Thomas B

My Feedback: (4)

if you go back to 2008 and review the much discussed report from the Advisory Rules Committee that the FAA created to discuss rule proposals and regulations for all sUAS, including model aircraft (involving not only the FAA, but industry, military, other government agencies, the AMA and one other model related group) to deal with upcoming airspace safety issues, you would get an idea of the kind of rules that were being proposed for all model aircraft, including ones operated by AMA members.

Even with the issues that have come about with the FAA interpretation of 336, the hobby is still better off because of 336. Based on communications with some of the involved parties, I am certain that model aviation was looking at some fairly draconian rules that 336 helped to minimize.

cj_rumley

I'm not privy to what draconian rules FAA may have been giving serious consideration as you apparently are, only hints of insider knowledge from AMA sources that onerous rules were going to come unless AMA defended us from FAA regulation. Nothing was forthcoming from AMA regarding what the defenses might be, e.g., the lobbying that led to 336 becoming statute, from which we might infer what the threat was imagined to be. So while I can't agree 'the hobby is still better off because of 336,' I can mostly agree with a slight rephrasing that sums up my POV: 'The hobby is no worse off because of 336.'

Thomas B

My Feedback: (4)

Not hard to find the ARC suggestions that were in play at that time:

http://www.modelaircraft.org/faa/recommendations.pdf

The areas with black dots and yellow highighted alternatives were of special concern to the AMA and related to us.

Model aircraft speed limits and prohibition of turbine powered models were a couple of the interesting things that were being proposed.

cj_rumley

Oh, I am very familiar with the suggestions of the ARC, which AMA had a hand in making. There is no public record of what FAA gave serious consideration to, however. I ranked what came out the the ARC relating to model aircraft as crap, and presumed FAA would regard it as such also.

added: Since the ARC, FAA has issued Interim Guidance for UAS stakeholders. Guidance therein relating to model aircraft was to except them from the processes/limitations applicable to the general class of UAS and specifically pointed MA operators to AC 91-57 for guidance just as they have for decades. Nothing whatever to do with ARC recommendations, which indicated to me that FAA did not consider any of it worth including at least for the interim prior to issue of the NPRM.

cj

mr_matt

My Feedback: (10)

What do you mean? How was the AMA "ahead of this"? The AMA was clearly blindsided by the recent FAA communication.

mr_matt

My Feedback: (10)

I agree, and I don't think the AMA had any inkling of any draconian measures, any more than they had any inkling of this new FAA ruling. I have been on committees like that, many times they are just a sandbox for the kids to play in and keep them out of the adults (FAA) hair.

Sport_Pilot

If they were blindsighted, then they would not have pushed for the special rule to begin with.

Bob Pastorello

My Feedback: (198)

Did some very boring reading this morning about "interpretation of Statutes". Essentially, agencies use "interpretations" to clarify what THEY think a statute or law actually says. Such interpretations don't have to be communicated, either! Ultimately, someone found allegedly in violation of a statute with an interpretation has to have the COURT (whatever level has jurisdiction) make the decision, which then establishes legal precedent for the agency on that particular point. Since court findings may be appealed, it is feasible that a question on interpretation of a rule could only be finally decided by the Supreme Court. Kinda like the recent Hobby Lobby employee health insurance issue/question.

The FAA didn't have to tell us what they think it all means.
And looks like we won't really find out until various points are tested.
Are we gonna have some FUN, or what??????

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

Wow!!! Well said... You did some good work... I wish I could have said it so well.

cj_rumley

YES, very well said, Bob.

If you have read AMA's objection/response to FAA's interpretation you know that it boils down to a brouhaha over "our interpretation vs. theirs."

Chevron had a similar issue with another Federal agency a couple of decades ago that resulted in a landmark decision that has become canon: the courts must tilt the scales in deference to administrative interpretation of a statute by the public agency responsible for enforcing it. Chevron lost. Will AMA's lawyers fare better than Chevron's?

That's my read on it, with the caveat that IANAL. Here are some words on it from Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. Some might consider him more of an authority than I am.

Silent-AV8R

Worse yet, despite asking for comments, they are under no obligation to change one word of their interpretation. I think they asked for comments to head off comments about unilateral action, etc. Their comments demonstrate how little they actually understand out hobby.

mr_matt

My Feedback: (10)

I just heard a podcast interview with the AMA. They sounded like everything is business as usual.

They were to have a face to face meeting with the FAA yesterday.

