Latest FAA Requthorization bill...
09-24-2018, 07:54 AM
#1
Latest FAA Requthorization bill...
I'm sure you all got this from the AMA, but please take the time to act on this now and ask your elected representative to vote no on this House version of the bill...
If you are unfamiliar with this or haven't gotten the email from the AMA, see the video here:
Bob Klenke
JPO President
If you are unfamiliar with this or haven't gotten the email from the AMA, see the video here:
Bob Klenke
JPO President
Last edited by rhklenke; 09-24-2018 at 10:06 AM.
09-24-2018, 08:11 AM
#2
He really only outlines two negatives of the bill in the video. #1, the 400' altitude limit, is an absolute game changer (game ender?) and I completely agree. But at 1:36 he also contends with the language that those flying in controlled airspace near towered airports must seek authorization or have an agreement with those airports. Is that really a bad thing? Or maybe they're hyping this as a negative so if it comes down to it, we can "compromise" by giving in on that as long as the 400' limit is removed. I'm good with that plan.
09-24-2018, 10:04 AM
#4
He really only outlines two negatives of the bill in the video. #1, the 400' altitude limit, is an absolute game changer (game ender?) and I completely agree. But at 1:36 he also contends with the language that those flying in controlled airspace near towered airports must seek authorization or have an agreement with those airports. Is that really a bad thing? Or maybe they're hyping this as a negative so if it comes down to it, we can "compromise" by giving in on that as long as the 400' limit is removed. I'm good with that plan.
Bob
09-24-2018, 10:07 AM
#5
I'd like to note I'm not in favor of any changes, I wish they would just take that **** out of this bill all together so I am firmly in the "vote no" camp - but if some compromises need to be made I think there is room for that.
09-24-2018, 10:07 AM
#6
There are other things in the bill, like the knowledge test, that are counter-productive for us. Enough so that the best option is to work to kill the bill. If that doesn't happen, then as Chad alludes to, we need enough voices to be heard such that we can partition for relief from things like the 400' limit, under a CBO umbrella...
Bob
Bob
I think more than anything I was curious why the AMA chose to focus on the proximity to busy airports bit and not the knowledge test bit. I feel like the latter would be a bigger hot button issue to motivate the masses.
09-24-2018, 01:10 PM
#7
they are not going to not pass this bill.
there is too much must have stuff in it besides what we are concerned with.
it is being forwarded under a "fast track" situation that does not allow ANY changes alterations by either house or senate.
it will pass as written.
there is too much must have stuff in it besides what we are concerned with.
it is being forwarded under a "fast track" situation that does not allow ANY changes alterations by either house or senate.
it will pass as written.
09-24-2018, 02:29 PM
#8
I do wonder though if the Senate, being embroiled in the USC nomination debate, will take up this bill before the midterms...
Bob
Last edited by rhklenke; 09-24-2018 at 02:33 PM.
09-24-2018, 02:32 PM
#9
that aint what i said...
gotta call to action email.
addressed to all leader members telly us to contact all our club members and others we know and TELL them to contact their congresscritters and TELL them to vote no on the authorization bill. now this is a bad idea inj thje first place, and if anyone actually thinks that they are gona sway a congress critter with the minuscule numbers of folk we have to vote no on a bill that is funding for DHS, TSA, ICE and lord knows what else just the FAA stuff, in an election year, this close to the actual election. well, i have a bridge in brooklyn i want to sell ya...
a lost cause.
really i think the call to action is more of a CYA act by the AMA, so they can blame the bills passage on US not turning out enough letters to get it stopped.
gotta call to action email.
addressed to all leader members telly us to contact all our club members and others we know and TELL them to contact their congresscritters and TELL them to vote no on the authorization bill. now this is a bad idea inj thje first place, and if anyone actually thinks that they are gona sway a congress critter with the minuscule numbers of folk we have to vote no on a bill that is funding for DHS, TSA, ICE and lord knows what else just the FAA stuff, in an election year, this close to the actual election. well, i have a bridge in brooklyn i want to sell ya...
a lost cause.
really i think the call to action is more of a CYA act by the AMA, so they can blame the bills passage on US not turning out enough letters to get it stopped.
09-24-2018, 11:42 PM
#10
Explicit 400 foot limit in law. Doubt FAA has authority ignore something that specific. Oh, and let’s not forget that in their wisdom someone sued FAA because they ignored a specific provision in law.
CBO Safety Code - has to be in coordination with FAA now.
Large Models - inspection criteria now has to be approved by FAA.
