FAA Issues "Interpretation of the special rule for model aircraft"
#276
Hansen also stated, "The Academy of Model Aeronautics does not advocate, condone or endorse the operation of unmanned aircraft systems and/or model aircraft outside the constraints of federal regulation or FAA policy".
SO what the heck is all this beef about? I certainly have my opinion and it comes under the terms that would be using the $$$ signs. Is your opinion different? Why?
#277
My Feedback: (198)
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: El Reno, OK
Posts: 6,707
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Horrace - I think some of the "beef" is that many AMA members expected / hoped / wished / believed / thought that the AMA had provided all the detail that the FAA need to promulgate their rules to fulfill the Modernization Act. The need for the FAA (apparently) to publish it's interpretation of some relatively-simple plain language that did not have AMA supporting detail information took the AMA and lots of RC fliers by surprise. Who knows where that perception came from? Nevertheless, we'll now have to "watch" while the AMA tries to do damage control and service recovery to a couple hundred thousand members and the FAA.
I'm not a betting man by nature, but on this one, I'm betting the AMA has been "locked out"....and that the FAA may modify their interpretation of the Rule based on over 2000 comments received as of now....hopefully enough intelligent information will be in those for the FAA to see and learn.
BTW - I *do* hope that I'm in error about the AMA.
I'm not a betting man by nature, but on this one, I'm betting the AMA has been "locked out"....and that the FAA may modify their interpretation of the Rule based on over 2000 comments received as of now....hopefully enough intelligent information will be in those for the FAA to see and learn.
BTW - I *do* hope that I'm in error about the AMA.
#278
My Feedback: (4)
........
Hansen also stated, "The Academy of Model Aeronautics does not advocate, condone or endorse the operation of unmanned aircraft systems and/or model aircraft outside the constraints of federal regulation or FAA policy".
SO what the heck is all this beef about? I certainly have my opinion and it comes under the terms that would be using the $$$ signs. Is your opinion different? Why?
Hansen also stated, "The Academy of Model Aeronautics does not advocate, condone or endorse the operation of unmanned aircraft systems and/or model aircraft outside the constraints of federal regulation or FAA policy".
SO what the heck is all this beef about? I certainly have my opinion and it comes under the terms that would be using the $$$ signs. Is your opinion different? Why?
When Hansen stated what you show in the first bold faced quote above, the FAA had much simpler policies concerning model aircraft that were outlined in AC 91-57. The newer policies that are causing the "beef" now had not been revealed or publicly established by the FAA at that time.
I have a flying buddy that works with a part of the FAA regularly. Back after the 2012 FAA Reauthorization bill was passed with 336 in it, he discussed it with his FAA counterpart, who was not involved with the sUAS section, but had contacts that were. The word was that the FAA was fairly pissed off about 336.
I have zero doubts gat the harsh interpretation of 336 by the FAA is as much about giving us our comeuppance as it about making the national air space safe.
The AMA thought that the FAA would follow its lead and allow FPV with an unaided line of sight spotter, under the umbrella of their CBO best practices and safety programming. The FAA blindsided them, unfairly. The other parts of the FAA letter are best described as petulant reactions that dig at us because they did not like 336.
Last edited by Thomas B; 07-06-2014 at 12:03 PM.
#279
My Feedback: (6)
I have a different opinion that does not involve the $$$$ the way yours does.
When Hansen stated what you show in the first bold faced quote above, the FAA had much simpler policies concerning model aircraft that were outlined in AC 91-57. The newer policies that are causing the "beef" now had not been revealed or publicly established by the FAA at that time.
I have a flying buddy that works with a part of the FAA regularly. Back after the 2012 FAA Reauthorization bill was passed with 336 in it, he discussed it with his FAA counterpart, who was not involved with the sUAS section, but had contacts that were. The word was that the FAA was fairly pissed off about 336.
I have zero doubts gat the harsh interpretation of 336 by the FAA is as much about giving us our comeuppance as it about making the national air space safe.
The AMA thought that the FAA would follow its lead and allow FPV with an unaided line of sight spotter, under the umbrella of their CBO best practices and safety programming. The FAA blindsided them, unfairly. The other parts of the FAA letter are best described as petulant reactions that dig at us because they did not like 336.
