Model Aviation is DOOMED! *** ACT NOW! ***
03-22-2016, 09:40 AM
#1
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Orange County CA
Posts: 1,170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Model Aviation is DOOMED! *** ACT NOW! ***
With the latest senate bill S2658 being proposed, our hobby as we know it is teetering on a cliff. Everybody needs to tell everyone! Not just pass the word along, but you MUST TAKE ACTION and contact your representatives NOW!!!
Here is how you contract your senators: http://www.senate.gov/reference/comm...t_senators.htm
Here is a list of your senators and contact links: http://www.senate.gov/general/contac...nators_cfm.cfm
Below is a template letter you can use. If you don't agree with everything is this letter, amend it and send it NOW!!!!
WE MUST ACT NOW OR FOREVER LOOSE OUR HOBBY.
Here is how you contract your senators: http://www.senate.gov/reference/comm...t_senators.htm
Here is a list of your senators and contact links: http://www.senate.gov/general/contac...nators_cfm.cfm
Below is a template letter you can use. If you don't agree with everything is this letter, amend it and send it NOW!!!!
WE MUST ACT NOW OR FOREVER LOOSE OUR HOBBY.
Here is where you go to email your congressmen and women: https://emailcongress.us/
Here is the text of the message I sent to my representatives:
Dear xxxx,
A Senate bill to reauthorize the FAA contains provisions related to the manufacture of drones that could apply to home-built model airplanes, as well as those produced by large consumer manufacturers. The bill in question, titled the Federal Aviation Administration Reauthorization Act of 2016, contains provisions that would have a significant negative impact on technology innovation by all manufacturers of model aircraft. With no size or weight threshold, the bill, if adopted, would add new and burdensome manufacturing, testing and approval restrictions to even the tiniest models. And, most disturbing, these restrictions could apply to hobby-built remote controlled aircraft, effectively prohibiting them from operating outdoors. The legislation could also retroactively ground already-built models that didn’t meet the manufacturing standards called for by the proposed legislation.
The bill states: “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 that the [FAA] adopts a relevant [manufacturing] standard, unless the manufacturer has received approval …for each make and model.” In order to receive approval, the bill sets forth steps that would be difficult for large manufacturers to meet, let alone small businesses or individuals. A manufacturer – regardless of size – would at a minimum have to provide “the aircraft’s operating instructions” and confirm that the model met the specified standards. In addition, the manufacturer would have to provide a sample of every make and model to the FAA for its approval.
According to Peter Sachs, who publishes the well-regarded legal website www.dronelawjournal.com, “the flight of any aircraft, whether built in a factory or in a basement, is a flight in interstate commerce.”
At a time when the U.S. lags behind so many industrialized countries in higher education, especially in terms of science and technology, a bill that would have such tremendous impacts on aeronautical science is perplexing. Almost all astronauts and famous aviation pioneers started by building and flying model airplanes. I have flown model airplanes for over 50 years and am worried that the current climate of fear regarding "drones" will result in knee jerk, over reaching laws and restrictions with unintended consequences on what has been and is now a safe and rewarding hobby.
The Academy of Model Aviation is currently working with congress to introduce reasonable rules that allow for the continued safe operation of model aircraft for hobby and recreation. On February 11, 2016 the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee in the House of Representatives passed the Aviation Innovation, Reform, and Reauthorization (AIRR) Act, which preserves and strengthens the Special Rule for Model Aircraft. Please join the house in their efforts to ensure that this important legislation protects the hobby of flying model aircraft.
Thank you,
Name; Address, Phone No.
Here is the text of the message I sent to my representatives:
Dear xxxx,
A Senate bill to reauthorize the FAA contains provisions related to the manufacture of drones that could apply to home-built model airplanes, as well as those produced by large consumer manufacturers. The bill in question, titled the Federal Aviation Administration Reauthorization Act of 2016, contains provisions that would have a significant negative impact on technology innovation by all manufacturers of model aircraft. With no size or weight threshold, the bill, if adopted, would add new and burdensome manufacturing, testing and approval restrictions to even the tiniest models. And, most disturbing, these restrictions could apply to hobby-built remote controlled aircraft, effectively prohibiting them from operating outdoors. The legislation could also retroactively ground already-built models that didn’t meet the manufacturing standards called for by the proposed legislation.
The bill states: “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 that the [FAA] adopts a relevant [manufacturing] standard, unless the manufacturer has received approval …for each make and model.” In order to receive approval, the bill sets forth steps that would be difficult for large manufacturers to meet, let alone small businesses or individuals. A manufacturer – regardless of size – would at a minimum have to provide “the aircraft’s operating instructions” and confirm that the model met the specified standards. In addition, the manufacturer would have to provide a sample of every make and model to the FAA for its approval.