Knowledge Test - I agree with gentleman above. Long overdue. Will also be one of the tools FAA uses for enforcement. Won’t be able to say “you didn’t know” the rules on airspace, altitude limits, airport permission, RemoteID, etc.
Comply with airspace restrictions. AMA has been ignoring anything that doesn’t say “model aircraft,” which is wrong. This says model aircraft are aircraft, which means when a NOTAM says “all aircraft” it includes models. Another long overdue.
RemoteID Authority - FAA has been saying they want it for all sUAS w/o exception. Congress gave them the authority.
Registration - Reiterated FAAs authority to require registration.
Permission to operate near some airports vs mere notification.
And ... authority for FAA to make other regulations binding on recreational if needed for safety and security of the airspace.
And and was pointed out, this is being done in the House in a way that does not allow amendments, then will go to Senate in a similar manner. For good measure they tacked NTSB, disaster relief, and other funding to it. I predict it will be law perhaps as soon as next week (end of FY).
CBO Safety Code - has to be in coordination with FAA now.
Large Models - inspection criteria now has to be approved by FAA.
Knowledge Test - I agree with gentleman above. Long overdue. Will also be one of the tools FAA uses for enforcement. Won’t be able to say “you didn’t know” the rules on airspace, altitude limits, airport permission, RemoteID, etc.
Comply with airspace restrictions. AMA has been ignoring anything that doesn’t say “model aircraft,” which is wrong. This says model aircraft are aircraft, which means when a NOTAM says “all aircraft” it includes models. Another long overdue.
RemoteID Authority - FAA has been saying they want it for all sUAS w/o exception. Congress gave them the authority.
Registration - Reiterated FAAs authority to require registration.
Permission to operate near some airports vs mere notification.
And ... authority for FAA to make other regulations binding on recreational if needed for safety and security of the airspace.
And and was pointed out, this is being done in the House in a way that does not allow amendments, then will go to Senate in a similar manner. For good measure they tacked NTSB, disaster relief, and other funding to it. I predict it will be law perhaps as soon as next week (end of FY).
09-25-2018, 01:08 PM
#11
Here is my letter to the Congress and District 10 VP Lawrence Tougas.
Dear Honorable Representatives:
At our 2017 Jet Event hosted by the Coachella Valley RC club I spoke with Mr. Mike Lin of Global Jets. He related to me that the "Chinese government has a plan to build 500 Radio Control Model Airports, and 20,000 General Aviation Airports."
They are doing this because of the immense current, and future pilot shortage within their country. They are doing this, while we are trying to place heavy regulations on one of the entry points for General Aviation. They recognize that Radio Control modeling is a natural entry point for All aviation.
I certainly hope that in the future we will not be importing pilots to shore up this countries coming shortage of approx,132,000 pilots.
As a point of interest at last years event we made enough money to donate $1500 to Wounded Warriors. We need more than 400 feet of air space to do that.
Please vote No! Please?
Sincerely
Daniel Metz
President
Coachella Valley Radio Control Club
Dear Honorable Representatives:
At our 2017 Jet Event hosted by the Coachella Valley RC club I spoke with Mr. Mike Lin of Global Jets. He related to me that the "Chinese government has a plan to build 500 Radio Control Model Airports, and 20,000 General Aviation Airports."
They are doing this because of the immense current, and future pilot shortage within their country. They are doing this, while we are trying to place heavy regulations on one of the entry points for General Aviation. They recognize that Radio Control modeling is a natural entry point for All aviation.
I certainly hope that in the future we will not be importing pilots to shore up this countries coming shortage of approx,132,000 pilots.
As a point of interest at last years event we made enough money to donate $1500 to Wounded Warriors. We need more than 400 feet of air space to do that.
Please vote No! Please?
Sincerely
Daniel Metz
President
Coachella Valley Radio Control Club
09-25-2018, 03:20 PM
#12
I saw a video by the AMA on RC Groups that said with this bill we will have to have a transponder on all RC craft that transmit an ID. Anyone else notice that? All of this crap started when they started selling quad copters that does not require any skill to fly so most of the people that buy them have never even heard of the AMA. Until they limit the sales to a hobby shop and get them out of places like WalMart it will never change.
09-25-2018, 04:02 PM
#13
I saw a video by the AMA on RC Groups that said with this bill we will have to have a transponder on all RC craft that transmit an ID. Anyone else notice that? All of this crap started when they started selling quad copters that does not require any skill to fly so most of the people that buy them have never even heard of the AMA. Until they limit the sales to a hobby shop and get them out of places like WalMart it will never change.
