Sport_Pilot

Not sure where you see bigotry of people from other countries here. Was there some deleted posts I did not see?

ira d

I would ask exactly what are these special conditions and programs and what is required to operate by them? If the condition being a member of the AMA then they need to spell it out for it to be legal. Also
if something is unsafe then why does it suddenly become safe because the RC operator is a member of the AMA.

cj_rumley

Looks like Sporty answered you question re a 400' limit, albeit rather rudely. I didn't see anything related to restrictions on the hobby industry in Sect 2129, and frankly wasn't interested enough to search through the whole GD bill.

RichardGee

My Feedback: (156)

Requirements For Unmanned Aircraft Systems
The bill would impose a mandate on owners and operators of unmanned aircraft systems by authorizing FAA to assess fees to recover the costs of regulatory and administrative activities related to the authorization of unmanned aircraft systems.
The bill also would prohibit any person from selling an unmanned aircraft system that does not comply with the standards on airworthiness to be adopted by FAA. If the FAA were to apply those requirements to unmanned aircraft systems that may be operated under current law (such as model aircraft), sellers of those aircraft would have to comply with a new mandate. The cost of the mandate would depend on the nature and scope of regulations to be issued by FAA, but could be substantial considering that industry sources project sales of 100,000 or more such units annually. Additionally, the bill would prohibit any person from selling an unmanned aircraft system unless a safety statement is attached to the unmanned aircraft or is included in its packaging. The bill also would establish a test on aeronautical knowledge and safety for operators of some unmanned aircraft systems.

Translation: Manufacturers of RC aircraft could be forced prove that every flying thing they offer for sale complies with FAA mandates. NO PERSON could sell an unmanned aircraft (this includes private sales, person-to-person, RCU, RC websites, auctions, eBay, etc) unless a “safety statement” is attached. All sellers and operators of RC aircraft would be required to pass FAA established tests.

SEC. 2102. SENSE OF CONGRESS.
It is the sense of Congress that—
(1) each person that uses an unmanned aircraft system for compensation or hire, or in the furtherance of a business enterprise, should have a written privacy policy consistent with section 2101 regarding the collection, use, retention, and dissemination of any data collected during the operation of an unmanned aircraft system;
(2) each privacy policy described in paragraph (1) should be periodically reviewed and updated as necessary; and the collection, use, retention, and dissemination of any data collected during the operation of an unmanned aircraft system; each privacy policy described in paragraph (1) should be publicly available.

ANY model aircraft manufacturer who flies/tests an aircraft falls under this provision, since testing a product intended for sale is “furtherance of a business enterprise.”


SEC. 2103. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION AUTHORITY.
A violation of a privacy policy by a person that uses an unmanned aircraft system for compensation or hire, or in the furtherance of a business enterprise, in the national airspace system shall be an unfair and deceptive practice in violation of section 5(a) of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 45(a)). the role of manufacturers, the Federal Aviation Administration,

PROHIBITION.—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 Administrator adopts a relevant consensus standard under this section, unless the manufacturer has received approval under subsection (d) for each make and model.’’.

init4fun

So as long as you belong to a CBO it sure does look like the hard 400 foot limit is dead . This is a very good thing .

Anybody hear about the "Don't fly like an idiot" CBO that a gent on a different website has established ? I haven't seen the FAA's exact determining criteria for what constitutes a legally recognized CBO but I'd have to figure any one is just as good as any other in the eyes of the law , lest the law be seen as discriminatory and oh so not politically correct .....

franklin_m

Chad has repeatedly said that the AMA will not use the law to compel membership. The issue is do we believe them?

cj_rumley

It's what AMA wanted, so it's a good thing if your objective is a happy AMA EC. If your objective is freedom to fly a model airplane in the USA, maybe not so good. FWIW, I think it will someday soon prove a Pyrrhic victory for AMA.

I think you mean Don't Fly Stupid, and yes I have heard of it and joined....hope you will too. I think the whole CBO thing is a scammy, transparent euphemism for 'government sanctioned AMA monopoly concession over model flying,' but I'm good for having at least one other in competition with it, and hopefully more to come.

http://www.dontflystupid.org/

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

Why wouldn't "we" believe him? Anything you know of to indicate he's not believable?

init4fun

I agree 100% with all you've said here , and thank you for the proper name of that new startup CBO . That whole CBO business really didn't sit well with me when there was only one of them , but now that there are at least two , with no actual limit on how many there can be , I just may be OK with the idea .

In my view , if every present day RC club just went ahead and declared itself a CBO , cause after all whats more "community based" than a model airplane club , the rules of each could be specifically tailored to each club's unique set of operating conditions .

mongo

My Feedback: (15)

seem to remember the term "National" or "Nationwide" tacked i front of CBO in the earlier law that had section 336 in it.

and, if yer able to do a search here, you will find a post from a few years back where i suggested strongly that groups like RCU and RCG should be putting together a safety code re mix and declaring themselves as new CBOs.
got derided rather severely for it back then.

init4fun

Even if that idea wasn't well received back then , I'll bet a lot of the folks who were originally against it may now see the practicality of using an already established nationwide network of RCers like RCU or RCG to form a few new CBOs . Giving one entity exclusive control over anything has never worked out well for the common man (me) in the past , and I can see no benefit to me in the AMA having a monopoly on model plane flying now .

