Senate Version of FAA bill will destroy model aviation
#1
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Orange County,
CA
Posts: 5,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Senate Version of FAA bill will destroy model aviation
It will establish a 400 foot altitude cap and require a test in order to be considered a model aircraft!!!!
http://www.commerce.senate.gov/publi...-bill-text.pdf
http://www.commerce.senate.gov/publi...-bill-text.pdf
#3
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Orange County,
CA
Posts: 5,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Section 2129 - Special Rule for Model Aircraft in Part II - Unmanned Aircraft.
Starts on page 85 (page numbers at top of each page).
these are 2 parts that concern me greatly. They are part of what defines a model operation for the sake of being exempt from FAA regulation (like Section 336 before it):
So it would end RC soaring, IMAC, pattern and jets. If you do not do any of those then I guess it is no big deal to you as long as you are OK with having to pass an FAA test in order to fly your models.
Starts on page 85 (page numbers at top of each page).
these are 2 parts that concern me greatly. They are part of what defines a model operation for the sake of being exempt from FAA regulation (like Section 336 before it):
‘‘(6) the aircraft is flown from the surface to not more than 400 feet in altitude; and
‘(7) the operator has passed an aeronautical knowledge and safety test administered by the Federal Aviation Administration online for the operation of unmanned aircraft systems subject to the requirements of section 44809 and maintains proof of test passage to be made available to the Administrator or law enforcement upon request.
‘(7) the operator has passed an aeronautical knowledge and safety test administered by the Federal Aviation Administration online for the operation of unmanned aircraft systems subject to the requirements of section 44809 and maintains proof of test passage to be made available to the Administrator or law enforcement upon request.
Last edited by Silent-AV8R; 03-09-2016 at 05:30 PM.
#4
My Feedback: (6)
It will establish a 400 foot altitude cap and require a test in order to be considered a model aircraft!!!!
http://www.commerce.senate.gov/publi...-bill-text.pdf
http://www.commerce.senate.gov/publi...-bill-text.pdf
This is only the Senate's proposal, of course, so the final bill may not be this extreme. Still, it's something to worry about.
The FAA's "Know Before You Fly" site has a map showing these five-mile circles (which the FAA says are the areas within which we have to notify airports when we fly). As I feared, they include every airport, however small, listed with the FAA. Looking at their map is an interesting, if depressing, experience.
Last edited by Top_Gunn; 03-09-2016 at 06:20 PM. Reason: Add re3 ference to FAA "Know Before..." site.
#5
It will establish a 400 foot altitude cap and require a test in order to be considered a model aircraft!!!!
http://www.commerce.senate.gov/publi...-bill-text.pdf
http://www.commerce.senate.gov/publi...-bill-text.pdf
Oh Boy, I just can't wait to see how this works out.
Mike
#7
I can't believe they want us to be in a public data base, have an airman's card and and certificate of airworthiness to fly an airplane. Senator Cantwell will be hearing from me on why this is a bunch of bull. Having said that, I will also be asking about soaring, jets and such since they are affected by this more than a trainer or warbird would be.
#8
I can't believe they want us to be in a public data base, have an airman's card and and certificate of airworthiness to fly an airplane. Senator Cantwell will be hearing from me on why this is a bunch of bull. Having said that, I will also be asking about soaring, jets and such since they are affected by this more than a trainer or warbird would be.
#10
#15
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
Here's something that should be far more concerning and even outrageous than anything I've seen written about in these forums.
http://gizmodo.com/military-drones-h...eil-1763986237
Ironically, the Govenor of CA asked for the use of these aircraft the most. Nice.
So where is all the outrage on this? Scathing letters to the government forthcoming?
http://gizmodo.com/military-drones-h...eil-1763986237
Ironically, the Govenor of CA asked for the use of these aircraft the most. Nice.
So where is all the outrage on this? Scathing letters to the government forthcoming?
#17
I also noted language on pg87 line 5 through pg88 line 4"
"(b) UPDATES.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—The Administrator, in collaboration with government and industry stakeholders, including nationwide community-based organizations, shall initiate a process to update the operational parameters under subsection (a), as appropriate.
