AIRMAR72

WOW another tea bagger myth

FliteMetal

George,

You see how uncomfortable that sounds compared to what I referenced as sounding like that faction in support of UAV's.
I know Joe isn't anti-recreational r/c. Joe's seemed like an all around r/c supporter over the years, actually invested heavily
in his multi-blade drive unit in behalf of the scale community's needs.

On to my point, there is a self professed FAA employee who is actually lobbying against recreational r/c since his beloved
UAV manufacturing community were constrained even further than they were after ARC. He is a very active r/c pilot and
"former" promoter.

My point in all this is being lost amidst many screaming about a falling sky. While change may be on the horizon in some
ways, it is my personal opinion if the FAA were really out to severely constrain recreational r/c they would not waste any
time doing so. Otherwise, why would they push their decision announcement date? Well for one, they know there will be
a snow storm of letter writing to Congress pleading for defense of our beloved recreational r/c. A snow storm which
they will have to shovel through.

This is all driven by HLS and not likely to go away within your timeline. Our greatest threat is constrained ceiling and airspeed.
This, just as AUW was rising to enable safest flight possible. There is only one official modeling voice saying how things are...
Dave Mathewson. He shares how the lay of the land is in his MA column.

Everyone has access to the current state of affairs. Its a pdf file only a click away:
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/1acfc3f689769a56862569e70077c9cc/$FILE/ATTBJMAC/ac91-57.pdf

This is and has had a 400' ceiling since the beginning...June 9, 1981 AC-91-57 FAA. One page statement of safe operating
"recommendations". There is a definate segregation of UAV/UAS from AC-91-57 Model Aircraft, "recommendations". The
principal is ceiling and exercising safety within and around a full size facility. AC-91-57 recognizes the AMA and its members
as "the" responsible body of model aircraft operators in this document. UAV/UAS references and constraints are outside the
definition of AC-91-57.

It is my assumption AC-91-57 will be ammended to some extent that will make reference to the existance of UAS and the
document defining their operation. Since FAA has clearly isolated UAS from "Model Aircraft"...pure speculation on my part...
makes me believe it is likely there will be additional definition of Model Aircraft at the time of document update publishing.

The focus at hand is to defend the permissions granted within the 400 foot ceiling. Obviously the FAA knows there is going
to be incidental altitude over 400', but not sustained. Our line of sight operation speaks well for our permission seperation
from UAS with their autonomous operation.

Thomas B

My Feedback: (4)

Ran across this in the AMA President's Perspective column when reviewing the available materials:

Anyone know what firm was retained by the AMA to help with this problem?

Doug Cronkhite

My Feedback: (34)

The problem Ed, is the FAA doesn't know how to segregate us from the UAS community, so they're likely to simply make sweeping decisions that cut us off. The FAA doesn't want to have to legislate us, but from what I hear, the UAS people have a lot of money behind it and are throwing the 'Why are they different?' card around a lot and pointing at us. If the FAA can't CLEARLY DEFINE why we're different, they're not going to care. I worked within the FAA for nearly 10 years.. once they have their mind set to something, very little can be done to change it. All you need to do is look at the stupidity surrounding Bob Hoover to see that.

The simple fact that there is a 'no turbine engines' line item should be scary enough. I seriously hope the AMA can get their point across or we're going to have an awful lot of expensive paper-weights here in the USA.

FliteMetal

Doug,

It is what the FAA decides it is...you're right there.

There are prideful issues related to all quasi-legislative agencies. I don't mean that disrespectfully, its simply an element of creating law
and enforcing it under the same roof tends to set an overlord tone on any subject. I don't know that public forum can influence what ever
they have already decided.

Best case would be we never hear another word, since they achieved what they set out to constrain. Its only a matter of time. After all,
its been a long, long time since the last time they composed a recreational r/c definition...June 9, 1981.

FliteMetal

Dave's latest news...12/08/2010 http://www.modelaircraft.org/news/ama-faa.aspx

RCfan

Here's a thought...how will the FAA be able to enforce their proposed rules?

thunderchief

Here is a thought...........................do you want to brake a Federal law if they put it in place? Not me! Do so and you could be the reason you lose your flying field for all aircraft if it is a public field. Thunderchief

Kriptonic69

My Feedback: (1)

All this crap because a couple of jets flew into the WTC back in 2001.

What has the world come to since then. If they ban RC in anyway shape or form, then the terrorist have one. Guess the only way to get our Freedoms back would be to Nuke them SOB's back to the stone age, which wouldn't be far from where they are now (they don't have flushing toilets, do they, all them goat hearding terrorist *****s)????

Cheers,

Gene

VF84sluggo

My Feedback: (55)

Exactly...their new crap looks just like their old crap.

ira d

I was at the AMA convention today and the AMA hosted a meeting with the FAA and the FAA said the new forthcoming regulations had nothing to with security or
any incendents that has happened with rc planes or full scale. They went on to say that the regulations were brought about by recent developments and actions
by the uas users. They were however tight liped about the specific nature of the new regulations that should come into play in 2013.

