FAA Rules Applicability for CL

[Dave Hull]

Rich,

With all due respect to the AMA and government officials that apparently met on these issues, what we need to see out here, where a control line field was non-operational for over three weeks and the threat still hangs over us, is some progress that is documented by paperwork.

We need an Advisory Circular or other memo from the FAA to their field operations stating that control line airplanes are not sUAS, and when not flown on airport property pose no risk to airspace. Or, if loss of regulatory jurisdiction sticks in their craw, then state that while no legal determination that control line planes are not sUAS, that for regulatory purposes those operations are being given a blanket exemption from sUAS regulations unless and until technology changes warrant a reevaluation. Then their authority is not lost, but there is no need to be continually revisiting this non-issue.

There are easy ways to do this if people were held accountable and got off their posterior cushions.

Dave Hull

[Jim Kraft]

Amen to that. There is no reason in the world they could not exempt control line with a statement. But, as I think Bret found out the dirty little secret is AMA does not want to exempt control line. They may say so on one hand, and then the opposite on the other hand. Talk about two faced. AMA has left there true base and has traded a cow for beans. And there ain't no golden goose.

[Mike Griffin]

"Rest assured that AMA is doing everything possible to continue to advocate for our hobby. "

Are your friggin kidding me?  What a joke.

Mike

[Dave Hull]

Jim,

We'll see. It is pretty clear that control line fliers are not a major priority of the AMA due to our lack of numbers, but if we can get their attention, there is a good chance that we can move this forward. From my conversations with various AMA folks, it appears that this lack of priority--and a fear of separating out one type of modeling equated to throwing other types of modeling "under the bus,"  is what has paralyzed progress. The later seems like nonsense, if handled correctly. The way this should be viewed is that there are a range of modeling activities. These could be separately evaluated for risk given the charter that the FAA received from congress in the FAA reauthorization legislation. Indoor? Zero risk. Issue exemption.* Set a precedent and move forward. Control line? Extremely low risk. Reaffirm maximum line lengths, require a special waiver by local ATC if on airport property. Issue exemption. Move on.

The AMA has been provided with information and offers of assistance. Should it have taken this long? In my opinion, no. Again, I tried to lay groundwork on this back in 2011. We (modelers, as represented by the AMA) didn't have to wait for the drone crisis....but having done so, things just got harder. Which is the very definition of kicking the can down the road. It's time we picked up the can and disposed of it.

Dave

*--Actually, the FAA has no jurisdiction over air inside buildings. But thinking of it this way is useful because it shows one type of aeromodeling that has absolutely zero risk under their charter, which is an important concept. Sort of a benchmark. It provides a foundation for all subsequent discussions since you simply can't say that all modeling has appreciable risk. Note that anyone claiming airspace risk for indoor models would be laughed out of employment. So with that established, it is easier to work your way up the risk ladder.

[Guy B Jr]

The last time I talked to the FAA control tower boss at the airport where I am hangered; he said I could fly control line on the grass beside and behind the hangers anytime. 

[peabody]

Guy:
Years ago I spent a couple of hours at the FAA offices at JFK.
I found a document that actually encouraged control line flying (saying that it fostered new interest in aviation) and even said that the center of the flying circle should be at least 250'. The diagram showed 250; from circle center to runway centerline.