Government Regulation of RC Airplanes, Drones .... and US????

[Winston]

The AMA is in discussions with the FAA to either exempt AMA members from registering or allowing us to use our AMA number which is already on our aircraft.

And the AMA had already filed a brief challenging the FAA's interpretation of the rule that the FAA claims allows them to subject model aircraft to new regulations like this.

-- Roger

The AMA's beef is most likely related to the DOT/FAA's loophole effort to find a way to violate the INTENT of this:

SEC. 336. SPECIAL RULE FOR MODEL AIRCRAFT

(a) IN GENERAL

-Notwithstanding any other provision of law relating to the incorporation of unmanned aircraft systems into Federal Aviation Administration plans and policies, including this subtitle, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration may not promulgate any rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft, or an aircraft being developed as a model aircraft, if-

(1) the aircraft is flown strictly for hobby or recreational use;

(2) the aircraft is operated in accordance with a community-based set of safety guidelines and within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization;

(3) the aircraft is limited to not more than 55 pounds unless otherwise certified through a design, construction, inspection, flight test, and operational safety program administered by a community-based organization;

(4) the aircraft is operated in a manner that does not interfere with and gives way to any manned aircraft; and

(5) when flown within 5 miles of an airport, the operator of the aircraft provides the airport operator and the airport air traffic control tower (when an air traffic facility is located at the airport) with prior notice of the operation (model aircraft operators flying from a permanent location within 5 miles of an airport should establish a mutually-agreed upon operating procedure with the airport operator and the airport air traffic control tower (when an air traffic facility is located at the airport)).

-----

Also, the FAA is presenting this as an "emergency measure" most likely so they can avoid the normally required 30 to 60 day period for public comment before rule implementation, something that's pretty hard for them to claim since this holiday sales surge of "drones" (the vast majority of which will be sub-250g toy grade) could have easily been foreseen LONG ago.

This group sounds like they are going to challenge this on that basis:

Critics threaten lawsuit over drone registration rules - 12/14/15

https://thehill.com/policy/transpor...ten-lawsuit-over-faa-drone-registration-rules

Basically, the DOT/FAA is trying to pull a fast one and hope that not enough people notice or bother to do anything about it like write or call their representatives in government. If they can get enough people to sign up immediately either to avoid a measly $5 fee during the "free" window or because they simply don't know any better, they can claim public acceptance by voluntary compliance.

JOIN AN ORGANIZATION WHICH REPRESENTS YOUR HOBBY to fight this sort of stupidity, which is exactly why (besides the insurance coverage) I'm a NAR, Tripoli, and AMA member. In cases like this, the money spent is more than worth it.

 

[Winston]

Thanks to the media, a not too exaggerated public impression of "drones." Very funny.:

[video=youtube;O1Hhvdpvp5o]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1Hhvdpvp5o[/video]

 

[tab28682]

This was sent to all AMA members today, for those that do not see the AMA as being on top of the situation.

Dear AMA Members,
Yesterday, the AMA Executive Council unanimously approved an action plan to relieve and further protect our members from unnecessary and burdensome regulations. This plan addresses the recently announced interim rule requiring federal registration of all model aircraft and unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) weighing between 0.55 and 55 pounds.
AMA has long used a similar registration system with our members, which we pointed out during the task force deliberations and in private conversations with the FAA. As you are aware, AMA's safety program instructs all members to place his or her AMA number or name and address on or within their model aircraft, effectively accomplishing the safety and accountability objectives of the interim rule. AMA has also argued that the new registration rule runs counter to Congress' intent in Section 336 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, otherwise known as the "Special Rule for Model Aircraft."
The Council is considering all legal and political remedies to address this issue. We believe that resolution to the unnecessary federal registration rule for our members rests with AMA's petition before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. This petition, filed in August 2014, asks the court to review the FAA's interpretation of the "Special Rule for Model Aircraft." The central issue is whether the FAA has the authority to expand the definition of aircraft to include model aircraft; thus, allowing the agency to establish new standards and operating criteria to which model aircraft operators have never been subject to in the past.
In promulgating its interim rule for registration earlier this week, the FAA repeatedly stated that model aircraft are aircraft, despite the fact that litigation is pending on this very question. The Council believes the FAA's reliance on its interpretation of Section 336 for legal authority to compel our members to register warrants the Court's immediate attention to AMA's petition.
While we continue to believe that registration makes sense at some threshold and for flyers operating outside of a community-based organization or flying for commercial purposes, we also strongly believe our members are not the problem and should not have to bear the burden of additional regulations. Safety has been the cornerstone of our organization for 80 years and AMA's members strive to be a part of the solution.
As we proceed with this process, we suggest AMA members hold off on registering their model aircraft with the FAA until advised by the AMA or until February 19, the FAA's legal deadline for registering existing model aircraft.
Holding off on registration will allow AMA time to fully consider all possible options. On a parallel track, it also allows AMA to complete ongoing conversations with the FAA about how best to streamline the registration process for our members.
In the near future, we will also be asking our members to make their voices heard by submitting comments to the FAA's interim rule on registration. We will follow-up soon with more detailed information on how to do this.
Thank you for your continued support of AMA. We will provide you with more updates as they become available.
Kind regards,

