The AMA appears to have broken the silence over the coming NPRM. Full docs posted on Feb. 4, 2011 HERE and HERE.
In short they say:
"Although the exact language of the proposed regulation is not yet known, there are a number of conclusions that can be drawn from the ARC recommendations. The following are AMA’s areas of concern, the restrictions that are likely to be imposed and their effect on
the model aviation community:"
ALTITUDE: As proposed, the rule would impose a nationwide altitude ceiling of 400 feet.
SPEED: It is likely that the rule will attempt to limit model aircraft performance by
establishing a set speed limit such as 100 mph
.
WEIGHT: As proposed, the sUAS rule will limit small unmanned aircraft to 55 pounds
or less.
TURBINE BAN: The blanket prohibition of gas turbine engines.
AIRPORT PROXIMITY: It is understood that the FAA is considering going outside the ARC’s
recommendation and extending the “area of concern” around the nation’s 19,760 airports
beyond the current 3-mile radius to 5 miles.
Comments
These laws will only apply when there is an incident. So the feds can press charges. There will be nobody to police these laws....so they can pass anything they want. The people using their heads won't have a problem. The idiots out there who slap a camera on their foamie and go fly around an airport (there was a video posted here about a year ago of someone doing just that) will actually have something to be charged with.
My biggest concern about this law is what limitations is it going to put on non-open-source auto pilot manufcaturers, Is it going to be their responsibility to enforce these laws?
Paul,
The Q&A (AKA Dog and Pony Show) period at the AMA Expo was recorded and to be made available on AMA's website according to the AMA president but somehow it never got there (?)
All we have is a couple people's written impressions of what was said, neither accurate nor complete. I agree that if everyone followed common sense there would be no problem. However all it takes is one moron to ruin things for everyone and we have had lots of morons in the last couple years, let alone the last few decades.
As for unenforceable, so are drug laws. Sure, people smoke pot all the time and get away with it. Get caught and guess what?
"Unenforceable" has nothing to do with making laws and regulations.
I have a neighbor who calls the police if I don't mow my lawn every two weeks. Are you sure there isn't someone who will drop a dime on you over silly stuff? If so, I want to live in your town.
As to turbines, there are less than a thousand AMA members with turbines, so there is no social or economic impact as far the Feds are concerned and there would be no problem banning them if they desire.
As a trucker about Jake brakes, Linear Amps, Radar detectors and jammers. Or ask a car nut about side pipes and leaded gasoline. Things get banned all the time. If the FAA doesn't want turbines then turbines will be banned and if you get caught with one they will confiscate your system (then destroy it) and fine you.
Sorry about the rant but the "scofflaw/pirate" attitude is never a winning one in my experience.
These concerns being highligted by the AMA seem very counter to an insider report that was posted on this site not that long ago. I've been searching, but can't find it. In it, the person quoted gave no hint of draconian FAA regulations on model aircraft flight. One comes to mind--it was stated that the FAA has no intent to ban turbine flight.
Either this person has the wrong impression themselves, or the AMA is just using scare tactics to rally their base to their cause. There does seem to be a disconnect here. By the way, I have no problem with the AMA doing this as long as they are not lieing.
My own opinions: The 400 foot rule can be written, but it will be broken every day of the year, all year, by plain old RC sport flyers, turbines (which I'm willing to bet real money will not be banned), free flight, maybe even kites on a long string (maybe just kidding with this one).
Banning turbines won't happen (oh, I think I said that already).
100 MPH speed limit: Ditto 400'. Also, if turbines don't get banned, completely unrealistic.
I'm all for rules, but I'm all for making rules that make sense. Practical people know that restricting model planes to 400' is unrealistic and unenforceable. I guess the purpose of having the rule is to know who to blame in the event that a general aviation pilot is buzzing an RC field at 600' and collides with a model airplane. How about some common sense here: when an RC pilot sees a really low flying airplane, fly your model lower or land. Silly, I know.
Airport, mass and altitude seem fine for global limits to be honest (although I'd prefer a higher altitude ceiling). No turbines is inhibiting freedom which I don't agree with. The speed limit is simply stupid in a dive beginners could break this let alone the pros soaring.
Good Luck US I hope you get some slack.
It is based on AC 91-57, the 500' low alt. limit for most of general aviation and a pre-ARC University (can't recal which... Cal Tech?) risk analysis.
The FAA puts a lot of research and thought into these things as a general rule. They don't just pull rules out of a hat with no research, science, basis, analysis, discussion, rationale or documentation like the AMA does. That is why I think the FAA will reject any "safety rules" coming from the AMA.
I can totally live with under 2lbs, 60mph and electric. That describes everything I've got.
As a point of reference, a Skyfun with a 2200mah LiPo and full autopilot/xbee/video is about 1.6 lbs
-
1
-
2
-
3
of 3 Next