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

Senate Version of FAA bill will destroy model aviation

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

Senate Version of FAA bill will destroy model aviation

Reply

Old 03-09-2016, 03:26 PM
  #1  
Silent-AV8R
Thread Starter
 
Silent-AV8R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 5,308
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default 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
Silent-AV8R is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2016, 05:14 PM
  #2  
porcia83
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Hartford, CT
Posts: 7,269
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

I admit it, I'm too lazy at this point to read through 289 pages tonight...any chance you have the page or specific language that will be destroying model aviation?
porcia83 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2016, 05:24 PM
  #3  
Silent-AV8R
Thread Starter
 
Silent-AV8R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 5,308
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

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):

‘‘(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.
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.

Last edited by Silent-AV8R; 03-09-2016 at 05:30 PM.
Silent-AV8R is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2016, 05:28 PM
  #4  
Top_Gunn
My Feedback: (6)
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Granger, IN
Posts: 1,790
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Originally Posted by Silent-AV8R View Post
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
And it will require permission from the airport to fly a model if you are within five miles of an airport. Like its predecessors, it doesn't define "airport." The definition of airport in the FARs includes all airports, including some farmer with a grass strip who flies maybe a couple of times a year. If you draw a five-mile circle around each of those airports, there's not much left. The county in which I live has one public airport and one private airport that's shown on the sectional chart (though hardly anyone uses it). But there are eleven others listed on the FAA's web site. I think all three of the clubs in the county are within five miles of at least one of these.

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.
Top_Gunn is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2016, 06:54 PM
  #5  
rcmiket
 
rcmiket's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: El Paso, TX
Posts: 5,186
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Originally Posted by Silent-AV8R View Post
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

Oh Boy, I just can't wait to see how this works out.

Mike
rcmiket is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2016, 10:19 PM
  #6  
ramboamt
Member
My Feedback: (36)
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Montclair, CA
Posts: 98
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Now is when we need to contact our state senator and tell them our views and to stop this bill.
ramboamt is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2016, 12:31 AM
  #7  
Hydro Junkie
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Marysville, WA
Posts: 6,849
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

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.
Hydro Junkie is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2016, 04:47 AM
  #8  
Sport_Pilot
 
Sport_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 16,915
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Originally Posted by Hydro Junkie View Post
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.
Don't forget scale and pattern aerobatics. The box is one thousand feet tall. Not many giant scale aerobatic planes can stay below 400 feet and do any vertical maneuver.
Sport_Pilot is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2016, 05:06 AM
  #9  
CESSNA 421
My Feedback: (17)
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Charles, MO
Posts: 226
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

I'm all for it, this will make shooting down drones easier they won't be flying so high.
CESSNA 421 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2016, 05:15 AM
  #10  
Sport_Pilot
 
Sport_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 16,915
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Originally Posted by CESSNA 421 View Post
I'm all for it, this will make shooting down drones easier they won't be flying so high.

Well maybe we should start by shooting down your models, aka drones.
Sport_Pilot is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2016, 06:28 AM
  #11  
mr_matt
My Feedback: (10)
 
mr_matt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Oak Park, CA,
Posts: 10,202
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Originally Posted by Silent-AV8R View Post

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.
I don't know about IMAC and soaring but this does not affect jets any more or less than any other power plant .

I don't like it and will support fighting it, to be clear
mr_matt is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2016, 06:52 AM
  #12  
Sport_Pilot
 
Sport_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 16,915
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

If the jets want to do vertical maneuvers then 400 feet is not enough.
Sport_Pilot is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2016, 07:34 AM
  #13  
wnewbury
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Taft, CA
Posts: 133
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Anyone know which senator's staff wrote this proposal? Nice to know who our enemies are.
wnewbury is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2016, 07:41 AM
  #14  
Sport_Pilot
 
Sport_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 16,915
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

nelson of Florida. He talked about it all the time, never had a clue about what he was talking about IMO. He thinks its just about MR flying into airports.
Sport_Pilot is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2016, 08:11 AM
  #15  
porcia83
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Hartford, CT
Posts: 7,269
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

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?
porcia83 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2016, 08:25 AM
  #16  
Sport_Pilot
 
Sport_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 16,915
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

I see nothing concerning or outrageous if only used for search and rescue or finding flood victems. Some appear to be exercises, but could be anything.
Sport_Pilot is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2016, 08:38 AM
  #17  
franklin_m
 
franklin_m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 2,743
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

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.
franklin_m is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2016, 08:47 AM
  #18  
porcia83
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Hartford, CT
Posts: 7,269
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Originally Posted by Sport_Pilot View Post
I see nothing concerning or outrageous if only used for search and rescue or finding flood victems. Some appear to be exercises, but could be anything.
Read it all. That you see nothing concerning but out of the other side of your mouth you say it could be anything.....is odd.
porcia83 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2016, 08:59 AM
  #19  
cj_rumley
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga, CA
Posts: 1,779
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

What imbeciles prompted Congress to get into the business of regulating model airplanes?
cj_rumley is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2016, 09:07 AM
  #20  
Sport_Pilot
 
Sport_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 16,915
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Originally Posted by porcia83 View Post
Read it all. That you see nothing concerning but out of the other side of your mouth you say it could be anything.....is odd.
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.
Sport_Pilot is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2016, 09:26 AM
  #21  
porcia83
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Hartford, CT
Posts: 7,269
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Originally Posted by Sport_Pilot View Post
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.
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.
porcia83 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2016, 09:27 AM
  #22  
porcia83
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Hartford, CT
Posts: 7,269
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Originally Posted by cj_rumley View Post
What imbeciles prompted Congress to get into the business of regulating model airplanes?
Hmm...that would be our elected officials.
porcia83 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2016, 10:12 AM
  #23  
GSXR1000
My Feedback: (7)
 
GSXR1000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Carrollton, TX
Posts: 241
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Hopefully this will never pass the senate floor that way it is worded.
GSXR1000 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2016, 10:18 AM
  #24  
qwerty3
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 97
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

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?
qwerty3 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2016, 10:32 AM
  #25  
Sport_Pilot
 
Sport_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 16,915
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Originally Posted by porcia83 View Post
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.
It is just allegations and IMO not that shocking. Not as bad as this and nothing to do with model airplanes.
Sport_Pilot is offline  
Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy