Originally Posted by BarracudaHockey

History has shown us they are better at missing dead lines than making them but we'll see.

Best line ever!!

Originally Posted by Swampflier

You're welcome to spend your vacation time in Costa Rica or Ecuador (most of Latin America.... yes the "other America") even though local regulations follow and are drawn almost verbatim the FAA rules; In this particular case, remote control airplanes were separated and exempt from regulations that pertain drones.
What worries me IF FAA regulations are enforced as written, is the Kiss of Death RC airplane model wil l receive when suppliers see their dwindling profits reduced even more due to this restrictions and we'll be send back to mid 50's or 60's in terms of materials and supplies....

About 20 years ago I was considered an authority on the (at the time) new rules regarding music and the internet). One day I got a call to speak to a group of Canadian Broadcasters, after I hung up I thought, why are they calling me, i know NOTHING about the Canadian law.. I called back and explained they were not under the same regulations as the US, they said no, but they always follow what the US does, so if I speak on the US regulations, that will be what happens in the future in Canada (no idea if they did follow our rules but it was a fun weekend in Torontp

Originally Posted by gmorales83

+2

I am curious to see what their ruling will be on ARFs? They will allow kit built "amateur" at AMA fields, but no ARFs to be sold unless 100% RTF? Completely stupid and senseless rule. I am certain the manufacturers and stake holders made their voices heard, or will find a way around it.

I build kits and fly ARFs....neither one deserves to be banned....neither one will. The FAA is over-stepping and will get sued if they don't make changes to the NPRM. I believe they made the adjustments. After all, none of this is law, just rules.

GM

I am glad we're not in the ARF business

Couple of points on what "amateur built" means to the FAA in the RID NPRM

Amateur-built unmanned aircraft system means an unmanned aircraft system the major portion of which has been fabricated and assembled by a person who undertook the construction project solely for their own education or recreation.

Amateur-built UAS. As discussed later in this section, the FAA considers a UAS to be amateur built when the person building it fabricates and assembles more than 50 percent of the UAS. Under these circumstances, the person building the UAS would be the producer and may, but is not required to, comply with the design and production requirements of proposed subpart F.

UAS assembled completely from pre-fabricated parts. The FAA anticipates that some model aircraft enthusiasts may assemble UAS entirely from pre-fabricated parts and that commercial vendors may wish to sell UAS parts, including packages that contain more than 50 but less than 100 percent of the parts necessary to build a UAS. The resulting UAS would not qualify as amateur-built because the person building it would be fabricating and assembling 50 percent or less of the UAS. The UAS would not qualify as built from a kit because it did not include 100 percent of the necessary parts. Under these circumstances, the person assembling the UAS would be considered the producer and would be required to comply with the design and production requirements of proposed subpart F.

53.  As currently proposed, amateur-built UAS would not include unmanned aircraft kits where the majority of parts of the UAS are provided to the operator as a part of the sold product.

The FAA refers to the entire "system" which includes the airframe, engine, and radio.

The final rule will hopefully clarify some of this.

And then there is this fun tidbit from the footnotes:

51.  In addition to the ARC feedback, during the development of this NPRM, the FAA received two letters specific to remote identification of UAS, one from the Academy of Model Aeronautics and the other from the Small UAV Coalition. Both letters provided their respective organizations' views on the policies that the FAA should propose in this rule. Neither of these letters were considered in the development of this rule. Both letters have been placed in the docket for this rulemaking.

The final rule is going to be very interesting.

anyone know when?

The won't say officially.

As I said before, we keep hearing "by the end of the year".

Originally Posted by Judge

Couple of points on what "amateur built" means to the FAA in the RID NPRM









The FAA refers to the entire "system" which includes the airframe, engine, and radio.

The final rule will hopefully clarify some of this.

And then there is this fun tidbit from the footnotes:



The final rule is going to be very interesting.

This sounds a lot like the Experimental Amateur Built regulations for full scale aircraft. The manufacturers have worked with these guidelines to understand clearly what qualifies and it works out fine in terms of the builder/flyer being able to achieve their goals. I won’t go into details on this but I’m hopeful that we will come up with a workable solution for manufacturers and builders/flyers of model aircraft.

The difference being that when you look at say an RV-7 they are talking about the airframe itself. When looking at us they are considering the entire "system", airframe, engine, radio, etc.

Again:

As currently proposed, amateur-built UAS would not include unmanned aircraft kits where the majority of parts of the UAS are provided to the operator as a part of the sold product.

Originally Posted by Judge

The difference being that when you look at say an RV-7 they are talking about the airframe itself. When looking at us they are considering the entire "system", airframe, engine, radio, etc.

Again:

I think my point is that some of the interpretations of things like 51% are interesting in the EAB world. It sounds like it’s moving that way in the UAS space. Hopefully common sense will somehow prevail.

I got your point. I was trying to point out that it looks like the FAA is making this far more complicated than the manned experimental home built stuff. I'm not going to hold my breath on the FAA exercising anything close to "common sense".

The worst part of my quoted passages from the NPRM was where they clearly wrote they ignored the AMA's input!!!

Originally Posted by 3DJP

No news is good news in a case like this.. just keep doing what you are doing!!

A Doctor I had as an instructor in Paramecic school always said "it's easier to get forgiveness than it is permission", always worked out well for me......

Originally Posted by Zeeb

A Doctor I had as an instructor in Paramecic school always said "it's easier to get forgiveness than it is permission", always worked out well for me......

Words to live by

Hey Bill,

Thanks for watching out for our ass sets. I wonder if just one person making up these rules has ever been exposed to the hobby, or is it like our senator that lives a town over getting a fat wallet.

Not sure how many of you have seen the Walmart commerical for Christmas. it made the national news. That should give us a pretty good idea of who is driving these efforts to get us out.

Al

It bothers me more than I can say to realize how little impact the AMA has had on the FAA. The FAA even said straight up they ignored the AMA's letter while writing the RID NPRM.

Worse the RID NPRM looks like the FAA has no clue what we do or how we do it.