RE: FAA
 

At the risk of "trying to propagate bs", is anyone just a little interested in Rich Hanson's comments in the AMA press release....."This legislation is a very positive step...however, there are still steps to come. We look forward to a cooperative effort with the FAA in ensuring that model aircraft may continue to operate safely within the NAS".

The FAA still controls the airspace.

RE: FAA
 

Nothing personal, but I'm curious, why are you so against this bill?
Everyone but you seems happy about it, yet you seem to read in all sorts of doom and gloom about it.
I know the FAA controls airspace, your point is?
To answer your question in the above post, it seems just you are interested.
Regards,
Jon

RE: FAA
 

Your supposition that I am against the bill is unfounded. I have in fact stated in this thread that it is good news. I, like many, stand a lot too lose if the language of the bill does't materialize. My point...I am not an attorney but I would question whether the language of the bill, although it makes everyone feel good, properly amends the authority the FAA has to regulate the NAS and flight safety within it. IMO, the FAA and AMA know that there is probably a legal issue/conflict between the mandated authority and responsibility the FAA has and the language in this bill and both sides have contemplated that issue since it was written this past summer.

What we need is an FAA Administrator that tells his munchkins to lay-off model aviation.

RE: FAA
 

I should add, that having several jets, I hope I am wrong. But I would imagine that us why Rich Hanson made the comments he did...it ain't over.

RE: FAA
 

Haven't heard any doom and gloom since this bill passed, maybe you heard that on another thread somewhere.
What was our best case scenario, maybe moderate changes to our AMA Safety Code, is now our worst case scenario.
Our best case scenario is everything stays the same except for the modified airport rule. That's all I was saying. [8D]

RE: FAA
 

The AMA and Rich have always been conservative with respect to their dealings with the FAA. That is as it should be. As I mentioned before, I would be really surprised if the AMA doesn't continue to work with the FAA. In addition, even under the amendment, if we (AMA modelers) are operating within 5 miles of an airport, we are *mandated* to work with the airport authority (i.e., the FAA) to coordinate our activities. If we piss off the FAA, then we could very well get hit with a "400' max. within 5 miles of *any* airport" or "no model flying at *any* airport" rule by the FAA and there is nothing we could do. We have to continue to work with them. The big difference, however, as I see it, is that the NPRM was expected to say "FAA-approved community-based rules" where the amendment just says "community-base rules." This is an acknowledgement of our 75 year safety record (as Bob Brown says "the best in the aviation community") of successfully working within the NAS.

I would urge everyone to actually *read* the amendment. The language is pretty clear. All the above being said, as the amendment is written, if we (AMA members) go out in the middle of nowhere and operate our models in accordance with the AMA safety rules, the amendment specifically says that the FAA can not regulate or penalize us - unless those specific operations "endanger the safety of the national airspace system."

Bob

RE: FAA
 

I think that puts is pretty succinctly - I agree.

Bob

RE: FAA
 

Bob is actually making my case. He is acknowledging that the FAA can still regulate MA in the NAS despite what the bill says....ceiling and distance from an airport.

My guess is that the bill has actually put the FAA into a position where they must continue with the NPRM as if the bill didn't exist. Why?

This is the first time, I think, that congress has ever attempted to limit the authority the FAA has over the NAS. Congress has effectively "tried" (although I don't think it was done properly since it didn't amend the FAA's regulatory responsibility) to tell the FAA they don't have the authority over MA but they still are responsibility for flight safety in the NAS. If I was the FAA, I would ignore the bill and force a legal interpretation. I don't believe you will get anyone in Congress to agree to amend the authority and responsibility the FAA has for safety of anything operating in the NAS. You can't make someone responsible for what happens and take away the authority to prevent it (in the eyes of the FAA).

Thus I believe you will see NPRM process proceed with all the restrictions on MA. The AMA, and all of us collectively, will protest and you will see a set of new "community standards" that reflects the FAA's issues and asserts their authority. IMO, they can't back down now unless the FAA's legal staff says that they have been relieved of their authority and responsibility for flight safety in the NAS as it relates to MA.

Just my opinion based on very little research but considerable experience with the FAA and the FARs. Else someone interprets my thoughts differently then I intend them, I hope I am wrong and the FAA salutes and sits down and it is business as usual without any changes.

RE: FAA
 

There is still a lot to be interpreted and decided, but you have to remember that it was Congress that gave the FAA the authority over the NAS is the first place and they can certainly curtail it. The amendment was written by lawyers and law makers whose intent was to prevent the FAA from regulating model aviation. I believe that they have given us a valuable tool where before we had *none*. I also believe that the FAA, generally has no interest in regulating model aviation as the AMA represents it. It simply had to include it in the sUAS regulations because of industry pressure. They have no other reason to try and regulate model aviation and they have NO FUNDING to do so either. This amendment gives them an "out" and I believe that they will take it - unless we do something stupid, which of course, is always a possibility...

