FAA 2014-0396- interpretation of new rule for Model Aircraft

[dth7]

The docket is now on line for comment. I would strongly suggest that everyone make a comment before the deadline of July 25, 2014. I have asked AMA to come out with a "form letter response" for the membership to make this easy. In the mean time feel free to copy and paste this- (modify as you see fit, just trying to make it easy to get the words to the right ears for change)-
This interpretation is an OVER REACTION, OVER REACHING in its scope and completely OVER CONTROLLING in its intent. It reatricts and regulates well intentioned modelers following a set of established safety rules put forth by a "community based organization" rather than regulating abusers not associated with AMA. In 2012 AMA and FAA reached an agreement that this interpretation completely contradicts. The interpretation should be to EDUCATE **NOT** REGULATE in order to RECREATE. The consumers who are gaining access to modeling equipment, specifically Multi rotor camera platforms, are doing so OUTSIDE the membership of AMA and therefore missing the "safety filter" of the "community based organization" which provides safety guidelines, education, support and so much more. The regulations (few if any) should restrict NON AMA members from these activities NOT THE OVER 160,000 diverse cross section of our population who safely and properly operate these devices as dues paying members in good standing who represent the Academy of Model Aeraunatics.
As added supporting documentation for my STRONG OPPOSITION to this interpretation I am including a link to the AMA's response to this interpretation- http://www.modelaircraft.org/files/FAAInterpretiveRule.pdf
In closing, the FAA NEEDS TO REVISE THIS INTERPRETATION TO RELATE TO "NON ACADEMY OF AERONAUTICS MEMBERS" and not a blanket regulation for all modelers or individuals. Please get educated yourselves on this issue before regulating it.
Here's the link- http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2014-0396-0001
Thanks, Daren

 

[3dNater]

Thanks Darren, I think one of the biggest issues with the new rule relates to fpv flying. I think what you have included is awesome but I still want to eventually fly long-distance fpv (a mile or so). I would really like to see reasonable boundaries being set for that (no flying over populated areas, altitude restrictions etc. that make sense). An all-out ban on non-LOS flying really sux. I am totally willing to comply with reasonable rules!

 

[njswede]

Here's what Senator Bob Menendez will be getting in his inbox:

Dear Senator Menedez!

As I'm sure you recall, a couple of years ago, both chambers of Congress passed a law that's known as the "2012 FAA Modernization and Reform Act". This law deals with a wide range of aviation related issues and was, among other things, aimed at properly regulating sUAV (Small Unmanned Aerial Vehicles) or "drones" as they are called in pop culture and media.

This bill contained a clause, known as section 336, that would prevent the FAA from regulating radio controlled model aircraft. This clause was added by lawmakers who feared that FAA regulation may severely and negatively impact a harmless hobby enjoyed by hundreds of thousands of Americans.

On June 23 of this year, the FAA issued its "interpretation" of section 336. Instead of acknowledging the bar on further regulations of model airplane enthusiasts, the FAA, in violation of clear legislative language from Congress, saw this as an opportunity to impose new and stricter regulations of the model airplane hobby. Not only does it effectively ban certain (completely harmless) model aircraft, it also puts an end to model airplane competitions and prevents vendors from using paid pilots to demonstrate their products.

I could go much deeper into the details, but it suffices to say that the FAA is showing disregard for congressional rulings and is abusing its power as a federal agency at the expense of law abiding citizens who enjoy a harmless and fulfilling hobby.

I fly radio controlled planes at various clubs in the NJ area and it would be an honor to have you stop by and see what it's all about. This is a hobby that unites people of all ages, races, cultural origins and income levels in a way that few other activities do. It would be a shame if abuse of power would put an end to this.

I am aware that you have many issues on your agenda that may seem more urgent, but I trust that you share my view that government power abuse must be attacked wherever it appears!

Respectfully and sincerely

 

[Azhar]

Good luck with the lawmakers. IMO, they are all corporate whores.

 

[njswede]

Good luck with the lawmakers. IMO, they are all corporate whores.

