Shop OBEX P1 Docs P2 Docs Learn Events
FAA's interpretation of the "Special Rule for Model Aircraft" — Parallax Forums

FAA's interpretation of the "Special Rule for Model Aircraft"

PublisonPublison Posts: 12,366
edited 2014-06-28 08:23 in General Discussion
From an email i recieved today from AMA:
On Monday, June 23rd, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) released an Interpretive Rule in which it presented FAA's interpretation of the "Special Rule for Model Aircraft" established by Congress in the FAA modernization and Reform Act of 2012. The Academy has reviewed the rule and is extremely disappointed and troubled by the approach the FAA has chosen to take in regards to this issue
In its Press Release the FAA stated it was, "issuing the notice to provide clear guidance to model operators on the "do's and don'ts" of flying safely in accordance with the Act and to answer many of the questions it has received regarding the scope and application of the rules." It also stated, "(this) guidance comes after recent incidents involving the reckless use of unmanned model aircraft near airports and involving large crowds of people." It's important to note that very few of these cases have been factually documented and not a single incident was shown to involve a member of the AMA or to be connected in any way to modeling operations conducted under the auspices of the special rule.
In AMA's response to the rule it was pointed out that, "The FAA interpretive rule effectively negates Congress' intentions, and is contrary to the law. Section 336(a) of the Public Law states that, 'the Federal Aviation Administration may not promulgate any rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft...', this interpretive rule specifically addresses model aircraft, effectively establishes rules that model aircraft were not previously subject to and is in direct violation of the congressional mandate in the 2012 FAA reauthorization bill."
AMA has voiced its opposition to FAA's action and will pursue all available recourse to dissuade enactment of this rule. It's important that every AMA member becomes involved in the effort.
The first step is to respond to the public comment period established in the notice. Look for a follow-up email from AMA with information on how to respond to the FAA notice. This is your opportunity to express your views and to comment on various aspects of the Interpretive Rule. It's important for the Administration to know that this rule significantly impacts the entire aeromodeling community and that this community is resolute and committed to protecting the hobby. In this case silence IS NOT golden.
Please alert your friends, family members and fellow modelers regarding this issue.
Thank you,
AMA Government Relations

I have not read the entire posting yet, but I'm sure "Drone" is in there somewhere.

EDIT: I take that back. Drone is not mentioned.

Comments

  • CelticLordCelticLord Posts: 50
    edited 2014-06-25 17:16
    In truth they are probably trying to keep you and me out of the surveillance drone business.!
  • LoopyBytelooseLoopyByteloose Posts: 12,537
    edited 2014-06-26 11:48
    Brings back memories of when I worked a landscape and gardening business with two pickup trucks and a partner and mostly two lawnmowers. Young guys just trying to get started.

    We received a lengthy form from the Department of Agriculture that required us to explain in detail all our uses, inventory, and application practices of fertilizers, pesticides, insecticides, and fungicides. And pretty much implied we needed to create a written plan to be available should they choose to visit.

    Of course there were the usual heavy handed Federal government boiler plate about penalties for failure to comply and warnings of perjury prosecution if the rely was inaccurate.

    Yes, we did use 2-4D to kill lawn weeds, sprays for apple trees, and so on. But it wasn't long before the OSHA requirements for doing any of this required a full body suit with breathing apparatus... even though all the chemicals and unsafe equipment stayed on the market for the DIY home owner.

    No, they never offered an educational material on how we should improve are practices.

    It would be nice if transitional regulations didn't come on like a SWAT team and were phased in... unless there were dire reasons not to do so.

    And so I became a general contractor where the regulator environment was easier to follow.

    I wonder if the Wright Brothers would have been allowed to develop an airplane in today's world.
  • RS_JimRS_Jim Posts: 1,766
    edited 2014-06-26 16:51

    I wonder if the Wright Brothers would have been allowed to develop an airplane in today's world.
    Lol, not a chance!
  • PublisonPublison Posts: 12,366
    edited 2014-06-26 17:08
    RS_Jim wrote: »
    Lol, not a chance!
    I wonder if the Wright Brothers would have been allowed to develop an airplane in today's world.


