RC Jets Discuss RC jets in this forum plus rc turbines and ducted fan power systems

FAAs new rules interpretation

Reply
Old 06-25-2014, 05:28 PM
  #51
rhklenke
 
rhklenke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 5,514
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by docfly View Post
Faa rule is 400 feet anywhere. Ama rule added a comma years ago to change the interpretation to 400 feet within 5 miles of an airport. Difficult to fly a turbine under 400 feet . It takes a deliberate attempt to do a loop under 400 feet. I know, I fly with telemetry.
It is NOT a rule - that's part of the point...

Bob
rhklenke is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2014, 04:45 AM
  #52
Sport_Pilot
 
Sport_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 16,914
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by docfly View Post
Faa rule is 400 feet anywhere. Ama rule added a comma years ago to change the interpretation to 400 feet within 5 miles of an airport. Difficult to fly a turbine under 400 feet . It takes a deliberate attempt to do a loop under 400 feet. I know, I fly with telemetry.
The FAA never had a rule, they had an advisory of 400 feet. The same applied to flying near airports, it was not against the law or regulations to fly RC near an airport, but a voluntary advisory not to do so. Now it is against the law to fly near airports. Nevermind it was never a big problem.
Sport_Pilot is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2014, 04:58 AM
  #53
Chris Smith
 
Chris Smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Adams TN, Berea KY
Posts: 814
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Bob nailed it again. Some of us fly turbine models and full scale. The proliferation of quad-copters is going to grow as a problem. Many of these people are not model aviators. They don't give two-hoots about airspace issues, model airplanes, etc.

In full scale helo flying quad-copters are a real potential threat. However, no one wants to see them banned yet. Idiot operators combined with large powerful government may take it out of AMA's hands eventually.


In Model aviation we bring it on ourselves sometimes. In jets we meet at airports. It's surprising that hasn't resulted in more problems. We love the large runways. Ever wonder though,how full scale pilots may feel if they can't get in and out of their airport and their hangars are blocked by RVs and people? If we haven't wondered about that, then that's part of the problem.
Chris Smith is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2014, 05:26 AM
  #54
Sport_Pilot
 
Sport_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 16,914
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Smith View Post
Bob nailed it again. Some of us fly turbine models and full scale. The proliferation of quad-copters is going to grow as a problem. Many of these people are not model aviators. They don't give two-hoots about airspace issues, model airplanes, etc.

In full scale helo flying quad-copters are a real potential threat. However, no one wants to see them banned yet. Idiot operators combined with large powerful government may take it out of AMA's hands eventually.


In Model aviation we bring it on ourselves sometimes. In jets we meet at airports. It's surprising that hasn't resulted in more problems. We love the large runways. Ever wonder though,how full scale pilots may feel if they can't get in and out of their airport and their hangars are blocked by RVs and people? If we haven't wondered about that, then that's part of the problem.
Very good points! The AMA will have to have a large legal fund in the future.
Sport_Pilot is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2014, 05:33 AM
  #55
flyinfool1
Thread Starter
 
flyinfool1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Cudahy, WI
Posts: 761
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

The AMA has now sent out this email alert;

To view this email as a web page, go here.
[TABLE="width: 600, align: center"]
[TR]
[TD][TABLE="width: 100%"]
[TR]
[TD] [TABLE="width: 100%"]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD][TABLE="width: 100%"]
[TR]
[TD="width: 10"][/TD]
[TD] [TABLE="width: 100%"]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD] [TABLE="width: 100%"]
[TR]
[TD="width: 33%, align: left"][/TD]
[TD="width: 2%"][/TD]
[TD="width: 65%, align: left"][/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: left"][TABLE="width: 100%"]
[TR]
[TD][TABLE="width: 100%"]
[TR]
[TD]Dear Jeffrey,
On Monday, June 23[SUP]rd[/SUP], the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) released an Interpretive Rule in which it presented FAA's interpretation of the "Special Rule for Model Aircraft" established by Congress in the FAA modernization and Reform Act of 2012. The Academy has reviewed the rule and is extremely disappointed and troubled by the approach the FAA has chosen to take in regards to this issue
In its Press Release the FAA stated it was, "issuing the notice to provide clear guidance to model operators on the "do's and don'ts" of flying safely in accordance with the Act and to answer many of the questions it has received regarding the scope and application of the rules." It also stated, "(this) guidance comes after recent incidents involving the reckless use of unmanned model aircraft near airports and involving large crowds of people." It's important to note that very few of these cases have been factually documented and not a single incident was shown to involve a member of the AMA or to be connected in any way to modeling operations conducted under the auspices of the special rule.
In AMA's response to the rule it was pointed out that, "The FAA interpretive rule effectively negates Congress' intentions, and is contrary to the law. Section 336(a) of the Public Law states that, 'the Federal Aviation Administration may not promulgate any rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft...', this interpretive rule specifically addresses model aircraft, effectively establishes rules that model aircraft were not previously subject to and is in direct violation of the congressional mandate in the 2012 FAA reauthorization bill."
AMA has voiced its opposition to FAA's action and will pursue all available recourse to dissuade enactment of this rule. It's important that every AMA member becomes involved in the effort.
The first step is to respond to the public comment period established in the notice. Look for a follow-up email from AMA with information on how to respond to the FAA notice. This is your opportunity to express your views and to comment on various aspects of the Interpretive Rule. It's important for the Administration to know that this rule significantly impacts the entire aeromodeling community and that this community is resolute and committed to protecting the hobby. In this case silence IS NOT golden.

Please alert your friends, family members and fellow modelers regarding this issue.
Thank you,
AMA Government Relations[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: left"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: left"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: left"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: left"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: left"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: left"][TABLE="width: 100%"]
[TR]
[TD][TABLE="width: 100%"]
[TR]
[TD][TABLE="class: yiv0680487983dashedBorder, width: 600"]
[TR]
[TD="align: left"][/TD]
[TD] [TABLE="class: yiv0680487983dashedBorder, width: 580"]
[TR]
[TD="align: left"]© 1936-2014 Academy of Model Aeronautics.
5161 E. Memorial Dr., Muncie IN 47302
Tel.: (800) 435-9262; Fax.: (765) 289-4248
All rights reserved.
[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #666666, align: right"]
www.modelaircraft.org
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[/TD]
[TD="align: left"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD="align: center"]For comments on this communication please email marketing@modelaircraft.org. To unsubscribe clic

[/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[/TD]
[TD="width: 10"][/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
flyinfool1 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2014, 06:02 AM
  #56
rhklenke
 
rhklenke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 5,514
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Smith View Post
Bob nailed it again. Some of us fly turbine models and full scale. The proliferation of quad-copters is going to grow as a problem. Many of these people are not model aviators. They don't give two-hoots about airspace issues, model airplanes, etc.

In full scale helo flying quad-copters are a real potential threat. However, no one wants to see them banned yet. Idiot operators combined with large powerful government may take it out of AMA's hands eventually.


In Model aviation we bring it on ourselves sometimes. In jets we meet at airports. It's surprising that hasn't resulted in more problems. We love the large runways. Ever wonder though,how full scale pilots may feel if they can't get in and out of their airport and their hangars are blocked by RVs and people? If we haven't wondered about that, then that's part of the problem.
Chris,

At all of the jet meets that I attend that are at airports, the airport authority as well as the local pilots welcome the activity. The event organizers and pilots *always* defer to full-scale aircraft and their operators so that they are minimally impacted - if at all. At the same time, all of us are aviation geeks so full-scale guys like to watch models and visa versa. Finally, the airport and the local businesses *always* make money from us as visitors from outside the area and they *really* like that!

We also fly our jets at a local airport on occasion. We monitor the radio and defer to full-scale aircraft. Generally, the only time they know we are there is when they taxi past us on the ramp - which usually results in thumbs up all around as we admire each other's aircraft.

Jet flying at full-scale airports is *not* a problem - at least not that I have ever seen...

Bob
rhklenke is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2014, 07:55 AM
  #57
SushiHunter
 
SushiHunter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 540
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

There is most likely much more to this "situation" than what we've been informed about... so far. The FAA (Government) is motivated to get involved with this for some reason or the other. Between the leading edge technology with power plants (turbines), FPV systems, GPS, r/c electronics, etc. and then the issues of individuals flying FPV a/c in or around final approach flight paths to major airports. Add all this up and I think there is some things not mentioned yet as to the elevated motivation of the FAA in regards to this issue.
SushiHunter is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2014, 09:00 AM
  #58
rgburrill
 
rgburrill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Trumbull, CT
Posts: 1,874
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by flyinfool1 View Post
the faa has released a new document of rules interpretations pertaining to "model aircraft"

http://amablog.modelaircraft.org/ama...odel-aircraft/

http://www.faa.gov/news/press_releas...m?newsid=16474

those are some scary documents.

My interpretation is that the faa has just completely outlawed fpv flight.

It also looks like they may have outlawed a manufacturer test flying a prototype, and/or sponsored pilots demonstrating aircraft.

