mr_matt

My Feedback: (10)

It really is that simple isn't it.

Instead, in the second sentence he uttered before congress, Rich Hansen of the AMA basically says that "you can call them sUAS (drones) and we call them model aircraft".

Less than 2 weeks ago we had the chance to starkly clarify to Congress that traditional model aircraft are not drones and we blew it.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

the majority of the discussion focused on quads/drones, and when the question was asked about retroactively requiring those already sold to be registered, they said they were going to be working on a plan to address that. It's doubtful fixed wing aircraft are going to be lumped into that category, but we'll have to wait and see. It's going to be hard enough with the "drones", if that's what it ends up being, let alone fixed wing. Can you imagine registering a Parkzone Ember, or ultra micro Carbon Z?

Silent-AV8R

Well, not really. AMA's suit says nothing about being categorized as aircraft. AMA understands and acceppts that our models are indeed a form of unmanned aircraft. It is even defined as such in Section 336 pof P.L 112-95, which AMA basically wrote.

If you wish to read the AMA suit, which is rather short, along with the other 2 lawsuits, you can do so here:

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

warbird72

My Feedback: (79)

Yeah I won't be registering anything I own either. I have been building and flying model airplanes since I was 8 year's old. I do not use cameras nor fpv! When the day comes I have to register my models. I will QUIT FLYING them. And move to another country. And see how it goes. The AMA has left us all down if this happens. Besides we were all flying model planes way before the government ever poked there nose into our hobby! Just my 2 cent..

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

It's doubtful you will have to register all your models, that's just the doom and gloom crowd whipping up the latest end of times drama. Not sure why the AMA would be blamed, but hey, they are at fault for everything. And while you may have been flying planes before the govt was ever involved this much, they have been involved for a number of years, and the AMA has worked with them to the benefit of our hobby. Then again, 20 or so years ago I doubt people were flying their planes over airports, cities etc etc. Technology advances and so do the side effects of that, for better or worse.

warbird72

My Feedback: (79)

Your correct about flying over and around any airport. Or cities. I knew as soon as fpv and quad coters came out. There would be problems! I keep all my models in the line of site.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

Mine too...sometimes right into the ground.

warbird72

My Feedback: (79)

Also may add. If the people flying the quads can even build a model plane from scratch. Then he would know the rules about model planes. You can't make things easy to get. And not be prepared to have idiots trying to film a 747 taking off. These are the people destroying the hobby.

black dog

My Feedback: (13)

The detals or just about in all quad copters or what ever you want to call them, they will have to register them ,i see this on the news coming november,

warbird72

My Feedback: (79)

I agree. But virizon shouldn't make them available in the store. And sell it to someone that will go out in the parking lot and fly over people! And that bozo that threatened to bomb stuff with the ducted fan model plane a few years back! I bet he didn't even know how to start a glow engine! It would have ran out of fuel in 20 minutes. He wasn't going anywhere with that. He just added to the stink.

warbird72

My Feedback: (79)

I know most guys flying quads know there stuff when it comes to building them. Those guys are like us. Like I said. I have been building and flying from way back. I would probably cut my nose and ears off if I tried to fly one. Not really lol. But this is how the people doing the flying need to start out. Just like we did. Go buy a kit. Build it. Learn it. Have fun. I'm not into the spy thing! If I see one flying over my house with the intention to take photos. It's a target to me!

rcmiket

Ya know what's really sad? We live in a time where a idiot can vote without a ID but You'll need one to buy a toy............................................... ...

Mike

warbird72

My Feedback: (79)

Mike that wouldn't be so bad if that is where it ends.

franklin_m

I was referring to this statement in the FAA interpretation, that where safety is concerned (as in the stated reason for the announcement today - close encounters with manned aircraft), that where safety is concerned, model aircraft, drones, sUAS, flying widgets, or whatever someone wants to call them - they are indeed "aircraft" subject to FAA regulation.

"Thus, the rulemaking prohibition would not apply in the case of general rules that the FAA may issue or modify that apply to all aircraft, such as rules addressing the use of airspace (e.g., the 2008 rule governing VFR operations in the Washington, DC area) for safety [emphasis added] or security reasons. See73 FR 4680. The statute does not require FAA to exempt model aircraft from those rules because those rules are not specifically regarding model aircraft."

https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/...N_8900.313.pdf

franklin_m

Yep, have the same interpretation. Since the entire premise is safety of the NAS, no matter what you call them, "drone," "model aircraft," or "flying unicorn," for the purpose of safety regulation ... they're all "aircraft." I too picked up on the clear statement by Huerta that dropping anything from an aircraft is illegal (or firing anything as well).

AMA code is now in direct violation with FAA Administrator's comment. Wonder how long they'll leave that in print?

Chris P. Bacon

My Feedback: (4)

Above in red.

