If you want to fly act now
03-23-2016, 06:07 AM
#76
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: El Paso,
TX
Posts: 5,277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"(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."
Were in AC 91-57A is (6 and 7) mentioned?
Mike
“(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."
Were in AC 91-57A is (6 and 7) mentioned?
Mike
03-23-2016, 06:24 AM
#77
[COLOR=#232323][FONT=Arial]
Please correct me if I’m wrong, but the above text does not actually appear to institute any new regulations. Instead it restricts the FAA from doing so, provided certain conditions are met. The conditions appear to be taken verbatim from the existing FAA Advisory Circular AC 91-57A (which is itself non-regulatory in nature).
I’m not saying there isn’t a problem, but perhaps the sky is not falling quite as quickly as it appears? Neither the AC nor the above Senate proposal seem to actually create new legal restrictions on flying.
The concern therefore would be that the FAA will introduce new restrictions on any flying that does not meet the above conditions? However if that’s the case there will be a notice of proposed rule making issued first, and I don’t see this on the FAA rulemaking web page (where NPRMs are normally posted).
Please correct me if I’m wrong, but the above text does not actually appear to institute any new regulations. Instead it restricts the FAA from doing so, provided certain conditions are met. The conditions appear to be taken verbatim from the existing FAA Advisory Circular AC 91-57A (which is itself non-regulatory in nature).
I’m not saying there isn’t a problem, but perhaps the sky is not falling quite as quickly as it appears? Neither the AC nor the above Senate proposal seem to actually create new legal restrictions on flying.
The concern therefore would be that the FAA will introduce new restrictions on any flying that does not meet the above conditions? However if that’s the case there will be a notice of proposed rule making issued first, and I don’t see this on the FAA rulemaking web page (where NPRMs are normally posted).
2129(a)(6) - "...not more than 400 feet in altitude..."
2129(a)(7) - "...the operator has passed an aeronautical knowledge and safety test administered by the Federal Aviation Administration..."
03-23-2016, 06:26 AM
#78
Source:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-...&resultIndex=2
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:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-...&resultIndex=2
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:
Please correct me if I’m wrong, but the above text does not actually appear to institute any new regulations. Instead it restricts the FAA from doing so, provided certain conditions are met. The conditions appear to be taken verbatim from the existing FAA Advisory Circular AC 91-57A (which is itself non-regulatory in nature).
It doesn't? Really????? Red cites the NEW reg, blue tells us we can't build our own planes anymore, and the whole thing is repetitive in saying we can't fly unless we pass THEIR test, pay their fees, and kiss their butts.
AND, how many of us registered with the FAA - so now they know exactly where to look for the "once-legal" planes?
03-23-2016, 06:55 AM
#79
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Orange County,
CA
Posts: 5,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Please correct me if I’m wrong, but the above text does not actually appear to institute any new regulations. Instead it restricts the FAA from doing so, provided certain conditions are met. The conditions appear to be taken verbatim from the existing FAA Advisory Circular AC 91-57A (which is itself non-regulatory in nature).
If this becomes law, the AMA will have no choice but to put it into the AMA Safety Code since it is a defining aspect of a hobby operation. Thus it will have the same effect as an actual regulation. Plus many landowners, etc. will no doubt write it into leases as well.
And the AC 91-57A does not say "shall not" fly above 400 feet. It simply says that 400 feet agl is a best practice. Not the same thing at all as what the Senate bill is saying.
03-23-2016, 07:11 AM
#80
If this becomes law, the AMA will have no choice but to put it into the AMA Safety Code
03-23-2016, 08:15 AM
#82
03-23-2016, 08:22 AM
#83
03-23-2016, 08:31 AM
#84
My Feedback: (22)
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Howell,
NJ
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Despite one legal opinion to the contrary, given the legal definition of interstate commerce, I don't get how a model built at home for personal use will require a safety statement. The assumption being that such a requirement would be cost prohibitive for most if not all. That this would apply to ARFs is a given, for kits, not so sure...whether a box of balsa and plans meets the criteria of a "manufactured unmanned vehicle" is to my mind debatable.
