Thread Tools
Jul 10, 2014, 10:02 AM
Team Futaba
Silent-AV8R's Avatar
Thread OP
Discussion

Have You Commented to the FAA yet?????


So far the FAA has gotten fewer comments than the average thread here on RCG. Pretty pathetic.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorym...limit-flights/
Sign up now
to remove ads between posts
Jul 10, 2014, 09:50 PM
Registered User

Reply to the FAA?


Yes, I sent a real printed paper letter explaining not recently but not too long ago as to why I'm part of a long tradition and also passing the torch to interested kids when they cross my path. I also elaborated on how the hobby of building planes teaches patience, planning, focus, thinking, building skills that relate to things outside the hobby. The skills learned to build and fly give a lot of people self confidence, espcecially kids and that knowledge leads to a more science and technology savvy population.

Hopefully it sunk into someone somewhere.

Thanks for bringing up this issue and I would encourage more glider types to send letters. Not that I'm dissing on the UAV crowd, but there is a general misconception growing in the public and among legislators that we're all flying UAV "drones" capable of carrying a "payload". I don't like that idea floating around in people's heads and try to make sure they understand the difference in an R/C glider flying around in thermals or a slope in visual sight from a UAV that makes them worried about "Big Brother" issues of "drones". I show them my gliders, the gear inside that makes it work and the complete lack of a "payload". I try to be the "Glider PR rep" whenever/wherever I fly.

Adios - Paul
Jul 11, 2014, 04:12 AM
turn, turn, turn.
Kenny Sharp's Avatar
I agree with the FAA... What's not to agree with?
Jul 11, 2014, 07:04 AM
So many projects...
Yep; I've expressed my views as well.

And, I would encourage all who fly in any way to do the same, and come together to be a united voice when it's needed.

Regulation can be insidious if it's allowed to grow unchecked...


soarguy
Jul 11, 2014, 08:20 AM
Registered User
tkallev's Avatar
If you need ideas for what to comment and how to say it, you can review AMA's response to the FAA interpretation: https://www.modelaircraft.org/files/...iveRule614.pdf

In addition, AMA members should have received the following via email:

AMA's Areas of Concern Regarding the FAA Interpretive Rule for Model Aircraft

On Tuesday, June 24th AMA issued a member alert expressing concern over some provisions in the FAA's interpretation of the Special Rule for Model Aircraft established by Congress in the FAA modernization and Reform Act of 2012. In that alert, we let members know that we would be following up with today's alert that explains AMA's concerns in greater detail.

We need you to take action now and respond by July 25, 2014 to the FAA Interpretation of the Special Rule for Model Aircraft that was released June 23, 2014. The Academy has reviewed the rule and is extremely disappointed and troubled be the approach the FAA has chosen to take in regards to this issue. FAA's Interpretive Rule

To help you respond to the FAA, we have outlined AMA's major concerns in the bullets below. A more in-depth explanation of our concerns can be found at AMA's Concerns

Throughout the rule the FAA takes great latitude in determining Congress' intentions and in placing tightly worded restrictions through its "plain-language" interpretation of the text.
The FAA uses the plain language doctrine to create a regulatory prohibition of the use of a specific type of technology.
FAA's overreaching interpretation of the language in the Public Law is evident in the rule's interpretation of the requirement that model aircraft be "flown strictly for hobby or recreational use."
Although the FAA acknowledges that manned aviation flights that are incidental to a business are not considered commercial under the regulations, the rule states that model aircraft flights flown incidental to a business are not hobby or recreation related.
The rule overlooks the law's clear intention to encompass the supporting aeromodeling industry under the provision of the Special Rule, "aircraft being developed as a model aircraft." The rule's strict interpretation of hobby versus business puts in question the activities of the principals and employees of the billion dollar industry that supplies and supports the hobby.
The Public Law states that when model aircraft are, "flown within 5 miles of an airport, the operator of the aircraft (must) provide(s) the airport operator and the airport air traffic control tower (when an air traffic facility is located at the airport) with prior notice of the operation. However the rule indicates that approval of the airport operator is required. Although it is understood that making notification to the airport and/or ATC will open a dialog as to whether the planned activity is safe to proceed, there is no intent in the law that this be a request for permission on the part of the model aircraft pilot.
The Interpretive Rule establishes new restrictions and prohibitions to which model aircraft have never been subject. This is counter to the Public Law which reads, "The Federal Aviation Administration may not promulgate any rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft or an aircraft being developed as a model aircraft,..." if established criteria are met.
The Interpretive Rule attempts to negate the entire Public Law by stating, "Other rules in part 91, or other parts of the regulations, may apply to model aircraft operations, depending on the particular circumstances of the operation. This in and of itself makes model aircraft enthusiasts accountable to the entire litany of regulations found in Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, something that was never intended by Congress and until now never required by the FAA.
How to Respond to the FAA.

All AMA members, family and friends need to take action now to let the FAA know that this rule significantly impacts the entire aeromodeling community and that this community is resolute and committed to protecting the hobby.

There are four methods to submit a comment. Emailing your comment is the fastest and most convenient method. All comments must include the docket number FAA-2014-0396. Tips for submitting your comments.

Email: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for sending your comments electronically.

Mail: Send Comments to Docket Operations, M-30; US Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.

Hand Delivery: Take comments to Docket Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Fax: (202) 493-2251.

