mr_matt

My Feedback: (10)

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B5zl...pli=1&sle=true

perttime

About commercial use of small UAS.

Quote:
"If the proposed rule were adopted, operators would be permitted to participate in certain non-recreational activities from which they are currently prohibited. The proposed requirements are intended to enable the opportunity for the private sector to conduct research and development, develop commercial small UAS businesses, and facilitate legal and safe operations. Currently commercial activity using a small UAS is prohibited by federal regulation unless the civil aircraft has an airworthiness certificate in effect or operations are approved by the FAA on a case by case basis via an exemption from the pertinent regulations."

Hossfly

Pages 62 and 63 are close to the older "rule" however the last item goes like this:
>>>>>
However while & 336 limits the FAA's rulemaking authority over model aircraft that meet the above criteria, it does not limit the FAA's authority to pursue enforcement action against those model aircraft operators that "endanger the safety of the national airspace system." (BOLD ADDED)
The proposed rule would codify this enforcement authority in part 101. Because the model aircraft component of the proposed rule would simply codify enforcement authority that th FAA already possesses, it will not result in any costs or benefits.authority.

mr_matt

My Feedback: (10)

This appears to be a mandated analysis of the economic impact of a proposed regulation.

I think it is interesting that it does not appear to add any regulation regarding the difference between a model aircraft and a UAS.

In other words the regulatory criteria is the commercial nature of the operation. I think this is really a great thing and something I was hoping for all along. Between this and the federal law I think we are in very good shape although its a bit disappointing that the only mention of a five mile restriction around airport is verbiage that came from the AMA not the FAA

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

NOT the doom and gloom so many had predicted. Not perfect, but what is?


MUNCIE, Ind. — The Academy of Model Aeronautics (AMA), the world’s largest model aviation association, today released the following statement in response to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems released by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). “While we have not yet fully reviewed the proposed rule, we are pleased to see the FAA has concluded that regulations relating to the commercial use of small unmanned aircraft systems (sUAS) should not apply to the longstanding, educational hobby of flying model aircraft. These are two very different activities, and Congress appropriately made clear in 2012 that model aircraft should be exempt from federal regulation. The AMA will review the proposed rule in more detail to ensure that the rights and privileges of the model aircraft community are upheld. “As the nationwide community-based organization for the recreational and personal use of sUAS, the Academy of Model Aeronautics (AMA) has created relevant safety guidelines, best practices and operating principles that have allowed enthusiasts to operate their aircraft and safely use this technology for more than seven decades. “AMA’s 78 years of experience in managing and overseeing the operation of model aircraft shows that a voluntary, community-based approach to managing this activity is far more effective in ensuring enthusiasts operate their aircraft in a safe and responsible manner. “To this end the AMA has joined with the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International, the Small UAV Coalition and other members of the small UAS and hobby industry in launching the “Know Before You Fly” campaign. This educational outreach has been widely accepted and heralded as a beneficial and effective means of educating the new sUAS enthusiasts and addressing inappropriate or improper use of this technology. “AMA is committed to preserving the safe, enjoyable and educational hobby of flying model aircraft – without the need for unnecessary, onerous and burdensome government regulations.”

TimJ

[h=2]Regulations will facilitate integration of small UAS into U.S. aviation system[/h] [HR][/HR] WASHINGTON – The Department of Transportation’s Federal Aviation Administration today proposed a framework of regulations that would allow routine use of certain small unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) in today’s aviation system, while maintaining flexibility to accommodate future technological innovations.
The FAA proposal offers safety rules for small UAS (under 55 pounds) conducting non-recreational operations. The rule would limit flights to daylight and visual-line-of-sight operations. It also addresses height restrictions, operator certification, optional use of a visual observer, aircraft registration and marking, and operational limits.
The proposed rule also includes extensive discussion of the possibility of an additional, more flexible framework for “micro” UAS under 4.4 pounds. The FAA is asking the public to comment on this possible classification to determine whether it should include this option as part of a final rule. The FAA is also asking for comment about how the agency can further leverage the UAS test site program and an upcoming UAS Center of Excellence to further spur innovation at “innovation zones.”
The public will be able to comment on the proposed regulation for 60 days from the date of publication in the Federal Register, which can be found at www.regulations.gov. Separate from this proposal, the FAA intends to hold public meetings to discuss innovation and opportunities at the test sites and Center of Excellence. These meetings will be announced in a future Federal Register notice.
“Technology is advancing at an unprecedented pace and this milestone allows federal regulations and the use of our national airspace to evolve to safely accommodate innovation,” said Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx.
The proposed rule would require an operator to maintain visual line of sight of a small UAS. The rule would allow, but not require, an operator to work with a visual observer who would maintain constant visual contact with the aircraft. The operator would still need to be able to see the UAS with unaided vision (except for glasses). The FAA is asking for comments on whether the rules should permit operations beyond line of sight, and if so, what the appropriate limits should be.
“We have tried to be flexible in writing these rules,” said FAA Administrator Michael Huerta. “We want to maintain today’s outstanding level of aviation safety without placing an undue regulatory burden on an emerging industry.”
Under the proposed rule, the person actually flying a small UAS would be an “operator.” An operator would have to be at least 17 years old, pass an aeronautical knowledge test and obtain an FAA UAS operator certificate. To maintain certification, the operator would have to pass the FAA knowledge tests every 24 months. A small UAS operator would not need any further private pilot certifications (i.e., a private pilot license or medical rating).
The new rule also proposes operating limitations designed to minimize risks to other aircraft and people and property on the ground:

