Go Back  RCU Forums > RC Airplanes > AMA Discussions
Reload this Page >

FAA Issues "Interpretation of the special rule for model aircraft"

Notices
AMA Discussions Discuss AMA policies, decisions & any other AMA related topics here.

FAA Issues "Interpretation of the special rule for model aircraft"

Old 07-06-2014, 08:27 AM
  #276  
Hossfly
 
Hossfly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: New Caney, TX
Posts: 6,130
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by ira d
That is the flyer that I am talking about. That is why I said I wonder how many people will see the flyer and not read the full rule or as some
say the interpretation.
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?
Old 07-06-2014, 11:29 AM
  #277  
Bob Pastorello
My Feedback: (198)
 
Bob Pastorello's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: El Reno, OK
Posts: 6,707
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

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.
Old 07-06-2014, 11:57 AM
  #278  
Thomas B
My Feedback: (4)
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Fort Worth, TX
Posts: 1,257
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by Hossfly
........
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 $$$ signs. Is your opinion different? Why?
I have a different opinion that does not involve the $$$$ 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.

Last edited by Thomas B; 07-06-2014 at 12:03 PM.
Old 07-06-2014, 12:35 PM
  #279  
Top_Gunn
My Feedback: (6)
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Granger, IN
Posts: 2,344
Received 6 Likes on 5 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Thomas B
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.
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.
Old 07-06-2014, 01:02 PM
  #280  
cj_rumley
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga, CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Top_Gunn
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.
Now there's a fresh perspective.........until now I had thought it got into the law because AMA wanted it there, and Senator Inhofe obliged them. Now I wonder, did Sen Inhofe oblige AMA or did AMA oblige Sen Inhofe by lobbying for it? It's getting harder to tell the screwees from the screwors in this slapshtick . No doubts about which role all the modelers in the USA fall into though.

cj
Old 07-06-2014, 01:03 PM
  #281  
Dick T.
My Feedback: (243)
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Visalia, CA
Posts: 1,648
Likes: 0
Received 13 Likes on 11 Posts
Default

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.

Old 07-06-2014, 01:15 PM
  #282  
Top_Gunn
My Feedback: (6)
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Granger, IN
Posts: 2,344
Received 6 Likes on 5 Posts
Default

. 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,
That's nice for you. One club where I sometimes fly is within a couple of miles of a guy with a runway in his back yard. He flies there just a few times a year, The FAA's interpretation gives him the power to shut that club down. Another very small private airport is 4.8 miles from my club's field. The FAA wants to give them the power to shut us down. If you read the FAA's "interpretation" literally. it also gives a local private airport the power to shut down my club's indoor flying, because we do it at a gym a couple of miles from that field. Makes no sense, but neither did it make sense to shut down the children's dirt bike industry because dirt bikes contain an alloy containing lead, and it's a federal crime to sell a children's product with more than tiny amounts of lead in it. Bought a children's dirt bike lately? (Even selling or giving away a used one is now a felony.) The fact that your club is fine doesn't mean everybody else doing safe things will be fine, too.

Last edited by Top_Gunn; 07-06-2014 at 01:24 PM.
Old 07-06-2014, 01:47 PM
  #283  
Dick T.
My Feedback: (243)
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Visalia, CA
Posts: 1,648
Likes: 0
Received 13 Likes on 11 Posts
Default

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.
Old 07-06-2014, 02:07 PM
  #284  
Top_Gunn
My Feedback: (6)
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Granger, IN
Posts: 2,344
Received 6 Likes on 5 Posts
Default

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.
Old 07-06-2014, 02:08 PM
  #285  
ira d
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Maricopa County AZ
Posts: 3,249
Received 5 Likes on 5 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Hossfly
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?
Not sure if this answers your question but it would appear the AMA and FAA had worked some things out but now the FAA is back pedaling on that agreement. It also
appears the FAA is unwilling to follow the law and leave models operated under the AMA safety code alone.
Old 07-06-2014, 03:45 PM
  #286  
radfordc
My Feedback: (14)
 
radfordc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Lansing, KS
Posts: 1,598
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by Dick T.
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.
Haven't you heard? That airport is getting a new manager appointed and he has a real hard on for model aircraft. I guess you had a good run but it's over now.
Old 07-06-2014, 05:10 PM
  #287  
Dick T.
My Feedback: (243)
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Visalia, CA
Posts: 1,648
Likes: 0
Received 13 Likes on 11 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Top_Gunn
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.
Only one airport within 5 miles, another within 10 miles, last one is 22 miles. There are some private strips and ag utility strips outside the 5 mile radius to 20 miles. Certainly a change of FBO at the closest airport could change things. However we have an affiliate club outside any airport 5 mile radius where we can fly at any time. Many locals are members of both clubs.

