[laffs] Re: Fw: FAA Restrictions
- From: Fredda & John Swanson <freddajohnswanson@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: laffs@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 08:05:36 -0800 (PST)
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:
