Help Protect the RC Flying Hobby

[crxmanpat]

Done.

[boomer108]

Done one more time.

[Gilatrout]

Done, but then were never the problem. We fly line of sight, and typically at dedicated fields. I don't object to a modification that grants authorization to administrate operations beyond line of sight.

[Elbee]

Done

[rifleman_btx]

Looks like it passed the house

[BluesDragon]

Yup yup... good on everyone that helped get the word out to our representatives!

Friday, April 27, 2018

Today, the House of Representatives passed the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018 (H.R.4), a long-term reauthorization of the FAA. We are happy to share that Section 336, also known as the Special Rule for Model Aircraft, is included in this bill with meaningful refinements that we supported to help make it stronger. We especially want to thank the thousands of members who participated in our Call to Action in the last few weeks to let Congress know the importance of protecting our hobby. Your efforts during this critical time have made a significant impact.
While much of what we fought for was included in this bill, there are also some provisions that concern us. Rest assured - we will continue to work on improving FAA Reauthorization moving forward. Protecting our hobby is AMA's top priority and we will do everything possible to ensure your ability and freedom to fly.
Please remember there are several more steps in the process before FAA Reauthorization becomes law. The next step is for the Senate to consider its own version of FAA Reauthorization, and then both the House and Senate bills will be sent to a Joint Committee to hash out a final version of the legislation. This process could take months and we may ask for your help again during this time.
Again, we cannot thank you enough for your unwavering support. Please continue to monitor your emails, social media, and www.modelaircraft.org/gov for new information and ways you can help.



As always, thank you for your support.



AMA Government Affairs Team

[fhhuber]

336 says: as long as flown in compliance with CBO standards.

The people flying in compliance with CBO (FAI, AMA, or any other) are essentially never a problem and never were the reason FAA started trying to crack down on model aviation.

Laws get written to point out the people doing stuff they shouldn't. If people weren't doing the stuff they shouldn't then the law wouldn't ever be written.

Excess speed means less ability to stop if something happens like a kid running into the street near a school, so they post reduced speeds when there is a higher chance of the kids running into the street. People KNOW there is a school and they know the kids will be running around like chickens with their heads cut off when going to or leaving the school grounds, so common sense says slow down around the schools at those times... But without the laws, too many people won;t slow down. (and even with the laws some won't slow down, like when Kyle Bush was doing 128 mph though a school zone)

The same thing has been going on with model aviation... people flying in a manner that is just stupid. Drones in the landing paths of airliners is risking hundreds of lives. Even with laws saying don;t do that stupid $#!7, it still happens.

If everyone was flying in compliance with the CBO recommendations, we would need no laws restricting the hobby and we wouldn't need section 336.

So when looking for the problem... look at the real problem.

Those who say the hobby is self policing are just wrong.
I've filed complaints with the AMA regarding blatant non-compliance with safety code rules.
One case in particular had a very large model out of control barely missing plowing into a large crowd and when I filed the complaint, I was told to STFU. AMA "VIPs" had approved and even encouraged the blatant disregard for the rules requiring a successful test flight of a >55 lb model before flying it at a sanctioned event. THE MODEL HAD FAILED test flight attempts before the event. (crashed with major damage, repairs underway at the event where it was on display) But is was "such a cool model" that it just HAD to be flown at the event...CRASHED TWICE more, repaired then a third time where it almost crashed into the crowd.

Lets fly a 80 lb plane at one of the nations largest gatherings of model aviation enthusiasts, despite REPEATED flight tests proving that the model is not able to sustain controlled flight...

The person pointing put the people doing stuff they shouldn't is the one who is frowned upon. THAT is our hobby's form of self policing. And that is why the FAA wants to regulate model aviation.

If you want to keep the government out of the hobby, you need to listen to the people saying : "Don't do that, its not smart."

Texting while driving has now surpassed DUI as the #1 cause of traffic accidents. We all know its not smart... But the person who tells the driver to put the phone down is the one who is looked at as a problem.

[Beeg]

It's not over yet. Have any of you read the text?

Scroll down to where it starts for UAS Sec. 334 but the more unknown implications are in Sec. 337 and 338.

Here's the body of Section 337..

SEC. 337. Evaluation of aircraft registration for small unmanned aircraft.

(a) Metrics.—Beginning not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall develop and track metrics to assess compliance with and effectiveness of the registration of small unmanned aircraft systems by the Federal Aviation Administration pursuant to the interim final rule issued on December 16, 2015, entitled “Registration and Marking Requirements for Small Unmanned Aircraft” (80 Fed. Reg. 78593) and any subsequent final rule, including metrics with respect to—

(1) the levels of compliance with the interim final rule and any subsequent final rule;

(2) the number of enforcement actions taken by the Administration for violations of or noncompliance with the interim final rule and any subsequent final rule, together with a description of the actions; and

(3) the effect of the interim final rule and any subsequent final rule on compliance with any fees associated with the use of small unmanned aircraft systems.


(b) Evaluation.—The Inspector General of the Department of Transportation shall evaluate—

(1) the Administration’s progress in developing and tracking the metrics set forth in subsection (a); and

(2) the reliability, effectiveness, and efficiency of the Administration’s registration program for small unmanned aircraft.


(c) Report.—Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Inspector General of the Department of Transportation shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate a report containing—

(1) the results of the evaluation required under subsection (b); and

(2) recommendations to the Administrator and Congress for improvements to the registration process for small unmanned aircraft.

The way I see it, unless the FAA hires hundreds if not thousands of new UAS inspectors to track, visit and observe every place UAS's are flown they will never be able to enforce the rules but only investigate and violate after the fact. This is why they are currently relying on a CBO like the AMA to educate, regulate and hopefully prevent the government from completely taking over and crushing the hobby we've been safely enjoying for so many years.
In my personal opinion, we can only blame technology for this current state of government intrusion into our hobby. If there weren't gyro stabilized, video capable computer controlled "drones" that just about anyone can fly we wouldn't be in this mess. They could easily shut down nearly every dangerous incursion/conflict by making it illegal to mount a live camera feed on a UAS without special license and equipment to do so. Or figure out how to limit the range of live camera feeds. I know the video capable quads are a huge business but I think the AMA should separate these particular types from the rest of us instead of forcing the entire hobby industry to suffer the result of someone that doesn't understand the implications of their actions by flying into the approach path of an airport to get some "cool" video or violate someones privacy by spying over a fence or through a window.


This leads us to Section 338 which is suppose to take 60 days to evaluate all the parameters set forth then we should have a more clear idea of how imposing the government will be on our hobby.

Read down in Section 721 and following as well.

[EA-6B Geek]

[QUOTE

I know the video capable quads are a huge business but I think the AMA should separate these particular types from the rest of us instead of forcing the entire hobby industry to suffer the result of someone that doesn't understand the implications of their actions by flying into the approach path of an airport to get some "cool" video or violate someones privacy by spying over a fence or through a window.

[/QUOTE]

I think you are 100% right here. The AMA, and us for that matter, are up against some very strong lobbying forces in this matter, and those forces have zero interest in a differentiation between a Falcon 56 and a "Drone". All the same to them.

[fhhuber]

AMA used to separate FPV from their approved modes of operations.

People screamed about not being allowed to fly the way they wanted.

AMA then allowed FPV with a designated spotter and other appropriate restrictions.

People screamed it was too restrictive.

AMA relaxed the restrictions.

People are still screaming that they are too restrictive.

Now you say you want them to essentially not cover FPV again.

There's very little difference in actual capability between many quad-copters or traditional helicopters and many fixed wing models as far as range, max altitude and max airspeed. Actually the fixed wings usually have an advantage on those points and those are the points which allow people to exceed prudent operational limits.

Its not an issue of quad vs heli vs fix wing or electric vs fuel.
Its an operator issue.
Given the capability to fly higher and further, you'll have people that will do it.

When I started in the hobby, .61 ci / 10cc was the maximum permissible TOTAL engine displacement n a model. Max allowed weight for any competition was 2 kilograms (appx 11 lbs) and 28 lbs was the max AMA allowed at any sanctioned event. average useful radio range was less than 1/2 mile, but some were starting to be useful at up to 2 miles and Maynard Hill modified one to be useful at over 7 miles to use for an altitude record attempt (record not allowed because he hand built a supercharger for the engine to be able to run at over 37,000 ft.... He did coordinate that attempt with the FAA, US Navy and other agencies.)

Yes, even back then, if there was technological capability for the attempt, someone tried it.

