bradpaul

Endanger is just so subjective that it gives the bureaucrats way too much latitude to restrict activities......................

Is owning an assault weapon (govt definition) endanger the public?
Does smoking endanger the public even though the govt makes more money with every pack sold then the tobacco company?
Does the damned stream on a farmers property endanger some obtuse species?
Do windmills endanger birds such as eagles?
Do solar power plants endanger migrating birds?
Do coal fired power plants endanger the air or does the elimination of them endanger your wallet?
Did Clive Bundy's cattle endanger the public land?

I could go on and on about bureaucratic overreach but will end with...............................

Do RC aircraft flying FPV below 400' endanger the NAS?

bradpaul

For those that want to contribute:

http://dronepilotsassociation.com/legal-fund/

Where as the AMA is spending $250,000 to try to embrace commercial use of FPV. How ironic would it be if the FPV guys saved RC flying for all the AMAers that want to throw FPV under the bus.

Update lawsuits have been filed:

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wir...rules-25088965

AND THE AMA IS ONE OF THE LITIGANTS!!!!!!!!

ira d

Yup it might just be the FPV guys that help to save the day, I think we all knew it would come to this so we will have wait and see where it goes.

I think the FAA needs to rethink what they are trying to do, When you think this through with some common sense the emphasis should not be
so much on what is a hobby vs commercial but what is or not safe.

cj_rumley

Agreed. There's ample evidence in what AMA got for all their big city politicking. Surprise, surprise!
I said earlier in this thread that I don't believe anything I hear out of FAA (I should add especially when it is filtered and passed via AMA), unless I see that has been signed out by the Administrator. Not a widely held belief apparently as I see much ado about what FAA is going to do to us that references the cartoons FAA published to tell us what to/ not do. One of the first items on the list "DO fly model aircraft at your club flying site." Doubtless some have or will reinterpret the interpretation of the interpretation and read into it "DO NOT fly your model aircraft except at your club flying site." How does that work for CBO members that don't belong to any club (or non-CO members, but nobody seems to care about them)? What works for me is to look for the signature of the head of the agency and generally diss what didn't have to pass muster with him.

az3d

My Feedback: (59)

This article just came out. Another person trying to destroy our hobby.

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/l...821-story.html

bradpaul

http://www.modelaircraft.org/files/A...retiveRule.pdf

cj_rumley

Well, it does respond to my curiosity about what they are up to behind the curtain now.....and where a goodly chunk of the $250K will go.

How surprised are you that the lawyer that filed the petition for judicial review is same one that represented Pirker? Spoiler: He will attempt to challenge a precedent (canon, really) set in a case that Chevron lost, similar in that the opposing party in the dispute was a Fed Agency. Really ambitious to pursue gaining stature by arguing a case before the Supreme Court, and it won't likely be settled by any lower court.

Hmmmmmm.....how much is AMA worth.....

Got a non-AMA affiliated flying site?

bradpaul

Three lawsuits were filed separately by the AMA, The Council on Government Relations, and a group of commercial drone interests:

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/faa...ew-drone-rules

N410DC

First of all, there is no CBO for model aviation, and therefore no "CBO guidelines". The AMA formally requested CBO status from the FAA in January 2014. According to Bob Brown, as of mid-July 2014, the AMA has no recognition as a CBO ("President's Perspective," Model Aviation Magazine, September 2014 issue, page 6.) I am not aware of any other organization that has been designated as a CBO for model aviation, so at this time, we cannot follow any CBO guidelines, because there are none.

Secondly, even if the AMA is granted CBO status at some point in the future, the AMA guidelines allow FPV flight with a spotter, while the pilot flies solely by looking at a monitor, or though FPV goggles. The FAA's new interpretation prohibits this explicitly. Though some argue that the FAA's interpretation can be satisfied if the spotter can take control via. a buddy box (I am not sure if the FAA would agree,) this is still more restrictive that the AMA's guidelines, which do not require a buddy box.

Lastly, the AMA safety code does not require authorization from an airport operator and control tower while flying near an airport. The FAA does require this in their new interpretation.

Bottom line: mere compliance with the AMA's guidelines is not sufficient to satisfy the FAA's new interpretation. When the dust settles, I do hope that the FAA will eventually allow us to operate under the AMA's guidelines, as they have in the past.

You make a few very good points. We need to take full advantage of the comment period. Our comments need to be empirically based, and not too opinionated, if we hope for them to be taken seriously. We need to do this, in an effort to limit our primary governance to the AMA. Even if this happens, the FAA can (and will) step in and take action against any fool who endangers the NAS. Hopefully, this will be limited to idiots who are counting the nose hairs of a full-scale pilot via. an airborne camera at 1500', and similar incidents that are taking place a few times a month. These people should get heavily fined, and I hope they do.

cj_rumley

Common sense IMHO has led FAA to the rationale that 'what is a hobby' is 'what is safe,' relative to risk for commercial operations involving the same technology. I'm still in strong agreement with that rationale, and though AMA powers that be once were too, it apparently is no longer because it is in conflict with their aspirations to grow their sphere of influence and control and btw, revenues.

Model aircraft crash, most of them eventually. Model airplanes operated by sensible people fly over tracts of real estate devoid of people and their things, e.g., club flying sites or for indies other spaces purposely selected for having the same attributes. The consequence of the inevitable crash is generally limited to the model aircraft.
Now I'll leave it to you to describe the purposes for commercial operations in similar venues. I'll throw one out to start, farmers surveying their land for monitoring health of their crops and livestock. FAA knows about them and has already put them on the fast track for approval to fly, in some part because the flying venues share similar attributes to our hobby venues. What else?

The line between hobby and commercial use has been blurry. Recent empire-building exploits by bureaucrats in control of our hobby organization are obliterating it. The consequences ought to be obvious. If we're lumped together with operators of civil and public UAS, we will be subject to the same gamut of regulations. The very same regulations AMA said they are and will continue protecting us from. I don't regard that as a good thing by any stretch. YMMV.

JohnShe

Wow! I could answer every one of your questions with the same answer "Does a bear poop in the woods"?

Bob Pastorello

My Feedback: (198)

It would seem that "someone" (or many someones) at the AMA EC level decided that the best strategy to deal with the FAA was to go from the OUTSIDE (court system) to get their views incorporated by the FAA???????? Who is freakin' kiddin' themselves, there?????
NOBODY wins influence by SUING the agency/group/persons you are wanting to influence. Does someone actually really believe that such a strategy would/will/may persuade the FAA to become more flexible, cooperative, or accommodating?????
What in the hell are they smokin' ????????????

N410DC

The AMA has sat down with the FAA on more than one occasion. Even the FAA acknowledges this. One of the meetings took place after the FAA released their interpretations of 336. Despite these efforts, the FAA has taken legal steps to hinder out ability to operate model aircraft. Now that the FAA has made it a legal issue with their recent interpretation, the AMA is forced to fight them in the Courts. The lawsuit that was filed today against the FAA happened because of the FAA's recent interpretation, not because of the AMA's unwillingness to work with the FAA.

I am not happy that is has come to this. However, the FAA is apparently not willing to listen to the AMA. Perhaps they will listen to the Judicial branch of our government.

ira d

The FAA has said you can photo a farmers field for him and that's OK unless he pays you to do it but that makes no sense, The FAA needs to
stop trying to micro manage rc and deal with the real safety issues. If I can photo the field without being paid and there is no safety issue then
the fact that I received a few bucks for doing so does not create a safety issue either. The real commercial operators those that fly for a
business will not be that hard to find IMO and yes there needs to be some rules for them.

One example being I can take someone somewhere in my car and receive payment and that is not against the law but if I advertise as a taxi
service without the proper permits and insurance that would illegal.

cj_rumley

Ira,
I don't have any problem with people doing what you describe. They may need representation/advocacy by an organization of other persons with similar interests to secure and preserve the right to do it. That organization does not need to be AMA and it should not be. If it is AMA, the value of the organization to represent us model aircraft operators will be be greatly diminished.
OTOH, if operators of sUAS for commercial purposes can be recruited into AMA membership that brings in new money. Keeping promises to those that are already dues paying members doesn't. It's a matter of priorities at AMA HQ, and the order of those priorities is becoming abundantly clear.

cj

Charley

My Feedback: (2)

It makes sense if he's letting you fly on his property & you're helping out in return. Hmm, that's a barter....

Ummm.. One's under the table & the other is under the radar.

CR

ira d

I am not sure the AMA is trying to recruit commercial operators I don't think so because the AMA insurance will not cover commercial flying. What I see
the AMA doing is trying to represent all types of rc operations for the hobby in general and I think they should.

The way I see it is if the FAA is successful stopping FPV it will only be a short time before they go after something else.

ira d

Not talking about a barter but I would bet the FAA would not like that either. As far giving someone a ride and they pay you there is
nothing under the table or radar about that.

aeajr

My Feedback: (2)

AMA files a petition in court:
http://amablog.modelaircraft.org/ama...rpretive-rule/

AMA Files Petition for Review of FAA’s Interpretive Rule

Today the Academy of Model Aeronautics (AMA) filed a Petition for Review in the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit challenging the FAA’s Interpretation of the Special Rule for Model Aircraft published in the Federal Register on June 25, 2014.

The AMA believes that the FAA’s Interpretive Rule is contrary to the text and intent of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, Public Law 112-95, and violates Congress’ specific prohibition on any new rules or regulations regarding model aircraft that are operated pursuant to a community-based organization’s standards. The FAA’s purported interpretation effectively establishes an array of new regulations that model aircraft enthusiasts have never been subject to in the past, and poses an immediate and direct hardship on model aviation.

