Pilots Man Your Computers. This is NO DRILL !!

[Hoss Cain]

Click or cut and paste on this link to the AMA website and you can send petition letters via email to your Senators and Representative. It is easy and takes 2 minutes.
 
http://amagov.modelaircraft.org/4077/this-is-placeholder-call-to-action/

Regardless of your concern with RC, the overall well-being of Model Aviation is at stake. Send the message.

After the AMA message, I added my personal thoughts. I hope you  do same. It worked for me.
AMA's set-up is just fantastic.

My thoughts:
>>>>.
As a youngster, Model Aviation led me to the United States Air Force where I first became a Navigator-Bombardier then became a Pilot. Four years of my 13 USAF years were involved in combat operations. For another 28 years I was a pilot with United Airlines. Model airplanes were the key element leading me into being able to pay a LOT of taxes and still do, plus some funding for the CENSORED. 

Model airplanes bring so many good and worthwhile things into the lives of the everyday people that it is difficult to list them all. Youngsters can learn so many items reference engineering, patience, following directions, investigative techniques to improve something, math, electronics, and a host of other good things. Retirees have model clubs and facilities for retaining all these good things and/or learning them  with the new found friends plus the wonderful times spent passing the sport down to grandchildren, and other younger persons.

To allow the FAA to levy regulations that smother this educational and recreational sport-hobby into one that can no longer be a viable part of this country's both business opportunities and recreational sport would be a travesty. I beseech you to stop this nonsensical bureaucracy by simply saying "NO WAY!".
<<<<

[Brian Massey]

It's done Hoss; thanks for bringing this to our attention, I hope everyone takes the few minutes necessary to "get 'ur done".

Here's what I added:
"Personally I have been a model airplane enthusiast for over 50 years. It has been a great experience for me personally, and one in which I have never seen a need for governmental oversight on a national level. Along with local governments, the model aviation community does, and is doing a great job of it's own oversight.

Thank you for sharing my concern."

Don't know if it will help, but is shouldn't hurt.

Brian

[Randy Ryan]

Done

[Randy Ryan]

Even you guys that only fly CL, Please sign this petition, if we don't beat this, it will eventually effect all of us by way of the destruction modeling industry we all depend on. It only take a coulpe minutes, sign it for you friend's sake if nothing else. Thanks

[Randy Powell]

I sent mine, though Senator Cantwell and I have had a few tangles before. Not sure how much that will help with her.

[Will Hinton]

Did it, and thanks, Hoss, for the heads up!  I added this to my letter:

The skills I learned from building model airplanes had a DIRECT effect on my careers, first in the Navy as an avionics tech, then in skilled trades in industry where I used those learned skills to be classed in the top of my profession, and also in the achieving commercial pilot and flight instructor ratings with the FAA, after which I owned and operated a flight school. 

The FAA has no business conflicting with model aviation in the areas it now seeks to regulate.  Not only is the modeling industry a huge boon to full scale aviation, but it is also a multi-million dollar business, creating thousands of jobs in this wonderful country!

[John Castle]

Just did mine. I was only the 15th person from Oregon to send one. Spread the word.

[Allen Goff]

Put my two cents worth in. I am #41 from Indiana.

Blessings
Allen

[Scott Hartford]

Done #85 from Texas.

[Jason Greer]

Done.

#15 from Arkansas.

[Dick Byron]

Number 92 from Tx.

[W.D. Roland]

# 9 from Louisiana!

David

[Mike Scholtes]

Okay, done. I edited the form letter (which is excellent already) to make it more personal, which may have more impact on the staffers who read these. I was #125 from California to sign the petition.

[Marvin Denny]

  #16 from KS

  Bigiron

[Ron Merrill]

Done, #109 from Texas. Ron

[ChrisSarnowski]

Done, #78 from Massachusetts.

-Chris

[Dick Pacini]

#44 from New Hampshire!

[Randy Ryan]

Dang, I missed the number, I wish I'd have noticed that

[builditright]

didn't think about that number but mine was in the 180's from FLA.

[W.D. Roland]

At the top of the prefabed message I did add:

To My Elected Employees,

[Bill Hodges]

Done.  Thanks for posting the link Hoss.

Bill Hodges

[Chris McMillin]

Over 1500 from California.
Chris...

[Paul Taylor]

Done!
Less then 2 mins.

[Dennis Adamisin]

...and #87 from MI

[Chris Edinger]

Number 121 from Missouri

[Crist Rigotti]

#41 from Iowa

[RC Storick]

Number 121 from Missouri

I was 91 from MO

[Joe Just]

#161 and I join others not necessary from the free side of the State of WA!
Joe

[Ted Fancher]

Over 1500 from California.
Chris...

Add one more!

[Brad Jungheim]

#208 from IL.

[Les McDonald]

#271 from Florida-----I had the feeling that I contacted the Mafia!!

[Bill Richards]

Done deal #175 Pa.

[steven yampolsky]

It's easy to cry wolf and ask for a petition without offering facts. Here's what AMA wants your vote for:

FAA airspace regulation is looking to restrict RC flying near airports. For example, a Class D airport has a 5 mile radius protective airspace around the airport. By law, no airplane can fly inside the protective airspace without being in contact with the tower. AMA regulations prohibit RC flying within 2 mile radius, well within the 5 mile zone. Wouldn't it make sense if RC pilots had the same restrictions as the regular pilots?

By the way, we are not talking just RC park fliers. We are talking Giant Scale, turbine powered RC jets that approach the size of a small airplane! Can you imagine a pilot flying a back course localizer approach(yep, they still exist), breaking out of the clouds two miles from the landing zone only to be greeted by a IMCA sized Cub in its windshield.

Other proposed FAA regulation is about limiting speed of RC models to the same speed EVERY AIRCRAFT is limited to below 10,000 feet.

Before you blindly follow the piper, get the facts. Here's the start:
http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?ContentBlockID=80760875-a5a3-451e-b415-7c5248645401&Dynamic=1&Range=MONTH&FromDate=01%2F23%2F2011&ToDate=02%2F23%2F2011&Category=%2Findex.cfm

[Wayne J. Buran]

Well, I did mine. What is the FAA going to do about the a---- flyers that dont belong to the AMA and fly there R/C planes wherever and whenever they want. I cant see law enforcement chasing somebody for flying a model airplane above the allowable limits. We have a constant battle with R/C flyers and our field is next to a hospital heliport and they could care less.
Wayne

[Garf]

#487 from Florida.

[Norm Faith Jr.]

#62 Arkansas
Norm

[Hoss Cain]

It's easy to cry wolf and ask for a petition without offering facts. Here's what AMA wants your vote for:

FAA airspace regulation is looking to restrict RC flying near airports. For example, a Class D airport has a 5 mile radius protective airspace around the airport. By law, no airplane can fly inside the protective airspace without being in contact with the tower. AMA regulations prohibit RC flying within 2 mile radius, well within the 5 mile zone.

AMA 2011 Safety Code: A.2.c.
Not fly higher than approximately 400 feet above ground level within three (3) miles of an airport, without notifying the airport operator.

By the way, we are not talking just RC park fliers. We are talking Giant Scale, turbine powered RC jets that approach the size of a small airplane! Can you imagine a pilot flying a back course localizer approach(yep, they still exist), breaking out of the clouds two miles from the landing zone only to be greeted by a IMCA sized Cub in its windshield.

Other proposed FAA regulation is about limiting speed of RC models to the same speed EVERY AIRCRAFT is limited to below 10,000 feet.

 
Not exactly. 1:1 Scale is 250 KIAS below 10,000 ft MSL.  FAA is proposing maximum 100 MPH for model aircraft which eliminates pylon racing and some Scale airplanes. Turbines are to be completely eliminated.

FAA is proposing an absolute maximum of 400 ft. AGL. There goes RC Soaring and Free Flight.

Suggest you read this link of yours.

Before you blindly follow the piper, get the facts. Here's the start:
http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?ContentBlockID=80760875-a5a3-451e-b415-7c5248645401&Dynamic=1&Range=MONTH&FromDate=01%2F23%2F2011&ToDate=02%2F23%2F2011&Category=%2Findex.cfm

[steven yampolsky]

AMA 2011 Safety Code: A.2.c.
Not fly higher than approximately 400 feet above ground level within three (3) miles of an airport, without notifying the airport operator.

Class D has a 5 mile radius from the surface in order to provide safe environment for arriving and departing aircraft. There is nothing unreasonable about making RC models comply with airspace regulations.

FAA is proposing maximum 100 MPH for model aircraft which eliminates pylon racing and some Scale airplanes.

The article(based on AMA news release) uses misleading wording(I warned of it too) in order to confuse the matter: "It is likely that the rule will attempt to limit model aircraft performance by establishing a set speed limit such as 100 mph". "Likely" means "nothing is certain but lets suggest it just the same". The words "such as" means "for example". In other words, this whole claim that FAA wants to limit speed to something unreasonable is just a hearsay.

AMA is trying to get people up in arms over nothing and you fell for it. FAA formed a committee of organizations to put together a proposal for regulations that cover all small unmanned aircraft. AMA was invited too. The committee has done its work and FAA is working on proposal for regulation. In the mean time, here's the link to FAA's FAQ on UAS:

http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/uas/uas_faq/

Pay special attention to second question

Also, take a look at the FAA notice of policy(clarification of FAA policy towards a topic) on UAS:
http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/uas/reg/media/frnotice_uas.pdf
on page 5 it EXPLICITLY states that the rules for model airplanes is regulated by a rule released in 1981!!!

[Hoss Cain]

The committee has done its work and FAA is working on proposal for regulation. In the mean time, here's the link to FAA's FAQ on UAS:
/snip/
Also, take a look at the FAA notice of policy(clarification of FAA policy towards a topic) on UAS:
http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/uas/reg/media/frnotice_uas.pdf
on page 5 it EXPLICITLY states that the rules for model airplanes is regulated by a rule released in 1981!!!

The above reference item to 1981 is dated "Issued in Washington, DC on February 6, 2007"

That, Sir, is 4 years ago. Most of your links refer to the needs for FAA Changes, and more FAA Control.
When the FAA is in the "Changes" mood, coupled with a current DC administration that favors total populace control, then that old saying, "When the legislature is in session, no one's life or property is safe," is absolutely true.

With the FAA about to issue a Notice of Proposed Rule Making, (NPRM) sometimes this summer, it is imperative for the AMA to bring all possible pressure to retain the maximum freedoms for the aeromodeling communities, both recreational and commercial. No one now knows just what will be contained in that NPRM.
Since the "Committee" is taking their time on issuing that NPRM, then as one who was under FAA rulings for many years, my money says the FAA will go after the lowest common denominator with the smallest amount of funds dedicated to government issues. In other words AMA and model aviation will be the target for the FAA boasting that they have saved the world from sUAVs.

While the effect on CL will be minimal, the fact remains that all the little goodies brought to the CLer via the RC market place will disappear or become difficult to find.

Mr. Yampolsky, I do regret your state of confusion, however with diligent study of how government works (P.J. O'rourke says it doesn't work) I believe you will come to realize that AMA is definitely - this time - on the right track to provide the aeromodeling community that which is imminently demanded.

[steven yampolsky]

The above reference item to 1981 is dated "Issued in Washington, DC on February 6, 2007"

Come on! Read document before posting such nonsense! The 2007 document simply restates that the regulation still in effect is the one issued in 1981. Here's the link tot he ACTUAL FAA regulation that all modeling activities are governed by since 1981:

http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/1acfc3f689769a56862569e70077c9cc/$FILE/ATTBJMAC/ac91-57.pdf
Note the date of publication in the upper right corner.

That, Sir, is 4 years ago. Most of your links refer to the needs for FAA Changes, and more FAA Control.

FAA IS proposing change but NOT TO MODEL AIRCRAFT! Over the past decade a number of commercial companies started flying UA's in the airspace shared by GA which is a big SAFETY issue. The PROPOSED regulation is EXPLICITLY stating that modeling IS NOT COVERED by it. The claim of "more FAA Control" is indeed baseless.

When the FAA is in the "Changes" mood, coupled with a current DC administration that favors total populace control, then that old saying, "When the legislature is in session, no one's life or property is safe," is absolutely true.

For once, can we avoid blanket statements.

No one now knows just what will be contained in that NPRM.

Actually this is not true. NPRM is typically preceded by a "Statement of Policy" which indicated the direction FAA is going to take when writing the new regs.  I posted the link to the statement of policy which EXPLICITLY states that modeling will not be affected. As a matter of fact, all public comments submitted with the SOP state the same. Go to www.regulations.gov and search for docket FAA-2006-25714. You will find quiet a few public comments as well as the proposed SOC. You will see that there is NO conspiracy on the part of companies trying to regulate modeling.

Mr. Yampolsky, I do regret your state of confusion, however with diligent study of how government works (P.J. O'rourke says it doesn't work) I believe you will come to realize that AMA is definitely - this time - on the right track to provide the aeromodeling community that which is imminently demanded.

I am yet to see AMA's recent actions anything but a knee-jerk reaction. You have also failed to back your argument with documents or specific facts. All you have to offer a thoughts of a journalist with specific opinions on the government, employed by political think tank and a regular contributor to a neoconservative magazine. On the other hand I've offered specific links to documents and articles. I may be "confused" as you so well put but you, Sir, are making accusations with no substance.

In addition, before you call me confused, I suggest you review my original posting. At no time did I indicate my position, did just the opposite. I called on everyone to get look for facts before blindly following the crowd. I have an equal amount of distrust for the FAA and AMA and find that it is only appropriate to ask everyone to research the issue before making decision.

[W.D. Roland]

This side tracks me to the time that my, at the time adolescent, daughter was arguing with me
over something.

I asked her to stop a listen to me for a minute and then asked her how old she was.
Then asked if she knew how old I was.

Then I asked why she would think she knows more about life than someone 3 times older
than she is.

She understood that she had not seen enough in life to have enough first hand back ground.


My daughter turned out extremely level headed, intelligent and successful.
She listens.

David

[Clancy Arnold]

Hoss
Letters sent today.  # 570 from Indiana!!!
Clancy

[steven yampolsky]

This side tracks me to the time that my, at the time adolescent, daughter was arguing with me
over something.

I asked her to stop a listen to me for a minute and then asked her how old she was.
Then asked if she knew how old I was.

Then I asked why she would think she knows more about life than someone 3 times older
than she is.

She understood that she had not seen enough in life to have enough first hand back ground.


My daughter turned out extremely level headed, intelligent and successful.
She listens.

David

http://www.imdb.com/video/screenplay/vi2292908313/

[Steve Helmick]

I did it, I sent the emails. Along the way, I went to one of the AMA District websites, and it stated there that an agreement had already been reached with the FAA about Model Aviation. I have no idea how many emails were sent from Washington State,  what my number was, or care one little bit. My brother knows a lot more about the FAA, having run a glider tow service out of one of his local airports. They sound pretty self-important, and I hope they don't mess with us too much for our meddling in their business.  Steve

[Hoss Cain]

I did it, I sent the emails. Along the way, I went to one of the AMA District websites, and it stated there that an agreement had already been reached with the FAA about Model Aviation.
//SNIP//

Mr. Steve I hope you are correct, OTOH, I hope that isn't just the Senate bill that is confusing a number of folks.

The Senate has an amendment prohibiting FAA from regulating model airplanes, yet the House does not as of this past Friday. They still have to reconcile their differences, which to the best of my understanding will only then allow the FAA to produce their Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM), now expected to be issued in Aug rather than the original June.

Edited to add: http://www.modelaircraft.org/aboutama/amagovblog.aspx#22311   references the Senate Bill.

Additional Edit: 

http://www.votesmart.org/resource_govt101_02.php


Thanks for helping.

[Scott B. Riese]

Oregon Sen.Merkley responded to me by Email Saying thank you for the Letter!

[John Stiles]

Done, #165 from Arkansas....sent one letter each to all 3 Ar. rep.s

[Ed Keller]

#218 from Ala.

[john e. holliday]

I see Tower Hobbies is on the band wagon according to the E-Mail I got.  Wonder what they are covering up now?

[Arch Adamisin]

I waited long enough to get a cool number, #567, from Michigan