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 07-07-2014, 07:21 AM
  #301  
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

Originally Posted by radfordc
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.
That's not true is it? Other aircraft do not have to notify other airports. And the FAA says part 91 applies so, just get an aviation radio and call in each takeoff and landing over unicom.
Old 07-07-2014, 07:45 AM
  #302  
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 Sport_Pilot
That's not true is it? Other aircraft do not have to notify other airports. And the FAA says part 91 applies so, just get an aviation radio and call in each takeoff and landing over unicom.
One of the many extreme and foolish things about the FAA "interpretation" is that it subjects models to rules more stringent than the rules for some full-scale aircraft. There is no requirement that full-scale planes in class E or class G airspace notify airports they are near. They don't even have to have radios. Yet the "interpretation" requires modelers to notify all airports within five miles. Some of the posts in this thread seem to assume that the FAA will do the right thing, but the impression I get from their actions so far is that they are out to teach the AMA and Senator Inhofe a lesson about meddling with them. Remember, this is the agency that tried to yank Bob Hoover's ticket for no reason except that he was 72 years old. And Hoover was probably the best pilot in the world.
Old 07-07-2014, 08:03 AM
  #303  
littlecrankshaf
My Feedback: (58)
 
littlecrankshaf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: here
Posts: 5,413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Top_Gunn
One of the many extreme and foolish things about the FAA "interpretation" is that it subjects models to rules more stringent than the rules for some full-scale aircraft. There is no requirement that full-scale planes in class E or class G airspace notify airports they are near. They don't even have to have radios. Yet the "interpretation" requires modelers to notify all airports within five miles. Some of the posts in this thread seem to assume that the FAA will do the right thing, but the impression I get from their actions so far is that they are out to teach the AMA and Senator Inhofe a lesson about meddling with them. Remember, this is the agency that tried to yank Bob Hoover's ticket for no reason except that he was 72 years old. And Hoover was probably the best pilot in the world.
So true...So sad...
Old 07-07-2014, 08:11 AM
  #304  
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 DocYates
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.
Doc, there you go thinking logically. Obviously you would not make a good "FAA man". The FAA is very good at finding any tiny violation of the strictest interpretation of their rules. If this new "interpretation" is allowed to stand you can be sure that they will find someone, somewhere to make an example of.
Old 07-07-2014, 08:54 AM
  #305  
r_adical
My Feedback: (19)
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Garrison, MT
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Top_Gunn
One of the many extreme and foolish things about the FAA "interpretation" is that it subjects models to rules more stringent than the rules for some full-scale aircraft. There is no requirement that full-scale planes in class E or class G airspace notify airports they are near. They don't even have to have radios. Yet the "interpretation" requires modelers to notify all airports within five miles. Some of the posts in this thread seem to assume that the FAA will do the right thing, but the impression I get from their actions so far is that they are out to teach the AMA and Senator Inhofe a lesson about meddling with them. Remember, this is the agency that tried to yank Bob Hoover's ticket for no reason except that he was 72 years old. And Hoover was probably the best pilot in the world.
Just to be clear they yanked his Medical essentially grounding him. They knew they couldn't violate him but they certainly were after him.
Old 07-07-2014, 10:01 AM
  #306  
radfordc
My Feedback: (14)
 
radfordc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Lansing, KS
Posts: 1,598
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Exactly...like with Bob Hoover they can be totally arbitrary and act just on a "whim" with no evidence what-so-ever. You're guilty until proven innocent.
Old 07-07-2014, 10:49 AM
  #307  
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

LOL he got around that by getting an Australian license and medical, and the rules said that the US had to issue an International Certificate to those issued in Austrailia.

Hopefully the AMA can get some way around, or down under!
Old 07-07-2014, 11:17 AM
  #308  
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

Only about 2100 comments show on the FAA Web site for the letter.

http://www.regulations.gov/#!submitC...2014-0396-0001

It ought to be at least 20,000
Old 07-07-2014, 11:26 AM
  #309  
mkranitz
Banned
My Feedback: (60)
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,586
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

GUYS, IF YOU WANT TO REALLY HELP (ESPECIALLY IF YOU ARE A MANUFACTURER, DISTRIBUTOR, RETAILER), sign on to this: http://chn.ge/VAv23J

I've been down this road before with regulators and whining about the ENTIRE thing is the wrong approach. I believe the area in which we are most likely to get an immediate exemption is in connection with demonstrations and testing; both areas that are critical to manufacturers and distributors of our products.

Read what I've prepared for the FAA and sign on if you agree. If you do, please pass it along quickly: http://chn.ge/VAv23J

Michael
Old 07-07-2014, 11:36 AM
  #310  
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

Originally Posted by mkranitz
GUYS, IF YOU WANT TO REALLY HELP (ESPECIALLY IF YOU ARE A MANUFACTURER, DISTRIBUTOR, RETAILER), sign on to this: http://chn.ge/VAv23J

I've been down this road before with regulators and whining about the ENTIRE thing is the wrong approach. I believe the area in which we are most likely to get an immediate exemption is in connection with demonstrations and testing; both areas that are critical to manufacturers and distributors of our products.

