Senate Version of FAA bill will destroy model aviation
 

It will establish a 400 foot altitude cap and require a test in order to be considered a model aircraft!!!!

http://www.commerce.senate.gov/publi...-bill-text.pdf

I admit it, I'm too lazy at this point to read through 289 pages tonight...any chance you have the page or specific language that will be destroying model aviation?

Section 2129 - Special Rule for Model Aircraft in Part II - Unmanned Aircraft.

Starts on page 85 (page numbers at top of each page).

these are 2 parts that concern me greatly. They are part of what defines a model operation for the sake of being exempt from FAA regulation (like Section 336 before it):

So it would end RC soaring, IMAC, pattern and jets. If you do not do any of those then I guess it is no big deal to you as long as you are OK with having to pass an FAA test in order to fly your models.

And it will require permission from the airport to fly a model if you are within five miles of an airport. Like its predecessors, it doesn't define "airport." The definition of airport in the FARs includes all airports, including some farmer with a grass strip who flies maybe a couple of times a year. If you draw a five-mile circle around each of those airports, there's not much left. The county in which I live has one public airport and one private airport that's shown on the sectional chart (though hardly anyone uses it). But there are eleven others listed on the FAA's web site. I think all three of the clubs in the county are within five miles of at least one of these.

This is only the Senate's proposal, of course, so the final bill may not be this extreme. Still, it's something to worry about.

The FAA's "Know Before You Fly" site has a map showing these five-mile circles (which the FAA says are the areas within which we have to notify airports when we fly). As I feared, they include every airport, however small, listed with the FAA. Looking at their map is an interesting, if depressing, experience.

Oh Boy, I just can't wait to see how this works out.

Mike

Now is when we need to contact our state senator and tell them our views and to stop this bill.

I can't believe they want us to be in a public data base, have an airman's card and and certificate of airworthiness to fly an airplane. Senator Cantwell will be hearing from me on why this is a bunch of bull. Having said that, I will also be asking about soaring, jets and such since they are affected by this more than a trainer or warbird would be.

Don't forget scale and pattern aerobatics. The box is one thousand feet tall. Not many giant scale aerobatic planes can stay below 400 feet and do any vertical maneuver.

I'm all for it, this will make shooting down drones easier they won't be flying so high.

Well maybe we should start by shooting down your models, aka drones.

I don't know about IMAC and soaring but this does not affect jets any more or less than any other power plant .

I don't like it and will support fighting it, to be clear

If the jets want to do vertical maneuvers then 400 feet is not enough.

Anyone know which senator's staff wrote this proposal? Nice to know who our enemies are.

nelson of Florida. He talked about it all the time, never had a clue about what he was talking about IMO. He thinks its just about MR flying into airports.

Here's something that should be far more concerning and even outrageous than anything I've seen written about in these forums.

http://gizmodo.com/military-drones-h...eil-1763986237

http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/...1zpwi9ismp.png

Ironically, the Govenor of CA asked for the use of these aircraft the most. Nice.

So where is all the outrage on this? Scathing letters to the government forthcoming?

I see nothing concerning or outrageous if only used for search and rescue or finding flood victems. Some appear to be exercises, but could be anything.

I also noted language on pg87 line 5 through pg88 line 4"

"(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 [emphasis added]"

I read that as giving FAA clear authority to change operational limitations as they find necessary. Sure, they have to nominally do it collaboratively, but then remember that the registration thing was done the same way - in collaboration with stakeholders. I think it's safe to assume that while AMA is one of those stakeholders, many of the others are much less friendly. Lastly, I see that they specifically charge FAA to "mitigate aviation safety risk and risk to the uninvolved public" through operational limitations. I see that as a pretty substantial hammer for the FAA to swing if they choose to do so.

Should be interesting to see how this shapes up.

Read it all. That you see nothing concerning but out of the other side of your mouth you say it could be anything.....is odd.

What imbeciles prompted Congress to get into the business of regulating model airplanes?

Noting there, they say within the law. No proof that it isn't. Can't see much from a drone anyway. Unless nude sunbathing, or leaving illegal stuff outside. Where is the yawn symbol. I suggest you take it to a lefty political forum and we talk about the Feds destroying model aviation and our rights.

Wow....thin skinned much, weren't you the one whining like a baby to the mods when someone was trying to shut your inane conversation? There's nothing "lefty" about the link or the story, I know you like shooting from the hip but try reading it again, as well as comments.

Hmm...that would be our elected officials.

Hopefully this will never pass the senate floor that way it is worded.

This is the biggest concern I see (pages 86 and 87, following essentially the AMA rules we currently have):

"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."

(The discussion of the test contents begins on page 89.) While I'm sure there would be loud howls of outrage, maybe this is the step needed? Perhaps . . . combined with some 'make an example of' fines for the idiots caught causing the problems?

It is just allegations and IMO not that shocking. Not as bad as this and nothing to do with model airplanes.