H5487

The FAA is currently drafting proposed regulations that are expected to place controls on model aircraft and model rocketry and this pending legislation is a hot button among modelers. Some feel that the government has no business sticking its nose into hobbies while others point out that our models have gotten bigger and faster over the years and are now capable of inflicting serious harm; either intentionally when in the hands of potential terrorists, or or unintentionally when in the hands of the irresponsible.

So, my question to you is do you feel that the FAA is attempting to protect our society from a potential real threat or is this simply government overreaction with little or no justification?

Harvey

ggraham500

My Feedback: (4)

I think you need one more option in the vote:

"Yes, but I think our self-policing efforts (i.e. AMA Safety Rules) are probably enough."

chris923

My Feedback: (53)

How can we possibly have an opinion when the rules are not out for comment yet?
No one knows exactly what the rules could be!

Chris923

hattend

My Feedback: (20)

How will fedzilla even enforce something like this?

I'll be an RC bandito faster than they can spend a billion dollars.

Come get me, copper! Top of the World, Ma!

Don

exsailor62

FAA Mission - Our continuing mission is to provide the safest, most efficient aerospace system in the world.

Do they think that the average modeler is a threat to flight safety or is this just another nanny state reaction to a very small problem?  Given the toll on our nation's highways, the risk to the public posed by our hobby is insignificant.  Why not control automobiles and trucks since they are capable of delivering much more destruction than our largest models and how about requiring much more of civilian pilots like background checks and controls similar to purchasing firearms?    If the mission of FAA is civilian and commercial safety, they shoud focus on the areas that have produced fatalities and not go off into areas that have at most, insignificant risk of serious threat to aviation but impair the liberties of innocent hobbists pursuing a very wholesome activity.

hattend

My Feedback: (20)

Control freaks in the FAA trying to regulate a problem that doesn't exist.

Hi, we're from the government and we're not happy until you're not happy.

Don

ira d

I checked I dont know because Im not totaly against Some form of FAA regulations due to larger and faster models and advances in model technology. What I
am against is the two step or two tier approach that is being proposed, I think what ever regulations that come down should be same for all modelers and
should only address issues where there could be conflict with full scale avation and over flying areas not designated for model flying.

Silent-AV8R

Well, I voted no, but the real point here is that this does not matter. They ARE sticking their noses into our hobby and there is precious little we can do about it.

The other point to keep in mind is they are not coming after us as the main target of their concerns. We are just getting lumped in because they classify us as a sUAS, which is the real target. As Dave Mathewson put it, we are "collateral damage".

exsailor62

Here we go again with more unenforceable laws; unenforceable except for the people who would obey the laws and don't pose a threat anyway. If there is a nut who would fly a model loaded with explosives into a building or another plane, do you think they would register their aircraft or even belong to the AMA? Go on youtube and see the thousands of videos of folks who have crashed their models and see how many caused significant damage to anything but the modeler's pride and joy. The FAA is reacting to a miniscule threat with unenforceable rules which harm or inconvience only the law abiding. Typical federal response to an opportunity to enlarge their job without really having to do anything effective. Who do they think will enforce any rules affecting someone not flying in controlled airspace? After all, these are federal rules and states have been sued for trying to enforce federal immigration law. Some poor guy who is not up on the law will get hasseled and the terrorist will not even be bothered. Get FAA out of the hobby and back to commercial air where they belong.

init4fun

I highly doubt there will be an "FAA cop" hiding behind every tree with a radar gun , just waitin for ya to go 10 mph over some speed limit , , , No , the enforcement will come in the form of , when there IS an accident or incident , everything you were doing wrong will now have a specific set of charges to nail ya to the wall with .....

Oh , so you were flying a Turbine at 300 mph too close to spectators without a fire extinguisher while tresspassing and hurt somebody ? Well , , theres 6 different charges we can nail ya with , the fine is $25000 , , , NEXT ! ....

Gizmo-RCU

My Feedback: (27)

Here in Idaho the feds brought in Canadian Grey Wolves, even though we had native wolves that were no problem. The folks here did not want the exotics but "Uncle" knew better and dumped loads of them on us
and declared them Rare and endangered with full protection. They have really seriously impacted wildlife here and other states where they placed these monsters, many well above 125 lbs. (reports of 175 lbs. have been made). Some have been reported in Calif.
We finally have some state control when our state would not enforce Federal Laws on Wolves. There is one Federal officer living in Idaho, hard for him to watch each one.
The point is that the Feds. do as they please and will continue to do so unless called on it.
Be Political or don't complain, we have plenty of laws to cover about anything you can think of.

