New FAA rules for unmaned aircraft systems UAS.

[Winston]

Why the FAA is really doing this to us , and it is not about commercial drones

https://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showpost.php?p=43466561&postcount=1

We happen to have an FAA manager in this area's FAA regional office as a member of our local RC club, who happens to be a very active R/C pilot. I will not offer this persons name or position at this time. He has been carefully observing this entire process internally in the FAA over the last few years and has offered our club some insight into what is really happening.

He is as upset abut this as anyone in the hobby.

[snip]

The feeling that this is all due to big money and Amazon and commercial drone delivery is simply not true, except for one aspect. The Commercial Drone Alliance and associated entities were very ticked and green with jealousy that we were getting exceptions (to the rules they were being required to follow) for our historically safe type of recreational model flying and they have been complaining loudly and at length about it. However, the commercial drone operations by large companies is not nearly as dominating a factor as some conspiracy types think it is. Think of it as background noise.

We need to give up this particular red herring and focus on reality to do our best to fight for our right to fly.

Our guy mentioned that the law enforcement community is pressing very, very hard and very, very deeply for the remote ID requirement. Unfortunately, they have a lot of our national representatives on their side as it is presented as a real danger to our national security. Yes, they are worried about terrorist activities, even though we all know that what is being suggested will never prevent bad actors from doing what they want to do, if they want to do it bad enough.

 

[Ez2cDave]

Well, whatever the real reason or the agenda behind it, draconian regulatory rules are coming, whether we like it or not.

 

[jazzviper1]

At last check only about 10,000 of the 100,000 plus AMA members have bothered to comment on the proposed rule making. Many think it is only for drones. The really bad part is that kit manufacturers (including airplane and helicopter) will be required include remote ID, something the AMA has not even talked about. As for commercial interests being forced to obey rules that individuals don't , that happens all of the time on the roads here in the U.S. Most commercial vehicle operators must obey stricter rules than the rest of us. As far as collision issues, according to NTSB's own statistics mid-air collisions between maned general aviation aircraft are far more frequent and dangerous and costly than drone v/s aircraft collisions, and there are far more active drones than general aviation aircraft. These rules should only apply to UAS that are flown either autonomously and or beyond line of sight of the operator. If they are not going to require these systems on light sport and ultra light air craft how are they going to prevent there all of this sky trash from hitting them.

 

[Winston]

At last check only about 10,000 of the 100,000 plus AMA members have bothered to comment on the proposed rule making. Many think it is only for drones.

I ended my membership with the AMA when they accomplished nothing against the ridiculous, foot-in-the-door RC pilot registration rule in 2015. Shortly after it was implemented, a single person, an RC flyer who was also a lawyer, sued claiming the FAA had violated the hands-off policy for the FAA with respect to the RC hobby as directed by Congress and won.

 

[jazzviper1]

I ended my membership with the AMA when they accomplished nothing against the ridiculous, foot-in-the-door RC pilot registration rule in 2015.

I understand you frustration, but the AMA is the only national voice that I am aware of for R/Cers. We need them right now, but we also need people to negatively comment on the new rules even if they won't be directly affected.

 

[KC3KNM]

Not sure if it's been posted but they're organizing a protest at the end of the month. Doubting anything real will come of it, but hopefully there's a decent turn out. With work there's no way I could make a trip to D.C. anytime soon, and I'd imagine most people can't just hop across the country.

https://www.helpsaveourhobby.com/#howtohelp

RCG has a pretty solid advocacy forum (https://www.rcgroups.com/model-aircraft-and-drone-advocacy-943/) with a lot more actual info posted than this thread for anyone curious.

 

[Joekeyo]

Can someone share a link to the NPRM?

 

[Ez2cDave]

Can someone share a link to the NPRM?

https://www.faa.gov/uas/research_development/remote_id/

https://www.federalregister.gov/doc...e-identification-of-unmanned-aircraft-systems

 

[Winston]

I understand you frustration, but the AMA is the only national voice that I am aware of for R/Cers. We need them right now, but we also need people to negatively comment on the new rules even if they won't be directly affected.

