FAA registration

[Jim Kraft]

Just a heads up. I have been reading up on the FAA UAS laws and rules. Two things are really a concern. One is that both tethered and untethered UAS come under the FAA ruling. Two is the next to the last paragraph in the June issue of MA on page 11, which covers the fact in the Senate bill that all models will have to be built by a FAA certified model manufacturing company. That would eliminate building our own models from scratch or kits as I see it.
 
As I understand it the House bill is not so restrictive, but I don't think either one is in it's final draft yet. Both bills will have to go to committee and then back to the House and Senate for a final vote before it goes to the presidents desk.

As it stands right now it looks to me like there is up to a $25,000 fine for flying without an FAA license. But if we do sign up we will come under what ever rules come down. I tried to get a ruling on control line from the FAA but they said they could not make a judgement on it at this time and wanted a lot of personal info from me before I could get an answer. I declined to do that.

Most of this info is not being put out there anywhere where people can see what is going on so I thought I would do the best I can. If anyone has a different take on what I have written please correct me.

It also looks like free flight will come under the law as if there is any onboard control after leaving the ground such as a dethermalizer it comes under the FAA ruling. About the only thing left out is kites and rockets which seems a little strange. The other thing is any thing under the 8.8 ounce weight limit.

Sorry about that but it is on page 11 not 9.

[Dave_Trible]

Jim you read it as I do.... And obviously from the FAA itself.  I think others including maybe some from AMA haven't drilled down into the weeds enough to understand it and may be misleading others.  I just got a long letter from a known flier totally disagreeing but I think they should look again.  Thanks!

Dave

Thought I'd add I still think this will be used selectively to deal with bad actors and the rest of us don't have much to worry about.  'They' have better things to do.  Might take a test case or two but reason should eventually prevail.

[Jim Kraft]

Yeah Dave. There are so many pages to the FAA regulations for UAS that the water gets a little muddy like it does with the IRS. After reading much of it it is hard to tell where we stand exactly, and I think it is written that way to sort of establish a guide line that only they can interpret  the way they want for now. I just do not believe the average modeler understands what is going on and how it is going to affect our hobby/sport.

So I am just trying to get out some of the things that have not really made public as there is much confusion. It may be a year before any of the legislation gets through and becomes law, but in the mean time we are still under the FAA rules and regulations to a certain extent.

My only reason for doing this is to help people see some of the things that I believe are being hidden and maybe for a reason. I know that the AMA has proclaimed that non radio control/line planes do not come under the ruling, but not according to FAA wording.

                  Just the messenger.

[john e. holliday]

Should I notify them when I go fly again so I can be the test case.  Haven't asked the powered para sail guys if they have an FAA License yet.   It is fun watching them fly.  Did tell them if they had an accident I would deny giving them permission to use the park.

[Terrence Durrill]

        We need to understand that big, ironfisted rogue government is on the prod in this country.  That government will not limit or restrict it's power by itself.  If we sit idily by and do nothing.......we are going to lose more than our precious model airplanes.  This reality is coming down in every phase of our lives and we cannot separate the model aircraft issue from the rest of our rights and freedoms being restricted into oblivion.  They are one.  If you care about this reality that is unfolding before you, and in your own life, a good place to start in understanding what you can do to fight back can be found at the site below...........it is time to do more than talk because the crisis is upon us.  Click on the site below for more information, because there is hope......if you care:   

                                                                                                 http://www.conventionofstates.com/

                                                                               

[Shug Emery]

This whole thing is so confusing and convoluted. I paid my $5. Now I heard that some have gotten my $5 back though I have not.
Seems odd that model rockets are exempt. They go much higher that our control line planes.
Those that make these inane rules sit in their padded chairs and sign some papers.
I am always surprised how many folks know so little about our end of this hobby.
Sorta the status quo as I see it.
It tires me.


I am going out to buy golf clubs and a bowling ball today.

Shug

[Jim Kraft]

It has confused me too Rusty. The AMA says one thing, and the FAA site clearly says another. I wonder where we stand. It sounds reasonable that control line and free flight should be exempt. But the FAA site clearly says tethered and untethered are both covered by the FAA rules. Every thing that fly's except under 8.8 ounces.

The AMA seems to say that it is between us and the FAA whether we sign up or not, but that really does not help much. Some clubs are requiring the FAA license to fly at their field where others are not. When traveling long distance to a contest it would be good to know ahead of time. I guess to be on the safe side it would be best to sign up and hope for the best when it comes down to new rules and regulations.