09-25-2018, 04:16 PM
#14
My Feedback: (3)
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: san jose,
CA
Posts: 880
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We fly in such a small space, and in locations that should be known to full scale pilots(often on the sectional already as PVT airports or as DROTAMS), the most we should be required to have is a ground based ADSB-out for the entire club and not on every airplane. This just says, we're here flying again like you know we have been for the last 80 years. This is the practical approach for the 2020 deadline and probably applies only to clubs near/in controlled airspaces..
09-26-2018, 04:42 AM
#15
I don't think the 400 foot limit is anything new, just never enforced. As for flying models within tower controlled airspace, that to me is just asking for problems and should never be an acceptable solution for any club or individual.
As I recall that prohibition has always been in place, and modelers in some cases have no clue. I think we tend to assume everyone is impressed with our activities. Not so much.
As I recall that prohibition has always been in place, and modelers in some cases have no clue. I think we tend to assume everyone is impressed with our activities. Not so much.
09-26-2018, 04:49 AM
#16
Still not something to likely be enforceable unless the FAA starts posting up at model airplane fields (they won't) or someone does something dumb and puts it on YouTube (they will), or worse comes close to a full scale and gets reported (pretty unheard of outside of quads/drones, which usually aren't originating from a model airplane field).
09-26-2018, 10:22 AM
#17
By current regs it is not a regulation. Under this bill it would be.
Still not something to likely be enforceable unless the FAA starts posting up at model airplane fields (they won't) or someone does something dumb and puts it on YouTube (they will), or worse comes close to a full scale and gets reported (pretty unheard of outside of quads/drones, which usually aren't originating from a model airplane field).
Still not something to likely be enforceable unless the FAA starts posting up at model airplane fields (they won't) or someone does something dumb and puts it on YouTube (they will), or worse comes close to a full scale and gets reported (pretty unheard of outside of quads/drones, which usually aren't originating from a model airplane field).
09-26-2018, 12:10 PM
#19
It's not required in most airspace, why would it be so surprising?
09-26-2018, 01:04 PM
#20
The FAA was given the authority to use Remote ID however not sure to what extent.
Secret Agent, I do know a couple planes that do not have ident as well, however the new FAA rule by 2020 is that ALL aircraft with have ASD B in and out.
Secret Agent, I do know a couple planes that do not have ident as well, however the new FAA rule by 2020 is that ALL aircraft with have ASD B in and out.
09-26-2018, 04:10 PM
#22
It's not required in most airspace, why would it be so surprising?[/QUOTE]
I guess I should have been more specific, you'd be surprised how many people fly through restricted airspace without ever checking NOTAMS, without any flight plans, not squawking and without their radio on. Good times.
I guess I should have been more specific, you'd be surprised how many people fly through restricted airspace without ever checking NOTAMS, without any flight plans, not squawking and without their radio on. Good times.
09-26-2018, 04:30 PM
#23
I don't think the 400 foot limit is anything new, just never enforced. As for flying models within tower controlled airspace, that to me is just asking for problems and should never be an acceptable solution for any club or individual.
As I recall that prohibition has always been in place, and modelers in some cases have no clue. I think we tend to assume everyone is impressed with our activities. Not so much.
As I recall that prohibition has always been in place, and modelers in some cases have no clue. I think we tend to assume everyone is impressed with our activities. Not so much.
In addition, the FAA now has an automated system called LAANC (Low Altitude Authorization and Notification Capability) that allows commercial operators operating under Part 107 to get rapid permission to fly in Class B, C, D, and E to the surface controlled airspace for sUAS operations over the internet.
Combined operation between unmanned and manned aircraft can be done. In the jet community, we do it all the time when we have jet flyins at full-scale airports. Its all about being willing to work within the rules, giving preference to full-scale aviation, and putting safety first.
Bob
Last edited by rhklenke; 09-26-2018 at 04:37 PM.
09-26-2018, 04:53 PM
#25
I HIGHLY doubt that there will be a mandate for ADS-B on models. The ADS-B system is designed to help full-scale aircraft avoid each other. Having sUAS on the ADS-B system would swamp it in certain situations and hinder its ability to do its job for full-scale aviation. In addition, the major desire for "remote ID" for sUAS is to be able to identify "rogue" sUAS in situations where they should not be there. The full-scale air traffic control system is not built for, and could not handle ADS-B transponders on "drones."
Bob