buck]

Who is/was the PAMPA rep. that helped in this long exhausting effort?

  They AMA is not asking anyone, they steadfastly refuse to address the fact that this does not affect control line.

   Brett

[Perry Rose]

It's painfully obvious to me, anyway, that no one on the AMA team had previous dealings with the FAA.

[Steve Fitton]

When rocketry was faced with this sort of heavy handed government treatment, they had to hire some high powered DC lawyers and take the government (BATFE) to court (and won).  AMA will almost certainly have to resort to this as well.

[Dave_Trible]

Actually they did.  They sent a small team including a Washington lawyer or two to make their case with the FAA and some Congress people.    The final decisions were left to the FAA and they slapped AMA and some Congressmen in the face.  I can only make a guess they might want to create a free airspace above 400 ft. for future commercial drone operation (Amazon etc.)

Dave

[Dave Hull]

This is like trying to use a tin cup to keep the tide from coming in.

A few comments, based on what people have said in the thread above.

1. The AMA did hold a flight demo that included control line flying just a short while ago for the FAA sUAS directorate people (the folk generating the regulations) to come out and see. This was held in Maryland. I provided a demonstration list, but suspect it was all watered down because R/C was likely the prime interest. My interest was getting a blanket exclusion for control line from sUAS/Drone/RC regulations since we have no radio link and no "unconstrained altitude/location" issues. The AMA did not seem enthusiastic about my written input--except for the district representatives, who passed on the information to AMA headquarters. The district guys also attended both club meetings (Knights of the Round Circle) and flying fields (VCB and the Knights) to see for themselves what the situation looks like.

2. We have "full-sized" pilots here on the forum, and I'm one of them. What is it exactly, Mr. Avaio are you trying to accomplish, via your  statement?

3. The FAA regs will use AGL and MSL as appropriate. For this issue, I would expect virtually all the discussion/regs to use AGL.

4. The question of accountability and support to modelers is a difficult one, and a sore spot. Here in SoCal, after our field was shut down this summer, it required a club president to sign an FAA form that he would ensure compliance with the new (temporary?) LOA that the FAA drafted. How a club officer can enforce compliance in a public park, where AMA membership is not even required is troubling, to say the least. As a control line club president, it would be a lot easier to sign off since no one is going to be able to bust the new 250' AGL limit, and no one can fly out of the model airfield boundary. Points I keep making to the AMA to pass on the FAA--but which they may not have done, due to the timidity of their approach on control line. "Don't jeopardize the RC operations by bringing up control line."

5. I was unaware that any control line flyers had been arrested. Can you provide specifics, Jim?

6. I think a question that the FAA should answer is whether they feel the risk to a G550 Gulfstream that is departing an airport such as Van Nuys is at greater risk because it flew into a tethered model airplane at 70' altitude--or if the are more worried about the huge smoking hole in the ground that the NTSB is going to come investigate? I can hear it now: "a contributing factor in the crash of the G550 was a small, 46 oz. plane that the G550 wing hit right before it descended into terrain with both engines dead 4 miles from the runway. The probable cause was that the engines both flamed out due to a refueling error. The Drone, however, was flying in contravention of the new sUAS rules which are in place to prevent just this type of accident."

Dave
President, Valley Circle Burners

[Jim Carter]

    Y'all are getting all flustered for no good reason!!  Just give the situation a few months and when the Democrats take over …. well, this situation will all go away!!     

[WR Crane aka MrClean]

It's 700 foot in non restricted areas, still to low for Thermal planes, pattern?  I don't know the tops in pattern though I should.  But, big money half a VW engine gassers, Jets and Drones are what got us this attention, ehhh, lets face it DRONES have gotten us this attention.  People doing building and tower dives, pretty cool BUT I imagine that goes a long way to restriction.  And CHINA doesn't like it that drones are showing what were happening in Hong Kong for the last month.  Gotta stomp that out world wide.  I imagine that FF will finally get crunched too even though they were exempt in the last ruling.  I wonder how many folks will start flying Control Line?  But they HAVE to clear the airspace so Amazon can fly their delivery drones unrestricted.
I wonder how it will affect model rocketry?  HP get clearances to 30 or more thousand feet.  Won't be able to fly a couple of my C powered Estes rockets at the 400-700 height.

Oh well, at least you can play candy crush on your mobile tracking device so the Gubment can keep their tabs on ya.

[Brett Buck]

2. We have "full-sized" pilots here on the forum, and I'm one of them. What is it exactly, Mr. Avaio are you trying to accomplish, via your  statement?

   The same thing he attempts to accomplish with every statement - have people pay attention to him.

    Brtt

[Brett Buck]

Actually they did.  They sent a small team including a Washington lawyer or two to make their case with the FAA and some Congress people.    The final decisions were left to the FAA and they slapped AMA and some Congressmen in the face.  I can only make a guess they might want to create a free airspace above 400 ft. for future commercial drone operation (Amazon etc.)

   I guess I misunderstood, then, because I was unaware that the AMA had asked PAMPA for an opinion or assistance. I know they don't listen to anyone else.

  Of course they sent their own delegation, who got, very predictably, treated like small-time rubes out on a visit to Washington, and then sent on their way.

    Brett

[Dan McEntee]

   I think you mis-understood , Brett. I think Dave was referring to the AMA sending a Team to Washington. As far as I know or have heard and read, the AMA has not consulted any of the special interest groups, who I would think could be quite a bit of good help.
  I seem to remember the rockery tussle. I think it was around the time they wanted to reclassify rocket engines as a higher explosive pyrotechnic? It would have made them impossibly expensive just to ship, or maybe even illegal outright? That's been a while and my memory of it is spotty. I heard more about it through hobby industry publications ans such than in any AMA publication.
  I think the FAA knows that they can not figure this out, they cannot possibly enforce any of it, so they just intend to try to intimidate and make big blanket rules and regulations and make threats about non compliance.
  I forget who posted it first, but I still agree with the thought that they need to regulate and license the cameras and FPV technology. With out that, the quads are petty much useless. If they would concentrate on limiting who can have the video equipment, that pretty much makes it a tool, for which I think they have great potential and can be very useful. You just have to make things so your average idiot can't buy one and then go down to the local airport and try to take video of wide eyed pilots on final, which is the real problem.
  Type at you later,
   Dan McEntee 

[Brett Buck]

   I think you mis-understood , Brett. I think Dave was referring to the AMA sending a Team to Washington. As far as I know or have heard and read, the AMA has not consulted any of the special interest groups, who I would think could be quite a bit of good help.

   I responded to the post I quoted - about who in PAMPA assisted the AMA. I assumed that the AMA never asked for any input from PAMPA, Dave suggests otherwise, so I may have missed something.

    Brett

[Sean McEntee]

 
  I forget who posted it first, but I still agree with the thought that they need to regulate and license the cameras and FPV technology. With out that, the quads are petty much useless. If they would concentrate on limiting who can have the video equipment, that pretty much makes it a tool, for which I think they have great potential and can be very useful.
  Type at you later,
   Dan McEntee

  I’m one of them. That’s the only way at this point.  I was at a Hobbytown looking for my super small RDT batteries, and according to them, hobby-grade quads are pretty much dead.  Everyone wants GPS guided stuff.   

[Dave Hull]

More follow-up:

1. I discussed the necessary exclusion for control line with Richard Hanson back in 2011. See my post in a previous thread which included that detailed letter. Fast forward approximately eight years and note the progress:  we have an exclusionary statement on the VIP TFRs for control line--if the locals will honor it. This is one reason why I'd like to know if CL'ers have been arrested or not. We need to know how best to deal with the local enforcement guys to make sure we have the paperwork to convince them. That's not much progress in my book, and if we (AMA) had been effective, we had a good chance of staying out of this inevitable drone legislation.