As I see it now the AMA is no more a governing body and we now come under the FAA. Just my opinion and I could be wrong, but I believe the AMA thought they were going to get a lot more people signing up with them to get around the FAA rules. Kind of back fired on them. They wanted the AMA to be the governing arm of the FAA where the AMA number would be sufficient for the FAA. It did not happen nor will it happen as I see it.

[Mike Haverly]

Thought I'd add I still think this will be used selectively to deal with bad actors and the rest of us don't have much to worry about.  'They' have better things to do.  Might take a test case or two but reason should eventually prevail.

Thank you Dave, the voice of reason.

    This guy in the picture lives in my "fish pond" along with a couple of friends right outside my shop.  I don't bother them and they keep me entertained.  My wife wanted to clean the pond to make it more comfortable for them and I had to explain that the pond is a friendly place for them.  They like the moss and the little critters it attracts for them to eat.  I could impose restrictions on them, like clean the place up and they would leave.  We keep the weeds out of the surrounding garden and basically don't bother them, they aren't causing any trouble.  For the time being it is a "frog pond" and they won't leave because of something I did.

    The speed limit on the freeways here is 70 for the most part.  Coming home fro Roseburg in my motorhome I can cruise most times at that speed and pass a lot of big trucks, not so many little cars.  The guys driving 80+ eventually get  caught or killed by their on stupidity.  Hopefully they don't take others with them.

    I paid my five bucks along time ago.  I'll continue to do what I do and let the other fools self destruct.  They always do.

   

[EJN]

Seems odd that model rockets are exempt. They go much higher that our control line planes.

Rockets, model & high power, are covered under a separate section, FAR (Federal Aviation Regulation) 101,
which also covers balloons and kites.
They have been for a long time, it works fine, nobody wants to change it.

I flew high power rockets for years, until it got too expensive. High power rockets do
require a waiver & a NOTAM (Notice to Airmen), there is a procedure in place in place
which makes it easy for rocket clubs to obtain them for organized launches.

Model rockets (under 3.3 lbs, A - G motors) have no notification requirements.

Rockets are *not* considered UAS, so that's why the new regulations do not include them.

[Target]

Lately they AMA seems to be most interested in the "FUTURE" of model aviation, which they think is FPV quad copters (which I think is the cause of all these problems in the first place).
In my opinion (IMO), they are in "financial survival mode", and guys that fly C/L and Line Of Sight RC are a small portion of RC pilots in the scheme of things, so they are going after the majority of RC pilots, which are the FPV guys (IMO).
But, I question the logic of this plan, since I know that the majority of the quad operators are not members of the AMA.
The FAA is trying to put out a blanket policy to control the majority, and (IMO) they could not care less about the minority, they likely don't even understand what the differences are.

So, again, in my opinion, all one needs to do is fly safely, and have some form of insurance, and be responsible, and things should work out eventually.
I fly RC sailplanes, and the talk of a 400' AGL limit gives me the shakes, but for the CL guys, I can't imagine they would include you an ANY regulations that are clearly aimed at FPV multi-rotor pilots.
The reason they included you is that some cute quad operators decided they could get around the new regulations by tying a string to the quad, making it "tethered" to the ground (which the FAA seems to think is just like a CL model, go figure).

I think that there will be a far reaching ban on any RC model flight close to airports that will be a blanket policy, or possibly we could get a waiver for some types of flight.

I said it before, and I will say it again-
If they just made the FPV gear registered at the point of sales, we would all be doing business safely as usual. But that makes much too much sense for the 'gov!

R,
Chris

[Brent Williams]

Nothing like the push towards blanket policies and the general lack of specific language. 

What would be so difficult about clearly defining control line models in the federal and AMA documents?  (Every other special interest group seems to have little trouble getting their specific needs met.)

When the topic gets brought up, we and "they" are guilty of using this mumble mouth definition of "tethered model."  This a broad stroke, vague definition.  We in the control line community do not necessarily fit the broad stroke "tethered model" definition.  This isn't just a tethered craft, hovering above a fixed point.  We have specific definitions that are the essence of our hobby.  There is person physically connected to the plane via the handle and lines.  Our planes fly in a hemisphere that generally will not exceed 80ft total height at the apex.

The definition of control line models is obvious if you are not oblivious.  It can be written in cave-man terms if need be and inserted into any federal CFR. 

