hariustrk

My Feedback: (3)

This is from a friend of a friend so take it with a grain of salt:

He heard at the NEAT fair that the FAA was about to enact a new rule for model aircraft. No flying with in 5 miles of an airport.

Has anyone else heard about this? And if so can you point me to something concrete about it? I send the same question to the AMA but no response yet.

dbcisco

From what I have read from the FAA/ARC documents, it seems like their "guidelines" for model aircraft may become "rules". We will know before 2012.

Charlie P.

My club flies at an airport (F.B.O. grass field). 

dbcisco

[link=http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/1acfc3f689769a56862569e70077c9cc/$FILE/ATTBJMAC/ac91-57.pdf]HERE [/link] are the current FAA guidelines for model aircraft.
Since they are "guidelines" the habit has been to completely ignore then for almost three decades.

dbcisco

It is also quite possible that under the new regulations many of what we consider "model aircraft" will be clasified as UASes, esp. giant scale aircraft, and held to more stringent regulations.

hariustrk

My Feedback: (3)

My concern is (atleast where I live) it's pretty hard to get 5 miles from some sort of airfield. Lots of little grass fields out in the sticks in upstate new york.

Silent-AV8R

Apparently there were a lot of rumors circulating around the NEAT Fair. This is the 3rd reference to a rumor from there that I have seen today.

I have not heard any confirmation of any of the rumors from anyone I know, including people involved in the process at the AMA. I suspect that what is happening is the news of the coming sUAS regulations is spreading to a large group of people and thus rumors propagate from there.

Here is the official AMA update page: http://www.modelaircraft.org/news/ama-faa.aspx

Having said all that, I suspect that when we see the proposed rules sometime next year that they will include reference to a 5 nautical mile (5.75 sm) ring around tower controlled airports. This includes Class D, C, and B airspace. I suspect that there will be more severe limits on operations in that airspace, but I think it will stop short of an all out ban.

But nothing is going to happen until we see the proposed rules when the FAA issues a Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) sometime next year. Then it will likely not be until sometime in 2012 that those rules would take effect.

Silent-AV8R

I doubt that. So far it appears that the FAA is comfortable with the current 55 pound limit used by the AMA. It is also likely that the FAA will allow the continued use of the AMA's experimental category for models up to 100 pounds. But at the very least the 55 pound rule will likely stick and that covers the vast majority of models. Currently there are only 96 or so models with permits to fly over 55 pounds.

dbcisco

From AFS-400 UAS POLICY 05-01 (FAA Sept. 16, 2005)

"6.13. Model Aircraft. Advisory Circular (AC) 91-57, Model Aircraft Operating Standards, published in 1981, applies to model aircraft. UA that comply with the guidance in AC 91-57 are considered model aircraft and are not evaluated by the UA criteria in this policy."

Silent-AV8R

What is going to separate models from the more strictly regulated sUAS vehicles is going to be more operational than physical. The FAA recognizes that there is a fair degree of cross over between models and actual sUAS that will require regulation. That is one of the prime reasons for the new regulations. A review of the ARC memo reveals a combination of operational standards and physical limits/characteristics as being the defining aspect of the differences.

The FAA has stated numerous times that they do not desire to regulate models. Having said that, in order not to regulate us they need to define what we are so they can exclude us from regulation. Beyond that it appears they are leaning towards a tiered approach which would include a default and more highly regulated tier and a second tier for operations conducted under an approved safety program administered by a recognized community based organization such as the AMA.

The current sUAS Guidance document is:

AVIATION SAFETY - UNMANNED AIRCRAFT PROGRAM OFFICE
AIR-160
Interim Operational Approval Guidance 08-01
Unmanned Aircraft Systems
Operations in the U. S. National Airspace System
March 13, 2008

That will be replaced by the upcoming sUAS regulations.

dbcisco

That has been recommended to the FAA/ARC by the AMA, there is no way to know whether it will (or will not) be incorporated into the finished product until we see the FAA's finalized rules.

Charlie P.

ira d

I think as long as our models are operated inside areas that have been designated for model planes and we dont over fly other areas or conflict
with full scale aircraft we will be fine.

dbcisco

That is part of the problem. Up to now, the FAA has let us be on the honor system to abide by their suggestions. Sadly, far too many have ignored those guidelines as "just suggestions to be ignored" and done anything they want. It seems the FAA has realized that their "guidelines" aren't taken seriously (or are abused) so here come the "rules".

Silent-AV8R

Well, actually you have that backwards. The ARC group made the recommendation for a tiered approach. AMA objected to it. Despite the AMA objection based on two meetings with the AMA where information has been published it appears that the FAA is still moving towards a tiered approach.

So again, it was the ARC over the objection of the AMA that recommended the tiered approach. It appears that the FAA is likely going to use that.

I do agree with you that until they publish the actual NPRM next year we will not really know for sure what they actually intend to do.

Silent-AV8R

I know I have tried to get this across to you before, but the coming sUAS regulations are absolutely NOT the result of anyone ignoring the FAA within the modeling community. They are 100% the result of the FAA becoming increasingly concerned about the widespread and growing use of sUAS by public agencies and commercial enterprises. The FAA is writing the new regulations so that sUAS can be operated safely within the National Airspace System without causing a danger to full scale aviation.

One possible confusion of some is the fact that some of these users tried to operate using AC 91-57 in order to skirt more stringent operating standards. That is why the FAA is doing what they are doing.

I first heard about the FAA moving in this direction in 2000 when I was part of a group that got a COA for a model event near Chino Airport. At the time we got the COA the FAA Airspace Manager for southern California mentioned that regulations were coming, and sure enough, here they come!!

dbcisco

You are entitled to your opinion.

Sport_Pilot

I doubt the rule will apply to private airports. It's a free contry and anybody that has enough land can open up an airport, and they don't have to comply with the FAA rules for public airports. Such rules should not apply to them.

Sport_Pilot

Anything they come up with now will also be ignored. Not by the AMA but most of its members and almost all of the non members. Only those who know about the rules will likely comply and the AMA can shout from the rooftops and most will not listen. Perhaps that is why the FAA is reluctant to regulate models.

Bax

My Feedback: (11)

If the FAA passes regulations, then they WILL be enforced. You'll find some yahoos out there with their FPV airplane flying over some burg, somewhere, and someone will complain. While it may be difficult for that flyer to be found immediately, get a few complaints and you'll see some action taken by the FAA's enforcement arm. To make a point, government agencies with regulating and enforcement powers will find a need, at some point, to make an example, "pour encourager les autres".

Charlie P.

What Bax said. The AMA is a bunch of like minded folks who formed a club. It has no judiciary powers or enforcement beyond expulsion from the club.

The FAA is a federal agency and has the power to pass legislation, bring suits and issue warrants. (aka : kick some tail).

Don't fly where you're not supposed to if you see one of these near by. (Triangulation/direction finding radio truck - WWII era)

dbcisco

The AMA wanted a set of rules for themselves and another for everyone else, as if AMA members are different/better/safer than anyone else flying.

Silent-AV8R

Wrong, the AMA wanted a single set of rules for everyone. As you say, we are all entitled to our opinion, but we are not entitled to our own facts.

From the ARC Memo:

This is the section AMA feels should be eliminated:

Exactly the opposite of wanting a set of standards for AMA members and one for everyone else. The AMA wants a single set for everyone.

BarracudaHockey

My Feedback: (11)

What the AMA wants is to separate sport modelers from commercial and other users.

I've got news for you, thats the same thing most people in the FAA want.

K-Bob

My Feedback: (1)

Yep.

And since the AMA is the only national representation of the modeling community, and has a safety code in place, it's a natural that they would be spokesman for the hobby. No "powerplay"on their part, AMA members and non-members alike will benefit.