quote:

ORIGINAL: Sport_Pilot

quote:

ORIGINAL: Silent-AV8R

Interestingly enough, the FAA never intended to include or address free flight, since they are only concerned about aircraft that are capable of navigation. But they do have rules about rockets, especially high altitude rockets.

So a 10,000 pound free flight would be OK?

quote:

ORIGINAL: KidEpoxy

wow
again, we see the Silent Standard could be used for FPV:

quote:

Your snide inference aside, I have not made any statements regarding

quote:

I do know that based on the safe, accident and incident free flying of thousands of soaring pilots doing literally 10's of thousand of flights per year for the past 30 years that soaring can, and is, done safely.

quote:

ORIGINAL: KidEpoxy

does your club go above the 400' cap in the House text?
..........................

quote:



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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thomas B
Where do you see anything about any 400 foot altitude cap anywhere in the House of Representatives verbage?

quote:

ORIGINAL: bkdavy

Committee report was agreed to in the Senate today by a vote of 75 to 20 (5 not voting). Next step should be Presidents signature.

Interesting that the vote in the House on the committee report was pretty split along partison lines (Democrats mostly against), but an overwhelming majority in the Democrat controlled Senate.

I suspect this legislation will further delay publication of the NPRM, as the FAA will have to reconcile the proposed rule against the legislation.

For those that are interested, the version that was voted on is in the conferenc report, and can be located at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CRPT-112hrpt381/pdf/CRPT-112hrpt381.pdf

Brad

quote:

ORIGINAL: Silent-AV8R




Beats me. All I know is that from what I have been told the coming regulations only apply to aircraft that are capable of being navigated. Free flight and control line are not considered to meet the definition of a sUAS according to the FAA. Perhaps you can contact them and ask your question.

quote:

They're referring to the old FAA Advisory Circular 91-57(Read it Here) which, to date, is about the only guidance that the FAA has issued in regards to model airplanes.

quote:

ORIGINAL: KidEpoxy

Harvey

quote:

They're referring to the old FAA Advisory Circular 91-57(Read it Here) which, to date, is about the only guidance that the FAA has issued in regards to model airplanes.

you can get a more recent view of 400' in FAA texts-
July 2011 (updated) sUAS Fact Sheet pg1 mentions models generally limited to 400'
July 2010 sUAS Fact Sheet pg1 also had that 400'
Apr 2009 sUAS ARC (just recomendations to FAA, not FAA telling us what to do) has 400'
Feb 2007 'policy07' pg5 has the 400'

no, I wasnt channeling the 30yo ghost of AC91-57, but the texts going on over past 5 years

quote:

In this section the term ``nationwide community-based organization'' is intended to mean a membership based association that
represents the aeromodeling community within the United States; provides its members a comprehensive set of safety guidelines that underscores safe aeromodeling operations within the National Airspace System and the protection and safety of the general public on the ground; develops and maintains mutually supportive programming with educational institutions, government entities and other aviation associations; and acts as a liaison with government agencies as an advocate for its members.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Silent-AV8R

quote:

ORIGINAL: KidEpoxy

Harvey

quote:

They're referring to the old FAA Advisory Circular 91-57(Read it Here) which, to date, is about the only guidance that the FAA has issued in regards to model airplanes.

you can get a more recent view of 400' in FAA texts-
July 2011 (updated) sUAS Fact Sheet pg1 mentions models generally limited to 400'
July 2010 sUAS Fact Sheet pg1 also had that 400'
Apr 2009 sUAS ARC (just recomendations to FAA, not FAA telling us what to do) has 400'
Feb 2007 'policy07' pg5 has the 400'

no, I wasnt channeling the 30yo ghost of AC91-57, but the texts going on over past 5 years

And every single one of those reference AC 91-57. Which will be null and void for the most part once the President signs the FAA Reauthorization Bill. Section 336 of that bill has no mention of altitude limits of any kind. Of course the Bill does require participation in a CBO program, which to many is an evil unto itself, but for those folks they can sit back and wait for what the FAA has in store for them, and then complain that the AMA did not do more for them. It is a true ''Win-Win'' for the AMA haters.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Silent-AV8R





