Ron Stahl

My Feedback: (12)

Best post in weeks on the subject. Thanks to the folks working on this for us modelers.

pilott28

My Feedback: (27)

Just a heads up ... the Powerpoint Rich Hanson walked JPO members through in the 12/15 Webinar is now posted to the JPO web site. www.jetpilots.org

The recording had poor audio for the first 30 minutes, and it is being re-recorded by Dave and Rich. The full audio transcript will be posted to the JPO site some time early next week.

Thanks, Keith.

pilott28

My Feedback: (27)

Ok, guys, the webinar recording is now on the JPO site, front page. www.jetpilots.org

Sorry for the delay, but as you may know, Rich Hanson's headset died shortly after the start of the presentation and the audio quality was pretty poor til we got the the Q&A. Rich generously volunteered to re-record the audio and overlay it on the presentation.

Nothing new has really transpired over the holidays ... I would expect I will have another update for everyone after the FAA/AMA meetings in early January.

Thanks and Happy New Years to all.

Regards, Keith.

John Casey

My Feedback: (4)

I know we jet pilots have had enough the sky is falling stuff,
And I certainly don't want to add to it but
Was this missed.....???somehow...???

I found this posted on another RCU AMA section thread.....

http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_10...m.htm#10312632

Each . AMA pdf shows an internal file date of mid Nov 2010 in the documents

http://www.modelaircraft.org/files/FAA-onepage.pdf

http://www.modelaircraft.org/files/FAA-fourpage.pdf


Why were these even created by the AMA?
or were they?
Looks like pretty damming stuff.

rcjetsaok

My Feedback: (7)

I do not see any dates on those documents. Those restrictions were indeed proposed on the original proposal but my AMA District Rep. who's has attended many of the meetings in Muncie and Washington, said that those proposals were completley thrown out of the deal and new guidlines were being discussed. The FAA has in hand ( for the most part ) what they propose, but they want AMA to draft a proposal to address their proposal. The Obvious problem here is, How can AMA do that not knowing what the FAA have proposed... Thats the way in a nutshell it was explained to me.

DM

pilott28

My Feedback: (27)

I spoke to Dave last week as part of the routine follow up that the JPO does on the FAA regulatory process. Here is what I learned:

1) The recent meetings with the FAA have remained positive. There have really been no material changes in attitude or information since the webinar. Again, you may access the printed materials and the recording of the webinar on the JPO site www.jetpilots.org
2) The proposed date for the NPRM has not changed. It is still expected in July but may be delayed.
3) Dave had mentioned previously in his column that at some point, the modeling community would be wise to begin educating our elected representatives on our issues. This is not a panic reaction to any significant deterioration in FAA discussions or impending bans, but rather a thoughtful step. The AMA will soon ask the modeling community to partake in this effort.

As this call to action from the AMA takes place, there will be a natural reaction on the part of some modelers to overreact. I would strongly urge you not to do so. If people needlessly panic the unintended consequences, particularly for manufacturers, may in part become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Common sense would suggest:

1) Work with the AMA to the fullest extent possible to get the word out to elected representatives
2) Please don't post "the sky is falling" threads on RCU or other boards. The JPO is working hard to be a credible source of information for the jet community and we hope that you trust us.
3) Pass our updates along to other jet modelers who may not frequent the message boards so that they have accurate and timely information as well.
4) Please feel free to contact me or your JPO district VP if you have any questions or want further information. We all try to respond promptly to all emails and PMs.
5) For JPO members, we will host another webinar in the next 60 days to provide direct access to information from the AMA and another chance to ask them questions. Stay tuned.

Thanks, Keith.

John Casey

My Feedback: (4)

It's good to see the AMA pulled down the documents and pdfs off the site.

Thanks for the updated information, having thoses pdfs hanging out there was not a good thing.

trioval00

My Feedback: (17)

they are still there, Look at the new page, main page top right hand corner. you will see under the search window "documents"

http://modelaircraft.org/documents.aspx

maxvertical

After talking to Bruce Nelson AMA's District XI VP at our annual meeting, there appears to be an accountability issue inside AMA when it comes to matters of the website. Bruce admits that these are priority items that are in need or are being addressed. I interpreted this to mean that the website could have outdated / stale information due to the individuals that run the site. Items of interest could be posted without the approval or knowledge of AMA’s EC. At a point in time where we need dependable accurate communication and we find it’s possible to have inaccurate outdated materials. No the sky isn’t falling but the info that creeps onto AMA’s website still needs to be accurate and current.
CR

John Casey

My Feedback: (4)

The other thing that needs to be addressed internal to the AMA is:
Don't even create a "position statement", unless you plan on really....."Taking that position".
The creation of that document itself was putting the cart before the horse.
No reason to clinch a fist if your not going to throw a punch at somebody.
In the AMA 's defense, I can only surmise they were just "preparing for the worst",
and had things ready to go .....just in case.

corch

My Feedback: (1)

Glad to see there is at least one group that has a plan and is working to maintain a sensible course of action around here. Some of the other forums here (AMA, Warbirds, etc) seem to have gone off the deep end on this issue. Thank you for the updates.

Mark Basel

My Feedback: (24)

Early this morning I saw a thread by an individual that suggested we boycott "stores" that sell UAV/UAS equipment. This guy was jumped on early and hard as a nut job. Now the thread is gone and I wondering exactly he was talking about? Unrelated to this I was also looking at BVM's web site and the latest required reading and good news. I Googled S.223 to read more ofwhatthis lawwould representand came a crossed this web site. www.diydrones.com They have just about everytopic you care to look into about UAV/UAS systems.

I believe this is a serious site,justas much as RCU. Right now the members appear to be spitting mad about the AMA "back dooring the process" with Senator Inhofe. Frankly I find it amazing what they are doing with UAV/UAS's on this site!!!! From just the little I have read, they are serious UAV/UAS enthusiast and are determined toblock the Inhofeamendment and for a lack of better wordsarethumbing their collative noses atRC aviation.


Justmy 2centsand maybe the gentlemen has orhad avalid point, unfortunately he was run out on a rail. I hopeyou all don't do that to me!!!!

check out thiswebsite foryourselfand make your own conclusions ,IMAO we need to continue to be proactive and not relax just yet.Alsoletsnot be to quick to condemn otherswho useRCU for enjoyment and information,useful or otherwise.

Mark Basel<o></o>

rcmigpilot

My Feedback: (26)

According to the Library of Congress web page the the FAA appropriations bill to which the Inhofe amendment is attached passed the senate by a vote of 87 to 8 on 2/17. If the UAV guys don't like the amendment they'll have to find a way to have it pulled from the house version of the bill. If they change the bill in the house, it has to go back to the senate where it will undoubtedly be added back. Anybody else here think there's a chance that the UAV guys that have been flying under the radar (pun intended), acting like hobbyists, when they were really commercial concerns and now they're mad that they're going to have to play by the rules? Don't get me wrong, I'm sure there are some UAV hobbyists that will be adversely effected, but it kind of pales in comparison when you consider that, with a few exceptions, everyone in the AMA is a hobbyist.

rhklenke

My Feedback: (24)

The guys on diydrones want to be able to fly UAS without any regulation, and that just ain't going to happen. There are a lot of AMA guys who are involved in UAS on the professional side and UAS companies and professional UAS pilots are just waiting for the FAA to issue the sUAS rules and they will then comply with them and be able to go back to flying - in accordance with the new FAA sUAS regulations. Simple as that.

Its the "UAS hobbiest" segment that has the problem, and quite frankly, as an AMA member and someone who does UAS work for pay, I couldn't care less. If the diy UAS folks want to fly, then they too, can comply with the sUAS regulations, OR they can form their own national organization, come up with a set of FAA-approved safety rules, and fly under the "except" part that was in the draft of the sUAS regulations. Either way, it has nothing to do with AMA, because AMA *doesn't do UASs*, just un-aided line-of-sight model aircraft, and we should keep it that way.

BTW, if you read the "rants" on the diydrones website (mainly by just one guy), they mistakenly think that the Inofe amendment does some harm to them, and it doesn't, it just exempts recreational model aircraft from FAA regulation - any type of UAS is still in the same FAA-driven boat it was before the amendment was proposed...

Bob

AndyAndrews

Good news today from my Senator:

-

March 10, 2011


Dear Mr. Andrews,

Thank you for contacting me regarding the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Air Transportation Modernization and Safety Improvement Act and your interest in model aircraft. I appreciate hearing from you.

I appreciate you taking the time to share your concerns regarding model aircraft use. I recognize and appreciate the important role of model aircraft for recreation and academic purposes. That is why I voted for the bipartisan legislation S. 223, the FAA Air Transportation Modernization and Safety Improvement Act, which passed the Senate on February 17, 2011, with a vote of 87-8. This bill would not permit the FAA to promulgate any rules or regulations restricting the use of model aircraft for recreation or academic purpose. As a member of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, I will certainly keep your views in mind as the Senate considers further legislation related to model aircrafts.

Thank you for bringing your views to my attention. I always welcome your input. Please do not hesitate to contact me or my office regarding this or any other matter of concern to you.

Sincerely,

Mark Pryor
United States Senate

causeitflies

I received this about a week ago:


Dear Mr. Palmer:

Thank you for sharing your thoughts with me on S. 223, the FAA Air Transportation Modernization and Safety Improvement Act.

Air travel in the United States should be the safest and most efficient in the world. However, I share your concerns over unnecessary regulations on model airplanes. On February 17, 2011, the Senate approved S. 223 with the inclusion of an amendment that would remove model airplanes from FAA regulation of unmanned aircraft.

As this legislation continues to move through the legislative process, I will be sure to keep your comments in mind. Thank you again for getting in touch with me.

Sincerely,

Sherrod Brown
United States Senator

Edgar Perez

My Feedback: (13)

I'm sure its too early to claim victory, but imagine what could have happened (and still can happen) without a credible national body to represent the model airplane hobbyist.[X(]

AndyAndrews

I'm impressed! Just recieved a hand signed letter from our Congressman Tim Griffin. Unlike the indignant dribble from other Congressmen like that charlatan Al Franken, this letter shows that our Congressman cares about this issue and also cares about hearing from his constituents.

757Driver

My Feedback: (90)

Cool. Thanks for sharing guys.

sskianpour

My Feedback: (2)

Hey Guys, when are we expecting to hear from FAA? Aren't we close to getting a sniff about what they have in mind? Fingers Crossed!

Shaz

trioval00

My Feedback: (17)

There is a rumor that the FAA will release said info in a few months, maybe early 2012 now.....

Bird of Paradise

My Feedback: (4)

During our FAA Standards Workgroup meeting at Joe Nall, we were told that the NPRM would be released in late 2011. This represents a significant delay as the rule was expected in April/May of this year. Whether or not the rule is released later this year remains to be seen.

To learn the latest watch for article in Model Aviation or go to: [link]http://www.modelaircraft.org/aboutama/more.aspx[/link]

Mike
Recording Secretary FAA Standards Workgroup

L Turner

My Feedback: (3)

Any word about the Conference Committee results on the FAA reauthorization bill language (Yes= including the amendment to S223 excluding RC Model aircraft from FAA Regs, no=the House version of the bill) that will go to the president?

AndyAndrews

Any news on this topic?