Also they said they dontintend to patrol flying sites but if a incendent was to happen and that person was in violation of the FAA rules they meaning the FAA
would now be in a position to take action against that preson.

tinner1

Thanks for the update ira. Personally I think the proposed regulations are going to be like "curfew laws" for children. When too many kids hung out at street corners and the cops tried to break them up, the cops had no real "power/laws" to do so. Curfew laws give the cops authority to make them break up. If they aren't a problem then the law won't affect them. Cause trouble and there is a "law" to cover it. I think we will find that true with the new regs, but only time will tell, arguing here will prove/change nothing...

VF84sluggo

My Feedback: (55)

Yes, exactly...I got caught up in the back-and-forth in various threads here on RCU about this FAA rulemaking. It has grown fatiguing. Further, while I freely admit I'm no fan of the FAA (neither eas Bill Lear, so I figure I'm in good company), getting carried away with FAA-bashing could be counter-productive.

As you say, we can change nothing arguing here right now. Once the NPRM is published, then we will know where we stand.

Randy

flyinfool1

My Feedback: (2)

Enforcement will take care of its self.
If you are violating a federal law, You may get away with it for a while.
If you should have an accident and injure someone or do property damage you will find out that you have NO insurance coverage. At that point even a good lawyer will not be able to help you. You will be in deep doo doo for the rest of your life.
I can tell you that if turbines were declared illegal and you tried to fly one at our field, there would be a LEO there by the time you landed. I will not give up my flying field to satisfy anyone's over inflated ego.

thunderchief

Jeff, well said I would also add that if it is part of the AMA code and an individual joins the AMA he is stating that he will follow the code. At our field break an AMA rule and you would be gone. Had a turbine flyer show up once with out a wavier, he was told he could not fly. All of the guys at our field fly other things besides turbines so we would not rick our field by allowing a turbine to fly if they were banned............just call 911 and it will be enforced!

Silent-AV8R

Here was my take after both the presentation and some other chats with the AMA folks and others:

The presentation today was very interesting. The FAA had two people there. James Sizemore and a lady named Lynn. Mr. Sizemore was part of the FAA team early on and recently rejoined this group. Lynn is a recent addition. Mr. Sizemore is an active modeler in the DCRC club. He noted that a fair number of people in the UAPO (Unmanned Aircraft Program Office) are either active or past modelers. They both noted that the FAA fully recognizes the contribution of model aviation to the aviation industry.

As expected they were unable to address specific questions about the Rule. FAA policy prohibits them from doing so. Having said that, my overall impression is that I a bit more optimistic than I was when I woke up today.

A few high points for me were first hearing that the Rule is in fact written. It is undergoing a series of internal checks and reviews prior to being published as a NPRM sometime in June or perhaps July.

From there will be a comment period followed by a review and assessment of the comments and then the Rule may be modified based on those comments (or not) and then published in a final form. Final publication will likely be sometime in 2012.

They were very clear that the FAA is not interested in harming model aviation. They also clearly stated that the ONLY motivation for this was the explosive growth in the UAV world and the increasing number of commercial UAV folks trying to operate and calling themselves models. Since the FAA had no rules to regulate those uses, they decided to write these rules. It is a 100% air safety thing.

They very clearly stated that fears of terrorism and so on had absolutely nothing to do with the rules. They also said very clearly that there is no over riding concern about the past safety record of models or events that got us on their radar as it were. Again, it is the fact that in many cases we are indistinguishable from commercial UAS that they have to draw a line between us and them,

They laid out how the Safety Program that the AMA is writing will be reviewed and accepted (or accepted with modifications) for reference by the rule. The way it works is that if you want to be called a model you will operate in accordance with the accepted standards for models or you will have to operate as a regulated commercial sUAS.

They were clear that they are not prescribing any specific limits for altitude, speed, weight, propulsion, etc. At one point they said very clearly that they have not told the AMA to take turbines off the table for instance.

I expect that once an accepted set of operating standards is in place the way it will work is that the FAA will say go forth and enjoy. They will likely define places where you cannot operate regardless of compliance with the rules. This is sort of the same as saying ultra lights cannot operate in Class B airspace for instance.

The major challenge right now is to craft our safety program in a format and language that the FAA can accept. But they seemed genuinely interested in working with us to enable us to continue on in as close as possible to what we do now. They are also acutely aware of our concerns about altitude, speed, turbines, and so on.

While we are by no means out of the woods I can say that I am far more optimistic than I have been in the past. One really important thing I learned today was that when Dave Mathewson wrote his ominous article for the December MA it was right after a very disappointing meeting with the FAA. The AMA related their deep concerns and disappointment with the direction things were going. Shortly after that the FAA team was changed to the one that the AMA is working with now. For me the take away is that the FAA higher ups took the AMA concerns to heart and responded positively. That is huge in my mind.