And every single one of those reference AC 91-57. Which will be null and void for the most part once the President signs the FAA Reauthorization Bill.

quote:

The way I understand it, the FAA's not out of the picture.

quote:

If at some future time FAA says it wants CBOs to stop doing XXX,
this bill says the FAA cant make a rule or reg to stop CBOs from doing it.
However, if (as folks her like to believe) the FAA is allowed to control CBOS by having Accept/Decline power over the cbo standards,
then the FAA will not need a reg or rule to end cbos doing XXX,
they simply no longer Accept cbo standards that have XXX in them

quote:

Regs have a NPRM and comment period,
what this bill does is let FAA take all those regs they would have had to go thru procedures to make,
and let them just 'decline' any cbo standards that have that activity in it.

This bill could actually be removing CBOs ability to NPRM Comment protest whatever restrictions the FAA feels like putting on models. S233 dont stop the FAA from making whatever regs it wants against models, and s223 does nothing to protect cbos from those regs from being imposed onto CBO modeling by simply not accepting their standards

With this bill, The FAA still has an unchecked free reign to impose the "burden of FAA regs over the Model Hobby",

quote:

quote:

In this section the term ``nationwide community-based organization'' is intended to mean a membership based association that
represents the aeromodeling community within the United States; provides its members a comprehensive set of safety guidelines that underscores safe aeromodeling operations within the National Airspace System and the protection and safety of the general public on the ground; develops and maintains mutually supportive programming with educational institutions, government entities and other aviation associations; and acts as a liaison with government agencies as an advocate for its members.

quote:

ORIGINAL: littlecrankshaf

quote:

ORIGINAL: Silent-AV8R

And every single one of those reference AC 91-57. Which will be null and void for the most part once the President signs the FAA Reauthorization Bill.

Not sure how you see an advisory would be mitigated or have less weight if the bill is signed into law...or how it has more weight now... I can only image you meant if FAA were to make ''the advisory'' into a compulsory regulation in an attempt not regulate model aviation as per AMA. Dang, what did I just say? (shaking head)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Silent-AV8R

quote:

ORIGINAL: KidEpoxy

Harvey

quote:

They're referring to the old FAA Advisory Circular 91-57(Read it Here) which, to date, is about the only guidance that the FAA has issued in regards to model airplanes.

you can get a more recent view of 400' in FAA texts-
July 2011 (updated) sUAS Fact Sheet pg1 mentions models generally limited to 400'
July 2010 sUAS Fact Sheet pg1 also had that 400'
Apr 2009 sUAS ARC (just recomendations to FAA, not FAA telling us what to do) has 400'
Feb 2007 'policy07' pg5 has the 400'

no, I wasnt channeling the 30yo ghost of AC91-57, but the texts going on over past 5 years

And every single one of those reference AC 91-57. Which will be null and void for the most part once the President signs the FAA Reauthorization Bill. Section 336 of that bill has no mention of altitude limits of any kind. Of course the Bill does require participation in a CBO program, which to many is an evil unto itself, but for those folks they can sit back and wait for what the FAA has in store for them, and then complain that the AMA did not do more for them. It is a true "Win-Win" for the AMA haters.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Silent-AV8R

quote:

ORIGINAL: littlecrankshaf

quote:

ORIGINAL: Silent-AV8R

And every single one of those reference AC 91-57. Which will be null and void for the most part once the President signs the FAA Reauthorization Bill.

Not sure how you see an advisory would be mitigated or have less weight if the bill is signed into law...or how it has more weight now... I can only image you meant if FAA were to make ''the advisory'' into a compulsory regulation in an attempt not regulate model aviation as per AMA. Dang, what did I just say? (shaking head)

It is all in the ''if'' in the legislation. ''If'' you meet all the requirements as set forth in the bill then you are an exempted from FAA hobby aircraft operations. Therefore you are not subject to regulations.

''If'' you are not operating as defined in the legislation, then you are still subject to any and all FAA regulations that pertain to models.

Take some time to actually read the legislation itself and it is fairly clear.