daytonarc

My Feedback: (5)

The current version of the FAA Re-authorization act that will be voted for by the US Senate includes a hard 400' altitude limit, a requirement that manufacturers get toy planes certified by th e FAA and that we all carry proof of passing a FAA educational course when we fly. The certifications for manufacturers will surely drive many great companies out of business. The 400' ceiling will end IMAC, model soaring and many jet events and limit the ability of all of us to stay 3 mistakes high.

Please write to your Senators and Representatives. The original version of the bill passed in the House did not include much of the language that has now been introduced in the Senate so it is not too late. The H0use and Senate will have to reconcile there individual versions of the bill so we still have time but not much.

Our Senators and Representatives pay more attention to letters that are written by individual constituents then by mass copy and paste emails so please write an individual letter.

However a copy and paste is better than nothing so feel free to copy, edit, paste and send the following that I have sent to my representatives.

To do nothing is to accept that others are in control of you!

As an avid model aircraft hobbyist, a holder of a FAA Airman’s Certificate for over 25 years and a father of 4 children I beg you to protect the individual rights and freedoms of Americans and recognize that model aviation is not a threat to the national airspace. I started flying model aircraft when I was 11 years old and have loved aviation ever since. I have built model aircraft with my children, teaching them building techniques, electronics, aeronautics, physics and teamwork. Many of the country’s best pilots, aeronautical engineers and astronauts started their career with a passion that was started with model aircraft.

The Academy of Model Aeronautics (AMA) is celebrating its 80th year. This is an organization of model airplane enthusiasts who have flown model airplanes for the past 8 decades without any problems, accidents or incidents with commercial aircraft. The AMA is recognized as a Community Based Organization (CBO) by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).

In 2012 Congress specifically recognized that model aircraft, used for hobby purposes, under the guidelines of the AMA, should be exempt from restrictions on individual freedoms and should be exempt from any FAA regulations. The specific language in the The FAA Reform and Re-authorization Act of 2112 follows for your reference.

SEC. 336. SPECIAL RULE 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 subtitle, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration may not promulgate any

rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft, or an aircraft being developed 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) 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;

(4) the aircraft is operated in a manner that does not interfere with and gives way to any manned

aircraft; and

(5) when flown within 5 miles of an airport, the operator of the aircraft provides the airport

operator and the airport air traffic control tower (when an air traffic facility is located at the

airport) with prior notice of the operation (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)).

(b) Statutory Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the authority of

the Administrator to pursue enforcement action against persons operating model aircraft who

endanger the safety of the national airspace system.

(c) Model Aircraft Defined.--In this section, the term ``model aircraft'' means an unmanned

aircraft that is--

(1) capable of sustained flight in the atmosphere;

(2) flown within visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft; and

(3) flown for hobby or recreational purposes.


The current FAA Reauthorization act, as amended, and as proposed does not have these exceptions Model airplanes are not now, have never been a threat to the safety of the national airspace.

The proliferation of multi-rotor aircraft, that can be flown by inexperienced and ignorant individuals, beyond line of sight, with autonomous or semi autonomous control, has caused the FAA, the media and the public to demand restrictions. These restrictions are not unreasonable however placing the same restrictions on a model aircraft, flown within the safety guidelines of a CBO is uncalled for, unnecessary and will cause great harm.

Some of the proposed legislation will require that manufactures of models certify there models with the FAA. This is ridiculous and will end model aviation as we know it. The manufacturers of our models are all small family owned businesses who provide jobs and pay taxes. The requirement of model airplanes to meet FAA certification will kill jobs and make hobby model aviation unobtainable for the majority.

Another restriction in the proposed legislation, as amended, is a 400 foot altitude ceiling. This ceiling will prohibit many types of model aviation that require higher altitudes and is a random number that has no basis to exist. Model aircraft, flown with within line of site, have existed with aircraft of all types without dangers. Many model aerobatic competitions, scale model contests and model airplane types require flight at altitudes above 400’. This arbitrary limit will cause manufacturers to closer, jobs to be lost and will not improve safety.

Model planes, flown within line of site and within the guidelines of a CBO, at a flying site, are not a problem. The proposed regulations will not do anything to stop the people who do not follow these rules. There are currently laws in effect regarding the safety of the airspace and creating a hazard is already against the law. We don’t need more restrictions of an Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) that fly within the guidelines of a CBO. The people who are causing issues with “DRONES” are already breaking Federal Law and new laws, that will restrict the model aviation industry and enthusiasts, will do nothing other than restrict people who cause no problem at all,

I implore you to protect model aviation as has existed for generations in the United States. Flying model aircraft, within line of site, at a flying site, within the guidelines of a CBO has existed for generations without incident. The new wave of “drones” has nothing to do with model aviation flying within the guidelines of a CBO at a flying site.

Please do not vote for any version of a bill that does not exempt a hobbyist flying at a flight club from regulations that need to be passed to stop unsafe operation in the airspace. I would be happy to further discuss this with you and welcome you as a guest to a model flying field so that you can see the difference between “drones” and model airplanes.

The wrong decision here by our legislators could negatively impact the future of aviation in our country. Unforeseen circumstances of well intended actions have happened in the past, please do not allow a poorly thought out legislation to negatively impact our economy and future aviators.

Thank you

ira d

Yes I agree things don't look good and its sad that the government wants to put more restrictions on model aircraft than on ultra light aircraft which can be more of a safety concern than models.