2. Not sure what Dave T. of PAMPA has been asked to support, but separate from PAMPA, I provided position papers and a detailed plan for an FAA control line demo--a separate demo--to the AMA prior to the recent amalgamated Maryland event. While I am not affiliated with PAMPA, I do represent one of the two control line clubs in Los Angeles. Our club has fully supported each of these efforts. I volunteered to help with the demo beyond just the provided planning and documentation. The AMA--including the district reps--said they had this under control. One of the issues here is that at each step, the AMA is controlling access to the FAA folks. I can understand that if they had a viable strategy and were executing it, and showing definitive progress--even small but timely increments--that they wouldn't want the unwashed membership to attempt to get involved or interfere. But if a grassroots effort has provided more CL information, risk assessment paperwork, logical arguments etc. than apparently the AMA government leadership team, then don't you think it is time for them to actually avail themselves of the strength of their organization? Rather than just ask for letters after the scales fall from their eyes? I say "apparently" regarding the material provided to the FAA on CL, because every request I have made to the AMA for info on what is being presented, when it is being presented, who is involved, etc. has been either rebuffed or only very reluctantly and partially answered. That is a great state of affairs for a member-type organization.

3. Relative to the drone threat and putting the rabbit back in the hat: I worked in the military side of this for decades. There were early indications that this was going to become a major problem if certain key technologies became widely available. When cheap electronics combined with the absolute fascination of many--and virtually every young person--to take pictures of anything and everything, and videos if at all possible, we evolved this problem. The real issues regarding the FAA and airspace in my opinion is not so much with the cameras, but with technology on a chip that will couple 3-axis autopilot with GPS allowing autonomous flight. No piloting required. Beyond line of sight poses no challenge. Get rid of that, and you are back to pretty much an R/C helicopter flight envelope and limitations, just with a camera stuck on. Further, camera "bootlegging" is easy and therefore likely to be an ineffective enforcement tool. But if you do not have a GPS coupled autopilot, you reset the whole scenario  back to a status that is just like traditional RC. So you make all GPS coupled autopilot electronics subject to FAR part 107 licensing. You sell chips only to approved manufacturers. You require a modified interface on all new drones, and drain the market of existing vehicles/chips over time. It took years to let this get out of control; it will take years--even with a good plan--to get it back under control. You can check my previous posts if you'd like more details.

4. Note that blaming it all on drones is not going to work either. Sure, the dronies caused the elevated level of attention with some spectacularly dumb, illegal and immoral stunts.  But in the case of the RC field at Van Nuys, it appears to be the tower guys who got the field shut down. For RC planes punching up thru the 400' ceiling. For using smoke when they were told that it was not allowed inside the TCA. For flying off airport boundaries--and even doing it while the FAA, ATC, sUAS, CHP and others watched during their jet rally. In fact, the dronies at our field have gotten ever more civilized and aware of regulations. Less clear that the R/C guys have changed many habits that got the field shut down once already.

Our club has repeated offered to assist the AMA on various issues. That offer remains open.

Dave Hull
President, Valley Circle Burners

[Brett Buck]

. The AMA--including the district reps--said they had this under control. One of the issues here is that at each step, the AMA is controlling access to the FAA folks. I can understand that if they had a viable strategy and were executing it, and showing definitive progress--even small but timely increments--that they wouldn't want the unwashed membership to attempt to get involved or interfere. But if a grassroots effort has provided more CL information, risk assessment paperwork, logical arguments etc. than apparently the AMA government leadership team, then don't you think it is time for them to actually avail themselves of the strength of their organization? Rather than just ask for letters after the scales fall from their eyes? I say "apparently" regarding the material provided to the FAA on CL, because every request I have made to the AMA for info on what is being presented, when it is being presented, who is involved, etc. has been either rebuffed or only very reluctantly and partially answered. That is a great state of affairs for a member-type organization.

   Emphasis added.