“(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.
“(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.
03-23-2016, 09:35 AM
#85
I not really on the faa side of this, but what is the harm in requiring a manufacturer to add a rule warning page into a box. Heck, print it on the box like cigarettes.
I wouldnt read more into that statement than there is. We all want the stupids out there to follow the rules.... So we can stop getting new ones placed on us.
if they print it on a good sheet of paper I'll make that into an airplane and fly it too!
I wouldnt read more into that statement than there is. We all want the stupids out there to follow the rules.... So we can stop getting new ones placed on us.
if they print it on a good sheet of paper I'll make that into an airplane and fly it too!
Last edited by SunDevilPilot; 03-23-2016 at 09:38 AM.
03-23-2016, 10:57 AM
#86
I not really on the faa side of this, but what is the harm in requiring a manufacturer to add a rule warning page into a box. Heck, print it on the box like cigarettes.
I wouldnt read more into that statement than there is. We all want the stupids out there to follow the rules.... So we can stop getting new ones placed on us.
if they print it on a good sheet of paper I'll make that into an airplane and fly it too!
I wouldnt read more into that statement than there is. We all want the stupids out there to follow the rules.... So we can stop getting new ones placed on us.
if they print it on a good sheet of paper I'll make that into an airplane and fly it too!
1. I does nothing.
2. It wastes money.
03-23-2016, 11:47 AM
#87
Despite one legal opinion to the contrary, given the legal definition of interstate commerce, I don't get how a model built at home for personal use will require a safety statement. The assumption being that such a requirement would be cost prohibitive for most if not all. That this would apply to ARFs is a given, for kits, not so sure...whether a box of balsa and plans meets the criteria of a "manufactured unmanned vehicle" is to my mind debatable.
“(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.
“(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.
03-23-2016, 11:50 AM
#88
03-23-2016, 12:05 PM
#89
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
Dear AMA members,
We want to provide you with an update on recent congressional action on the new FAA Reauthorization Act of 2016 (SB 2658). Last week, the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, & Transportation, which has jurisdiction over the FAA, sent SB 2658 to the Senate floor for consideration. While the proposed bill affirms the importance of a community-based approach to managing the recreational aeromodeling community, there are some provisions that could be further improved and some new provisions that could be problematic for the aeromodeling community.
AMA is working closely with members of Congress and their staffs to achieve the best possible result for our hobby. AMA is making progress and members of Congress have been receptive to our views.
For instance, we have made positive strides with the 400-foot altitude limitation in the draft proposed Senate bill. Although this onerous provision initially applied to everyone, we have made good progress in working to secure an exemption for AMA members after engaging the leadership of the Senate Commerce, Science, & Transportation Committee. There is still room for improvement and we are using all of our available means to ensure improvements are made. As more develops, we will provide you with greater details.
In the near future, we may also ask you to engage with Congress and advocate for the hobby. Please stay tuned to find out how you can help during this process.
As always, thank you for your continued support.
Sincerely,
AMA Government Affairs
We want to provide you with an update on recent congressional action on the new FAA Reauthorization Act of 2016 (SB 2658). Last week, the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, & Transportation, which has jurisdiction over the FAA, sent SB 2658 to the Senate floor for consideration. While the proposed bill affirms the importance of a community-based approach to managing the recreational aeromodeling community, there are some provisions that could be further improved and some new provisions that could be problematic for the aeromodeling community.
AMA is working closely with members of Congress and their staffs to achieve the best possible result for our hobby. AMA is making progress and members of Congress have been receptive to our views.
For instance, we have made positive strides with the 400-foot altitude limitation in the draft proposed Senate bill. Although this onerous provision initially applied to everyone, we have made good progress in working to secure an exemption for AMA members after engaging the leadership of the Senate Commerce, Science, & Transportation Committee. There is still room for improvement and we are using all of our available means to ensure improvements are made. As more develops, we will provide you with greater details.
