bokuda

My Feedback: (7)

I posted this yesterday under a different title, "Will this forum become irrelevant?" I could not find a way to change the title of that thread. Perhaps this will gain some attention.

It bogles my mind that in 24 hours only one person has responded. I cannot believe that subscribers to this forum are unconcerned with this issue. We could actually be legally barred from constructing flying model aircraft. This provision IS IN the current draft of the FAA reauthorization bill.

I'm a little surprised this has not been addressed here. As you are probably aware, the Senate version of the FAA reauthorization bill is out of committee and it does not look good for model aviation in the USA. It could effectively end the hobby as we know it, including building our own aircraft and require manufacturers to obtain FAA certification for each design! It could potentially make it illegal to fly all existing r/c aircraft!

This is being discussed in the AMA forum, but those threads, unfortunately, quickly deteriorate into arguments, name calling, insults etc. I'm hoping more reasonable opinions and observations might appear here. Our only hope is to contact our Congressmen and hope exemptions for model aircraft can be inserted into the legislation, but that does not appear likely to happen.


http://www.forbes.com/sites/johngogl.../#100a54cea6f2


https://cei.org/blog/senate-faa-reau...ll-disappoints

Here is a link to the relevant section of the bill in its current form. Keep in mind while reading through this that the FAA has classified all model aircraft as sUAS's, so the provisions in the bill WILL apply to us should it be enacted as is.


https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-...328EB6841AE702

raptureboy

This is being discussed in other threads with similar titles. It is not being passed any time soon and will be revised again before going to vote. All these threads about this subject degrade into flaming

skylark-flier

True on all points, especially the "degrade into flaming" part. There are a few who hijack ALL threads on this subject and degrade them to being unreadable.

kmeyers

I don't think you read it right:

“(d) FAA Approval.—Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of the Federal Aviation Administration Reauthorization Act of 2016, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall establish a process for the approval of small unmanned aircraft systems make and models based upon safety standards developed under subsection (a). The consensus safety standards developed under subsection (a) shall allow the Administrator to approve small unmanned aircraft systems for operation within the national airspace system without requiring the type certification process in parts 21 and 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
The regs you are thinking about are only for those who are building commercial sUAV's.

Just how it reads to me. We are currently under this sec which seems to be the same as 2013 with changes only if “46320. Interference with firefighting, law enforcement, or emergency response activities.”.

SEC. 2129. SPECIAL RULES FOR MODEL AIRCRAFT.(a) In General.—Chapter 448, as amended by section 2128 of this Act, is further amended by inserting after section 44807 the following:
Ҥ 44808. Special rules 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 chapter, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration may not promulgate any new rule or regulation specific only to an unmanned aircraft operating 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) not flown beyond visual line of sight of persons co-located with the operator or in direct communication with the operator;
“(4) the aircraft is operated in a manner that does not interfere with and gives way to any manned aircraft;
“(5) when flown within 5 miles of an airport, the operator of the aircraft provides the airport operator, where applicable, and the airport air traffic control tower (when an air traffic facility is located at the airport) with prior notice and receives approval, to the extent practicable, for the operation from each (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));
“(6) the aircraft is flown from the surface to not more than 400 feet in altitude; 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.
“(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.
“(3) SAVINGS CLAUSE.—Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as expanding the authority of the Administrator to require operators of model aircraft under the exemption of this subsection to be required to seek permissive authority of the Administrator prior to operation in the national airspace system.
“(c) Statutory Construction.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the authority of the Administrator to pursue enforcement action against persons operating personal unmanned aircraft.
“(d) Model Aircraft Defined.—In this section, the term ‘model aircraft’ means an unmanned aircraft that—
“(1) is capable of sustained flight in the atmosphere; and
“(2) is limited to weighing not more than 55 pounds, including the weight of anything attached to or carried by the aircraft, unless otherwise approved through a design, construction, inspection, flight test, and operational safety program administered by a community-based organization.”.
(b) Technical And Conforming Amendments.—
(1) TABLE OF CONTENTS.—The table of contents for chapter 448, as amended by section 2128 of this Act, is further amended by inserting after the item relating to section 44807 the following:

“44808. Special rules for model aircraft.”.(2) SPECIAL RULE FOR MODEL AIRCRAFT.—Section 336 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (49 U.S.C. 40101 note) and the item relating to that section in the table of contents under section 1(b) of that Act (126 Stat. 13) are repealed.
SEC. 2130. UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS AERONAUTICAL KNOWLEDGE AND SAFETY.
(a) In General.—Chapter 448, as amended by section 2129 of this Act, is further amended by inserting after section 44808 the following:
Ҥ 44809. Aeronautical knowledge and safety test
“(a) In General.—An individual may not operate an unmanned aircraft system unless—
“(1) the individual has successfully completed an aeronautical knowledge and safety test under subsection (c);
“(2) the individual has authority to operate an unmanned aircraft under other Federal law; or
“(3) the individual is a holder of an airmen certificate issued under section 44703.
“(b) Exception.—This section shall not apply to the operation of an unmanned aircraft system that has been authorized by the Federal Aviation Administration under section 44802, section 44805, section 44806, or section 44807.
“(c) Aeronautical Knowledge And Safety Test.—Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of the Federal Aviation Administration Reauthorization Act of 2016, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration, in consultation with manufacturers of unmanned aircraft systems, other industry stakeholders, and community-based aviation organizations, shall develop an aeronautical knowledge and safety test that can be administered electronically.
“(d) Requirements.—The Administrator shall ensure that the aeronautical knowledge and safety test is designed to adequately demonstrate an operator's—
“(1) understanding of aeronautical safety knowledge, as applicable; and
“(2) knowledge of Federal Aviation Administration regulations and requirements pertaining to the operation of an unmanned aircraft system in the national airspace system.
“(e) Record Of Compliance.—
“(1) IN GENERAL.—Each operator of an unmanned aircraft system described under subsection (a) shall maintain and make available for inspection, upon request by the Administrator or a Federal, State, or local law enforcement officer, a record of compliance with this section through—
“(A) an identification number, issued by the Federal Aviation Administration certifying passage of the aeronautical knowledge and safety test;
“(B) if the individual has authority to operate an unmanned aircraft system under other Federal law, the requisite proof of authority under that law; or
“(C) an airmen certificate issued under section 44703.
“(2) COORDINATION.—The Administrator may coordinate the identification number under paragraph (1)(A) with an operator's registration number to the extent practicable.
“(3) LIMITATION.—No fine or penalty may be imposed for the initial failure of an operator of an unmanned aircraft system to comply with paragraph (1) unless the Administrator finds that the conduct of the operator actually posed a risk to the national airspace system.”.
(b) Table Of Contents.—The table of contents for chapter 448, as amended by section 2129 of this Act, is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 44808 the following:

“44809. Aeronautical knowledge and safety test.”.SEC. 2131. SAFETY STATEMENTS.
(a) In General.—Chapter 448, as amended by section 2130 of this Act, is further amended by inserting after section 44809 the following:
Ҥ 44810. Safety statements
“(a) Prohibition.—Except as provided in subsection (d), 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 this section takes effect unless a safety statement is attached to the unmanned aircraft or accompanying the unmanned aircraft in its packaging.
“(b) Safety Statement.—
“(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of the Federal Aviation Administration Reauthorization Act of 2016, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall issue guidance for implementing this section.
“(2) REQUIREMENTS.—A safety statement described in subsection (a) shall include—
“(A) information about laws and regulations applicable to unmanned aircraft systems;
“(B) recommendations for using unmanned aircraft in a manner that promotes the safety of persons and property;
“(C) the date that the safety statement was created or last modified; and
“(D) language approved by the Administrator regarding the following:
“(i) A person may operate the unmanned aircraft as a model aircraft (as defined in section 44808) or otherwise in accordance with Federal Aviation Administration authorization or regulation, including requirements for the completion of the aeronautical knowledge and safety test under section 44809.
“(ii) The definition of a model aircraft under section 44808.
“(iii) The requirements regarding a model aircraft under paragraphs (1) through (7) of section 44808(a).
“(iv) The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration may pursue enforcement action against a person operating model aircraft who endangers the safety of the national airspace system.
“(c) Civil Penalty.—A person who violates subsection (a) shall be liable for each violation to the United States Government for a civil penalty described in section 46301(a).
“(d) Effective Date.—This section shall take effect on the date of enactment of this Act, except that subsection (a) of this section shall take effect 1 year after the date of publication of the guidance under subsection (b).”.
(b) Table Of Contents.—The table of contents for chapter 448, as amended by section 2130 of this Act, is further amended by inserting after the item relating to section 44809 the following:

“44810. Safety statements.”.SEC. 2132. TREATMENT OF UNMANNED AIRCRAFT OPERATING UNDERGROUND.
An unmanned aircraft system that is operated underground for mining purposes shall not be subject to regulation or enforcement by the Federal Aviation Administration under chapter 448 of title 49, United States Code.
SEC. 2133. ENFORCEMENT.
(a) UAS Safety Enforcement.—The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall establish a program to utilize available remote detection and identification technologies for safety oversight, including enforcement actions against operators of unmanned aircraft systems that are not in compliance with applicable Federal aviation laws, including regulations.
(b) Civil Penalties.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Section 46301 is amended—
(A) in subsection (a)(1)(A), by inserting “chapter 448,” after “chapter 447 (except sections 44717 and 44719–44723),”;
(B) in subsection (a)(5), by inserting “chapter 448,” after “chapter 447 (except sections 44717–44723),”;
(C) in subsection (d)(2), by inserting “chapter 448,” after “chapter 447 (except sections 44717 and 44719–44723),”; and
(D) in subsection (f), by inserting “chapter 448,” after “chapter 447 (except 44717 and 44719–44723),”.
(2) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to limit the authority of the Administrator to pursue an enforcement action for a violation of this Act, a regulation prescribed or order or authority issued under this Act, or any other applicable provision of aviation safety law or regulation.
(c) Reporting.—As part of the program, the Administrator shall establish and publicize a mechanism for the public and law enforcement, including State and local law enforcement, to report a suspected abuse or a violation of chapter 448 for enforcement action.
(d) Authorization Of Appropriations.—To carry out this section, there is authorized to be appropriated $5,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2016 through 2017.
SEC. 2134. AVIATION EMERGENCY SAFETY PUBLIC SERVICES DISRUPTION.
(a) In General.—Chapter 463 is amended—
(1) in section 46301(d)(2), by inserting “section 46320,” after “section 46319,”; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
Ҥ 46320. Interference with firefighting, law enforcement, or emergency response activities
“(a) Prohibition.—No person may operate an aircraft so as to interfere with firefighting, law enforcement, or emergency response activities.
“(b) Definition.—For purposes of this section, an aircraft interferes with the activities specified in subsection (a) when its operation prevents the initiation of, interrupts, or endangers a person or property engaged in those activities.
“(c) Civil Penalty.—A person violating subsection (a) shall be liable for a civil penalty of not more than $20,000.
“(d) Compromise And Setoff.—The United States Government may deduct the amount of a civil penalty imposed or compromised under this section from the amounts the Government owes the person liable for the penalty.”.
(b) Table Of Contents.—The table of contents for chapter 463 is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 46319 the following:

“46320. Interference with firefighting, law enforcement, or emergency response activities.”.

kmeyers

Other changes are:
To acknowledge the registration and questions you answer (about safety) to get your FAA number.
Fines for knuckle heads

I don't think the sky is falling yet.

Y3kim

just getting into the hobby and of course bureaucratic stuff had to poke its head in.
This concerns me that I could be somehow regulated from having fun and be subjected to FAA oversight to my little 5 lb plane that wont go over a couple hundred feet?

This should not apply to me or anyone else just having fun with a hobby. So long as they are following the rules, or loose set of rules? I respect AMA laws but from what I understand they are not set in stone but I will still follow them to the T.

Is there anything we can do?

bokuda

My Feedback: (7)

"I don't think the sky is falling yet."

I disagree. This sky IS falling, it just hasn't fallen completely yet.

If the proposed legislation goes through to enactment as is, we are done. We don't have a lot we can do about it other than contact our Congressmen, try to make them aware and plead our case.

I've been building and flying planes, line control, free flight, indoor and r/c since I was 14; I'm now 69. I've built over 100 planes (I have no idea of the actual number) from kits, plans and scratch and have about 15 or so in my house now. I've never had a flying incident other than the usual crashes. For me, building is at least 50% of the hobby and the thought that something I've done for over 50 years could become illegal is extremely disturbing.

