Just FYI...
Excerpt from "President's Perspective," Model Aviation magazine, November 2010
FAA Ruling May Be Challenging to AMA
Things continue to move forward, albeit relatively slowly, with the FAA regulatory process for small unmanned aircraft systems (sUAS) that will have some collateral impact on model aviation.
AMA’s internal workgroup, comprising members with considerable experience representing a number of modeling disciplines, continues to draft an initial set of standards that we will present to the FAA. The purpose of these standards is to create a path in which model aviation enthusiasts may operate outside of the "default" set of regulations that were [proposed] to the FAA by an Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC) in March 2009.
Rich Hanson, AMA’s Government Affairs Representative, and the Safety Committee chairperson, Jim Rice, traveled to Washington in early September to meet with representatives from the FAA’s Unmanned Aircraft Program Office (UAPO). The purpose of that meeting was to share with the UAPO the direction that we are taking with our standards and to ask for guidance to ensure that the form and format of our work was moving in the right direction.
The results of that meeting have raised some additional concerns for us. We have scheduled a follow-up meeting with UAPO manager Rick Prosek. This meeting will have taken place by the time this issue of MA reaches you. I will update you on the results of this meeting next month.
Comments
Maybe if they fought for all recreational use of small aircraft instead of a handful of their own members (many fly within AC 91-57 guidelines and have no worries) they would have more support.
They started off the ARC process asking to eliminate all recreational use except for AMA members and now it seems the shoe is on the other foot. They do not want to follow the same rules as everyone else.
The AMA did more harm to the recreational use of sUASes in this process than the FAA itself. ..
Excerpt from "President's Perspective," Model Aviation magazine, December 2010
… become more familiar with the regulatory effort.
“In my last column, I indicated that in early September we met with the FAA’s Unmanned Aircraft Program Office (UAPO) as we continue to work through the FAA’s regulatory process for small unmanned aircraft systems (sUAS). At the time, I wrote that we had scheduled a follow-up meeting to address some of our concerns that were raised during that meeting.
The follow-up meeting took place in late September and our concerns remain. The FAA appears intent on going down the path of trying to force-fit model aviation into regulations that fail to consider the complexity of our aeromodeling activities, the diversity of the hobby, and the potential detrimental impact they will have if instituted.
This simply won’t work and will only result in unnecessary harm to aeromodeling. We certainly understand the challenges that face the FAA and the tremendous pressure it is under to get the regulatory process completed that will allow commercial, public-use sUAS to operate in the national airspace. However, that needs to be done in a way so as not to cause collateral damage to what we do as model aviation enthusiasts.
Aeromodeling is a recreational activity. We fly in a defined box, whether that box is a model aircraft field, a local park, or a schoolyard. Our models remain within visual line of sight. We subscribe to see-and-avoid practices and yield to anything else in the airspace.
There’s a big difference between what we fly and autonomous aircraft that intend to fly from one point to another without the ability to see and avoid others in that airspace.
Although we are concerned over the direction the process is taking, please don’t interpret these comments to mean “the sky is falling.” The sky may be a little cloudy, but our intent is to continue to collaborate with the FAA UAPO to help draft rules for model aircraft that will address our concerns while not being overly restrictive and onerous on model aviation.
This is the time for our members to become more familiar with the regulatory effort. As the process becomes more defined, we will begin to outline those areas that may impact model aviation. There may come a time when we will look to our membership to react to the sUAS Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) when it is released—most likely sometime in the middle of 2011.
We will update our membership on the ongoing process monthly in MA, AMA Today, the AMA Insider, as well as through e-mail. More information will also be found on our Web site at www.modelaircraft.org. MA
"Heading lock = autonomous flight"
By that defintion almost all RC helis are banned by the AMA.
Anybody still want the AMA in charge of amateur aUAVs for the entire USA?
That is very nefarious in my book.
Non-AMA members have no such restrictions other than AC 91-57
So how does the AMA get away with constant operations outside of AC 91-57?
The AMA keeps saying that "recreational use" can not be bound by any regulations. That is like saying I should be able to fly a Learjet with no license or inspection etc. as long as I am doing it "for fun".
Pretty pathetic arguement IMHO.
4.0 Methods of Authorization and Applicability
Guidance in this document of an operational nature always applies to both civil and public operators. In the areas of pilot certification, crew certification, pilot currency, medical certificates, and airworthiness, it is assumed that all public aircraft comply with processes and policies established by the public entity, in a manner similar to publicly operated manned aircraft. If no established policies exist regarding pilot certification, crew certification, pilot currency, medical certificates, and airworthiness, it is highly recommended that the public agency/department apply the guidance outlined in this document.
The procedures contained in this document are applicable for operations in the contiguous United States, Alaska, Hawaii, and the Flight Information Regions delegated to the United States and areas where the FAA is the Air Traffic Service Provider.
In general, specific authorization to conduct unmanned aircraft operations in the NAS outside of active Restricted, Prohibited, or Warning Area airspace must be requested by the applicant. Airspace inside buildings or structures is not considered to be part of the NAS and is not regulated. The two methods of approval are either a certificate of waiver or authorization (COA) or the issuance of a special airworthiness certificate.
You can't get either without a government sponsor...
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
-
5
of 7 Next