The AMA Executive Council
Bob Brown, AMA President
Gary Fitch, AMA Executive Vice President
Andy Argenio, AMA Vice President, District I
Eric Williams, AMA Vice President, District II
Mark Radcliff, AMA Vice President, District III
Jay Marsh, AMA Vice President, District IV
Kris Dixon, AMA Vice President, District V
Randy Cameron, AMA Vice President, District VI
Tim Jesky, AMA Vice President, District VII
Mark Johnston, AMA Vice President, District VIII
Jim Tiller, AMA Vice President, District IX
Lawrence Tougas, AMA Vice President, District X
Chuck Bower, AMA Vice President, District XI

 

[Screaminhelo]

You laugh about this, but there are already news items out there that the new laser Christmas lawn lights are causing issues with commercial aircraft.

In my experience, these are no big deal. They are rather low powered and look pretty cool from 500-1000 feet. I can't imagine them being an issue at the altitudes that commercial traffic is at over most residential areas.

You missed the point. The FAA has justified requiring registration by claiming that model aircraft are aircraft. If so, you cannot legally fly under 500 feet in most cases.

-- Roger

Let me first say that I find this rule as screwed up as anyone here.

If you read the rule, the FAA is grasping at straws and trying to get people to accept it and go away quietly, that is why the FAA recommends model aircraft to remain below 400 feet in order to deconflict with VFR traffic. They know that they can't regulate model aircraft and are playing sort of passive aggressive here in an attempt to effect regulation without directly enacting a regulation. I have seen this a few times over the years when they did something similar with an ASB to control specific aircraft types.

 

[catman001]

Great to see the AMA taking the stand that they are. While I don't have a problem in paying to get a permit that allows me to fly on public land, my main complaint is that the FAA now requires me to pay them to fly in my own backyard. The FAA now claims control of the airspace above my property, down to ground level, as part of the "Nation Airspace System". I had always thought that as a property owner, I had control of a certain amount of airspace above my own home. To have to pay the FAA to fly my small foam plane 5 feet off the ground in my own backyard, on my property is a bit too much.

I guess that I should be happy the FAA lets me toss a tennis ball to my dog in their "National Airspace System".

Mike

 

[AcidPaintball]

I wonder just how big the risk is for not registering? I don't mean what the punishment is. If I get a Syma X5C for Xmas and just fly around my yard and maybe in the park or a few other public places when nobpdy is around, just how likely will it be that I'm required to prove it's registered?

I do hope I get one. And if I do I'll probably fly it a lot in my neighborhood, and I can see that I'd want to fly it around my son's school playground (on a Saturday), and in parks, recording a lot of footage for different reasons.

Does anyone think there will be a lot of phone calls from concerned citizens reporting RC activities so the authorities will come verify that they're registered? I would think it's more likely just a measure to make the public think there's some level of safety, much like the TSA, when in reality nothing will change. That, and some fund raising for some government division.

My syma x5c is under .55 so you don't need a license.

Also this isn't$5 per craft, but $5 for YOUR license. I assumed $5 per craft at first too, but after reading the epic 211page document is not. $5 for 3 years. Not too bad, but if they are going to do this they should have a life time license.

 

[Micromeister]

Yesterday, The FAA announced a new registration plan for all unmanned flight devices...meaning drones, but also impacting the RC airplane (and potentially, RC cars, etc).

Now, some are saying this is not only aimed at drones, but also at all RC devices.

Others fear that this is the first step in a move to eventually control, if not regulated High Power rocketry out of existence.

What do you think? Will they require registration for higher power rockets? Or will they ban everything but BP motors? Or is even that at risk?

These new Regulations cover ALL unmanned aircraft controlled for the ground by radio control. For the most part our Rockets do not have any RC control so are not effected at all.

What would be effected are RCRG and RCBG competition Rocket and Boost Gliders. As ALL RC fixed wing or rotor lift models are covered by these regulations. This has been coming for a VERY LONG time. Folks with RC aircraft are and have been shown to be capable of delivering dangerous payloads. Drones only make the situation worse.

