Tom, what is your source? One year ago this month the Senate passed an FAA re authorization bill that did have the exclusion for MA and the House passed one that did not. It is my understanding, and the AMA's, that the version that came out of the joint subcommittee and sent to the House and Senate this week does contain it. It would be highly unlikely that what the House approved yesterday was modified from what the sub committee sent to both houses for a vote.

George

Tom, what is your source? One year ago this month the Senate passed an FAA re authorization bill that did have the exclusion for MA and the House passed one that did not. It is my understanding, and the AMA's, that the version that came out of the joint subcommittee and sent to the House and Senate this week does contain it. It would be highly unlikely that what the House approved yesterday was modified from what the sub committee sent to both houses for a vote.

George

It does contain it.

The bill does not exclude all model aircraft. The bill does exclude model aircraft operated in accordance with a community-based set of safety guidelines and with-in the programming of a nationwide community-based organization (AMA).

So if the FAA accepts or has accepted the AMA's guidelines, we are good to go. However, has anyone outside of the committee seen these new guidelines?

That's the $64,000 question! And if I read it correctly, unlike the NPRM process, the FAA has no authority over what those standards are but they can obviously enfluence them as I noted above. We may not find out until the AMA tells us about any changes to what we are currently doing. Best case, nothing changes but I fear that is not the case.

Since this restriction on the FAA has been in the conference committee's proposed language of the final bill for over a year, everyone involved in the NPRM process and establishing these standards, had known about it for a long time. Interesting that the name "community standards" used by the FAA in the NPRM is the same name used in the legislation that restricts the FAA. I suspect the outcome of "negoiations" between the FAA and the AMA was virtually baked and out of the oven many months ago.

IMO, in the end, for jet flyers in particular, the FAA will "enfluence" what the standards are for our jet activities and once adopted by the AMA, they will have virtually the same authority as if they were FAA regulations.

Well looks like I was wrong.....HOT DAMN! Yee Haw and Whoopee!!!!

Indeed it looks like good news but don't celebrate till you see the "community standards".

D@m this administration

Maybe this is the reason for the Unemployment figure to have dropped?

It does not say that the "community standards" must be FAA-approved - as the sUAS proposed reg. does...

Since we already have "a community-based set of safety guidelines and with in the programming of a nationwide community based organization;"

I don't see where anything has to change from where it is now.

Bob

From your lips to God's ears. Only time will tell. If you are right, I think the AMA should be able to affirm immediately that there will be no change and no need for further dialog with the FAA.

Well, there's what the law says and then there's the political reality. Even though there appears to be no *requirement* to involve the FAA in the "community standards" according to the law, I believe that we will see the AMA still work with the FAA to get their "buy in" to our standards. I think if we do a 100% about-face when the law is passed and tell the FAA to go pound sand, it would likely make our lives more difficult in the future...

Honestly, I don't think that the FAA has any real desire to regulate us in the first place, but there was a lot of pressure from the sUAS community to include what they see as equivalent operations as "model aircraft" in the rule-making process. This law, if passed, will give the FAA an "out" to basically leave us alone, which I think they would prefer to do in the first place - as long as, as the law says, we don't do anything to "endanger the safety of the national airspace system."

Bob

There is lots of chatter on this subject over in the AMA thread, And yes the standards that the AMA is writing will have to be approved by the FAA. one place that
my statement can be verfied isin the Model Aviation Feb 2012 issue in the article veiw from HQ by Dave Mathewson.

The proposed rules that are to come out in the NPRM would require that the AMA rules be approved by the FAA. That is what the AMA has been working towards. Please point out where in the amendment that it says that the "Community standards" must be FAA-approved - it does not. Again, I think it would be counter productive to kick the FAA to the curb if the amendment goes into law (it is not law yet), but if it passes, then the FAA is prevented from *dictating* terms to the AMA for its safety code - as the *would* have been able to do if the NPRM became regulation in the future.

Bob

ps. Everything published in the Feb. issue of MA addressed the NPRM. The amendment changes the landscape. I would not expect the AMA to address its new approach under the amendment until some time after it passes.

I agree with Bob. If the FAA must approve the community standards if the bill becomes law, it is the same as the FAA controlling MA which the bill is intended to prohibit. The big question is how much influence is the AMA going to permit the FAA to have in the stds if the bill passes? The FAA, since it controls the airspace, could be vindictive and say "no RC within 5 mikes of a public airport". That is not regulating MA but it sure influences it.

None of this law yet and I would think everyone knows that,We dont really know how all this will play out or how the amendment will fit into all this but the way it
stands now the CBO standards will have to be approved by the FAA.

Actually, technically, that is not true as *neither* the amendment nor the NPRM is out yet, so there is, in reality, *nothing* definitive to go on, so the effort to get a set of AMA rules ready for FAA approval is just speculative at this point... Likely useful speculation, but still just speculation...

Bob

It seems you like to split hairs but if you want call every thing that the FAA and AMA has saidspeculationso be it, However I think most people that think with commonsense
knowthat there is subject to be some change to what we have heard. In my last post I said as plane as day that non of this is law yet and we really dont know how this will
play out.

I'm sorry if you think that I am splitting hairs, but I just don't like it when people make "definitive" statements about things that are not definitive. You said (above) that "And yes the standards that the AMA is writing will have to be approved by the FAA" and that is not set in stone yet. If the amendment is passed, it looks like that statement might be completely incorrect. You are right, we *don't* know how this will play out yet, but your last post is the first one where you stated that. Let's just hang back a bit and see what happens before we say "this"or "that" will be required...

Bob

It just passed the Senate, going to the President for sgning.

http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?d...f-baab16182611

I think the way it all plays out depends on the "Federal" definition of a CBO.
The AMA could have to come up with a whole new Safety Code, or a slightly changed one with regards to flying near airports.

Actually, the amendment speaks to flying near airports:

"when flown within 5 miles of an airport, the operator of the aircraft provides the airport operator and the airport air traffic control tower (when an air traffic facility is located at the airport) with prior notice of the operation (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))."

Sounds to me that if we do it according to these rules, it can not be disallowed...

Bob

What can not be disallowed??

The amendment basically says that the FAA can not make any rules covering model aircraft as long as their operations adhere to the conditions in the amendment. Since the amendment specifically states how model flying within 5 miles of an airport is to be handled, as long a the model flying is done in accordance with the provisions therein, the FAA can not issue rules disallowing model flying within 5 miles of an airport.

Bob

All,

Bobs got an excellent handle on this.Doom and gloomers are trying to propogate bs,but the law of the land now states,that:" model airplanes",are exempt from whatever the FAA comes up with for UAV's.Straight up victory,with no downside.Everybody relax.It's all good.

Erik