Go Back  RCU Forums > RC Airplanes > AMA Discussions
Reload this Page >

FAA Reauthorization 2016 AIRR - 2016

Notices
AMA Discussions Discuss AMA policies, decisions & any other AMA related topics here.

FAA Reauthorization 2016 AIRR - 2016

Old 02-03-2016, 01:17 PM
  #1  
Silent-AV8R
Thread Starter
 
Silent-AV8R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 5,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default FAA Reauthorization 2016 AIRR - 2016

New FAA Reauthorization bill. Aviation Innovation, Reform, and Reauthorization Act of 2016 - AIRR-2016

Section 336 is gone, replaced by Chapter 45 Section 45507.

Starts on page 215:

http://transportation.house.gov/uplo...r_act_text.pdf
Old 02-03-2016, 02:40 PM
  #2  
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

Interesting reading there, Silent. Can you share the source of this document, and perhaps the author, and how it is intended to get on Congress' to do list?
Old 02-03-2016, 02:41 PM
  #3  
mongo
My Feedback: (15)
 
mongo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Midland, TX
Posts: 3,499
Received 80 Likes on 70 Posts
Default

that did not take long.

good stuff started on 213 for me.

lot to digest
Old 02-03-2016, 03:18 PM
  #4  
Silent-AV8R
Thread Starter
 
Silent-AV8R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 5,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Bob Pastorello
Interesting reading there, Silent. Can you share the source of this document, and perhaps the author, and how it is intended to get on Congress' to do list?
Right on the front page:

Mr. SHUSTER (for himself and Mr. LOBIONDO) introduced the following bill;which was referred to the Committee on
It is a long ways from law. This is the latest iteration of the FAA Reauthorization which is done every 4 years. Last was the FMRA P.L. 112-95 in February 1012.
Old 02-03-2016, 04:06 PM
  #5  
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

Thanks, I missed it, 'cause I was heading to the Table of Contents.... sounds like it may never be anything, but it's still well written on the model aircraft side....in my opinion, of course.
Old 02-03-2016, 04:36 PM
  #6  
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 Silent-AV8R
New FAA Reauthorization bill. Aviation Innovation, Reform, and Reauthorization Act of 2016 - AIRR-2016

Section 336 is gone, replaced by Chapter 45 Section 45507.

Starts on page 215:

http://transportation.house.gov/uplo...r_act_text.pdf
Thanks for sharing this, not a quick read by any stretch.
Old 02-03-2016, 04:55 PM
  #7  
HoundDog
My Feedback: (49)
 
HoundDog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Apache Junction AZ. WI 0WI8
Posts: 4,501
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

[h=1]Shuster proposes FAA reauthorization bill removing ATC from FAA[/h]
http://atwonline.com/air-traffic-con...8821d24a0b8393
Old 02-04-2016, 05:21 AM
  #8  
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 we may have lost any mention of the 400 rule not sure. No time to review in depth right now. I depends on if this replaces 336 or amends 336 from the 2012 authorization bill.

The ATC part may cause this whole bill to be scraped and someone else may have a bill later that is not as nice for us.
Old 02-04-2016, 07:41 AM
  #9  
rgburrill
 
rgburrill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Dallas, Tx CT
Posts: 2,857
Received 76 Likes on 67 Posts
Default

Our little toys will get ignored - the big issue with the bill is the creation of another post office type disaster affecting the safety of the flying public.
Old 02-04-2016, 07:51 AM
  #10  
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

IMO taking ATC away from the FAA is a good thing. The FAA has always resisted the idea of simplifying it and giving automatic data to the pilots. Which they had to relinquish for the collision avoidance systems.
Old 02-04-2016, 09:19 AM
  #11  
Silent-AV8R
Thread Starter
 
Silent-AV8R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 5,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Sport_Pilot
Looks like we may have lost any mention of the 400 rule not sure. No time to review in depth right now. I depends on if this replaces 336 or amends 336 from the 2012 authorization bill.

The ATC part may cause this whole bill to be scraped and someone else may have a bill later that is not as nice for us.
There was never any mention of 400 foot anything in Section 336 of P.L. 112-95. Nor is it in the proposed Part 101.41 governing model aircraft operations. The one and only place 400 feet is officially mentioned is in AC 91-57A, where it is referred to as a "best practice". The 400 foot guideline in the registration process carries no regulatory or legal weight.
Old 02-04-2016, 10:06 AM
  #12  
mongo
My Feedback: (15)
 
mongo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Midland, TX
Posts: 3,499
Received 80 Likes on 70 Posts
Default

and,
if i read it correctly, this new legislation will completely replace section 336.
info is a coupla pages after the other model aircraft stuff.

lots to read and understand in this...
Old 02-04-2016, 12:27 PM
  #13  
franklin_m
 
franklin_m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 4,561
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

What I found interesting is that the definition of a CBO is expanded to include, among others, that one "...provides assistance and support in the development and operation of locally designated model aircraft flying sites." (pg 217 line 21 through 218 line 15).

