AMA's Response To The U.S. DOT announcement

[LuvMyTJ]

I received this today. Just another reason to support the AMA as they are working to help keep your hobby alive & well.

Dear Members,

As you might be aware, in a press conference on Monday October 19, 2015, the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) announced its intent to require registration for certain small unmanned aircraft systems (sUAS).

Led by Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx and FAA Administrator Michael Huerta, a concept was laid out calling for the creation of a task force to develop a plan to implement the registration process.

AMA was represented at the press conference by Government and Regulatory Affairs Representative Rich Hanson who offered comments on behalf of our organization. Representatives from the Association for Unmanned Vehicles Systems International (AUVSI) and the Air Line Pilots Association also provided input.

AMA has also been invited to participate in the task force which has been charged with completing its work by mid-November 2015.

The DOT is looking at the full spectrum of sUAS that would be subject to registration, and AMA agrees that registration may be appropriate at some level; however, before the process can be established, AMA believes that a threshold must be identified that will determine which platforms, what aircraft with what capabilities, will require registration and which will not.

AMA believes that traditional model aircraft, as well as the “toy-type” drones with minimal capability would fall below the threshold and not be subject to the registration process.

In a prepared statement released yesterday , AMA was clear in its position that any required registration process “should not become a prohibitive burden for recreational users who fly for fun and educational purposes and who have operated harmoniously within our communities for decades.”

AMA does not and will not support any proposal that calls for the registration of any sUAS that fall below an established threshold and is resolute in its position that all forms of traditional model aircraft must remain exempt from the registration process.

 

[mjw]

I received this today. Just another reason to support the AMA as they are working to help keep your hobby alive & well.

Dear Members,

As you might be aware, in a press conference on Monday October 19, 2015, the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) announced its intent to require registration for certain small unmanned aircraft systems (sUAS).

Led by Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx and FAA Administrator Michael Huerta, a concept was laid out calling for the creation of a task force to develop a plan to implement the registration process.

AMA was represented at the press conference by Government and Regulatory Affairs Representative Rich Hanson who offered comments on behalf of our organization. Representatives from the Association for Unmanned Vehicles Systems International (AUVSI) and the Air Line Pilots Association also provided input.

AMA has also been invited to participate in the task force which has been charged with completing its work by mid-November 2015.

The DOT is looking at the full spectrum of sUAS that would be subject to registration, and AMA agrees that registration may be appropriate at some level; however, before the process can be established, AMA believes that a threshold must be identified that will determine which platforms, what aircraft with what capabilities, will require registration and which will not.

AMA believes that traditional model aircraft, as well as the “toy-type” drones with minimal capability would fall below the threshold and not be subject to the registration process.

In a prepared statement released yesterday , AMA was clear in its position that any required registration process “should not become a prohibitive burden for recreational users who fly for fun and educational purposes and who have operated harmoniously within our communities for decades.”

AMA does not and will not support any proposal that calls for the registration of any sUAS that fall below an established threshold and is resolute in its position that all forms of traditional model aircraft must remain exempt from the registration process.

I would be nice to define acronyms - AMA? American Medical Association - what do doctors care about drones - American Modelers Association?

 

[LuvMyTJ]

Doctors drone too!

I'm sorry, did I confuse you.
On a forum about model flying I didn't think I was going to confuse anyone but if anyone else is at a loss like yourself there is always this - ACU = Acronyms Commonly Used | DJI Phantom Forum

 

[zobiwu]

Phantom 3, im sure, does not fall into "toy-type" thought.

I bet anything with a GPS/Camera that flies more than 3min will not be "toy type"
(anything that flies 3h without gps/camera will though!)

 

[LuvMyTJ]

Phantom 3, im sure, does not fall into "toy-type" thought.

I bet anything with a GPS/Camera that flies more than 3min will not be "toy type"
(anything that flies 3h without gps/camera will though!)

True, but without their help, the outcome would be much worse. Any positive help for the hobby as a whole is better than none.
The statement says they are for an easy streamline registration on some, and no registration on others. I assume 'traditional' aircraft means fixed wing with no cams.

 

[Jeff48920]

Yup. I got the same message today. Glad the AMA is lobbying for all types of model aircraft. Money well spent.

 

[mjw]

Doctors drone too!

I'm sorry, did I confuse you.
On a forum about model flying I didn't think I was going to confuse anyone but if anyone else is at a loss like yourself there is always this - ACU = Acronyms Commonly Used | DJI Phantom Forum

thanks I am old and easily confused :>) - it was just interesting, every acronym except AMA was defined in the article....

 

[LuvMyTJ]

thanks I am old and easily confused :>) - it was just interesting, every acronym except AMA was defined in the article....

