Link from the AMA site.
http://send.modelaircraft.org/link....h2USdst2C4c5NQew~~&t=0ysTO4NCyMKH_OtnA-9eIA~~
http://send.modelaircraft.org/link....h2USdst2C4c5NQew~~&t=0ysTO4NCyMKH_OtnA-9eIA~~
H.R.302, Section 349 (US)
- Thread starter FLYBOYJ
- Start date
Where can I find a point by point discussion of the problems the AMA or a drone organization/publication finds in the proposed regulation. I don’t want a “on the whole this is bad for us”, but rather “section X, sentence Y now prohibits Z” or “section X sentence Y now permits Z”.
Being a bit dense, I need the CliffsNotes Primer version.
Being a bit dense, I need the CliffsNotes Primer version.
AKA "‘FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018’"
This should be interesting.
Page 282 - new rules for recreational operators.
Anyone who knows me (virtually of course) already knows that I fully support and encourage this to pass. The only clause(s) I would like to see added would be something like these:
1) If aircraft is under 255 grams and it can not fly autonomously the operator is exempt from this. True toy sUAS that fly WiFi or IR (can't fly more than a hundred feet max or when losing contact motors stop and aircraft tumbles to earth).
2) If flown at AMA sanctioned field 400' could be waived with proper approvals and Letter from local aviation authority (soaring/gliders)
I like how it's written and fully support it to be passed into law sooner than later.
1) If aircraft is under 255 grams and it can not fly autonomously the operator is exempt from this. True toy sUAS that fly WiFi or IR (can't fly more than a hundred feet max or when losing contact motors stop and aircraft tumbles to earth).
2) If flown at AMA sanctioned field 400' could be waived with proper approvals and Letter from local aviation authority (soaring/gliders)
I like how it's written and fully support it to be passed into law sooner than later.
Agree 100% Al! I do think that the waiver process is a given. When this bill passes I think any changes in the FARs to implement these new laws will still have to go through a Notice of Proposed Rule Making process. I bet this will be brought up then with the FAA pointing to the waiver process. More to come!
If things go to much longer, it may get impossible to get the masses to comply.
Quoting Patrick Egan,
Quote
“We need a follow up on how the big companies are stealing your future and the @modelaircraft took the deal to lock up the CBO at the expense of the unaffiliated RC hobbyist. Or should I say future mandated members.”
Unquote
I believe I’m an “unaffiliated RC hobbyist”, while paradoxically I’m a member of a CBO and have a part 107. I understand, appreciate and generally believe the FAA must develop regulations in the best interest of a safe NAS. I’m not sure these being considered by Congress may not have been developed in the best possible manner, nor am I in a position to make educated and valid comments on same.
To establish my opinion I’ve tried to evaluate my limited beginner’s experience starting with an erratic Phantom 1, guidelines of a CBO, Amazon’s desire to carve out their section of the NAS, comments from airline pilots and rules recommended to Congress by the FAA. More importantly, I value the comments of those that participate in this forum, that may at times represent the unaffiliated RC hobbyists.
Quote
“We need a follow up on how the big companies are stealing your future and the @modelaircraft took the deal to lock up the CBO at the expense of the unaffiliated RC hobbyist. Or should I say future mandated members.”
Unquote
I believe I’m an “unaffiliated RC hobbyist”, while paradoxically I’m a member of a CBO and have a part 107. I understand, appreciate and generally believe the FAA must develop regulations in the best interest of a safe NAS. I’m not sure these being considered by Congress may not have been developed in the best possible manner, nor am I in a position to make educated and valid comments on same.
To establish my opinion I’ve tried to evaluate my limited beginner’s experience starting with an erratic Phantom 1, guidelines of a CBO, Amazon’s desire to carve out their section of the NAS, comments from airline pilots and rules recommended to Congress by the FAA. More importantly, I value the comments of those that participate in this forum, that may at times represent the unaffiliated RC hobbyists.
It is amazing that Congress can create Section 336 with vague references that no one understands and then can _again_ include those same things in a new Bill.
This bill, if made a law, won't change anything.
BTW - this is from 1/2017. Nothing new here.
This bill, if made a law, won't change anything.
BTW - this is from 1/2017. Nothing new here.
