The AMA Government and Regulatory Affairs team has been hard at work to fight for all aeromodelers. We are happy to accept your questions, and have placed top priority on continuing to keep our members in the know when it comes to the NPRM and government actions related to model aviation. Several of you have asked about the five mile rule associated with the new FAA reauthorization bill signed by President Obama last week.
Rich Hanson, leader of AMA Government and Regulatory Affairs weighs in:
Q: Now that the FAA reauthorization bill is signed into law, should we start contacting the airport/ATC when operating within five (5) miles of a public airport and should clubs begin establishing operating agreements for established flying sites in this region?
A: No, at least not yet.
There are still a lot of unanswered questions regarding how the MA provision in the Bill will be enacted and what oversight authority the FAA will continue to have on us. There is no doubt that the FAA is tasked with maintaining the safety of the NAS and we will need to come to an understanding as to what criteria the AMA member will need to follow in order to operate within the national airspace in the future. As such, it’s probably a little too soon to start reacting to the criteria established in the model aircraft provision in the Bill. AMA will be working directly with the FAA in establishing procedures for setting up these agreements; however, this will take some time and it will likely take several weeks, if not a few months, to iron out all the details.
For now I would suggest business as usual and continue your site operations in accordance with the AMA Safety Code as you have in the past. If you already have an agreement in place then certainly continue to operate under the provisions of that agreement. However if you currently fall within five (5) miles of a public airport and you don’t yet have an agreement, unless approached for some reason by the airport or ATC, it’s recommended you hold off on pursuing an agreement until the AMA is able to provide a form and format for doing so.
As it stands, it’s unlikely there will be an impetus for an established agreement until the issues surrounding the proposed sUAS rule are resolved later this year; however, if you do get approached by the airport authority or someone from the FAA, please contact the AMA for assistance.
The term “public airport” can mean any number of things, from a grass strip to an international hub airport surrounded by Class B airspace. I did a quick Google Earth check of my local area, and every AMA-chartered club field (there are eight of them) is within five miles of at least four “public airports” (one is surrounded by 11 of them, but most are very small). Is there any provision made in the legislative language to parse “public airports” by size, airspace, or amount of traffic? Within five miles of any “public airport” doesn’t leave a lot of wiggle room in many areas.
David, No… The language in the FAA reauthorization bill does not parse out “public airports” by size, airspace or traffic volume. As long as it’s a public airport, heliport or seaplane base we will have to deal with it. AMA is currently seeking a dialog with the FAA Unmanned Aircraft Program Office to start establishing appropriate procedures so as to handle this criteria in a manner that will be as minimally intrusive as possible for the modelers and the airport personnel.
Rich Hanson
AMA Government and Regulatory Affairs
In so far as First Person View (FPV) is concerned, what are the proposed changes and what is likely to pass as law? Why does one idiot carry so much weight? Prosecute him and leave the inocent alone.
I can’t speak to what will or will not be in the new sUAS regulation in regards to FPV. We won’t know exactly what approach the FAA plans to take until the sUAS Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is released later this spring.
From AMA’s standpoint… AMA has already established safety guidelines for FPV operations in document #550, First Person View (FPV) Operations. The FPV safety criteria will be reviewed as part of our current review of AMA’s safety program; however, at this point there are no specific plans to modify the document.
Rich Hanson
AMA Government and Regulatory Affairs
Does this agreement with the airport have to be written, or is verbal and/or implied good enough?? Our club has been flying ON a public airport for over 20 yrs. The airport is a grass field, no control tower, we use a secondary runway which is not used by full scale 99.9% of the time. There is little to none full scale activity most of the time and they are small, single engine aircraft. The airport owner/operators allow us to operate here, they get a copy of the insurance certificate from AMA every year and we communicate with him at least once a year but as far as I know, there is no “written agreement”.
James, It’s as yet unclear in what form or format these agreements will need to be. In situations such as the one you described a simple verbal agreement may be sufficient. AMA is working directly with the FAA in establishing the procedures for setting up these agreements; nevertheless, it will likely take several weeks, if not a few months, to iron out all the details
It’s probably a little too soon to start reacting to the criteria established in the model aircraft provision in the FAA reauthorization bill and for now I would suggest business as usual and continue your site operations in accordance with the AMA Safety Code as you have in the past. Unless approached on this issue by someone from the airport or the FAA, I recommend holding off on pursuing a more formal agreement until the AMA is able to provide a form and format for doing so.
As it stands, it’s likely there will not be an impetus for moving forward with these agreements until the issues surrounding the proposed sUAS rule are resolved later this year. However, if you do get approached, please contact us immediately so we can intervene and address the issue.
Rich Hanson
AMA Government and Regulatory Affairs
Hello,
Will the AMA be coming up with a recommendation on how to contact airports now, given the recent FAA position? It seems to me this part of the FAA finding/interpretation is not up for argument, it was in the law for the last 2 years.
Thanks very much!
Matt, Yes AMA will provide its guidance on how to contact the airport once the issue of the Interpretive Rule is resolved. In actuality, AMA developed a set of Enactment Standards that specifically addresses this issue. It was presented to the FAA a year and a half ago for comment and consideration. The process includes and involves educating FAA field personnel as to the expectations and procedures. The FAA has never responded to or acted on the document.
Rich Hanson
AMA Government and Regulatory Affairs
It might behoove the AMA to not flatly accept this law (section 336 in particular the notification rule) as it is currently written as it creates an undue hardship to ongoing productive activities requiring all flights (including indoor flights, paper airplanes and flights at any altitude including test hovers at 1 inch height) to fall within the notification restriction. Congress thinks they have done us a great service, but this one item renders their “help” as almost completely counter to their wishes. In general, the airspace classification that generated this problem needs to be revisited as there is no allowance for reasonable accomodation of low altitude non-interfering flights of any size or type of model regardless of potential hazard as the FAA keeps applying full scale rules to models. This is where the word needs to get out that model airplanes are not a hazard to participating aircraft when operated below obstruction altitudes that even commercial drones would not operate at as the growth of trees/shrubs/uncharted cell towers would be reckless operation prohibited by FAR 91.13 for participating aircraft (even ultralights). Maybe we could obtain sufficient support for a 400 foot, obstruction or Minimum Decision Altitude (MDA) loophole to this reporting standard as was the rule via AC 91-57, except within some tighter reasonable distance of the approach/departure areas of the airport where flights of approaching aircraft at or below 500 feet would be expected. I know of no airport with pattern altitudes below 500 feet (yes glideslopes of 2 degrees make the distance 2.7 miles at 500 feet so we would be back to probably 3 nm to be safe, but this should only be under a glideslope greatly reducing the hazard laterally). Yes, a tricky issue, but just about every kid with a paper airplane east of the Mississipi is in non-compliance with section 336 as it is currently written and flies in the face of common sense. This may be a place to have the law reconsidered on purely legal precedent of unenforceability as there are some good precedents. You might also want to use the tactic when discussing the sweeping interpretation by the FAA that their interpretation would also apply to kids helium balloons, kites and soap bubbles as they are contrivances to carry aloft as this law and interpretation is so sweeping in its wording hence requiring the FAA to step up to this issue deferentially on hazard level.
What do you think of these issues as leverage for change?
I think that it is a testament to the (insert gripe here) of government that these issues haven’t already gotten everything swept off the table, and the legislators to sit down with a strong drink and re-think their lives.