“Model aviation is a wholesome family recreational and educational activity,” said AMA Executive Director Dave Mathewson. “Aeromodeling has been a steppingstone to careers in aviation and aerospace for many young people in this country, and AMA is concerned that the FAA’s interpretation of the law will diminish our ability to continue to be the pipeline for young talent that will become the next generation of engineers this country so sorely needs.”

Although AMA has worked cooperatively with the FAA in the past, and hopes to continue to do so, the AMA has filed its petition for review within 60 days of the issuance of the FAA interpretation, by necessity, in order to assert its legal rights.

“The AMA has worked collaboratively and in good faith with the FAA’s Unmanned Aircraft Systems Integration Office for many years and will continue to do so as we attempt to work through our differences concerning the interpretive rule,” said AMA President Bob Brown.

To learn more about the AMA’s advocacy efforts, and how you can help, visit: http://www.modelaircraft.org/aboutama/gov.aspx.
View the full press release online: http://www.modelaircraft.org/files/A...retiveRule.pdf.

Hossfly

WOW! I do believe that someone made to the fact that AMA has not been the Community Based Organization (CBO) (item # 792 above) that so many have so thought and AMA management so liked for modelers to think AMA WAS such. That much publicized document in Jan. 2014 was simply an "....understanding.. which like any "undertanding" can be gone in minutes. My wife seems to be able to delete any "understanding" within a few minutes!
Now with this new "lawsuit" AMA demonstrates it being in force (partnership, bed, etc.) with the Drone businesses. Do you think FAA will ever be any friend of AMA after this all takes place? IMO, it confirms the needs for some new management on the AMA Executive Council. You AMA members have a choice. Do you have the desire to exercise that choice as much as you have the desire to 2nd guess everything now happening ?

cj_rumley

EC meeting 19 Jul Minutes, FAA/Government Relations heading:

"Hanson outlined the small UAS program as developed. The program includes the individual elements of Legitimacy; Education-as to the best practices for doing what they are doing; Training-so they have the skill to operate the aircraft; Safety-know the safety rules they need to follow; Registration-a way to register their aircraft; Endorsement-an endorsement that validates their knowledge, skills and ability; Classification-different classes such as fixed wing and rotorcraft platforms; Insurance-AMA’s current insurance program covers the individual doing this for personal use. The policy precludes you from coverage if you are using this for a business purpose. Through AMA’s insurance broker, HQ has been in discussion with the underwriter Star Aviation to put together an affinity-type insurance program for those wanting to use the platforms for business purposes; Program Support Advocacy; Media, and Marketing. There would be a sUAS web site (cost for subscription) that will be technology driven and could be used on any platform (tablet, PC, watches, phones, etc.)."

JohnShe

Let's take it one item at a time.

In their interpretation of section 336, the FAA, rather obliquely, recognizes the AMA as a CBO. The FAA has held many talks with the AMA which further indicate that they acknowledge the role of the AMA. If you read section 336 and the FAA interpretation carefully, you will realize that there is no language in the law that requires the FAA to formally recognize the AMA as a CBO.



Good point, in their interpretation, the FAA fully acknowledges the expressed intent of congress to allow the CBO to make exemptions in their safety code for overweight aircraft. This exemption clearly shows congresses intent to allow the AMA (CBO) to develop safety guidelines for new technologies. Therefore, it should be possible to persuade the FAA to make the same acknowledgement for technologies presently known, or heretofore unthought of, to be introduced into model aviation safely.

Not quite, read the safety code carefully and note the following quote from the safety code.

"Model aircraft pilots will:
(a) Yield the right of way to all human-carrying aircraft.
(b) See and avoid all aircraft and a spotter must be used when appropriate. (AMA Document #540-D.)
(c) Not fly higher than approximately 400 feet above ground level within three (3) miles of an airport without notifying the airport operator.
(d) Not interfere with operations and traffic patterns at any airport, heliport or seaplane base except where there is a mixed use agreement."

Item (d) clearly expresses the need for agreements with airports.

The FAA has said that as long as the safety guidelines are acceptable to the FAA and carefully followed there will be no problems.

Yes, coherent comments are needed. Most of what I have seen is incoherent whining.

Sport_Pilot

No one is friends with the FAA, except the airlines and other commercial interests that pay their salary. The AMA can never compete with that and the courts are the only real solution.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

Where do you come up with this stuff? The airlines and commercial interest pay their salary? Which ones, specifically, and how much? How is their 401k plan?

ira d

cj, I did learn something from your post that being the AMA would like to insure rc flyers that would like to use their crafts for business. At this point
I am open to the idea since the current AMA insurance is kind of vague on what is covered when performing at airshows and such.

The reason I say the current insurance vague is because I remember seeing a post here on RCU where the question was asked what about
the person that performs at a airshow and receives payment. The AMA response was they could not say for sure and not to rely on the AMA
insurance in such circumstances.