Model Aircraft Restrictions

Link

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.

While I do enjoy losing freedom after freedom, I have to say that restricting and eliminating parts of the hobby I enjoy I should probably say that in every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms: our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

reply to post by billxam


What are the restrictions?
2nd line

reply to post by billxam


I got a reply to the FAA.

Go to hell you Nazis.

EDIT: S & F

Originally posted by idunno12
reply to post by billxam

 

What are the restrictions?
2nd line

- 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.

400 feet? Like mentioned above, absolutely model planes should not enter the flight path of an aircraft. But seriously, 400 feet? What about larger scale aircraft that are easily visible and controllable from a remote on the ground? ... and what about model rockets?

- 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.

100 mph... okay maybe a model is difficult to control at such a speed but then again, the larger models which are visible at longer distances and capable of such speeds... and might need such speeds to control... what of those? Are they now $20K paperweights by the stroke of a pen?

- 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.

I suppose it's difficult to tuck explosives into an airframe that light.... But then again, what about the weight of fuel, controls (servos, rods, etc.), the airframe even?
It's starting to look like the gov't wants to be the only one with remote controlled aerial vehicles large enough to have some real fun.
Hate to say though, lot's of fun (height, speed and such) can be packed into a small package.

- 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.

So, this goes against the speed ban, primarily. So why?

- 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.

Not sure I care about this as I never fly within 5 miles of a school, airport or other any largely populated area.

Elsewhere, I read that exemptions may be possible. If so, is that such a bad thing?

We already have a 500 ft height restriction and for obvious reasons cannot fly near airports.Common sense should prevail,i am not going to fly a 27% extra down at the local shopping center carpark.

Good news! After I did the research I should have in the first place.....

Senator Inhofe has introduced legislation restricting the FAA regulations on r/c aircraft. I just sent him a letter thanking him for the amendment, however I pointed out that they will probably ignore it as unconstitutional, in as they now have a track record that they're apparently building as a legacy.

Link

Model Airplanes Regulation Amendment

The Senate adopted S. Amdt. 86 by unanimous consent. This amendment denies the FAA the ability to regulate model airplanes. President of Academy of Model Aeronautics Dave Mathewson voiced his support and said, “On behalf of our 140,000 members I want to thank Senator Inhofe for helping to preserve model aviation. Aeromodeling is an exceptional family recreational and educational activity that has traditionally been a stepping stone for our children to careers in aviation and aerospace. With the Senator’s help we hope model aviation will continue to help provide that impetus for future generations of engineers, pilots, and astronauts.” District VII Vice President and National Safety Committee Chair of the Academy of Model Aeronautics Jim Rice said, “I truly appreciate Senator Inhofe and his fellow senators’ support of model aircraft enthusiasts around the country. As a modeler of 60+ years, member of the 140,000 member strong Academy of Model Aeronautics board of directors, and National Safety Committee Chair for AMA, I feel that AMA’s proven track record over its 75 years of existence speaks for itself. No further public monies or time should be spent trying to regulate safety into our sport which is already the safest of all aviation activities.”

One more step closer to that perfect model of a country North Korea that all of our elitist leaders adore so much. They simply want everything to be not fun except listening to Britney Spears and spending all of our free time on a PlayStation. Thinkers, tinkerers and innovators are not good for control. They should have far more respect for the hobby. If not for it all of their high tech UAV surveillance toys would not even exist yet. It is elligal to own a camera in North Korea. Are we heading that way here?

I am wondering though... how are they going to enforce the limitations.
Radar? Whose radar?
On site FAA observers? Who is paying them?

/me ponders a 1/10th B52 with "live" ordinance deployed from altitude.....

Hmm.. Do kana.. Could it be that the true reason behind the new restrictions there is that theyre afraid of people building their own drone aircraft ? Or maybe am just to cynical of dizzy city and its twisted behaviour...

UnFn believable...
How stupid can these pigs be.

Lets make a list of what we CAN do shall we ?

reply to post by Expat888


This is certainly possible.

You could, given the right budget, develop a UCAV to put the Predator to shame with existing market technologies.

Not sure where you'd find the ordnance to put on it - but I'm sure a few black market contacts could do the job.

Not like I really care what the government says. I'll build whatever aircraft models I want. If people and law makers can run around with various illicit drugs, I'll run around with illicit model aircraft using the same arguments. At least my illicit hobby will be productive - AND recreational. Take that, potheads.