US Aircraft Registrations, AMA Update

[Bartman]

Dear members,

I'm writing to provide you with an update on the U.S. Department of Transportation's UAS registration task force. As you may be aware, the task force met for several days last week and AMA's Rich Hanson represented our members' interests in all of the discussions.

We're limited in how much we can divulge about these meetings because all task force members agreed to a set of ground rules. These rules prohibit us from publicly discussing any details of the task force's internal deliberations. With that said, there has been some misinformation, as well as some inaccuracies surrounding this issue, so we want to provide you, our members, with as much information as we can while still respecting the integrity of the process.

During the task force meetings, AMA strongly argued for our members to be exempt from federal registration, as Congress intended with the Special Rule for Model Aircraft in the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012. This special rule states that the FAA does not have the authority to promulgate any new rules on recreational users operating under the safety guidelines of a community-based organization such as AMA.

AMA members have been flying safely for decades, and we made it clear that our members are not the problem. With our stellar safety record, AMA can be part of the solution, but our members shouldn't have to bear the burden of new regulations. Meanwhile, as our members know, AMA already has in place its own voluntary registration system.

For the new legions of consumer drone users who are not AMA members, we do think that registration makes sense at some level when UAS technology meets an appropriate threshold of weight, capability and other safety-related characteristics.

The task force's detailed recommendations to the FAA are scheduled to become public on Friday, November 20. AMA intends to make our views explicitly clear in these final recommendations and we will continue to advocate for our members to be exempt from registration if the final recommendations state otherwise. And once this information is made public, we will also be able to more openly and publicly address the registration proposal.

In the meantime, we encourage our members to submit comments on the FAA's registration proposal through the regulations.gov portal. Although comments were due by November 6, the docket remains open and the U.S. Department of Transportation has indicated that it will consider all comments received. To submit a comment, click here: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2015-4378-0022.

We thank you for your continued support of AMA and look forward to working alongside you on these important issues.

Kind regards,

Dave Mathewson
Executive Director

 

[Old Man]

Does anyone else find it strange that discussions that will determine the who and how our trade will be allowed to operate are being held in secret with a government that is Constitutionally required to be representative of the People? This secrecy agreement goes all the way back to the original ARC committee. I can assure all that what is being discussed in these meetings is not being kept secret from the corporate management that have people representing them.

 

[Area21]

Dear members,

I'm writing to provide you with an update on the U.S. Department of Transportation's UAS registration task force. As you may be aware, the task force met for several days last week and AMA's Rich Hanson represented our members' interests in all of the discussions.

We're limited in how much we can divulge about these meetings because all task force members agreed to a set of ground rules. These rules prohibit us from publicly discussing any details of the task force's internal deliberations. With that said, there has been some misinformation, as well as some inaccuracies surrounding this issue, so we want to provide you, our members, with as much information as we can while still respecting the integrity of the process.

During the task force meetings, AMA strongly argued for our members to be exempt from federal registration, as Congress intended with the Special Rule for Model Aircraft in the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012. This special rule states that the FAA does not have the authority to promulgate any new rules on recreational users operating under the safety guidelines of a community-based organization such as AMA.

AMA members have been flying safely for decades, and we made it clear that our members are not the problem. With our stellar safety record, AMA can be part of the solution, but our members shouldn't have to bear the burden of new regulations. Meanwhile, as our members know, AMA already has in place its own voluntary registration system.

For the new legions of consumer drone users who are not AMA members, we do think that registration makes sense at some level when UAS technology meets an appropriate threshold of weight, capability and other safety-related characteristics.

The task force's detailed recommendations to the FAA are scheduled to become public on Friday, November 20. AMA intends to make our views explicitly clear in these final recommendations and we will continue to advocate for our members to be exempt from registration if the final recommendations state otherwise. And once this information is made public, we will also be able to more openly and publicly address the registration proposal.

In the meantime, we encourage our members to submit comments on the FAA's registration proposal through the regulations.gov portal. Although comments were due by November 6, the docket remains open and the U.S. Department of Transportation has indicated that it will consider all comments received. To submit a comment, click here: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2015-4378-0022.

We thank you for your continued support of AMA and look forward to working alongside you on these important issues.

Kind regards,

Dave Mathewson
Executive Director

In the uk we have someone similar. BMFA British model flying association and CAA civil aviation authority. Both work together and have done so for decades to control our air space so that is safe. To be insured to fly SUAS small unmanned aerial systems or Drones as they are known. You can and should have insurance. With the BMFA it's about £32 but you must fly within the BMFA,s defined policy and fly for fun. Like wise if you fly for commercial gain so you are earning payment. Then you have to hold a CAA permission for aerial work certificate. These uk courses cost about £1700 and once Certified then you can get insurance. Again you have to fly to the CAA pfaw regulations etc. Personally I think this works. Just hope the BMFA and CAA keep working together and our Govenment does not step in for political gain and mess it all up.