It is depressing to look in my "hanger" and realize that it would now be illegal for me to fly any of my planes since I have not yet complied with the ridiculous FAA requirement to register. Yes, of course I could just register and go fly, and I will probably do so, but I object to agreeing to the restrictions imposed on us by doing so.

abufletcher

A greater danger to the future of scale model building is the ever advancing age of scale modelers. I fear that there may not be more than a generation or two left.

bokuda

My Feedback: (7)

The proposed legislation here in the U.S. is a clear and present danger that could immediately end flying model building.

I agree that building is in peril anyway as the few of us left age. The two local clubs have a total of about 100 -110 members. Including me there are only five or six of us who actually build from kits, plans or scratch. I know of no one under 40 or so who does. It looks to me that even if the pending legislation is amended to allow building before it is enacted, building will not survive in the U.S, for another generation.

kmeyers

I am almost as old as you and feel completely different. The sky is not falling. The laws for your hangar have no changes other than the knuckle head additions. How waivers for 55 lbs and up and jets work out is not yet done, but, you don't have any of those in your hangar I bet.

As for building to some degree it is alive and well. The kids are building in foam and electric, MR and there are lots of them.

"Yes, of course I could just register and go fly, and I will probably do so, but I object to agreeing to the restrictions imposed on us by doing so."

Statements like that worry the full scale community and you should just register and continue to have fun enjoying the world of Model Aviation.

bokuda

My Feedback: (7)

Thanks for the post. Nice to have a civil discussion on this issue.

It's good that you are optimistic about this and I wish I could be as well. It seems to me that the government rarely passes on opportunities to intrude into our lives and the voice of the r/c community is pretty small. AMA membership is just over 180,000; a drop in the bucket as far as politicians are concerned.

As for objecting to the restrictions in the bill, I was referring particularly to the 400ft altitude limit. This will not affect scale flying, except for jets, but it will pretty much eliminate (along with most jet flying) pattern and sailplanes, which many, including me, fly. IMAC will also be very much affected.

The AMA has published that it reached agreement with the FAA that members may fly as usual within the AMA's rules and that the 400' limit does not apply to us. Still, it is on the FAA's registration site and we must agree to it in order to register. I'd very much like to see that in writing on the FAA's site.

We may have other things to worry about too. Commercial drones and the companies behind manufacturing and using them are lobbying for special rules. Among them is exclusive use of airspace from 200' to 400'. This is something we need to watch; Amazon has deep pockets.

http://fortune.com/2015/07/28/amazon...livery-drones/

They now have government backing to come up with rules. The makeup of the committee is not revealed in this article, but I suspect it is made up of those with financial interest in commercial drones.

http://www.usnews.com/news/business/...ts-over-people

aerotony

Reminds me of the lines from the Eddie Cochran song "Summer Time Blues"
I called my Congressman but he said, "Whoa!",
"I'd like to help you son but you're too young to vote".

rgburrill

It is exactly that attitude of a few people that has caused this problem. EVERYONE, I say again, EVERYONE has a responsibility to insure that their FUN does not impact someone else negatively. And that is where regulations come in. So yes, you are subjected to FAA oversight. How much depends on YOU.

rgburrill

I have extracted an applicable section from an above post and highlighted the most relevant phrase for this discussion. If I understand correctly the concern of the OP is that this sections says we are all going to have to get a safety statement for the planes we build. The highlighted phrase, however, says that this section is for commercial manufacturers. This does not apply to us hobbyists since we are not selling our planes for profit. Even if we resell an old plane it's not truly a commercial sale. How this impacts those who do assemble or otherwise manufacture a plane for someone else for profit (such as many of the competition guys) is yet to be seen.
If you want to verify this straight from the horses mouth there is an entire FAA section devoted to this. Check the FAA website.

rgburrill

Man I hate to open the door to a few who would probably like to run with this statement and turn this into the same crap that we have seen in other threads. I hope this comment shuts that down quickly.