I will be waiting to see what the amas interpretation of these new rules are.
yaaaaaaaaaayy.
rgburrill is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2014, 07:20 AM
  #59
RCflyerCT
 
RCflyerCT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Southbury, CT
Posts: 93
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

The issue and risk IMHO is what is going to happen on the state level. No matter what the Feds say, state lawmakers and regulators can do far more damage..take a look at gun rights for example, where the federal law says one thing, but ask Connecticut and New York folks about their second amendment rights!

The other problem IMHO is that we are not well positioned politically on this issue...Democrats could see more regulation and control over people's lives as a good thing, Republicans could see privacy protection (gotten allot of press from the media relative to drones with cameras) as a good thing, and all will be attuned to the safety arguments that the regulators will make. To exacerbate the issue, the average American could probably care less as our hobby is not widespread (from a practice or understanding perspective).

Quite a conundrum IMHO
RCflyerCT is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2014, 07:37 AM
  #60
afterburner
 
afterburner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: New City, NY
Posts: 2,949
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RCflyerCT View Post
The issue and risk IMHO is what is going to happen on the state level. No matter what the Feds say, state lawmakers and regulators can do far more damage..take a look at gun rights for example, where the federal law says one thing, but ask Connecticut and New York folks about their second amendment rights!

The other problem IMHO is that we are not well positioned politically on this issue...Democrats could see more regulation and control over people's lives as a good thing, Republicans could see privacy protection (gotten allot of press from the media relative to drones with cameras) as a good thing, and all will be attuned to the safety arguments that the regulators will make. To exacerbate the issue, the average American could probably care less as our hobby is not widespread (from a practice or understanding perspective).

Quite a conundrum IMHO
Good points Wes. I can already hear Cuomo and Malloy calling for a ban on "high capacity" lipo's! "You don't need 5000 milliamps to fly a drone!!"

Marty
afterburner is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2014, 07:51 AM
  #61
why_fly_high
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Edmond, OK
Posts: 515
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RCflyerCT View Post
To exacerbate the issue, the average American could probably care less as our hobby is not widespread (from a practice or understanding perspective).
This is the truth. If the FAA had put a regulation banning the flight of Golf Balls then the uproar would be huge.
why_fly_high is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2014, 07:57 AM
  #62
ira d
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Moreno Valley, CA
Posts: 3,060
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RCflyerCT View Post
The issue and risk IMHO is what is going to happen on the state level. No matter what the Feds say, state lawmakers and regulators can do far more damage..take a look at gun rights for example, where the federal law says one thing, but ask Connecticut and New York folks about their second amendment rights!


Quite a conundrum IMHO
Good point.
ira d is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2014, 01:52 PM
  #63
N410DC
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Cartersville, GA
Posts: 360
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by why_fly_high View Post
This is the truth. If the FAA had put a regulation banning the flight of Golf Balls then the uproar would be huge.
Excellent point! I do not have supporting data, but I am willing to wager that golf balls cause more injuries than model aircraft in the USA.
N410DC is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2014, 02:43 PM
  #64
quist
 
quist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Glendale, AZ
Posts: 3,217
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mr_matt View Post
the 5 mile limit was not dreamt up by the FAA, it is in section 336 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012. Federal law calls out 5 miles.

As best I can tell, this is ALL from the federal law, not the FAA. The main point of (major) contention is the requirement that the model aircraft be "flown within visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft". The FAA claims this mean the person flying the plane must maintain control with their own eyes, the AMA says a spotter is OK.

The rest of it is cut and dried in my view
Matt,

The 2012 law was to notify the airport if flying within 5 miles of an airport, not to get their permission. Both clubs I belong to are inside Deer Valley Class D airspace. They could now close both fields without reason.


Tony
quist is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2014, 04:30 PM
  #65
mr_matt
 
mr_matt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Oak Park, CA,
Posts: 10,090
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Hi Tony,

Yes I have already been in touch with the AMA about it. In my opinion, when the smoke clears, this 5 mile AGREEMENT requirement is the killer in these rules, just a straight up killer. The rest of it is big nothing in comparison. I will PM you with anything I get.

EDIT: I mean when I first read it I did not see that "agreement" change, since then I wrote the AMA and asked a question on the AMA blog.

Last edited by mr_matt; 06-27-2014 at 04:33 PM.
mr_matt is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2014, 05:12 PM
  #66
paulsf86
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Escondido, CA
Posts: 276
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Tony and Matt:

All the more reason to fly responsibly and have all club members do the same. Also maintain a good working relationship with the airports. Yes some are tougher than others. We fly close to Hemet and on the MIramar airbase without a problem.

