ALPA and FAA want public comments. - RC Groups
Thread Tools
Nov 29, 2017, 06:39 PM
Mongo like wind. Wind Good.
V1VrV2's Avatar
Discussion

ALPA and FAA want public comments.


The Airline Pilots Association is deeply concerned with UAS collision potential in the airspace infrastructure. If you fly line of sight and away from densly populated events and areas this is nothing beyond common sense. They are still lobbying for FULL REGULATION on ANY R/C aircraft operators, Hobbyist or commercial...IT does not matter. On the surface it looks quite sensible but overall it is a over reaction with government blanket policy. A clear message needs to be sent that YES we want to be safe but we (the hobbyists) do not want government regulation and certification!

If you have EVER been a passenger on a commercial flight you might just start thinking about the possibility of some idiot or criminal flying his drone on the final approach corridor to your departure or destination airport? Puts this sort of thinking into perspective. That is what they (ALPA) are lobbying against and it makes sense until the government needing to certify all of us begins to be talked about. What do you tell your kid when he wants to get into RC planes because he wants to be an astronaut someday that "Oh, geezzz... Sorry but the government wants us to take a test and put identification on our 2 pound foamy we paid $100 for" Just what dad wants to get into... having to study for and take "drone/UAS" safety courses with both practical and written tests followed by government certification and licensing followed by "recurrent flight reviews" by a certificated FAA exam station. Lets not forget that you will also have to tag your "drone/foamy" with a miniaturized ADS transmitter as well. I think they will just steer their kids the other way. I would...

Commercial operators or those operating "HEAVY" equipment need to be regulated and certified. For the rest of us (yes, those idiots with more money than brains too...) The LAWS need to cover any deviant behavior accordingly. Thats what that system is for and it works for society for the "everything else"
category of legal offenses.

Here is the very latest statement issued by ALPA regarding this topic.

November 29, 2017

ALPA Highlights FAA Study Underscoring Danger from Unsafe UAS

Congress Must Protect the Traveling Public by Allowing FAA to Regulate Hobby Drones

WASHINGTON––Capt. Tim Canoll, president of the Air Line Pilots Association, Int’l (ALPA), issued the following statement regarding this week’s findings from a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) directed study that unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) may damage aircraft more than bird strikes during collisions.

“The dangers from UAS that are operated unsafely in the national airspace are real—as we’ve seen in two recent UAS midair collisions. The findings released this week in a Federal Aviation Administration sponsored study, combined with previous data showing that near misses between UAS and manned aircraft are occurring more often, provide compelling evidence that we need to act before tragedy strikes.

“In 2012, Congress told the FAA it could not create or put into effect any new safety regulations for unmanned aircraft that are operated as models or as a hobby. Congress must change this law and allow the FAA to apply safety rules to all types of UAS operations. Policy and regulations must require operators to understand how to fly UAS safely. Individuals who fly UAS for recreation must be required to keep the aircraft within sight, so they know where it is located and where it is heading. In addition, authorities must possess the tools to identify and track UAS operators who don’t conform to the rules so that authorities can protect air travelers and shippers.

“The safety threat reinforced by this week’s FAA-sponsored study further demonstrates the need to allow public comment on all UAS Integration Pilot Program proposals. In addition, Congress must allow the FAA to apply proven safety regulations to hobbyists and help prevent future UAS-aircraft collisions that could hold dire consequences for the traveling and shipping public.”
Sign up now
to remove ads between posts
Nov 29, 2017, 08:37 PM
Registered User
“The safety threat reinforced by this week’s FAA-sponsored study further demonstrates the need to allow public comment on all UAS Integration Pilot Program proposals. In addition, Congress must allow the FAA to apply proven safety regulations to hobbyists and help prevent future UAS-aircraft collisions that could hold dire consequences for the traveling and shipping public.”]

What "proven safety regulations" are they talking about? Think they are talking about full scale aircraft regulations? They would not be "proven" at model scale.
Nov 30, 2017, 05:44 AM
Registered User
atreis's Avatar
Despite the statement for public comment, I really didn't gather from that an actual desire for public comment.
Nov 30, 2017, 11:10 AM
Multirotors are models too!
Quote:
Originally Posted by atreis
Despite the statement for public comment, I really didn't gather from that an actual desire for public comment.
the "public comment period" is just lip service. Minds are already made up.
Nov 30, 2017, 02:13 PM
Commander, U.S. Navy (Ret.)
franklin_m's Avatar
I'm not worried. AMA has been telling us for years about all their "influence" in Washington. I'm sure AMA holds much more sway over lawmakers than ALPA does.
Dec 01, 2017, 06:42 AM
Registered User
Quote:
Originally Posted by franklin_m
I'm not worried. AMA has been telling us for years about all their "influence" in Washington. I'm sure AMA holds much more sway over lawmakers than ALPA does.
AMA probably thinks ALPA is a dog food company (ALPO).
Dec 01, 2017, 09:41 AM
Commander, U.S. Navy (Ret.)
franklin_m's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by KMK001
AMA probably thinks ALPA is a dog food company (ALPO).


That was funny.
Dec 01, 2017, 10:24 PM
Registered User
Quote:
Originally Posted by KMK001
AMA probably thinks ALPA is a dog food company (ALPO).
Some of our members have been known to refer to the union by that name.

They have way more pull on Capital Hill than the AMA does, however. They've been doing such since their inception in 1931. AMA should take some lessons.

RStrowe
Dec 02, 2017, 09:03 AM
Commander, U.S. Navy (Ret.)
franklin_m's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by RStrowe
Some of our members have been known to refer to the union by that name.

They have way more pull on Capital Hill than the AMA does, however. They've been doing such since their inception in 1931. AMA should take some lessons.

RStrowe
One of AMA's major problems is that they're calling for enforcement, but they won't even enforce their own rules, let alone FAA, FCC, or other rules. AMA has gone on record saying they won't enforce registration. I can only wonder how much credibility that "earns" with legislators and regulators. Additionally, they won't enforce FCC rules, in that they don't even require proof of amateur license to operate 5.8GHz FPV equipment on AMA grounds (See note 1). I can only imagine how much credibility that "earns" as well. All this does is demonstrate that at some level, AMA is part of the problem.

If the AMA wants to sit at the big kids table, they need to be seen as an honest broker. Not enforcing your own rules, let alone government rules is critical to being viewed as part of the solution and not part of the problem.

Note 1: AMA wrote an article trumpeting their FPV race at Muncie. They mentioned several names. I checked the FCC license database and didn't find the names. So unless they were all using FCC Part 15 equipment, then they were operating illegally on AMA property. AMA knows or should know and yet they do nothing.
Dec 02, 2017, 11:21 AM
Registered User
atreis's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by RStrowe
Some of our members have been known to refer to the union by that name.

They have way more pull on Capital Hill than the AMA does, however. They've been doing such since their inception in 1931. AMA should take some lessons.

RStrowe
They SHOULD have more pull on Capital Hill than the AMA does. Model Aviation is, after all, a hobby. That's not to say that AMA shouldn't have any influence - they should - but one needs to keep some perspective on this.
Dec 02, 2017, 02:57 PM
Commander, U.S. Navy (Ret.)
franklin_m's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by atreis
They SHOULD have more pull on Capital Hill than the AMA does. Model Aviation is, after all, a hobby. That's not to say that AMA shouldn't have any influence - they should - but one needs to keep some perspective on this.
AMA doesn't have as much influence as they want because their true motivations are abundantly clear. Congress can see that, as it's something they live every day, namely "form follows funding." Why do you think Budreau is trying to make people believe that if you want to fly under 336, you have to be a member? The attached chart is why. AMA's membership revenue, in constant year inflation adjusted dollars, has been consistently falling for a decade. What better way to reverse that trend than to try and get language in law that AMA can use to imply that membership is required. And low and behold that's what AMA is doing.

Fortunately, neither Budreau nor AMA enforces federal law. In this case, the FAA does. And the FAA gave me a direct answer to the question of membership and compliance with section 336:
Me to FAA
"Yes or no, does the FAA interpret PL112-95 Section 336 paragraph (a)(2), 'the aircraft is operated in accordance with a community-based set of safety guidelines and within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization;' to mean that to be considered a "model aircraft" under the law the operator must be a member of a community-based organization?"

FAA Response
"The FAA does not interpret PL 112-95 Section 336 (a) (2) as requiring membership in a CBO...You must only follow the guidelines of a CBO."
Again, look at the membership revenue chart attached. The data comes directly from AMA's IRS990's (public document). That answers a lot of the "why" behind what they do and say.
Dec 02, 2017, 03:07 PM
Registered User
Quote:
Originally Posted by franklin_m
One of AMA's major problems is that they're calling for enforcement, but they won't even enforce their own rules, let alone FAA, FCC, or other rules. AMA has gone on record saying they won't enforce registration. I can only wonder how much credibility that "earns" with legislators and regulators. Additionally, they won't enforce FCC rules, in that they don't even require proof of amateur license to operate 5.8GHz FPV equipment on AMA grounds (See note 1). I can only imagine how much credibility that "earns" as well. All this does is demonstrate that at some level, AMA is part of the problem.