Now, given that AMA tells us they are already recognized as a CBO (per Chad B.), why would they want this added? Perhaps to make it more difficult on competitors to compete for membership dollars?
Old 02-04-2016, 12:51 PM
  #14  
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

unless I've missed something (entirely possible), nothing in either 336, or the existing FAA Interim Interpretation requires membership in a CBO. The texts require that operations be conducted within the scope of safety rules, and "programming" of a CBO.

Is that incorrect?

As I've discovered my homeowners' specifically states that operation of model airplanes *ARE* covered under personal liability (recently changed companies/underwriters), and my coverages are quite satisfactory, continuing membership seems redundant at this point, as the property owner / landlord only requires financial liability proof of coverage, and the AMA insurance has ALWAYS been "secondary" anyway....
Old 02-04-2016, 12:55 PM
  #15  
HoundDog
My Feedback: (49)
 
HoundDog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Apache Junction AZ. WI 0WI8
Posts: 4,501
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by Sport_Pilot
IMO taking ATC away from the FAA is a good thing. The FAA has always resisted the idea of simplifying it and giving automatic data to the pilots. Which they had to relinquish for the collision avoidance systems.
The Privatization of the FSS Flight service stations is still giving lousy briefings. I thought DUAT did a great job till the dummies in government refused to pay and now it's DUATS and i hate'em ... The best soft ware would be for a pilot to put in his destination point of departure time of departure Fuel on board in hours to reserve, any intermediate stops or say in a long trip depending on a prefilled Performance chart Pick air ports for refueling at the distance a pilot wants or FOB and let's him pick one and automatically plan a new flight plan to the destination or next stop.
Then after the Planning do a time laps presentation on an interactive map of the weather and any conditions that will be encountered i.e. VFR winds IFR Low IFR notams moa restricted areas ect. Would cut flight planning to a minimum. But this is a discussion of the FAA losing their responsibility for ATC They have already lost many of the 519 towers for many are staffed by private contractors not FAA personal. Just as a side note both the towers tow of the SE Wisconsin clubs I fly with are within the five mile radius by less than a quarter mile and these are Not FAA controlled.
Old 02-04-2016, 01:00 PM
  #16  
franklin_m
 
franklin_m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 4,561
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by Bob Pastorello
unless I've missed something (entirely possible), nothing in either 336, or the existing FAA Interim Interpretation requires membership in a CBO. The texts require that operations be conducted within the scope of safety rules, and "programming" of a CBO.

Is that incorrect?
Current law, PL112-95 Section 336 para (a)(3) and says: "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 a community-based organization [emphasis added];"

Per Chad B in a direct question on AMA's site, they will not "certify" a model aircraft under that section of the law unless it is a member's aircraft. As there are no other CBOs, then that language in fact makes membership in AMA a requirement - at least to operate an aircraft > 55lbs legally that is.
Old 02-04-2016, 01:04 PM
  #17  
HoundDog
My Feedback: (49)
 
HoundDog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Apache Junction AZ. WI 0WI8
Posts: 4,501
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by Silent-AV8R
There was never any mention of 400 foot anything in Section 336 of P.L. 112-95. Nor is it in the proposed Part 101.41 governing model aircraft operations. The one and only place 400 feet is officially mentioned is in AC 91-57A, where it is referred to as a "best practice". The 400 foot guideline in the registration process carries no regulatory or legal weight.
Where's the GD URL PLEASE....
Old 02-04-2016, 01:07 PM
  #18  
HoundDog
My Feedback: (49)
 
HoundDog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Apache Junction AZ. WI 0WI8
Posts: 4,501
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by Bob Pastorello
unless I've missed something (entirely possible), nothing in either 336, or the existing FAA Interim Interpretation requires membership in a CBO. The texts require that operations be conducted within the scope of safety rules, and "programming" ofa CBO.

Is that incorrect?


