TexasAirBoss

My Feedback: (22)

Rumor has it thatthe portion of this legislation exempting MA was authored by AMA's people. That might be why it sounds slightly non standard. Perhaps it was the AMA'sintentions that its clubs make arrangements with local A/Psthat influenced the language.

Thomas B

My Feedback: (4)

That is not how the math works...

The greater empasis on safety rules and some peer pressure related to it at organized sites make the per capita incidence of issues less than at the non organized sites. Ergo, fewer issues per number of people operating at the sites. While you might have witnessed something else at your unorganized flying sites and organized flying sites, I stand by what I have witnessed and I am sticking to my philosophy until proven wrong.

I never said that paying 58 bucks makes people less stupid. Those are you own words. I said that multiple exposures to the AMA safety code and to flyign site rules at club and organized public fields tend to make people more safety aware and oriented than those that are never exposed to it. My observations over a significant number of years of flying R/C support that conclusion.

YMMV.

Top_Gunn

My Feedback: (6)

Now that's an impressively creative reading! The statute says that modelers "should" do something and that really means the FAA should do it. I'll confess to some puzzlement about how the FAA is going to write a regulation that will force people to agree on something. That would be quite a trick.

This is your second post on how "should" becomes "shall." No actual examples yet? Surely this isn't just something you made up.

JohnShe

You are thinking of statutory law that tells people what they can and cannot do. In that case you are correct. The problem seems to be that you have forgotten that the "FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012" is an appropriation. An appropriation gives money to a federal entity and tells them what to do with it. In that case terms like "you May/you may not", "shall/shall not" and should/should not" take on different meanings. In s336 of the act, the FAA is being given options on how to handle model aviation operations. For instance, they have a choice, they can either write the model aviation regulations themselves or find someone dumb enough to do it for them. In fact, there are criteria provided to help the FAA make that decision. And, as most people have realized the criteria strongly points to one organization. But that happens frequently in the appropriations business.

cj_rumley

The math, considering (and presuming correlation to number and severity of accidents) AMAinsurance payout stats indicates otherwise, Thomas.

About half of the AMA insurance payout is for liability incurred by clubs. Only about half of AMAmembers belong to chartered clubs. Even if most liability actions that occur at club flying sites are filed against the club only rather than individuals (unlikely), the club members' record is not demonstrably better than that of members not associated with clubs, and in fact appears to be worse. Not questioning what you have seen personally, but interpreting what is seen AMA-wide.

CJ

JohnShe

Good point to make. Frank's response was defensive because my language was perhaps unnecessarily harsh. A fact for which I apologize. I never meant to hurt, just to educate. Sometimes I get carried away when I feel that I am right. I am reading Oscar Wilde at the moment, perhaps I should adopt a more Victorian Prose. I will work on it.

k3 valley flyer

My Feedback: (18)

JohnShe, thank you for correcting my observation without being offensive. I find no need to get my undies all in a bind about this issue at this point. But if others feel the need to do so that is ok with me.

JohnShe

k3 You are quite welcome, I appreciate the kind words.

Veltro

My Feedback: (1)

Hi Frank,

I've been a county government analyst for over 20 years. I've drafted my fair share of letters to county department heads and boards of supervisors. My recommendation in your specific instance is to keep it simple and to the point.

I would approach it as if the airport manager is new to your county. I would give them a paragraph stating that in accordance with your special use permit with the county, you are giving them the required annual notice of the club's presence. I'd give them a second paragraph about the club's days and hours of operation, operating rules, and contact information for the club president and vice president. If you'd like, you can give them a third paragraph letting them know that the club is fully monitoring the pending FAA NPRM through its national sanctioning body, the AMA.

All you want to do is comply with your special use agreement. (It's clear you already know that). Nothing more. All the airport manager wants is to be reminded that you are there so that he can comply with whatever requirements the county has placed on him as airport manager with regards to the model airplane field. He also wants to be up to speed in case an airport user calls him having a melt down because he just saw a model airplane flying near the airport.

Jay

Sport_Pilot

From the first part of the bill.

So it is more than an appropriations bill as listed after the third comma. In fact the appropriations authorizations are in Title 1 of this bill, model aircraft are under Title III Saftey.

For the section on unmanned aircraft systems

Quote:

SEC. 333. SPECIAL RULES FOR CERTAIN UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS.

(a) In General- Notwithstanding any other requirement of this subtitle, and not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Transportation shall determine if certain unmanned aircraft systems may operate safely in the national airspace system before completion of the plan and rulemaking required by section 332 of this Act or the guidance required by section 334 of this Act.

So they must make a determination on what unmanned systems will be allowed.

Then later

Quote:

(a) Guidance- Not later than 270 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Transportation shall issue guidance regarding the operation of public unmanned aircraft systems to

Here they are telling the FAA to write guidance, which could be in the form of regulation.

Quote:

SEC. 336. SPECIAL RULE FOR MODEL AIRCRAFT.