• A small UAS operator must always see and avoid manned aircraft. If there is a risk of collision, the UAS operator must be the first to maneuver away.
• The operator must discontinue the flight when continuing would pose a hazard to other aircraft, people or property.
• A small UAS operator must assess weather conditions, airspace restrictions and the location of people to lessen risks if he or she loses control of the UAS.
• A small UAS may not fly over people, except those directly involved with the flight.
• Flights should be limited to 500 feet altitude and no faster than 100 mph.
• Operators must stay out of airport flight paths and restricted airspace areas, and obey any FAA Temporary Flight Restrictions (TFRs).

The proposed rule maintains the existing prohibition against operating in a careless or reckless manner. It also would bar an operator from allowing any object to be dropped from the UAS.
Operators would be responsible for ensuring an aircraft is safe before flying, but the FAA is not proposing that small UAS comply with current agency airworthiness standards or aircraft certification. For example, an operator would have to perform a preflight inspection that includes checking the communications link between the control station and the UAS. Small UAS with FAA-certificated components also could be subject to agency airworthiness directives.
The new rules would not apply to model aircraft. However, model aircraft operators must continue to satisfy all of the criteria specified in Sec. 336 of Public Law 112-95, including the stipulation that they be operated only for hobby or recreational purposes. Generally speaking, the new rules would not apply to government aircraft operations, because we expect that these government operations will typically continue to actively operate under the Certificate of Waiver or Authorization (COA) process unless the operator opts to comply with and fly under the new small UAS regulations.
In addition to this proposal, earlier today, the White House issued a Presidential Memorandum concerning transparency, accountability, and privacy, civil rights, and civil liberties protections for the Federal Government’s use of UAS in the national airspace system which directs the initiation of a multi-stakeholder engagement process to develop a framework for privacy, accountability, and transparency issues concerning commercial and private UAS use.
The current unmanned aircraft rules remain in place until the FAA implements a final new rule. The FAA encourages new operators to visit:
http://www.knowbeforeyoufly.org
You can view the FAA’s Small UAS Notice of Proposed Rulemaking later today at:
http://www.faa.gov/regulations_polic...tly_published/
An overview of the Small UAS rule can be viewed at:
http://www.faa.gov/regulations_polic...AS_Summary.pdf
You can view the fact sheet at:
http://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/...m?newsId=18297
Press Conference audio is available here.
For more information on the FAA and UAS, visit: http://www.faa.gov/uas/


FAA Press Release

TimJ

Official response from the AMA:

http://amablog.modelaircraft.org/ama...rule-for-suas/

Silent-AV8R

Now the petition that AMA filed regarding the FAA's "clarification" of Section 336 can move forward (it was held pending the NPRM). FAA needs to widen their perspective to understand that the traditional long standing development of hobby focused products can be done safely under Section 336 and should not be subject to Part 107 as a commercial operation. They also need to clearly state that sponsored pilots and contest winnings do not constitute commercial activity. And lastly they need to reword the 5-mile notification around airports to reflect what Congress wrote, it is a notification and NOT permission.

But we are getting there!!

TimJ

Don't forget the advisory circular needs to be amended as well.

scottrc

And AMA needs to also bring up and have clarified the segment regarding Educational and Academic, as it stands, If I'm leading an education program for the high school using an RC plane, or at present, we are designing and building a multi-copter, that falls under the UAS, and all the kids have to be over 17 and follow the certification process.

That pretty much screws the purpose of promoting our hobby, industry, and this so called push to get kids interested in math and science.