    Or Gustave Whitehead, to original developer of the airplane:

    http://www.gustave-whitehead.com/

    That's our story, and we are stickin' to it.
  • Too_Many_ToolsToo_Many_Tools Posts: 765
    edited 2014-06-27 17:03
    Publison wrote: »
    From an email i recieved today from AMA:



    I have not read the entire posting yet, but I'm sure "Drone" is in there somewhere.

    EDIT: I take that back. Drone is not mentioned.

    As I have said before...the FAA needs to get off its thumbs and get a policy in place..technology is not going to stand still.
  • LoopyBytelooseLoopyByteloose Posts: 12,537
    edited 2014-06-28 00:41
    Gustave Whitehead... OMG!

    I had a great uncle that got kicked out of university for wanting to build a flying machine two years before the Wright Brothers. I guess Gustave was already flying. Anyway, it all ended well, he got into electrical engineering and built the power distribution for New Orleans and made piles of money.

    Gustave seems to have been first, but it seems it might have been a little bit short on control surfaces. And I belleve the Wright Brothers were the ones to discover a propeller was not just a mechanical screw. It is a rotating helical wing, isn't it?

    Who built the first drone? This was the American contribuition.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hewitt-Sperry_Automatic_Airplane

    And here is a photo of Marlyn Monroe building a drone before she got a job in movies.
    She was a technician at Radioplane in 1945... odd coincidence.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_unmanned_aerial_vehicles#mediaviewer/File:MarilynMonroe_-_YankArmyWeekly.jpg
  • Heater.Heater. Posts: 21,230
    edited 2014-06-28 02:21
    Loopy,

    Wow. That really is a "Great Uncle".

    I don't know about control surfaces. Originally control was done by pulling on cables than bent the wings. Much simpler than building all those hinges and stuff.

    No the Wright Brothers did not make that kind of propeller discovery. The was an Englishman (Well he died as a British citizen at least). From the article linked to above:

    "Whitehead’s handwritten notes made in Buffalo show that the propeller he selected for his future aircraft was the “Type J” developed by the British aviation pioneer, [Sir] Hiram Maxim. This wasn’t a simple “air-screw” but a more modern design where the blades were airfoils and their pitch was optimized at varying angles along their length."

    Maxim by the way flew a steam powered heavier than air craft in 1894. It was tethered to a rail to stop it running away out of control. It ripped up the rail!

    Seems to me that around that time there was a huge aviation experimenters community. There were societies, conferences, expos, trade shows, etc. See the pictures in that article. I imagine they were all "borrowing" ideas from each other. The Wrights' were nothing special.

    What is very suspicious, in fact outrageous, is that the Smithsonian entered into a contract with the Wright family such that they promised never ever to promote the idea that the Wright brothers were not the first to fly. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_by_Contract
  • LoopyBytelooseLoopyByteloose Posts: 12,537
    edited 2014-06-28 07:49
    It is Wright, not Write.. right? rite?

    Okay, the Wright Brothers just copied from everyone and the Smithsonian Institute was in on an evil cover up from early on.
    I guess we all have to unlearn whatever we were taught in elementary school by those pretty innocent school marms.

    I am loosing faith in governments, any form of government.
  • Heater.Heater. Posts: 21,230
    edited 2014-06-28 08:23
    Dam eye spelled rite wrong! It's write now :)
    I guess we all have to unlearn whatever we were taught in elementary school by those pretty innocent school marms.
    That is quite often true.

    One of the first things I remember when I arrived at high school was the statement, written prominently on the black board, "Matter can neither be created nor destroyed". I immediately knew this was not the place for me. But there was no escape for another five years.
    I am loosing faith in governments, any form of government.
    No worries, it's been going on forever and will continue to do so. For example Bill Gates did not invent BASIC or MSDOS or the PC. But those 4KBASIC paper tapes are a prized possession of some museum somewhere.

    To the winner go the spoils, and all that.
Sign In or Register to comment.