The regulators will do whatever they want to do just as they always do. They are unelected bureaucrats and don't need to worry for their jobs over negative input from we mere dweebs. Only politicians mainly influenced by industry money have ANY potential influence over them. Those same politicians know the comparatively puny number of voters who fly RC will be no threat to their reelection. SO, the only way this will be stopped is if enough in the RC industry are against it and effectively all of the US consumer RC aircraft and associated hardware manufacturing is done in China. That the EAA is against the rules is a hopeful sign.

 

[John Kemker]

The regulators will do whatever they want to do just as they always do. They are unelected bureaucrats and don't need to worry for their jobs over negative input from we mere dweebs. Only politicians mainly influenced by industry money have ANY potential influence over them. Those same politicians know the comparatively puny number of voters who fly RC will be no threat to their reelection. SO, the only way this will be stopped is if enough in the RC industry are against it and effectively all of the US consumer RC aircraft and associated hardware manufacturing is done in China. That the EAA is against the rules is a hopeful sign.

I remember the ATFE and their intrusion into hobby rocketry...

Sounds familiar, guys.

 

[Winston]

I remember the ATFE and their intrusion into hobby rocketry...

Sounds familiar, guys.

Yes, and the NAR and Tripoli combination, PUNY by comparison to the AMA, spent a rumored $50k to fight that and won. Of course, a national hysteria hadn't been created about that as has been created about RC aircraft and there was no terrorist threat from it.

 

[Steve Shannon]

Yes, and the NAR and Tripoli combination, PUNY by comparison to the AMA, spent a rumored $50k to fight that and won. Of course, a national hysteria hadn't been created about that as has been created about RC aircraft and there was no terrorist threat from it.

$50k for the suit by NAR and Tripoli against ATF? You’re way off. The suit took nine years with NAR and Tripoli taking turns making payments to the lawyers. I don’t know the exact numbers but I believe it cost between $500,000 and $750,000 total. And even though we knew we were right, until the final decision we weren’t certain it would go our way.

 

[Ez2cDave]

$50k for the suit by NAR and Tripoli against ATF? You’re way off. The suit took nine years with NAR and Tripoli taking turns making payments to the lawyers. I don’t know the exact numbers but I believe it cost between $500,000 and $750,000 total. And even though we knew we were right, until the final decision we weren’t certain it would go our way.

Steve,

Not to mention the unresolved "igniter" issue that may, eventually, rear its ugly head.

Dave F.

 

[Winston]

$50k for the suit by NAR and Tripoli against ATF? You’re way off. The suit took nine years with NAR and Tripoli taking turns making payments to the lawyers. I don’t know the exact numbers but I believe it cost between $500,000 and $750,000 total. And even though we knew we were right, until the final decision we weren’t certain it would go our way.

I thought I read $50k in a Tripoli report. Looks like $25k for certain, plus a possible, estimated $100k more as documented here:

https://books.google.com/books?id=fpe2DwAAQBAJ&pg=PT393&lpg=PT393&dq=cost+of+tripoli+lawsuit+batfe&source=bl&ots=Agf8X62FD6&sig=ACfU3U2KtBmzQ3uY9JiUIzZ8SBK5XSkweA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiW1ub34NnnAhXJjp4KHQxjBwEQ6AEwAnoECAoQAQ#v=onepage&q=cost of tripoli lawsuit batfe&f=false

 

[tim cubbedge]

I thought I read $50k in a Tripoli report. Looks like $125k from here:

That was an estimate & assuming it took only 2 years but as Steve pointed out it took 9 years!

 

[Winston]

That was an estimate & assuming it took only 2 years but as Steve pointed out it took 9 years!

