Interesting newly posted AMA documents concerning the FAA regulations
02-06-2011, 08:13 PM
#51
RE: Interesting newly posted AMA documents concerning the FAA regulations
One of our club members works for the FAA in the area. He seems to have at least some information, which he presented at today's club meeting. From what he's found out:
The FAA actually has no significant interest in control over model aviation, as long as we have a decent self-regulating organization. Read AMA. They don't have the manpower or budget to cover the entire country.
Their prime interest is in out of visual range operation of sUAVs entering occupied residential, commercial, or industrial areas for commercial reasons. This includes the remote video systems. And more importantly, the possibility of these aircraft entering the path of human carryiing aircraft with no means of the sUAV easily taking evasive action.
The FAA WILL pay attention to reasonably and intelligently presented public comment, during the commentary period.
On a similar note, for those who think the government can't be stopped in something like this, apparently the ATF or HSA, or maybe both, attempted to basically shut down model rocketry. The NAR (NAtional Association of Rocketry) had to go to court, but managed to win. NAR has about 1/3 the membership of AMA. And doesn't have 75 years of history dealing with the feds.
The FAA actually has no significant interest in control over model aviation, as long as we have a decent self-regulating organization. Read AMA. They don't have the manpower or budget to cover the entire country.
Their prime interest is in out of visual range operation of sUAVs entering occupied residential, commercial, or industrial areas for commercial reasons. This includes the remote video systems. And more importantly, the possibility of these aircraft entering the path of human carryiing aircraft with no means of the sUAV easily taking evasive action.
The FAA WILL pay attention to reasonably and intelligently presented public comment, during the commentary period.
On a similar note, for those who think the government can't be stopped in something like this, apparently the ATF or HSA, or maybe both, attempted to basically shut down model rocketry. The NAR (NAtional Association of Rocketry) had to go to court, but managed to win. NAR has about 1/3 the membership of AMA. And doesn't have 75 years of history dealing with the feds.
02-06-2011, 08:24 PM
#52
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Left Coast ,
CA
Posts: 4,890
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Interesting newly posted AMA documents concerning the FAA regulations
I do like hearing what you have just mentioned. My fear is that we (line of site model airplane flyers) will be lumped into the same category as UAV's which are not line of site..........Apples and Oranges
If I were involved with any of the aircraft associations I would be having a real big problem sharing airspace with UAV's until some sort of workable collision avoidance is put in place.
If I were involved with any of the aircraft associations I would be having a real big problem sharing airspace with UAV's until some sort of workable collision avoidance is put in place.
02-06-2011, 08:59 PM
#53
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: San Antonio,
TX
Posts: 6,681
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Interesting newly posted AMA documents concerning the FAA regulations
Their prime interest is in out of visual range operation of sUAVs entering occupied residential, commercial, or industrial areas for commercial reasons. This includes the remote video systems. And more importantly, the possibility of these aircraft entering the path of human carryiing aircraft with no means of the sUAV easily taking evasive action.
if the model was remote video it might have hit the plane with people,
where as since the model was NOT remote video it... oh wait, it hit the people plane anyway... nevermind
If one was interested in stuff like, um, "data",
one could look at NTSB reports to see how may people planes collided with RemoteVid MA in past 3(??) years,
and compare that to the number that hit LOS MA.
We know of the colorado LOS hit, anybody heard of any RemoteVid MA hits?
If LOS-MA do hit people planes,
and RemoteVid-MA dont,
which is the 'dangerous' one again?
02-07-2011, 06:46 AM
#55
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: The Ozarks,
MO
Posts: 1,921
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Interesting newly posted AMA documents concerning the FAA regulations
ORIGINAL: KidEpoxy
colorado comes to mind for some reason
if the model was remote video it might have hit the plane with people,
where as since the model was NOT remote video it... oh wait, it hit the people plane anyway... nevermind
If one was interested in stuff like, um, ''data'',
one could look at NTSB reports to see how may people planes collided with RemoteVid MA in past 3(??) years,
and compare that to the number that hit LOS MA.
We know of the colorado LOS hit, anybody heard of any RemoteVid MA hits?
If LOS-MA do hit people planes,
and RemoteVid-MA dont,
which is the 'dangerous' one again?
Their prime interest is in out of visual range operation of sUAVs entering occupied residential, commercial, or industrial areas for commercial reasons. This includes the remote video systems. And more importantly, the possibility of these aircraft entering the path of human carryiing aircraft with no means of the sUAV easily taking evasive action.
if the model was remote video it might have hit the plane with people,
where as since the model was NOT remote video it... oh wait, it hit the people plane anyway... nevermind
If one was interested in stuff like, um, ''data'',
one could look at NTSB reports to see how may people planes collided with RemoteVid MA in past 3(??) years,
and compare that to the number that hit LOS MA.