According to Peter Sachs, who publishes the well-regarded legal website www.dronelawjournal.com, “the flight of any aircraft, whether built in a factory or in a basement, is a flight in interstate commerce.”
At a time when the U.S. lags behind so many industrialized countries in higher education, especially in terms of science and technology, a bill that would have such tremendous impacts on aeronautical science is perplexing. Almost all astronauts and famous aviation pioneers started by building and flying model airplanes. I have flown model airplanes for over 50 years and am worried that the current climate of fear regarding "drones" will result in knee jerk, over reaching laws and restrictions with unintended consequences on what has been and is now a safe and rewarding hobby.
The Academy of Model Aviation is currently working with congress to introduce reasonable rules that allow for the continued safe operation of model aircraft for hobby and recreation. On February 11, 2016 the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee in the House of Representatives passed the Aviation Innovation, Reform, and Reauthorization (AIRR) Act, which preserves and strengthens the Special Rule for Model Aircraft. Please join the house in their efforts to ensure that this important legislation protects the hobby of flying model aircraft.
Thank you,
Name; Address, Phone No.
03-22-2016, 10:00 AM
#2
Don't tell my wife she will write in and tell them to hurry up and pass it 
Sorry we all need to step back and breath for a minute. With all that's going on politically the bums in DC will have more to worry about than banning toys. We need to write and let them know where we stand just not go into a hysterical panic.
Sorry we all need to step back and breath for a minute. With all that's going on politically the bums in DC will have more to worry about than banning toys. We need to write and let them know where we stand just not go into a hysterical panic.
03-22-2016, 10:54 AM
#4
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Orange County CA
Posts: 1,170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IF YOU ARE NOT PANICKED YOU NEED TO BE!!!! When we have amazon wanting to take over on 200-400 foot elevation for exclusive use for drones, we have a problem.
http://www.uasvision.com/2016/03/22/...73a1-297570545
http://www.uasvision.com/2016/03/22/...73a1-297570545
03-23-2016, 04:37 AM
#6
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: El Paso,
TX
Posts: 5,277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IF YOU ARE NOT PANICKED YOU NEED TO BE!!!! When we have amazon wanting to take over on 200-400 foot elevation for exclusive use for drones, we have a problem.
http://www.uasvision.com/2016/03/22/...73a1-297570545
http://www.uasvision.com/2016/03/22/...73a1-297570545
I have forwarded that link to Chad our new government "go to" ( Rich is now just a "consultant") on government relations to get the AMA's take on it.
Mike
Last edited by rcmiket; 03-23-2016 at 04:41 AM.
03-23-2016, 05:22 AM
#7
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
According to some here that will never happen and the hobby is safe and nothing will change. I'm putting my money on Amazon along with the politicians their "greasing" to get it done. The same people who think the hobby is safe also believe that the government can't be bought.
I have forwarded that link to Chad our new government "go to" ( Rich is now just a "consultant") on government relations to get the AMA's take on it.
Mike
I have forwarded that link to Chad our new government "go to" ( Rich is now just a "consultant") on government relations to get the AMA's take on it.
Mike
Good to see you're reaching out to AMA resources though! Have you been in touch with your new AVP yet...what's his take on all this?
03-23-2016, 06:21 AM
#8
03-23-2016, 11:27 AM
#9
According to some here that will never happen and the hobby is safe and nothing will change. I'm putting my money on Amazon along with the politicians their "greasing" to get it done. The same people who think the hobby is safe also believe that the government can't be bought.
I have forwarded that link to Chad our new government "go to" ( Rich is now just a "consultant") on government relations to get the AMA's take on it.
Mike
I have forwarded that link to Chad our new government "go to" ( Rich is now just a "consultant") on government relations to get the AMA's take on it.
Mike
03-23-2016, 12:06 PM
#10
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
According to some here that will never happen and the hobby is safe and nothing will change. I'm putting my money on Amazon along with the politicians their "greasing" to get it done. The same people who think the hobby is safe also believe that the government can't be bought.
I have forwarded that link to Chad our new government "go to" ( Rich is now just a "consultant") on government relations to get the AMA's take on it.
Mike
I have forwarded that link to Chad our new government "go to" ( Rich is now just a "consultant") on government relations to get the AMA's take on it.
Mike
Dear AMA members,
We want to provide you with an update on recent congressional action on the new FAA Reauthorization Act of 2016 (SB 2658). Last week, the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, & Transportation, which has jurisdiction over the FAA, sent SB 2658 to the Senate floor for consideration. While the proposed bill affirms the importance of a community-based approach to managing the recreational aeromodeling community, there are some provisions that could be further improved and some new provisions that could be problematic for the aeromodeling community.
AMA is working closely with members of Congress and their staffs to achieve the best possible result for our hobby. AMA is making progress and members of Congress have been receptive to our views.
For instance, we have made positive strides with the 400-foot altitude limitation in the draft proposed Senate bill. Although this onerous provision initially applied to everyone, we have made good progress in working to secure an exemption for AMA members after engaging the leadership of the Senate Commerce, Science, & Transportation Committee. There is still room for improvement and we are using all of our available means to ensure improvements are made. As more develops, we will provide you with greater details.
In the near future, we may also ask you to engage with Congress and advocate for the hobby. Please stay tuned to find out how you can help during this process.
As always, thank you for your continued support.
Sincerely,
AMA Government Affairs
03-23-2016, 12:44 PM
#11
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: El Paso,
TX
Posts: 5,277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In a way they are right. Especially if they don't fly at an AMA field. No matter what they come up with we know the FAA has no way to enforce it. So many will simply ignore them and fly anyway. And if they keep their models well away from full scale planes then the FAA would most likely never know.
Mike
03-23-2016, 01:11 PM
#12
MIke, this is maybe the last chance the AMA has to push for a "camera equipped" exclusion or proviso for the so called "drones" for lack of a better term.
Differentiate operation above or below 400 foot to the presence of a camera on the aircraft. This would now be something a congressional staffer could get their arms/heads around.
"If you are equipped with a camera, you can easily fly too high and create all of these problems. If you don't have a camera, you are flying by line of site and therefore you wont be staying over 400 foot for long, etc etc."
Notice I do not nuance it with FPV or any other crap, the time for nuance is over. Camera equipped? One set of rules.
No camera (and a spotter/AMA safety code) you fly under different (above 400 feet) set of rules.
Throw in with that a spotter requirement and you might have something. No flights over 400 feet if camera equipped and no flying LOS without a spotter (for see and avoid over 400 feet)
Differentiate operation above or below 400 foot to the presence of a camera on the aircraft. This would now be something a congressional staffer could get their arms/heads around.
"If you are equipped with a camera, you can easily fly too high and create all of these problems. If you don't have a camera, you are flying by line of site and therefore you wont be staying over 400 foot for long, etc etc."
Notice I do not nuance it with FPV or any other crap, the time for nuance is over. Camera equipped? One set of rules.
No camera (and a spotter/AMA safety code) you fly under different (above 400 feet) set of rules.
Throw in with that a spotter requirement and you might have something. No flights over 400 feet if camera equipped and no flying LOS without a spotter (for see and avoid over 400 feet)
03-23-2016, 02:06 PM
#13
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: El Paso,
TX
Posts: 5,277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MIke, this is maybe the last chance the AMA has to push for a "camera equipped" exclusion or proviso for the so called "drones" for lack of a better term.
Differentiate operation above or below 400 foot to the presence of a camera on the aircraft. This would now be something a congressional staffer could get their arms/heads around.
"If you are equipped with a camera, you can easily fly too high and create all of these problems. If you don't have a camera, you are flying by line of site and therefore you wont be staying over 400 foot for long, etc etc."
Notice I do not nuance it with FPV or any other crap, the time for nuance is over. Camera equipped? One set of rules.
No camera (and a spotter/AMA safety code) you fly under different (above 400 feet) set of rules.
Throw in with that a spotter requirement and you might have something. No flights over 400 feet if camera equipped and no flying LOS without a spotter (for see and avoid over 400 feet)
Differentiate operation above or below 400 foot to the presence of a camera on the aircraft. This would now be something a congressional staffer could get their arms/heads around.
"If you are equipped with a camera, you can easily fly too high and create all of these problems. If you don't have a camera, you are flying by line of site and therefore you wont be staying over 400 foot for long, etc etc."
Notice I do not nuance it with FPV or any other crap, the time for nuance is over. Camera equipped? One set of rules.
No camera (and a spotter/AMA safety code) you fly under different (above 400 feet) set of rules.
Throw in with that a spotter requirement and you might have something. No flights over 400 feet if camera equipped and no flying LOS without a spotter (for see and avoid over 400 feet)
I'm not holding my breath for the AMA to "draw a line" on this. Once again we'll roll over and take it.
Mike
03-24-2016, 03:56 AM
#15
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Canisteo,
NY
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In a way they are right. Especially if they don't fly at an AMA field. No matter what they come up with we know the FAA has no way to enforce it. So many will simply ignore them and fly anyway. And if they keep their models well away from full scale planes then the FAA would most likely never know.
Last edited by mike1974; 03-24-2016 at 04:17 AM.
03-24-2016, 04:10 AM
#16
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Canisteo,
NY
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MIke, this is maybe the last chance the AMA has to push for a "camera equipped" exclusion or proviso for the so called "drones" for lack of a better term.