DEADLINE TO COMMENT: On or before July 25, 2014
Jul 11, 2014, 08:30 AM
Team Futaba
Silent-AV8R's Avatar
Thread OP
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny Sharp
I agree with the FAA... What's not to agree with?
Well, there's this:

Their interpretation effectively ends all development, testing, and demonstration of RC models in the US. It prohibits flying any model for money/compensation.

It will require that anyone who plans to fly anything within 5 miles of an airport to obtain permission from that airport owner AND any applicable ATC facility (tower) prior to flying

It opens modeling up to regulation at the whim of the FAA to using Part 91 rules for full size. They can apply any section of Part 91 in order to violate you as they see fit.

It effectively ends any possibility of any contest/event where cash or product is given away as prizes.

So if you think it is all about FPV flying with goggles you would be wrong.
Jul 11, 2014, 12:04 PM
turn, turn, turn.
Kenny Sharp's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Silent-AV8R
Well, there's this:

Their interpretation effectively ends all development, testing, and demonstration of RC models in the US. It prohibits flying any model for money/compensation.

It will require that anyone who plans to fly anything within 5 miles of an airport to obtain permission from that airport owner AND any applicable ATC facility (tower) prior to flying

It opens modeling up to regulation at the whim of the FAA to using Part 91 rules for full size. They can apply any section of Part 91 in order to violate you as they see fit.

It effectively ends any possibility of any contest/event where cash or product is given away as prizes.

So if you think it is all about FPV flying with goggles you would be wrong.
nope, it's all about FPV and goggles.
it does not require anyone to ask permission to fly close to an airport... It simply requires that you notify the airport manager, which I had done for years now.

also, prize money does not make it a commercial event... Nor do the noontime demonstrations.

it's simply a bunch of people worrying about government encroachment on their personal rights, which is much ado about nothing.

FPV should have been outlawed from the beginning.
Jul 11, 2014, 12:41 PM
Dean
A10FLYR's Avatar
Kenny, If it was so simple as you say, why would the AMA be so concerned?

(I'm not an FPVer and I don't condone the stupid things they do)
Jul 11, 2014, 12:47 PM
turn, turn, turn.
Kenny Sharp's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by A10FLYR
Kenny, If it was so simple as you say, why would the AMA be so concerned?

(I'm not an FPVer and I don't condone the stupid things they do)
because the AMA represents FPV as well as other model airplane disciplines.
in my opinion, it is the same reason why this site even cares.
Jul 11, 2014, 12:51 PM
MrE
MrE
Registered User
Its very disappointing that so few of us have bothered to even copy/paste the AMA reply to the gov website.
Jul 11, 2014, 12:57 PM
turn, turn, turn.
Kenny Sharp's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrE
Its very disappointing that so few of us have bothered to even copy/paste the AMA reply to the gov website.
I think it is an absurd reply... & I do not agree with it.
Jul 11, 2014, 01:22 PM
Jim C Patrick
jcpatrick's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny Sharp
nope, it's all about FPV and goggles.
it does not require anyone to ask permission to fly close to an airport... It simply requires that you notify the airport manager, which I had done for years now.
Great to hear from someone who hasn't read any of the FAA's intentions or is living in the past.
"If the model aircraft operator provides notice of forthcoming operations which are then not authorized by air traffic or objected to by the airport operator, the FAA expects the model aircraft operator will not conduct the proposed flights. The FAA would consider flying model aircraft over the objections of FAA air traffic or airport operators to be endangering the safety of the NAS." --- FAA Docket No. FAA-2014-0396, 18 June 2014
Note the phrasing, that the FAA would (not 'could', not 'should', not 'may', not 'might') consider model flight to be a safety violation. Standard process is under 49 U.S.C, 46301(a)(1) and (d)(2) and 46301(a)(5), normally assessed a civil penalty of $10,000.

What used to be regular operating procedure to fly near (!) an airport --let the operator/ACT know) is proposed to be totally different, it will be entirely up to the airport operator or control tower if you can fly or not. If they don't want you to fly a 4 ounce micro-flyer 4.99 miles away, you can't do it. Period. That is what the FAA is proposing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny Sharp
. . . also, prize money does not make it a commercial event... Nor do the noontime demonstrations . . .
Again, you obviously haven't read a word of the Docket. The FFA is quite clear that they will consider any exchange of money, such as " Receiving money for demonstrating aerobatics with a model aircraft" to disqualify the operator as operating a model aircraft.
Although they are not commercial operations conducted for compensation or hire, such operations do not qualify as a hobby or recreation flight because of the nexus between the operator’s business and the operation of the aircraft.
If there's a transfer of money or exchange of goods, it becomes 'commercial' in the FAA's proposal. Even the IRS doesn't go that far.
Last edited by jcpatrick; Jul 11, 2014 at 01:29 PM.
Jul 11, 2014, 01:35 PM
turn, turn, turn.
Kenny Sharp's Avatar
it has always been the airport manager's decision after whether we fly at the airport or not... Nothing has changed.
further, what if your proposed new flying site is directly over an approach?... How would you know if you did not talk to the airport manager?

A sponsored pilot has to report income to the IRS...prizes under a certain amount are not covered.

what exactly, seems unreasonable to you?
Jul 11, 2014, 01:47 PM
Registered User
Wow, why I am not surprised?
Latest blog entry: Testing the blog page
Jul 11, 2014, 01:52 PM
turn, turn, turn.
Kenny Sharp's Avatar
if you have any legitimate reasons why you are opposed to this, I am all ears.


Quick Reply
Message:

Thread Tools