FT and the AMA

[MrGravey]

I just saw Bruce Simpson's video on this situation on his Xjet channel.

Here's the link.

I know many think he's a bit of a rablerouser, but he offers a plain english explanation that even I can understand.

This is very serious guys.

Tom

I haven't had the chance to watch the video yet, but I can say he is one of a few people I know that tend to cause some issue in the RC community. Its Bruce and Trappy, both have no reason to be involved in how the US handles this and both have a net negative impact IMHO.

I don't really mind Bruce for the record, but I know he can't stay out of trouble in his country and the last thing I need is another person creating problems in this one right now.

 

[MrGravey]

Having now watched the video I have to say I have a little more respect for Bruce. I'm still concerned about his general attitude here but I agree completely with what he is trying to convey.

For example, he came really close to name calling with the FAA at a few point. While it isn't the end of the world I think we should avoid lowering ourselves right now. Being respectful in our protest of these things if the only way we will be taken seriously. Again, it isn't huge but it is good to avoid it.

I LOVED his idea about AMA members being asked to support a proper measure however. Asking the members of a known group to report improper practices would be very nice. I don't have a problem helping report the things people are doing that would ruin the rest of the hobby for everyone. There is a difficulty in this too however because some people could go too far with this. We all know someone that would try to become the RC police and end up doing more harm than good while trying to stop someone from flying unsafely. One fight would undo all the good.

I don't know how much of the "commercial interest" stuff he has right. I know being paid to fly would be a problem with this rules but I don't think that selling an airplane is illegal under this rules. It should be legal to advertise the plane without flying it because the document does saying "flying" with commercial interest.

I just had another thought. Every RC mag just got shut down too. They have killed an entire industry with this law.

Still waiting to hear from the FT crew on all this.

 

[bacpck]

I totally believe that companies can continue to make planes and sell them..

Can they actually test the planes, that would be flying and getting paid as part of a commercial venture.
Get paid to attend a show and do a demo or fly planes while there being paid...
Being sponsored as a 3d or precision pilot....
etc. etc. etc...


All of the things above seem to be getting paid to fly and are could be interpreted as being not allowed under the proposed rules. It is not just the new and growing business of commercial photography etc. that they are ruling against. It is also business practices in this industry that have been ongoing for decades that they could be shutting down (not the business but things like those mentioned above).

Bruce is a bit of a firebrand but he is very educational and pretty spot on in his assessment of the situation.

This knee jerk reaction is so typical, they did not even attempt to do any due diligence on this stuff and it is apparent in the arbitrary nature of the proposed rules. There is little reason for any of this but certainly no reason to shut down business practices like i mentioned above that have been ongoing for as long as the hobby has existed.

It is truly disgusting..

 

[RoyBro]

I'm sure we'll hear from Flite Test once everyone's back from the European Road Trip and they've had a chance to discuss their personal, group, and corporate position with the powers that be. Remember, Flite Test isn't just Chad's baby anymore.

 

[Tritium]

Remember, Flite Test isn't just Chad's baby anymore.

I bet he is glad to have a LARGE Corporate Liability Umbrella in this situation.

Thurmond

 

[RoyBro]

I bet he is glad to have a LARGE Corporate Liability Umbrella in this situation.

On the other hand, the large corporate entity may not want Flite Test to be a liability and force them to stay out of it.

That sword can cut both ways.

 

[Fygar]

I'm sure many of you listen to the CrashCast podcast ( http://www.thecrashcast.com/ ). In the newest episode they have a fairly detailed discussion of their thoughts on the press release.

One point that they made, that I think is worth considering is that because the RC community is relatively small it may be better to wait for the AMA to develop their game plan and back it with one voice, all at the same time. That might have a lot more power than a bunch of individuals each coming up with their own arguments/solutions/compromises.

As an example, right at the end of the podcast one of the contributors threw out what he thought might be a good compromise. That we should all agree to always FPV with a buddybox setup and the other pilot always in line of site. While time will tell what ends up happening, I don't think it would be my first offer in a negotiation.

I am sure the AMA will do a great job of getting this turned around. Lets get behind them and not individually tell our congressmen what we would give up.

Just an unsolicited thought.

 

[Labersin]

Its Bruce and Trappy, both have no reason to be involved in how the US handles this and both have a net negative impact IMHO.

You're not thinking beyond your own little patch. I'm from NZ same as Bruce, and I can tell you for sure that if the FAA gets away with this our CAA will almost certainly copy it which is why we also need to discuss and have an opinion. One thing that Bruce does is get people talking (and often ranting) and that's what needs to happen.

We need to be talking and making the people in charge realize that their interpretation of the 'rules' means nothing to the people who actually do stupid things. Cars are a great example of this, everyone knows how dangerous it is to drink and drive but despite that there are still the stupid few who still do it, repeatedly. All that is now happening is making the law abiding many into the unlawful many.