We know of the colorado LOS hit, anybody heard of any RemoteVid MA hits?
If LOS-MA do hit people planes,
and RemoteVid-MA dont,
which is the 'dangerous' one again?
Replace your sig line with defs of all these acronyms you use for some of us dummies
02-07-2011, 07:00 AM
#56
My Feedback: (58)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: here
Posts: 5,413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Interesting newly posted AMA documents concerning the FAA regulations
ORIGINAL: 50+AirYears
On a similar note, for those who think the government can't be stopped in something like this, apparently the ATF or HSA, or maybe both, attempted to basically shut down model rocketry. The NAR (NAtional Association of Rocketry) had to go to court, but managed to win. NAR has about 1/3 the membership of AMA. And doesn't have 75 years of history dealing with the feds.
On a similar note, for those who think the government can't be stopped in something like this, apparently the ATF or HSA, or maybe both, attempted to basically shut down model rocketry. The NAR (NAtional Association of Rocketry) had to go to court, but managed to win. NAR has about 1/3 the membership of AMA. And doesn't have 75 years of history dealing with the feds.
"And doesn't have 75 years of history dealing with the feds." Hmmm... Not getting into bed with the FAA does have distinct merits and of course makes bullet proof scrutiny easier. What we have now is a akin to a sweetheart romance...and its not hard to figure out who is on top... we are getting screwed and when I say "we" I don't necessarily mean "us" within the AMA... It is hard to see that there are some/many that relish the thought of the hobby being reduced to a common denominator no greater than the AMA pledge of allegiance... makes me absolutely sick that people can be so stupid.
02-07-2011, 08:55 AM
#59
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: San Antonio,
TX
Posts: 6,681
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Interesting newly posted AMA documents concerning the FAA regulations
ToolMan
[8D] sry bout that
NTSB National Transportation Safety Board
GA General Aviation (common name for private pilots in stuff like Cubs/c172, in addition to other stuff)
MA Model Aircraft
LOS Line Of Sight
and RemoteVid MA was just a lazy way to refer to
'out of visual range operation of sUAVs This includes the remote video systems'
from the post I quoted
My post was about taking all the reported people plane hits with models,
and then divide them into LOS model and non-LOS model tallys,
and examining which is actually dangerous
California banned the 50bmg after a decade or more of Barrets being sold, even though there were 0 murders and 0 robberies committed by the gun, with gobs of those crimes committed by other unbanned guns. Now we see the FAA selling the point we need to ban the thing that aint hitting people planes while keeping the things that ARE hitting people planes... while clinging to telling us its because of safety
Replace your sig line with defs of all these acronyms you use for some of us dummies
NTSB National Transportation Safety Board
GA General Aviation (common name for private pilots in stuff like Cubs/c172, in addition to other stuff)
MA Model Aircraft
LOS Line Of Sight
and RemoteVid MA was just a lazy way to refer to
'out of visual range operation of sUAVs This includes the remote video systems'
from the post I quoted
My post was about taking all the reported people plane hits with models,
and then divide them into LOS model and non-LOS model tallys,
and examining which is actually dangerous
California banned the 50bmg after a decade or more of Barrets being sold, even though there were 0 murders and 0 robberies committed by the gun, with gobs of those crimes committed by other unbanned guns. Now we see the FAA selling the point we need to ban the thing that aint hitting people planes while keeping the things that ARE hitting people planes... while clinging to telling us its because of safety
02-07-2011, 09:43 AM
#60
RE: Interesting newly posted AMA documents concerning the FAA regulations
ORIGINAL: The Toolman
Replace your sig line with defs of all these acronyms you use for some of us dummies
ORIGINAL: KidEpoxy
colorado comes to mind for some reason
if the model was remote video it might have hit the plane with people,
where as since the model was NOT remote video it... oh wait, it hit the people plane anyway... nevermind
If one was interested in stuff like, um, ''data'',
one could look at NTSB reports to see how may people planes collided with RemoteVid MA in past 3(??) years,
and compare that to the number that hit LOS MA.
We know of the colorado LOS hit, anybody heard of any RemoteVid MA hits?
If LOS-MA do hit people planes,
and RemoteVid-MA dont,
which is the 'dangerous' one again?