When Hansen stated what you show in the first bold faced quote above, the FAA had much simpler policies concerning model aircraft that were outlined in AC 91-57. The newer policies that are causing the "beef" now had not been revealed or publicly established by the FAA at that time.
I have a flying buddy that works with a part of the FAA regularly. Back after the 2012 FAA Reauthorization bill was passed with 336 in it, he discussed it with his FAA counterpart, who was not involved with the sUAS section, but had contacts that were. The word was that the FAA was fairly pissed off about 336.
I have zero doubts gat the harsh interpretation of 336 by the FAA is as much about giving us our comeuppance as it about making the national air space safe.
The AMA thought that the FAA would follow its lead and allow FPV with an unaided line of sight spotter, under the umbrella of their CBO best practices and safety programming. The FAA blindsided them, unfairly. The other parts of the FAA letter are best described as petulant reactions that dig at us because they did not like 336.
#280
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga,
CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This makes sense to me. Section 336 got into the law because Senator Inhofe wanted it there, and his fellow Senators obliged him. The reason he wanted it may have had something to do with the fact that he had recently had an unpleasant encounter with the FAA. This looks like payback to me.
cj
#281
My Feedback: (243)
I may be a simple mind but I don't see a boogey man in the FAA's Interpretation of the Special Rule for Model Aircraft. It is pretty clear to me the difference between model aircraft for pleasure or business. It is also clear where an FPV differs from a hobby model aircraft and an out of sight aircraft. Two items seem to stick in people's craw; if within 5 miles of an airport or ATC they need to be notified and; the FAA retains the authority to override our Congressional approved special rules if a risk is determined.
Neither is really a problem. Our club field is within 2.0 miles of a city airport on the opposite side of the traffic pattern, has been for twenty years. The FBO and helicopter service know we are there, NOTAMs are posted about our location. When we have our annual public demonstration/family day the ATC, some sixty miles away, is notified. Never had issues with either.
Maintaining communications with both has been to our benefit. Once a full scale crossed our site at roughly 500 feet to land at the local airport. Once there the pilot berated the FBO then telephoned the ATC to complain. FBO overheard the ATC chewing his ***** for not being at pattern altitude, not using the correct traffic pattern and not checking NOTAMs!
Lastly the Federal Government/FAA always has the ending right (correctly or incorrectly) to shut anything down so get over it. The AMA’s congressional work got us this set of rules. If they hadn’t we may not have any voice at all.
The FAA is going to have their hands full with the FPV industry and non-modelers dabbling in it. AMA needs to divorce itself from the FPV end of this issue as enrolling new members has not worked and in the end may be detrimental to recreational R/C model flying.
Neither is really a problem. Our club field is within 2.0 miles of a city airport on the opposite side of the traffic pattern, has been for twenty years. The FBO and helicopter service know we are there, NOTAMs are posted about our location. When we have our annual public demonstration/family day the ATC, some sixty miles away, is notified. Never had issues with either.
Maintaining communications with both has been to our benefit. Once a full scale crossed our site at roughly 500 feet to land at the local airport. Once there the pilot berated the FBO then telephoned the ATC to complain. FBO overheard the ATC chewing his ***** for not being at pattern altitude, not using the correct traffic pattern and not checking NOTAMs!
Lastly the Federal Government/FAA always has the ending right (correctly or incorrectly) to shut anything down so get over it. The AMA’s congressional work got us this set of rules. If they hadn’t we may not have any voice at all.
The FAA is going to have their hands full with the FPV industry and non-modelers dabbling in it. AMA needs to divorce itself from the FPV end of this issue as enrolling new members has not worked and in the end may be detrimental to recreational R/C model flying.
#282
My Feedback: (6)
. Our club field is within 2.0 miles of a city airport on the opposite side of the traffic pattern, has been for twenty years. The FBO and helicopter service know we are there,
Last edited by Top_Gunn; 07-06-2014 at 01:24 PM.
#283
My Feedback: (243)
Yes it is nice for us but it isn't accidental we have this kind of a relationship with the local airport and ATC. That is not to say it can change towards the negative by the new ruling(s). However I see a lot of overreach in some of the interpretations I read in this thread. Chances are not much will change in the real day to day activities for most R/C modelers but it is best to know what lies ahead should the conditions arise.