Read what I've prepared for the FAA and sign on if you agree. If you do, please pass it along quickly: http://chn.ge/VAv23J

Michael
Michael - in addition to petition, I would suggest restructure and reformat of your message to fit within the 5000 character limit on the FAA comments page, and post it there as an individual comment. Your credentials, statement of impact, scope and need for revision as well as the suggested rephrasing in your petition deserve to get individual attention.

VERY WELL DONE, Sir. I fully support your effort, and identified the same area in my own comment a few days ago. Thank you.
Old 07-07-2014, 12:05 PM
  #311  
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

We don't need any stinking exemption. There is not yet a regulation to get exemption for. we need to fight the regulation first here, then in court.

Very good point however. Since the FAA cannot require licence or certification they cannot require testing that those testing or exibiting models for payment be tested for higher skills. Thus there is no safety benifit.

Last edited by Sport_Pilot; 07-07-2014 at 12:09 PM.
Old 07-07-2014, 01:02 PM
  #312  
mkranitz
Banned
My Feedback: (60)
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,586
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Sport_Pilot
We don't need any stinking exemption. There is not yet a regulation to get exemption for. we need to fight the regulation first here, then in court.

Very good point however. Since the FAA cannot require licence or certification they cannot require testing that those testing or exibiting models for payment be tested for higher skills. Thus there is no safety benifit.
I vigorously disagree with you. The FAA is the rule-making body tasked with designing a safety scheme for our nation's airspace. Waiting for a court case to resolve the issue is naive and impractical when you can get the rule-making body, itself, to carve the necessary exemption up front with no fight. There is PLENTY of fighting that lies ahead with respect to FPV and commercial use of UAS for everything from real estate to package delivery. If you read my response, you'll see I made no mention of FPV because the issue is more cloudy. If the FAA makes a weight and usage rule for FPV, it's far more likely to remain a safety issue than a manufacturer demonstrating a plane at an event. My exemption suggestion is very difficult to argue against because there is literally NO DIFFERENCE between a sponsored pilot and a non-sponsored pilot flying the same plane at an event. You take the easy stuff when and where you can get it and fight about the more complex stuff down the road.

I like FPV, but the restrictions on demos and testing will place a significant burden on most every event and will affect more members of the hobby right now. It's also really easy to dismiss the FAA as having no authority in a discussion forum. I believe we should take them seriously and address and resolve what we can BEFORE they finalize their interpretation -- not after.

MK
Old 07-07-2014, 01:05 PM
  #313  
mkranitz
Banned
My Feedback: (60)
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,586
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Bob Pastorello
Michael - in addition to petition, I would suggest restructure and reformat of your message to fit within the 5000 character limit on the FAA comments page, and post it there as an individual comment. Your credentials, statement of impact, scope and need for revision as well as the suggested rephrasing in your petition deserve to get individual attention.

VERY WELL DONE, Sir. I fully support your effort, and identified the same area in my own comment a few days ago. Thank you.
Thanks Bob. I submitted the PDF so there wouldn't be a length restriction. I think it's important for the FAA to see the absurd result of their trying to use business purpose as the divining rod for what's permitted and what is not. It's very difficult to defend.
Old 07-07-2014, 02:42 PM
  #314  
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 mkranitz
Thanks Bob. I submitted the PDF so there wouldn't be a length restriction. I think it's important for the FAA to see the absurd result of their trying to use business purpose as the divining rod for what's permitted and what is not. It's very difficult to defend.
Mike, I agree being proactive by asking the governing body to reconsider proposed regulations is a far better approach. If they agree to changes benefiting our model aviation hobby/industry other outside interpretations become a non issue. Waiting until a rule is cast in stone then fighting the agency is risky.

Research on Bob Hoover’s FAA fiasco turned up a very simple truth. A partial quote from an article on Pilot Medical Solutions web site, “In fact, the document trail reveals that the FAA process became much more adversarial once legal process was initiated by Hoover and his attorney F. Lee Bailey. While Hoover's litigation was initially successful, the favorable decision was quickly reversed by the NTSB and did not result in FAA medical approval for Hoover. Bailey and Hoover filed appeals all the way up to the Supreme Court and lost.”

AMA’s initial dealings with the FAA seemed to progress positively and AMA should have independently maintained that approach. Attaching us to Sen. Inhofe’s personal crusade against the FAA, which was already poking a stick in the beehive, was a risky and possibly unnecessary move as it put us in an ‘adversarial’ light.

However our comments to FAA during this review period may help reduce the perceived conflict and illustrate we have common air space safety in mind. Initial factual AMA presentations to the FAA were well received. Our direct positive comments and suggestions may serve as a reminder the AMA was working towards that common goal with no intent to become an adversary.