I know I've said this before , I want to be a member cause I want to be , not cause I have to be ....

Sport_Pilot

So the EPA, AOPA, and USUA are scams? All are CBO's.

Sport_Pilot

CBO is a legal term. A declaration or recognition is not required.

https://nnlm.gov/sea/funding/cbodef.html

cj_rumley

Not being associated with any of those communities, I don't know or care enough about them to opine as to whether they are scams. What do they have to do with AMA discussions?

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

That "CBO" is obviously a satirical construct, and will be looked upon as such. It will take more than a funny website to get recognition as a legitimate CBO. That said, at least someone took it one step further and put that together. If anything is highlights some of the idiocy of what is going on with the hobby and congress.

Dick T.

My Feedback: (243)

Perhaps this will help those who do not want to navigate the entire 359 page Amendments document. The parts pertaining to model aviation is ten pages.

It looks to me it is pretty basic language. Most onerous are the sections about individual aeronautical knowledge/safety test and FAA certification of manufactured model aircraft. It is all pretty clear and not as restrictive as many believe.

I hope the PDF attachment uploads, if not send me a PM and I will email directly to you.

on_your_six

My Feedback: (11)

Please pick up your knuckles as you drag them by... they make a terrible scratching noise.

RichardGee

My Feedback: (156)

Agreed, except there is language also that indicates the FAA can decide what rules to enforce based upon THEIR prerogatives; no longer is the determinate: "activity that poses a danger." This leaves their authority essentially unchecked. Also, I see NOTHING in the exemptions for RC model aircraft that would include and exempt the RC model industry from FAA regulations? IF small modeling suppliers now must meet stringent FAA requirements for their products, it WILL put them out of business. The larger companies may stay in business, although the selection of items would likely be sorely diminished, and we could expect to see a spike in retail prices as well - which is ALWAYS the result of government regulations. And how about the PRIVATE SALE of RC models? I see nothing in any provision that would protect us from the onerous regulations imposed on the 'sellers' of RC aircraft? I may be over-thinking or overly cynical, but when it comes to taxing and regulation, the government and its many accountable bureaucracies KNOWS NO BOUNDS.

franklin_m

I maintain that subsection (b) in the special rules for model aircraft is the "Easter Egg" for the FAA. It spells out a process by which stakeholders can modify the operational rules for model aircraft outlined in subsection (a). While AMA would be a stakeholder I'm sure, so too would be Google, Amazon, AOPA, Airline Pilots, etc.

Last time stakeholders came together to get a consensus solution, we got registration

Next time stakeholders come together to get a consensus solution on operational rule updates, what do we think we'd get?

Dick T.

My Feedback: (243)

I guess a difficulty is many folks don't grasp is the FAA and the Federal Government are going to do as they damned well please as they are beholden to where the money is. Yes we may be seeing, in the foreseeable future, the end of model aviation as we know it now. The AMA is potato bits compared to the big stakeholders thus carrying little weight in consensus discussions.

However if all we have to contend with is registration, labeling our models, obeying altitude limits (what ever the final disposition), possibly taking a knowledge/safety test, assembling/building approved models (don't we already use radio systems approved by the FCC?) I will continue to enjoy this hobby as I have for over 50 years. I'm not going to spend my time worrying about what the FAA might do because, as with most aspects of our government today, they really don't care what we think.

I'm sure many people in our past railed against mandatory drivers licenses, vehicle registration, required insurance, smog tests, etc, etc.

I'll be the first one to apologize to the modeling community if AMA pulls off anything more constructive on our behalf. In my opinion the regulations and amendments are livable and I hope some of them don't make the final bill into law. We all can drive ourselves nuts with endless "what if's", but I'm not going to do that.

Someone asked in another thread why aren't the big hobby distributors making noise about this? I surmise their legal departments are closely monitoring the bill and see nothing yet that cannot be overcome with another mountain of government paperwork, fees and forms.

It ain't over till the fat lady sings and we may well find little has changed for us when the final version is written.

Until them I'm going flying.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

The end of the hobby?

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

+1....one of the best comments noted here in a long time! The only thing I would disagree with is apologizing....you would have nothing to apologize for on behalf of anyone, including the AMA.

flyalot

My Feedback: (63)

Well said DICK T. Let cooler heads prevail. Happy building, assembling, and flying: I've been at it over 60 years and still going strong!

rcmiket

That's been my thought since day one on the subject.

Mike

RC Pilot 007

just read great article. rc is old man hobby many passing on. clubs dying and need new blood or close. sad