The most likely fix to this problem is to require a license to fly an RC plane/quad/etc and work with the companies who sell the RC gear to require the license number to complete a purchase of the gear or stop it at the border. There will almost always be some way of getting around it but it should stop those who see the stupid stuff that youtube has to offer and want to replicate it without thought to the rest of us. there will still be some, but much less.

 

[RAM]

I wonder if in the end it will turn into some sort of regional rules. The only thing that comes to mind are hunting licenses. In my state we have public shooting ranges that were always open to the public. The EPA got involved here and the ranges had to be dug up and all the lead removed. The range was then lined and much stricter rules were put in place. Now, you must have a hunting license to use the shooting range, or, you must purchase a special permit to use it if you aren't a hunter. We are also now limited to 3 rounds in the gun. You can suppose that the EPA was part of that limit of 3 rounds to keep the total amount of lead down but what it does is keep the guys with the banana clips off the range. Was it a backdoor way to enforce some gun control? I don't know but it sure worked against people who enjoyed firing off their big clips at the range. It's pretty much deserted now.

So now the government is concerned about fpv pilots? I can understand the safety worries of a plane or copter going out of control beyond visual sight but losing control could also happen without fpv. It seems more like an attempt to curb the behavior of the fpv community. In the end you may see population density rules. Again, I use hunting as an example. All weapons designed to kill animals are dangerous and once let loose, the pointy end cannot be brought under control again. However, we have different rules for different population densities. An archer is allowed to hunt deer within 50 yards of a residence while a rifle hunter must be 100 yards or more away. We have entire counties where rifles are not allowed at all and only shotguns can be used due to thier lower ranges. You can only hunt wild turkey with a shotgun in most of the state but certain areas allow you to use a rifle. It all depends on population density. i.e. if something goes wrong what is the likelyhood of someone getting hurt.

 

[arbinshire]

I got clarification on this, these things are all effective right now. The AMA has even sent out a notice of this to me and everyone I know involved. Naturally they are fighting it, but right this moment all this is technically effective.

Incorrect. While these are noted as Final rules, they are really proposals. The Administrative Procedure Act ("APA") generally requires a notice and opportunity to be heard whenever proposed rules are to come out. Granted, there are some rules that come out without this period, but for informal rulemaking, it's generally easier to have this period as it makes any future litigation easier to deal with for them. Before the 25th of July, you must comment. Increased public pressure may have an effect on these rules. Significant pressure, even more so.

http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2014-0396-0001

Note: I'm a recent law school graduate preparing for the Bar Exam. Any legal advice of mine is worthless.

 

[Fygar]

Incorrect. While these are noted as Final rules, they are really proposals. The Administrative Procedure Act ("APA") generally requires a notice and opportunity to be heard whenever proposed rules are to come out. Granted, there are some rules that come out without this period, but for informal rulemaking, it's generally easier to have this period as it makes any future litigation easier to deal with for them. Before the 25th of July, you must comment. Increased public pressure may have an effect on these rules. Significant pressure, even more so.

http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2014-0396-0001

Note: I'm a recent law school graduate preparing for the Bar Exam. Any legal advice of mine is worthless.

I think the confusion is that the FAA's interpretation is a proposal, but the law they are interpreting is already in effect.

My understanding is that the difference is that whatever they decide the law means on July 25th, if you have been doing it since the law went into effect (2012?) they could prosecute you for it.

Good luck on your Bar! I will forego the lawyer joke.

 

[MrGravey]

Incorrect. While these are noted as Final rules, they are really proposals. The Administrative Procedure Act ("APA") generally requires a notice and opportunity to be heard whenever proposed rules are to come out. Granted, there are some rules that come out without this period, but for informal rulemaking, it's generally easier to have this period as it makes any future litigation easier to deal with for them. Before the 25th of July, you must comment. Increased public pressure may have an effect on these rules. Significant pressure, even more so.

http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2014-0396-0001

Note: I'm a recent law school graduate preparing for the Bar Exam. Any legal advice of mine is worthless.

Good luck on the bar. I don't know how it will be for you but many I know have told me it is one of the most exhausting things they have ever done.

That said I am not involved in law at all. Everything I have read that even mentions the way this rules will be enforced has point to this being in effect already. Being able to enforce it is something different but I would like to follow the law even if it isn't enforceable because it is the law and I want to be a law abiding person. This isn't the passing of a law, this is the FAA saying this is how they interpret a law that has already been on the books. A government agency can't create a law, so instead of trying they are changing they way they apply the existing law. This way they don't have to go through the process of changing a law in the proper ways.

If that is something one can't accept I still encourage that any error be made on the side of caution here.

The new owners of FliteTest stepped into something a little interesting for sure, and I'm sure they will want to stay out of this to a large degree for a while. I also agree that FliteTest should not be trying to do anything with this themselves. What I would however like to see is what I asked for originally, FliteTest on camera explaining to all their viewers that the AMA needs their support right now. FT has avoided encouraging people to join the AMA but that time has surely passed. Keep in mind we are the few that bother to come to the forums. 100k+ views on many of their videos shows the YouTube channel gets more notice than the website and we need that exposure.

 

[bstanley72]

I too hope that the FT crew will encourage others to join the AMA as I feel they are our best shot and a reasonable outcome and they can use all of the resources they can get.

My fear concerning FT (and I hope I'm wrong) is that right now the new corporation's lawyers are reviewing past and future FT episodes and will be raising concerns over what they will perceive as FT encouraging, educating and participating in what are now activities forbidden by the FAA. Or to be more blunt, illegal. I hope this is not the case, I'm not a lawyer, but I deal with several and am really concerned that they will impact what is to me a wonderful show/community.

 

[arbinshire]

I think the confusion is that the FAA's interpretation is a proposal, but the law they are interpreting is already in effect.

My understanding is that the difference is that whatever they decide the law means on July 25th, if you have been doing it since the law went into effect (2012?) they could prosecute you for it.

Good luck on your Bar! I will forego the lawyer joke.

Even if these do get (or have now, though unlikely considering the comment period ending on the 25th of July) the true force of law, you would most probably not prosecuted because of the previous ambiguity of the claimed rule. (Use Chevron analysis). It would be sort of an ex post facto ruling, and that's strongly frowned upon.

As a Newb FPV guy, I'm strongly interested in this field. If July 29th wasn't coming up, I would've written a comment on regulation.gov by now. For anyone else though, I strongly encourage it. Public comments have been known to sway this sort of rule-making.

 

[bandit]

As recently as January of this year, the AMA announced the signing of a Memorandum of Agreement between the AMA and the FAA, recognizing the importance of the AMA in this whole UAV rule making process.

From the looks of things now, things were not that rosey. Although I support what the AMA is trying to do, I believe Flitetest is better served by encouraging a thoughtful and massive response to the FAA request for public comment. That is how things get done. In my book the AMA is a bit out of its league.

Of course this is the same flitetest that (apparently) fly without HAM licenses, without spotters and finally gave that menace Trappy a friendly audience (unreal)...so who knows how they will react.

 

[FlyingMonkey]

If the rules pass FliteTest as they currently exist are out of business without a FAA waiver IMHO.

Odd this all came down shortly after FT became Corporate! Think someone know it was coming?

Thurmond

It came out shortly after FT ANNOUNCED it had been purchased by a corporation...

I do not think this was something anyone outside of the FAA knew about.

 

[FlyingMonkey]

Not completely correct. Yes, this is how the FAA has been interpreting the law however the Trappy Case shows that the current interpretation is not currently enforceable. I would not be surprised if the release of these rules were in response to the Trappy Case.

So we need to stand up can fight this current interpretation while we can so that they never become enforceable.

The bad news for us is the FAA doesn't have to be in the "legal" right. They can continue to fine and take to court pilots. They don't even have to win. How many of you can afford to fight a drawn out court case?

 

[fretsman]

Has FliteTest commented or made a statement on this yet?

 

[designgeek]

The trappy complaint and dismissal notice can be read here:

http://www.kramerlevin.com/files/upload/PirkerDecision.pdf

Interesting read. It all comes down to this: The FAA regulates Aircraft. The FAA considers a UAS an aircraft. If you fly an aircraft recklessly you are subject to fines.

The judge found that the rite wing zephyr was a "model aircraft" not a UAS and not subject to FAA regulations.

FAA next move was to issue reinterpretation to clarify:

If you fly beyond the direct line of site of the control operator (or with goggles) you are no longer a model aircraft, you are a UAS
If you get paid to fly, you are no longer a model aircraft, you are a UAS


We need to convince the NTSB the following:

A model aircraft is still a model aircraft regardless of the method or mode of control (FPV LOS etc)

A model aircraft is not a threat to the national airspace, and therefore not a priority of the FAA unless operated in a manner that threatens the national airspace.

Interesting that the stated goal of the FAA LOS rule was to allow for situational awareness and the ability to sense and avoid air traffic. This would also have the unintended consequence of making free flite models illegal, as they cannot sense and avoid.

 

[Fastlearner]

.... FT has avoided encouraging people to join the AMA but that time has surely passed. Keep in mind we are the few that bother to come to the forums. 100k+ views on many of their videos shows the YouTube channel gets more notice than the website and we need that exposure.

That is not entirely accurate. In one of their Q&A sessions or podcast J.B. gave support for the AMA within the last year and has encourage membership. He also voiced gratitude and praise for the AMA's safety and insurance policies when J.B.'s church based flight ministry incurred a claim. A boy was injured and the AMA insurance policy came through. If you watch their more recent videos, they do verbalize AMA safety. They have also verbalized "Do not try this at home" cautions on experimental activities and backed away from others altogether.