For over 75 years the small voice of the AMA has kept the government off our backs. And not just the FAA but also the FCC. I took a very small contingent of jerks who refused to follow the simple AMA guidelines to bring about this nonsense - THOSE WHO JUST WANTED TO HAVE FUN.

abufletcher

As I said. Building scale models in foam? And while a younger generation may be flying electric models (or increasingly helis and drones), I doubt very much they are building them. And of the very very few building anything, how many are building SCALE models? Precious few, to be sure.

bokuda

My Feedback: (7)

I agree. It's probably a good time to end this thread since it may be on the verge of degeneration. My only desire in starting it was to motivate as many people as possible to contact their congressmen and express their concern.

I also agree the AMA has done a great job representing the modeling community despite its relatively small size. I was active in r/c when the AMA fought for the 72 mHz frequencies back in the 1970's that allowed the hobby to become as big as it has. It was an enormous accomplishment to have a section of the radio spectrum reserved for our use. I hope it is able to influence the proposed FAA legislation in our favor as well.

Y3kim

Not sure how thats a bad attitude but I follow the law am responsible adult. so I am not one of those people you call responsible for this mess or any other mess.
I have yet to fly any RC vehicle yet. (actually I did when I was about 8 years old but crashed it in 5 seconds flat)
Now I didn't mean to write "just wanting to have fun" in such a way that looks like I'm trying to passively say that "fun is an excuse to breaking the law/rules." Just to make that clear I'm not sure if that's how you interpreted it.

IMHO for rc planes adults shouldn't need any type of permission. Of course some people are going to break the rules I,nor any of you or any law can stop that. that is why I disagree with regulations being put on us.
Now if this only applies to commercial sellers, what happens to who produces our kits that we buy, at least those of us who don't scratch build?

skylark-flier

My own, totally pedestrian, opinion in the "kits manufacture" department is that if one were to manufacture a kit, it would be no different from presenting a pound of ground beef on the market - the ground beef is a "supply". In the kit, there's no aircraft there, only a box of wood - a supply.

WE build the plane from the wood provided.

Manufacturer of kit should be off the hook entirely.

At least, that's the way I see it (and I certainly hope I'm at least close in seeing it this way).

Y3kim

Hmm well thinking about it some more I think your translation of what this all means is correct, if so I don't know what there is to worry about.
DEFCON 2 status is no longer necessary back to 4 or 5? at least in my mind it raised red flags

skylark-flier

Oh, definitely! For sure, there are red flags all over my mind over this thing. I grew up in a military (USMC) family, spent my own 22+ year USAF career - I know Uncle Sam and he's NOT to be trusted. That's more true today than ever before, with all the crap that's going on around DC.

However, I think it's also fairly true that, no matter how many walls the govt tries to build, no matter how many regs they illegally put out there, one thing still stands - there are only so many "enforcers" to cover an awful big country. Myself, I plan to continue building and flying. I'm near 70. Are they going to "make an example" out of an old man playing with his toys? Don't think so, especially as long as I pretty much stay within AMA rules.

I'm not saying AMA's going to be able to save us in this - more likely we're going to suffer "officially", at least. However, over the decades they HAVE managed to pull off a fair number of miracles - and one can hope they're able to continue that. Time will tell.

Y'know, another "bright" spot in this thing about the kits, and it just hit me. I've built every one of my planes, either from kit or from plans. Most of them are still in the air - some approaching 50 years old this year. Everybody like me has been worrying about the loss of kits and kit manufacturers. If this “(a) Prohibition.—Except as provided in subsection (d), 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 this section takes effect unless a safety statement is attached to the unmanned aircraft or accompanying the unmanned aircraft in its packaging. thing actually comes to pass, it might just bring back some kits.

Y'never know.

rgburrill

The "manufacturer" of the ground beef is certainly not off the hook for hiss product. FDA has a lot to say about that. The kit manufacturer may be required to build one kit according to the instructions and verify that it is flight worthy.

skylark-flier

The point was - the kit is only a box of wood, not an aircraft.

WE make it an aircraft.

bokuda

My Feedback: (7)

We are now one step closer to having building banned. It does not look good. The lack of concern over this issue in this forum is alarming. The sky continues to fall. Sorry to be so pessimistic, but I rather doubt Congress cares about the concerns of fewer than 200,000 people.

http://amablog.modelaircraft.org/ama...-aeromodeling/

drdoom

My Feedback: (9)

Well Congress passed the bill on the 19th but do you think it will ever see the house floor.