FAA Reauthorization 2016 AIRR - 2016
#1
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Orange County,
CA
Posts: 5,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
Section 336 is gone, replaced by Chapter 45 Section 45507.
Starts on page 215:
http://transportation.house.gov/uplo...r_act_text.pdf
#4
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Orange County,
CA
Posts: 5,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr. SHUSTER (for himself and Mr. LOBIONDO) introduced the following bill;which was referred to the Committee on
#5
My Feedback: (198)
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: El Reno, OK
Posts: 6,707
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
#6
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
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
Section 336 is gone, replaced by Chapter 45 Section 45507.
Starts on page 215:
http://transportation.house.gov/uplo...r_act_text.pdf
#8
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.
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.
#10
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.
#11
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Orange County,
CA
Posts: 5,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
#13
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?
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?
#14
My Feedback: (198)
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: El Reno, OK
Posts: 6,707
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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....
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....
#15
My Feedback: (49)
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.
#16
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?
Is that incorrect?
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.
#17
My Feedback: (49)
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.
#18
My Feedback: (49)
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?
This has all been Posted before What's NEW PLEASE or am I having Deja View
Give a URL plz
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?
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.
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.
Give a URL plz
#19
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
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?
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?
#20
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
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....
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....
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.
#21
My Feedback: (198)
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: El Reno, OK
Posts: 6,707
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
#22
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Orange County,
CA
Posts: 5,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!!!
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!!!
#23
#24
My Feedback: (49)
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.
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
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.
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!!!
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!!!
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
- [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.