FAA
 

I read in the WSJ this evening that congress agreed today on a four year reaurhorization for the FAA. Can anyone confirm that the amendment that prohibited the FAA from regulating our hobby was in it? This, as I understand it, would effectively remove our hobby from the NPRM that is suppose to be released any day governing sUAVs.

I've got fingers and toes crossed.

George

RE: FAA
 

Here's the link for a partial answer. I doesn't speak of the ammendment. where did you get that info?
Read the 4th bullet point.


http://transportation.house.gov/News...px?NewsID=1514

RE: FAA
 

• Stimulates private sector job creation in the unmanned aircraft systems industry by setting timelines for FAA action on the safe integration of UASs into the national airspace system.


Mark</p>

RE: FAA
 

Pffft! Gotta be a false report. Congress doesn't agree on anything...:D

RE: FAA
 

The bill has been agreed upon in committee and now goes to the House and Senate for a vote. The "bridge" funding authorization for the FAA expired yesterday (Jan 31st) so they either have to pass this now or negotiate another "bridge" financing pkg for the FAA. I am still looking for a confirmation that the amendment is in the bill.

RE: FAA
 

[link=http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/lawmakers-agree-on-a-63-billion-four-year-faa-bill-that-boosts-air-traffic-modernization/2012/01/31/gIQAd41kfQ_story.html]See Here[/link]

RE: FAA
 

At the banquet at Jets Over Whidbey this past summer, the then President of AMA (Smith) read the text of an amendment drafted by a subcommittee of the joint conference committee that was to be attached to the FAA Re-authorization Bill. With caveats, it effectively prohibited the FAA from regulating model aviation. The bill is now before the House and Senate for a vote next week. Rich Hanson has said that it is his "understanding" that the amendment was intact and a part of the bill.

RE: FAA
 

When did Rich say that? That would be *fantastic* if that was the case...

Bob

RE: FAA
 

Let's keep our fingers and toes crossed!

RE: FAA
 

This AM.

RE: FAA
 

FYI

RE: FAA
 

see section 336

RE: FAA
 

Yea! :D

RE: FAA
 

Also from AMA website:
Lawmakers have come to an agreement on the long awaited FAA RE-Authorization Bill. The Bill now moves out of Conference Committee and onto the House and Senate floor for a final vote. Passage of the Bill could come as early as the first of next week.

so something to watch

RE: FAA
 

Pages 170-171 specifically to us.



ENT

RE: FAA
 

I wonder when we will know if the FAA has accepted the AMA guidelines.

RE: FAA
 

When the bill becomes law... they have to abide by it.

Rick

RE: FAA
 

The WSJ is reporting it passed the House today.

George

RE: FAA
 

If the Law passed, does this mean that the FAA no longer has any jurisdiction over the Hobby?
Scott

RE: FAA
 

It means (IMO) that they can't regulate the hobby with the exceptions noted in the bill BUT the FAA does continue to control the airspace....which I interpret to mean they can't regulate what we fly (other than as noted in the bill) but they could control where we fly.

RE: FAA
 

Amplification....

This will be the first restriction ever placed on the FAA's authority on what happens above the dirt under your feet. To date they have control of what, where and how including speed, weight, pilot qualifications, equipment requirements, maintenance, etc. The bill effectively takes that control of RC away from the FAA with established "community standards" in place of FAA regs. BUT the FAA still controls the airspace. IMO that means if the FAA does not like the community standards, they could prohibit ALL RC flying within some airspace. By example, if the FAA thinks RC jets should not be be permitted to fly in excess of 100 mph within 10 miles of a public airport, they could prohibit ALL RC flying with 10 miles (just an extreme example I hope). Since the FAA and the AMA have been "negotiating" acceptable community standards, we should all hope that the AMA has not thrown some of us under the bus in order to have "community standards" that the FAA can not control, but can definitely influence.

Just my opinion.

RE: FAA
 

I don't get it.

It says:

<font size="4" face="Times-Roman"><font size="4" face="Times-Roman"><p align="left">11 </p></font></font><font size="4" face="DeVinne"><font size="4" face="DeVinne">(a) I</font></font><font size="3" face="DeVinne"><font size="3" face="DeVinne">N </font></font><font size="4" face="DeVinne"><font size="4" face="DeVinne">G</font></font><font size="3" face="DeVinne"><font size="3" face="DeVinne">ENERAL</font></font><font size="4" face="DeVinne"><font size="4" face="DeVinne">.—Notwithstanding any other provi</font></font><font size="4" face="DeVinne"><font size="4" face="DeVinne">sion of law relating to the incorporation of unmanned air</font></font><font size="4" face="DeVinne"><font size="4" face="DeVinne">craft systems into Federal Aviation Administration plans </font></font><font size="4" face="DeVinne"><font size="4" face="DeVinne">and policies, including this subtitle,&lt;blah blah&gt;

<font size="2">

The_very_thing the FAA is doing now with the NPRM relates_only_to the incorporation of unmanned aircaft systems into the airpsace.

I think this law restricts the FAA from regulating models for any reason OTHER than incorporation of unmanned aircaft systems into the airpsace.

I still think the key to this is negotiation of operating standards acceptable to the FAA.
</font></font></font>

RE: FAA
 

Mat,

I think we will have to in order to operate within the National Airspace which they control. But I think we should keep in mind that the FAA originally wanted to forbid turbines, restrict RC to 400 feet and 100 mph. In the early stages, they actually wanted to have our models registered. This legislation may have slowed them down, but don't miss-understand their intent...more controls and restrictions for a hobby that has no safety issue that suggests controls or restrictions are necessary. Thus, we are "negotiating" in order to try and keep SOME of the freedoms rather than all of them. They get more control and we end up with less.

RE: FAA
 

I heard yesterday that the FAA Reauthorization Bill DID NOT have the exclusion for model aircraft.

RE: FAA
 

The printed version that was reviewed earlier in this thread had itin... Iassume that is one that came out of committee to be voted on.