franklin_m

Have yet to see any group oppose the Senate version out of committee. AMA's been silent on it, yet AOPA, EAA, and now Small UAV Coalition have come out in favor of it - with the 400' limit and with the education requirement.

http://www.suasnews.com/2016/03/coal...ded-committee/

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

LoL.....right, the FAA bought. Exactly who gets the check? That's the negativity and cynicism we're used too.

skylark-flier

I have no trouble at all envisioning Amazon, Google, or anyone else BUYING their own airspace. This is Amerika, land of the Dollar.

Not going to happen.

True.

AMA, very soon, will have no relevance at all. There won't be a hobby to be relevant in once the government outlaws model aircraft.

NorfolkSouthern

Modelers may be in an uproar over this act, but people will have to start to realize that model aviation started with free flight, and then went to control-line. RC is not traditional model aviation. It only started to become popular in the late 1970's. In those days, most of what you could buy at a hobby shop were powered by .15 sized engines or smaller. The stuff you could buy off the shelf at the local K-Mart had an .049 or even as small as a .020 engine and control-lines. You could even buy a .010 sized for free flight and other hobbies. Back in the day, you could fly control-line at the local baseball diamond, empty parking lot, or playground. All this was routine in the 1950's, 1960's and 1970's. And AMA membership was nothing more than an option.

And then modelers started flying bigger, and bigger planes. Quarter scale, 50cc and larger gassers. The models got so big, that they now require a special runway and fly in large, sponsored fields away from residential areas. One model of a large jet even caught the attention of the FAA. This was a MODEL airplane, not a drone!

Then there were threads all over the place on the internet about converting the smaller nitro models to electric, and now all this technology exists to enable multi-rotors, and autonomous flight. Plus, auto stabilization. Plus, electric park flyers that can fly out of anybody's back yard, with no vetting, testing, or ANY training required to fly. Just go to Wal-Mart, take it out of the box, and go fly. Simple. Easy. Any fool can do it.

And now we have this bill, which even the Experimental Aircraft Association supports. And yes, in spite of the FAA's regulations, home-built aircraft are still being built in garages. And they are still being furnished with airworthiness certificates after completion and inspection. The bill, as it is written, will not stop people from building model airplane kits. But it will stop fools from buying a toy from Wal-Mart and doing stupid things.

Iif you want to build that huge half-scale warbird gasser, you will probably have to have it certified. To me, that's not a big deal. There's just a little more paper work and inspection involved. They take 6 months to build anyway, so what difference does a few days of testing and inspection make so it's actually safe to fly? It won't end model aviation as we know it. It will only add value to the sport. If I build another plane, and have it certified airworthy, and I am able to acquire the necessary license and medical certificate, then I will have something I can be proud of. I would no longer have to consider the hobby as a meaningless pursuit. I could even apply my skills towards full-scale.

I see no problem with it as it is written.

Sport_Pilot

Well I am not coming back into the hobby till this mess is over. Well maybe not in a big way, maybe 2 lbs or less. Maybe take up competitive shooting instead. I may need the skills.

Chris P. Bacon

My Feedback: (4)

Tesla is at $236/share. Not enough ROI for you? You didn't get in on the IPO?

Chris P. Bacon

My Feedback: (4)

I'm optimistic I'll win the lottery even though I haven't purchased any tickets.

ira d

When big companies start to use drones I'm sure there will be ways to detect who is interfering with them including if someone shoots at them and when anyone is caught doing so I'm sure there will
be stiff a penalty.

skylark-flier

NS - how can you say that something that's been around since AT LEAST the 70's isn't traditional model aviation? That's 50 years!!!!!!! You sound like those around here who say "if your grandparents aren't buried on the mountain side you'll never be a local".

50 years of RC airplanes - 110 years of flying since the Wright brothers. That's 45% of the total.

To me, that's traditional.

The fact that you, here and in other threads, openly advocate for full-size and against models is no surprise to anyone. You're comfortable with regulations, over-regulations, medical exams for a hobby. You scare me.