Bob

RE: FAA
 

Bob,
That may be your opinion as it was mine until this last summer, but you are simply wrong about the FAA. I thought the same thing until this last summer. According to the former president of the AMA, Smith, the FAA wants very badly to control MA. Early in the negotiations, they even wanted to assign registration numbers to MA. In verbiage that I can't total remember from his presentation at the banquet at Jets Over Whidbey, he said 'do not be mistaken about the FAA's motives or interests...they want to regulate and control MA'. That may have changed, but it is not my opinion...it was the AMA's as of last summer. AS regards their budget ability to regulate MA, the activity often comes ahead of the budget; that is in part how they get the increase in budgets.

George

RE: FAA
 

I have heard as many opinions about the FAA's motives and desires in opposition to your's (that's what they are, opinions, not facts) from both inside and outside the FAA that make me believe that the truth lies probably somewhere in the middle. I have, in the past, held several CoA's for sUAS operations in the NAS, and in the beginning (like 4 years ago), they did talk about N numbers for sUAS, but they quickly realized the impractically of that notion, even for sUAS, and that is no longer a requirement for a CoA. Now if they dropped it for their own CoA process, why would they even consider it for model aircraft? It makes no sense.

Regardless of that, if those "doom and gloom" prognostications are true, then even better that we have the amendment as something a silly as requiring N numbers for models would be made illegal by the amendment (if it becomes law). As I said, the bill was written by experienced lawyers and law makers. Two of the sponsors of the bill were the Chairmen of the House and Senate Committees that oversee the FAA. Why would they endorse and work for an amendment that would make things worse? Why would the AMA lobby so hard for something that makes things worse? Why would the Congress ever move to fund an activity (regulate MA) that they specifically legislated the FAA out of? Why are you still declaring that the sky is falling when things are moving in a positive direction?

Bob

RE: FAA
 

Bob,

I merely said that, according to the president of the AMA, your opinion that the FAA didn't want to control MA was wrong. That was not my opinion. I also only reported what he told us about the FAA wanting register models. The FAA may have dropped the idea because it was stupid but it certainly supports what the AMA president told us. Ascribing "pessimism" or "optimism" to me does little to deflect what I am merely reporting.

I may be wrong with whether the FAA will accept this attempt to restrict their regulatory responsibility of the NAS. That is the issue. Not whether I am negative or not. I have stated the reasons why I am skeptical. I don't think I need to repeat them in order to explain why I have that opinion or am "negative" to you.

Time will tell. If the NPRM process goes forward restricting MA and a final rule making results in the FAA "approving" a set of community standards, they will have ignored the bill. I hope that is not the case but I have enumerated the reasons why I think they might and why Rich Hanson worded his press release the way he did. Let's not resort to labels in order to discredit someone else's perspective.

RE: FAA
 

I would think that if the FAA did not want this provision in the bill, they're powerful enough to make a few well placed phone calls to various members of congress and it would have gone away.
The fact that they didn't seems to bode well for us.
Jon

RE: FAA
 

I have always felt there is more going on here that either the FAA or AMA wants us to know and I also feel that the FAA wants to regulate models if they didn't
this whole thing would have blown over months ago.

I doubt we will see N numbers for models but I could see some type of registration process for model operators and maybe a requirement that model
operators keep abreast of some FAArules as they pertain to model operation.

RE: FAA
 

Ira,

I agree with your thoughts on what is going on. The language of the bill was read to us at the banquet last summer. Both the FAA and obviously the AMA knew about it yet neither have publicly spoken of it. I didn't attend the AMA Convention this year but I don't believe either the FAA or the AMA mentioned it. I am also reasonably sure both knew what their position would be if it became law. We are just reacting to news that the FAA and AMA have known and anticipated for months. Like you and others, I am merely speculating on the outcome which has probably already been determined.

RE: FAA
 

That is a reasonable argument but I have long since given up trying to guess what goes on behind closed doors. There were some major union issues, etc. being negoiated. To the committe members trying to reach agreement on those issues, they may have felt what the FAA wanted removed from the bill, re MA, was fish food compared to the other issues. Maybe the FAA didn't want, or didn't think they needed to make an issue of it...maybe ignore it. When congress starts collecting votes, you never know what gets traded, ignored, or why.

P.S. Restricting the FAA's authority over the NAS is HUGH. I wonder if the FAA had known two years ago that this lannguage would ever go into the bill, whether they would have bothered with us? They had authority over ever aspect of MA before. If they have to accept the language of this bill, they have lost virtually all of it. Very interesting.

RE: FAA
 

What has happened to AMA web site? I can not login and I am a member.

RE: FAA
 

George, give me a call later tonight.......................


Mark

RE: FAA
 

Mark,

I sent you my number via email. I don't have yours. Hope you get it. I never heard back from you from a previous email???

George

RE: FAA
 

George, Read this. Dan.
http://www.modelaircraft.org/news/me...enateBill.aspx

RE: FAA
 

Dan,

I read it yesterday any quoted Hanson's comments yesterday in this thread. So?

George

RE: FAA
 

Thanks George, I missed it. As far as the AMA is concerned, or activities have been exempted. Dan.