F-16 viperman

Did anyone besides Me, have the attention span to watch the entire 35 minutes? Foxx and Huerta made it clear that ALL UNMANNED AIRCRAFT ARE UAS's PERIOD! You will have to register them retroactively, and there will be penalties for non-compliance. You will have to give all the information required when purchasing, and the seller will be required to turn it over to the authorities. I'm sure AMA will provide a list of members and We all will be contacted eventually. Not fear mongering, Just stating facts. You can choose to comply, or go rogue but it's now here. I fly out in the middle of nowhere, so it should'nt matter to Me, but it does. They never made a distinction between urban and rural areas. A bad law that will make a scofflaw out of Me if I don't comply. One thing is for sure, the future is'nt looking any easier.

cloudancer03

My Feedback: (22)

The rogues who have near misses with full scale airplanes or disrupt efforts to fight a serious fire or fall into a stadium full of people only have themselves to blame.drones are here to stay and registration them particularly those intended for commerce is not unreasonable.personally if flown at a flying field I see no reason to register but the incidents occurring really have sparked issues of public safety and privacy.go ahead don't comply and just make it worse.as I have said fly it over my place and hover and I will get angry and make sure it doesn't happen again.

SunDevilPilot

What happens when you crash you model? Do you have to unregister it? The database will be full of "Has Been" aircraft that no longer exist. Will be a giant disaster.

Some of the guys at my field wipe their planes out on the first attempt. And the foamy planes don't seem to last much more than one season.

SunDevilPilot

tevans55

SEC. 336. SPECIAL RULE FOR MODEL AIRCRAFT.(a) In General- Notwithstanding any other provision of law relating to the incorporation ofunmanned aircraft systems into Federal Aviation Administration plans and policies, includingthis subtitle, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration may not promulgate anyrule or regulation regarding a model aircraft, or an aircraft being developed as a model aircraft,if--(1) the aircraft is flown strictly for hobby or recreational use;(2) the aircraft is operated in accordance with a community-based set of safety guidelines andwithin the programming of a nationwide community-based organization;(3) the aircraft is limited to not more than 55 pounds unless otherwise certified through a design,construction, inspection, flight test, and operational safety program administered by acommunity-based organization;(4) the aircraft is operated in a manner that does not interfere with and gives way to any mannedaircraft; and(5) when flown within 5 miles of an airport, the operator of the aircraft provides the airportoperator and the airport air traffic control tower (when an air traffic facility is located at theairport) with prior notice of the operation (model aircraft operators flying from a permanentlocation within 5 miles of an airport should establish a mutually-agreed upon operatingprocedure with the airport operator and the airport air traffic control tower (when an air trafficfacility is located at the airport)).(b) Statutory Construction- Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the authority of theAdministrator to pursue enforcement action against persons operating model aircraft whoendanger the safety of the national airspace system.(c) Model Aircraft Defined- In this section, the term ‘model aircraft’ means an unmanned aircraftthat is--(1) capable of sustained flight in the atmosphere;(2) flown within visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft; and(3) flown for hobby or recreational purposes.

franklin_m

Skydiving is legal, and in fact discussed specifically in FAR 105. Airborne firefighting is also legal, as it is covered under a variety of laws. Here's an excerpt from the US Fire Service operations manual: "Forest Service flight operations as defined in Public Law 103-411 (FAR 1.1) must comply with the FARs applicable to public aircraft (FSM 5701), except for flight operations conducted under the grants of exemption from specific FARs (FSM 5714) and for other flight operations exceptions as authorized in this manual and in FSH 5709.16."

Applicable FARs include:

1. FAR 39 - Airworthiness Directives (14 CFR part 39).
2. FAR 43 - Maintenance, Preventative Maintenance, Rebuilding, and Alteration (14 CFR part 43).
3. FAR 61 - Certification: Pilots and Flight Instructors (14 CFR part 61).
4. FAR 65 - Certification: Airmen other than Flight Crewmembers (14 CFR part 65).
5. FAR 91 - General Operating and Flight Rules for "mission" activities (14 CFR part 91).
6. FAR 119 - Applicability (14 CFR part 119).
7. FAR 121, 125, and 135 of Subpart B, Operating Requirements (14 CFR parts 121, 125, and 135).
8. FAR 133 - Rotorcraft External-Load Operations (14 CFR part 133).
9. FAR 137 - Agricultural Aircraft Operations (14 CFR part 137).

franklin_m

The announcement today is done under the DOT/FAA's safety authority, thus is applicable to all aircraft. All they are doing is extending the registration required of manned users of the NAS to all users of the NAS.

mr_matt

My Feedback: (10)

I think unfortunately the AMA missed the opportunity already, but assuming the glass is half full, maybe there is still time to define what a drone is.

A drone carries a camera. If there is no camera there is no payload, it is a traditional model aircraft. If it has a camera it is a drone.

This is so simple. Maybe they're is still time for the AMA to fix this mess. I hope so

Hydro Junkie

I'm not sure why this was brought up since they DO NOT apply to models. We can't legally fly over people or above 400 feet, PERIOD. The aircraft minimum of 1000ft and helicoper minimum of 500ft are only there to protect the passengers in the aircraft and people on the ground in case of a dead stick situation. Since both are ABOVE the model aircraft's MAXIMUM ALTITUDE OF 400 FEET, there should be no reason to have near misses unless one of the operators is flying outside of the rules.

oh44077

My Feedback: (5)

The guy is still flying at 84 who are you to question his punctuation. you must be some kind of wiseXXXXX.