Originally Posted by franklin_m
Current law, PL112-95 Section 336 para (a)(3) and says: "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 a community-based organization [emphasis added];"

Per Chad B in a direct question on AMA's site, they will not "certify" a model aircraft under that section of the law unless it is a member's aircraft. As there are no other CBOs, then that language in fact makes membership in AMA a requirement - at least to operate an aircraft > 55lbs legally that is.
This has all been Posted before What's NEW PLEASE or am I having Deja View
Give a URL plz
Old 02-04-2016, 01:46 PM
  #19  
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 franklin_m
What I found interesting is that the definition of a CBO is expanded to include, among others, that one "...provides assistance and support in the development and operation of locally designated model aircraft flying sites." (pg 217 line 21 through 218 line 15).

Now, given that AMA tells us they are already recognized as a CBO (per Chad B.), why would they want this added? Perhaps to make it more difficult on competitors to compete for membership dollars?
Of course there's something nefarious and underhanded there......adding that language wouldn't make it any more difficult for any entity to mirror what the AMA does. The market is there for the taking......clearly nobody is up to the task to take them on. Why is that?
Old 02-04-2016, 01:52 PM
  #20  
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 Bob Pastorello
unless I've missed something (entirely possible), nothing in either 336, or the existing FAA Interim Interpretation requires membership in a CBO. The texts require that operations be conducted within the scope of safety rules, and "programming" of a CBO.

Is that incorrect?

As I've discovered my homeowners' specifically states that operation of model airplanes *ARE* covered under personal liability (recently changed companies/underwriters), and my coverages are quite satisfactory, continuing membership seems redundant at this point, as the property owner / landlord only requires financial liability proof of coverage, and the AMA insurance has ALWAYS been "secondary" anyway....
Looks to be that way on both accounts. With regards to the coverage, you're right...in general if it's not excluded, it's covered. As for continuing with the AMA, if you've only ever looked at being part of the AMA for the insurance coverage, and nothing else, then it might make sense to save a few bucks and not join again.

Obviously that cuts down on flying at many clubs, but then again there are lots of clubs out there that don't require AMA, so it works out.
Old 02-04-2016, 01:57 PM
  #21  
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 franklin_m
Current law, PL112-95 Section 336 para (a)(3) and says: "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 a community-based organization [emphasis added];"

Per Chad B in a direct question on AMA's site, they will not "certify" a model aircraft under that section of the law unless it is a member's aircraft. As there are no other CBOs, then that language in fact makes membership in AMA a requirement - at least to operate an aircraft > 55lbs legally that is.
I was aware of the GREATER than 55 lbs....my post is in reference to aircraft BELOW 55 lbs. Sorry I didn't clarify that in my post.
Old 02-04-2016, 02:27 PM
  #22  
Silent-AV8R
Thread Starter
 
Silent-AV8R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 5,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by HoundDog
Where's the GD URL PLEASE....
Which URL do you refer to?? Surely you can find AC 91-57A and the sUAS NPRM easily enough.

Here, let me try:

https://www.faa.gov/uas/nprm/ Took all of 0.03 seconds.

AC 91-57A

http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/m...1-57A_Ch_1.pdf

That one took almost a full half a second!!!
Old 02-04-2016, 03:36 PM
  #23  
franklin_m
 
franklin_m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 4,561
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by Bob Pastorello
I was aware of the GREATER than 55 lbs....my post is in reference to aircraft BELOW 55 lbs. Sorry I didn't clarify that in my post.
No worries.
Old 02-04-2016, 09:41 PM
  #24  
HoundDog
My Feedback: (49)
 
HoundDog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Apache Junction AZ. WI 0WI8
Posts: 4,501
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by HoundDog
Where's the GD URL PLEASE....

Originally Posted by Silent-AV8R

There was never any mention of 400 foot anything in Section 336 of P.L. 112-95. Nor is it in the proposed Part 101.41 governing model aircraft operations. The one and only place 400 feet is officially mentioned is in AC 91-57A, where it is referred to as a "best practice". The 400 foot guideline in the registration process carries no regulatory or legal weight.

Originally Posted by Silent-AV8R
Which URL do you refer to?? Surely you can find AC 91-57A and the sUAS NPRM easily enough.

Here, let me try:

https://www.faa.gov/uas/nprm/ Took all of 0.03 seconds.

AC 91-57A

http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/m...1-57A_Ch_1.pdf

That one took almost a full half a second!!!
Less than 1 second because UR wrong
The URL on proposed Part 101.41 governing model aircraft operations. and what part U are specifically are referring to.

This is what i get when I google (Part 101.41) is it any one of these?


