AMA: Hold off on registering model aircraft

This just in, from the AMA:

"Yesterday, the AMA Executive Council unanimously approved an action plan to relieve and further protect our members from unnecessary and burdensome regulations. This plan addresses the recently announced interim rule requiring federal registration of all model aircraft and unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) weighing between 0.55 and 55 pounds.

AMA has long used a similar registration system with our members, which we pointed out during the task force deliberations and in private conversations with the FAA. As you are aware, AMA’s safety program instructs all members to place his or her AMA number or name and address on or within their model aircraft, effectively accomplishing the safety and accountability objectives of the interim rule. AMA has also argued that the new registration rule runs counter to Congress’ intent in Section 336 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, otherwise known as the “Special Rule for Model Aircraft.”

The Council is considering all legal and political remedies to address this issue. We believe that resolution to the unnecessary federal registration rule for our members rests with AMA’s petition before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. This petition, filed in August 2014, asks the court to review the FAA’s interpretation of the “Special Rule for Model Aircraft.” The central issue is whether the FAA has the authority to expand the definition of aircraft to include model aircraft; thus, allowing the agency to establish new standards and operating criteria to which model aircraft operators have never been subject to in the past.

In promulgating its interim rule for registration earlier this week, the FAA repeatedly stated that model aircraft are aircraft, despite the fact that litigation is pending on this very question. The Council believes the FAA’s reliance on its interpretation of Section 336 for legal authority to compel our members to register warrants the Court’s immediate attention to AMA’s petition.

While we continue to believe that registration makes sense at some threshold and for flyers operating outside of a community-based organization or flying for commercial purposes, we also strongly believe our members are not the problem and should not have to bear the burden of additional regulations. Safety has been the cornerstone of our organization for 80 years and AMA’s members strive to be a part of the solution.

As we proceed with this process, we suggest AMA members hold off on registering their model aircraft with the FAA until advised by the AMA or until February 19, the FAA’s legal deadline for registering existing model aircraft.

Holding off on registration will allow AMA time to fully consider all possible options. On a parallel track, it also allows AMA to complete ongoing conversations with the FAA about how best to streamline the registration process for our members.

In the near future, we will also be asking our members to make their voices heard by submitting comments to the FAA’s interim rule on registration. We will follow-up soon with more detailed information on how to do this.

Thank you for your continued support of AMA. We will provide you with more updates as they become available.

Kind regards,
The AMA Executive Council
Bob Brown, AMA President
Gary Fitch, AMA Executive Vice President
Andy Argenio, AMA Vice President, District I
Eric Williams, AMA Vice President, District II
Mark Radcliff, AMA Vice President, District III
Jay Marsh, AMA Vice President, District IV
Kris Dixon, AMA Vice President, District V
Randy Cameron, AMA Vice President, District VI
Tim Jesky, AMA Vice President, District VII
Mark Johnston, AMA Vice President, District VIII
Jim Tiller, AMA Vice President, District IX
Lawrence Tougas, AMA Vice President, District X
Chuck Bower, AMA Vice President, District XI"

Views: 2528

Comment by Darius Jack on December 17, 2015 at 6:12pm

Thank you my dear friends for your clear explanation.

So you have developed model aircraft internal registration procedure for your members 

and FAA just adopted your model aircraft as a good standard and federal legislation.

So today your members have lost your protection and are subject to model aircraft registration procedure with FAA as any individual.

Please tell me what went wrong with your consultations at FAA level 2 months ago.

Basing on my previous experience as IT forensic expert, this my private opinion,

I would not suggest any individual (your AMA's members, as in your case)

to hold off with FAA registration procedure until further notice, since new legislation provides no special rights and titles granted to members of AMA, still named

the individuals under this FAA rule law.

This is my private opinion, so I suggest nothing to nobody.

BTW

I would suggest some changes to your model aircraft personalization procedure

to protect personal details of members in case a model is lost, stolen.

Just stick AMA number to your model aircraft and AMA Register contact details (phone, web page, email) as in case of plated motor vehicles.

You don't leave copy of your personal identity card or driver's licence inside, leaving your car since Registration Plate Number does identification job so AMA number and

contact information leaflet should work the same, protecting personal details of your members disclosed at random to third parties.

If I could be of any help, please contact me

darius

manta103g@gmail.com

BTW2

I have spent 5 years with general presidential election team for President Barack Obama,

learning how to mediate any very complicated case.

---

"

As you are aware, AMA’s safety program instructs all members to place his or her AMA number or name and address on or within their model aircraft

"

---

---

"

AMA’s safety program instructs all members to place his or her AMA number or name and address on or within their model aircraft, effectively accomplishing the safety and accountability objectives of the interim rule. AMA has also argued that the new registration rule runs counter to Congress’ intent in Section 336 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, otherwise known as the “Special Rule for Model Aircraft.”

The Council is considering all legal and political remedies to address this issue. We believe that resolution to the unnecessary federal registration rule for our members rests with AMA’s petition before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. This petition, filed in August 2014, asks the court to review the FAA’s interpretation of the “Special Rule for Model Aircraft.” The central issue is whether the FAA has the authority to expand the definition of aircraft to include model aircraft; thus, allowing the agency to establish new standards and operating criteria to which model aircraft operators have never been subject to in the past.


Moderator
Comment by Gary Mortimer on December 17, 2015 at 8:44pm

The AMA were put between a rock and a hard place years ago. They left the RPA conversations at the FAA years ago as did any representation for the little man. All the meetings after ARC 1 have been to tell the folks whats going to happen. Its still all glacial. The BVLOS committee has met once 12 months. The FAA still does not have a handle on how fast this industry moves. In some ways though if it forces development in the sub 250g category then it might be a good thing. RCAPA and Patrick Egan tried to ring fence 2kg and people laughed. All this years before the instant experts with drone in their twitter handles started arriving. It does not look so silly now. It looks positively lardy! 

