FAA Cancels Model Aircraft Standards Of Operations
- Thread starter FlyGirl
- Start date
FlyGirl
Member
This is interesting too.... It basically says it was cancelled because the new interpretation of the 2012 law supercedes the cancelled Standards. It mentions that a new AC is under development.
http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/Cancellation_Memo_AC_91-57.pdf
http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/Cancellation_Memo_AC_91-57.pdf
FlyGirl
Member
Maybe a different slant? http://motherboard.vice.com/read/th...the-1981-document-that-legalized-hobby-drones
".....the memo notes that a "new advisory circular is under development," which suggests that, rather than putting out a notice for public comment and standard rulemaking, as the agency was ordered to do by Congress, it's thinking about putting out yet another document that's not legally binding."
".....the memo notes that a "new advisory circular is under development," which suggests that, rather than putting out a notice for public comment and standard rulemaking, as the agency was ordered to do by Congress, it's thinking about putting out yet another document that's not legally binding."
Av8Chuck
Member
The FAA was ordered to do this in the Pirker decision. The FAA lost the Pirker case with "Prejudice" which means that they could not refile the same action. Which in all likelihood is the reason they have not been able to appeal the decision.
The FAA claimed that because they were going to appeal this decision the regulations reverted to those before the case was lost, however the judge made it very clear that the FAA did not have jurisdiction over the use of model aircraft for civil, commercial or any other use. So the FAA was forced to remove the "Operational Guidelines" that had been in place since the mid 80's.
After the FAA lost that case they appeared to try to circumnavigate the federal ruling by issuing an opinion regarding the definition of "model aircraft" in the H.R 658 - 2012 Modernization Act. That has not worked either, they had to extend the comment period and I seriously doubt the extension had anything to do with a request from the AMA.
I know online we don't really know one another, however, we certainly share a common interest in flying sUAS, but it can still be difficult to trust each other. I want to caution everyone in this debate, if you think FAA officials aren't reading this, think again. Also, don't panic, it takes a lot of bureaucratic paperwork and positioning to get such a large organization to act when all around them is changing so fast so a lot of this started months ago -- the sky isn't falling and this is not some covert conspiracy.
If you want to look for the cause for this mess look no further than Congress. Politicians might talk like they want to get this resolved quickly but anyone familiar with the Government RFP process should realize that H.R.658 is written in such a way so that the large contractors on the "Rules" committee are the only ones who can possibly comply with the pending regulations. They want to be the hero for their lobbyists at the expense of the FAA and the sUAS community.
The FAA are not the bad guys BUT that does not mean that they are in a position to protect our right to operate commercially in this market. We are the only people with the vested interest to do something about this and about the only thing we can do is organize in a way that we can gain a large enough membership that we can leverage to become part of the regulatory process.
This is a non issue. With the exception of flight corridors for IFR landings and takeoffs the NAS system starts at 500ft AGL if we stay at 400ft AGL and below then we don't need transponders, emergency beacons or radios. We don't need to see and avoid any air traffic that isn't supposed to be there. But look out for that tree!
The FAA claimed that because they were going to appeal this decision the regulations reverted to those before the case was lost, however the judge made it very clear that the FAA did not have jurisdiction over the use of model aircraft for civil, commercial or any other use. So the FAA was forced to remove the "Operational Guidelines" that had been in place since the mid 80's.
After the FAA lost that case they appeared to try to circumnavigate the federal ruling by issuing an opinion regarding the definition of "model aircraft" in the H.R 658 - 2012 Modernization Act. That has not worked either, they had to extend the comment period and I seriously doubt the extension had anything to do with a request from the AMA.
I know online we don't really know one another, however, we certainly share a common interest in flying sUAS, but it can still be difficult to trust each other. I want to caution everyone in this debate, if you think FAA officials aren't reading this, think again. Also, don't panic, it takes a lot of bureaucratic paperwork and positioning to get such a large organization to act when all around them is changing so fast so a lot of this started months ago -- the sky isn't falling and this is not some covert conspiracy.