   This is an outstanding assessment of the situation. I have had very similar situations with both the AVPs, and Dobbs (and earlier Budreau). They have taken it upon themselves to negotiate a blanket agreement with the FAA, and have attempted every possible way to interfere with individual clubs from straightening out what, ultimately, is a very simple misunderstanding.   We had a perfectly good agreement and understanding with the FAA and tower people at the Napa Airport, they understood what we were doing, we understood their concerns, and we were fine - unlimited flying any time, they didn't see a problem.David explained it to them, they said "Oh, OK, we get it, no problem, do whatever you want". 15 minutes, out the door.

   The AMA, separately, negotiated a deal that *wiped out all existing agreements*, including ours, came up with new restrictions with no variants, and then negotiated the fact that their new agreements were going to be processed first. So, they wiped us out, and made it impossible to bypass them, or we would be out of business for years.

     Brett

[Dave_Trible]

   I guess I misunderstood, then, because I was unaware that the AMA had asked PAMPA for an opinion or assistance. I know they don't listen to anyone else.

  Of course they sent their own delegation, who got, very predictably, treated like small-time rubes out on a visit to Washington, and then sent on their way.

    Brett

Oh no I didn't mean to confuse. AMA sent people,  not PAMPA.  To the FAA PAMPA might be a brand of diapers.  Has as much pull with them as it would with your mother.

Dave

[Tom Vieira]

We just had a small issue in Cinci at our contest.

We fly right across the street from Lunkin airport.  RIGHT ACROSS...  we use the bathrooms in their terminal building and their restaurant!

Day one of the contest went awesome!  On Day two, we were greeted with a police officer parked kinda off to the side a bit watching like a hawk.....  Turns out, while we are VERY friendly with the airport manager, the tower wasn't happy, they thought we were flying drones.  Luckily, the officer flew CL as a kid, so knew what was up, and just watched all day.  Airport manager smoothed things over with the tower.  But, Manager and Tower are two different entities.  one is local, on reports to Washington.....

[Jim Kraft]

I remember you relating that information before Brett, and it made me sick to my stomach. We should have never been a part of this from the beginning, and the AMA knows that is true or they really are idiots and have no place as the head of AMA. They know.

We have been sold out. That is the truth and there is no other explanation. If the AMA will not stand behind us we are going to have a tough job of convincing any one to the contrary.

Your story convinced me what this is all about. Not modelers, but saving the AMA.

[Dave_Trible]

Today from the AOPA,  Aircraft Owners & Pilots Assoc...; 
The FAA has made clear that Section 336 (the cut-out provision for model aircraft-Dave) stands in the way of further integration of unmanned aircraft in the National Airspace System, a proposition backed by many businesses  and policy makers focused on the growth of a new industry.  Section 336 was the basis of a successful federal court challenge of the FAA's authority to require registration of non-commercial drones, and also precludes the FAA from requiring that all unmanned aircraft be able to broadcast identifying information and facilitate remote tracking by authorities......
.....Mandatory registration of noncommercial sUAS ended in May 2017 after a federal judge cited Section 336 in a decision striking down that registration requirement, but the bill now headed to the final Senate vote would allow the FAA to reinstate that requirement and add others.
The 2018 FAA reauthorization bill limits all unmanned aircraft, including traditional radio-controlled model aircraft, to fly no higher than 400 feet.  It requires prior authorization for all unmanned operations within controlled airspace, though flights from designated model airfields would be allowed without specific authorization under prior agreement with local air traffic control.  The new Law would also require all operators to pass a knowledge test, and allow the FAA to require virtually all aircraft to be registered and marked.  It also leaves the door open to other rules designed to support safety and security.  ...........
............The Academy of Model Aeronautics mounted a last minute push against the legislation in the days before and after the House voted 398 to 23 on Sept. 26 to move the five year FAA reauthorization to the Senate.
"The bill imposes a 400 foot altitude cap on model aircraft, which, in a single pen stroke, kills many of our operations that have been safely conducted for decades", said AMA Interim Executive Director Chad Bureau......."we are not the problem, yet this bill will deal a blow to our hobby and the many local communities, charities , and educational programs we support.".