Yes they are, but keep in mind that these are the same guys who actually voted and approved section 336. My letters to senators and congressmen probably won't move the needle, but it cost me 10 minutes and a few mouse clicks, so I might as well do it. Plus, if a lot of us reach out to these guys, at least they are aware of the issue.

 

[njswede]

...besides, I think you have better luck with lawmakers. The FAA has already told us to eff off, so complaining to them has very little impact. Complain to the ones whose orders they are disobeying instead.

 

[AKfreak]

Let me play the devils advocate for a moment. So are you saying that the 2012 law completely overrides existing FAA regs? I thought is said they could not create new laws. The FAA isn't creating new laws, they are interpreting the 2012 laws and planning to enforce laws that existed prior to the 2012 laws.

It has always been illegal to receive compensation for flying aircraft without a commercial license. Paying pilots to fly models should of been illegal from the start. Now if you have an employee that works for you that happens to be a rc pilot, I am quite sure paying him or her to go to an event to promote your company is not illegal.

The problem for the FAA is as technology advances, new products are brought to market that allow any old person who wishes to enter controlled airspaces. Also the numbers of people using this new tech for compensation has skyrocketed. It's real simple, getting paid to fly stuff is illegal. It always has been in my lifetime.

If hobby companies are just now becoming aware that the products they are selling are being used for illegal purposes, and the customer base that uses them is going to dwindle, I see that as a win for those companies. They might be able to refocus there efforts and save themselves.

I know many people who paid dearly to make a living flying aircraft. They are thoroughly educated on how to operate safely, there are safety checks in place to insure not only the pilot is operating safely, but the actual aircraft are safe to operate. People who break the law flying unproven aircraft for money should be fined. I me a what happens when a phantom brings down a commercial jet?

There are programs happening right now that are training pilots and will allow them to legally fly multirotors for compensation. The problem for most is not only will it cost a ton of money to get involved, the aircraft will be so exspensive that the regular guy will never be able to have one. The great news is, if you are a driven person that is willing to dedicate themself to something, he or she will be able to fly cutting edge aircraft and make a good living to do so.

Please don't think that I am not into flying multi rotors, and FPV, because I am. Before I ever got into 3D planes, I was flying multis. I still fly a heavy lifter, I have a 1200mm hex that can carry 6 kilos for 23mins. I have a 3axis gimbal that can fly a red epic. I love FPV and have invested a lot into it.

With all that said, I do not believe that the 2012 hobby laws were put in place to override existing laws allowing hobbyist to be paid to fly stuff.

 

[njswede]

Let me play the devils advocate for a moment. So are you saying that the 2012 law completely overrides existing FAA regs?

No. I'm just saying that Section 336 was intended to keep certain core elements of the hobby off limits from FAA regulations. FAA interpreted the section in a very extreme way and basically used the language in that paragraph to make a very narrow interpretation of the language legal, while effectively making everything else illegal. That was never the intent of the law. However, it wouldn't be a stretch to say that AMA and Congress could have done a better job crafting legislation that wasn't open for abusive interpretations. The "line of sight" requirement, in hindsight, is a pretty obvious bulls-eye just waiting to be aimed at.

 

[dth7]

Thanks Darren, I think one of the biggest issues with the new rule relates to fpv flying. I think what you have included is awesome but I still want to eventually fly long-distance fpv (a mile or so). I would really like to see reasonable boundaries being set for that (no flying over populated areas, altitude restrictions etc. that make sense). An all-out ban on non-LOS flying really sux. I am totally willing to comply with reasonable rules!

Send in your comments Nate. That's really my point.

 

[dth7]

Yes they are, but keep in mind that these are the same guys who actually voted and approved section 336. My letters to senators and congressmen probably won't move the needle, but it cost me 10 minutes and a few mouse clicks, so I might as well do it. Plus, if a lot of us reach out to these guys, at least they are aware of the issue.

Well done Swede. I'd much rather see the "vents" and the bitching directed away from our community and where it belongs- in offices in DC where it can reach "our" representatives.
Thank you.