In response to watching the DAC meeting yesterday, I called the AMA today and spoke with the government relations office.

I implored them to ask their membership to ask the right questions.

This to force the FAA and our representatives to justify the new regulations and legislation.

And those questions are:

Why is model aviation now a threat to the National Airspace System?

Where is the threat assessment and safety case that justifies why model aviation is now a threat to the National Airspace System?

Show us the data!

Why is "see and avoid" good enough for manned aviation but no longer good enough for model aviation?

Why was the special provision for model aviation removed from the new legislation?

Why are model aviators now being disenfranchised with limited airspace access?

Show us the justification!

And finally, What problem are we really trying solve?

I also pointed out the two most troublesome aspects noted at the Drone Advisory Committee (DAC) readout on 10/17/2019.

1) airspace deconfliction to the surface which is code language for ATC to the surface. I noted that the "technologists", left to their own devices, will work diligently to devise a system making model aviation all but impossible.

2) airspace ownership from 0 to 200 ft. I pointed out that new legislation has been introduced to transfer airspace control from the FAA to land owners and municipalities. If that happens, aviation modellers would never be able to reach a 400 ft ceiling because we would potentially not be allowed to fly from the surface to reach flyable airspace between 200 ft and 400 ft.

I implored them to step up efforts and keep asking the right questions such that the new legislation and regulations cannot be defended and it all falls apart without rational and defensible justification.

I also implored them that their member outreach needs to focus on the right questions and not just emotionalism and sentimentality. In the halls of power, emotional language and sentimentality get one nowhere when powerful forces are fighting to disenfranchise activities that limit commerce.

I would encourage all on this board to reach out similarly to the AMA.

Let them know directly what you think and why to help them do their jobs better.

Also, reach out to your elected representatives and ask them the preceding questions.

Don't take no for an answer and do not accept a form letter reply.

Demand data and justification.

GG

The AMA is not doing a good job at least from what I saw on the live stream DAC meeting. I would have liked to see more positive talk about UAS flown by hobbyist. Rich Hanson didn't say a word at one point he was sleeping. The rep from DJI was the only one defending hobbyist, and one other person debunked the drone reports as possible plastic bags, and birds.

Originally Posted by kell490

The AMA is not doing a good job at least from what I saw on the live stream DAC meeting. I would have liked to see more positive talk about UAS flown by hobbyist. Rich Hanson didn't say a word at one point he was sleeping. The rep from DJI was the only one defending hobbyist, and one other person debunked the drone reports as possible plastic bags, and birds.

It is good to see a company like DJI offering their support.

Originally Posted by gliderglider

I also pointed out the two most troublesome aspects noted at the Drone Advisory Committee (DAC) readout on 10/17/2019.

...

2) airspace ownership from 0 to 200 ft. I pointed out that new legislation has been introduced to transfer airspace control from the FAA to land owners and municipalities. If that happens, aviation modellers would never be able to reach a 400 ft ceiling because we would potentially not be allowed to fly from the surface to reach flyable airspace between 200 ft and 400 ft.

I don't know, this change may help rc aviation more than hurt. How often are you flying below 200' where someone doesn't want you over their property? Not often I would think. And the change might make it easier to fly in some controlled airspace, staying far from full-scale traffic obviously.

Think about it, wouldn't it entirely lift all the FAA regulation burden off people who are content to stay low? How is that bad for modelling?

As far as the kind of flying I like to do-- sometimes I find a spot along a rural road to park and fly my rc glider over a farm field, limiting my trespass to a few steps into the field to pick up the glider after landing, or landing on the road if conditions require it-- I guess this would make it easier for someone to run me off-- but I'd be wanting to leave anyway if someone didn't want me flying low over their property--

I don't know, I haven't thought it through all the way but it's not obvious to me that taking control of the lowermost airspace out of the hands of the FAA would be a bad thing.

The downside might be more power in the hands of local law enforcement, which is who we are most likely to encounter on a day-to-day basis--

Let's say you are flying at a local club field and you don't have all the requirements fulfilled that the FAA is going to impose-- knowledge test etc. Isn't the FAA less likely to send someone out to hassle you if they know their case evaporates if you can plausibly say you were staying below 200'?