Comment by Mark on December 17, 2015 at 8:52pm

Darius,

Agreed on the part that AMA's idea of identifying yourself in full is a bit overboard. In my opinion, for $50+/year they must be serving coffee at the airfields.

If flying club is not capable of teaching a newcomers all the rules - then no amount of AMA will help it. Local laws are hard enough to take care of the problems that may arise due to the function of the clubs.

Clubs are more than capable of choosing the right Company to buy an Insurance for specific RC operation.

I am wondering, is AMA worries about FAA registration because many AMA members will refuse to buy their membership once they can legally operate in US without AMA membership since they've paid a $5 for three years fee? If they do worry - then they must have moved a bit faster with their legal team on FAA.

Think again: $5 for three years or $150+ for the same three years! Following the money?

Just my thoughts..


Moderator
Comment by Gary Mortimer on December 17, 2015 at 11:03pm

In no country that has regs does the local model authority stick their oar into RPA. The AMA should represent private fliers and no more.

Comment by JB on December 18, 2015 at 1:32am

Doesn't the AMA membership fee also include insurance when operating at their registered fields?

In Oz the minister was meant to sign off a week ago to allow operating sub-2kg UAVs for commercial purposes without operator certificate and completely registration free...but he held off signing to see what the US came up with first! Talk about the blind leading the blind. :-s 

Hope we're not going down the same path.


Moderator
Comment by RM Aviation on December 18, 2015 at 2:30am
I don't think casa would try this JB, they know that Australians would never roll over and accept this rubbish.
Comment by JB on December 18, 2015 at 2:51am

One can only hope Martin!  Sadly ozi ministers aren't known for their courage, and they're the one's holding the pen we're subjected too.

CASA did actually do impact tests with 2kg UAV's and considered them "safe enough" as a result. Don't think the FAA even got that far before asking the US to take a bow. But 250g? That's just silly without determining what it's actually made of. 2kg of foamie would just fuel the jet it passed through for a few milliseconds... but 250g of alloy wouldn't fair so well.

One way we could fight this "bad regulation policy" is under Turnballs new innovation scheme, putting forward the notion that it's bad for the "highly innovative UAV industry" to be restricted to extinction before they even have a chance to take off... ;-)

Would be nice to see that mantra followed through in the car, manufacturing and energy industries here too. To much mindless diggin going on here....and it will take a lot more digging to get politicians heads out of the sand!

I've only seen regulation cause monopolies...not disbanded them. But hey I'm always up for something new and "innovative"!


Moderator
Comment by RM Aviation on December 18, 2015 at 3:06am
Excellent points JB, I wholeheartedly agree with you. Turnballs new innovation scheme might be particularly useful for our industry. After the political machinations of the last year I think it would be very foolhardy for any politician to go back on their proposed policies but as you say, they are not known for their courage!
Comment by Darrell Burkey on December 18, 2015 at 3:39am

Interestingly enough, when Prime Minister Turnball was announcing his 'innovation platform' I was driving around looking for an Internet connection fast enough to upload the photos from a mapping mission that I can't upload from home, my office or with my expensive 4G Telstra service because the speed is so bad! Given Turnball made a lot of his money  from early ISP services I thought the announcement was quite ironic. So don't hold your breath for any politicians to understand that what we do is innovative. They can't even get the basic infrastructure right. 

Comment by JB on December 18, 2015 at 4:27am

RM

The other issue is how long it takes them to do back flips on policy...sometimes they move so slow you can no longer tell what direction exactly they are flipping into! The uncertainty kills any industry. I'm not a fan of any political party a mob votes in, but Turnbull might turn out to be the least "bull" prime minister we've had in a while! ;-)

At a minimum he is technically savvy enough to see merit in the "tools" of the current generation that will be the jobs of the future. 

-

Darrell.

Not holding my breath at all, and I believe that air is in fact the solution to the problem!

The solution can only be found in the root of government, the people, not the branches of government, run by the politicians.

One of the applications I'm developing is using SDR in UAV's and the ground as pico-cell towers for creating a mobile mesh network. With that your infrastructure problems should become a thing of the past. The idea is to democratize the air, be that the radio airwaves or the small aircraft known as UAVs, to use them as sensor and communication relays as needed, when needed by simply using each radio in the system as a relay. Ever wonder why "cell towers" have replaced good old CB radios that didn't need infrastructure? An SDR mesh network is the "Citizen Band" of this century without the limitations of traditional CB.

In Australia through the tyranny of distances,  infrastructure and resulting communication is sparse. No information = no "intelligence" or "smart devices" (although how smart the users are can be disputed!). The trick with mesh networking using SDR is that the hardware platform can adopt many different standards in software with little to no changes in hardware, and that every user can become a "prosumer", in that each node can relay information for another securely. It can also "translate" different signals to different uses or network types as desired allowing for a unprecedented level of interoperability.

The point with any radio based hardware is that it does not require 10,000km's of cabling that needs to be buried, maintained and metered for profit. The airwaves are freely available natural resource, and they should be made available through de-regulating the airbands so that citizens once again become the primary beneficiaries of the air. Both for flying in and sending information through! ;-)

There's a few other things that the air can be mined for to make our lives easier, but that's a story for another forum. (think carbon and water!)

Regards

JB

Comment

You need to be a member of DIY Drones to add comments!

Join DIY Drones

Groups

Season Two of the Trust Time Trial (T3) Contest 
A list of all T3 contests is here. The current round, the Vertical Horizontal one, is here

© 2019   Created by Chris Anderson.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service