Sorry about that, please accept my apologies for my earlier reply. AMA = Academy of Model Aeronautics

Have a look at their site - Academy of Model Aeronautics

 

[Pulsar747n]

Why do organizations such as the AMA get to decide whether a Phantom or an Inspire is or is not required to be registered? They are certainly not representing my interests.
The FAA already classified a sUAV as an aircraft under 55 pounds. Why not continue with that definition?
There are many 3/4 scale RC aircrafts that weight over 50 pounds. Are they going to demand/recommend the registration on those as well?
Just because our drones carry a camera, that should not be a reason to demand registration.
In my mind a 3/4 scale RC airplane carrying 1/2 gallon of nitro is more dangerous to a general aviation aircraft than my Phantom 3P.

 

[LuvMyTJ]

Why do organizations such as the AMA get to decide whether a Phantom or an Inspire is or is not required to be registered? They are certainly not representing my interests.
The FAA already classified a sUAV as an aircraft under 55 pounds. Why not continue with that definition?
There are many 3/4 scale RC aircrafts that weight over 50 pounds. Are they going to demand/recommend the registration on those as well?
Just because our drones carry a camera, that should not be a reason to demand registration.
In my mind a 3/4 scale RC airplane carrying 1/2 gallon of nitro is more dangerous to a general aviation aircraft than my Phantom 3P.

The AMA is not dictating anything. The government wants more control, the AMA is working to lessen the restrictions. So yes, they are in fact representing every hobbyist.

 

[Pulsar747n]

The AMA is not dictating anything. The government wants more control, the AMA is working to lessen the restrictions. So yes, they are in fact representing every hobbyist.

I hope so! Their statement:

"AMAbelieves that a threshold must be identified that willdetermine which platforms, what aircraft with whatcapabilities, will require registration and which willnot.

AMA believes that traditional model aircraft, as well as the “toy-type” drones with minimal capability would fall below the threshold and not be subject to the registration process."

Confuses me because it sounds that they may be inclined to require the Phantom to be registered since it is not considered a "toy-type"

 

[jason]

I hope so! Their statement:

"AMAbelieves that a threshold must be identified that willdetermine which platforms, what aircraft with whatcapabilities, will require registration and which willnot.

AMA believes that traditional model aircraft, as well as the “toy-type” drones with minimal capability would fall below the threshold and not be subject to the registration process."

Confuses me because it sounds that they may be inclined to require the Phantom to be registered since it is not considered a "toy-type"

Are you a member of the AMA. If not you have no right to complain about what they say or do.

 

[LuvMyTJ]

I hope so! Their statement:

"AMAbelieves that a threshold must be identified that willdetermine which platforms, what aircraft with whatcapabilities, will require registration and which willnot.

AMA believes that traditional model aircraft, as well as the “toy-type” drones with minimal capability would fall below the threshold and not be subject to the registration process."

Confuses me because it sounds that they may be inclined to require the Phantom to be registered since it is not considered a "toy-type"

Yes, you can bet the Phantom will be on the list of UAV's requiring registration. I don't think you're going to be able to avoid it with anything substantial.

 

[Buk]

Are you a member of the AMA. If not you have no right to complain about what they say or do.

As an old crimugen, I have the right, the ability, the desire, the wherewithal to complain about whatever to whomever I choose.

Not belonging to their organization, I can complain that they don't represent me or my beliefs. Belonging to their organization, I can complain that they don't represent me or my beliefs, more so as a dues paying member. In both cases, will my complaints fall on deaf ears, sure you bet. Being a $10,000 donor to the AMA will my complaints be heard and reacted to, sure you bet. And oh, I'm not, I'm just a regular dues paying AMA member.

I can complain about anything. Money changes the strength of my voice, no matter what the topic.

 

[Buk]

Yes, you can bet the Phantom will be on the list of UAV's requiring registration. I don't think you're going to be able to avoid it with anything substantial.

Agree fully. The Phantom is the target. While 55 pounds maybe a determining limit, they will include a stipulation as blatant as "All aircraft made by DJI" to make sure they require Phantoms to register.

 

[ianwood]

All your Phantom are belong to us!

AMA is pretty toothless and they only represent a decreasing minority of drone users. Most of the new breed have never heard of the AMA and have no interest in it.

 

[SteveMann]

All your Phantom are belong to us!

AMA is pretty toothless and they only represent a decreasing minority of drone users. Most of the new breed have never heard of the AMA and have no interest in it.

The AMA is only one of the 24 on the task force. Not a whole lot of influence there. The loudest voice will be the ALPA (Airline Pilots Association) who think that it's all "their" air, and anything with fewer than two engines is a menace. (I am a retired commercial pilot and I recall the position that the airline pilots took when the TSA rules were created in 1978 - "It's our airspace. Keep those damned little airplanes out of our airspace".