So that's what the real issue has been from the beginning-the monied interest pushing commercial drone operation win.   I'd guess the fear of rogue drones doing evil was actually secondary and something of a cover.   The AMA never had any real chance even if they hadn't married up to the drone culture in the beginning.

(sigh)

Dave


Might consider this sort of imminent domain of the sky -and modelers got evicted.

[Dave Hull]

The AMA sent Rich Hanson (and another?) to a working conference earlier this summer. The 2-day conference agenda was on-line. Hanson got to sit on one panel in one session, if I recall correctly, representing what model airplanes do in the airspace. The rest of the conference seemed to center on how to get your commercial drone operations approved. How to fill out the paperwork. How to get your operators licensed, etc. The FAA was well represented as presenters and panel members.

The use of drones in rural environments isn't challenging. Pipeline patrols, power line inspections, cattle monitoring, crop monitoring, fence monitoring. No real conflicts. The technology and deconfliction rules are here today.

Looking to the future, and where the money comes in is a different situation entirely. What the public may not like, are the constant overflights of drones delivering coffee and croissants to the neighbor's house (some have declared this would be useful) and anything sourced from China, purchased thru Amazon, and delivered by the lowest bidder straight to your front porch. What Hey, don't drop that 4-slice toaster on my roof! How do you flight plan around trees and wires? You don't, completely. You have to depend on a good deal of autonomy. Just like self-driving cars, but now in 3-space. There's a good plan....

For those of you who live in an urban area where suddenly the rental bikes and scooters appeared--and now are scattered and semi-abandoned all over the landscape, you'll likely get a repeat scenario with delivery drones. They are going to go down, and they are going to have people paid to go recover them. It's just not likely that they'll stick to routing delivery drones over streets (that would increase the chance of mid-airs) so the recovery teams will be using their trackers and marching as the crow   er, drone flies...

Under current FAA rules, it is my opinion that if these delivery drones followed proven safety rules, they'd  be flying at over 500' and only landing at airports and helipads. But forget your shotguns, fellas. I read of one arrest already for a guy shooting one down. A smarter deal here would be to get your part 107 license, get your business area defined, and then make incessant and unrelenting deliveries over the homes and offices of the FAA executives and members of Congress. If they can't be bothered to read and understand the way their laws are being implemented and the likely negatives, then it seems like the best way to get their attention is to accelerate their learning process.

It is entertaining reading to see what some of the existing delivery services think of the viability of "drone drops." These are big companies that could have easily jumped into the field--but didn't. So either they just didn't want the hassle of "guiding" the FAA and Congress thru a developing business and regulations, or they can see this business model just doesn't pay. Time will tell.

So while there may be significant pressure on officials to create regulations that integrate commercial drone operations into urban airspace the dichotomy is that the fear of drone use as a terror weapon is what created the public uproar, (GPS guided drones on the White House front lawn, etc.) as well as pressure from the US Secret Service. So when is the public going to shift over from fear of autonomous drones to an uncontrolled desire to use them as a delivery tool?

Dave

[Charles Meeks]

Why would you fly above 400 feet AGL?  I would think you wouldn't be able to see the aircraft.
Best regards

[Dave_Trible]

Of course we (CL) wouldn’t but some RC will,  soaring etc , but much in Free Flight.  A 6’ FAI ship can be a spec overhead in seconds before you even hear the engine cut.  RC assist Old Time can get up there too.  I goof with that in the off- season some and I know I’ve had mine over 400’.  Actually would come up on radar at an airport a few miles away.  They’d send a full scale over my way to check me out.  Probably had to be over 500’ to bother them.

Dave

[Jim Kraft]

Most rural cable TV towers are around 500 feet. I use to fly my Play Boy old timer above that routinely. Catch a thermal and up it goes. Jets, Free Flight, maybe some R/C pattern events. It is going to put a crimp in things that is a certainty. Who knows what else is coming down the pike. Transponders?

[Dave_Trible]

Jim if you read that above it sounds like yes, transponders.  I wonder how small those can be.......