#284
My Feedback: (6)
Have you checked the FAA's website to see whether there are other airports within five miles of your field? Until I checked, I would have bet that there were only two airports in the county where I live. There are thirteen. And, in a way, it is "accidental" that you have a good relationship with your airport. All it takes is one unreasonable owner, or an owner who doesn't want to be bothered with being pestered with notifications, and you're done.
#285
Going back to some other meetings, etc. and the above ".... initiatives ..." I find some interesting information. James Williams, an FAA manager, and AMA signed an agreement of some kind last Jan. While Rich Hansen, AMA government and Regulatory Affairs, was the only user of the term (just once) "....community based organization...", Williams did not use that term.
Hansen also stated, "The Academy of Model Aeronautics does not advocate, condone or endorse the operation of unmanned aircraft systems and/or model aircraft outside the constraints of federal regulation or FAA policy".
SO what the heck is all this beef about? I certainly have my opinion and it comes under the terms that would be using the $$$ signs. Is your opinion different? Why?
Hansen also stated, "The Academy of Model Aeronautics does not advocate, condone or endorse the operation of unmanned aircraft systems and/or model aircraft outside the constraints of federal regulation or FAA policy".
SO what the heck is all this beef about? I certainly have my opinion and it comes under the terms that would be using the $$$ signs. Is your opinion different? Why?
appears the FAA is unwilling to follow the law and leave models operated under the AMA safety code alone.
#286
My Feedback: (14)
Neither is really a problem. Our club field is within 2.0 miles of a city airport on the opposite side of the traffic pattern, has been for twenty years. The FBO and helicopter service know we are there, NOTAMs are posted about our location. When we have our annual public demonstration/family day the ATC, some sixty miles away, is notified. Never had issues with either.
#287
My Feedback: (243)
Have you checked the FAA's website to see whether there are other airports within five miles of your field? Until I checked, I would have bet that there were only two airports in the county where I live. There are thirteen. And, in a way, it is "accidental" that you have a good relationship with your airport. All it takes is one unreasonable owner, or an owner who doesn't want to be bothered with being pestered with notifications, and you're done.
We are blessed with a lot of open farmland in our valley and friendly farmers that own it.
#290
I have a different opinion that does not involve the $$$$ the way yours does.
When Hansen stated what you show in the first bold faced quote above, the FAA had much simpler policies concerning model aircraft that were outlined in AC 91-57. The newer policies that are causing the "beef" now had not been revealed or publicly established by the FAA at that time.
I have a flying buddy that works with a part of the FAA regularly. Back after the 2012 FAA Reauthorization bill was passed with 336 in it, he discussed it with his FAA counterpart, who was not involved with the sUAS section, but had contacts that were. The word was that the FAA was fairly pissed off about 336.
I have zero doubts gat the harsh interpretation of 336 by the FAA is as much about giving us our comeuppance as it about making the national air space safe.
The AMA thought that the FAA would follow its lead and allow FPV with an unaided line of sight spotter, under the umbrella of their CBO best practices and safety programming. The FAA blindsided them, unfairly. The other parts of the FAA letter are best described as petulant reactions that dig at us because they did not like 336.
When Hansen stated what you show in the first bold faced quote above, the FAA had much simpler policies concerning model aircraft that were outlined in AC 91-57. The newer policies that are causing the "beef" now had not been revealed or publicly established by the FAA at that time.
I have a flying buddy that works with a part of the FAA regularly. Back after the 2012 FAA Reauthorization bill was passed with 336 in it, he discussed it with his FAA counterpart, who was not involved with the sUAS section, but had contacts that were. The word was that the FAA was fairly pissed off about 336.
I have zero doubts gat the harsh interpretation of 336 by the FAA is as much about giving us our comeuppance as it about making the national air space safe.
The AMA thought that the FAA would follow its lead and allow FPV with an unaided line of sight spotter, under the umbrella of their CBO best practices and safety programming. The FAA blindsided them, unfairly. The other parts of the FAA letter are best described as petulant reactions that dig at us because they did not like 336.
#291
Since I am trying to get on the ballot for AMA Executive Vice President, I am supposed to be very cautious and only state things in AMA's behalf.
I have a problem with doing that because if I wanted to be a spokesman for AMA's current doctrine, I would see no need to become the EVP.
AMA already has a dozen of those folks.
Now to my statement here concerning model airplane airports. Fellows, it is time that RC people band together and learn to obtain flying facilities for their
own use, and with no airports in their area. Lease, purchase, and/or rent land. Get into areas considerably out from places where developments are fast encroaching.