This bill started in 2017, it was just approved in congress.
House Clears FAA Bill Once More, Along with Extension
Did you read past page 282? Hobbyists will have to take a safety test, get authorization to fly in airport controlled B, C, D and E airspace and will be limited to 400' AGL. Now implementing the safety test and enforcing the new airspace requirements???
400' when within 5 miles of class G airport.
What I mean by not changing anything is that the bill won't change the way people fly.
The person that made up most of this part of the bill cites people flying where they should not be (airports, wildfires, etc.). It failed any imagination why people thinking creating laws on things that are already illegal will somehow solve those problems. They only thing it accomplishes is to make it more difficult for people who already obey these laws.
It doesn't say that. P284
" In Class G airspace, the aircraft is flown from the surface to not more than 400 feet above ground level and complies with all airspace restrictions and prohibitions."
While I believe you are correct about this bill not changing the way people fly, at least it specifically identifies airspace and altitude limitations, that was not done in 336. The 400' altitude "rule" myth will become law if this passes (and it probably will). Yes, it will make it more difficult for people who already obey these laws, mainly RC folks.
This is exactly what this bill says with regards to hobbyists;
44809. Exception for limited recreational operations of unmanned aircraft
(a) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in subsection (e), and notwithstanding chapter 447 of title 49, United States Code, a person may operate a small unmanned aircraft without specific certification or operating authority from the Federal Aviation Administration if the operation adheres to all of the following limitations:
(1) The aircraft is flown strictly for recreational purposes.
(2) The aircraft is operated in accordance with or within the programming of a community-based organization’s set of safety guidelines that are developed in coordination with the Federal Aviation Administration.
(3) The aircraft is flown within the visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft or a visual observer co-located and in direct communication with the operator.
(4) The aircraft is operated in a manner that does not interfere with and gives way to any manned aircraft.
(5) In Class B, Class C, or Class D airspace or within the lateral boundaries of the surface area of Class E airspace designated for an airport, the operator obtains prior authorization from the Administrator or designee before operating and complies with all airspace restrictions and prohibitions.
(6) In Class G airspace, the aircraft is flown from the surface to not more than 400 feet above ground level and complies with all airspace restrictions and prohibitions.
(7) The operator has passed an aeronautical knowledge and safety test described in subsection (g) and maintains proof of test passage to be made available to the Administrator or law enforcement upon request.
44809. Exception for limited recreational operations of unmanned aircraft
(a) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in subsection (e), and notwithstanding chapter 447 of title 49, United States Code, a person may operate a small unmanned aircraft without specific certification or operating authority from the Federal Aviation Administration if the operation adheres to all of the following limitations:
(1) The aircraft is flown strictly for recreational purposes.
(2) The aircraft is operated in accordance with or within the programming of a community-based organization’s set of safety guidelines that are developed in coordination with the Federal Aviation Administration.
(3) The aircraft is flown within the visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft or a visual observer co-located and in direct communication with the operator.
(4) The aircraft is operated in a manner that does not interfere with and gives way to any manned aircraft.
(5) In Class B, Class C, or Class D airspace or within the lateral boundaries of the surface area of Class E airspace designated for an airport, the operator obtains prior authorization from the Administrator or designee before operating and complies with all airspace restrictions and prohibitions.
(6) In Class G airspace, the aircraft is flown from the surface to not more than 400 feet above ground level and complies with all airspace restrictions and prohibitions.
(7) The operator has passed an aeronautical knowledge and safety test described in subsection (g) and maintains proof of test passage to be made available to the Administrator or law enforcement upon request.
Thanks for the shortcut. It is now clear that on the recreational side has a limit of 400' AGL. For a while a buddy had me convinced that was just for commercial operation. Makes me wonder why/how long many of these drones have the capability of going stupid high if it's against the law. Perhaps it's just like most all vehicles can drive 100+ mph...
Remember, this isn't law yet. It still has to go through the Senate and get approved by the president. I believe there is funding in this bill so more than likely it will get pushed through before Oct. I which is when the fiscal year begins.
Ah. I gotcha. I reckon I didn't pay close enough attention and thought it aldeady got pushed through. Thanks.
Similar threads