Dave

[Dave Hull]

Since the agenda appears to be "one size fits all, or please leave the party,"  then the next step isn't just a transponder. They're going to ask themselves why these model knuckleheads get a free pass on the ADS-B Out equipment requirement, since the full scale guys have to add that next year.

And, it's not just how small the electronics can be made. For most lightplanes, they don't need microminiature and sure don't want to pay for "transponder on a chip." So we'd go it alone, there. And that might be the only way to get the power draw down. "Oh, you don't have/need batteries for traditional stunters? That's not our problem either." I haven't checked, but you may need a ground plane for the antenna to meet the radiated power requirements, etc. And maybe power isolation to solve any immunity problems if you are running an electric motor setup. Electronic commutation can be very, very noisy. Etc. and more Etc.

A nonsensical workaround would be to erect an 80' pole between our two paved circles. Mount the transponder, antenna, and any ground plane or reflector needed to get the signal boosted enough for them to pick it up over the ground clutter. Want to go up? Just flip on the pole. Is anyone any safer? But don't worry, we probably can't get a waiver for that, either. Ever been to a TRACON? Pretty cool. One of the first things those guys learn is how to mask different inputs so that the scope clutter is manageable and they can do their job. If a control line club put transponders on all their planes and we had a couple of circles going all morning, any controller is going to mask our signal--because he just doesn't need it to do his job, and it makes him more likely to miss actual traffic conflicts. So we buy this stuff and they turn it off on their end. How brilliant is that?

So here you have a situation--if AMA had any real rapport with the FAA--they would get them to the point quickly of saying, "we get the idea that you are tethered to the ground. That where you take off is where you land. That you can't reach up higher than 80 feet. And, quite honestly, we'd feel embarrassed if the media or some viral utube video came out that a bunch of retired old guys were forced to quit flying this kind of model airplane from the 1940's because the FAA believed that the models might be guided off somewhere by autopilot using GPS and maybe get real high, and interfere with real airplanes." (Apropos of nothing, I've been looking for a filmmaker....)

If that hypothetical Gulfstream 550 business jet goes thru my circle and hits my model airplane (and probably yanks my arm out of the socket) I'm gonna sue. I'll be asking for a new 1950's Nobler, and a replacement Fox .35.  That's because he's below a safe altitude in anyone's mind. That is, I'll sue if I'm still alive to register my complaint. Them big boys carry a lot of fuel. Jet fuel. It burns, readily, in a crash. Unlike the glow fuel in my state of the art retirement toy.

The Divot

[Jim Kraft]

Dave, I can not remember where I read the story of the arrested control line flyer. It may have been on this forum. But, as I recall, this guy was flying a Jet Speed plane on a school yard getting ready for a contest. The arrested him for flying a drone. Took him in and someone at the station new what control line was and they released him.

[Dave_Trible]

I wonder if that was more about noise than being a drone.  Jets are outlawed because of noise in a lot of places.  They have been in Kansas City since the 1960's I know.  Someone may have complained and the cops needed to bust the guy, even if they had to find a reason.   These days that might happen with a kid and a Half A 'drone'.  Still trying to figure how to get a transponder on my HL gliders............

Dave

[Jim Kraft]

If they can make the transponders small enough, you could use them for tip weight. The problem is, they may not be made small enough for a 10 ounce rubber job. What kind of voltage and current will they need? How long will it be before some one can manufacture such a device. Lots of questions, with no answers.

Maybe AMA can now tell us how to deal with it because it is not going to go away. That is past tense.

[JoeJust]

And don't forget, you will have to take an exam regarding aeronautics.
Joe

[Jim Kraft]

Oh yeah. Everyone knows you could have never flown a Ringmaster without hours of training on a Cox PT trainer. LOL. I wonder how many more government employees they will have to hire for testing, paper work, and enforcing said rules and regulations.

I wonder if there will be a flying as well as paper test. Government tester. Next, I want you to do a three turn spin and a stall turn. What! With a Ringmaster? Government tester. Unable to pass flying test. Must wait three months before taking test again.