Part 101.41 governing model aircraft operations.


Search Results

  1. [PDF]AMA_sUASNPRM_Comments.pdf - Academy of Model ...

    www.modelaircraft.org/gov/AMA_sUASNPRM_Comments.pdf




    May 1, 2012 - Operation and Certification of Small UnmannedAircraft Systems ... aircraft (model aircraft) users, the Academy of Model Aeronautics (AMA) .... part does not apply to any aircraft or vehicle governed by part 103 of this chapter,part 107 ... However, the new § 101.41 Subpart E for model aircraft was not added ...



    Operation and Certification of Small Unmanned Aircraft ...

    www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2015...



    Regulations.gov


    Feb 23, 2015 - Lastly, the proposed rule would prohibit model aircraft from endangering ... B. Current Statutory and Regulatory Structure Governing Small UAS .... As part of its ongoing efforts to integrate UAS operations in the NAS in accordance ...... Add subpart E, consisting of §§ 101.41 and 101.43, to read as follows: ...



    [PDF]Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) - Federal Aviation ...

    https://www.faa.gov/.../2120-AJ60_NPR...



    Federal Aviation Administration


    Feb 15, 2015 - RIN 2120–AJ60. Operation and Certification of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems .... B. Current Statutory and Regulatory Structure Governing Small UAS. C. Integrating ....Specifically, the FAA is proposing to add a new part 107 to Title 14 Code of. Federal .... Proposed rule would not apply to model aircraft.You've visited this page 3 times. Last visit: 1/23/16



    FAA Proposed Rules Comments | DJI Phantom Forum - PhantomPilots.com

    www.phantompilots.com › General Forums › News




    Mar 18, 2015 - There may be few FAA rules regulating hobby flight, but please use common sense. If your flight ... That being endangering the NAS or operating in a careless or reckless manner. Simply ... Pages 46 - 48 provide a discussion of howmodel aircraft are to be handled. Part 101.41 makes this even more clear:.



    FAA Announces Rules for Aircraft Registration Process - Page 23 ...

    www.flyinggiants.com/forums/showthread.php?t=190849&page=23




    Dec 14, 2015 - Page 23-Article FAA Announces Rules forAircraft Registration ... Look at Section 336 or Part 101.41(proposed) which will govern model aircraft. ... good operatingpractice" , namely being above the FAA suggested 400'.



    Are there any Nationwide CBO's other then the AMA? - Page 2

    www.rcuniverse.com/.../11613600-there-any-nationwide-cbos-other-the...




    Feb 23, 2015 - Neither their interpretation or the newly proposedPart 101 mention AC ... Subpart E – Special Rule for Model Aircraft§ 101.41. Applicability.This subpart prescribes the rulesgoverning the operation of a model aircraft that ...



    [PDF]Filed electronically - RCGroups.com

    www.rcgroups.com/forums/showatt.php?attachmentid=7802725&d...




    Apr 24, 2015 - Specifically, proposed 14 CFR § 101.41: prescribes the rules governing the operation of a model aircraft that meets all of the ... In our view, the FAA was free simply to exclude from proposed part 107 (its small UAS rule).



    [PDF]JUNE 2015_PG_1.PUB - Sun Valley Fliers

    sunvalleyfliers.com/legacy/news_archives/2015/slo_roll_jun2015.pdf




    Pablo Montoya's love of model aircraft, you can read an .....DOT / Federal Aviation Administration – Docket FAA-2015-0150Operation and ... or vehicle governed by part 103 of this chapter, part 107 of this chapter, ... 101.41 Applicability.



    [PDF]unmanned balloons, kites, amateur rockets, model aircraft ...

    https://gaca.gov.sa/.../Satellite?...



    General Authority of Civil Aviation


    101.41 Applicability. .... (a) This part prescribes rules governingthe operation of the following in the ... (5) Any model aircraft as defined in GACAR Part 1, and.



    [PDF]Federal Aviation Administration Summary of the ... - AGRiP

    www.agrip.org/.../Wiley%20Rein%...Association of Governmental Risk Pools


    Feb 16, 2015 - authority in part 101 by prohibiting model aircraft operators .... With regard to privacy concerns regardingUAS operations, the FAA notes that, ...





    [HR][/HR]








Last edited by HoundDog; 02-04-2016 at 09:45 PM.
Old 02-05-2016, 07:36 AM
  #25  
Silent-AV8R
Thread Starter
 
Silent-AV8R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 5,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

As usual, I have no idea what you think you are trying to say.

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.