I missed the nine years part. NINE YEARS to fight an arbitrary (and pure BS) explosive designation! Of course, from a look at the BATFE's "explosives" list, anything with a fuel and oxidizer is an "explosive." All they need to do is claim it as such and it officially becomes one... if not in reality.

Of course, that supports my comment that the FAA will do whatever the hell it wants regardless of what we dweebs want or provide as "public input."

 

[Ez2cDave]

I thought I read $50k in a Tripoli report. Looks like $25k for certain, plus a possible, estimated $100k more as documented here:

https://books.google.com/books?id=fpe2DwAAQBAJ&pg=PT393&lpg=PT393&dq=cost+of+tripoli+lawsuit+batfe&source=bl&ots=Agf8X62FD6&sig=ACfU3U2KtBmzQ3uY9JiUIzZ8SBK5XSkweA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiW1ub34NnnAhXJjp4KHQxjBwEQ6AEwAnoECAoQAQ#v=onepage&q=cost of tripoli lawsuit batfe&f=false

It helps to read ALL of the information . . .

Estimated $100,000 / 2yrs . . . $50,000 / yr X 9 - $450,000 ( estimated )

Dave F.

 

[Ez2cDave]

The "igniter" battle is still out there, smoldering.

Dave F.

 

[Winston]

It helps to read ALL of the information

I read all of the quoted information. As I said above, I missed the nine years reality.

 

[Winston]

Back to my point which this BATFE side topic supports. The FAA will do anything it wants unless someone spends a fortune to stop them.

 

[Steve Shannon]

I read all of the quoted information. As I said above, I missed the nine years reality.

It was the longest appeal in the federal court of appeals.
This is from the papers filed seeking court costs:
“Plaintiffs were billed at market rates for all time spent on the above-captioned matter by each of the attorneys and paralegals referenced in my Declaration in support of Plaintiffs motion for fees (attached as Exhibit 5 to Plaintiffs Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs). This resulted in a total of $498,087.91 in fees and costs incurred from January 2000 through June 2009. As of the date of this Declaration, Plaintiffs have paid to my law firm the full amount of the fees and costs incurred in litigating this matter, with the limited exception of our latest August, 2009 invoice for services rendered in July, 2009.”

 

[Ez2cDave]

I read all of the quoted information. As I said above, I missed the nine years reality.

Winston,

Steve Shannon, the President of Tripoli, would have very clear knowledge of the costs involved in the BATFE lawsuit. You chose to challenge him, unsuccessfully, and defend an incorrect position, using information that you did not thoroughly review before posting.

Now, unless the AMA want's to "pony up" a few million dollars to fight the FAA, the eventual outcome is readily apparent. During the long years it takes to contest the issue in court, manufacturers, in order to stay in business, will have already modified their units with built-in transponders and whatever other licensing requirements and/or "electronic leashes" the FAA demands. Even if the FAA eventually loses the case, ten years down the road, the damage will have already been done to the RC hobby and there will be no going back to "legacy systems".

Dave F.

 

[Steve Shannon]

Hi Dave,
Winston never attacked me and I didn’t ever feel like he challenged me in any way. It’s difficult finding some things on the internet.
Even if he did, I would appreciate it if you didn’t use it as a pretext to escalate a difference of opinion. I’m a big boy (and by big I mean fat [emoji15]) and if I don’t get upset neither should anyone else.

 

[Ez2cDave]

I’m a big boy ( and by big I mean fat ) and if I don’t get upset neither should anyone else.

Steve,

We could be "book-ends" - LOL !

Dave F.

 

[Winston]

A first stab at legislating a definition of private airspace. Note that it hasn't even been given a bill number because it hasn't been sponsored or introduced (and probably never will be):

Sen. Lee Introduces Drone Integration and Zoning Act
Oct 16 2019

https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/i...e-introduces-drone-integration-and-zoning-act

WASHINGTON – Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) introduced the Drone Integration and Zoning Act Wednesday, a bill to establish a regulatory framework for drones based on the principles of local governance and cooperative federalism.