Now we have people building 85% scale models that REALLY COULD carry a person and could fly for hundreds, or thousands of miles using GPS enabled autopilot systems you can buy for under $300. (essentially "poor man's slow speed CRUISE MISSILES.")

Yes... we need to be saved from ourselves.

[BluesDragon]

In my personal opinion, we can only blame technology for this current state of government intrusion into our hobby. If there weren't gyro stabilized, video capable computer controlled "drones" that just about anyone can fly we wouldn't be in this mess. They could easily shut down nearly every dangerous incursion/conflict by making it illegal to mount a live camera feed on a UAS without special license and equipment to do so. Or figure out how to limit the range of live camera feeds. I know the video capable quads are a huge business but I think the AMA should separate these particular types from the rest of us instead of forcing the entire hobby industry to suffer the result of someone that doesn't understand the implications of their actions by flying into the approach path of an airport to get some "cool" video or violate someones privacy by spying over a fence or through a window.

I can only agree with ya... let's say 85%. Only because I am the guy you describe as one of the ones ruining the hobby.... kinda. I got into RC flying via the 'computer capable drones' (DJI Mavic Pro) a year ago. From there got into fixed wing flying thanks to 'gyro stabilization technology'. To me it all comes down to respect. Unfortunately there are way too many up and comers that have none and never learned (or was taught) to give some. Me.. I registered with the FAA (#FA3HF47XT7) before ever leaving the ground with my drone. Have done quite a few flights, and videos, without ever disrespecting anyone's personal space or property. Yes, I do fly in and over my neighborhood... always at the FAA's requested limit of 400' (AGL).. never over... and yet never so low as to make you think I'm trying to catch your wife or daughter sunbathing in the nude out in the backyard. I'm always happy to show and educate anyone that wants to actually see just how close these little drones gotta be to get good close up footage. Just this year.. I got into the fixed wing flying. Only been at it since January in fact. Had my AMA card (#1150356) before I ever took my first flight. Even joined the local flying club (EVA Member #1275). Not just to be able to fly there, I can actually fly right behind my neighborhood over the cotton fields, which I got permission from the farm house (because that's how respectful people do things), but also to learn as much as could from the guys and gals down at the field. I always give right of way to any manned AC whether flying my drone or my planes. Come to think of it, I have yet to fly my planes over that 400' ceiling limit the FAA has requested... I wonder can you say the same? Yet you believe I should be held to separate accountabilities because, why again, I didn't start out on a buddy box? Yeah, sorry, I can respect your point of view, but can only agree with ya on 85% of it. I can't like being put into the same category as those that have no respect for the hobby or their surroundings.

[OV10]

BD...........Whether it's 85% or whatever, you happen to be part of the GOOD minority which is the big problem here because we are not the majority.
Don't remember the exact numbers that are AMA registered but if my chemobrain serves me correctly it is around 195,000.
Whereas the registered UAS folks numbered almost 800,000 which is why the AMA has unfortunately saddled up to it's misdirected belief that these numbers could be reined in to membership.
It would be nice to able to separate "traditional" fixed wing aircraft and heli's away from the "drones" as BEEG had mentioned so that there is some clearly defined lines but as Fhhuber also eluded to that there are rogues right in our own ranks of fixed wing airframes that are being a negative focus.
SO.......... like most everything in our governments skills of life management, the easiest way to corral the few is to punish the many.
As has been said, we need to save our selves. How we do this is to make proper conduct become part of our commitment to ensure that those that think they are above the law are turned in.
The ol' expression of "see something - say something" definitely has merit here in our sport in weeding out the bad players.
I'm the eternal optimist and will not lay down like so many do because they are afraid to get involved.
Best regards,

[fhhuber]

We have a problem with the "see something, say something" premise and the AMA..

AMA does not want to hear about members (especially "elites") who blatantly violate the rules.

It is traditional at turbine model fly-ins for the announcers to call out "That was 199+" when someone makes a low level, high speed pass in excess of AMA's 200 mph limit.
(they commonly have someone with a radar gun to measure the speed of the aircraft as they pass.)
One well known "respected" turbine flyer posted youtube video where he was AT AN EVENT with such radar speed measuring and they called out true readings off the radar gun, well over the AMA's 200 mph limit for turbine powered models.
AMA rules say there is supposed to be an automatic system to slow the plane down if it exceeds 200 mph. His plane has no such system.