If the AMA wants to sit at the big kids table, they need to be seen as an honest broker. Not enforcing your own rules, let alone government rules is critical to being viewed as part of the solution and not part of the problem.

Note 1: AMA wrote an article trumpeting their FPV race at Muncie. They mentioned several names. I checked the FCC license database and didn't find the names. So unless they were all using FCC Part 15 equipment, then they were operating illegally on AMA property. AMA knows or should know and yet they do nothing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by atreis
They SHOULD have more pull on Capital Hill than the AMA does. Model Aviation is, after all, a hobby. That's not to say that AMA shouldn't have any influence - they should - but one needs to keep some perspective on this.
I don’t disagree with either of you. It’s unfortunate that the AMA believes they have more influence than they do. I’ve advised friends in the hobby for years that it’s not if but when the FAA gets involved, and that it won’t be pretty to the majority of R/C’ers.

RStrowe
Dec 02, 2017, 03:14 PM
Commander, U.S. Navy (Ret.)
franklin_m's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by RStrowe
I don’t disagree with either of you. It’s unfortunate that the AMA believes they have more influence than they do. I’ve advised friends in the hobby for years that it’s not if but when the FAA gets involved, and that it won’t be pretty to the majority of R/C’ers.

RStrowe
I maintain that when MRs appeared on the scene, AMA could see only dollar signs (for the reason in the attached graph). What they failed to realize was that this was a fundamentally different technology, one that would not be easily confined to their traditional business model - the club field. But AMA chose to chase the bucks and embraced them. In doing so, they forever tied the future of the hobby to the level of compliance by a much larger number of "rogue" MR operators.

And in doing so, all but guaranteed the outcome you predicted: it's not "IF" the FAA gets involved, but just a matter of "WHEN."
Dec 04, 2017, 09:37 AM
Registered User
Quote:
Originally Posted by franklin_m
.................................................. .................................................. ..................
And in doing so, all but guaranteed the outcome you predicted: it's not "IF" the FAA gets involved, but just a matter of "WHEN."
I think quite a few have said as much numerous times over the last few years. Sort of an "I told you so" moment for a lot of us.
Dec 13, 2017, 08:34 PM
Mongo like wind. Wind Good.
V1VrV2's Avatar

New Act Signed Into Law by THE DONALD


ALPA Applauds Restoration of UAS Registration in 2018 Defense Bill
WASHINGTON, D.C.—The Air Line Pilots Association, Int’l (ALPA) issued the following statement today after President Donald J. Trump formally signed the National Defense Authorization Act for 2018 (NDAA) into law:

“ALPA applauds Congress and the president for restoring the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) ability to require that owners and operators of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) register their vehicles. This is an important tool that helps ensure that UAS are flown safely in skies they share with airliners carrying passengers and cargo.

“ALPA has been a strong advocate for UAS operator registration to help law enforcement authorities ensure compliance with regulations and enable the FAA to educate individuals who may be new to aviation about the responsibility that comes with flying a UAS in shared airspace.

“Before the U.S. Court of Appeals overturned the FAA’s successful registration process earlier this year, over 800,000 operators had registered their devices. Maintaining safety must stand as the first priority as we integrate UAS into shared airspace. ALPA looks forward to working with the FAA and industry on evolving this process even further to a point-of-sale registration requirement, which would make certain that UAS owners and operators are aware of the rules and responsibility involved with the aircraft they purchase.”


Hmmmmm....

So if I buy it NOW...


Quick Reply
Message:

Thread Tools

Similar Threads
Category Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Discussion NJ Prof. Claims 'Public Lynching' After Being Suspended for Comments on 'Tucker... rockyboy2 Life, The Universe, and Politics 12 Jun 22, 2017 11:28 AM
Alert How to submit public comment on Registration IFR hornet_dave Model Aircraft & Drone Advocacy 6 Dec 24, 2015 05:22 PM
Discussion FAA seeks public comment on planned "Drone" registration legislation rocketsled666 Model Aircraft & Drone Advocacy 36 Dec 22, 2015 12:05 AM
Discussion AUVSI is meeting With FAA & want your comments small_rcer UAV - Unmanned Aerial Vehicles 31 Jan 16, 2010 10:27 AM