New FAA Re-authorization bill in the works.

bhursey

The Geeky Pilot
There is an updated re authorization bill which will replace the existing 112-95 in the works. Read it here and say what you think? http://transportation.house.gov/airr-act/

I still wish they would go off the 1981 91-57 circular advisory that they canceled in September, Or the AMA 3 miles under 400 feet rule which is biased on the advisory. I still think 5 miles is excessive especially because an average 3 degree ils on visual glide slope is about 318 feet per nm.. So on glide slope 3 miles out you will be around 1k feet.. They are still quoting 336 basically in the new section.

‘‘§ 45507. Special rules for model aircraft
‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law relating to the incorporation of unmanned
aircraft systems into Federal Aviation Administration plans and policies, including this subtitle, the Adminis-trator of the Federal Aviation Administration may not promulgate any rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft, or an aircraft being developed as a model aircraft,
if—
'‘(1) the aircraft is flown strictly for hobby or recreational use;
‘‘(2) the aircraft is operated in accordance with a community-based set of safety guidelines and with9
in the programming of a community-based organization;
‘‘(3) the aircraft is limited to not more than 55 pounds unless otherwise certified through a design, construction, inspection, flight test, and operational safety program administered by a community-based organization;
‘‘(4) the aircraft is operated in a manner that does not interfere with and gives way to any manned aircraft; and
‘‘(5) when flown within 5 miles of an airport, the operator of the aircraft provides the airport operator and the airport air traffic control tower (when an air traffic facility is located at the airport) with
23 prior notice of the operation (model aircraft operators flying from a permanent location within 5 miles of an airport should establish a mutually agreed upon operating procedure with the airport operator and the airport air traffic control tower (when an air traffic facility is located at the airport)).

‘‘(b) COMMERCIAL OPERATION FOR INSTRUCTIONAL OR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES.—A flight of an unmanned aircraft shall be treated as a flight of a model aircraft for purposes of subsection (a) (regardless of any compensation, reimbursement, or other consideration exchanged or incidental economic benefit gained in the course of planning, operating, or supervising the flight),
if the flight is—
‘‘(1) conducted for instructional or educational purposes; and
‘‘(2) operated or supervised by an eligible not for-profit organization.
‘‘(c) STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section may be construed to limit the authority of the Administrator to pursue enforcement action against persons operating model aircraft who endanger the safety of the national airspace system.
‘‘(d) ELIGIBLE NOT-FOR-PROFIT ORGANIZATION DEFINED.—In this section, the term ‘eligible not-for-prof23
it organization’ means an entity that—
‘‘(1) is described in section 501(c)(3) of the In----25
‘‘(2) is exempt from tax under section 501(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986;
‘‘(3) the mission of which is demonstrably the furtherance of model aviation;
‘‘(4) provides a comprehensive set of safety guidelines for all aspects of model aviation addressing the assembly and operation of model aircraft and that emphasize safe aeromodeling operations within the national airspace system and the protection and safety of individuals and property on the ground;
‘‘(5) provides programming and support for any local charter organizations, affiliates, or clubs; and
‘‘(6) provides assistance and support in the development and operation of locally designated model aircraft flying sites.
 

AkimboGlueGuns

Biplane Guy
Mentor
So it sounds like the FAA won't be able to touch hobbyists so long as they are flying according to AMA guidelines, which are reasonably hard to break anyway, and won't be able to limit commercial uses (like FT) so long as they are within AMA guide lines, which they usually are.
 

bhursey

The Geeky Pilot
So it sounds like the FAA won't be able to touch hobbyists so long as they are flying according to AMA guidelines, which are reasonably hard to break anyway, and won't be able to limit commercial uses (like FT) so long as they are within AMA guide lines, which they usually are.

Well the only thing is the 400 feet and 5 mile thing. That is what is conflicting with me.. FAA and congress says 5 miles. AMA says 3 miles under 400 feet.. Given # 2 I am following the 3 miles 400 feet rule in the safety code.
 

AkimboGlueGuns

Biplane Guy
Mentor
That's what I'll be sticking to. I don't think any of my planes (except the Valkyrie) would even be enjoyable to fly at 400 ft.
 

bhursey

The Geeky Pilot
That's what I'll be sticking to. I don't think any of my planes (except the Valkyrie) would even be enjoyable to fly at 400 ft.

Yah where i fly is like 4.7 miles from the gainesville airport, and 4.5 miles from a private heli port LOL.. So the 3 mile rule I shale follow. Even some GA pilots I know thought it was crazy..
 

AkimboGlueGuns

Biplane Guy
Mentor
I'm a full scale pilot and I think it's crazy. Even in the pattern I'm at 1000' AGL, so it's only base and final that I have to "worry" about hitting a model. Trust me on this one, birds are a lot more common at 400' than a model is.
 

bhursey

The Geeky Pilot
I'm a full scale pilot and I think it's crazy. Even in the pattern I'm at 1000' AGL, so it's only base and final that I have to "worry" about hitting a model. Trust me on this one, birds are a lot more common at 400' than a model is.

Yah my dad is an airline captain he agreed with what you just said. He has been flying sine the 70s. Just don't be to close to the airport approaches near the airport.. And in the safety code it also says this..
 

patcojack

Foamy Sailplanes
"Birds and models above 400 ft."