It can be done. 18 years ago, my main club had lost its field after 4 moves over about 8 years. Getting kicked out again, they were in some deep stuff. Well I and a couple other guys (BTW I was rather new in the club then) searched for some land. We found a place that was 100 acres +/-, 1500 ft by 3000 feet. with roads on two ends. The owner was into some small developments. He wanted to sell this one, so I wrote him a check for less than what he wanted but he took it and then with some help, and the sales part was completed, we were on the property and in 3 days we had a flying field.
There are some small problems every so often,but now the club (www.jetero.com) has a good facility on 50 acres with 1500 ft highway frontage. I sold off over time the other 50 acres to farmers of a kind and I have my money back. Runway, overfly land, 5000 sq. feet of metal shed on steel posts over concrete, air-conditioned kitchen and sitting room, indoor toilets, full electricity, and our own water-well supply.
IT CAN BE DONE! Get off your "behinders" and build yourselves a flying field outside the darn FAA's 5 miles, and keep AMA's insurance program but do your thing on your own call.
Now if you want a friendly person on that AMA Executive Council, then call your AMA District DVP and tell him that you want Horrace Cain on that EC Ballot which happens this July 19th, like next week. It will not be there if you don't want it to because those top guys definitely do not want Horrace Cain there. Kind of like when it looked like RC was about to drop dead in 1980-81, Dist VI VP Horrace Cain came through with the plan that allowed the Frequency Chairman to negotiate with the FCC individuals in the manner that they understood (green) and in two weeks the Allotted 72 mhz. frequencies were handed to AMA. Some things just come easy when things are DONE!
#292
That makes a lot of sense. AMA wasn't happy with what they were hearing from the FAA, and rather than work with them, they did an end around with the Senator - winning a battle but perhaps losing the war as they P'd off the regulators in the process.
#293
I would not have a problem if the FAA said no new RC fields within five miles of an airport but the existing fields should be left alone especially if the field is not under
the traffic pattern.
the traffic pattern.
#294
My Feedback: (6)
Fellows, it is time that RC people band together and learn to obtain flying facilities for their
own use, and with no airports in their area.
own use, and with no airports in their area.
This is the second post in this thread saying, in effect, "my club is going to be fine." Well, that's nice for you, but most of us don't belong to your club. So what's the point, really?
#295
And, therein lies the problem. Another act by the newly-recognized 4-th part of government, an agency, that tries to override a law, passed by Congress. And, the word is LAW, not rule.
And, it IS a problem.
#296
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Apopka,
FL
Posts: 1,367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No airports in their area? In a lot of places, including the county where I live, it may be impossible to find a field suitable for flying that is not within five miles of some airport. And even if you do find one, what's to keep the farmer down the road from buying a plane, putting in a grass strip, and getting on the FAA's airport list? A lot of the posts in this thread seem to assume that an "airport" is a place with paved runways, hangars, and maybe even a control tower. The great majority of the airports the FAA recognizes are not like that. Most of them aren't even on the sectional charts. If the FAA's proposed definition were limited to public airports, it would be something we could live with. But it isn't. For a club to buy and improve its own field with this kind of threat hanging over its head would be foolish.
This is the second post in this thread saying, in effect, "my club is going to be fine." Well, that's nice for you, but most of us don't belong to your club. So what's the point, really?
This is the second post in this thread saying, in effect, "my club is going to be fine." Well, that's nice for you, but most of us don't belong to your club. So what's the point, really?
#299
My Feedback: (14)
You could certainly established your flying field as an FAA recognized airport...and no you don't need to own a full size plane to do it. However, even if you are flying models from your "airport", you would still have to comply with the FAA's rule for operating within 5 miles of other airports and would still be subject to that airport operators veto.
#300
My Feedback: (102)
I don't think every little private airstrip likely qualifies for this FAA rule, and that needs to be cleared up. And most all of these issues can be dealt with by issuing a NOTAM in the airport directory that "RC operations are likely in this (described) area". It should not neccessitate a phone call to the "tower" everytime you want to fly, and it should not require permission from the operator of the field. I know most of the places listed on the sectional are nothing more than grass strips, some of which are used for ultralight activities or occasion flying. The RCer need to be aware that if full scale planes are in the vicinity they should be on alert or even land if the need arises.