Their prime interest is in out of visual range operation of sUAVs entering occupied residential, commercial, or industrial areas for commercial reasons. This includes the remote video systems. And more importantly, the possibility of these aircraft entering the path of human carryiing aircraft with no means of the sUAV easily taking evasive action.
if the model was remote video it might have hit the plane with people,
where as since the model was NOT remote video it... oh wait, it hit the people plane anyway... nevermind
If one was interested in stuff like, um, ''data'',
one could look at NTSB reports to see how may people planes collided with RemoteVid MA in past 3(??) years,
and compare that to the number that hit LOS MA.
We know of the colorado LOS hit, anybody heard of any RemoteVid MA hits?
If LOS-MA do hit people planes,
and RemoteVid-MA dont,
which is the 'dangerous' one again?
Replace your sig line with defs of all these acronyms you use for some of us dummies
I understand most of them, he still doesn't ever make sense to me. Well not very often.
02-07-2011, 01:35 PM
#61
RE: Interesting newly posted AMA documents concerning the FAA regulations
A couple of things of note, and I'm too lazy to go back and quote all the posts.
1. The FAA doesn't give a rats butt about mowing down soccer moms in public parks, hitting buildings, or people flying like idiots and hitting each other. It has to do with safety of full scale aviation, period, end.
2. If it flys, whether over public property or not, they can regulate it if they choose.
As has been accurately pointed out at the top of this page, thats not what they want. For the most part, they want to draw a line between what we do, and what commerical and local governments do with video operated UAV's.
We, as a group have some issues on our own end like people posting videos flaunting flying around beyond visual range with no way to see and avoid a full scale aircraft.
1. The FAA doesn't give a rats butt about mowing down soccer moms in public parks, hitting buildings, or people flying like idiots and hitting each other. It has to do with safety of full scale aviation, period, end.
2. If it flys, whether over public property or not, they can regulate it if they choose.
As has been accurately pointed out at the top of this page, thats not what they want. For the most part, they want to draw a line between what we do, and what commerical and local governments do with video operated UAV's.
We, as a group have some issues on our own end like people posting videos flaunting flying around beyond visual range with no way to see and avoid a full scale aircraft.
02-07-2011, 03:12 PM
#62
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Clovis,
CA
Posts: 189
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Interesting newly posted AMA documents concerning the FAA regulations
No the FAA doesn't give a rats ass about soccer moms. Your local police agency would. Then the media. Then the Judge. Then everyone wants us to not fly anymore. Get it!!!
02-07-2011, 03:21 PM
#63
RE: Interesting newly posted AMA documents concerning the FAA regulations
The NPRM will come out sometine around June. Then, when you read it, you will know what's up, without being involved in rumors and suppositions, and wild conjecture. Then we'll be able to understand, and if intereste, submit intelligent comments to the FAA. Then we'll just have to wait and see. And I figure it'll be like a boss said to me after we instituted the 6th Quality Improvement program in 10 years "a major change that will again be invisible to us!"
What have we become? to use words of Walt Kelley, through his creation, Pogo Possum "We have met the enemy, and they is us!"
What have we become? to use words of Walt Kelley, through his creation, Pogo Possum "We have met the enemy, and they is us!"
02-07-2011, 05:53 PM
#64
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Left Coast ,
CA
Posts: 4,890
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Interesting newly posted AMA documents concerning the FAA regulations
ORIGINAL: BarracudaHockey
A couple of things of note, and I'm too lazy to go back and quote all the posts.
1. The FAA doesn't give a rats butt about mowing down soccer moms in public parks, hitting buildings, or people flying like idiots and hitting each other. It has to do with safety of full scale aviation, period, end.
2. If it flys, whether over public property or not, they can regulate it if they choose.
As has been accurately pointed out at the top of this page, thats not what they want. For the most part, they want to draw a line between what we do, and what commerical and local governments do with video operated UAV's.
We, as a group have some issues on our own end like people posting videos flaunting flying around beyond visual range with no way to see and avoid a full scale aircraft.
A couple of things of note, and I'm too lazy to go back and quote all the posts.
1. The FAA doesn't give a rats butt about mowing down soccer moms in public parks, hitting buildings, or people flying like idiots and hitting each other. It has to do with safety of full scale aviation, period, end.
2. If it flys, whether over public property or not, they can regulate it if they choose.
As has been accurately pointed out at the top of this page, thats not what they want. For the most part, they want to draw a line between what we do, and what commerical and local governments do with video operated UAV's.
We, as a group have some issues on our own end like people posting videos flaunting flying around beyond visual range with no way to see and avoid a full scale aircraft.