H5487

I can see how in the early days of model aviation that we weren't viewed as a threat to society because our models were small and insignificant. However, now that some models are approaching the size of man-carrying aircraft, I can see how the FAA is starting to look at us in a new light. Couple that with some recently reported near misses between model rockets and airliners, and the engineering student who bought two model jets with full intent to fly explosives into the Capitol*, and I can see where the public now sees our hobby as more than a mere noise nuisence.

Even though the proposed regulations haven't been made public yet, I'm not particularly worried because I doubt that the FAA's goal is to take away all of our models. Fact is, many folks in the FAA have fond childhood memories of building model airplanes themselves and they UNDERSTAND the core group of our hobby. I suspect that it's those modelers in the outer fringes of the hobby that will likely see some government intervention in the near future. For examples, I can see where model rocketry operations in close proximity to air carrier airports will see increased focus. I can also see where the large and/or extremely fast models will see new regulations governing how close they can operate to schools, crowded roads, etc.

The bottom line, as I see it anyway, is that the average modeler who already abides by the AMA Safety Code (which, let's face it, isn't too terribly restrictive as it is) will probably see little impact, if any, from the anticipated upcoming FAA regulations. On the other hand, those modelers who are already flying irresponsibility with little regard to other people's safety will probably whine that they're being targeted by an unfair government.

Harvey


*I know somebody's going to point this out so I might as well address it right now. It is of popular opinion among modelers that the engineering student's plan to fly his jets into the White House and Capitol Building would have failed. That's not the point. The point is that somebody following that students attempt might be a little more successful. And maybe the one after HIM even more successful. Eventually, somebody will succeed. (Only a fool would insist that a model airplane could NEVER succeed as a destructive weapon.) Frankly, I don't fault our government for taking the engineering student's attempt seriously. (But I really doubt that the government sees every one of us as a potential threat.)

Desertlakesflying

My Feedback: (28)

That is a bad answer because of the word yes. The government is already far to involved with every aspect of our lives, and need to get out of most of it.

The government is not the answer in any case except what the government is granted in the Constitution.

The government is NOT the answer to anything to do with models as a whole.

Saying, ''Yes, but I think our self-policing efforts (i.e. AMA Safety Rules) are probably enough.''..... translated into government speak is, "Yes, we need more overbearing regulation, coupled with government intervention in all aspects of our lives".

This current government has overstepped massively in the last 6 years, especially the last 3.

H5487

Actually, our Constitution charges the government with protecting its citizens.

In a fantasy world where every person on the planet is respectful, fair, and considerate of everyone else, we wouldn't need a single law. However, in reality, it seems that damn near everyone is constantly trying to steal, rob, shaft, burn, coerce, manipulate, screw, injure, or kill everybody else. And those who are not doing so intentionally, are doing it through incompetance, irresponsibility, immaturity, or just a simple lack of common sense. Either way, something has to be done to try to protect society from those who would do us wrong, either intentionally or unintentionally. Hence, our ever-increasing number of laws.

If you have a better way, we're all ears!

Harvey

KidEpoxy

h5487
you paint an interesting idea about responsibility,
but lemme have you consider the bigger than AMA picture of aeromodeling responsibility
with a minor adjustment of your comment:
>
The bottom line, as I see it anyway, is that the average modeler who already abides by the FAA's AC91-57 (which, let's face it, isn't too terribly restrictive as it is) will probably see little impact, if any, from the anticipated upcoming FAA regulations. On the other hand, those modelers who are already flying irresponsibility beyond the limits of AC91-57, with little regard to other people's safety will probably whine that they're being targeted by an unfair government.
>

If responsibility was important to you,
shouldnt it be the responsibility to follow the nonbinding FAA limits,
more than the responsibility to follow the nonbinding limits of some average joe club that exceed those FAA limits?

H5487

Kid E,

You are right and we should ALL strive to operate our models responsibility. Unfortunately, there is a segment of our society that either cannot, or doesn't want to do so. Hence, our upcoming additional regs.

By the way, FAA's ACs (Advisory Circulars) ARE binding (in a roundabout way).

Harvey

Silent-AV8R

Nothing the FAA is doing is motivated by concerns that people will use models or other sUAS as weapons. Nothing. So when the time comes to make comments on the NPRM hopefully people will not waste their time with useless comments.

Silent-AV8R

Exactly. Enforcement will be by exception in most cases.

