Go Back  RCU Forums > RC Airplanes > RC Jets
Reload this Page >

Latest FAA Requthorization bill...

Notices
RC Jets Discuss RC jets in this forum plus rc turbines and ducted fan power systems

Latest FAA Requthorization bill...

Old 09-24-2018, 07:54 AM
  #1  
rhklenke
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (24)
 
rhklenke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 5,858
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default 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

Last edited by rhklenke; 09-24-2018 at 10:06 AM.
Old 09-24-2018, 08:11 AM
  #2  
Auburn02
My Feedback: (1)
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 848
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Default

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.
Old 09-24-2018, 08:24 AM
  #3  
BarracudaHockey
My Feedback: (11)
 
BarracudaHockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 24,070
Received 49 Likes on 39 Posts
Default

Seeking authorization is more troublesome than notifying them. Lots of folks will just say no because it's easier than dealing with it.

And do you really want to take a test to recreationally fly model planes?
Old 09-24-2018, 10:04 AM
  #4  
rhklenke
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (24)
 
rhklenke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 5,858
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Auburn02 View Post
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.
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
Old 09-24-2018, 10:07 AM
  #5  
Auburn02
My Feedback: (1)
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 848
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by BarracudaHockey View Post
And do you really want to take a test to recreationally fly model planes?
As an RC modeler and a full scale pilot who is a frequent witness to the (lack of) knowledge level of the NAS by most modelers, it's honestly a tough call. If doing so would put an end to the 400' restriction idea I might be okay with it.

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.
Old 09-24-2018, 10:07 AM
  #6  
Auburn02
My Feedback: (1)
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 848
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by rhklenke View Post
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
Yep, makes sense. Thanks.

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.
Old 09-24-2018, 01:10 PM
  #7  
mongo
My Feedback: (14)
 
mongo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Midland, TX
Posts: 2,786
Received 6 Likes on 6 Posts
Default

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.
Old 09-24-2018, 02:29 PM
  #8  
rhklenke
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (24)
 
rhklenke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 5,858
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by mongo View Post
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.
You may be correct. As Chad said, we need to make our objections heard so that we can hopefully get some relief under sections of the bill that allow "changes" to the restrictions...

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.
Old 09-24-2018, 02:32 PM
  #9  
mongo
My Feedback: (14)
 
mongo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Midland, TX
Posts: 2,786
Received 6 Likes on 6 Posts
Default

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.
Old 09-24-2018, 11:42 PM
  #10  
franklin_m
 
franklin_m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 3,433
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

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).



Old 09-25-2018, 01:08 PM
  #11  
[email protected]
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes on 5 Posts
Default

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
Old 09-25-2018, 03:20 PM
  #12  
geneh-RCU
My Feedback: (6)
 
geneh-RCU's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Madison Al
Posts: 640
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

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.
Old 09-25-2018, 04:02 PM
  #13  
FalconWings
My Feedback: (57)
 
FalconWings's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Fort Worth, TX
Posts: 6,932
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by geneh-RCU View Post
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.
Oh but AMA loves quadcopters!! Model Aviation is 80% quadcopter/foamie love.
Old 09-25-2018, 04:16 PM
  #14  
dbsonic
My Feedback: (3)
 
dbsonic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: san jose, CA
Posts: 878
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

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..
Old 09-26-2018, 04:42 AM
  #15  
Chris Smith
My Feedback: (2)
 
Chris Smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Adams TN
Posts: 832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

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.
Old 09-26-2018, 04:49 AM
  #16  
Auburn02
My Feedback: (1)
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 848
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Chris Smith View Post
I don't think the 400 foot limit is anything new, just never enforced.
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).
Old 09-26-2018, 10:22 AM
  #17  
Digital Pilot
 
Digital Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Rocket City, AL
Posts: 598
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Auburn02 View Post
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).
Remember the FAA spells our transponder, meaning your aircraft will have its own ID registered to you in the airspace and they will know when you brake the 400 limit. They will start with a letter and fine I'm sure. Sucks
Old 09-26-2018, 11:37 AM
  #18  
SECRET AGENT
My Feedback: (18)
 
SECRET AGENT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Bush, LA
Posts: 1,260
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

You'd be amazed how many actual full scale airplanes are flying around without a transponder.
Old 09-26-2018, 12:10 PM
  #19  
Auburn02
My Feedback: (1)
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 848
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Digital Pilot View Post
Remember the FAA spells our transponder, meaning your aircraft will have its own ID registered to you in the airspace and they will know when you brake the 400 limit.
Not sure I follow - is that in the current bill, or do you just mean they may start to require one in the future?

Originally Posted by SECRET AGENT View Post
You'd be amazed how many actual full scale airplanes are flying around without a transponder.
It's not required in most airspace, why would it be so surprising?
Old 09-26-2018, 01:04 PM
  #20  
Digital Pilot
 
Digital Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Rocket City, AL
Posts: 598
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

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.
Old 09-26-2018, 03:55 PM
  #21  
MaJ. Woody
My Feedback: (28)
 
MaJ. Woody's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 5,037
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 3 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Digital Pilot View Post
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.
Not exactly. For 2020 you will need ADS-B out only if you intend to fly in airspace that requires a Transponder today. ADS-B in is not required. I put a new ADS-B Transponder in my Cessna about 2 years ago.
Old 09-26-2018, 04:10 PM
  #22  
SECRET AGENT
My Feedback: (18)
 
SECRET AGENT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Bush, LA
Posts: 1,260
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

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.
Old 09-26-2018, 04:30 PM
  #23  
rhklenke
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (24)
 
rhklenke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 5,858
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Chris Smith View Post
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.
Actually, we sometimes fly in a Class D airspace at an airport with a control tower. The FAA tower guys there give us a radio and we call for "clearence" to fly when there are no full scale around. Its a combined National Guard/civilian airport and its often not busy. The tower guys like having some activity there so they have something to watch when its quiet.

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.
Old 09-26-2018, 04:53 PM
  #24  
mongo
My Feedback: (14)
 
mongo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Midland, TX
Posts: 2,786
Received 6 Likes on 6 Posts
Default

it passed the house today, 26 sep 2018.
Old 09-26-2018, 04:53 PM
  #25  
rhklenke
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (24)
 
rhklenke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 5,858
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Digital Pilot View Post
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.
The bill does NOT mandate remote ID for small unmanned systems (which our models are one) at this time. There is a requirement for a "pilot program" to evaluate possible technologies for remote ID for small UAS, but no provisions for implementation at this time.

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

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.