In the sUAS ARC proposal there was a section (2) for a "set of standards established and administered by a community based association"
The basis for this recommendation was the Act "Federal Participation in the Development and Use of Voluntary Consensus Standards and in Conformity Assessment Activities" AKA OMB.119.
Based on OMB.119 neither the AMA nor any other organization could be used as the basis or alternative to regulation.
This Act does not apply to the creation of safety regulations. The law was for manufacturing and inspection standards. Even if the law were to extend to safety regulations, very few organizations meet the requirements, below is listed the major requirements (bolding mine).
a. The term "standard," or "technical standard" as cited in the Act, includes all of the following:
(1) Common and repeated use of rules, conditions,guidelines or characteristics for products or related processes and production methods, and related management systems practices.
(2) The definition of terms; classification of components; delineation of procedures; specification of dimensions, materials, performance, designs, or operations; measurement of quality and quantity in describing materials, processes, products, systems, services, or practices; test methods and sampling procedures; or descriptions of fit and measurements of size or strength.
(1) "Voluntary consensus standards bodies" are domestic or international organizations which plan, develop, establish, or coordinate voluntary consensus standards using agreed-upon procedures. For purposes of this Circular, "voluntary, private sector, consensus standards bodies," as cited in Act, is an equivalent term. The Act and the Circular encourage the participation of federal representatives in these bodies to increase the likelihood that the standards they develop will meet both public and private sector needs. A voluntary consensus standards body is defined by the following attributes:
(ii) Balance of interest.
(iii) Due process.
(vi) An appeals process.
First, let me test my understanding that this is for UAVs with waypoint piloting systems, that are meant for limited pilot control, NOT FPVers who have a RTH (Return to Home) systems, correct? I mean, why penalize those trying to be responsible and conscientious?
What is the cost of these proposed requirements in terms of certificates and classes to the PIC?
how does the FAA hold repairs "to a manufacturer specifcations" and determine airworthiness if the manufacturer says "glue or a rubber band" for a larger type craft?
This seems tailored to the hobbies, but what about industrial work, such as farming, film, and mapping, search and rescue, and what not? Limiting a Group 1 UAV with a total weight of less than 2kgs seems rather low. For aerial photography/videography, atleast with an SLR Canon T2i, the body alone is like 1lb, or just under 500g. Lenses put you immediately into the Class 3. For a plane, this might be less of a problem, but for quad, hex and oct-copters, this is standard fare for lots of people in that field. What provisions are made for them, as most copters can only fly for 10-20 minutes anyways.
For the most part though, the rules seem fair, and the ones under argument, the laxer restrictions seem the most fair (you know, i my biased opinion).
These are the requirements for ALL recreational/hobby/non-commercial unmanned aircraft (sUAS) (ARC/FAA document sections 2 and 3).
Commercial users will be far more regulated and expensive.
Full ARC document is available HERE
If nobody bothers to look at this proposal and send in formal comments to the NPRM (July) then expect them to become law in 2012. I am amazed at how many US users here have no idea what is going on, let alone read the document. If we (commercial and hobbyist) snooze we will surely lose .
Let me give you an idea of how it is supposed to work.
Say the FAA decides they need specifications for fuel lines. Instead of doing their own research and creating specs from scratch they are to look to the specifications already in use by manufacturers and engineers and use them instead of making up new ones.
This is how Ethernet (developed at Xerox PARC) became the IEEE 802.3 industry standard.
It is not to give certain groups a seperate set of standards or exclusion from rules (like the AMA wants) but to take existing standards and make them available and enforceable for everyone.
I didn'r forget about this, i just lost my lengthy reply in an random restart.
oblivious indeed, as if it is not presented to us, we don't know. In truth, i didn't know about this until i was in a hobby store and they mentioned that it is becoming illegal. The one thing that is good about us Americans this the knee-jerk-reaction we have when we feel our rights have been taken away. lol. No, but really, awareness is everything. I'm sure things would have been different in a great many ways if bills in congress were read by most Americans.
We need to organize. That is what it comes down to.
Recent posts on the AMA forum show that many members care only for AMA members and no one else.
While other organizations may hold that view, the AMA does not have the legal right to do so under their 501c3 documents.
To sum up the attitud of many AMA members and leadership, here is a recent post on the AMA forum:
"And here I thought this was the AMA Discussion Forum.......... when did it become the Society for the Prevention of Regulation of Those Too Short Sighted to Join a CBO Forum? "
The answer to that is 1968 when the AMA became a tax-exempt organization with "The primary object of the corporation shall be to promote the educational and scientific aspects of model aviation." AMA AoI