(a) In General- Notwithstanding any other provision of law relating to the incorporation of unmanned aircraft systems into Federal Aviation Administration plans and policies, including this subtitle, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration may not promulgate any rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft, or an aircraft being developed as a model aircraft, if

But they cannot regulate model aircraft, but for the exceptions listed below.

phlpsfrnk

John,
I’m not sure if your apology was meant for me but if it was then accepted. As for educating me I believe I understand the issues and because of the long standing differences between the AMA safety code and the FAA’s AC 91-57 this is not a new issue. The issue of notifying local airports has been around since AC 91-57 was written but for the most part has been ignored. The only major difference I see in the language between AC 91-57 and the language in Public Law 112-95 concerning the notification of local airports is the expansion of the distance from 3 miles to 5 miles. I strongly believe that this can no longer be ignored and I apologize if I reacted too strongly but you see, I to “feel that I am right.�

Regards
Frank

phlpsfrnk

Jay,
Thank you for the advice. I believe I kept it as simple as possible and providing copies of the AMA safety code and the AMA See and Avoid Guidance lets them know that we are a safe organization operating in the NAS in a safe manner.

As I stated earlier this only became an issue when the presentation was made and one of the board members asked about the 400ft limit/airport notifications. We were on the verge of losing our field and it was far easier to comply than explain the ambiguous language between AC 91-57 and the AMA safety code.

Regards
Frank

JohnShe

You are welcome, I never meant to hurt. As for education, I believe that a good debate presenting many points of view is a way to both learn and educate. So lets keep it going, peacefully.

And it has been my understanding, that the few club fields in the 3 mile zone indeed have agreements with their airports. But I have no evidence to support this assertion. Perhaps some club officers could enlighten us. I know that there are words to the effect in the AMA Member Manual. As for non AMAindividuals, i can't say what they are doing.

The problem with the appropriation (Public law 112-95) is that there is a deadline for achieving the goals that is expressed in Title III, Subtitle B. It is September 31, 2015. Since this deadline affects all deliverables in the subtitle, (including s336) we have no immediate reason for concern. As the AMAhas requested, those fields in the 3 mile circle should stand by their agreements. Any field that finds itself in the 5 mile circle should stand by and wait for the procedures to be published and put into effect. And it would appear that here is plenty of time for that.

JohnShe

We were in violent agreement until you got to the last point. S336a says "may not" not "shall not" which means that the FAAhas the permission of congress to find somebody dumb enough to write the regulations for them. The 5 criteria after the "IF" are criteria to be used by the CBO (if one is identified) for the safety guidelines and the FAA to evaluate the CBO and the safety guidelines. However, the FAAhas the authority expressed in s336b to review, modify (if necessary) or even reject the safety guidelines. And that is provided that a CBO acceptable to the FAA (see s336b again) is found. Which could mean that the FAA may have to write the safety guidelines for model aircraft.

There is no statutory language used anywhere in this appropriation. So be careful how you interpret it.

Sport_Pilot

I write specifications for a living and the may not in that paragraph means the same as shall not, except for the exceptions listed. It does not mean thay its OK if you don't write regulation, but also ok if you do. May is permission, may not is the opposite.Congress is ordering that regulationsor otherrules be written by the FAA, and ordering thatmodel aircraft not be regulated, UNLESS the following conditions are met. There is nothing there asking somebody else to write the regulation, the CBO's may write rules, but that is not a regulation.

Actually this is statutory, all law is by definition statutory,butthisis meant for the FAA not for civilians.

JohnShe

Point taken, except it says "may not IF -" "IF" being a keyword that is followed by 5 criteria, one of which is the CBO criteria. meaning that if the FAAis unsatisfied with the CBO or the product, they may be forced to write it themselves. However, this is all moot because the AMAhas established a working relationship with the FAA and is writing the safety guidelines while we debate this rather trivial point. And, at the same time, the FAAis making noises of approval of the AMA. So, when the deadline falls, I expect that there will be a sane set of model airplane safety guidelines to work with and we will all be happy. I hope.

KidEpoxy

I think Sport was not saying that congress is Mandating (should ) that FAA regulate mutual agreement,
but that congress was mandating(should)
that Airports(not modeler operators) be the ones Providing Notice of modeling ops to the model operators,
and that the FAA (not model operators) be Within a cbo,
since Sport is so eager to just take the words congress put into the law... and kick them aside for his own added in wording to change WHO congress is talking about when congress says 'operators'.

Sport,
with the way you just change the law, dont you expect FAA to act the same way:
FAA could just as easily change the law like you did and say
'congress meant to say within 100mile of airport, not the 5 that they actually typed into the law'

I mean, as long as you guys are just going to change Operators Should into FAA Shall
what other of congress words are you just gonna cross out and replace with your own?

KidEpoxy

Veltro
actually,
if you read post #1
it pretty clearly says what he wanted to do was provide a generic letter all modelers can use
to meet the condition in public law 112-95,
not just tell us about a letter that only applies to just his landowner agreement and nobody else.

WHY he already had dealings with the airport is not important to whats in PL112-95,
and PL112-95 Notice dont care about existing previous deals or conditions or not-
it just says we are to provide notice (and 'should' .... yadda yadda optional 'should' stuff yadda yadda..)