“The FAA cannot feasibly or efficiently oversee millions of drones in every locality throughout the country,” Sen. Lee said. “The reason that the states have sovereign police powers to protect the property of their citizens is because issues of land use, privacy, trespass, and law enforcement make sense at the state and local level. The best way to ensure public safety and allow this innovative industry to thrive is to empower the people closest to the ground to make local decisions in real time and that is exactly what the Drone Integration and Zoning Act does.”

Bill preamble:

"To prescribe zoning authority with respect to commercial unmanned aircraft systems and to preserve State, local, and Tribal authorities and private
property with respect to unmanned aircraft systems, and for other purposes."

-------------

Who can afford to sue the FAA to put the rule changes on hold for however many years it takes to win or lose the case? Considering the annual expenditures of either of these two organizations, if NAR and Tripoli can afford to "fight the man," either one of these certainly can:

AMA's IRS990 for 2017 - net income -$34,280; net assets $10,045,763:

https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/520799408

EAA's IRS990 for 2017 - net income $2,033,920; net assets $42,371,334

https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/391033301

NAR's:

https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/136165575

Tripoli's:

https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/330399006

 

[Winston]

A recent post on RCgroups.com is included below revealing the truth about where this pending rule change is actually coming from.

https://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showpost.php?p=43854765&postcount=2562

18 Feb 2020

This is the response I got back from the AMA after I suggested they "grow a pair" and get aggressive about influencing public opinion:

We want to ensure that our community comes together to show a united front against this proposal. AMA’s government affairs team works with the FAA’s national offices in DC daily to represent our members. Unfortunately, this proposal is being driven by Department of Defense and Homeland Security. We are very concerned with the proposal and we are pushing back heavily on the proposal to include an approach to remote ID that would be compliant for our community of hobbyist. Over the past few weeks, we have been visiting multiple congressional offices regarding our concerns with the NPRM and our message has been received well.

We are aware that there are other association’s presenting themselves as CBO’s. However, the FAA continues to identify AMA as "the national body for model aviation” and looks to AMA as an unofficial CBO. There are no recognized CBO’s at this time. AMA has been featured in multiple news outlets including Politico Pro, sUAS News, Drone DJ, Financial Times, Drone Life, and more. You can also view a press release that highlights the AMA Coalition and the proposed rule.

To read more about our efforts over the past weeks, I recommend the AMA Podcast and the Government Affairs Blog. We are encouraging everyone to make comments on the federal register. Please reach out to me with any other concerns.

Thanks!
Hannah Giese | Government Affairs Representative
Academy of Model Aeronautics

 

[grouch]

I think this is a matter of projection. The government knows what they do with drones and assume it’s a matter of time before the private citizens start doing the same.

 

[Winston]

I think this is a matter of projection. The government knows what they do with drones and assume it’s a matter of time before the private citizens start doing the same.

Nah, take a look at the articles that can be found on-line which were sourced from the government in the six months or so prior to the sudden need for RC pilot registration.

Plus, look at the actual use of consumer drones in conflict zones. They've been weaponized in Syria, one was used to set off a huge outdoor ammo dump in the Ukraine and drones were suspected to have done the same with several other large ammo dumps elsewhere. Prior to the 2015 registration requirement, Germany's Angela Merkel had a drone fly up to her while she was outdoors speaking at podium and one was more recently attempted to be used against the president (or whatever) of Venezuela.

Note where all RC flying was banned for a period of time instantly after the RC pilot registration rule was enacted - within 30 miles of DC and only DC - so you can see whose safety they're most worried about and why politicians are so eager to give them what they want.

I'm certainly not against what they're trying to do, I just doubt it will be effective and in the process it will cause undo restrictions on the hobby. However, it does serve to cover their bureaucratic butts if something bad ever happens. "But, we did everything we could to prevent this!"