Sport_Pilot

And recently the court backed up a person shooting down a drone, so they may not be able to do anything about it.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

"the" court...nice and vague there. Tell the whole story.

scottrc

The bill is in final committee, after that, its through the final vote on the Senate and House floor and then off to the Wizard for his blessing. I have yet to get any emails, letters, or calls from the AMA asking for my help. When I was a member of NAR, they and Tripoli had their members calling and writing minutes after the Senate announced model rocketeers would have to conform to BATF rules for handling explosives. They got Senetor Mike Enzie lobbying on the floor of the Senate and to the press on behalf of the rocket hobby and sport rocketry, and it worked. The Senate backed off. All hear from the AMA is lip service. I'm frustrated, angry, and depressed at the thought of such a crazy situation this has become.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

If you haven't heard anything from the AMA, how are you then able to say all you are hearing from them is lip service. What have YOU done since you've been aware of this, who have you reached out to and what have been your suggestions. Local AMA AVP's, National members, politicians?

scottrc

Don't know who you are lobbying for, but the certification inspection for the RV4 my club built was over $1500. Our C150 annual ran about $500 a year. If I have to do this with my seven scale RC planes, all under 55 lbs, I'm out of the hobby. That is another red herring, I bet $100 that next will be re-certification and inspection criteria. Of coarse EAA will be for it, why build and fly models when for the same price, jump up to Sportsman full sized. BTW, RC started to get very popular in the mid 60's. By the early 70's Pattern and FAI was in full swing. Another shot in this dang regulation would be that the US will not longer be able to compete in FAI. Think about that!

scottrc

Quit reading between the lines, you know I meant is that all I see is what is posted on their website, and its all lip service. And I did write my senator and just today made a call to my Congresswomen. So I have been doing things, but all on my own, no support from the AMA. Probably don't want it now.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

You will probably get more accurate and timely information, as well as actual answers rather than fear and doom and gloom if you go to the AMA site. Or better yet reach out to someone in the know, like Chad Budreau, 765-287-1256. He is generally pretty good about skipping past all the vitriol directed at him and the AMA and answers questions with the information he is able to share. For better or worse, this is what our hobby has working on our behalf. I don't see any other group working on our behalf.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

Sorry, I missed that, I took you at your written word. Regardless, I went back and dug up some info from the AMA site which I posted above. Hope that will help.

ira d

In America there is a big difference between shooting down an individuals property and that of a big company that has the resources go after you and to have laws set in their favor.

Chris P. Bacon

My Feedback: (4)

There are some here that are happy being miserable. They'd much rather gloat in the gloom and doom than have factual answers. You know the type....

rcmiket

" Lip service" that pretty much sums it up. I'm on the site daily and I see nothing indicating that the situation will change in our favor. The responses to the blogs sum up just how the membership feels and that's a very good indicator of just how the membership sees the situation and how it's being handled.
Mike

TimJ

Amazon already have been in the background "buying" their own airspace. The Senator from Florida, Bill Nelson is make sure the path is paved for Amazon. If we as a community don't speak up now, the hobby will be lost.

Amazon wants exclusive rights to the 200-400 foot altitude range for drones.

rcmiket

http://www.uasvision.com/2016/03/22/amazon-has-spent-9-4-m-lobbying-for-drone-delivery/


"That sum only includes money Amazon is legally compelled to disclose,The New York Times reports. The Times also notes that the company has gone from two lobbyists 15 years ago to 60 today, and is building a new office in D.C. to make room for them all. - "


Gee only 9.4 million ( that they HAD to report) spent lobbying for drone delivery.......................................... ........ were the really small fish in this pond boys.
Mike

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

And yet someone providing "lip service" is still doing 100% more than you're doing....except selling more MR and drones that is. There is certainly more reasonable people in the AMA threads than the one size fits all black or white approach that is seen here, but I would never expect you to recognize any positive comments on behalf of members.


