Q: Am I permitted to fly above 400 feet? What if I had to check a box saying otherwise on the federal registration website?
A: Yes. AMA members who abide by the AMA Safety Code, which permits flights above 400 feet under appropriate circumstances, and are protected by the Special Rule for Model Aircraft under the 2012 FAA Modernization and Reform Act. Checking the box on the federal registration webpage signifies an understanding of the 400 foot guideline. This is an important safety principle that all UAS operators need to be aware of, and is the same guideline established in AC 91-57 published in 1981. However, the placement of this guideline on the FAA website is intended as an educational piece and more specifically intended for those operating outside of AMA’s safety program. You can read a letter from the FAA that recognizes our community-based safety program and flight over 400 feet
SOURCE: http://amablog.modelaircraft.org/amagov/files/2016/07/FAA-400feet.pdf
Lemme know how flying over 400' works out for you if you are on your own and have an incident. You can bet the lawyers will eat you alive.
As I mentioned above, the AMA loves to make themselves look so very important (which I can understand... they want people to join and pay a membership fee) but they also take a lot of liberties in representing their "authority".
Nothing you quoted applies to non-AMA members, period. No one... the FAA, local law enforcement, etc. can say otherwise. The AMA took the vague mention of the AMA being a CBO and pretty much mislead people into thinking it makes them into some governing body.
First, nothing from the AMA's website applies to anyone who is not a member. Second you really need to break down the AMA's own statement to find the actual truth:
"Checking the box on the federal registration webpage signifies an understanding of the 400 foot
guideline."
So right here the AMA confirms it's just an FAA recommendation and not a regulation.
Lastly, when you post a quote and then list a "source" the source is documentation/information where the quote was obtained. It shows that what you quote was not made up. Your link is, at most, a support, not a source. As you link to the letter that the AMA likes to show as the FAA calls them a CBO. This is what the AMA uses to make themselves look more important than they are (and ues a fault in the regulations). Being a CBO does not mean the CBO has any further control over people than they had is they were not a CBO. The reason this is mentioned in the statute is to allow people and organizations the same abilities that they had before the regulations. For example, if the AMA wants to host a racing drone event they can require participates to, let's say, fly no faster then 30mph. The AMA can't trump FAA regulations but they can create their own as long as they have some existing control over that person anyway. In this case, the person is required to agree to the rules or they cannot participate. It does not mean that the AMA can regulate airspace in general for everyone. Likewise, AMA members are not able to ignore current FAA regulations. What the AMA is really saying is, if you are a member you _can_ fly higher than the 400' recommendation. Gee, want to know why they can do this? Because
anyone can as it's only a
recommendation.
It's not just me who agrees... it's pretty much a well accepted fact.
What is mentioned above is more on point with the thread. So feel free to stop reading here. What follows is my peeve against the AMA:
"However, the placement of this guideline on the FAA website is intended as an educational piece and more specifically intended for those operating outside of AMA’s safety program."
Um.... NO! That's for giving your
opinion as to what the US government was thinking when they wrote that US Code. What the AMA does not make clear is that they are still speaking of a
guideline (the 400' guideline that even the AMA states is just that, a guideline). So this is a guideline aimed at people outside of the AMA???? Seriously? That is what they were thinking when they wrote it? What the AMA is doing is taking great liberties in what was actually stated. I could do the same thing..... I start up the National UAV Fliers Club. I'm a CBO. I say to my members that they can't fly higher than 600'. The FAA regulations states a CBO can create their own "rules". So now I claim when the 400' recommendation was created it was aimed at non-NUAVFC members. Wow... I'm claiming members don't need to follow a
recommendation from the FAA. What sweet power does my club have! Such a sleazy claim. Does the code mention a CBO? Yes. Is my club a CBO? Yes. So... they must have been thinking about my club when they wrote the code! This is where I think the AMA goes into sleazy mode. It's misleading. But hey, that is fine.
I'm not knocking the AMA as a whole. I'm not a member and don't plan on being one but I have nothing against them as a whole or anything bad to say about anyone who is/wants to be a member. The AMA gets to bend the ear of the FAA when it comes to regulations. The same is true of DJI. I like to think that both do a good job in representing UAV fliers.