I can only imagine how much we are spending on this fight.

Bob Pastorello

My Feedback: (198)

Two weeks until comments deadline = 2900 comments received already. It would be nice to know how AMA face-to-face comments compare/contrast to those being submitted. I've read many on the Fed site, and fortunately, very few of them appear to be that "boilerplate" form letter, and that's a GOOD THING, I think.

mr_matt

My Feedback: (10)

Here is the podcast:

http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2198189

My take away from the AMA interview is that this is going to come down to a court case, if the FAA chooses to fine someone.

For instance, on the podcast, the host asks the AMA DIRECTLY if one could still fly goggled FPV under AMA rules as currently written. They said "yes". I found that surprising. "Business as usual" was the takeaway

My feeling from the interview is, these are FAA intepretations of a law (obviously). Similar to the relationship between the "Internal Revenue Code" (the law) vs "Treasury Regulations" and finally "IRS Rules".

Only the "Internal Revenue Code" is the law. Violate the others at your own peril, and see you in court.

Same thing here. 336 is the law. The recent FAA interpretation is a statement of how they intend to enforcing 336 in the broader context of their federal authority (presumable granted by the Federal Aviation act of 1958).

The other industry interviewee appears to advocate a legal defense fund and possibly a test case for the courts. Sounds like the AMA preferred next step is direct congressional lobbying (pointless IMHO). Neither seemed that optimistic that these comments to the FAA are going to do very much if anything.

Thomas B

My Feedback: (4)

Your opinion about what was proposed in the ARC document notwithstanding, it still offers clear evidence that some stringent requirements were being strongly considered for model aircraft. It is also clear that the AMA was on record in the ARC document opposing the most stringent rules, even for non AMA members.

You might remember that the people involved with the NPRM after the ARC were required by the FAA to be silent about the process until the details were publicly released. I did get some communications from involved parties (NOT the AMA representation at the NPRM) that very strongly hinted that we modelers were NOT going to like what was coming down the road. (I work in the aerospace industry and we were represented in the NPRM as well)

It is no secret that this looming situation lead to the AMA becoming proactive: calling for all our help, conducting the letter writing campaign to our representatives and obtaining and supporting the paid lobbyist in DC, all of which figured substantially in getting the terms of 336 added to the FAA Reauthorization Bill in 2012.

The FAA did do a little more than point modelers to AC91-57 in the interm. They kept preaching that any commercial use of model aircraft was not allowed, which is not addressed in 91-57.

The above is why I firmly beleive that even with the problems that have shown up with the FAAs interpretation of 336, we as modelers are still better off with it that we would be without it.

Thomas B

My Feedback: (4)

Based on this quote from a FAA lawyer, I have to agree with you that the comments are unlikely to do much. The FAA has made up its mind and we will have to fight the good fight.

"Although the public is invited to comment (the deadline is July 23), don’t expect a lot of changes, Mark Bury, a lawyer in the FAA Chief Counsel's office told a June 26 symposium on unmanned aircraft sponsored by the law firm of McKenna, Long & Aldridge.
“We’ve laid down our interpretation of the statute,” said Bury, who is a lead attorney on UAS matters in the FAA. “That is our interpretation that we’re going to apply moving forward. So we’re looking for comments to see if there are any ways that we need to modify that interpretation, to address unintended consequences, for example. But that interpretation, we don't expect it to change very much, if at all, from what is published in the Federal Register.”"

The full article and these comments can be found at:

http://www.insidegnss.com/node/4074

Sport_Pilot

Read the preamble to the reauthorization bill, it is not a law that can be directly enforced. Rather the law tells the FAA what to put in thier upcoming regulations to be completed in 2015. As such nothing is enforcable till the regulation is written, then there is another round of coments and then only after it is finalized can anything be enforced.

cj_rumley

No, it offers strong evidence that such requirements were being proposed, by committee members not affiliated with FAA. IIRC, there was one individual from FAA there (the moderator) and I don't know how you can divine that he 'strongly considered' what was proposed.

Good for you. Few of us did, and for myself only, I don't put much stock in what I hear of FAA intentions/actions via channels other than what has been signed out by the Administrator......especially when the comm channels are those that hear what they want to hear and/or what they want us to hear.

AMA apparently believed the same sources you did.


This is the essential attribute of MA behind FAA granting exclusion from regulation that separates us from all other UAS operators, and FAA made that quite clear in interim guidance releases. Why is that a surprise to AMA now, and why didn't they speak out against it then?