NorfolkSouthern

I would have to disagree on the ultralight being more of a safety concern than a drone (model airplane). Drones do NOT have an occupant, so the pilot of an ultralight is less likely to take the risks that a drone operator would. And yes, this includes fixed-wings as well as multi-rotors. I honestly feel that the requirements in the Senate version are minimal, and all that will be needed would be a basic knowledge test and simple registration. Also: 400 feet is a long way up for a smaller aircraft, .40 sized or less. It may present a bit of a challenge for 50cc and larger gas-powered planes, but those are beyond the budget of most people.

rcmiket

Wait a minute don't we have a CBO that we all pay dues to with a paid staff that's "our voice" in thees matters? Haven't heard anything from them lately.

Mike

Sport_Pilot

Statistics would show that a mid air between a certified aircraft and an ultralight is much more likely than with a model aircraft and a certified aircraft. And the results are more devastating. We do well to avoid full scale, as do ultralights, however the ultralights are, for the most part, flying in navigable airspace and are just as likely to fail to see and avoid another aircraft as any other full scale aircraft.

Sport_Pilot

I hope we don't hear from them because they should be talking to the Senate and the House, not us.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

You might have missed their messages while engaged in all those "consructive endevors" you said you were engaging in. LoL....drone sales picked up again yet?

rcmiket

Strength in numbers. With it's members being the numbers. Just a thought.

Mike

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

Did you write your letter yet? Perhaps this is another thing the Fantastic 14 can get a letter out on, hope they can spell everyone's name right. Could you post a link in your sig line?

Sport_Pilot

Not many numbers. Needs to get to the press. Or we hire a good lawyer. I suspect Cruse will be available in a few months.

Sport_Pilot

Anybody know Burt Rutan's e-mail address? He should maybe show up in Washington. He started out with model CL then RC. I think his company still uses RC for research and testing. Does this bill hinder that?

Sport_Pilot

I would guess so. Just like gun sales pick up whenever they threaten to register or ban them. Think is most will not care about the rules, while we will have to fly in the weeds when Amazon gets us restricted to 200 feet.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

It's out there somewhere. I might be mistaken but I think he had some type of deal with the AMA (oh the horror of it all) to sell some RC planes to members not that long ago.

Badger Flyer

I looked at the AMA web site and was surprised to see no mention of this issue. I'm a full scale pilot and have seen many attempts to limit general aviation over the years. Member organizations such AOPA and EAA has often helped to to rein in such attempts, through their publicity and lobbying efforts. Does AMA not serve the same advocacy role?

flyinwalenda

My Feedback: (5)

One would think ! They send emails implying they are "doing their best" followed by their emails to sell us auto insurance and closeout model planes . I would like to think they are a loud voice for us but for some reason I envision them sitting at the children's table during holiday meals .
As stated in other threads, writing letters to your reps is a good thing and is an easy way to get involved !

franklin_m

If what came out of committee is any indication of their effectiveness, many more of these "constructive endeavors" and there will be a complete prohibition on model aircraft.

franklin_m

You noticed that as well...I concur. It seems they're not able to move as quickly as the other organizations you mentioned as examples.

rcmiket

From the January 2016 EC minutes.

"•The ED cleared up any confusion on the roles of Chad Budreau and Rich Hanson. Rich is transitioning back into a consulting role with AMA, focusing on advocacy, interacting with Congress, and working with our lobbyist and legal representatives. Funds had been budgeted for an additional position and a half for the government affairs/public relations area. Chad will move into the director’s position and there is the need for an assistant for him to pick up some of the load from interaction with members, the rest of staff (IT and web page and media department), allowing Chad to do more of the work with CLS and outreach. "

Now Rich is a "consultant" Chad's taking over Rich's old job along with money budgeted for a "helper" but no one can send out updates?

Mike

rgburrill

Considering what many of the jet guys have said about FEJ maybe manufacturers being required to certify their planes is not a bad thing.
Regarding the 400 ft altitude, that is also a good thing because it will cause more restrictions on those monster "models" than us 40-60 size sport fliers. In over 20 years of flying the only time I ever saw people flying above 400 ft was a few clowns who wanted to see how high they could fly and be able to recover their plane on the down leg. Not very safe.
And passing a basic safety test in order to fly just makes common sense.
I don't see the problem.

Sport_Pilot

I think maybe 400 feet is a lot less than you think. The pattern box is one thousand feet high. Even, a 60 sized pattern plane does a loop about 100 to 200 feet diameter. Vertical maneuvers almost impossible with only 400 feet. Sailplanes fly will over 1000 feet, Yet almost no collisions with full scale. So no regulation needed.

Let this pass and Amazon will get their way and the altitude limit will be 200 feet.

rcmiket

They are a "player" in all of this and it would be wise to watch them close as they actually have the funds to get it done.

http://money.cnn.com/2015/07/29/tech...nes-air-space/


"Airspace of up to 200 feet would be reserved for "low speed localized traffic" like survey, inspection and video drones, including those without sense-and-avoid technology. Amazon said the airspace between 200 and 400 feet would be designated "high-speed transit" for "well-equipped vehicles." That's likely where its delivery drones would operate. The space between 400 and 500 feet would be a "no fly zone," except for emergencies. "

Mike

Silent-AV8R

http://amablog.modelaircraft.org/ama...raft-into-law/

Granpooba

My Feedback: (5)

Yup, definitely happy that I just finished building my last RC kit.

Sport_Pilot

That was up before the senate bill was announced. Or at least before I saw it here.

rcmiket

The comments pretty much sum up the memberships feelings.

Mike