NEW 
Congress Reconvenes to Complete the FAA Re-Authorization Act
http://www.modelaircraft.org/aboutam...blog.aspx#5311
In the beginning, 6/09/1981, there was Advisory Circular 91-57, the Model Aircraft Operating Standards:
http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Gu...t&Highlight=91
To make a very long story short, WAY BEFORE THE FPV FOLLIES, commercial operators were flying RC models under AC 91-57 which the FAA later ruled against. This left commercial sUAV pioneers without a rule to fly under and without the ability to tell the feds "we were just flying our model airplanes." I started an AC 91-57 thread on RCG that nobody really cares about so you can read more here: http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1402772
Here is the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) Regulatory Brief: Unmanned Aircraft Systems: http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/regulatory/unmanned.html
SOMETHING HAD TO BE DONE ABOUT ALL THIS THOUGHT THE REGULATOR (and a lot of other special interest groups with deep pockets and big agendas) and so the ARC was convened. Read it and weep: Small Unmanned Aircraft System, Aviation Rulemaking Committee, Comprehensive Set of Recommendations for sUAS Regulatory Development: http://www.modelaircraft.org/faa/recommendations.pdf
Enter the FAA’s Unmanned Aircraft Program Office (UAPO) and their ”FACT SHEET for Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS)” http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives...FACT_Sheet.pdf
From where I sit, AC 91-57 is the elephant in the middle of the room; if the regulatory apple does not fall far from the tree, then we will likely see the old advisory circular reinforced in the new rule for sUAV. Check this out in sUAS News: http://www.suasnews.com/2011/03/4697...as-in-the-nas/
Rich Hanson responds to why regulation and comments on AC 91-57: http://www.modelaircraft.org/aboutam...log.aspx#32411
Pioneers like Patrick Egan and friends have given us the lay of the land while foraging a path to the land of milk and honey for the small businessman with sticks in hand. I find this article particularly interesting: http://www.suasnews.com/2010/11/2782...come%E2%80%A6/
So just what is the FAA up to anyway? Here is what was filed as part of the federal rulemaking process. This, AC 91-57 and the 2009 ARC Recommendations are our best clues as to what the NPRM will be all about:
Operation and Certification of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems (sUAS)
Popular Title: Small Unmanned Aircraft
RIN 2120-AJ60
Stage: NPRM
Previous Stage:None
Abstract: This rulemaking would enable small unmanned aircraft to safely operate in limited portions of the national airspace system (NAS). This action is necessary because it addresses the novel legal or policy issues about the minimum safety parameters for operating recreational remote control model and toy aircraft in the NAS. The intended effect of this action is to develop requirements and standards to ensure that risks are adequately mitigated, such that safety is maintained for the entire aviation community. http://regs.dot.gov/rulemakings/201103/report.htm
The AMA's Government Relations website:
http://www.modelaircraft.org/aboutama/gov.aspx
Gary Mortimer’s recent article validates the AMA’s recent Congressional Awareness Campaign:
http://www.suasnews.com/2011/02/3841...om-suas-rules/
They liked what AMA did so much that AUVSI followed AMA’s lead:
http://www.suasnews.com/2011/03/4411...uas-community/
NEW
So how did we make out? H.R.658 & S.223 may go to committee for reconciliation: http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h658/show
Finally, for those of you who just adore RULES, the FAA has lots of them in the Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs). Check out FAR part 91 for starters and to cure insomnia. http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text...4/14tab_02.tpl
Congress Reconvenes to Complete the FAA Re-Authorization Acthttp://www.modelaircraft.org/aboutam...blog.aspx#5311
In the beginning, 6/09/1981, there was Advisory Circular 91-57, the Model Aircraft Operating Standards:
http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Gu...t&Highlight=91
To make a very long story short, WAY BEFORE THE FPV FOLLIES, commercial operators were flying RC models under AC 91-57 which the FAA later ruled against. This left commercial sUAV pioneers without a rule to fly under and without the ability to tell the feds "we were just flying our model airplanes." I started an AC 91-57 thread on RCG that nobody really cares about so you can read more here: http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1402772