Just some food for thought.

This conversation should probably have its own thread.

Steve

Originally Posted by aeronaut999

Think about it, wouldn't it entirely lift all the FAA regulation burden off people who are content to stay low? How is that bad for modelling?

Because that gives it to the states and municipalities, who are not only just as hostile to model aircraft, but have more resources to enforce it. New Jersey would probably ban it entirely.

Originally Posted by kell490

The AMA is not doing a good job at least from what I saw on the live stream DAC meeting. I would have liked to see more positive talk about UAS flown by hobbyist. Rich Hanson didn't say a word at one point he was sleeping. The rep from DJI was the only one defending hobbyist, and one other person debunked the drone reports as possible plastic bags, and birds.

Hanson doesn't care about the hobbyist.If he had his way the only people flying would be AMA members at AMA fields.

Originally Posted by Fourtech

Hanson doesn't care about the hobbyist.If he had his way the only people flying would be AMA members at AMA fields.

Nah, he’d be okay with flying anywhere safe and permitted as long as the flyer was a member.

Originally Posted by kell490

The AMA is not doing a good job at least from what I saw on the live stream DAC meeting. I would have liked to see more positive talk about UAS flown by hobbyist. Rich Hanson didn't say a word at one point he was sleeping. The rep from DJI was the only one defending hobbyist, and one other person debunked the drone reports as possible plastic bags, and birds.

Once again the AMA shows just how weak they are. Very Sad. I wish every paying AMA member could see our organization in action.

Mike

Originally Posted by aeronaut999

I don't know, this change may help rc aviation more than hurt. How often are you flying below 200' where someone doesn't want you over their property? Not often I would think. And the change might make it easier to fly in some controlled airspace, staying far from full-scale traffic obviously.

Think about it, wouldn't it entirely lift all the FAA regulation burden off people who are content to stay low? How is that bad for modelling?

As far as the kind of flying I like to do-- sometimes I find a spot along a rural road to park and fly my rc glider over a farm field, limiting my trespass to a few steps into the field to pick up the glider after landing, or landing on the road if conditions require it-- I guess this would make it easier for someone to run me off-- but I'd be wanting to leave anyway if someone didn't want me flying low over their property--

I don't know, I haven't thought it through all the way but it's not obvious to me that taking control of the lowermost airspace out of the hands of the FAA would be a bad thing.

The downside might be more power in the hands of local law enforcement, which is who we are most likely to encounter on a day-to-day basis--

Let's say you are flying at a local club field and you don't have all the requirements fulfilled that the FAA is going to impose-- knowledge test etc. Isn't the FAA less likely to send someone out to hassle you if they know their case evaporates if you can plausibly say you were staying below 200'?

Just some food for thought.

This conversation should probably have its own thread.

Steve

0-200 is probably to accommodate farming who wish to replace the crop duster with drone spraying. All they talk about is the commercial side of UAS not hobbyist.

Originally Posted by mike2663

Once again the AMA shows just how weak they are. Very Sad. I wish every paying AMA member could see our organization in action.



Mike

The AMA President sleeping in a major policy meet ... in full view of the other stakeholders. What a metaphor for the organization.

And AMA wonders why nobody takes them seriously.

Originally Posted by franklin_m

The AMA President sleeping in a major policy meet ... in full view of the other stakeholders. What a metaphor for the organization.

And AMA wonders why nobody takes them seriously.

The remote ID was putting Rich to sleep maybe that guy talking just has a voice puts him to sleep. LOL

https://youtu.be/8viJ8_TSDTQ?t=3180

It seems that Hanson is permanently asleep....at the wheel.
The question is, if we elect a new president , will he be any better? He certainly can't be much worse.

Originally Posted by jollyroger

It seems that Hanson is permanently asleep....at the wheel.
The question is, if we elect a new president , will he be any better? He certainly can't be much worse.

Be careful, from what I've seen they'll take that as a challenge......................................... .......................................

Mike

What a better way to catch a few Zs than to watch the government in action.

Originally Posted by jollyroger

What a better way to catch a few Zs than to watch the government in action.

LOL

Mike