[Steve Helmick]

I shall demand a trial by jury, and hope y'all will do the same. I think Chris has it correct. Be responsible, but ignore the FAA. They need to get chopped down, as does the DOJ, Dept. of Education, Dept. of Energy, ATF and the EPA. Feel free to add other government agencies that you feel are way too large and/or way too big for their britches.  Steve

[EJN]

...I would consider calling it to a National Talk Show, like Rush...

Rush have a national talk show? How did I miss that? Those guys are epic.

[Rich Perry]

Rush were demonized early in their career for embracing Ayn Rand philosophy in their lyrics.  They were accused of being nazis.  Amazing how when you stand up for your rights as an individual, and not a group, they come after you hard.

 Not only is "The Red Barchetta" a perfect example of what is going with model aviation, a close examination of the lyrics in the song the "Trees", will serve many well.

[Steve Helmick]

Here's the most recent news (via email) from our glorious AMA.    Steve

http://amablog.modelaircraft.org/amagov/2016/05/26/congressional-process-stalls/

[john e. holliday]

Good ole politicians, stall around until the next mistake is elected to the head post.

[Steve Scott]

One of our RC guys recently went to the Georgia SEFF (Southeast Electric Flight Festival) event.  It is a huge gathering and they invited the FAA to attend and clarify the ruling.  Well, one guy from the FAA did come but said he had to pay his own way down.  The FAA doesn't have anywhere near the funding or manpower to enforce this UAS statute.

However, should you be operating a UAS outside the rules and something happens...

To Shug...  If you applied prior to the January 19 grace period expiration, you should have received a refund.  I got mine within a week.

[Jim Kraft]

They have instructed law enforcement agencies to police us. Most have no interest in doing that as they have plenty to do without enforcing FAA rules. But, all it takes is one law enforcement officer that wants to make a name for himself to throw the book at some unsuspecting modeler. This has already been done in some cases until the person in question was redeemed by a higher officer and the fact that the perpetrator did in fact have an FAA license. Some of these cases are on youtube.

So the FAA is not the enforcer of the law. Law enforcement is. As with all other things it depends on who you get and whether they are sympathetic to our cause. How many law enforcement officers know one type of model from another. To most of them a model is a model. The thing that is going to be hard to enforce is if the model in question was built by a certified manufacturer or not. I am assuming that commercial model builders will have to be certified and then a certification sticker or plate be on the plane. All planes without the certification will be found illegal. That includes all home built planes kits or scratch.

All we can hope for is a less restrictive law, but there is going to be a law of some kind. It will only take one incident between now and the written law to be a game changer.

[Steve Scott]

I think the person in the U.K. whose UAS hit an approaching commercial jet on approach to Heathrow effectively put a dent in less restrictive laws.

[Dan McEntee]

I think the person in the U.K. whose UAS hit an approaching commercial jet on approach to Heathrow effectively put a dent in less restrictive laws.

   I think they finally figure out that was a plastic bag they hit. If it's the incident I'm thinking of, there wasn't any visible damage to the airplane, not even a scratch in the paint.
   Type at you later,
   Dan McEntee

[Steve Helmick]

Those damned plastic bags! There oughta be a law...  Steve

[john e. holliday]

Yeah, we need to go back to paper bags,  glass bottles and do away with all the throw away items we now have.

[Rich Perry]

http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2675672

[Steve Helmick]

Yeah, we need to go back to paper bags,  glass bottles and do away with all the throw away items we now have.

True enough, Doc. Still, the cited "collision" was in jolly olde England, and FAA regs still don't apply there, AFAIK. Maybe the FAA would attempt to make it their business, but it's NOT. I really hate seeing all the plastic bags on the barbed wire fences over in Eastern WA, where the winds blow free and the coyotes yip at night. Maybe the FAA could do something good and put a bounty on them damned bags?  Steve

[david beazley]

True enough, Doc. Still, the cited "collision" was in jolly olde England, and FAA regs still don't apply there, AFAIK. Maybe the FAA would attempt to make it their business, but it's NOT. I really hate seeing all the plastic bags on the barbed wire fences over in Eastern WA, where the winds blow free and the coyotes yip at night. Maybe the FAA could do something good and put a bounty on them damned bags?  Steve

I have heard Walmart bags called Bentonville Tumbleweeds.

