Enforcing new laws at Flite Fest

[sprzout]

Again though, club fields will be exempt, if this passes in it's current wording (it won't).

And only if clubs go through the processing to get set up as an approved FRIA. Last week Wed., my club's board met and decided they wanted to hold back a bit before putting themselves on the FAA radar. I think it's a little bit of paranoia, but it is what it is right now. Frankly, I'm not stressing too much at this time, as I see a potential for us to lose the field to land developers in the next few years anyway - we see a bunch of houses popping up around the field, and we're at the corner of two major highways, right smack dab where a gas station/Starbucks/Walmart would be perfect, so maybe we just apply for wherever our new field will end up.

 

[ScottSteward]

And only if clubs go through the processing to get set up as an approved FRIA. Last week Wed., my club's board met and decided they wanted to hold back a bit before putting themselves on the FAA radar. I think it's a little bit of paranoia, but it is what it is right now. Frankly, I'm not stressing too much at this time, as I see a potential for us to lose the field to land developers in the next few years anyway - we see a bunch of houses popping up around the field, and we're at the corner of two major highways, right smack dab where a gas station/Starbucks/Walmart would be perfect, so maybe we just apply for wherever our new field will end up.

Again, all of this is only if the current proposal passes in it's current wording (it won't).

 

[sprzout]

Again, all of this is only if the current proposal passes in it's current wording (it won't).

I know what you're saying, and honestly, I'm not stressing about it. I'm just gonna go fly and enjoy myself.

 

[ScottSteward]

I know what you're saying, and honestly, I'm not stressing about it. I'm just gonna go fly and enjoy myself.

THIS! ^

 

[CMS_1961]

Oh trust me, my heart rate and blood pressure are fine.

I appreciate your feedback sprzout, but just to clarify a few things,

I understand this is all a proposal right now. I was just looking at it all from the worst, possibly the most pessimistic point of view that I know others have expressed---like if we modelers "were" to lose all of our airspace. I do agree this should not happen. My point was that there is already FAA regulation that tells the RC Modeler how to fly etc.. and I realize there are always people that do not abide by the rules/regulation everywhere no matter what. The FAA might do more good going after real rule breakers then--- like some idiot flying a quadcopter in the landing pattern of a 737 at a major airport. That is airspace we currently are not allowed to fly into and no one in their right mind would!!

As far as "see and avoid" I was talking about autonomous drones flying in airspace,for example, making a package deliveries from "Company A" as it crosses an area where RC Modelers are already flying--an active flying area. We would avoid it just as if it was a full scale aircraft anyway. And yes I know we always give full scale aircraft the right of way. Every modeler should do this regardless of rules---it's just common sense!! (see picture for current rules)

As far as my safety point. If we all followed rules/regulations that are currently in effect there would most likely be no issues. I realize that nothing is perfect and there are always going to be people that break the rules regardless. You can not regulate stupid people anyway. I was just saying that my understanding from various videos I have seen on these proposals that the FAA is standing behind safety as a justification and it seems they are making the average law abiding modeler the problem and I disagree with that. I think as a community overall we RC modelers are better. I am saying that I will be much more concerned when the FAA allows multiple autonomous drones access to the airspace and they start flying over my town.

I know not everyone agrees with my point of view and that is fine, it is all my opinion, based on various things I have read and on the web and various videos. Not trying to offend anyone. I never said it was the end of our hobby and I do not plan on selling any of my equipment. I am currently building more RC aircraft now.

A really big issue I do have though >>>>I think the FAA should re-define "drone"---not everything remotely flying in the sky is a drone, UAS or even an SUAS. I think we should be called "RC Modelers/Pilots" that fly " RC aircraft" and "RC quadcopters" in the FAA regulation---something I wrote to the FAA on thier last round of rule proposals!! Hey just my opinion. Blood pressure is down!! LOL

 

[PsyBorg]

[QUOTE="PsyBorg, post:

P.S. There will be NO legal home built anything no matter what the size.. Its in the proposal unless you want to go thru the FAA hoops to become a legal and certified vendor.[/QUOTE]

Not exactly. AMA has exemptions under the CBA and FRIA sections of the proposal.[/QUOTE]

I read the parts where at some point only certified manufacturers would be building things. I didnt see anything in ANY of the information I read so far giving AMA exemption for anything. The only thing I read regarding AMA is they are currently NOT considered a CBO. Mind pointing this exemption out?

 

[ScottSteward]

P.S. There will be NO legal home built anything no matter what the size.. Its in the proposal unless you want to go thru the FAA hoops to become a legal and certified vendor

I read the parts where at some point only certified manufacturers would be building things. I didnt see anything in ANY of the information I read so far giving AMA exemption for anything. The only thing I read regarding AMA is they are currently NOT considered a CBO. Mind pointing this exemption out?

Where do you read that AMA is "not considered a CBO"?