Keep the faith.

AMA says they have spent over a million$$$$$$ over the past 5 years on efforts to protect our (AMA members) rights, and resources needed to continue the fight are depleted, and so they are appealing for donations.

Have mailed your check yet?

acerc

For us modelers there are much bigger issues at hand other than can we fly our airplane where ever and how ever we want. Such as the thousand of children being sent illegally (intentionally) to the US. The intentional attack on the middle class. The burdens placed on every citizen (intentionally) by an overreaching government. New studies show the US being the equivalent of a third world nation in less than ten years. And here we sit worried about our toys, and whether we can fly outside of line of sight!!!

Hossfly

"acerc" since we cannot talk politics here, I will just say, "Very good points."

Dick T.

My Feedback: (243)

Spent some time this morning re-reading the FAA interpretation of 336. Personally I find little to disagree with and not being a Chicken Little kind of person see nothing real to fear.

Two areas seem to create the most dialogue among R/C enthusiasts, one I disagree with, the other I am mixed about. Those being paid demo pilots and FPV/UAV.

Disagree: Paid R/C demo pilots are part of doing business. Historically R/C demo pilots have operated within AMA/FAA guidelines and to my knowledge have never created and air space or safety incident. They are the most competent model pilots in the world and should not have product demonstrations restricted.

Mixed: FPV/UAS. The interpretation clearly defines differences between hobby/recreation vs. commercial use. With those definitions I agree. I understand the hobbyist FPV concern with the FAA interpretation but the dummies out there have already messed it up. I feel for the hobbyist FPV pilots who are flying properly but your goose is cooked. Modifications to your sport are required as now you will become commercial UAV.

VLOS will remain part of the AMA/FAA guideline. Hardware/software (altimeters, range, etc.,) can insure hobby level UAV manufacturers meet the AMA (336) guidelines. Emerging devices may allow FPV in some ways that still fall within AMA VLOS guidelines (can we say modified Google glasses?)

As mentioned in prior posts the FAA interpretation is unlikely to see much modification. Creating methods to work within the proposal is more productive.

Doug Cronkhite

My Feedback: (34)

It's not even payment.. ANY compensation, including even getting a slight discount, removes a person from the Hobbyist classification under their rules. This is nuts.

cj_rumley

How menacing is the issue, Doug? I'm trying to scope out the impact and seriously don't see much coming of it.

Will FAA enforcement agents patrol model fields and jump on a guy showing off his flying prowess while wearing a Futaba t-shirt? Should he always carry a receipt for it showing the price paid for it matches what Tower retails them for?

I can see instances where it could be an issue, as with paid instruction, but not likely to be prosecuted unless instructor went out of his way to draw FAA attention to himself, ala Pirker. Maybe if a full-scale was hit during an instruction session.

What else?

cj

Bob Pastorello

My Feedback: (198)

cj_ - ANY event, of any kind, with prizes offered will be hard-pressed to *not* be "Commercial", and since LHS', and manufacturers' and distributors *provide* such prizes, under the current interpretation - ALL of that is dead meat, fini, DONE. If the FAA doesn't carve out an "exemption" for model aircraft activities.

Since the FAA doesn't know come here from sic' em about how the REAL RC industry operates, I expect, as many do, that they will ignore the carving out requests, continue on with the unilateral prohibition of all "commercial" operations and treat ALL of them as FAR Part 91 operations, just like their Full Scale counterparts.

In essence, party over, fat lady sung, last one out turn off the lights.

cj_rumley

Tnx Bob,

I was kinda stuck on 'it should be the same as it is for all other private aircraft.' I see you point about why some feel it should be different for MA, but I suspect the FAA priority has more to do with safety in the NAS than accommodating the industry. Not sure how the latter fits into their charter. I don't think this is something that can't be negotiated, as the rationale applied to the the full-scale commercial aircraft is that operation for hire demands higher standards for aircraft and pilot. With nobody on-board a MA and when operational envelope not expected to differ, it isn't really a safety issue. I think FAA would consider putting in some slack, if interpretation of the statute doesn't make the line between operation for promotion incidental a primary purpose of recreational use from commercial ops like AP for profit too blurry to discern. May not be the right time to ask though, if they clam up due to litigation that appears to be pending.

For now, the FAA's laissez faire posture toward responsible MA operations that has prevailed since dirt won't likely change. FAA has bigger fish to fry.