When this was pointed out, AMA said STFU.

The German guy who has a model that exceeds 400 mph is not under AMA rules and is not part of this issue. He's not in the USA. But he does point out that we have the technology easily available to make models go that fast.

BTW, I'm an AMA Life Member and CD.
I used to believe in the AMA having credibility. Now I do not.

(well.. they may have just changed the rules... AMA sent out e-mails saying they modified the Safety Code, but you can't access that new version yet.)

[Extender]

Thanks Motion RC for making it so easy for all of us that have been in the hobby for many years. Maybe we can get a discount on our AMA membership since you and your team are doing the leg work. Most expensive magazine subscription I’ve ever had to purchase. LOL!

[Beeg]

If you had any doubt about the governments intentions....

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/defense/2018-05-02/top-fed-makes-case-more-uas-regulation?utm_source=alerts&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=2018-05-02&eid=333519005&bid=2089259

Top Fed Makes Case for More UAS Regulation

by Mark Huber
- May 2, 2018, 8:05 AM
Speaking at the Association of Unmanned Vehicle Systems International (AUVSI) conference in Denver on Tuesday, U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) General Counsel Steven Bradbury left little doubt that the federal government will be moving quickly to further assert its primacy over UAS rules and regulations and imposing more of them on the recreational sUAS community.

During a keynote address, Bradbury assured his audience that DOT’s UAS regulations would be limited in scope “to what is necessary to achieve our safety mission” and then laid out the case for increasing it on the grounds of airspace management, safety, security, and federal preemption.

Bradbury said the government is “motivated by critical concerns about safety and security. Those have to be the top priorities. Americans have no tolerance for aviation mishaps, and the FAA has no tolerance for aviation accidents. But if there were one major incident involving an unmanned system and a traditional aircraft or if there were a major terrorist attack in which drones were involved in carrying out a terrorist attack, I think we all understand that it would be a significant setback for the UAS industry. Those concerns cannot be ignored.”

UAS registration and tracking is a top government priority, he said, citing federal security agency concerns about the potential malicious use of UAVs. “The [Trump] administration has proposed legislation to Congress that would authorize the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security, in coordination with the FAA and consistent with the Fourth Amendment in particular circumstances, to be able to identify and monitor and interdict drones that threaten critical facilities or sensitive activities. Like the UTM [UAS traffic management], this capability is going to require all drones that transit navigable airspace be equipped with the ability for remote identification and tracking. That’s going to be a critical requirement,” Bradbury said, adding that the FAA likely would be issuing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on the topic in the near future soliciting public comment.

Bradbury said a related piece of that legislation would be a limiting of the Section 336 exemption for recreational UAS users embodied in the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012. “We respect and value the freedom and the rights of all Americans to make personal use of UAS including for recreation. But the FAA believes and it is the view of the department that the current Section 336 impedes the FAA’s ability to relax its regulations or come up with new regulatory approaches that will help to expand and facilitate the greater use of UAS in the navigable airspace. Congress is considering ways of trimming the hobbyist exception, and the FAA is working closely with the responsible committees in Congress and reaching out to the leading model aircraft association in the U.S. to try and resolve these questions and we need to find a way forward on that front,” he said.

Finally, Bradbury reminded the audience that the patchwork of local and state UAS laws that sprung up while the federal government was shaping its own policy on the topic will ultimately be subject to federal preemption. “Some of these [state and local] laws are designed to protect privacy interests from snoopy drones and private property from trespass by drones. Some cities like New York have banned drone use pretty much in all of the city limits. These laws have the potential to conflict with the FAA’s ability to regulate the use of airspace by drones and expand that use. So we will need to be dealing with that and find the right balance between state, local, and federal interests. Of course, under the Constitution the federal requirements for safety and rules will preempt state and local laws in the area of commercial use. Once the Department of Transportation has granted economic authority, for example for package delivery services, the federal law expressly provides that any state law that purports to regulate the prices, routes, or services of those air carriers would be preempted by the federal law,” he said.

