[laffs] Re: Fw: FAA Restrictions

Gene,
"I contacted Dave Mathewson yesterday, and like I suspected, this is an old 
release, around September or October. 
 AMA did NOT send this to ANN. 

 Evidently this release was laying around ANN for months, and on a slow 
news day, they published it without checking with the AMA to see if the 
points were still relevant. 
 The FAA addressed all these issues at the AMA expo in January. "
 From RCU today.
                              John Swanson
  

--- On Wed, 2/9/11, Gene Hatfield <hatter@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

From: Gene Hatfield <hatter@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [laffs] Fw: FAA Restrictions
To: Undisclosed-Recipient:;@freelists.org
Date: Wednesday, February 9, 2011, 6:11 AM



 
 

 
----- Original Message ----- 
From: Darwin 
Loomis 
Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2011 7:04 PM
Subject: Fw: FAA Restrictions






 




AMA: FAA Seeks To Restrict Model Aircraft Flight
Academy Of Model Aeronautics Warns About Heavy Restrictions Coming From 
Washington
 The Academy of Model Aeronautics tells ANN that the FAA 
is set to place "heavy restrictions" on the hobbyists who fly model aircraft. 
In 
a circular sent to ANN over the weekend, the AMA indicates that the agency is 
poised to impose severe restrictions on the model aviation hobby, sport and 
industry that will have a potentially devastating impact on a recreational and 
educational activity pursued by hundreds of thousands of enthusiasts, tens of 
thousands of employees and an industry that generates more than $1 billion in 
revenue.
According to the AMA, the FAA created an Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC) 
in 2008 tasked with proposing recommendations for small unmanned aircraft 
systems (sUAS) that have been proliferating, particularly those in the 
commercial realm. The ARC’s charge was to draft recommended rules relative to 
establishing regulations for commercial sUAS and to define model aircraft – 
nothing more. AMA’s members are strictly hobbyists, sportsmen and educators. 
They are recreational users that do not participate in commercial activities. 
AMA was assured that the recreational modeler would be exempted from 
regulation.
 In 2008, the ARC began its work with 20 members, more 
than half of which were from the commercial and public sectors with partisan 
interests. AMA was the lone seat for the hobbyist. AMA’s says its views and 
concerns were quickly swept aside in the haste to create enabling regulation 
for 
the commercial/public use sUAS industry. Subsequent protests and historical 
data 
presented by AMA have been repeatedly dismissed.
In March 2009, the ARC submitted its report to the FAA recommending a 
two-path approach for model aviation. This two-path approach proposes a 
“default 
path” that contains a devastating set of heavy-handed regulations and 
restrictions that will have a detrimental impact on the industry and thousands 
of aeromodeling enthusiasts not involved in AMA’s membership or programming. 
Alternatively, AMA must develop and fund an acceptable set of standards in 
order 
to overcome the restrictive effects of the default regulations. The two-path 
approach is extremely problematic and will adversely affect the aeromodeling 
community. AMA voiced strong opposition to this approach in the ARC’s report to 
the FAA.
AMA says that over the past 18 months it has worked diligently in an attempt 
to develop an acceptable set of standards to address FAA concerns. At the same 
time, however, the ground rules continue to change, creating a moving target 
and 
mounting frustration.
AMA believes that the proposed regulations fail to address the substantial 
diversity of the hobby and its applications and establishes unenforceable 
restrictions, while leaving absent a safety surveillance program to support the 
thousands of modelers outside of AMA’s formal structure and standards.
 
Large Model Aircraft
Although the exact language of the proposed regulation is not yet known, 
there are a number of conclusions that can be drawn from the ARC 
recommendations. The following are AMA’s areas of concern, the restrictions 
that 
are likely to be imposed and their effect on the model aviation community:

  ALTITUDE: As proposed, the rule would impose a nationwide altitude ceiling 
  of 400 feet. AMA recognizes the need for altitude limitations when model 
  aircraft are operated in close proximity to airports, and this concept is 
  supported in AMA’s current Safety Code. However, a nationwide altitude 
ceiling 
  for model aircraft is impractical, unnecessary, unrealistic and unenforceable 
  through any reasonable means of compliance and detection. 
  SPEED: It is likely that the rule will attempt to limit model aircraft 
  performance by establishing a set speed limit such as 100 mph. Imposing such 
a 
  speed limit will have little to no effect on aircraft performance and is both 
  undetectable and unenforceable through any practical, cost-effective means. 
  WEIGHT: As proposed, the sUAS rule will limit small unmanned aircraft to 
  55 pounds or less, and the implication for AMA’s Large Model Aircraft Program 
  has not yet been determined. Without an acceptable standard or an alternative 
  means of compliance, this rule may well curtail a vital element of the 
  modeling activity that drives creativity, innovation and technological 
  development. 
  TURBINE BAN: The blanket prohibition of gas turbine engines suggested in 
  the ARC recommendations does not consider the wide range of products 
currently 
  in the marketplace. The inclusion of this prohibition in the proposed rule 
  will impose a significant and unjustified economic impact on the industry. 
  AIRPORT PROXIMITY: It is understood that the FAA is considering going 
  outside the ARC’s recommendation and extending the “area of concern” around 
  the nation’s 19,760 airports beyond the current 3-mile radius that has been 
  the standard for more than 29 years. The intent to extend this radius has 
  absolutely no statistical basis, has no supporting data and has no accident 
or 
  incident correlation. Doing so would exponentially impact the number of 
  existing flying sites affected by the rule. Extending the radius by as little 
  as 2 miles (to 5 miles) would nearly triple the area of concern and create 
  more than 1,784,000 square miles in which “no fly without permission” 
  restrictions would be imposed. 
It is the position of the AMA that, based upon the direction the rule is 
headed, it is clearly evident that the intent is not to objectively evaluate 
the 
model aircraft operations and realistically assess the risks. It is rather to 
unfairly eliminate model aviation from the safety equation by arbitrarily 
eliminating it from the airspace it has revered and safely used for decades. 
The 
organization urges all who are in favor of full analysis, regulatory restraint 
and fair play to help AMA save a hobby, a dynamic sport, a vital educational 
pursuit, and a $1 billion industry from what it says is undue government 
intervention that will have devastating consequences.
FMI: http://modelaircraft.org/, www.faa.gov



Finding fabulous fares is fun.
Let Yahoo! FareChase search your favorite travel sites to find 
flight and hotel bargains.

Other related posts: