2018 FAA Reauthorization - Not Good

[STKNRUD]

Senate and House version now includes, among other things under 336, 1) registration and aircraft markings, 2) permission to fly in B, C, D and E class airspace that is attached to an airport approach, 3) pass an FAA aeronautical knowledge test. Read it and weep.

 

[LuvMyTJ]

Here is the link - https://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20180924/HR302.pdf

Everyone should consider joining the AMA. They are your voice in government.

From the AMA...

Dear members,
As you may have heard, a new Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) reauthorization bill was introduced today, which is the result of negotiations between House and Senate leaders. There are several provisions in the bill that will impact our hobby, and we are currently conducting a thorough assessment of the bill with our legal and government affairs teams.

At first glance, some of the changes are positive and reflect AMA's efforts to forcefully advocate for our members and our hobby. The bill defines a community based organization (CBO) and allows the FAA to designate CBOs, something we have championed for years. At the same time, other provisions appear problematic, and allow the FAA more authority to further encroach on our hobby.

You can read the entire FAA reauthorization bill here - https://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20180924/HR302.pdf , and we will provide a more thorough analysis in the coming days. It is likely that we may ask for your help in contacting your members of Congress.

Thank you,
AMA Government Affairs Team

 

[STKNRUD]

I second that recommendation...join AMA. Many may not be aware of reasons: 1) According to Rubert Law (specializes in drone law) and the FAA, if you are not 107, you must fly in accordance with the safety stds of a CBO. 2) AMA provides members with $2 million insurance coverage, 3) the AMA is the only “stakeholder” actively representing us in Washington, 4) the AMA organizes its members in letter campaigns when it is helpful and this will be one of those occasions, 5) they promote non-intrusive safety standards, and, 6) it is inexpensive with single and family memberships. Don’t just complain and opine in these forums; support those organizations like the AMA that are protecting your interests.

 

[sar104]

Senate and House version now includes, among other things under 336, 1) registration and aircraft markings, 2) permission to fly in B, C, D and E class airspace that is attached to an airport approach, 3) pass an FAA aeronautical knowledge test. Read it and weep.

Those requirements all seem quite reasonable.

 

[EdM]

Here is the link - https://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20180924/HR302.pdf

You can read the entire FAA reauthorization bill here - https://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20180924/HR302.pdf , and we will provide a more thorough analysis in the coming days. It is likely that we may ask for your help in contacting your members of Congress.

Thank you,
AMA Government Affairs Team

If you want to read the bill it starts at page 246. Page 282 starts the exemptions for recreational use. And the whole thing wraps up on page 348.
Happy reading.

 

[AzBill]

I'm looking at this, and while some parts are troubling, this caught my eye and a very positive section. In the section"(g) AERONAUTICAL KNOWLEDGE AND SAFETY 2 TEST.— " which will be required, they are saying "community-based aviation organizations, shall develop an aeronautical knowledge and safety test" that is what happens in Ham Radio, and it works out very well. But the interesting part is here >> " ... and may provide a comprehensive set of safety rules and programming for the operation of unmanned aircraft that have the advanced flight capabilities enabling active, sustained, and "controlled navigation of the aircraft beyond visual line of sight of the operator .."

 

[sar104]

I'm looking at this, and while some parts are troubling, this caught my eye and a very positive section. In the section"(g) AERONAUTICAL KNOWLEDGE AND SAFETY 2 TEST.— " which will be required, they are saying "community-based aviation organizations, shall develop an aeronautical knowledge and safety test" that is what happens in Ham Radio, and it works out very well. But the interesting part is here >> " ... and may provide a comprehensive set of safety rules and programming for the operation of unmanned aircraft that have the advanced flight capabilities enabling active, sustained, and "controlled navigation of the aircraft beyond visual line of sight of the operator .."

That may be an acknowledgement that, in some well-controlled situations" operations beyond line of sight could be conducted safely - for example when coordinated with ATC perhaps, or if using a transponder if such things become available for drones.

 

[STKNRUD]

The primary "negative" of the Reauthorization is that Section 336 does not contain any protection for recreational flying as the previous versions did. The previous acts have prohibited the FAA from adversely implementing any regulations but required recreational pilots to comply with those of a COB. Now all recreational flying, drones, model aircraft, gliders, etc. are subject to the whims of the FAA. The new regs include registration of all models and "Tail-Numbers" and an FAA aeronautical test.

This may not "alarm" recreational drone pilots NOW....but it is a lost of protection from FAA regulation we previous had. I hope everyone in this forum is sympathetic to model aircraft pilots that have been flying balsa and foam models, helicopters and even turbine models for 30+ years with only 4 recorded fatalities and only one of those was a spectator. Now, all models, including your foam park flyer will have to have a registration number on the model and the seniors and kids flying them will have to pass an aeronautical knowledge test here-to-fore only necessary for full size aircraft.

Regulations will never prevent the idiots and those bent on harm from using drones or models aircraft. They will only limit the enjoyment of everyone else.

Please do not view this legislation as...."it doesn't effect me so what is the harm.."

"First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me."
Niemoller circa 1946

 

[sar104]

The primary "negative" of the Reauthorization is that Section 336 does not contain any protection for recreational flying as the previous versions did. The previous acts have prohibited the FAA from adversely implementing any regulations but required recreational pilots to comply with those of a COB. Now all recreational flying, drones, model aircraft, gliders, etc. are subject to the whims of the FAA. The new regs include registration of all models and "Tail-Numbers" and an FAA aeronautical test.

This may not "alarm" recreational drone pilots NOW....but it is a lost of protection from FAA regulation we previous had. I hope everyone in this forum is sympathetic to model aircraft pilots that have been flying balsa and foam models, helicopters and even turbine models for 30+ years with only 4 recorded fatalities and only one of those was a spectator. Now, all models, including your foam park flyer will have to have a registration number on the model and the seniors and kids flying them will have to pass an aeronautical knowledge test here-to-fore only necessary for full size aircraft.

Regulations will never prevent the idiots and those bent on harm from using drones or models aircraft. They will only limit the enjoyment of everyone else.

Please do not view this legislation as...."it doesn't effect me so what is the harm.."

"First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me."
Niemoller circa 1946

The problem is not, and has never been, real model aircraft enthusiasts. It's the entirely new class of UAVs that make a significant part of the NAS accessible to the general public with virtually no training or knowledge required. And it's only going to get worse as control range, battery capacity and flight characteristics improve. The best solution, IMO, would be to make those separate categories. If not then the model aircraft community will suffer as a result of much-needed regulation of sUAS activities.

 

[STKNRUD]

The problem is not, and has never been, real model aircraft enthusiasts. It's the entirely new class of UAVs that make a significant part of the NAS accessible to the general public with virtually no training or knowledge required. And it's only going to get worse as control range, battery capacity and flight characteristics improve. The best solution, IMO, would be to make those separate categories. If not then the model aircraft community will suffer as a result of much-needed regulation of sUAS activities.

Very true but that is not the situation we face now so don't think that will ever happen. Write a letter. The FAA doesn't care about a few AMA members and aircraft modelers or they would never have thrown model aircraft into the mix of all UAVs. I was involved in the initial fight. Modelers then never believed that the FAA would require Tail-numbers on model or registration on their model aircraft as was first proposed by the pin-heads at the FAA seven years ago. Guess what? We are there. So you better believe flight duration, speeds, motor size, etc will come to pass....for drones too.

Too many here are very narrow in their perspective and that is expected since this is a DJI Drone forum. But there are very large well organized groups...Aircraft Pilots' Assoc, Airline Pilots' Assoc. and manufacturers of drones for commercial use, etc., that don't care about the recreational drone or model aircraft flyers.

The recreational RC pilot of anything, drone, helicopter, or aircraft is the tick on the elephant's tail. Write a letter.

For the record, I am a commercial pilot, drone pilot, model aircraft pilot. I love all things aviation related and promote safety.

 

[sar104]

Very true but that is not the situation we face now so don't think that will ever happen. Write a letter. The FAA doesn't care about a few AMA members and aircraft modelers or they would never have thrown model aircraft into the mix of all UAVs. I was involved in the initial fight. Modelers then never believed that the FAA would require Tail-numbers on model or registration on their model aircraft as was first proposed by the pin-heads at the FAA seven years ago. Guess what? We are there. So you better believe flight duration, speeds, motor size, etc will come to pass....for drones too.

Too many here are very narrow in their perspective and that is expected since this is a DJI Drone forum. But there are very large well organized groups...Aircraft Pilots' Assoc, Airline Pilots' Assoc. and manufacturers of drones for commercial use, etc., that don't care about the recreational drone or model aircraft flyers.

The recreational RC pilot of anything, drone, helicopter, or aircraft is the tick on the elephant's tail. Write a letter.

For the record, I am a commercial pilot, drone pilot, model aircraft pilot. I love all things aviation related and promote safety.

I fully support the regulation of sUAS, both recreational and non-recreational. I think that the Special Rule was a mistake and that it will be completely overturned, at least in respect of sUAS. I don't fly model aircraft but, if I did, I would be pushing the AMA to try to get a more limited exemption carved out for real model aircraft.

 

[Just_nick]

I looked through it and I don't see any problems with it, except that they still need to be more specific about line of sight. Maybe the test that might become a requirement will specify so people stop pretending that a literal line without actually being able to control the craft is what it means. *coughs at the entire population on this website that believes that*

 

[EyeFlightDrone]

There is no ama in CT, USA. What can I do?

 

[DanMan32]

Yes there are. Club Finder | Academy of Model Aeronautics

 

[EyeFlightDrone]

Awe, thanks a million!

 

[DanMan32]

No problem. It sounded strange to me there wouldn't be any clubs in the entire state. Perhaps Rhode Island....

Just kidding for anyone living in or fond of RI.

 

[JMF]

Senate and House version now includes, among other things under 336, 1) registration and aircraft markings, 2) permission to fly in B, C, D and E class airspace that is attached to an airport approach, 3) pass an FAA aeronautical knowledge test. Read it and weep.

And the cheating, lying, law breaking government can look at my class F and class U middle finger pointing at them, laughing !

 

[JROD]

I have a question specific to the 400 ft cap. Are there events at which craft regularly fly over this height? The AMA is very ambiguous in its communication with its members about this concern. I don’t want to submit their letter to my Congressmen without being armed with answers if they call me to ask why I oppose this bill. Thanks!

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I have a question specific to the 400 ft cap. Are there events at which craft regularly fly over this height? The AMA is very ambiguous in its communication with its members about this concern. I don’t want to submit their letter to my Congressmen without being armed with answers if they call me to ask why I oppose this bill. Thanks!

There is an airspace waiver process for special events that I believe would work in this situation.

Personally, I see nothing wrong with this bill. It keeps hobby aircraft out of controlled airspace without authorization, finally codifies the 400' "rule myth," enforces VLOS and enacts a safety test. It's not going to eliminate the stupidity but it will sure mitigate it providing this law could actually be fully enforced.

 

[JROD]

There is an airspace waiver process for special events that I believe would work in this situation.

Personally, I see nothing wrong with this bill. It keeps hobby aircraft out of controlled airspace without authorization, finally codifies the 400' "rule myth," enforces VLOS and enacts a safety test. It's not going to eliminate the stupidity but it will sure mitigate it providing this law could actually be fully enforced.

Yeah that’s