That would be nice, but it's not even close to being true. Modeling not within the CBO exemption is as subject to FAA regulations as it ever was. That's likely true even of most CBO modeling within five miles of an airport (which is just about all modeling in most parts of the country) as well, though the details are unclear. And even for modeling that follows AMA rules and is conducted by AMA members and isn't within five miles of an airport, there is enough wiggle room in the new legislation to let the FAA do plenty of regulating.

Modeling has never been subject to FAA regulations except as an obstruction to full scale aircraft. The law that created the FAA only incuded aircraft that carried people.

Again, not true. Show me a law that says the FAA's jurisdiction is limited to planes that carry people. If this were so, all those NOTAM's shutting down aviation, including model aviation, when the President comes to visit would be invalid. I've never even seen anyone suggest such a thing. It is of course the case that the FAA's concern with models has to do mostly with their potential to interfere with full-scale planes, though the no-fly NOTAM's seem also to be concerned with the possibility of weaponized models..

Even the law you cited before, which purports to limit the FAA's power to regulate (some) models, clearly provides for regulation of many modeling activities. Furthermore, it adds this, which pretty much concedes the game, even for models within the CBO exception:

"Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the authority of the Administrator to pursue enforcement action against persons operating model aircraft who endanger the safety of the national airspace system."

Every bad thing the FAA may do to us, especially the possible 400-foot limit, will be justified by saying that it's needed to make full-scale aviation safer.

That is not the FAA shutting down the airspace, that is the Secret Service. Has nothing to do with FAA.

That changes nothing, the FAA already has authority preventing model aircraft and even ground vehicles from obstructing the airspace. It is even illegal to operate a crane near an airport without permission from the airport authorities.

I dare someone to try and make me stop flying my models! Except for my wife of course.

That's exactly my point. The FAA can regulate anything that flies, and even things that don't fly if they can affect aviation. So the idea that the new law prevents the FAA from interfering with our hobby is absurd. All they have to do is decide that something we're doing is "endangering the safety of the national airspace system" and they can stop it.

As for the NOTAM's shutting down aviation for VIP visits, it's not true that they "have nothing to do with the FAA." The Secret Service coordinates with the FAA on these.(Flight restrictions not involving VIP's are issued by the FAA alone.) See http://www.nbaa.org/ops/airspace/ale...strictions.php.

People are waking up... all that lobbying money ... wasted.

No, they cannot regulate anything that flies. They cannot regulate model airplanes, birds, model rockets, and many other things that fly. The fact that they can regulate the airspace for obstructions to the airspace has been true since its founding and nothing has changed in this respect.

While the FAA issues the NOTAM the authority to restrict the airspace comes from the POTUS, and that comes from the Constitution as his power as "Commander in Chief", and the power of immanent domain. It is only for security and his self defense

You keep saying the FAA can't regulate models. This is a preposterous claim, and one that would astonish the AMA, which has been negotiating with the FAA over FAA regulation of models for some time now.. Even the law that I assume you mean to refer to expressly provides for regulation of model planes not within the CBO "exemption," of models within five miles of an airport, and of models that may pose a hazard to full-scale operations.. And yet, when I quote a section of the law that says the FAA can regulate all models, you say that's old news because the FAA can regulate anything that can interfere with full-scale aviation. When you make up your mind, let us know. (As for model rockets, high-power rockets need an FAA clearance before they are launched. You are technically right about birds, though the FAA does take an interest in bird strikes.)

Nothing here is obscure. The FAA can regulate things that potentially may interfere with full-scale flying. Models can potentially interfere with full-scale flying. So the FAA can regulate models. The new law provides a sort of exemption for some models (but plainly not all, or what would be the point of the CBO stuff). But the law also takes back most or maybe all of what it seems to give us since it allows FAA enforcement actions against any modeling that can interfere with full-scale flying. All of this is quite clear. To deny it is absurd.

Sport_Pilot........I have heard of "ememant domain" but what the heck is this "immanent domain" that you claim is the basis for the Secret Services issuing NOTAMS?

You are talking about the planet Earth.....right?

Ok so I misspelled a word. That bothers you? Weeelll Tooo BAAD. The spell checker doesn't work on this compter and I don't bother with cut and pasting on the word processor. I think I doo well.

Past court decisions back before the CAA estabilished that the government had emenant domaene over the skies, as well as control of what they do and carry under the commerse claws..

Do you bother to read all of my posts? I said the FAA cannot regulate model aircraft EXCEPT AS AN OBSTUCTION TO FULL SCALE AIRCRAFT. You keep trying to pin the regulations for obstuctions as an error on my part, I never said they could not regulate where our models fly. There was fear that the FAA would require model pilots license and certify our models, etc. They cannot do that. What they can regulate is where we fly with regard to full scale, but that was always the case. They just did not want to do that other than issuing an advisory that was voluntary. Quit arguing something we agree on.

Yes, the FAA's regulation of model planes is based on its powers to make full-scale aviation safe. Nobody has ever questioned that. I do think their power to do that might someday lead to licensing model pilots, and it certainly could include requiring that models meet certain standards (including telemetry equipment, to enforce an altitude limit). But that's a detail and hardly worth discussing.

You may remember that your earlier post on this said this:

"The FAA can do nothing about model aircraft as the law specifically said they would be unregulated"

I'm glad to see that you no longer take that position.

I never said that anything was misspelled????? Just that I did not know what the heck "immanent domain" was, and how the Secret Service issued NOTAMS? BTW you do know that NOTAMS are issued mostly for reasons other than "VIP Movement"?

Now I have to ask............................ what is a "commerse claws" ?

My whole point is that they do not have the power to do that, they can only ask that our models not fly in thier airspace (500 feet above the ground). They never had the power to make models meet standards and they were not given that power. In actuality they never had power for certification of any sUAV's but the industry allowed them too, now the recent law gave that power to them.

For goodness sake. Now you're claiming the FAA can't do anything about models but ask us not to fly in "their airspace"? And that they can do nothing about airspace below 500 feet? Both of these claims are nonsense. Look up "controlled airspace" some time: a lot of it goes all the way to the ground. And even in uncontrolled airspace, there are FAA rules about how to fly. I give up. If the FAA ever tries to mess with me I'll tell them to get in touch with you, and you can explain that they can only ask us to do things.

Controlled airspace is airspace where radio and navigations services for full scale aircraft are required or provided. That's all.

I was somewhat incorrect in using the word ask. They can enforce that. But somewhat difficult in that they cannot suspend any license because it does not exist. Cannot in most cases track the model airplane, and do not have inspectors or police watching each model. So on third thought, in a way ask is correct.

Yes, but usually others originate the NOTAMS, the FAA just issues them. Those originated by the FAA are few.

semantics aside, I'll just keep flying as I always have, with great concern for others, until they (whoever "they" are) ask that I don't... Then we'll see about that.

Really?

http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publi...AP_for_web.pdf

This post is not directed at anyone specifically, but rather just a rhetorical observation/question. Would welcome discussion...As I've read so many threads about what the AMA and FAA can and cannot "do", and about who has "jurisdiction" over which activities...it seems that there are many modelers who fail to understand that the FAA "owns" what happens in airspace, period, and that they have authority to regulate activities IN that airspace. Or have I over simplified their authority and fail to understand it myself?

That's mostly right. There is some recent legislation that purports to give some modelers (AMA, in fact, though that's not how it's worded) an exemption from new FAA regulations. But it also says the FAA can proceed with enforcement actions against modelers who do things that would mess with full-scale aviation, and there's some badly drafted and therefore unclear stuff about flying models within five miles of an airport. So that law won't protect us much, if at all. A few people have claimed from time to time that the FAA can do nothing to us because of this law. That's just wrong. The important question is not what can they do but what will they do, and nobody knows the answer to that.

Thanks, Al.

So, if the FAA has essentially "always" had jurisdiction over the "air", have they not ALWAYS, therefore, had the authority to manage model aircraft operations?
Isn't this all really just a matter of advancing technological capability in the hands of declining-intelligence equipment operators getting it all "on the radar"..??? Or am I again guilty of stereotyping over-simplification of complex issues?

How can the FAA have jurisdiction over the air? They certainly have jurisdiction over those who fly full size aircraft and have created flight lanes in order to better control air traffic but how can they control the "air"?
IT appears to me their is a lot of needless worrying and harping on this subject as it appears the FAA at this time has no interest in regulating model aircraft and if even they did attempt to do so there would be so many people flying park flyers and flying from privately owned fields, they would never be able to enforce anything. It wouldn't make any sense for them to do so; however, in these times where the government in D.C. has become an out of control, lawless gang of corrupt bureaucracies including congress and the White House, where everyday they are scheming to take away more of our rights and turn this nation into an Orwellian Police state, there may come a time my friends, where they will shut this hobby down and we will be only allowed to fly U control. Just remember under the old Soviet Union radio control was outlawed.
When a government starts down the road towards tyranny, there is no turning back.....it has to continue until it has attained complete control over everybody's lives. Do not ever believe it can't happen here. Just think about where we were and where we are now at.
" Government is not reason. It is not eloquent. It is force; Like fire it is a dangerous servant and a fearful enemy." George Washington.

While I agree 100% with the political position of your post, as long as idiots are flying quadcopters into the faces of those that they are video recording or crashing quadcopters into spectators in stadiums, we have a problem............ not with the FAA............... not opressive government........... but idiots that have no regard for flying safe. .