So I am not dancing in the streets with joy, but I am also not thinking about selling everything either, for whatever that is worth to people.

Let me add that the impression I got is that they are working hard to help us to write safety standards that allow us to do what we do now in a manner that satisfies their need to demonstrate that they are protecting aviation safety.

Their concerns for us, as well as the commercial sUAS, focuses on things like what happens in a loss of control, pilot error, fly away and so on. They made positive statements about the things we do already, like checking battery packs prior to flight as a method of confirming that we will not lose battery power and control. Or selecting a field location that mitigates the risk from these events, and so on.

The only mention of AC 91-57 was during the explanation of why they are making the rule in the first place. There were a large number of commercial/public use users flying sUAS for hire who were doing so and saying that they were operating under AC 91-57. In 2007 the FAA issued a clarification of this saying that was not legal and then started moving towards writing these rules. That was the last time it was mentioned.

About the AMA working group doing the standards: Dave Mathewson and Rich Hanson have both stated very clearly that they are not "leaving anyone behind". There is no area of modeling they feel is worth sacrificing. So if the concern is that for instance the AMA will write a standard that says "No Turbines" or "No large planes" or "Nothing over 400 feet" I can more or less guarantee you that this is not going to happen.

The working group within the AMA has knowledgeable people from all parts of the hobby on it. Soaring, IMAC, pattern, jets, and so on all have solid representation there. Said simply, this is not a concern.

Thomas B

My Feedback: (4)

Silent, given that they could not discuss the rules as written, yet, was there any roundabout discussion of the AMA/CBO rules vs possible more restrictive rules for non AMA/CBO members?

Silent-AV8R

As I indicated, the AMA folks were very explicit that they are not intending to write anything in the way of significant restrictions. The way I see it the AMA is basically writing a safety program that will allow us to keep doing exactly what we are doing now. In a general way I also got the sense that the FAA was OK with this approach.

Of course, there will be no huge surprise if the FAA fiddles with the AMA approach, but that is the nature of the beast.

rhklenke

My Feedback: (24)

Thomas,

What you are referring too was what was called the "default path" in the proposed rules that came out of the ARC. This was a set of rules that would allow non-AMA modelers to operate on a set of rules that was outlined by the FAA, but different than the sUAS rules. Rich Hanson and Dave have indicated that the FAA has moved away from that path and it looks like the options are to either follow the AMA rules, or be considered an sUAS and operate under those rules. I think the FAA did that primarily because they would have no way to monitor, update, enforce, etc. a set of non-AMA model aircraft rules.

In this configuration, if someone wants to fly a model airplane and not be considered an sUAS (which is likely to carry restrictions such as Private Pilot certificates for the pilot and observer, etc.), then they *must* follow the AMA rules (the new ones that will be FAA approved). Both Rich and Dave said that this does not mean that a person is required to join the AMA, just that they must follow the AMA rules. There was some discussion about a "cost" associated with an individual who wants to do that for having "access" to the rules, but was not clear what that meant.

Bob

Silent-AV8R

To be clear, there will be no requirement in the sUAS rules to follow the AMA Standards. The FAA folks noted that these types of things typically have a note saying something like "There are many ways to comply and this is one way". In the absence of anything else the Standards written by the AMA will be the only ones available, but that does not mean that others ones are prohibited from being written.

rhklenke

My Feedback: (24)

Interesting. In the ARC proposal, they called it "community-based" standards I think. I can see why they would not want to have a rule that proscribes following a specific entity's rules (like the AMA), and would want it to be generic in that sense, but I got the distinct impression that if you don't follow the sUAS regulations, they you will be *required* to follow some other FAA-approved model aircraft rules (like AMA's will be). Its hard to imagine some other organization or entity drafting an alternate to the AMA rules and getting the FAA to approve it for model aircraft operation - unless you can devise someway to make money at it... "Sport Flyers" again... [&:]

Bob

CRX Turbines

You may not have AMA coverage but you still have homeowners coverage, assuming the person owns a home. I will assume that most people fall into the category of being a homeowner.

Teachu2

My Feedback: (133)

Doubtful that Homeowner's insurance will cover you when you are intentionally violating the law.

Silent-AV8R

My take is that they are saying that the AMA standards can be one of many acceptable standards. For the time being they will be the only ones available but moving forward they will certainly accept other if they meet their requirements. A minor point, but an important one in the way the FAA looks at it, the FAA will not "approve" standards, they "accept" them for use.

As far as other organizations go, they can include entities like ASTM for instance, which I know are working on a set of sUAS standards, which may, or may not, address model aircraft operations. But they are an example of another CBO. Basically a CBO means a non-government agency and non-business entity.

The way it looks to me, if you decide not to operate under an accepted set of model aircraft standards, then you will be required to comply with the full requirements of the actual sUAS rule.

G4guy

My Feedback: (13)

And you are familiar with "tea bagging?" just curious.......