Also, where does it say "no home built anything"? There's nothing in the proposal that says you can't build aircraft. Most likely.......if this passes (it won't) without being reworded (it will), our RXs will have the RID software already in it and if it's old, you'll have to add the software by other means. But nowhere does it say you can't build. That's not even constitutional.

 

[PsyBorg]

Where do you read that AMA is "not considered a CBO"?

Also, where does it say "no home built anything"? There's nothing in the proposal that says you can't build aircraft. Most likely.......if this passes (it won't) without being reworded (it will), our RXs will have the RID software already in it and if it's old, you'll have to add the software by other means. But nowhere does it say you can't build. That's not even constitutional.

Ahh.. yet another person with opinions NOT doing homework and keeping up on task. There are NO CBO's as of FAA changes in late 2018. They stated that the will no longer recognize anyone as a CBO until THEY make up their mind what a CBO consists of. Which IF you had been keeping up on things you would know recently came to be. You would also know as Josh restated this in the first FTCA video where they say they spent a good portion of 2019 getting everything done to become one as soon as the FAA opened it back up. He also was frustrated because they keep changing the criteria. It was also addressed in the latest video with the panel.

All this information I go on has been linked more then once in the various threads on this topic. Its ALSO right there in black and white on the FAA website should you feel at some point to actually become motivated to read any of it. By the way new changes to the proposal were piggy backed on an education bill which outline the phasing out of FRIAS as well as laying down the basis for banning non production based building by un certified by the FAA entities.. AKA home building.

So again I will ask for YOUR resources that show the FAA has given the AMA exemptions for FRIAS and as a CBO. The whole object of this thread is to get facts out NOT perpetuate opinions and guessing.

 

[ScottSteward]

Ahh.. yet another person with opinions NOT doing homework and keeping up on task. There are NO CBO's as of FAA changes in late 2018. They stated that the will no longer recognize anyone as a CBO until THEY make up their mind what a CBO consists of. Which IF you had been keeping up on things you would know recently came to be. You would also know as Josh restated this in the first FTCA video where they say they spent a good portion of 2019 getting everything done to become one as soon as the FAA opened it back up. He also was frustrated because they keep changing the criteria. It was also addressed in the latest video with the panel.

All this information I go on has been linked more then once in the various threads on this topic. Its ALSO right there in black and white on the FAA website should you feel at some point to actually become motivated to read any of it. By the way new changes to the proposal were piggy backed on an education bill which outline the phasing out of FRIAS as well as laying down the basis for banning non production based building by un certified by the FAA entities.. AKA home building.

So again I will ask for YOUR resources that show the FAA has given the AMA exemptions for FRIAS and as a CBO. The whole object of this thread is to get facts out NOT perpetuate opinions and guessing.

If AMA is not recognized as a CBO, why did they just test and authorize 5 clubs in National airspace in areas near airports last month for flights over 400 feet?

What are my sources? I spent over an hour on the phone with AMA Vice President Eric Williams last week talking about these issues. I'd provide a document if someone did a transcript of our phone conversation but nobody did.

I'd say Eric has inside information so I'm pretty sure my statements are more than just opinions.

Regardless, I'm going to keep building and flying and not be doom and gloom. Yet....I'll also do my part in being proactive in fighting this nonsense.

As for this discussion, I'm officially out, as this once civil discourse has reached an argumentative level. If I wanted that, there are multiple forums I can visit. I came here to get away from that mess and just enjoy the hobby.

I'd rather talk to you about builds and ideas. Not argue about something that hasn't even happened yet (and won't in it's current draft).

 

[PsyBorg]

Just because The FAA is working with various groups to find a way to make things work does not mean they are a recognized CBO. They work with Amazon and UPS and Agricultural and Oil companies wanting to use the air space. Doesnt mean they are recognized CBO's either.

No one is arguing with you but you come in here as a new member, stating things and STILL produce nothing from the ruling body as asked.

The way you present yourself I thought you may have been an AMA employee. Whether you are or are not its not important if you have productive things to say. Many here do not trust the AMA to have the hobbies best interest going by their track record with how they have tried to manipulate themselves into a position of power. They openly threw the FPV community under the bus the first round and have been back pedaling ever since when they realized the FPV / multirotor community surge is what will keep them afloat.

Judging by that panel and how the FAA lady nearly put out the AMA STILL is against multirotor community any reassurances coming from that direction for me hold no water.

Anyways run off and pout if you want but you are more then welcome to return and post anything in written official form that may prove positive or negative for the hobby as any real information.

 

[SlingShot]

I would totally put my money on this proposal being scrapped and rewritten. It's a rough draft and only that; and literally nobody, including the commercial lobbyists support it in it's current wording.

That's not to say I don't share your concerns. I do. But I wouldn't sell and scrap your hanger yet. At the very least, you can absolutely count on a successful Flite Fest 2020 with no further restrictions than we already have.

You do realize, even if this first draft did pass (and it won't), it would be four years before we saw any effect. So, build, fly and be happy...and see you at Flite Fest 2020.