I like many others have a number of RC aircraft so I'll be taking advantage of the 30day free registration period, mostly for RCRG & RCBG competition Gliders a NAR sanctioned events.
Frankly I think these new regulation are just another way to keep the masses safer from the idiots out there flying Drones and RC aircraft in places and situations Where they never should be anyway.
Many of us have warned about these A-Holes doing really stupid things and posting them on U-Tube and other social media for the last 5 or 6 year... As usual it's a few fools that spoil the soup for the rest of us.

 

[burkefj]

I don't know what dangerous payloads gave been shown to be delivered by normal rc aircraft and how putting a number on something makes anyone safer, it only allows police to do something after the fact and trace someone, or fine someone for not having a number, anyone trying to do something malicious won't put a number...its ridiculous.

 

[Ez2cDave]

FAST-FORWARD to 2019 . . . Here it comes !

https://www.gopusa.com/drones-likely-to-be-regulated-by-state-city-governments-in-2019/

Dave F.

 

[grouch]

Dave really? Digging up three threads on drones??

 

[Mushtang]

It's funny that this was posted today, as just yesterday I bought this on Amazon, to be delivered tomorrow.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07JK4BNLQ

 

[grouch]

Now you did it, gotta sell you life to the Feds.

 

[Ez2cDave]

Dave really? Digging up three threads on drones??

Get your facts straight . . . It was one link related to drone regulation, posted in three different threads.

If things keep going down this path, future drone flyers, will have much more than that to worry about, in terms of regulation . . . Mark my words !

Dave F.

 

[Marc_G]

I think the purpose would have been served to post the link to just one of the old threads, or to start a single new thread on the topic of concern about 2019 regulatory issues, rather than get three different threads hopping.

 

[Ez2cDave]

I think the purpose would have been served to post the link to just one of the old threads, or to start a single new thread on the topic of concern about 2019 regulatory issues, rather than get three different threads hopping.

Marc,

Thank you for your opinion of how the purpose of my posts could have been best served. Perhaps, I will return the favor, someday!

Dave F.

 

[Cnorm]

Get your facts straight . . . It was one link related to drone regulation, posted in three different threads.

If things keep going down this path, future drone flyers, will have much more than that to worry about, in terms of regulation . . . Mark my words !

Dave F.

Okay, I marked your words.

I don't want to alarm you, but you're acting just like a friend's friend who was exposed to too many chem trails. Sincerely. Look it up.

 

[Ez2cDave]

Okay, I marked your words.

I don't want to alarm you, but you're acting just like a friend's friend who was exposed to too many chem trails. Sincerely. Look it up.

Thank you for your concern . . .

In the not too distant future ( likely less than 10 years ), it's entirely conceivable that "Drone Pilots" may have to undergo an extensive background check, psychological evaluation, be licensed & registered, along with being required to carry liability insurance.

Keep watching !

Dave F.

 

[tim cubbedge]

Thank you for your concern . . .

In the not too distant future ( likely less than 10 years ), it's entirely conceivable that "Drone Pilots" may have to undergo an extensive background check, psychological evaluation, be licensed & registered, along with being required to carry liability insurance.

Keep watching !

Dave F.

I wish they would start now!

 

[DaveW6DPS]

Why dig up such an old thread? Why not start a new thread with current information?

 

[Steven]

Now where's my train set?

 

[Tobor]

Thank you for your concern . . .

In the not too distant future ( likely less than 10 years ), it's entirely conceivable that "Drone Pilots" may have to undergo an extensive background check, psychological evaluation, be licensed & registered, along with being required to carry liability insurance.

Keep watching !

Dave F.

I wish they would start now!

Be careful what you wish for. There are those in the government who feel that way about model rockets.....

I do remember a time shortly after 911 when certain senators and congressmen were proposing a complete ban on anything hobby related that went into air (vertically or horizontally) and anything that was R/C controlled.

 

[grouch]

Get your facts straight . . . It was one link related to drone regulation, posted in three different threads.
Dave F.

I have my facts straight.

 

[Ez2cDave]

I have my facts straight.

So do I . . .

 

[Ez2cDave]

Why dig up such an old thread? Why not start a new thread with current information?

Think of it like History being taught in school . . . " Why should we learn about things that happened so long ago . . . Can't we just learn Current Events ? "

The original problem never went away and it is evolving over time.

Dave F.

 

[georgegassaway]

 

[Ez2cDave]

This "horse" is like "Jason" from the Halloween movies . . . It keeps getting back up !

 

[grouch]

You have issues.

 

[Ez2cDave]

You have issues.

Considering the track record of our so-called "government", over the decades, you better believe I do !