In the near future, we may also ask you to engage with Congress and advocate for the hobby. Please stay tuned to find out how you can help during this process.
As always, thank you for your continued support.
Sincerely,
AMA Government Affairs
03-23-2016, 01:08 PM
#90
My Feedback: (5)
Considering what many of the jet guys have said about FEJ maybe manufacturers being required to certify their planes is not a bad thing.
Regarding the 400 ft altitude, that is also a good thing because it will cause more restrictions on those monster "models" than us 40-60 size sport fliers. In over 20 years of flying the only time I ever saw people flying above 400 ft was a few clowns who wanted to see how high they could fly and be able to recover their plane on the down leg. Not very safe.
And passing a basic safety test in order to fly just makes common sense.
I don't see the problem.
Regarding the 400 ft altitude, that is also a good thing because it will cause more restrictions on those monster "models" than us 40-60 size sport fliers. In over 20 years of flying the only time I ever saw people flying above 400 ft was a few clowns who wanted to see how high they could fly and be able to recover their plane on the down leg. Not very safe.
And passing a basic safety test in order to fly just makes common sense.
I don't see the problem.
To summarize this post- It "doesn't affect me so I have no problem with it. To heck with anyone of us that it does."
Plus- I think that 400 feet is lower than you think, If you think a .40 or .60 sized plane can't routinely fly above 400 feet then I think you are mistaken. Take the average club landing strip and stand it on end- your probably at 400 feet or higher.
You don't need to be "a clown" with a "monster model" to be materially restricted by a 400 foot limit.
03-23-2016, 03:36 PM
#93
My Feedback: (3)
Give them their pound of flesh.
$100, or any other amount, is reasonable to allow me to keep flying....test or no test.
As I said, I find it nearly inconceivable and/or improbable that one morning I wake up and find that I can no longer fly an RC model airplane in LOS, as has been done for decades.
Write the legislation, guidelines, laws and prosecute those who violate them and place others at risk...again, give them their pound of flesh and make an example of them.
Im pretty certain it won't be me, as I follow the rules and never put anyone at risk. If I fly at 401' and there is no other air traffic or anyone put at risk, it's no different than driving 70 in a 65.
$100, or any other amount, is reasonable to allow me to keep flying....test or no test.
As I said, I find it nearly inconceivable and/or improbable that one morning I wake up and find that I can no longer fly an RC model airplane in LOS, as has been done for decades.
Write the legislation, guidelines, laws and prosecute those who violate them and place others at risk...again, give them their pound of flesh and make an example of them.
Im pretty certain it won't be me, as I follow the rules and never put anyone at risk. If I fly at 401' and there is no other air traffic or anyone put at risk, it's no different than driving 70 in a 65.
03-23-2016, 03:41 PM
#94
Dear AMA members,
We want to provide you with an update on recent congressional action on the new FAA Reauthorization Act of 2016 (SB 2658). Last week, the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, & Transportation, which has jurisdiction over the FAA, sent SB 2658 to the Senate floor for consideration. While the proposed bill affirms the importance of a community-based approach to managing the recreational aeromodeling community, there are some provisions that could be further improved and some new provisions that could be problematic for the aeromodeling community.
AMA is working closely with members of Congress and their staffs to achieve the best possible result for our hobby. AMA is making progress and members of Congress have been receptive to our views.
For instance, we have made positive strides with the 400-foot altitude limitation in the draft proposed Senate bill. Although this onerous provision initially applied to everyone, we have made good progress in working to secure an exemption for AMA members after engaging the leadership of the Senate Commerce, Science, & Transportation Committee. There is still room for improvement and we are using all of our available means to ensure improvements are made. As more develops, we will provide you with greater details.
In the near future, we may also ask you to engage with Congress and advocate for the hobby. Please stay tuned to find out how you can help during this process.