Now compliance, which is a completely different thing, will come through local clubs requiring operations within the law, peer pressure, and knowing that the eyes of the sUAS community will be on you. If every police agency has a sUAS program they will likely know the laws. That's lots of eyes belonging to people who know the laws.

The AMA is trying to sell the FAA on the idea that we modelers are mature adults who can be trusted to do the right thing. Sadly there are a fair number of people apparently hell bent on proving the AMA wrong.

Desertlakesflying

My Feedback: (28)

They way America was supposed to be would cover all of that.

Fact is, the government has caused the majority of the problems you listed by getting involved. Who needs to be competent, responsible, or mature if the government is going to bail you out if you have 15 kids by a bunch of different people? Or the government is going to swoop in and remove your children if you take the switch to them, and put you in jail for 50 years and put your kids on drugs because they are somehow scarred for life. There's a big difference than the common defense, which would include local emergency services, and an over burdening government, which are two things that are quite confused in this day and age. There's a million examples of how the government is the problem, and getting less involved will be the "better way" you're all ears for.

Example: How about the Fast and Furious where government was allowing the guns to go, so they could turn around and say, "look at this, this came from a gun store in America, we need more gun laws". Is that a better way?

The ever increasing number of laws are not necessary. Illegal immigration is a prime example. An example that is more recent. Arizona makes a new law because the federal government flat out refuses to enforce existing laws. There's where the problem lies....governments refusal to enforce existing laws..

Pro government people have made it harder to convict criminals and give them just punishments, do business and many other things.

The statement, "Government is not the solution to our problems, government is the problem", is far more true today than it was when Reagan said it.

More laws and government control does not fix the problem and regardless of what your side thinks........it never will....

Reading your post I don't know how we ever made it as far as we have because it has never in the history of humanity been a perfect world.

The government has just come in and made the person in the wrong the victim, and it has been spearheaded by one side.

What right is wrong, and what's wrong is right......and government is more responsible for that than anyone else.

Why? Because according to government you have no personal responsibility, because everyone is a victim.

If you want more government and more laws there are plenty of countries willing to suit your beliefs.........

vin76

My Feedback: (4)

Do we think our government is seeing some of the international countries as a threat to themselves? If so, more or less than our model airplanes. I think our stupid government needs to start securing our country and potential international threats. That's what they should be more worried about right now as the economy and our country as a whole continues to sink.That stupid FAAwoman at the AMA meeting is just looking to enlarge her jobwithout having much to do and seems to know nothing. Her answers were all questionable and not solid. Didn't know what she was really at! Just a great example of CONTROL. "HEYI'MAWOMANINCONTROL OFALLYOUMEN ANDI'MBETTERTHANYOUOLDFOLKS"

Silent-AV8R

One more time. National security, terrorism, or weapons use have less than nothing to do with what the FAA is doing. SO if we modelers inundate them with comments to that effect when the NPRM comes out all we will be doing is demonstrating our ignorance.

beepee

In support of Silent above, FAA's stated mission: "Our continuing mission is to provide the safest, most efficient aerospace system in the world." This statement does not included safety FROM the aerospace system (i.e., terrorist attack). We have Homeland Security for that. Note too, one of their stated rolls: "Encouraging and developing civil aeronautics, including new aviation technology." This puts them in a position to recognize the value of model aviation as means of encouraging and developing the field.

The aerospace for which the FAA is charged to assure is safe starts at ground level, so like it or not they are CHARGED with keeping it ALL safe. Heretofore they have left modeling community to care for its own safety. Now the important part - it is pointless to speculate on how they will propose to regulate our hobby until the NPRM is released. Save your energy for the formal comment period and go fly instead. Get some stick time for me, will yah!

Bedford

mrbigg

My Feedback: (21)

Do we have a choice? The government will do what ever they want. I suprised they haven't implemented some kind of "Flight Tax" on us yet.

koastrc

Mr Big, Must say the tax comment is about the most accurate thing I have read on this subject. Like you said, it is a surprise they haven't taxed this yet.

on_your_six

My Feedback: (11)

THE Survey results are not surprising.... "I am safe, don't put any laws on me", "my buddy is not safe, put the laws on him"

It is long past time that some enforceable rules be put on the hobby. If it forces you to go to ground school and learn a bit about the national air system, so be it.

If it costs you some money when you pull a hair brained stunt and get caught, so be it. Let's just hope no one was injured.

For Example: After you crash XX planes in a year, you are required to complete a round of training on the buddy box until you are soloed again.