I'm a full scale pilot and I think it's crazy. Even in the pattern I'm at 1000' AGL, so it's only base and final that I have to "worry" about hitting a model. Trust me on this one, birds are a lot more common at 400' than a model is.

The Feb. issue of the magazine has reference to a sailplane at 1200 ft. and the use of acrobatic maneuvers to get down...I have 7 sailplanes , 4 are powerless types and I especially try to fly these as high as I can get them so that I can return to launch and not to have to hike after them...My main slope sight starts out at over 400 ft. above surrounding terrain...The FAA wants me to throw my gliders into the dirt !....Seen this FAA crap before in 1981 [PATCO Lcl 343 MKG]...They only "selectively prosecuted" a couple of controllers in Florida and Texas , "right-to-work" states but not in Michigan where any jury would have had UAW members or sympathizers on it . If the AMA will back me , I'll openly violate the FAA registration requirements and specifically the altitude restriction outside of control zones and airport traffic areas...[Still Striking-After All These Years]...patcojack.
 

krinaman

Senior Member
The calling every time you fly thing really needs to be sorted out. We were able to get agreements with airports in range of our club so we don't need to call but if I had to call multiple airports every time I flew there is no way I would be doing it.
 

kacknor

Build another!
Am I the only one to read that my FAA issued registration card and see only that I should follow the GUIDELNIES? Or that it’s based on the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 HR 658 of 14 Feb 2012?

I've been pretty to myself about this whole thing. But I read and follow (loosely) many of the threads about it and it seems to me that other than a general stay out of my life concern the biggest problem is the 400 feet of altitude. Calling when we fly is in there too.

I PDF searched the referenced reform act online and found the use of ‘400 feet’ and ‘altitude’ mentioned only once each. 400 in specific reference to a public agencies ability to operate a UAS weighing under 4.4 pounds, and ‘altitude’ in specific reference to operation of UAS in the Antarctic.

So where am I missing the rule, requirement, regulation, or law that makes it a 400 limit? Now, contacting the local ATC is in there but it doesn't say they can tell you no. It says only that you have to contact them. It also says when flying from a permanent location within 5 miles of an airport mutually acceptable agreement should be made for operations. Again, no mention of 400 feet.

Just sayin'

JD
 

AkimboGlueGuns

Biplane Guy
Mentor
The 400 foot rule isn't law, it's a number the AMA proposed considering the lowest legal operating altitude (except for specific instances) for full scale pilots is 500 feet. We give the full scale guys (like myself) 100 feet of leeway just to stay safe. That's where 400 feet cam from.
 

kacknor

Build another!
Then why is (nearly) all the complaints I hear about this centered around this? If it's not illegal to fly at 600 feet half a mile from an airport, what has changed beyond the government attempt to get a handle on potential future problems? Notice I didn't say it wasn't stupid. The best advice is don't do stupid things tomorrow, just as it was don't do stupid things a year ago or five years ago.

I know a guy who flies large scale slopers and other gliders. He told me members of his club are nearly at war over the 400 foot thing. I fly in parks near a municipal airport. A quick call and it's cool. I stay low they stay.. , Well, they actually do nothing.

I just don't get it. My best guess is the FAA would LIKE it thought that there is a 400 foot limit, the Media is doing nothing to dispel that, and most just hear it on TV or radio and assume 'law'.

Oh well. Back to quiet about it again I guess

JD
 

razor02097

Rogue Drone Pilot
Has anyone actually read through it? Because the FAA has gone from putting your name in a database to full on regulation mode.

The FAA is proposing to appoint a director for UAS as well as an administrator and "safety officers". If they didn't have the resources to make your life miserable before...they will now. That's good right? No? Page 226 section 435 is step 2 in the process the foot slides further in the door. There is now 2 defining "unauthorized" uses of UAS for which they can go after you with fines and even prosecution. One is "near and airport" the other is "operation of an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another". Which could be interpreted any one of 10,000 ways. Including accidental crashes into anything from a tree to a car. Instead of just apologizing and paying for damages you could end up in court with an FAA fine.

The administrator is going to put together yet another committee within 3 months to establish future recommendations for regulation of airspace between ground level and 400 feet. This could get interesting...especially if large companies like Amazon continue to pursue UAS for their businesses.

This bill includes a part ‘‘Promoting Economic Competitiveness While Safeguarding Privacy, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties in Domestic Use of Unmanned Aircraft Systems’’. While it doesn't include what they are going to do with the report, I believe the AP and FPV guys should keep this in mind. [page 227-228]

There is a "pilot program" that will be put in place of 3 airports within 6 months for UAS detection. While this sounds noble and just...are there really that many drones flying into airports to justify some "drone radar" system? If so it goes to show that registration hasn't done jack. As Ron White would say "you can't fix stupid". If there is such a system developed, I wonder how long until you have automated "drone rifle" turrets? Coming to a park near you!

Finally....there is the Pièce De Résistance...page 234 "SEC. 441. EVALUATION OF AIRCRAFT REGISTRATION FOR SMALL UNMANNED AIRCRAFT." Basically they have 6 months to put together a report of how effective it is and how compliant the public is. Because it is a piece of junk program but with so much compliance we can likely expect it to be overhauled, not cancelled.

This definitely isn't the hobby I remember...
rip.JPG
Of course this is all only my opinion. I encourage you all to read it for yourself.