Well I think we have a breakthrough here, although I think you've always known this all along, just didn't want to mention it. We are the small fish in this pond, indeed we are. And yet you and some others have this huge completely unrealistic and overwhelmingly negative outlook on what the AMA is supposed to do here, you know, being that we're the small fish in the pond. All the criticisms and second guessing and Monday morning quarterbacking on what the AMA should have done, could have done, etc etc, all the while being the small fish against Google, Amazon etc. Never coming up with a realistic plan, or suggestions, just empty criticisms and doom and gloom forecasts. Thank god there are people at the AMA doing work on our behalf, and not hiding behind a computer screen on a daily basis.

SunDevilPilot

Call me ignorant. I have no idea if I'm looking in the right place. But, this is all I could find on the issue:

Source:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-...&resultIndex=2

SEC. 2129. SPECIAL RULES FOR MODEL AIRCRAFT.
(a) In General.—Chapter 448, as amended by section 2128 of this Act, is further amended by inserting after section 44807 the following:
Ҥ 44808. Special rules for model aircraft
“(a) In General.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law relating to the incorporation of unmanned aircraft systems into Federal Aviation Administration plans and policies, including this chapter, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration may not promulgate any new rule or regulation specific only to an unmanned aircraft operating 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 and within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization;
“(3) not flown beyond visual line of sight of persons co-located with the operator or in direct communication with the operator;
“(4) the aircraft is operated in a manner that does not interfere with and gives way to any manned aircraft;
“(5) when flown within 5 miles of an airport, the operator of the aircraft provides the airport operator, where applicable, and the airport air traffic control tower (when an air traffic facility is located at the airport) with prior notice and receives approval, to the extent practicable, for the operation from each (model aircraft operators flying from a permanent location within 5 miles of an airport should establish a mutually agreed upon operating procedure with the airport operator and the airport air traffic control tower (when an air traffic facility is located at the airport));
“(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.
“(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.
“(3) SAVINGS CLAUSE.—Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as expanding the authority of the Administrator to require operators of model aircraft under the exemption of this subsection to be required to seek permissive authority of the Administrator prior to operation in the national airspace system.
“(c) Statutory Construction.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the authority of the Administrator to pursue enforcement action against persons operating personal unmanned aircraft.
“(d) Model Aircraft Defined.—In this section, the term ‘model aircraft’ means an unmanned aircraft that—
“(1) is capable of sustained flight in the atmosphere; and
“(2) is limited to weighing not more than 55 pounds, including the weight of anything attached to or carried by the aircraft, unless otherwise approved through a design, construction, inspection, flight test, and operational safety program administered by a community-based organization.”.
(b) Technical And Conforming Amendments.—
(1) TABLE OF CONTENTS.—The table of contents for chapter 448, as amended by section 2128 of this Act, is further amended by inserting after the item relating to section 44807 the following:

“44808. Special rules for model aircraft.”.(2) SPECIAL RULE FOR MODEL AIRCRAFT.—Section 336 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (49 U.S.C. 40101 note) and the item relating to that section in the table of contents under section 1(b) of that Act (126 Stat. 13) are repealed.
SEC. 2130. UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS AERONAUTICAL KNOWLEDGE AND SAFETY.
(a) In General.—Chapter 448, as amended by section 2129 of this Act, is further amended by inserting after section 44808 the following:
Ҥ 44809. Aeronautical knowledge and safety test
“(a) In General.—An individual may not operate an unmanned aircraft system unless—
“(1) the individual has successfully completed an aeronautical knowledge and safety test under subsection (c);
“(2) the individual has authority to operate an unmanned aircraft under other Federal law; or
“(3) the individual is a holder of an airmen certificate issued under section 44703.
“(b) Exception.—This section shall not apply to the operation of an unmanned aircraft system that has been authorized by the Federal Aviation Administration under section 44802, section 44805, section 44806, or section 44807.
“(c) Aeronautical Knowledge And Safety Test.—Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of the Federal Aviation Administration Reauthorization Act of 2016, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration, in consultation with manufacturers of unmanned aircraft systems, other industry stakeholders, and community-based aviation organizations, shall develop an aeronautical knowledge and safety test that can be administered electronically.
“(d) Requirements.—The Administrator shall ensure that the aeronautical knowledge and safety test is designed to adequately demonstrate an operator's—
“(1) understanding of aeronautical safety knowledge, as applicable; and
“(2) knowledge of Federal Aviation Administration regulations and requirements pertaining to the operation of an unmanned aircraft system in the national airspace system.
“(e) Record Of Compliance.—
“(1) IN GENERAL.—Each operator of an unmanned aircraft system described under subsection (a) shall maintain and make available for inspection, upon request by the Administrator or a Federal, State, or local law enforcement officer, a record of compliance with this section through—
“(A) an identification number, issued by the Federal Aviation Administration certifying passage of the aeronautical knowledge and safety test;
“(B) if the individual has authority to operate an unmanned aircraft system under other Federal law, the requisite proof of authority under that law; or
“(C) an airmen certificate issued under section 44703.
“(2) COORDINATION.—The Administrator may coordinate the identification number under paragraph (1)(A) with an operator's registration number to the extent practicable.
“(3) LIMITATION.—No fine or penalty may be imposed for the initial failure of an operator of an unmanned aircraft system to comply with paragraph (1) unless the Administrator finds that the conduct of the operator actually posed a risk to the national airspace system.”.
(b) Table Of Contents.—The table of contents for chapter 448, as amended by section 2129 of this Act, is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 44808 the following:

“44809. Aeronautical knowledge and safety test.”.SEC. 2131. SAFETY STATEMENTS.
(a) In General.—Chapter 448, as amended by section 2130 of this Act, is further amended by inserting after section 44809 the following:
Ҥ 44810. Safety statements
“(a) Prohibition.—Except as provided in subsection (d), it shall be unlawful for any person to introduce or deliver for introduction into interstate commerce any unmanned aircraft manufactured on or after the date this section takes effect unless a safety statement is attached to the unmanned aircraft or accompanying the unmanned aircraft in its packaging.
“(b) Safety Statement.—
“(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of the Federal Aviation Administration Reauthorization Act of 2016, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall issue guidance for implementing this section.
“(2) REQUIREMENTS.—A safety statement described in subsection (a) shall include—
“(A) information about laws and regulations applicable to unmanned aircraft systems;
“(B) recommendations for using unmanned aircraft in a manner that promotes the safety of persons and property;
“(C) the date that the safety statement was created or last modified; and
“(D) language approved by the Administrator regarding the following:
“(i) A person may operate the unmanned aircraft as a model aircraft (as defined in section 44808) or otherwise in accordance with Federal Aviation Administration authorization or regulation, including requirements for the completion of the aeronautical knowledge and safety test under section 44809.
“(ii) The definition of a model aircraft under section 44808.
“(iii) The requirements regarding a model aircraft under paragraphs (1) through (7) of section 44808(a).
“(iv) The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration may pursue enforcement action against a person operating model aircraft who endangers the safety of the national airspace system.
“(c) Civil Penalty.—A person who violates subsection (a) shall be liable for each violation to the United States Government for a civil penalty described in section 46301(a).
“(d) Effective Date.—This section shall take effect on the date of enactment of this Act, except that subsection (a) of this section shall take effect 1 year after the date of publication of the guidance under subsection (b).”.
(b) Table Of Contents.—The table of contents for chapter 448, as amended by section 2130 of this Act, is further amended by inserting after the item relating to section 44809 the following:

Badger Flyer

Quote:

Originally Posted by SunDevilPilot

Call me ignorant. I have no idea if I'm looking in the right place. But, this is all I could find on the issue:

Please correct me if I’m wrong, but the above text does not actually appear to institute any new regulations. Instead it restricts the FAA from doing so, provided certain conditions are met. The conditions appear to be taken verbatim from the existing FAA Advisory Circular AC 91-57A (which is itself non-regulatory in nature).


I’m not saying there isn’t a problem, but perhaps the sky is not falling quite as quickly as it appears? Neither the AC nor the above Senate proposal seem to actually create new legal restrictions on flying.


The concern therefore would be that the FAA will introduce new restrictions on any flying that does not meet the above conditions? However if that’s the case there will be a notice of proposed rule making issued first, and I don’t see this on the FAA rulemaking web page (where NPRMs are normally posted).