We are blessed with a lot of open farmland in our valley and friendly farmers that own it.
Old 07-06-2014, 05:15 PM
  #288  
Dick T.
My Feedback: (243)
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Visalia, CA
Posts: 1,648
Likes: 0
Received 13 Likes on 11 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by ira d
Not sure if this answers your question but it would appear the AMA and FAA had worked some things out but now the FAA is back pedaling on that agreement. It also
appears the FAA is unwilling to follow the law and leave models operated under the AMA safety code alone.
I'm not understanding, within this thread, where the FAA is backpedaling, however the current administration certainly leads the way in government agencies not following the law!
Old 07-06-2014, 05:18 PM
  #289  
Dick T.
My Feedback: (243)
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Visalia, CA
Posts: 1,648
Likes: 0
Received 13 Likes on 11 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by radfordc
Haven't you heard? That airport is getting a new manager appointed and he has a real hard on for model aircraft. I guess you had a good run but it's over now.
Now that's funny! Not likely at his time so not to worry.
Old 07-06-2014, 06:01 PM
  #290  
franklin_m
 
franklin_m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 4,561
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by Thomas B
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.
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. My experience is that bureaucracies don't like it when folks go behind their back, and it certainly is looking that way here. As for "hope" of a reasonable approach from this point forward, I recall words once said to me when I was a junior officer: "Hope is not a plan son."
Old 07-06-2014, 07:50 PM
  #291  
Hossfly
 
Hossfly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: New Caney, TX
Posts: 6,130
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Dick T.
I'm not understanding, within this thread, where the FAA is backpedaling, however the current administration certainly leads the way in government agencies not following the law!
HA, HA, HA. That one sentence certainly provides one great big insight to many things that are now happening all around us. Love it!

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!
Old 07-06-2014, 08:59 PM
  #292  
Sport_Pilot
 
Sport_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 16,916
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

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.
I have worked for the government and I can say many in government think they can do no wrong. I would say the AMA was right to be proactive. It may take some legal fees to sort things out, but I'm betting they will win most of what they (AMA) wants.
Old 07-06-2014, 09:26 PM
  #293  
ira d
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Maricopa County AZ
Posts: 3,249
Received 5 Likes on 5 Posts
Default

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.
Old 07-07-2014, 04:18 AM
  #294  
Top_Gunn
My Feedback: (6)
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Granger, IN
Posts: 2,344
Received 6 Likes on 5 Posts
Default

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.
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?
Old 07-07-2014, 04:18 AM
  #295  
skylark-flier
 
skylark-flier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: VA, Luray
Posts: 2,226
Received 15 Likes on 13 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Dick T.
... 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.


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.
Old 07-07-2014, 05:44 AM
  #296  
bradpaul
Thread Starter
 
bradpaul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Apopka, FL
Posts: 1,367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Top_Gunn
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?
Just a thought. what's to keep an AMA Club from "buying a plane, putting in a grass strip, and getting on the FAA's airport list?". And would you really need to buy a full scale plane? After all the FAA says they have regulatory control over our "planes".
Old 07-07-2014, 05:50 AM
  #297  
[email protected]
My Feedback: (1)
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: hemet , CA
Posts: 1,164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

the faa can drop dead
Old 07-07-2014, 05:52 AM
  #298  
[email protected]
My Feedback: (1)
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: hemet , CA
Posts: 1,164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

the faa can drop dead
Old 07-07-2014, 06:13 AM
  #299  
radfordc
My Feedback: (14)
 
radfordc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Lansing, KS
Posts: 1,598
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by bradpaul
Just a thought. what's to keep an AMA Club from "buying a plane, putting in a grass strip, and getting on the FAA's airport list?". And would you really need to buy a full scale plane? After all the FAA says they have regulatory control over our "planes".
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.
Old 07-07-2014, 06:53 AM
  #300  
DocYates
My Feedback: (102)
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Oklahoma City, OK
Posts: 3,359
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Default

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.

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.