Originally Posted by Lomcevak

BASED ON DEEPLY FLAWED ESTIMATES - Models per enthusiast (they say 1.3, reality is easily 10+), life span of the models (many 30-40 year old models are still flying)

FWIW, I contacted the AMA and suggested they survey their members about numbers and costs of their aircraft and then provide that information to the FAA.

Balsa Model Aircraft Builders Association group on FB has some good conversation on the issue going on. I did invite all of them to join us here as well.

This is a long shot, and I had to swallow my pride when doing this, but this might be something that could gain traction with Trump. I emailed the White House saying that the new rule is going to gut one of the greatest American hobbies ever. A hobby that provided inspiration to the American heroes, astronauts, and engineers that make America great.

If Trump could kill the rule, the PR would be quite good for him... and he would be sticking it to his enemy Jeff Bezos at Amazon (who's company is one of the major architects of this rule).

Originally Posted by SimFlightTest

This is a long shot, and I had to swallow my pride when doing this, but this might be something that could gain traction with Trump. I emailed the White House saying that the new rule is going to gut one of the greatest American hobbies ever. A hobby that provided inspiration to the American heroes, astronauts, and engineers that make America great.

If Trump could kill the rule, the PR would be quite good for him... and he would be sticking it to his enemy Jeff Bezos at Amazon (who's company is one of the major architects of this rule).

Sounds great, but I would focus on the fact this will affect the entire industry, not just a hobby. For some, this is their businesses, income and way of life. This stands to affect more than just a favorite past-time.

What if we were to start a change.org or WH petition?

I know some modellers are not willing to fight for the hobby to a great extent but a signature isn't much to ask for. These platforms have gotten issues to national attention many times before.

Originally Posted by SimFlightTest

This is a long shot, and I had to swallow my pride when doing this, but this might be something that could gain traction with Trump. I emailed the White House saying that the new rule is going to gut one of the greatest American hobbies ever. A hobby that provided inspiration to the American heroes, astronauts, and engineers that make America great.

If Trump could kill the rule, the PR would be quite good for him... and he would be sticking it to his enemy Jeff Bezos at Amazon (who's company is one of the major architects of this rule).

I thought blowing up his facbook page and twitter account with tens of thousands of posts about our concerns would likely get his attention. If everyone could leave their opinions about his politics at the door. It fits a narrative that would paint him in a positive light. Focusing on the history of innovation of the hobby along with its spotless saftey record. Talk about how it would affect a billion dollar industry and of the privacy concerns, overreach of a federal agency, etc.....

An awesome example that was just shared with me on the Balsa group on FB right here-

Subscribed, please post the contacts we should sent messages. Hope this can get turned around.

Originally Posted by DMHIGHFLYER

Subscribed, please post the contacts we should sent messages. Hope this can get turned around.

Thank you and will do once we get it all organized to begin.

Originally Posted by PropsnWings

Sounds great, but I would focus on the fact this will affect the entire industry, not just a hobby. For some, this is their businesses, income and way of life. This stands to affect more than just a favorite past-time.

Excellent point

Your local reps can be located by visiting here and using the drop down in the upper left. https://www.senate.gov/index.htm

Originally Posted by kenelder

Folks, I have created a letter I intend to send to my congressmen (and anyone else that might help us). I've attached it as many of you have thoughts/comments that might help me make it better. Please take a look, suggestions welcome!

Ken

Your letter and it's content is a nice start. I will share that with my club's membership at their next meeting and also have it shared with other local clubs in our area.

Dear Lomcevak:

The PIPE Here...after earning my Technician-class Amateur Radio Service license in 1978 as I began my enjoyment of RC flight (upgraded to General Class in 2004), seeing these degrees of FAA interference in the aeromodeling hobby HAS been a sobering experience...the growing UN-likelihood of ever seeing "commercial drones" ever having a chance of flying overhead as their backers had always wanted them to be able to do, partly due to all that toxic cobalt in their lithium energy storage, is simply never going to happen...a more "limited" use of public service sUAS drones for firefighting, disaster relief, and other understandable public service needs is a much more acceptable use of such tech.

In one section of your stated approach to "saving the hobby", I've added some preferable details that COULD be practical re-think proposals to keep things a bit "tamer" as time goes forward...one thing that should be accepted by ALL parties, through, is that the traditional RC hobbyist that only wants to enjoy recreational RC model flight of any type, within line-of-sight at all times, with no form of auto-navigation system being present at any time - no matter whether they completely scratchbuilt their aircraft, built from plans or a kit-of-parts, or a prefabricated ARF/ARC/etc. model design - should NEVER be asked to include a remote ID system of ANY sort IN their model aircraft, with the only possibility of anything being "remotely-ID'ed" is only the location of a club's field itself , and solely with a ground-based remote ID system.

