FAA Reauthorization 2016 AIRR - 2016
New FAA Reauthorization bill. Aviation Innovation, Reform, and Reauthorization Act of 2016 - AIRR-2016
Section 336 is gone, replaced by Chapter 45 Section 45507. Starts on page 215: http://transportation.house.gov/uplo...r_act_text.pdf |
Interesting reading there, Silent. Can you share the source of this document, and perhaps the author, and how it is intended to get on Congress' to do list?
|
that did not take long.
good stuff started on 213 for me. lot to digest |
Originally Posted by Bob Pastorello
(Post 12172091)
Interesting reading there, Silent. Can you share the source of this document, and perhaps the author, and how it is intended to get on Congress' to do list?
Mr. SHUSTER (for himself and Mr. LOBIONDO) introduced the following bill;which was referred to the Committee on |
Thanks, I missed it, 'cause I was heading to the Table of Contents.... sounds like it may never be anything, but it's still well written on the model aircraft side....in my opinion, of course.
|
Originally Posted by Silent-AV8R
(Post 12172056)
New FAA Reauthorization bill. Aviation Innovation, Reform, and Reauthorization Act of 2016 - AIRR-2016
Section 336 is gone, replaced by Chapter 45 Section 45507. Starts on page 215: http://transportation.house.gov/uplo...r_act_text.pdf |
[h=1]Shuster proposes FAA reauthorization bill removing ATC from FAA[/h]
http://atwonline.com/air-traffic-con...8821d24a0b8393 |
Looks like we may have lost any mention of the 400 rule not sure. No time to review in depth right now. I depends on if this replaces 336 or amends 336 from the 2012 authorization bill.
The ATC part may cause this whole bill to be scraped and someone else may have a bill later that is not as nice for us. |
Our little toys will get ignored - the big issue with the bill is the creation of another post office type disaster affecting the safety of the flying public.
|
IMO taking ATC away from the FAA is a good thing. The FAA has always resisted the idea of simplifying it and giving automatic data to the pilots. Which they had to relinquish for the collision avoidance systems.
|
Originally Posted by Sport_Pilot
(Post 12172322)
Looks like we may have lost any mention of the 400 rule not sure. No time to review in depth right now. I depends on if this replaces 336 or amends 336 from the 2012 authorization bill.
The ATC part may cause this whole bill to be scraped and someone else may have a bill later that is not as nice for us. |
and,
if i read it correctly, this new legislation will completely replace section 336. info is a coupla pages after the other model aircraft stuff. lots to read and understand in this... |
What I found interesting is that the definition of a CBO is expanded to include, among others, that one "...provides assistance and support in the development and operation of locally designated model aircraft flying sites." (pg 217 line 21 through 218 line 15).
Now, given that AMA tells us they are already recognized as a CBO (per Chad B.), why would they want this added? Perhaps to make it more difficult on competitors to compete for membership dollars? |
unless I've missed something (entirely possible), nothing in either 336, or the existing FAA Interim Interpretation requires membership in a CBO. The texts require that operations be conducted within the scope of safety rules, and "programming" of a CBO.
Is that incorrect? As I've discovered my homeowners' specifically states that operation of model airplanes *ARE* covered under personal liability (recently changed companies/underwriters), and my coverages are quite satisfactory, continuing membership seems redundant at this point, as the property owner / landlord only requires financial liability proof of coverage, and the AMA insurance has ALWAYS been "secondary" anyway.... |
Originally Posted by Sport_Pilot
(Post 12172412)
IMO taking ATC away from the FAA is a good thing. The FAA has always resisted the idea of simplifying it and giving automatic data to the pilots. Which they had to relinquish for the collision avoidance systems.
Then after the Planning do a time laps presentation on an interactive map of the weather and any conditions that will be encountered i.e. VFR winds IFR Low IFR notams moa restricted areas ect. Would cut flight planning to a minimum. But this is a discussion of the FAA losing their responsibility for ATC They have already lost many of the 519 towers for many are staffed by private contractors not FAA personal. Just as a side note both the towers tow of the SE Wisconsin clubs I fly with are within the five mile radius by less than a quarter mile and these are Not FAA controlled. |
Originally Posted by Bob Pastorello
(Post 12172599)
unless I've missed something (entirely possible), nothing in either 336, or the existing FAA Interim Interpretation requires membership in a CBO. The texts require that operations be conducted within the scope of safety rules, and "programming" of a CBO.
Is that incorrect? Per Chad B in a direct question on AMA's site, they will not "certify" a model aircraft under that section of the law unless it is a member's aircraft. As there are no other CBOs, then that language in fact makes membership in AMA a requirement - at least to operate an aircraft > 55lbs legally that is. |
Originally Posted by Silent-AV8R
(Post 12172468)
There was never any mention of 400 foot anything in Section 336 of P.L. 112-95. Nor is it in the proposed Part 101.41 governing model aircraft operations. The one and only place 400 feet is officially mentioned is in AC 91-57A, where it is referred to as a "best practice". The 400 foot guideline in the registration process carries no regulatory or legal weight.
|
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/imag...quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Bob Pastorello http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/imag...post-right.png
unless I've missed something (entirely possible), nothing in either 336, or the existing FAA Interim Interpretation requires membership in a CBO. The texts require that operations be conducted within the scope of safety rules, and "programming" ofa CBO. Is that incorrect?
Originally Posted by franklin_m
(Post 12172606)
Current law, PL112-95 Section 336 para (a)(3) and says: "the aircraft is limited to not more than 55 pounds unless otherwise certified through a design, construction, inspection, flight test, and operational safety program administered by a community-based organization [emphasis added];"
Per Chad B in a direct question on AMA's site, they will not "certify" a model aircraft under that section of the law unless it is a member's aircraft. As there are no other CBOs, then that language in fact makes membership in AMA a requirement - at least to operate an aircraft > 55lbs legally that is. Give a URL plz |
Originally Posted by franklin_m
(Post 12172587)
What I found interesting is that the definition of a CBO is expanded to include, among others, that one "...provides assistance and support in the development and operation of locally designated model aircraft flying sites." (pg 217 line 21 through 218 line 15).
Now, given that AMA tells us they are already recognized as a CBO (per Chad B.), why would they want this added? Perhaps to make it more difficult on competitors to compete for membership dollars? |
Originally Posted by Bob Pastorello
(Post 12172599)
unless I've missed something (entirely possible), nothing in either 336, or the existing FAA Interim Interpretation requires membership in a CBO. The texts require that operations be conducted within the scope of safety rules, and "programming" of a CBO.
Is that incorrect? As I've discovered my homeowners' specifically states that operation of model airplanes *ARE* covered under personal liability (recently changed companies/underwriters), and my coverages are quite satisfactory, continuing membership seems redundant at this point, as the property owner / landlord only requires financial liability proof of coverage, and the AMA insurance has ALWAYS been "secondary" anyway.... Obviously that cuts down on flying at many clubs, but then again there are lots of clubs out there that don't require AMA, so it works out. |
Originally Posted by franklin_m
(Post 12172606)
Current law, PL112-95 Section 336 para (a)(3) and says: "the aircraft is limited to not more than 55 pounds unless otherwise certified through a design, construction, inspection, flight test, and operational safety program administered by a community-based organization [emphasis added];"
Per Chad B in a direct question on AMA's site, they will not "certify" a model aircraft under that section of the law unless it is a member's aircraft. As there are no other CBOs, then that language in fact makes membership in AMA a requirement - at least to operate an aircraft > 55lbs legally that is. |
Originally Posted by HoundDog
(Post 12172609)
Where's the GD URL PLEASE....
Here, let me try: https://www.faa.gov/uas/nprm/ Took all of 0.03 seconds. AC 91-57A http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/m...1-57A_Ch_1.pdf That one took almost a full half a second!!! |
Originally Posted by Bob Pastorello
(Post 12172642)
I was aware of the GREATER than 55 lbs....my post is in reference to aircraft BELOW 55 lbs. Sorry I didn't clarify that in my post.
|
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/imag...quote_icon.png Originally Posted by HoundDog http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/imag...post-right.png
Where's the GD URL PLEASE.... http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/imag...quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Silent-AV8R http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/imag...post-right.png There was never any mention of 400 foot anything in Section 336 of P.L. 112-95. Nor is it in the proposed Part 101.41 governing model aircraft operations. The one and only place 400 feet is officially mentioned is in AC 91-57A, where it is referred to as a "best practice". The 400 foot guideline in the registration process carries no regulatory or legal weight.
Originally Posted by Silent-AV8R
(Post 12172658)
Which URL do you refer to?? Surely you can find AC 91-57A and the sUAS NPRM easily enough.
Here, let me try: https://www.faa.gov/uas/nprm/ Took all of 0.03 seconds. AC 91-57A http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/m...1-57A_Ch_1.pdf That one took almost a full half a second!!! The URL on proposed Part 101.41 governing model aircraft operations. and what part U are specifically are referring to. This is what i get when I google (Part 101.41) is it any one of these? Part 101.41 governing model aircraft operations. Search Results
|
As usual, I have no idea what you think you are trying to say.
|
All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:19 PM. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.