If you want to look for the cause for this mess look no further than Congress. Politicians might talk like they want to get this resolved quickly but anyone familiar with the Government RFP process should realize that H.R.658 is written in such a way so that the large contractors on the "Rules" committee are the only ones who can possibly comply with the pending regulations. They want to be the hero for their lobbyists at the expense of the FAA and the sUAS community.
The FAA are not the bad guys BUT that does not mean that they are in a position to protect our right to operate commercially in this market. We are the only people with the vested interest to do something about this and about the only thing we can do is organize in a way that we can gain a large enough membership that we can leverage to become part of the regulatory process.
This is a non issue. With the exception of flight corridors for IFR landings and takeoffs the NAS system starts at 500ft AGL if we stay at 400ft AGL and below then we don't need transponders, emergency beacons or radios. We don't need to see and avoid any air traffic that isn't supposed to be there. But look out for that tree!
stitch1615
Member
And here I was thinking that those who fly for hire may want to band with us since they seem to forget their own humble beginnings.
If we all work together and set aside our personal preferences for the common good we may have a stronger voice.
Also elections are here. If you have a Congressmen or Senator who is involved with aviation, let them know what you think.
Their hearing gets particularly good this time of the year.
Old Man
Active Member
Totally agree and hopefully the AMA will see where one of their positions may be in error. Some multirotor professionals will need to lower their noses a little too. Hopefully we can converse with the AMA to gain more influence. The hard part will be getting the AMA staff to back away from their abandonment of the professional flyer perspective. A large number of multirotor professionals are AMA members, perhaps because of the insurance for amateur activities, perhaps because of a previous history of membership, or other reasons. But the second they do something for pay, like AMA member sponsored flyers do under the auspice of advertising, they are cut off from AMA representation and affiliation. A reaching out has to take place that will bridge the gap between the old and the new. It can be done. It must be done.
One thing is a fact, nobody can stand alone and hope to prevail in an ultra-regulatory environment. Nor will they be able to compete for space with entities that currently spend $millions a year on political access. We all get together or failure is assured. Petty peeves, semantics, obstructive details, all that stuff has to be pushed aside until the basics are given their day in the sun and we retain our right to fly. Notice I didn't say "be awarded" or "obtain" because we have a right to fly and have had since 1776. Course, nobody was doing any flying back then but the document that gave us those rights was being penned to cover things like today. Everyone has a dog in this hunt.
Last edited by a moderator:
Racerx1962
Member
Here is the link to the Subcommittee on Aviation... http://transportation.house.gov/subc...tee/?ID=107417. These are the power brokers in Congress that we should be appealing to.
stitch1615
Member
Or voting OUT of office.
Racerx1962
Member
Agreed.
econfly
Member
The reality is that RC aircraft constituted a trivially small number of hobby flyers for a long time. Nobody cared about it because there was no way to make big money on it. Government feeds on cash flow. With commercial interests now in the RC (and/or UAS) space, government is coming to the table -- and not just a few guys at the FAA with some understanding of RC flying, but all sorts of bureaucrats and power hungry politicians who see a burgeoning industry ripe for exploiting, taxing and controlling. This will get worse for those unable to offer the necessary lobbying (and bribing) power to manipulate government in their favor. Big media will win. Amazon will win. Hollywood will win. Some guy with a little aerial photo business will lose, guaranteed. As usual this game of graft and power consolidation will not be labeled as such. Instead, the typical appeals to public fear and ignorance will be the storyline. Safety will be the buzzword. And, amusingly, we will hear about protecting privacy as well -- from the most intrusive, spying and meddling governments in the history of mankind. You don't move the needle on all of this by writing letters. You move it with money and power.
Last edited by a moderator:
So very true. I went through a regulatory process with the FCC - we were a small technology startup trying to get the FCC to create rules for a new class of radio service and we met HUGE opposition. On the surface the opposition was all about safety - The FAA weighed in, the GPS industry council, cell phone operators - you name it: planes were going to fall from the sky. To the public this was going to be the worst thing ever and the pseudo-science of the opposition supported that. The truth was that people saw this new radio service as a competitive threat - people with deep pockets, and politicians in them. The safety issues were a sham, the pseudo-science a joke, and the commercial, competitive truth quite clearly visible under the veneer.
