Will the FAA kill model flying...?
 

Couple of my US mates are kicking off about the new proposed FAA rules for flying in the US.
They sound draconion..

We've had our own issues here in the UK, but this doesn't sound good...

‘If you go over to RCGroups, the sky is falling ... of course if they are confident, then they should be selling e erythung now before there is no longer a market.
Personally if you can’t predict the weather, I doubt you can predict the future of anything.

From what I’ve read, the AMA has proposed fixed flying sites where we would essentially fly just as we always have (option3). The sites are fixed and therefore known to all other aircraft and pilots, like any other airport or field.
We will have to take a online exam ... that should not be an issue.
We May have to either log into our cellphone and identify ourselves, our airplane and location before flying ... that should not be an issue
We May have to carry a remote ID/transponder ... that may be an issue depending on size/weight.

I e been an AMA member since the 70’s. I like to believe I will be able to fly for a while longer...assuming the “drone pilots who really don’t represent AMA or pilots like the majority of us” minimize headline gathering stupidity.

Good luck with enforcement.

The government has been known to make laws and regulations before. Just look at Virginia and the uproar over Gun rights in that state. I’d hate to be the law enforcer there. I’m sure the FAA doesn’t want this either. I remember watching an idiotic drone pilot flying way up high looking down on an approaching airliner on final. I think it was up in the NW somewhere. Being a full scale pilot, I sure wouldn’t want to pop out of the clouds and hit a drone.

I'm a Virginian and not a proponent of gun laws for sure, but NO GUN LAWS have been passed in Virginia as of yet, and Governor Northam did not say the things that have been attributed to him. The Virginia Legislature does not meet until mid-January and we'll have to see what actually comes out then.

As usual, social media has jumped the gun and blown things out of proportion - the same with the NPRM on remote ID. Lets take a clear-headed look at the proposed rule and look for the guidance from AMA on how best to comment on it.

Until then, let's not look for the sky to be falling...

Bob

Yes, eventually the FAA will kill this hobby. I'll still fly, though, but I'll likely have to buy my own piece of land to do so.

I don’t believe buying a piece of land means you own the airspace no exempt you from FAA oversight ...

That’s stating the obvious, isn’t it?

I’ll fly on my own land at my own risk. Those of you who believe the government cares about this hobby are naive. Fields are shutting down already. The new proposed remote ID leaves no room for error if a field is to be deemed acceptable by the FAA, and said field will only have one chance to get that approval.

The regulations will encourage current flyers out and discourage newbies from taking it up at all. Lack of interest leads to a lack of a market for kits, engines, radios, etc.

The hobby will wither away.

I agree and if the rules end up being anywhere close to what is being proposed the hobby will die in time especially after hobby supplies and kits become to expensive or unavailable.

Time will tell, in the mean time, keep them flying like it's not coming back :) :)

Still on my "to-do" list to read the whole proposed rule. From excerpts though, it appears to initially allow exemptions for line-of-sight sight flight at defined sites (if the AMA or another official "Community Based Organization" is the one to file the request). But, after a short initial period, no new sites can be requested, ever - so a club that has to move to a new field is done. And then, after 5 years, all sites would be gone, with the plan that the tech. to enable remote ID in all aircraft would be available.....It is still unclear to me if I can schedule flying using the proposed internet notification solution - ie - "I will be flying at a location, this afternoon", to avoid some of the issues of being at a site that has no internet....

"A person operating a UAS without remote identification equipment would always be required to operate within visual line of sight [6] and within an FAA-recognized identification area. Under the proposed rule, an FAA-recognized identification area is a defined geographic area where UAS without remote identification can operate. An area would be eligible for establishment as an FAA-recognized identification area if it is a flying site that has been established within the programming of a community based organization recognized by the Administrator."

This means AMA (or other CBO) fields will be able to fly line-of-sight without a remote ID transponder.

Yes, but obtaining FAA recognition is an issue. It appears this must be applied for within a limited time frame, and approval is at the whim of the FAA. Denial= a closed field.

We'll see.. The people I've spoken with at the FAA want nothing to do with model aviation at all. They don't have the resources to police this stuff. The intent of the new rule IMO is to give them teeth for when a drone operator tries to fly in a restricted area such as around an airport or a TFR.

Short version is I refuse to panic.. People are getting hysterical about this, and there's no amount of that hysteria that's going to affect the lobbying money being thrown at the FAA by Amazon, Google, Facebook, etc.. So we either get behind the AMA and their efforts to keep us flying, or we can just panic.

Model flying is a vocational and teaching activity.
Kids used go to a meeting with Dad, see some cool demo by the Thunderbirds or Blue Angels, dream about it.
Eventually Dad would buy them a kit and they'll start building and flying RC together. Creating the strongest bond to aviation, and the best memories.

This was prevalent up to 30 years ago. Now RC flying is a stuff of the past.
Consequence: we see young graduates applying to a job in the Aerospace sector because it is cool and salaries are high.
However, the guys have absolutely no passion, no drive and no real deep understanding of how an airplane flies and stays safe.

The result is, among others, the debacle of the 737 max, F-35.

That is just to cite concrete examples that came to the public in the USA. There are hundreds of other examples to cite from Europe, Asia ...

I witness this in person almost on an everyday basis. I interview young aerospace graduates from prestigious universities who have absolutely no idea what a M3 or #4 socket head screw is, how to define a thread and secure components together to certain specs. They can process complex equations and conduct complex simulations on CAD but do not comprehend basics of flight, mechanical assemblies, service ergonomics, safety through redundancy. All these things that RC flying have teached us from the earliest age and that are absolutely obvious to us, are completely stranger to them.

I'm not sure what that says about the standard of US universities...
One of my sons is studying Aerospace Engineering at Nottingham University in the UK, I can assure you he's not in it for the money, and he certainly knows what an M3 socket head screw is...

Amen!, Oli.

A very true statment in a lot of cases

My nephew recently graduated with two aerospace engineering degrees. It was facepalm time when I mentioned split flaps and he had no idea what split flaps are!

I would not put the F-35 on the same boat as the Max. F-35 is doing just fine and is making LMT record profits, vs the Max possibly starting a downward domino effect for BA, who relies on 737 profits to cover for military sector losses.

But overall, yeah, no passion and we now give them every Friday off.

Try slotted flaps!

US universities are purely technical theory, with some limited hands-on opportunities. It is up to the student to participate on core building activities.
Aero sector is actually pretty good on providing industry standard formation to entry level engineers. I would probably say it's preferred. Then, once the young engineer is "formed", he quits for a higher paying job on the other side.

​​​​​

How can I fly fast planes or jets within a 400 ft. distance or altitude?

Guess I'll just have to use Real Flight on my computer.

line of sight is way more than 400 ft
and no one can tell how high 400 ft is, is it 399 ft or 401 ft

Oli really sad but not surprising at all...

Alan