The FAA has the right under federal law to issue emergency Special Federal Aviation Regulations (SFAR) related to air safety. But an emergency has to exist first. Just because an rogue drone might cause an accident is not an emergency and smacks of "Minority Report". The FAA is going to make an emergency rule for something that has never happened? Where is the emergency?

Don't get me wrong. I am not against ensuring that people fly responsibly, including taking responsibly if their drone causes a problem. But this rush to judgement through an emergency SFAR is simply a hysterical solution to an imagined problem. But that's what bureaucracies do - make regulations to appear to be doing something.

I had a conversation with Rich Hanson a few months ago while I was writing a blog article regarding drone registration and operator licensing and we discussed at length how to define a drone without inadvertently including traditional model aircraft. Our conclusion was that you can't. Technically, all Radio Control (RC) model aircraft are UAS.

Terry Dunn (Terry Dunn - Freelance Author) recently wrote for the AMA:

I think that there will be considerable pushback from a large fold of the established RC modeling community if traditional model airplanes and helicopters fall under the registration umbrella. Many modelers already hold a grudge against "drone pilots" for the increased scrutiny that all aspects of aeromodelling are now receiving from the FAA and the general public. A widespread registration policy that is clearly linked to drone shenanigans will only add gasoline to that smoldering fire.​

Personally, I blame the AMA for the gasoline. They have been historically antagonistic toward personal drones from the beginning. Instead of welcoming them to their family, drone operators were shunned. Forbidden at most AMA fields, and still highly restricted at some.The AMA could have been ahead of the regulators, but chose to remain invisible. Now that the modelers are guilty by association, the AMA has to backpedal. Make no mistake, the AMA representative on the task force is representing the traditional modelers, not drone operators.

 

[Buckaye]

Many modelers already hold a grudge against "drone pilots" for the increased scrutiny that all aspects of aeromodelling are now receiving from the FAA and the general public.

I don't see much in the media whatsoever about other forms of aeromodelling. I feel like this grudge is pretty misplaced. If anything - my opinion is that drones have been singled out as a menace.

Is the singling out justified? Perhaps - because it's generally people without traditional RC experience that seem to do dumb things like fly near airports, or into stadiums - or from their hotel room to the Seattle Space Needle.

I just think that the grudge traditional RC pilots are holding is kind of silly if the reason is the increased scrutiny THEY are getting.... I am not sure I could quote one recent media story about an RC airplane.

 

[GoodnNuff]

I don't see much in the media whatsoever about other forms of aeromodelling. I feel like this grudge is pretty misplaced. If anything - my opinion is that drones have been singled out as a menace.

Is the singling out justified? Perhaps - because it's generally people without traditional RC experience that seem to do dumb things like fly near airports, or into stadiums - or from their hotel room to the Seattle Space Needle.

I just think that the grudge traditional RC pilots are holding is kind of silly if the reason is the increased scrutiny THEY are getting.... I am not sure I could quote one recent media story about an RC airplane.

I belong to 3 AMA sanctioned flyng clubs (because I also fly fixed wing RC aircraft). My drones have been welcomed at all of the clubs I fly at. The AMA monthly publication carries a drone centric article each month and has a monthly multiroter column.
I've never understood the complaint that the AMA isn't drone friendly - they've done a hell of a lot of lobbying and work supporting our hobby. I can see some old timers at flying fields who may not be open to drones, but they don't speak for the AMA. There are pilots at every flying field who hate foam planes, anything that wasn't hand built, and any plane with self leveling or SAFE technology.
Hell there are curmudgeons everywhere in life, but I don't let them rule me.

I've heard this complaint a few times but when I push people for more details about why they were shunned it has always turned out different than they claim. A few have never actually tried to join a club, just heard the rumor. One guy showed up with his drone, didn't know what a flight line was, thought he could launch from anywhere, showed no regard for other aircraft, and was asked to leave. And as we've seen on this list recently, Phantom pilots show up and are asked to fly a circle and a figure eight (common requests to show you can maintain control of your aircraft) and are unable to do so ("cause Phantom's are linear flyers"), so they are told they can't fly at the field.
Phantoms are able to fly any pattern a fixed wing craft can, an IMO, if you can't maneuver a circle or a figure 8, you aren't ready to fly in public.

All pilots are welcome at flying clubs. Out of the box operators that can't fly yet, not so much.
One of the clubs I belong to has a flying school for new fixed wing pilots - after this Christmas I think they may add multiroters to the school.

 

[jason]

Yes, you can bet the Phantom will be on the list of UAV's requiring registration. I don't think you're going to be able to avoid it with anything substantial.

One said the Phantom wouldn't be on the list including myself TJ.