Sport_Pilot

Tired of people putting words in my mouth.  The law directs the FAA to write regulation and implement by September 2015.  There is no requirements in this law except by the FAA.  I am just saying when this law says that the opererator and the airport should make an agreement, then they are saying this should be considered when the FAA writes the regulation.  There is nothing there that prevents the FAA from regulating how that agreement be made, including demanding that an agreement be made.  I am not saying that they are demanding it be in the regulation, the word should gives the FAA leeway in doing that, nor am I saying the FAA will or will not do this, just that it is possible that they could.

The 5 miles was clear, no may, no should just 5 miles.

JohnShe

Well said dude! :-)

Top_Gunn

My Feedback: (6)

A rule requiring two people to make an agreement could not be enforced, except arbitrarily. What if one person makes an offer, the other makes a counter-offer, and each rejects the other's offer. Who is at fault? Do you punish the modelers? The airport? Both? If it's both, then you've set up a massive game of chicken, with each party telling the other "accept my terms or the FAA will punish us." A rule like that would be crazy, and even under Chevron deference, crazy regulations are invalid.

I know of no instance in which any law, state or federal, has ever tried to require people to make an agreement. It's impossible, unless the law also sets the terms of the agreement, which this one doesn't. The labor laws require unions and employers to "bargain in good faith," but they don't require that the bargaining reach an agreement. And, in any event, the new provision, which says what modelers have to do to be exempt from regulation, not what the FAA has to do, doesn't say they have to agree, it just says they "should." As someone suggested earlier, this was probably language taken straight from the AMA, because congressional staffers, who write most laws, don't write them that way. And "should" doesn't mean "shall," despite your claim that regulations "typically" say it does. I'm still waiting for just one example of those "typical" regulations. Or was it just BS?

Sport_Pilot

No should does not mean shall, but the should gave the FAA some leeway as how to write the regulations. And I did not say that they would absoultely require an agreement. They could simply give exactly how it should be coordinated and rules on how to operated, no if ands or buts. You are reading way too much into what I said. I simply said the regulation was written up for the FAA to follow, and thus the should gives the FAA some leeway on that particular item, that is the notification to the airport, and how clubs near airports should operate. The congress said that this "should" be done by agreement between the club and the airport. I said the FAA could "not should, will or shall" take this and say that they "shall" make an agreement.I didn't mean to imply that I thought this was thecorrect course of action.Of course as you correctly point out that presents its own problems. But you are ignoring all of the other possibilites in between. The FAA could also say the will make an agreement, and if no agreement is made then you follow another proceedure, or you don't fly or whatever, within limits posed by other laws.

JohnShe

I have to ROTFLMAO on this one. :-)

We are talking about airport authorities that operate under FAA regulations making an agreement with model aviators operating under FAA approved safety guidelines reaching a negotiated settlement to allow each other to operate safely. I just don't see the problem here.

Number one - the airport authority has first priority because they are operating full size aircraft.

Number two - The model aviators just want to have fun without crashing into full size airplanes.

Number three - the AMA says that some clubs have already negotiated agreements under the, soon to be, old three mile rule and everything has been just fine.

Number four - the few additional club fields that now find themselves inside the, soon to be, new five mile circle have been operating for a long time with no problems.

Therefore the new agreements are going to say that, from the airport point of view "yes, we know you are there and we will tell our airmen to watch out for you." And from the model aviator point of view will say, "yes, we know you are there and we will watch out for full size planes."

So, how can there be a problem at all?

TexasAirBoss

My Feedback: (22)

Oh thanks alot, justspoil the ending for everyone !!

Top_Gunn

My Feedback: (6)

I agree, that's possible. But if that's what it means, we have nothing to celebrate, because it would mean that any airport could deprive modelers flying within five miles of them of the protection from the new regulations that section 336 is supposed to give us. All the airport people (or, in the case of airports with ATC, either the airport or ATC) would have to do is refuse to make an agreement and we'd be stuck with whatever rules the FAA devises for people not within section 336. That would almost certainly include a 400-foot limit, if what the AMA has told us about their conversations with the FAA is accurate. It might even amount to "no flying models within five miles of an airport unless the airport (and ATC, in the case of controlled airports) says it's OK. Why would they say OK? It poses some (very slight) risk to their operations if we fly and no harm to them if they shut us down. Back before section 336 passed, one worry was that the new regulations would ban flying within five miles of an airport. You've convinced me that this could still happen, though I think the risk is small. The "should establish a [agreement]" language follows something much more specific that seems to say it's OK to fly if we give notice, so I'm not much worried.

I think a lot of people are flying within five miles of some airport and don't know it. The FAA gives numbers to a lot of small airports and shows them on the sectional charts. You could be flying within five miles of one and never know it. My club got lucky; the airport we were within five miles of has closed and isn't on the current sectional chart. But even when it was, few of our club members knew it was there, or that it was only about three and a half miles away.

(This is a reply to Sport Pilot; I pushed the wrong button again.)