I too am betting on cooler heads prevailing. The hobbyists will most definitely end up with a good result that they can live with. But by all means, keep making lots of noise. Just try to remain positive.

 

[Captain Video]

Amen, Brother!

 

[SlingShot]

People are mistaking this for law. Believe it or not, even if it passes in it's current wording (again, it won't), it will not be "law". It will be "regulation" . The two are completely different things. Could the regulation become law if it passes as such (again, it won't)? Yes. But that will take a long long long time.

Your semantics are not correct here. While there is a difference between statutes and regulations, it is all *law*. More importantly, for a lay person and as a practical matter, it's a distinction without a difference. In a case like this, involving a goverenmental agency, a statute is the bare bones enabler. The regulations are the meat and potatoes.

In fact, there is an entire body of law dedicated to the interpretation of regulations. It's called Administrative Law. They have their own judges and everything. The are called Administrative Law Judges.

 

[Flying Monkey fab]

Let's clear this up with an actual reference for CBOs.

AC 91-57B, 7.2.1 states that at some point they will provide further guidance on what a CBO is.

I think that as a courtesy the FAA has been recognizing the AMA but it can't be official without anyone even knowing what it takes to be one.

 

[Flying Monkey fab]

Your semantics are not correct here. While there is a difference between statutes and regulations, it is all *law*. More importantly, for a lay person and as a practical matter, it's a distinction without a difference. In a case like this, involving a goverenmental agency, a statute is the bare bones enabler. The regulations are the meat and potatoes.

In fact, there is an entire body of law dedicated to the interpretation of regulations. It's called Administrative Law. They have their own judges and everything. The are called Administrative Law Judges.

I've been working within the FAA's structure for most of 40 years now and what you state is mostly correct. It has always concerned me though that we can have all these layers that count as law and none of them are passed by representatives but are simply instituted by bureaucrats.

 

[SlingShot]

I've been working within the FAA's structure for most of 40 years now and what you state is mostly correct. It has always concerned me though that we can have all these layers that count as law and none of them are passed by representatives but are simply instituted by bureaucrats.

I appreciate your concern. There is a flipside to this however. Would you rather have no nothing politicians in the place of the expert bureaucrats?

As a professional mariner, I get to deal with U.S. Coast Guard regulations all the time. I don't think I'd be better served by congress in this regard.

On the bigger picture, and I think this is the juxt of your complaint, do unelected bureaucrats have too much power? They have a lot of it. Maybe too much. But it's a complicated world and what's the alternative?

 

[Merv]

Here is DJI's response to the FAA
We Strongly Support Drone Remote ID. But Not Like This. Jan 14,2020
https://content.dji.com/we-strongly...-this/?from=dap_unique&pbc=qCg1DB1v&pm=custom

 

[ScottSteward]

I too am betting on cooler heads prevailing. The hobbyists will most definitely end up with a good result that they can live with. But by all means, keep making lots of noise. Just try to remain positive.

That's what I'm trying to do.

 

[ScottSteward]

Just because The FAA is working with various groups to find a way to make things work does not mean they are a recognized CBO. They work with Amazon and UPS and Agricultural and Oil companies wanting to use the air space. Doesnt mean they are recognized CBO's either.

No one is arguing with you but you come in here as a new member, stating things and STILL produce nothing from the ruling body as asked.

The way you present yourself I thought you may have been an AMA employee. Whether you are or are not its not important if you have productive things to say. Many here do not trust the AMA to have the hobbies best interest going by their track record with how they have tried to manipulate themselves into a position of power. They openly threw the FPV community under the bus the first round and have been back pedaling ever since when they realized the FPV / multirotor community surge is what will keep them afloat.

Judging by that panel and how the FAA lady nearly put out the AMA STILL is against multirotor community any reassurances coming from that direction for me hold no water.

Anyways run off and pout if you want but you are more then welcome to return and post anything in written official form that may prove positive or negative for the hobby as any real information.

Just because I'm new to this community doesn't mean I'm new to this hobby. As for the multirotor issue, I feel the same way you do. In fact, I'm working on writing something to potentially be in article form and present it for hopeful submission regarding that very subject.

As for other stuff, Tyler Dobbs recent podcast addresses a lot of the info regarding CBOs and Home Builts.

 

[ScottSteward]

Let's clear this up with an actual reference for CBOs.

AC 91-57B, 7.2.1 states that at some point they will provide further guidance on what a CBO is.

I think that as a courtesy the FAA has been recognizing the AMA but it can't be official without anyone even knowing what it takes to be one.

Bingo! And I think this is where things are being misconstrued. The words "further guidence" is being interpreted by some to mean "have not decided or clarified" and that is simply not true. AMA is actually the only group that the FAA is currently using as a model for what a CBO is. "Further guidance" is really a statement there for those seeking to become new ones. It does not negate AMA's current position as one.