Circle the wagons ! It's Senator writing time !!!!
04-12-2016, 12:12 PM
#1
Circle the wagons ! It's Senator writing time !!!!
Anyone else get the "Write your Senator NOW ! Email from the AMA ?
Sounds like the bleep is about to hit the fan , regulations wise .
Sounds like the bleep is about to hit the fan , regulations wise .
04-12-2016, 12:28 PM
#2
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Orange County CA
Posts: 1,170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LOL I said this a month ago. Now the AMA wants us to act? Below is information that should help you contact your representatives
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.
04-12-2016, 12:29 PM
#3
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Orange County CA
Posts: 1,170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If above is too much work for you, then here is an easy peasy link that AMA has created to help you contact your reps. http://salsa4.salsalabs.com/o/51579/...tion_KEY=18287
04-12-2016, 12:32 PM
#4
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Orange County CA
Posts: 1,170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Also, don't forget if you live in Florida, you have Senator Nelson working against us. Make sure you pay him extra special attention. Here is a link of him saying our hobby is dangerous and public shouldn't be allowed to use the air space. http://www.c-span.org/video/?c457655...-speech-drones
04-12-2016, 12:55 PM
#5
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Orange County,
CA
Posts: 5,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Has anyone read the actual amendment??
It retains BOTH the altitude limits as part of the Section 2129 - 44808 definition of what a hobby operation is AND the requirement for testing.
https://www.modelaircraft.org/files/Inhofe3596.pdf
https://www.modelaircraft.org/files/S2658_4-4-16.pdf
It retains BOTH the altitude limits as part of the Section 2129 - 44808 definition of what a hobby operation is AND the requirement for testing.
https://www.modelaircraft.org/files/Inhofe3596.pdf
https://www.modelaircraft.org/files/S2658_4-4-16.pdf
04-12-2016, 01:04 PM
#6
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Orange County,
CA
Posts: 5,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AMA response:
Hi Bill,
We have an amendment in place to resolve the 400 foot limit. Ideally we want the limit removed entirely, but initially the Senate only agreed to accept an amendment that exempts AMA members. This amendment is not part of the Inhofe amendment, but it is in place. As for the test, we believe it should be removed. If our ask is denied, we believe members should be exempt or be permitted to take a test through the AMA (perhaps as part of the renewal process). Inhofe's amendment does address the test portion.Know that we are still early in this process. The House hasn't voted on their version yet, which appears to not have any major issues and actually includes some extra protections we submitted. Then the two bills go through another round of revisions and amendments with a whole new committee. Considering this is a key election year, there is also a chance this process may stall and roll into 2017.Chad BudreauAcademy of Model AeronauticsPublic Relations and Government Affairs765.287.1256 x227
We have an amendment in place to resolve the 400 foot limit. Ideally we want the limit removed entirely, but initially the Senate only agreed to accept an amendment that exempts AMA members. This amendment is not part of the Inhofe amendment, but it is in place. As for the test, we believe it should be removed. If our ask is denied, we believe members should be exempt or be permitted to take a test through the AMA (perhaps as part of the renewal process). Inhofe's amendment does address the test portion.Know that we are still early in this process. The House hasn't voted on their version yet, which appears to not have any major issues and actually includes some extra protections we submitted. Then the two bills go through another round of revisions and amendments with a whole new committee. Considering this is a key election year, there is also a chance this process may stall and roll into 2017.Chad BudreauAcademy of Model AeronauticsPublic Relations and Government Affairs765.287.1256 x227
04-12-2016, 01:20 PM
#7
Has anyone read the actual amendment??