The FCC already HAS dedicated "Industrial/Business" frequencies available that could be used for business-based commercial RC control functions, to keep money-earning RC operations strictly OFF Amateur Radio Service and the FCC's RC Control Service VHF bands on 27 & 72 MHz for airworthy RC models, as well as potentially dodging the use of the Part 15 UHF frequencies at 2.4 GHz (13 cm band).

Here's the "partial re-think" ...since the formatting of this reply of mine is somewhat limited by its existing formatting from the quoted text, I've got to place the conclusion of my reply ABOVE the "partial re-think" text...but where the EAA is ALSO supporting us RC aeromodelers now, it's quite likely that THEY are also not going to tolerate the degree of meddling the FAA seems to be planning for RC aeromdeling in general...so, with "another voice" (the voice of up to some 200k aviators worldwide) the FAA is GOING to have to start listening to full-scale aviators of the EAA variety, besides just the AMA membership; who have been in a fairly little-known "partnership" with the EAA since 2010.

Thanks and Yours Sincerely,
The PIPE....!!

Originally Posted by Lomcevak

A SENSIBLE APPROACH

Create the 3 classes of operation.

A) Remote ID for commercial and operations anywhere not specifically prohibited - THESE would use for actual control needs, by default, the FCC's already-established Industrial/Business frequency bands to KEEP THEM OFF of recreational use of six meter VHF (50 MHz) and 70cm UHF (433 MHz) bands by traditional/recreational RC model aviation enthusiasts possessing Amateur Radio Service licenses (permitted by FCC Part 97.215), which themselves forbid ANY commercial/fiduciary gain purposes in their use, per FCC Part 97.113; and also leaving all FCC Radio Control Service VHF frequencies (Part 95) used only for recreational RC flying (27 & 72 MHz), as well as the Part 15-legal 13cm UHF band for RC modeling of all types (2.4 GHz), which incidentally shares bandwidth on 13 cm (2.39 to 2.45 GHz) WITH the Amateur Radio Service.

B) Limited Remote ID for operations at a lower cost, like recreational with identification of the individual not the UAV

C) FRIA - make the existence of these an ongoing process, back off from the goal of eliminating them - with ONLY, if the situation requires it, a solely GROUND-based "remote ID" for the field location in use by a recognized club (AMA chartered clubs are just one example), not dissimilar to a VOR station for full-scale aircraft. Call them "Class X" airspace and default to a cylinder of 2000'/600m RADIUS determined by location.

[INDENT][LEFT]

Originally Posted by kenelder

Folks, I have created a letter I intend to send to my congressmen (and anyone else that might help us). I've attached it as many of you have thoughts/comments that might help me make it better. Please take a look, suggestions welcome!

Ken

I would suggest referencing not only a hobby, but an entire industry will be affected, negatively.

The OP is soliciting ideas and thoughts on the subject, and in this spirit I offer the following thoughts. I apologize for the length.

1) I have flown (mostly) fixed wing aircraft for the last 10 years, some built (kit or scratch), some ARF, and some purchased. Gas, nitro and electric. I was president of a AMA club that lost its field due to the shortsightedness of a bunch of petty unelected state officers, and now fly at a rural AMA club.
More recently, I got my Part 107 certificate to use drones for my work (I am an oceanographer). In this respect, my point of view considers both sides of the coin.

2) Until yesteryear, class G airspace was the Wild West of the NAS, and for a good reason: aside from scattered military training routes (VR and IR), crop dusters, and us, class G was of no value to anybody. Hence its uncontrolled classification. All in all, the value of all revenue generating activities in class G (directly, or indirectly, e.g. hobby shops, suppliers,...) was probably in the 100s of million of dollars at best, and likely shrinking, given how most mom and pop hobby stores (even large ones) went the way of he Dodo.

3) All of this changed when autopiloted drones became available to commercial operators: In the span of a view years, class G has become the new frontier: of all the sudden, the potential value of activities that need access to class G airspace jumped to 100s of billion dollars. One does not need to be an expert in human history to realize that when the value of any type of resource - be it land, material, minerals, livestock, or, in this case, air - jumps in value, the natives (in this case, modelers), have to move aside, or at the very least adapt. You can call it unfair, evil, immoral, whatever, but we are not going to change the arch of progress.

4) Does that mean that we need to accept the fate of the Dodo? Not so fast. A general tenet of ecology is that when environmental conditions change, species can move, adapt or die (the MAD principle). Clearly, we cannot move, nor we want to die. It remains the option to adapt. So what can we do?