In my opinion the FAA proposal as written only needs a little clarification in the area you outlined. AMA’s early influence clearly shows and that we have been following those guidelines for some time. I see no other chicken little moments on its surface.
Old 07-07-2014, 03:25 PM
  #315  
cloudancer03
My Feedback: (22)
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: palm harbor, FL
Posts: 2,232
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Just an antedotal comment to all this.......i was in my local ho by shop over the weekend as I enteredI caught site of a small white quad copter take off in the parking lot.when I got to the counter several people were laughing at the Samsung tv and i realized they were remotely controlling the quad copter around the neighborhood outside the store.the copter was 269. The cam and other accessory an antennae I think each cost 80. They flew to different areas and had fun.but it struck me that these tiny machines have the potential to entertain or be exploited I am likely old school and have embraced technology for my profession and sometimes home and hobby.you can't stop what is taking place but I am fearful that politicians and local leaders will be forced to impose or try to anyway limits to protect privacy and public safety.i worry that it doesn't infringe on my hobby flying rc planes something I have enjoyed over 36 years.
Old 07-07-2014, 04:00 PM
  #316  
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

My exemption suggestion is very difficult to argue against because there is literally NO DIFFERENCE between a sponsored pilot and a non-sponsored pilot flying the same plane at an event.
How do you get an exemption when there is no regulation to get an exemption from? Not to mention that 336 says there are no regulations to be made for models.
Old 07-07-2014, 07:03 PM
  #317  
mkranitz
Banned
My Feedback: (60)
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,586
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

You get the FAA to modify its interpretation to permit what I described as the exemption. If the carve-out that I described is in the FAA's revised interpretation, that will pretty much ensure that it will make it into their ultimate regulations. The interpretation is really an advance look at the FAA's thinking. It's their blueprint for future actions.
Old 07-07-2014, 07:09 PM
  #318  
cj_rumley
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga, CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by mkranitz
GUYS, IF YOU WANT TO REALLY HELP (ESPECIALLY IF YOU ARE A MANUFACTURER, DISTRIBUTOR, RETAILER), sign on to this: http://chn.ge/VAv23J

I've been down this road before with regulators and whining about the ENTIRE thing is the wrong approach. I believe the area in which we are most likely to get an immediate exemption is in connection with demonstrations and testing; both areas that are critical to manufacturers and distributors of our products.

Read what I've prepared for the FAA and sign on if you agree. If you do, please pass it along quickly: http://chn.ge/VAv23J

Michael
I'd like to second Bob Pastorello's VERY WELL DONE and wish you well in your effort to dissuade FAA from going overboard with regulation of model aircraft operations.
There is some regulatory material in in FAA's "interpretation" that I find odious and may also adversely affect you as a businessman. Unless you are content to have a market limited to AMA members-only, This passage in the FAA interpretation not previously mentioned in this discussion forum may warrant your notice:

" Model aircraft that do not meet these statutory requirements <meaning section 336> are nonetheless unmanned aircraft, and as such, are subject to all existing FAA regulations, as well as future rulemaking action, and the FAA intends to apply its regulations to such unmanned aircraft."

I read that to say model aircraft not operated according to CBO aka AMA 'programming' (a condition applied to operation in accordance with 336) are not model aircraft as we have known them, but rather sUAS not authorized to be operated at this time or until FAA gets around to making rules that regulate them. IOW, there is no model aircraft operation authorized outside of AMA control, by statute. Consider how that affects your target market.

Surprised me too.....wondering why all the crocodile tears from Muncie................

cj
Old 07-08-2014, 03:59 AM
  #319  
DrYankum
My Feedback: (11)
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Park Ridge, NJ
Posts: 166
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

http://nydn.us/1n2k8t3
2 men arrested on monday for flying fpv near the george washington bridge and almost colliding with a full size helicopter

Last edited by DrYankum; 07-08-2014 at 04:06 AM.
Old 07-08-2014, 04:30 AM
  #320  
porcia83
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Hartford, CT
Posts: 7,269
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

You would think the defense attorney would check the video before telling a judge that "it can only fly 300 feet".
Old 07-08-2014, 04:37 AM
  #321  
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

And the comments provide ample evidence that the general public is totally clueless about these devices and their capability, and also that THEY are pretty opposed to any type of control/management and law enforcement. A little surprising given the location and details.
Old 07-08-2014, 05:38 AM
  #322  
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

Looks like the FAA was not involved. If not for the cops following the drone the FAA would not know about this unless they posted the video on YouTube.
Old 07-08-2014, 07:31 AM
  #323  
r_adical
My Feedback: (19)
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Garrison, MT
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Sport_Pilot
Looks like the FAA was not involved. If not for the cops following the drone the FAA would not know about this unless they posted the video on YouTube.

It WILL be the idiots not thinking about their consequences who will cost the rest of us our hobby.
Old 07-08-2014, 09:07 AM
  #324  
cj_rumley
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga, CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by r_adical
It WILL be the idiots not thinking about their consequences who will cost the rest of us our hobby.
Not nice to talk about our AMA leadership that way.
Old 07-08-2014, 09:21 AM
  #325  
porcia83
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Hartford, CT
Posts: 7,269
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by cj_rumley
Not nice to talk about our AMA leadership that way.
Har Har...they are the only ones that got out ahead of this, and are doing something about it. What other group is?

Did you write to them, appears only a couple thousand have done so online.

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.