Differentiate operation above or below 400 foot to the presence of a camera on the aircraft. This would now be something a congressional staffer could get their arms/heads around.
"If you are equipped with a camera, you can easily fly too high and create all of these problems. If you don't have a camera, you are flying by line of site and therefore you wont be staying over 400 foot for long, etc etc."
Notice I do not nuance it with FPV or any other crap, the time for nuance is over. Camera equipped? One set of rules.
No camera (and a spotter/AMA safety code) you fly under different (above 400 feet) set of rules.
Throw in with that a spotter requirement and you might have something. No flights over 400 feet if camera equipped and no flying LOS without a spotter (for see and avoid over 400 feet)
Differentiate operation above or below 400 foot to the presence of a camera on the aircraft. This would now be something a congressional staffer could get their arms/heads around.
"If you are equipped with a camera, you can easily fly too high and create all of these problems. If you don't have a camera, you are flying by line of site and therefore you wont be staying over 400 foot for long, etc etc."
Notice I do not nuance it with FPV or any other crap, the time for nuance is over. Camera equipped? One set of rules.
No camera (and a spotter/AMA safety code) you fly under different (above 400 feet) set of rules.
Throw in with that a spotter requirement and you might have something. No flights over 400 feet if camera equipped and no flying LOS without a spotter (for see and avoid over 400 feet)
If I am misunderstanding what you are saying I apologize.
03-24-2016, 07:41 PM
#19
My Feedback: (11)
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Beverly Hills, FL
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For all the tough talk'n scofflaws out there, you should read:
"Sec. 2133. ENFORCEMENT
(a) UAS SAFETY ENFORCEMENT. - The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall establish a program to utilize available remote detection and identification technologies for safety oversight, including enforcement actions against operators of unmanned aircraft systems that are not in compliance with applicable Federal aviation laws"
They made it simple and easy to get rightous,, now comes the big hammer for those who just like the drone operators who got us in this situation, aren't going to obey any rules. This could get really interesting.
"Sec. 2133. ENFORCEMENT
(a) UAS SAFETY ENFORCEMENT. - The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall establish a program to utilize available remote detection and identification technologies for safety oversight, including enforcement actions against operators of unmanned aircraft systems that are not in compliance with applicable Federal aviation laws"
They made it simple and easy to get rightous,, now comes the big hammer for those who just like the drone operators who got us in this situation, aren't going to obey any rules. This could get really interesting.
03-25-2016, 04:37 AM
#20
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
For all the tough talk'n scofflaws out there, you should read:
"Sec. 2133. ENFORCEMENT
(a) UAS SAFETY ENFORCEMENT. - The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall establish a program to utilize available remote detection and identification technologies for safety oversight, including enforcement actions against operators of unmanned aircraft systems that are not in compliance with applicable Federal aviation laws"
They made it simple and easy to get rightous,, now comes the big hammer for those who just like the drone operators who got us in this situation, aren't going to obey any rules. This could get really interesting.
"Sec. 2133. ENFORCEMENT
(a) UAS SAFETY ENFORCEMENT. - The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall establish a program to utilize available remote detection and identification technologies for safety oversight, including enforcement actions against operators of unmanned aircraft systems that are not in compliance with applicable Federal aviation laws"
They made it simple and easy to get rightous,, now comes the big hammer for those who just like the drone operators who got us in this situation, aren't going to obey any rules. This could get really interesting.
The good thing though is that the chances of this happening are remote. More importantly, the regulations have some common sense built into them (imagine that!) that gives both LE and the FAA some wiggle room, some application of fairness to some degree. Most first timers will get "education", perhaps a letter in the mail pointing them back to the rules. It all really depends on the case by case specifics. The FAA's own records for the past few years bear this out, folks who were clearly in the wrong were given a call, perhaps a visit, and then corrective actions were taken. Now, if someone is or isn't registered, and does something to stupid, like fly over a city, or near an active airport, or over a big sporting event and are caught, well then I hope they do get more than a slap on the wrist.
03-25-2016, 06:02 AM
#23
In all fairness, they did tells that (1) they're suing for relief from the FAA's interpretation of S336, and (2) they were engaging on the registration requirement. How's either of them working out so far? Any success? By everything I read the lawsuit is stalled and we all registered.
03-25-2016, 06:29 AM
#24
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
In all fairness, they did tells that (1) they're suing for relief from the FAA's interpretation of S336, and (2) they were engaging on the registration requirement. How's either of them working out so far? Any success? By everything I read the lawsuit is stalled and we all registered.
With your usual fair and balanced and unbiased approach to the AMA, you have hit the nail on the head. The AMA has been completely useless and has made absolutely no difference with the FAA over the past two years. In fact we're probably far worse off now than ever. Except for later, when even more horrible things might happen.