It retains BOTH the altitude limits as part of the Section 2129 - 44808 definition of what a hobby operation is AND the requirement for testing.
https://www.modelaircraft.org/files/Inhofe3596.pdf
https://www.modelaircraft.org/files/S2658_4-4-16.pdf
It retains BOTH the altitude limits as part of the Section 2129 - 44808 definition of what a hobby operation is AND the requirement for testing.
https://www.modelaircraft.org/files/Inhofe3596.pdf
https://www.modelaircraft.org/files/S2658_4-4-16.pdf
04-12-2016, 03:02 PM
#9
I'd like to know exactly WHEN Bill got that response from Chad ? I got the Email at 4:00 (ish) this afternoon , so if Bill's communication from Chad is any older than 4:00 this afternoon I'd say it means exactly nothing , with regards to today's 4:00 AMA Email !
So , Bill , ya gonna answer when you got that communication from Chad ?
04-12-2016, 03:27 PM
#10
I'd like to know exactly WHEN Bill got that response from Chad ? I got the Email at 4:00 (ish) this afternoon , so if Bill's communication from Chad is any older than 4:00 this afternoon I'd say it means exactly nothing , with regards to today's 4:00 AMA Email !
So , Bill , ya gonna answer when you got that communication from Chad ?
http://amablog.modelaircraft.org/ama...he-senate-now/
04-12-2016, 03:49 PM
#11
See Chad's comment here @ 17:03:
http://amablog.modelaircraft.org/ama...he-senate-now/
http://amablog.modelaircraft.org/ama...he-senate-now/
04-12-2016, 05:04 PM
#13
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: El Paso,
TX
Posts: 5,277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Didn't we all do that when the whole registration deal was being proposed? Lots of "well written letters" along with comments during the open comment period were sent and blown off by those who received them. While I'll send mine I have no reason to expect a different outcome this time.
Maybe all the "droners" will join the letter writing campaign.
Mike
Last edited by rcmiket; 04-12-2016 at 05:06 PM.
04-12-2016, 09:47 PM
#14
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Orange County,
CA
Posts: 5,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd like to know exactly WHEN Bill got that response from Chad ? I got the Email at 4:00 (ish) this afternoon , so if Bill's communication from Chad is any older than 4:00 this afternoon I'd say it means exactly nothing , with regards to today's 4:00 AMA Email !
So , Bill , ya gonna answer when you got that communication from Chad ?
To clear up any other confusion I got the email AFTER the call to arms email was sent. I emailed Chad in response to that because after looking at the amendment itself I had concerns. What I posted was Chad's response to my email voicing those concerns to the call to arms email blast.
Last edited by Silent-AV8R; 04-12-2016 at 09:53 PM.
04-13-2016, 02:34 AM
#15
Not sure why you think it is a big secret. I received his email at 1:59 pm PDT (4:59 EDT)
To clear up any other confusion I got the email AFTER the call to arms email was sent. I emailed Chad in response to that because after looking at the amendment itself I had concerns. What I posted was Chad's response to my email voicing those concerns to the call to arms email blast.
To clear up any other confusion I got the email AFTER the call to arms email was sent. I emailed Chad in response to that because after looking at the amendment itself I had concerns. What I posted was Chad's response to my email voicing those concerns to the call to arms email blast.
One way or another the hard 400 foot thing and the no home building thing are the two biggest things that gotta go !
04-13-2016, 07:57 AM
#16
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Orange County CA
Posts: 1,170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Didn't we all do that when the whole registration deal was being proposed? Lots of "well written letters" along with comments during the open comment period were sent and blown off by those who received them. While I'll send mine I have no reason to expect a different outcome this time.
Maybe all the "droners" will join the letter writing campaign.
Mike
Maybe all the "droners" will join the letter writing campaign.
Mike
04-13-2016, 08:05 AM
#17
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: El Paso,
TX
Posts: 5,277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's apparent isn't it? It fell on deaf ears who have no respect for what we do and how we do it. This time they will listen? Doubtful as past efforts have proven.
I did as asked and I'm willing to bet the result will be the same, another burden placed on law abiding modelers.
There's a huge difference between a "defeatist attitude" and being realistic. I'm communicating with the AMA and my elected officials and building airplanes ( which they now have a issue with) and flying that's not sitting around doing nothing on my book.