[Twowingtj]

The tough part in all of this, is that you can put all of the "feel good" regulations in place that the politicians want, but the core problem is people. The "outlaws" are not going to follow the rules. It doesn't matter if it's guns, drones, rental vans, or pressure cookers, if someone wants to use someting to cause harm or do stupid stuff, they are going to do it. All of the regulations in the world are not going to help. It just makes the rest of us suffer.

[RRHandy]

It will be no different then trying to control guns, the law abiding will follow and the non will not and we all will pay in the end.:(

[Beeg]

You are both so right. We ALL know, even the feds, that those intent on mis-using UASs will not abide or follow any sort of regulation. After all, they are OUTLAWS! This is save face regulation. When something does happen they can reach over and cover their backsides by pulling up the “Hey, look what we did!” regulations. And then when something really bad happens their next logical step will be to either ban all UAS altogether or require a license to even purchase one after you’ve filled out a form explaining why you want to purchase one, had a background check and been fully vetted by the FBI. Then after a year of school and training and you still want one they may stamp your request form for approval.
If I sound more than a little cynical it’s because I’ve been dealing with the FAA for about 35years now and know how they roll. Only intense lobbying from us, and more importantly from the businesss in the industry and intervention from our representatives will prevent the demise of our beloved hobby.

Two things to prove my point. Originally the NTSB/FAA wanted all airline passenger seats to face aft. This is far safer in the event of an accident than forward facing seats. This is a fact. But! The airlines lobbied against this “safety” regulation arguing the flying public would reject this and not fly as much. Number two fact. At one point the government was going to require airline crews to wear radiation badges. What most people don’t know is how much solar radiation exposure the body is exposed to at high (above about 15,000ft but mainly in the 30,s) altitude. Again the airline lobbied citing if the general public were to see pilots and flight attendants wearing radiation badges this would affect their bottom line.
i know the airline industry is way bigger than our hobby but it proves my point.

So, the bottom line is just that. If our industry can convince our politicians of potential significant economic hardship or demise they will weigh the “acceptable risk” and back off.

[Beeg]

It's time to take action!

Here's a link to AMA explaining some of the issues.

https://amablog.modelaircraft.org/amagov/2018/09/23/take-action-now-tell-congress-to-vote-no-on-faa-reauthorization/

Here's the bill as it now sits.
HR302.pdf

Cleverly hidden as "Sports Medicine".

Here's my take and basic guide to the attached PDF.


H.R.302 - Sports Medicine Licensure Clarity Act of 2017


US Code title 49
Subtitle B - Unmanned Aircraft Systems
Section 341. (Page 246)


Chapter 448
44801. Definitions (Page 247-250)
Section
Page 246 through Page 347

SEC. 345. SMALL UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SAFETY STANDARDS. Page (265)
44805. SMALL UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SAFETY STANDARDS. Page (265)

"From what I read every manufacturer will have to certify their UAS for Administration designated safety standards. Also sounds like the end of kit building or modification of any UAS."

‘‘(j) EXCLUSIONS.—The Administrator may exempt from the requirements of this section small unmanned air-

1 craft systems that are not capable of navigating beyond
2 the visual line of sight of the operator through advanced
3 flight systems and technology, if the Administrator determines that such an exemption does not pose a risk to the safety of the national airspace system.’’.

Here's the recreational section.

SEC. 349. EXCEPTION FOR LIMITED RECREATIONAL OPERATIONS OF UNMANNED AIRCRAFT. (Page 282)

"Operating in Class B,C,D or E airspace requires authorization from the Administrator. Used to be the controlling agency (i.e Airport owner/manager, Tower, Approach control, etc.).All Class G airspace 400ft agl ceiling regardless of operating within guidance of a "Community Based Organization - (AMA or similar)"
Operator must pass an aeronautical test.
Aircraft is registered and marked as designated.

THE REPEAL OF SECTION 336! (Page 290)

So, to me it looks like they want bascially certification (test standards) for all pilots, certified and registered aircraft with remote ID capability (transponder), a hard ceiling of 400ft agl and to be able to make any new rules they choose by repealing sec. 336.
Basically a large percentage of us are screwed and this will be the end of RC for me as I enjoy Pattern, IMAC and scale soaring which all require greater than a 400ft agl ceiling. Not to mention how much a miniture transponder will cost for every airplane you own.

[Beeg]

This will most likely be the end of the AMA as well as they will loose all guidance authority. I guess they would be good for insurance purposes....