(2) CONSIDERATIONS.—In updating an operational parameter under paragraph (1), the Administrator shall consider—
(A) appropriate operational limitations to mitigate aviation safety risk and risk to the uninvolved public;
(B) operations outside the membership, guidelines, and programming of a nationwide community-based organization;
(C) physical characteristics, technical standards, and classes of aircraft operating under this section;
(D) trends in use, enforcement, or incidents involving unmanned aircraft systems; and
(E) ensuring, to the greatest extent practicable, that updates to the operational parameters correspond to, and leverage, advances in technology [emphasis added]"
I read that as giving FAA clear authority to change operational limitations as they find necessary. Sure, they have to nominally do it collaboratively, but then remember that the registration thing was done the same way - in collaboration with stakeholders. I think it's safe to assume that while AMA is one of those stakeholders, many of the others are much less friendly. Lastly, I see that they specifically charge FAA to "mitigate aviation safety risk and risk to the uninvolved public" through operational limitations. I see that as a pretty substantial hammer for the FAA to swing if they choose to do so.
Should be interesting to see how this shapes up.
"(b) UPDATES.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—The Administrator, in collaboration with government and industry stakeholders, including nationwide community-based organizations, shall initiate a process to update the operational parameters under subsection (a), as appropriate.
(2) CONSIDERATIONS.—In updating an operational parameter under paragraph (1), the Administrator shall consider—
(A) appropriate operational limitations to mitigate aviation safety risk and risk to the uninvolved public;
(B) operations outside the membership, guidelines, and programming of a nationwide community-based organization;
(C) physical characteristics, technical standards, and classes of aircraft operating under this section;
(D) trends in use, enforcement, or incidents involving unmanned aircraft systems; and
(E) ensuring, to the greatest extent practicable, that updates to the operational parameters correspond to, and leverage, advances in technology [emphasis added]"
I read that as giving FAA clear authority to change operational limitations as they find necessary. Sure, they have to nominally do it collaboratively, but then remember that the registration thing was done the same way - in collaboration with stakeholders. I think it's safe to assume that while AMA is one of those stakeholders, many of the others are much less friendly. Lastly, I see that they specifically charge FAA to "mitigate aviation safety risk and risk to the uninvolved public" through operational limitations. I see that as a pretty substantial hammer for the FAA to swing if they choose to do so.
Should be interesting to see how this shapes up.
#20
Noting there, they say within the law. No proof that it isn't. Can't see much from a drone anyway. Unless nude sunbathing, or leaving illegal stuff outside. Where is the yawn symbol. I suggest you take it to a lefty political forum and we talk about the Feds destroying model aviation and our rights.
#21
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
Noting there, they say within the law. No proof that it isn't. Can't see much from a drone anyway. Unless nude sunbathing, or leaving illegal stuff outside. Where is the yawn symbol. I suggest you take it to a lefty political forum and we talk about the Feds destroying model aviation and our rights.
#24
This is the biggest concern I see (pages 86 and 87, following essentially the AMA rules we currently have):
"and
(7) the operator has passed an aeronautical knowledge and safety test administered by the Federal Aviation Administration online for the operation of unmanned aircraft systems subject to the requirements of section 44809 and maintains proof of test passage to be made available to the Administrator or law enforcement upon request."
(The discussion of the test contents begins on page 89.) While I'm sure there would be loud howls of outrage, maybe this is the step needed? Perhaps . . . combined with some 'make an example of' fines for the idiots caught causing the problems?
"and
(7) the operator has passed an aeronautical knowledge and safety test administered by the Federal Aviation Administration online for the operation of unmanned aircraft systems subject to the requirements of section 44809 and maintains proof of test passage to be made available to the Administrator or law enforcement upon request."
(The discussion of the test contents begins on page 89.) While I'm sure there would be loud howls of outrage, maybe this is the step needed? Perhaps . . . combined with some 'make an example of' fines for the idiots caught causing the problems?
#25
Wow....thin skinned much, weren't you the one whining like a baby to the mods when someone was trying to shut your inane conversation? There's nothing "lefty" about the link or the story, I know you like shooting from the hip but try reading it again, as well as comments.