[Dave_Trible]

Thought I'd add this.  About a month ago a wrote a letter to my Senator about the FAA Reauthorization Act in front of the Senate.  I explained our common position about how the blanket provisions being proposed would cause great and unnecessary harm to our sport and explained many of us believe the AMA has put themselves in a leveraged position to be able to speak to our concerns.  Yesterday I received a reply as follows;

Dear Mr. Trible:  
   Model aviation is an important recreational activity to many Kansans,  and the hobbyist community has operated safely in our airspace for over one hundred years.  
Thank you for sharing with me your support for Senate Amendment #3596 to H.R. 636, the Federal Aviation Administration Reauthorization Act of 2016 (FAARA)
   As a member of the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Subcommittee on Aviation Operations, Safety and Security, I supported FAARA, which passed the Senate by a 95-3 vote, because it would make air travel safer and less costly for passengers, while strengthening the aviation industry for manufacturers, many of whom call Kansas home.  the bill will preserve a community based approach to managing recreational model aircraft activity through the reauthorization of Special Rules for Model Aircraft, which would generally exclude designated model aircraft from being subject to new FAA rules as long as certain criteria are met.
   Senate Amendment #3596, which sought to expand eligibility for model aircraft and practices for these special rules, did not receive a vote during the Senate consideration of FAARA and was not included in the Senate-passed legislation.  However, model aircraft operators already have an established list of standards they must adhere to regarding how and where to operate their aircraft and so long as these standards are adhered to then model airplanes should not be treated as a safety threat in our airspace.
   As Congress continues to push for long-term reauthorization of the FAA, I will be be sure to remember your opposition to additional regulations that could negatively impact the ability of Kansans to enjoy model aviation.
   I am grateful for the opportunity Kansans have given me to serve them in the United States Senate.  If you are interested in learning more about my efforts on your behalf, I encourage you to visit moran.senate.gov.  Please let me know if i can be of service to you or your family in the future.

                                                                                                 Very truly yours,

                                                                                                  Jerry Moran


Dave

[john e. holliday]

Well Dave you at least got a reply.  The powered para sail know nothing about the problems we may have with the FAA.  I think the one guy said they have a max altitude to fly over residential areas.  At our field they are clearing the power lines by a good margin.   They also land parallel to them and the trees.

[FLOYD CARTER]

Sorry I haven't been following all the AMA/FAA discussions. (just too many)

But I wonder: Those of us who now have an FAA private pilot's license should also be able to operate model aircraft without yet another license.  Is this a valid argument?

Floyd

[john e. holliday]

Call your local FAA agent.

[Motorman]

Do we have to be registered to fly at Brodaks?


MM

[Randy Cuberly]

Thought I'd add this.  About a month ago a wrote a letter to my Senator about the FAA Reauthorization Act in front of the Senate.  I explained our common position about how the blanket provisions being proposed would cause great and unnecessary harm to our sport and explained many of us believe the AMA has put themselves in a leveraged position to be able to speak to our concerns.  Yesterday I received a reply as follows;

Dear Mr. Trible:  
   Model aviation is an important recreational activity to many Kansans,  and the hobbyist community has operated safely in our airspace for over one hundred years.  
Thank you for sharing with me your support for Senate Amendment #3596 to H.R. 636, the Federal Aviation Administration Reauthorization Act of 2016 (FAARA)
   As a member of the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Subcommittee on Aviation Operations, Safety and Security, I supported FAARA, which passed the Senate by a 95-3 vote, because it would make air travel safer and less costly for passengers, while strengthening the aviation industry for manufacturers, many of whom call Kansas home.  the bill will preserve a community based approach to managing recreational model aircraft activity through the reauthorization of Special Rules for Model Aircraft, which would generally exclude designated model aircraft from being subject to new FAA rules as long as certain criteria are met.
   Senate Amendment #3596, which sought to expand eligibility for model aircraft and practices for these special rules, did not receive a vote during the Senate consideration of FAARA and was not included in the Senate-passed legislation.  However, model aircraft operators already have an established list of standards they must adhere to regarding how and where to operate their aircraft and so long as these standards are adhered to then model airplanes should not be treated as a safety threat in our airspace.
   As Congress continues to push for long-term reauthorization of the FAA, I will be be sure to remember your opposition to additional regulations that could negatively impact the ability of Kansans to enjoy model aviation.
   I am grateful for the opportunity Kansans have given me to serve them in the United States Senate.  If you are interested in learning more about my efforts on your behalf, I encourage you to visit moran.senate.gov.  Please let me know if i can be of service to you or your family in the future.

                                                                                                 Very truly yours,

                                                                                                  Jerry Moran


Dave

Dave,
Thanks for your efforts.  Unfortunately sounds like typical congressional mumbo Jumbo!  A typical "well I'm trying but don't blame me if nothing happens!   Vote for me again next time!".

Ahh ain't Government wonderful!

Randy Cuberly