Problem is I bet we get lumped together with the UAV boys, that is what bothers/scares me..................
02-07-2011, 05:55 PM
#65
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Left Coast ,
CA
Posts: 4,890
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Interesting newly posted AMA documents concerning the FAA regulations
ORIGINAL: modelflyer5
No the FAA doesn't give a rats ass about soccer moms. Your local police agency would. Then the media. Then the Judge. Then everyone wants us to not fly anymore. Get it!!!
No the FAA doesn't give a rats ass about soccer moms. Your local police agency would. Then the media. Then the Judge. Then everyone wants us to not fly anymore. Get it!!!
Then don't fly near soccer moms.............Gheeze, I don't and you shouldn't either.
02-07-2011, 05:59 PM
#66
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: San Antonio,
TX
Posts: 6,681
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Interesting newly posted AMA documents concerning the FAA regulations
I for one dont see the magic rainbow of the FAA saying they dont want to regulate models.
They could very easily do exactly that, leave models completely unregulated and ruin the hobby at the same time
by simply defining just what is unregulated model with something like
107.xx Model Aircraft
1. Model Aircraft are recreational unmanned aircraft that
a) weigh <55lb, fly <100mph, below 400', without Turbines,
b) operate LOS under clear daytime conditions,
c)
2. Model Aircraft are unregulated
see, 'Model Aircraft' are unregulated,
its just that stuff like 55+/Turbines/Soaring are not models anymore
They could very easily do exactly that, leave models completely unregulated and ruin the hobby at the same time
by simply defining just what is unregulated model with something like
107.xx Model Aircraft
1. Model Aircraft are recreational unmanned aircraft that
a) weigh <55lb, fly <100mph, below 400', without Turbines,
b) operate LOS under clear daytime conditions,
c)
2. Model Aircraft are unregulated
see, 'Model Aircraft' are unregulated,
its just that stuff like 55+/Turbines/Soaring are not models anymore
02-07-2011, 07:17 PM
#67
RE: Interesting newly posted AMA documents concerning the FAA regulations
Is there really chance they will ban turbines? I don't have any, but know a few guys with MEGA $ invested in them..
02-07-2011, 08:25 PM
#68
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: San Antonio,
TX
Posts: 6,681
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Interesting newly posted AMA documents concerning the FAA regulations
Federal Ban is a interesting term.
Some folks say turbines might just get Restricted.
But as I refer in other posts I make, private full auto rifles are not banned by the Feds either, just restricted (to the point of perceived extinction [:@])
If you are concerned about what could happen to turbines,
read the sUAS ARC (section3), it has the consensus of lil plane folks committee recommending they get banned
Some folks say turbines might just get Restricted.
But as I refer in other posts I make, private full auto rifles are not banned by the Feds either, just restricted (to the point of perceived extinction [:@])
If you are concerned about what could happen to turbines,
read the sUAS ARC (section3), it has the consensus of lil plane folks committee recommending they get banned
02-07-2011, 08:47 PM
#69
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Left Coast ,
CA
Posts: 4,890
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Interesting newly posted AMA documents concerning the FAA regulations
ORIGINAL: KidEpoxy
If you are concerned about what could happen to turbines,
read the sUAS ARC (section3), it has the consensus of lil plane folks committee recommending they get banned
If you are concerned about what could happen to turbines,
read the sUAS ARC (section3), it has the consensus of lil plane folks committee recommending they get banned
02-07-2011, 09:20 PM
#70
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: San Antonio,
TX
Posts: 6,681
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Interesting newly posted AMA documents concerning the FAA regulations
the 20 members of the committee, the sUAS ARCommitee
AMA's Rich Hanson was one of them committee guys
you did read the ARC and all the crazy junk in Section3, right?
without too much of a lookback I found this [link=http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_8789454/mpage_1/key_/tm.htm]5/2009 thread[/link] thread where we were already disgusted with the junk in the ARC
AMA's Rich Hanson was one of them committee guys
you did read the ARC and all the crazy junk in Section3, right?
without too much of a lookback I found this [link=http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_8789454/mpage_1/key_/tm.htm]5/2009 thread[/link] thread where we were already disgusted with the junk in the ARC
02-07-2011, 09:54 PM
#71
RE: Interesting newly posted AMA documents concerning the FAA regulations
ORIGINAL: KidEpoxy
I for one dont see the magic rainbow of the FAA saying they dont want to regulate models.
