There's been an update posted on the AMA webite regarding the coming regulations:

http://www.modelaircraft.org/news/ama-faa.aspx

FAA Decision Looms on Model Aircraft Regulations

For the past three years the AMA has been involved in the rulemaking process aimed at establishing regulations for all unmanned aircraft systems, and we have worked directly with the FAA in an effort to ensure these regulations will not have a detrimental impact on the aeromodeling community. The FAA intends to present the proposed rule for public comment in a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NMPR) in June 2011, and it has become increasingly apparent that the proposed rule will be highly restrictive and will have a significant impact on the modeling community as a whole. It’s time for all of us to understand these proposed changes, familiarize ourselves with the regulatory process, and to prepare an appropriate response to the proposed regulations. Click the link below for background.


– Rich Hanson, AMA Government Relations and Regulatory Affairs Representative

Also take a look at Dave Mathewson's article: http://www.modelaircraft.org/files/MA-December.pdf

Distinct change in tone from earlier on. Looking to be worse than we had hoped for.

There is a Webinar on the Regulations for UAS which I believe will be Part 107 as a SFAR. Would like to listen in on it, but I believe it is around 300 bucks to do so. My professors will be listening in on it though and will explain it to us in class. Should be very interesting!

On the good side, for those that are full scale pilots and want a UAS job....they will be available soon in the US.

but remember the statement "the sky isnt falling" this means that all the complacent guys out there need to pay attention and be ready to step up and protect their hobby. this will mean getting involved at any level it takes to hook up with your local government rep and climb that food chain in mass numbers.

While Dave says the sky is not falling, there has been a very distinct shift in the tone. It seems that, no surprise, the FAA is coming down on the side of less flexibility versus more. It is clear that this is a call for people to become more vigilant and to be ready since I do not think we are going to like what we see. Right now I do not think the FAA sees us a very significant group and we need to be ready to make some noise where it counts.

I see no information to get worried about. Just an ama rep going ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh panic but don't panic and not sharing any details.

Originally Posted by A-Track

I see no information to get worried about. Just an ama rep going ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh panic but don't panic and not sharing any details.

is the sand warm??

What does a worst case scenario mean here, I can't fly anymore, foamies only, $1000.00 per year license fees? Guess I missed it, but where can I find an explanation not in legal or governmenteze?

Originally Posted by A-Track

I see no information to get worried about. Just an ama rep going ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh panic but don't panic and not sharing any details.

Well how would you feel about this:

400 foot hard altitude cap all the time and everywhere
1,500 foot lateral limit from pilot
Max speed of 100 mph (maybe 75)
Max weight 55 or less perhaps
No night flying
No turbines
No FPV
Spotters when near possible areas of conflict with full size
and perhaps no flying in busy areas like say LA, or Chicago, etc.

Because that is all very likely and what the AMA is working hard to get the FAA NOT to do. But it appears that the FAA is going down the more restrictive path.

So while the above is a worse case scenario it is by no means a remote possibility either. One thing that it looks like the FAA is being very inflexible about is the 400 foot altitude cap. So while there is no reason to panic, there is abundant reason to start thinking about what we are going to do when the NPRM comes out.

The reason for the lack of details as previously noted by Dave and Rich is that the FAA is literally not telling them much, but these men have been in direct contact with the FAA and if they are worried, then I am worried.

Originally Posted by Phil Griffin

What does a worst case scenario mean here, I can't fly anymore, foamies only, $1000.00 per year license fees? Guess I missed it, but where can I find an explanation not in legal or governmenteze?

The AMA page linked above has all the currently available and relevant documents. The FAA originally was looking at a two tier approach with a more restrictive tier for people operating outside an approved safety program run by AMA or similar groups, and one more relaxed for those flying under the auspices of such a plan. It now looks like the FAA is leaning at not being as relaxed as we first thought they would for that second tier.

Got it, thanks. How do you think this more restrictive version would be enforced?

I would love to know how they will force these rules if they ever do come into play in areas out of middle of no where.

with the exception of no turbines our club has everyone of those rules in place right now. its not impossiable but annoying. we are less than 1 nautical mile from a active airforce base where the coast guard and national guard flys daily. we have j hawks, falcons and blackhawks flying in our shared air space.we put on giant scale airshows and 30% of our pilots fly 33% and larger on a weekly basis. i dont want minimize what is being stated but if that is the worse that could happen it wouldnt be the end of the world. if john glezellis can fly there and maintain a hard deck of 400 most can adapt if need be. how can you keep a guy flying below 400 you asked? have a black hawk hover 2000 feet away and get a lock on you. lol that will get you a quick visit request to the tower. man its a real cool view and a real wake up call looking from the inside out. need i say any more? look at the sign behind my plane it says it all about 400 ft.

just as an after thought. we get shut down for 9 days in a row with notams during september while the presidents vacation on marthas vineyard

My thoughts also. It may be like so
many other things overseen by gov. Hard to get caught, but if you are the unlucky one, watch out.

Originally Posted by Phil Griffin

Got it, thanks. How do you think this more restrictive version would be enforced?

That remains one of the great mysteries right now.

Originally Posted by ken crane

i dont want minimize what is being stated but if that is the worse that could happen it wouldnt be the end of the world.

Maybe not the world but if the worst does happen IMAC, pattern, pylon and soaring are all goners along with no turbines. I am sure John can huck below 400 feet, but ask him to fly the IMAC Unlimited sequence below 400 feet. Same with pattern. In soaring we launch higher than 400 feet and any kind of speed limit kills pylon. Almost all of Bill Hemple's plane might become obsolete as well (over 55 pounds) along with any others over that weight.

So while certain specific groups and places may not be affected, it could well affect some major areas of enjoyment for many other folks.

BTW - what happens if they say no model operations at all near military installations? Certainly within 1 nautical mile might well end up in a no fly zone. In a worse case that is absolutely on the table.