Here is the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) Regulatory Brief: Unmanned Aircraft Systems: http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/regulatory/unmanned.html
SOMETHING HAD TO BE DONE ABOUT ALL THIS THOUGHT THE REGULATOR (and a lot of other special interest groups with deep pockets and big agendas) and so the ARC was convened. Read it and weep: Small Unmanned Aircraft System, Aviation Rulemaking Committee, Comprehensive Set of Recommendations for sUAS Regulatory Development: http://www.modelaircraft.org/faa/recommendations.pdf
Enter the FAA’s Unmanned Aircraft Program Office (UAPO) and their ”FACT SHEET for Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS)” http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives...FACT_Sheet.pdf
From where I sit, AC 91-57 is the elephant in the middle of the room; if the regulatory apple does not fall far from the tree, then we will likely see the old advisory circular reinforced in the new rule for sUAV. Check this out in sUAS News: http://www.suasnews.com/2011/03/4697...as-in-the-nas/
Rich Hanson responds to why regulation and comments on AC 91-57: http://www.modelaircraft.org/aboutam...log.aspx#32411
Pioneers like Patrick Egan and friends have given us the lay of the land while foraging a path to the land of milk and honey for the small businessman with sticks in hand. I find this article particularly interesting: http://www.suasnews.com/2010/11/2782...come%E2%80%A6/
So just what is the FAA up to anyway? Here is what was filed as part of the federal rulemaking process. This, AC 91-57 and the 2009 ARC Recommendations are our best clues as to what the NPRM will be all about:
Operation and Certification of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems (sUAS)
Popular Title: Small Unmanned Aircraft
RIN 2120-AJ60
Stage: NPRM
Previous Stage:None
Abstract: This rulemaking would enable small unmanned aircraft to safely operate in limited portions of the national airspace system (NAS). This action is necessary because it addresses the novel legal or policy issues about the minimum safety parameters for operating recreational remote control model and toy aircraft in the NAS. The intended effect of this action is to develop requirements and standards to ensure that risks are adequately mitigated, such that safety is maintained for the entire aviation community. http://regs.dot.gov/rulemakings/201103/report.htm
The AMA's Government Relations website:
http://www.modelaircraft.org/aboutama/gov.aspx
Gary Mortimer’s recent article validates the AMA’s recent Congressional Awareness Campaign:
http://www.suasnews.com/2011/02/3841...om-suas-rules/
They liked what AMA did so much that AUVSI followed AMA’s lead:
http://www.suasnews.com/2011/03/4411...uas-community/
NEW
So how did we make out? H.R.658 & S.223 may go to committee for reconciliation: http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h658/showFinally, for those of you who just adore RULES, the FAA has lots of them in the Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs). Check out FAR part 91 for starters and to cure insomnia. http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text...4/14tab_02.tpl
Comments (0)
I returned to the hobby in 2010 and forgot so very much how much I loved flying, how flight is a core part of who I am. Just after I reclaim this part of me for myself, I discover that the hobby is at risk of being hobbled with onerous regulation. Through the decades I have seen how general aviation has suffered setbacks and I fear RC may be following (personal sentiment). And so I also realize that Americans have a voice into government, a small one, albeit a voice. And its an important cause, to me anyway, and apparently I am not alone in that belief. RC'ers are standing up, speaking out, and most importantly participating in the lawmaking and rulemaking processes. Hey, if the new Rule is ok or doesn't come to pass, we win. 
If not, at least we tried and will have no regrets trying to say under 400' AGL, LOL. A win-win campaign either way and a lesson in representative government.
If not, at least we tried and will have no regrets trying to say under 400' AGL, LOL. A win-win campaign either way and a lesson in representative government.