Regarding Commercial operation, there is a difference between flying for hire and developing products for hobby, recreation and model use. It could be argued that developing a product for the hobby involves test flying by the developer, test flying by hobbists and promotional flights that may be done by a company supported person. The deveopment of new products for hobby use is covered in the original law.

Regarding implementation, I have reviewed the interpretation and have not seen anything that says it is immediate. Please show me if I am wrong. Having worked with government rules for most of my life the process is to: Publish the proposed rule in the Federal Register for comment (this has been done), obtain comments in a specific period (30 days), review the comments and make adjustments based on comments, publish final rule in Fed Register.

Paul S
paulsf86 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2014, 05:29 PM
  #67
mr_matt
 
mr_matt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Oak Park, CA,
Posts: 10,090
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by paulsf86 View Post
Tony and Matt:
Regarding implementation, I have reviewed the interpretation and have not seen anything that says it is immediate.
Hi Paul,

Last paragraph of the press release:

http://www.faa.gov/news/press_releas...m?newsId=16474

While today’s notice is immediately effective, the agency welcomes comments from the public which may help further inform its analysis. The comment period for the notice will close 30 days from publication in the Federal Register.
mr_matt is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2014, 10:53 PM
  #68
paulsf86
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Escondido, CA
Posts: 276
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Matt:

Press releases are not the rules. There is no reference to immediate implementation in the published interpretation, only mention of the 30 day comment period. If in fact it is immediate, it would be contrary to any previous rulemaking process. The process has always been as I outlined earlier.

Paul S
paulsf86 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2014, 10:03 AM
  #69
jrf
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Burbank, CA
Posts: 2,851
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

From the FAA news release that accompanied the statement.

Compliance with these rules for model aircraft operators has been required since the Act was signed on February 14, 2012, and the explanation provided today does not change that fact. The FAA is issuing the notice to provide clear guidance to model operators on the “do’s and don’ts” of flying safely in accordance with the Act and to answer many of the questions it has received regarding the scope and application of the rules.

(Emphasis and link is theirs, not mine.)

Last edited by jrf; 06-28-2014 at 10:05 AM.
jrf is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2014, 11:00 AM
  #70
Sport_Pilot
 
Sport_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 16,914
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Actually, as I understand it, the law does not apply till the FAA enacts regulations. The law directs the FAA as to the limits of the regulation,
Sport_Pilot is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2014, 12:39 PM
  #71
VF84sluggo
 
VF84sluggo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Gulf Breeze, FL
Posts: 2,367
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bevar View Post
Did you know that if flying a noontime demo at a show for a manufacturer, or during the "here are the boys from (insert name here), your AMA liability insurance is void and you are personally 100% exposed to damages?

...If you are a team pilot, and displaying/demonstrating one of their products the AMA considers that flight to be a commercial Operation so your regular coverage is void and a separate policy is required.
Man, I never thought being a crappy 'stick' would pay off for me, but seeing as how I'm in no danger of getting sponsored, I'm all covered! Sweet!!

Sluggo
VF84sluggo is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2014, 12:49 PM
  #72
rhklenke
 
rhklenke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 5,514
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sport_Pilot View Post
Actually, as I understand it, the law does not apply till the FAA enacts regulations. The law directs the FAA as to the limits of the regulation,
True, that was the spirit of the law as the sponsors in Congress meant it, but the FAA is using slick "lawer-eese" to reinterpret it as giving them new authority *now*.

Kind of makes you sick to think about it - our Government at work - the bureaucracy of "democracy" run amok...

Bob
rhklenke is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2014, 12:58 PM
  #73
VF84sluggo
 
VF84sluggo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Gulf Breeze, FL
Posts: 2,367
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Sounds like the FAA also has "a pen and a phone"...
VF84sluggo is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2014, 01:01 PM
  #74
mr_matt
 
mr_matt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Oak Park, CA,
Posts: 10,090
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

All while we are dealing with this, the mental giants are still hard at work:

http://www.post-gazette.com/business...s/201406270183

These guys make our task with the FAA 100x harder
mr_matt is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2014, 01:04 PM
  #75
VF84sluggo
 
VF84sluggo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Gulf Breeze, FL
Posts: 2,367
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Lovely...just (bleeping) lovely. What worries, as has been suggested, is that we get lumped in with somebody who buys a Mark1 Mod0 quad copter and pulls a stunt like this, somebody who may have (probably has) no idea what being responsible with "R/C" is about.

One guy craps his pants, we all wear diapers.

Sluggo

Last edited by VF84sluggo; 06-28-2014 at 01:09 PM.
VF84sluggo is offline  
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:13 AM.