In that case we prevailed, and throughout the process the FCC was really supportive but ultimately hog-tied. I suspect the same might be true of the FAA now - it's easy to pick the regulator as the enemy and vilify them publicly, but they have to balance a lot of interests. The interest groups with the biggest influence are unfortunately those with the deepest pockets - so how do we compete? Really, I'm asking: what do we need to do? My $0.02: if you need legal representation you don't read the statute book and then defend yourself, you hire a lawyer who knows how the system works. Same with regulation change: you don't just show and and hope you can make a difference, you hire a pro to go do it for you - they are called lobbyists. Anyone know one?
Racerx1962
Member
Yes, I'm afraid Econfly is right. My fear has been that the FAA would write the rules such that only the big DOD and big business interests would win. However, this technology is becoming so ubiquitous, I don't see how they can stop its natural organic growth into the commercial arena, not to say they won't try. That's why it's incumbent on us to organize and "lobby" for our rights to use this amazing technology for commercial purposes. I agree with SJBrit... We must work within the system and hire professionals who know how to play the game. The question is: how do we go about it? Should we use the AMA or should we start our own local sUAS chapters? Either way, we need to do something instead of just complaining.
Old Man
Active Member
I believe there are people working in the direction you mentioned. It's probably more a matter of getting all the necessary plans together that could be causing a delay. I don't believe the AMA would serve our interested well even though they share many of the same risks we do. A better defined organization could conceivably represent both the amateur and professional modeler. How all that is presented would be everything. By ourselves we are too small of a group to have much of an impact but if packaged correctly the numbers could run 10 to 50 times greater than with just our types alone.
Multirotors and aerial video works a lot like the giant scale gas RC guys. We view ourselves as a massive group of people with a lot of ability to leverage things. Our minds are focused on what we do and so we peruse the various areas that best serve those interests. In doing that we come to think there are far more of us than there really is. Reality has many other forms of RC being far more numerous in their endeavors than we are with considerably more voting adults. Places like that other site which cannot be named here are largely populated with people too young to vote, and those are never counted or represented well in legislative circles.
Multirotor technology is still in infancy, with the advertisers making things look more prominent than they really are. Realizing that we need to collect others from all walks of aero modeling and other aviation groups to get where we need to go.
Multirotors and aerial video works a lot like the giant scale gas RC guys. We view ourselves as a massive group of people with a lot of ability to leverage things. Our minds are focused on what we do and so we peruse the various areas that best serve those interests. In doing that we come to think there are far more of us than there really is. Reality has many other forms of RC being far more numerous in their endeavors than we are with considerably more voting adults. Places like that other site which cannot be named here are largely populated with people too young to vote, and those are never counted or represented well in legislative circles.
Multirotor technology is still in infancy, with the advertisers making things look more prominent than they really are. Realizing that we need to collect others from all walks of aero modeling and other aviation groups to get where we need to go.
Last edited by a moderator:
stitch1615
Member
Old Man, (I am one too), we may agree on many things but I have to disagree with your viewpoint concerning the AMA. There is no need to reinvent the wheel.
They have organization and they already have lobbyist in places we can't get to without spending 10's of thousand or more.
What we need to do is make sure the AMA and the UAV enthusiast, be they hobby or commercial, are all on the same page in seeking a common outcome.
We might even ask them to form a specialized group like they did with Control Line, Gliders, Park Models etc.
Enlisting Congressional or Senatorial aid can be done individually. Now is the time to do that.
Upcoming elections seem to clear the wax from their ears and their hearing becomes rather astute.
Don't be afraid to voice your opinion to them but be respectful, state your point in language befitting a gentlemen and avoid casting aspersions on anyone or any organizations you don't agree with otherwise, your letter will just find its way to the shredder.
Last edited by a moderator:
And make a campaign contribution. I'm not kidding: the US democracy is coin-operated.
stitch1615
Member
You are not incorrect.
We have become as corrupt as any 3rd world country and have no one to blame but our own greedy selves since we started voting in politicians who valued dollars more than people. Especially those who bought votes to get in power in the name of doing it "for the people".
So here we are. Aside from whining, what is your solution?