As always, thank you for your continued support.
Sincerely,
AMA Government Affairs
We want to provide you with an update on recent congressional action on the new FAA Reauthorization Act of 2016 (SB 2658). Last week, the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, & Transportation, which has jurisdiction over the FAA, sent SB 2658 to the Senate floor for consideration. While the proposed bill affirms the importance of a community-based approach to managing the recreational aeromodeling community, there are some provisions that could be further improved and some new provisions that could be problematic for the aeromodeling community.
AMA is working closely with members of Congress and their staffs to achieve the best possible result for our hobby. AMA is making progress and members of Congress have been receptive to our views.
For instance, we have made positive strides with the 400-foot altitude limitation in the draft proposed Senate bill. Although this onerous provision initially applied to everyone, we have made good progress in working to secure an exemption for AMA members after engaging the leadership of the Senate Commerce, Science, & Transportation Committee. There is still room for improvement and we are using all of our available means to ensure improvements are made. As more develops, we will provide you with greater details.
In the near future, we may also ask you to engage with Congress and advocate for the hobby. Please stay tuned to find out how you can help during this process.
As always, thank you for your continued support.
Sincerely,
AMA Government Affairs
I've not received this yet. When did you get it?
03-23-2016, 03:52 PM
#95
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
Got it today via e-mail. Oddly enough I'm usually getting it a day or two or even much later than most of the others, I usually see folks posting stuff and I'm usually wondering where the heck my e-mail is.
I just jumped on the AMA website and didn't see any mention of it on the front page, nor did I see it when I clicked through a couple of times to their media release, or blog items. I'm not a fan of their website layout, I wish it was more modernized and user friendly. Or I need to use it more, so it could be me. I think the e-mail warrants a comment on their blog page, or at least the government relations blog. There is a little more of an interaction there rather than just a press release or announcement. I do see there was something posted about a week ago about a bird-strike study.
I just jumped on the AMA website and didn't see any mention of it on the front page, nor did I see it when I clicked through a couple of times to their media release, or blog items. I'm not a fan of their website layout, I wish it was more modernized and user friendly. Or I need to use it more, so it could be me. I think the e-mail warrants a comment on their blog page, or at least the government relations blog. There is a little more of an interaction there rather than just a press release or announcement. I do see there was something posted about a week ago about a bird-strike study.
03-23-2016, 05:09 PM
#97
Got it today via e-mail. Oddly enough I'm usually getting it a day or two or even much later than most of the others, I usually see folks posting stuff and I'm usually wondering where the heck my e-mail is.
I just jumped on the AMA website and didn't see any mention of it on the front page, nor did I see it when I clicked through a couple of times to their media release, or blog items. I'm not a fan of their website layout, I wish it was more modernized and user friendly. Or I need to use it more, so it could be me. I think the e-mail warrants a comment on their blog page, or at least the government relations blog. There is a little more of an interaction there rather than just a press release or announcement. I do see there was something posted about a week ago about a bird-strike study.
I just jumped on the AMA website and didn't see any mention of it on the front page, nor did I see it when I clicked through a couple of times to their media release, or blog items. I'm not a fan of their website layout, I wish it was more modernized and user friendly. Or I need to use it more, so it could be me. I think the e-mail warrants a comment on their blog page, or at least the government relations blog. There is a little more of an interaction there rather than just a press release or announcement. I do see there was something posted about a week ago about a bird-strike study.
03-23-2016, 05:54 PM
#98
Junior Member
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"(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."
Were in AC 91-57A is (6 and 7) mentioned?
Mike
“(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."
Were in AC 91-57A is (6 and 7) mentioned?
Mike
03-24-2016, 03:19 AM
#100
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: El Paso,
TX
Posts: 5,277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
e. Model aircraft operators should follow best practices including limiting operations to 400 feet above ground level (AGL).
From the new bill.
(6) the aircraft is flown from the surface to not more than 400 feet in altitude;
See the difference?
Mike