Where's the millions of "droners" who caused this who mess are they doing the same? Nope there still doing what they have always done causing the issue. I've been involved since day one and very disappointed ( and have every right to be)in our CBO that's being slapped around at every turn in this mess,so don't preach to me about all this.
MIker
Last edited by rcmiket; 04-13-2016 at 08:15 AM.
04-13-2016, 08:41 AM
#18
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
"No one gives a rats ass if we did this before"
That's apparent isn't it? It fell on deaf ears who have no respect for what we do and how we do it. This time they will listen? Doubtful as past efforts have proven.
I did as asked and I'm willing to bet the result will be the same, another burden placed on law abiding modelers.
There's a huge difference between a "defeatist attitude" and being realistic. I'm communicating with the AMA and my elected officials and building airplanes ( which they now have a issue with) and flying that's not sitting around doing nothing on my book.
Where's the millions of "droners" who caused this who mess are they doing the same? Nope there still doing what they have always done causing the issue. I've been involved since day one and very disappointed ( and have every right to be)in our CBO that's being slapped around at every turn in this mess,so don't preach to me about all this.
MIker
That's apparent isn't it? It fell on deaf ears who have no respect for what we do and how we do it. This time they will listen? Doubtful as past efforts have proven.
I did as asked and I'm willing to bet the result will be the same, another burden placed on law abiding modelers.
There's a huge difference between a "defeatist attitude" and being realistic. I'm communicating with the AMA and my elected officials and building airplanes ( which they now have a issue with) and flying that's not sitting around doing nothing on my book.
Where's the millions of "droners" who caused this who mess are they doing the same? Nope there still doing what they have always done causing the issue. I've been involved since day one and very disappointed ( and have every right to be)in our CBO that's being slapped around at every turn in this mess,so don't preach to me about all this.
MIker
More blame la
04-13-2016, 10:16 AM
#20
* At what point of mandatory , costly airworthiness inspections are the small manufacturers just gonna up & decide there is no more profitability in marketing model airplanes any longer , when this latest regulatory punch to the head begins to be felt ?
Last edited by init4fun; 04-13-2016 at 11:17 AM.
04-13-2016, 10:21 AM
#21
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
I agree 100% that well written letters that calmly & rationally explain how "traditional" LOS RC flight is not "the problem" they are trying to solve with regulation are our best defense on a personal level , but I really think their should be more media coverage of how yet another American hobby is being regulated out of business * . I hear exactly nothing about any of this except how the FAA is enacting new "drone" regulation without one mention of the existing hobby that's being squeezed between the Drones & the FAA on my nightly news at 6:00 . And our AMA really needed to further blur that line , just so a few pollyanas could be able to come to the forums & sing Kumbaya , we'll all so politically correct & inclusive ?
* At what point of mandatory , costly airworthiness inspections are the small manufacturers just gonna up & decide there is no more profitability in marketing model airplanes any longer , when this latest regulatory punch to the head begins to be felt ?
* At what point of mandatory , costly airworthiness inspections are the small manufacturers just gonna up & decide there is no more profitability in marketing model airplanes any longer , when this latest regulatory punch to the head begins to be felt ?
04-13-2016, 11:54 AM
#22
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Orange County CA
Posts: 1,170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We will adjust. Consumers will have to pay a little more for the products. Currently our radios have to be submitted to the FCC for testing. So if this bill passes the same will be applied to the air frames. What I would be more worried about is how approving air frames will bring on more regulation in the name of safety. Such as standards of how a wing should be built and to what standards.
04-13-2016, 12:03 PM
#24
We will adjust. Consumers will have to pay a little more for the products. Currently our radios have to be submitted to the FCC for testing. So if this bill passes the same will be applied to the air frames. What I would be more worried about is how approving air frames will bring on more regulation in the name of safety. Such as standards of how a wing should be built and to what standards.
04-13-2016, 04:20 PM
#25
The first question that a well informed Congressman will ask is "Why does it appear that your Parent Organization have an obvious vested interest in the type of models that are causing 100% of the membership who have contacted my office so much grief...?
