[AlaskaRC] FAA looking at possibly regulating model aircraft

[Marty Hall]

The last time this came up it was because of a model scaring a flight 
crew of a 727 going into JFK. The FAA at that time told the AMA they 
had the power to regulate RC but chose not to at that time because of 
the problems associated in attempting to, but if "we" didn't clean up 
our act, they would. That's the root of certain AMA safety rules 
concerning flying near airports, etc. In those days there was no 
where near the number of UAV's flying as there is today, and the 
FAA's problem today has changed. It would be difficult for them (the 
FAA) to tell one group (the military) flying an "RC" of one type with 
a 3 foot wing span that there was strict rules to comply with, and 
tell the other group (us) with a like size "RC" there's no 
regulation. We DO need to watch this.


At 09:41 5/13/2009, you wrote:

>Something to be aware of - it's been in the works for a while, but this
>is a good explanation from Tony about where the AMA is in the process
>and what we as modelers should be aware of and looking for.
>
>For those who might be unfamiliar, as UAV flights are increasing over
>the US, the FAA is looking for a way to more closely regulate them.
>
>Begin forwarded message:
>
>Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 11:43:25 -0400
>From: "Tony" <tony at radiosouthrc.com>
>To: "'General pattern discussion'" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Fw: Rules Coming?
>
>
>There is a lot that everyone will need to learn about this issue.  The
>ARC
>was made up of about 25 industry (read that as commercial) people from
>full-scale to manufacturers of UAS.  We (AMA) had ONE seat on this
>committee.  The AMA pushed for keeping everything just as it is right
>now,
>accentually making model aircraft exempt from any rules.
>
>
>
>The problem is that the commercial guys say, "hey, they can fly (meaning
>AMA) without restrictions, why can't we?"  This is the fight that AMA
>has
>been dealing with for a year now.
>
>
>
>The original concept of this group was to come to consensus about
>issues.
>Well, that didn't work, so basically we were outvoted by the rest of the
>group.  However, any member of the ARC could write an explanation as to
>why
>they were against such rules, giving reasons so that the FAA could
>consider
>this when they review these proposals.  That is what we have done.  Many
>manufacturers want to limit us in many ways, and one of those is to
>limit
>aircraft to 100MPH, 400 ft altitude and no turbines!  Obviously, AMA is
>against anything that would effect what modelers are doing now.
>
>
>
>Now, it is up to the FAA to look at these proposed rules and either
>
>A.  Pass them as written
>
>B.  Modify them
>
>C.  Trash it all and start over
>
>
>
>Once the FAA gets into it, they will give an NPRM (notice of Proposed
>Rule
>Making) and will receive comments from any interested parties (THAT BE
>US!)
>at that time.
>
>
>
>You can be sure that AMA is on top of this and we have a plan in place
>to
>flood the FAA with letters and e-mails should they propose something
>against
>our interests!  My best suggestion to everyone is to visit the AMA
>website
>for updated info often and read MODEL AVIATION when it comes to your
>door.
>
>
>
>
>
>Tony Stillman, President
>
>Radio South, Inc.
>
>139 Altama Connector, Box 322
>
>Brunswick, GA  31525
>
>1-800-962-7802
>
>www.radiosouthrc.com
>
>   _____
>
>From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
>[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of John
>Konneker
>Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2009 9:59 AM
>To: jpavlick at idseng.com; Discussion List
>Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Fw: Rules Coming?
>
>
>
>Hey John,
>Mike Dorna had sent some of us a link to the proposal earlier this week
>and
>Don Mathewson talks about the process
>that generated it in his "President's Perspective" column in the current
>June issue of MA, page 5.
> >From John's column it sounds like when the NPRM comes out and public
> >comment
>is invited the AMA will probably
>be asking members to let their feelings be known.
>Interesting stuff.
>JLK
>
>
>   _____
>
>Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 06:00:40 -0700
>From: jpavlick at idseng.com
>To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Fw: Rules Coming?
>
>
>Guys,
>
>  Bob sent this link to me and thought everyone would be interested. Many
>of
>you have probably seen this already but in case you haven't, take a
>look...
>
>
>
>John Pavlick
>
>--- On Wed, 5/13/09, Bob Pastorello <rcaerobob at cox.net> wrote:
>
>From: Bob Pastorello <rcaerobob at cox.net>
>Subject: Rules Coming?
>To: "John Pavlick" <idsmail at sbcglobal.net>
>Date: Wednesday, May 13, 2009, 11:51 AM
>
>Hello, John.  Long time no hear, hope you're doing well in pattern land.
>
>I recently found this new thread on RCU dealing with a rule-making
>proposal
>from the FAA.  May be of interest to pattern people....
>
>http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8760851
>
>
>Bob Pastorello
>www.rcaerobats.net <http://www.rcaerobats.net/>
>rcaerobob at cox.net
>
>
>
>
>
>
>--
>Tom
>
>_____________________________________________________________________
>
>        |  ,  |               Tom Simes - President
>---------(@)---------        Alaska Radio Control Society
>         --|--                AMA Chartered Club #1998
>           '                  president at alaskarc.org
>_______________________________________________
>AlaskaRC mailing list
>AlaskaRC at lists.alaskarc.org
>http://lists.alaskarc.org/mailman/listinfo/alaskarc

Marty Hall
Fairbanks, Alaska
mjhall at alaskarcs.com

The United States Constitution (c)1791.  All Rights Reserved.  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.alaskarc.org/pipermail/alaskarc/attachments/20090513/efc0d261/attachment.html>