 

[Old Man]

On our side of the pond I'm afraid your concerns about political-financial gain have already been breeched.

 

[Area21]

On our side of the pond I'm afraid your concerns about political-financial gain have already been breeched.

Love them or hate them they should stand aside and let professionals who understand what is required do what they are good at. Keep politics out.

 

[violetwolf]

In the uk we have someone similar. BMFA British model flying association and CAA civil aviation authority. Both work together and have done so for decades to control our air space so that is safe. To be insured to fly SUAS small unmanned aerial systems or Drones as they are known. You can and should have insurance. With the BMFA it's about £32 but you must fly within the BMFA,s defined policy and fly for fun. Like wise if you fly for commercial gain so you are earning payment. Then you have to hold a CAA permission for aerial work certificate. These uk courses cost about £1700 and once Certified then you can get insurance. Again you have to fly to the CAA pfaw regulations etc. Personally I think this works. Just hope the BMFA and CAA keep working together and our Govenment does not step in for political gain and mess it all up.

This seems like a civilized and sensible solution!

 

[Area21]

And forgot to mention. The BMFA have recently introduced a different insurance scheme called D, D and D activity which is as extension to current membership and is for pilots that want to take Ariel photos / video but not for Commercial Work and is £75 per year.

The new definition covers a wide range of activity that falls outside of the Sport and Recreation definition, but does not trigger the requirements for Aerial work (for example, because no payment is made for flights). The membership extension includes broad insurance coverage for D, D and D activity, and if you are undertaking flights where the purpose is clearly other than Sport and Recreation but not Aerial Work, then you may be able to benefit from the cover provided under the membership extension.

The long term aim is that the definition will feature in CAP 658, and the CAA have confirmed their support for the move, however, the legal wheels turn relatively slowly so it may take a while for the wording to appear in the relevant document.

https://bmfa.org/Insurance/Data-Development-Demonstration-Insurance

Adrian.

 

[Old Man]

At this point in time U.S. insurers have not begun to embrace coverage of commercial multirotor operations. Perhaps that's due to a lack of underwriter understanding of the product and review of risk assessments. The selection of insurers here is very limited. Since the AOPA has seen it fitting to become involved the the process of multirotor registration perhaps they will also see fit to promote hull and liability insurance for multirotor operators. The previous sentence was pure sarcasm, the AOPA despises sUAS and any involvement they provide will not end up a positive for us.

 

[Area21]

At this point in time U.S. insurers have not begun to embrace coverage of commercial multirotor operations. Perhaps that's due to a lack of underwriter understanding of the product and review of risk assessments. The selection of insurers here is very limited. Since the AOPA has seen it fitting to become involved the the process of multirotor registration perhaps they will also see fit to promote hull and liability insurance for multirotor operators. The previous sentence was pure sarcasm, the AOPA despises sUAS and any involvement they provide will not end up a positive for us.

Probably what is needed across the globe is to show through social media all the Positive Benefits and Future Ventures that will Help the Many through drone technology and to overpower the minority who are Irresponsible showing to the world on social media their Damming Videos which politicians then use for their personal and political gain. To remain quiet and out of sight in the stage wings is not an option I feel.

 

[Old Man]

Interesting you mention that because that's exactly what the major aerospace players are doing with their equipment. They are using extremely positive press releases that are well written and clearly illustrate why their wares will have a positive impact on the lives of the general public. They are spending big money to assure minimal resistance to the introduction of their products into the NAS. Very organized, professional in presentation, and well planned.

 

[Oceans Eleven]

@Old Man Well yeah. What's the Marketing/PR budget of your "typical" aerospace firm (10's of millions) versus the most influential (AMA?) RC/sUAV group (a few thousand measly $)??

 

[Old Man]

Agreed, and this is something Mad Monkey referenced in a post elsewhere in this forum. Aerospace is using every available means of disseminating information about their products possible, all the way down to articles written for Linkedin. The recent press release for MR launching and recovering a winged UAV was published in news stories around the world, as was the BNSF railway inspection efforts. They are making it plain they are setting the standards that all others will have to function under. Hobby and cinema video MR advertising is limited to just those that actively participate in those areas, leaving further media reporting reserved for what is mostly bad press regarding our wares. It's imperative that we come together in a manner that promotes who and what we are if we want to survive and flourish at business costs we can afford to work with. Amateur or pro is not a distinction for separation since all will be bound in some way by standards established by the high rolling players.

 

[Area21]

News Flash from the Uk.
On our 6pm BBC new today reference was made about the US introducing registrations for SUAS / Drones and indicated UK officials were looking at the what the US are doing and may well consider adopting the same regulations.

 

[Old Man]

Oh lucky you... Then again, perhaps your people will act with the same level of agility ours do.

 

[Bartman]

i just go home from a trip and haven't seen anything about registrations....did they miss the Nov 20 deadline they had set for themselves?

 

[Old Man]

Apparently