5) It has been proposed to work through our elected representatives. My experience at the state level when we lost our field taught me not to put too much store in that: We got plenty of verbal support from our state representatives, but when it came to show some spine with the state agency that controlled our field, all the politicians talk turned into hot air. At the federal level it is even worse. Regulatory agencies enjoy a wide latitude of autonomy from the legislative branch (google "Chevron doctrine" to learn more about that) but also from the executive branch. I would be surprised if the President (even this president!) has the statutory authority to fire a FAA department head .
Case in point: When Congress a few years ago explicitly removed hobbyist from FAA oversight, the latter promptly asserted its authority in defiance of what Congress wrote into law, by requiring the mandatory registration of drones (yes, I know that eventually a judge struck down the requirement, but we know how that went).
There is some indication that the Supreme Court may be inclined to reconsider the Chevron doctrine, but (a) that will take years at best and (b), it still requires that Congress redevelop some spine. Both options seem unlikely in the not so distant future.

5) In general, to influence an agency the best course of option is to work with the representatives that sit of the committee that controls the string of the purse. So unless you're positive that your representative sits on the Transportation committee, you're likely wasting time and bandwidth.
Moreover, the fact is that 200,000 AMA members seems a lot of number, until we realize that they are divided among 50 states and 435 congressional districts. As a voting block, let's face it, we are inconsequential.

6) From the founding of the republic, lobbying has been the preferred method to influence legislation and regulation. This is where AMA should apply pressure, but bringing forth concrete and reasonable proposals that take into account the changed landscape.

7) Who wants us out? Follow the money: in this case, it is the nascent UAS industry that is salivating over this 21st century version of a gold rush. The well publicized reports of near misses of UAS with commercial airliners provide the perfect cover to demand that the "natives" should be grounded forever, just as the violence of a few native hotheads at the time of the conquest of West provided the excuse for the eviction of natives from the ancestral homelands (for the SJWs out there, I am NOT equating our plight to the plight of the Native American populations, it is just a historical analogy). So going around screaming that we never had a midair collision with a passenger-carrying aircraft is useless, because the threat does not come from either commercial or general aviation. Even if some law of physics prevented out planes to soar into class E or above, the UAS industry would still want us out of class G.


8) In view of this, the lobbying effort of the AMA should be focused on carving out physical spaces (call them reservations if you wish, or zoos, whatever) within class G where we continue to practice our hobby as we did in the past.
The idea of FRIAs is a good one, but we need to work with the FAA to expand the size (400' bubble is obviously too small) to a reasonable value, to make sure that FRIAs can be established in the future, and remove the requirement that even in a FRIAs models have to carry equipment to geofence themselves in. The FAA should understand that for us, the best geofencing mechanism in the case of a runaway model is gravity!

On the contrary, commercial UAS should be geofenced OUT of FRIAs, with the provision that should the need arise for a commercial UAS to enter a FRIA, permission should be sought in advance. The appropriate committee of the FAA that will finalize the draft should be made aware that the amount of airspace that we are asking is a tiny fraction of class G, and there there is already a precedent for that in the form of military training routes, which in fact occupy a much larger fraction of class G. FRIAs should be indicated on Sectional Charts, just as all other sorts of obstacles, obstructions, airways etc. are.
In fact, FRIAs may be treated as any other obstacle out there, allowing commercial UAS to fly over them, just as they are allowed to fly 400' ABOVE towers...

9) AMA and you (if you happen to know a committee member of the Transportation committee) should make an effort to educate the appropriate FAA personnel/ committee member of what the traditional ways are, and that this represents a reasonable compromise which would amount to a neglible restriction for the commercial UAS side.

10) Of course, things will change, and that most likely means that you may not be able to go to your farm, mow a runway and fly your large gasser without Remote ID and what not. I am afraid the cat is out of the bag, and there is no amount of keyboard rattling that will bring it back. What we can hope is to carve out a space where we can continue enjoying the hobby without burdensome regulations.

Feel free to comment on this post, use it when writing comments to the FAA and so forth.

Originally Posted by Krinaman

FWIW, I contacted the AMA and suggested they survey their members about numbers and costs of their aircraft and then provide that information to the FAA.

This is a good point. I also reached out to th e AMA and suggested they poll the membership about how many models they have. Even though $5 per plane isn't a big burden it is just one more pain to deal with for flyers on top of their AMA membership, local club membership, and additional grief we will have to endure in the upcoming tests we will be subjected to. This all coupled with the cost of the hobby itself will make it to difficult for some retired members.

You would think that the AMA would be more engaging with it's membership in trying to rally the troops to challenge these actions.