Wow. The AMA response to the new FAA rules is scorching:
States AMA President Bob Brown, “The FAA interpretive rule effectively negates Congress’ intentions, and is contrary to the law. Section 336(a) of the Public Law states that, ‘the Federal
Aviation Administration may not promulgate any rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft…’, this interpretive rule specifically addresses model aircraft, effectively establishes rules that model aircraft were not previously subject to and is in direct violation of the congressional mandate in the 2012 FAA reauthorization bill.” The interpretive rule reflects the FAA’s disregard for and its unfamiliarity with the makeup of the modeling community. Nearly 20% of the AMA membership is 19 years old or younger and an even greater percentage is retirees over the age of 65. FAA’s intention to impose a strict regulatory approach to the operation of model aircraft in the hands of our youth and elderly members threatens to destroy a wholesome and enriching activity enjoyed by a vast cross-section of our society.
“AMA cannot support this rule.” said AMA Executive Director Dave Mathewson. “It is at best ill-conceived and at worst intentionally punitive and retaliatory. The Academy strongly requests the FAA reconsider this action. The AMA will pursue all available recourse to dissuade enactment of this rule.”
Comments
Photo from a recent joint AMA/ARRL meeting :)
there is a hug overlap in the AMA and ARRL communities... I am one of them...
Crap... That must mean I am a grumpy old man... :(
You think the AMA is a bunch of a grumpy old me, you should see the ARRL!
"I have a pen and a phone".
Elections do have consequences.
My fear is that this attitude is all too common and is growing in this hobby. So the question is whether we think this will lead the hobby to a better future, or worse?
Responsible voices need to be loud and clear in order to lead us where we'd rather go.
Thanks, Dan.
Yes, opening up commercial opportunities needs to happen quickly. Unfortunately, the FAA is probably being distracted by the crazy hobbyists flying dangerously. I'm sure they'd much rather devote their time to the commercial side, rather than drumming up new rules to try and reduce the risks from hobbyists.
Here again, the entire community needs to pull together and find good, safe solutions. We need to error on the side of air safety, even if it is an annoyance or an inconvenience to the hobby.
Look at it this way. If a collision happens between a hobby drone and a real aircraft, the reputation damage to the UAV/drone community will be extensive and will impact all interests - hobby and commercial. The average citizen won't recognize the difference. If lives are lost, then all bets are off as to what congress will do. We can't afford that kind of damage. The commercial side would likely still survive, after months or years of damage control. The drone hobby might not survive at all.
So air safety first. Despite the many complaints here about new FPV rules, I'm happy the FAA is actively engaged and working to try to improve air safety. Some ruffled feathers are a tiny issue. But one air disaster averted could make or break the future of this hobby.
The AMA rules on FPV are very limiting. A smart, responsible operator can operate without a spotter, beyond line of site, just as safely as someone operating with a spotter, within line of sight. I realize the AMA's insurance will probably never allow such, and that is fine. Stick to the AMA insurance rules to keep the AMA insurance coverage and while at an AMA location. But in my own yard? I can operate responsibly BLOS FPV just as well. Those of us who a responsible wish for reasonable and logical rules. There is no reason to unreasonably punish everyone for the actions of a few idiots.
Once again, they do not need to prohibit all activity in order prohibit only stupid activity.
Tom, Dan and Owen -- Thanks for you comments. Yes, I agree with what you're saying.
A couple of thoughts.
I agree that the commercial authorization of UAVs is moving too slowly. I also think that the risks to aviation from the commercial UAS side will be negligible compared to those created by hobbyists operating outside the rules. Commercial operators will be licensed and trained to follow the rules in order to remain in business -- they will be financially incentivized to act responsibly.
Regarding hobbyists and the existing AMA rules, there's clearly a problem with education and enforcement. If every hobby pilot read, understood, and followed the rules, we wouldn't be having this conversation. No 'crazy pilots'. Problem solved. But you're right, there are already rules on the books that cover the dangerous actions of some FPV pilots. Some actions by the FAA as just reactions to current events/evidence -- throwing out new rules. They are in reaction mode, as this hobby evolves and grows faster than they can understand and follow it. I'm sure this is not the position they want to be in, either. Rather than ignore the new clear and present dangers, they react in the interest of safety.
I think we can agree that the FAA is in a tough spot. But so are we hobbyists. Irresponsible drone pilots are a major threat to the hobby itself (much less to commercial UAS interests). If the dangers continue to rise and accidents occur, heavier hobby regulations will follow. The entire community needs to face this reality with clear eyes.
Aviation safety first benefits everyone. We should all be on the same side, imo.
Thank you, Phil, for that. I think it's important for everyone to realize their "I just wanna do whatever I want, I'm not hurting anyone" line of thought is narrow minded. Some people's "whatever" is crazier and more dangerous than others' and a given law has to cover all of this, for better or worse.
-
1
-
2
-
3
of 3 Next