They could very easily do exactly that, leave models completely unregulated and ruin the hobby at the same time
by simply defining just what is unregulated model with something like
107.xx Model Aircraft
1. Model Aircraft are recreational unmanned aircraft that
a) weigh <55lb, fly <100mph, below 400', without Turbines,
b) operate LOS under clear daytime conditions,
c) <...etc..>
2. Model Aircraft are unregulated
see, 'Model Aircraft' are unregulated,
its just that stuff like 55+/Turbines/Soaring are not models anymore
I for one dont see the magic rainbow of the FAA saying they dont want to regulate models.
They could very easily do exactly that, leave models completely unregulated and ruin the hobby at the same time
by simply defining just what is unregulated model with something like
107.xx Model Aircraft
1. Model Aircraft are recreational unmanned aircraft that
a) weigh <55lb, fly <100mph, below 400', without Turbines,
b) operate LOS under clear daytime conditions,
c) <...etc..>
2. Model Aircraft are unregulated
see, 'Model Aircraft' are unregulated,
its just that stuff like 55+/Turbines/Soaring are not models anymore
that are set aside for model use. We all knowit would very easy for the FAA to define commercial uas use and leave models out of the picture.
02-07-2011, 11:18 PM
#72
RE: Interesting newly posted AMA documents concerning the FAA regulations
i have thought all along that a model aircraft would be defined in negative terms. not so much what it can do, as what it cannot do.
it does not exceed 400 ft agl.
it does not operate out of visual line of sight of the operator.
it does not exceed 100 mph.
it is not gas turbine powered.
it is not operated within 5 mil of an airport.
it is not operated for compensation.
those are in the format i expect the FAA to use in defining what a model aircraft is, by setting the limits it can not exceed.
it does not exceed 400 ft agl.
it does not operate out of visual line of sight of the operator.
it does not exceed 100 mph.
it is not gas turbine powered.
it is not operated within 5 mil of an airport.
it is not operated for compensation.
those are in the format i expect the FAA to use in defining what a model aircraft is, by setting the limits it can not exceed.
02-08-2011, 05:06 AM
#73
RE: Interesting newly posted AMA documents concerning the FAA regulations
just saw this near miss, but yet the FAA is proding us?
http://news.yahoo.com/video/politics...idair-24104105
http://news.yahoo.com/video/politics...idair-24104105
02-08-2011, 06:19 AM
#74
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Orange County,
CA
Posts: 5,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Interesting newly posted AMA documents concerning the FAA regulations
ORIGINAL: summerwind
just saw this near miss, but yet the FAA is proding us?
http://news.yahoo.com/video/politics...idair-24104105
just saw this near miss, but yet the FAA is proding us?
http://news.yahoo.com/video/politics...idair-24104105
No, The FAA is going after the sUAS community that were pretending they were models. We are just the collateral damage. In their eyes it is not the same thing and we need to use their voice when we start complaining about it.
What I am saying is when the time comes and we start writing our elected representatives if we complain that the FAA is "out to get models" the FAA will tell those elected folks that they are doing no such thing and that will be the end of that as far as the Congress folks are concerned.
02-08-2011, 06:21 AM
#75
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Orange County,
CA
Posts: 5,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Interesting newly posted AMA documents concerning the FAA regulations
ORIGINAL: mongo
i have thought all along that a model aircraft would be defined in negative terms. not so much what it can do, as what it cannot do.
it does not exceed 400 ft agl.
it does not operate out of visual line of sight of the operator.
it does not exceed 100 mph.
it is not gas turbine powered.
it is not operated within 5 mil of an airport.
it is not operated for compensation.
those are in the format i expect the FAA to use in defining what a model aircraft is, by setting the limits it can not exceed.
i have thought all along that a model aircraft would be defined in negative terms. not so much what it can do, as what it cannot do.
it does not exceed 400 ft agl.
it does not operate out of visual line of sight of the operator.
it does not exceed 100 mph.
it is not gas turbine powered.
it is not operated within 5 mil of an airport.
it is not operated for compensation.
those are in the format i expect the FAA to use in defining what a model aircraft is, by setting the limits it can not exceed.
Strike me dead for saying this, but I pretty much agree with Mongo. I do to the extent that I have become convinced that the FAA will have to have some sort of baseline definition to cover operations not conducted under the auspices of a CBO-written and FAA-accepted set of safety standards. In essence they have to pretend that the AMA or any other CBO does not exist.
Then they can say that IF you are operating under a CBO then you can have more generous operational limits. I know they have indicated that the "two-tier" approach is dead, but I just do not understand how it can be done differently.