TimJ

Scottrc, how do you come to that conclusion?

scottrc

Just reading under 14CFR Part 107 Section I sub A "Examples of UAS operations under Part 107"
Education and Academic operations are listed here, not under Hobby and Recreational Use. So, if I'm an educator and conducting a high school program where we design, build, and then test fly a lighter than air, unmanned controlled aircraft, I will not be operating under the AMA/ CBO model aircraft umbrella, but will have to be a UAS certified pilot. The aircraft can be as simple as a Eaglet, it won't matter the way the regulation is written. I am just wondering how AMA will address this part since educational and academic support is so much a part of the organization. Under UAS, no operator can be under the age of 17.

Again, just me reading into it. As of today I have read the DOT, NTSB, and the FAA abstracts and no surprise, all three agencies kinda give a different meaning to who is "Commercial" and who is "recreational". The same with who, when, and how the tower/FBO operator is contacted when operating within 5 miles. Each abstract is portrays a different explanation.

TimJ

Scottrc that is a very interesting point. Something that may have been over looked?

Silent-AV8R

AC 91-57 no longer applies to model aircraft operations conducted under Section 336. FAA may issue another AC to handle non Section 336 models or they may just say to operate under Part 107. That does remain to be seen.

Hossfly

Have you noticed that AMA brought itself in as the much acclaimed Community Based Organization as it frequently does. To my knowledge the FAA has not yet bestowed such a crown upon the AMA as such. Words but no "Gold" has yet arrived. I suppose that each AMA member received such a letter. I did acknowledge my letter and stated that while I hope that FAA does crown AMA with such recognition, to best of my knowledge such has not yet been performed. I hope that AMA 's fathers don't get too smarty pants and blow the whole thing.

Disregard my dumb statement, Thanks to Brad Paul for straightening me out. Check Brad's correction of me down a few posts.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

Right, because then we'd continue to hear about how poorly run that AMA is, and how everything they do is wrong, and bad etc etc etc ad nauseam.

The simple facts is the are THE best organization to deal with the current issues, bar none. Other than the big industry players who have a vested interest, there is no other hobby based organization doing what they have done, as well as they have done.

But that shouldn't stop anyone from waiting and hoping that they don't "fail".

bradpaul

Sorry Hoss, the FAA has acknowledged the AMA as a CBO.

FFA Interpretation http://www.faa.gov/uas/media/model_a..._spec_rule.pdf

footnote 7 bottom of page 12.

Hossfly

Thank You, Mr. Brad Paul, I really screwed the pooch! Now that AMA can claim to be such an Organization, what happens to the non-AMA member that goes out to a open area and starts flying his model airplane? On page 11, in the examples, for "Hobby or Recreation", the term is, "Flying a model aircraft at the local model aircraft club." Note "....at the local model aircraft club." This table is called "...examples.." so I suppose that one flying on his own property, or on property NOT a Club, is OK, if he/she is an AMA, or such, member. Things do get tough when government writes!
Now I have to send AMA an apology. DRATS!

skylark-flier

Hoss, I'm just wondering here - do you have, or know of, another organization that might fill the bill as CBO right now? I'm just a common American model flier who's been in the air for 60 years and I've never heard of any other "CBO" or anything close. Maybe you know of an alternative?

fly24-7

I don't know if that language suggests that it's signed, sealed and delivered. The use of the word "would" leaves wiggle room. Use of the word "will" would have been much stronger.

"7 “[C]ommunity-based organizations,” for example, would include groups such as the Academy of Model Aeronautics and others that meet the statutory definition."

It suggests to me that it's probably the plan that the AMA is officially recognized as a CBO once the rule becomes final. However, I've seen no such statement formally anoints the AMA this status in advance of the final rule. Probably nothing to be concerned about, but nothing is done until it's done...

fly24-7

I suppose that one in a position to enforce the rule would suggest that even though a flyer is not a member of a recognized CBO, they would be obligated to adhere to the safety code of a recognized CBO or it could be viewed as reckless or careless operation that would fall under the FAA's enforcement authority. That's the great/lousy thing about rules. Everyone has the latitude to interpret them as they see fit. The body that writes them typically has the upper hand when deciding which interpretation is "correct."

fly24-7

--

fly24-7

I think that the AMA got a slow start on this issue. Ultimately, they got their act together and started pulling the right levers and pushing the right buttons to defend their memberships interests. I think they've done a pretty good job as of late (on this particular issue). Now, if they could just get people who operate transmitters to stop doing stupid stuff. Still too many reports of incidents related to careless decision making and downright ignorance.

bradpaul

I believe the FAA has taken the position that there is no requirement that a formal recognition of a CBO is necessary and also not within their power to grant. The statement that states that the AMA meets the statutory definition and has no exclusivity.

ira d

I tend to agree.