As some of you know Part 107 goes into effect this Minday, August 29. I was reading and it appears that the AMA is basically a 'safe haven', as it is considered an organization by the FAA. With that being said, under Part 107 adminsitered by the FAA, if you are apart of the AMA you can fly according to their rules without a license of any sort. To make this less confusing about licenses I'll make it short: as an AMA member am I required to fly my phantom at AMA registered fields? I heard that flying at AMA fields are apart of the AMA guidelines, and if I dont follow the AMA guidelines the AMA cant act as the 'safe haven' from Part 107 because I am not operating within their rules. Thanks.

Part 107 is for commercial use ... it replaces the ridiculous 333 exemption process.
You won't get much commercial use at an AMA field.

labroides@yahoo Posted at 2016-8-26 10:27
Part 107 is for commercial use ... it replaces the ridiculous 333 exemption process.
You won't get m ...

Here's a short article which is where it supposedly says hobbyist will be more or less merging to part 107. I know its for commercial use and am planning on obtaining a license in the future, I'm just curious if I'm fine now to fly in parks rather than at AMA registered fields.

Here's the link: http://www.forbes.com/sites/john ... eally/#6764b4986743

MrPinaColada Posted at 2016-8-26 11:48
Here's a short article which is where it supposedly says hobbyist will be more or less merging to  ...

What I think you are looking for is only hobby flying. If you are interested in the Part 107, here's some reading to get started.

MrPinaColada Posted at 2016-8-26 13:48
Here's a short article which is where it supposedly says hobbyist will be more or less merging to  ...

All that article effectively says, one you get past the fluff and nonsense, is that if you fly FPV, ie with your head in a bucket, yes you will need to pass a Part 107 test. But the law has always said you should fly keeping the aircraft within sight of you anyway, flyers using FPV equipment have been breaking that rulle all the time.

But nowhere does it say you have to fly in an AMA registered field.

MrPinaColada Posted at 2016-8-26 11:48
Here's a short article which is where it supposedly says hobbyist will be more or less merging to  ...

Aloha Pina,

     The article for which you posted the link is two pages.  Most of the AMA subject matter is on the second page and the link to the second page is not that noticeable in a fast read.  

     Your comments of a registered flying field are specific to the AMA.  The commentary in the article deals with community based organizations (CBO) and the programming of nationwide community-based organizations.  The AMA is only the first of other anticipated CBOs.  The FAA uses the AMA as an example.  

     You are making a reasonable leap that therefore the "rules" of the AMA, in particular the registered field rule, will cut down on your flying options.  But, as noted it is only an example and not a mandate.  Furthermore, membership is not being mandated.  

     Therefore, you could pick and choose the safety guidelines of CBOs and be informed of the programming of Nationwide CBOs.  When asked by the FAA to answer CBO related questions, you show them your safety guidelines and how they come from more than one CBO.  Ditto with the programming and how familiar you are with their programs.  Knowledge is what counts, not membership dues.

     Right now, DJI flying products outnumber all the other sectors of flying hobby products.  There is nothing to stop DJI or customers of DJI in the United States from using the DJI standards to create CBOs with a Nationwide CBO Programming (DJI already has programs for fliers).  Most of the work has already been done by DJI and the DJI CBO of customers could be independent of DJI but in alliance with DJI.  The separation would be required for liability purposes (DJI could even sponsor the CBO).  The same could be done with a quadcopter based CBO of flying camera users of different brands.  

     The first page of the article ends with - According to the FAA: “The FAA solicited comments to its interpretation of the Special Rule for Model Aircraft and received over 33,000 comments, including comments on the use of FPV.  The FAA is considering the issues raised by those comments and plans to issue a final interpretation of the Special Rule for Model Aircraft that reflects its consideration of the comments.”

     The bottom line is that the regulations are evolving and the FAA has to be fair and equitable.  You pointed out a reasonable assumption but that assumption will go extinct quickly as the regulations evolve.  

Aloha and Drone On!