7 comments
Comments are closed.
Trending
Tags
AC91-57C
airspace
alaska
AMAGOV
AOPA
AUVSI
bill
budget
CBO
clubs
Congress
dot
drone
drones
EAA
FAA
FAA Reauthorization and Reform Act
FAA Renewal
Facebook
FCC
FPV
FRIA
GPS flight
HR 658
LAANC
Law
legislation
Modernization and Reform Act
notam
NPRM
registration
regulation
regulations
remoteid
remote identification
rich hanson
rules
safety
safety and knowledge test
shutdown
standards
sUAS
TFRs
UAS
UAV
Categories
Archives
Tags
AC91-57C
airspace
alaska
AMAGOV
AOPA
AUVSI
bill
budget
CBO
clubs
Congress
dot
drone
drones
EAA
FAA
FAA Reauthorization and Reform Act
FAA Renewal
Facebook
FCC
FPV
FRIA
GPS flight
HR 658
LAANC
Law
legislation
Modernization and Reform Act
notam
NPRM
registration
regulation
regulations
remoteid
remote identification
rich hanson
rules
safety
safety and knowledge test
shutdown
standards
sUAS
TFRs
UAS
UAV
He seemed to have very little to say about the model exepmtion. He also made a worrisome comment about a 400 foot limit for models.
Sorry, this is like preaching to the choir, but it’s distressing how Mr McGraw is lumping line-of-sight, self-regulated model aircraft together with “drones” as if they are the same. As he pointed-out, drones currently can’t see the airspace surrounding themselves very well – just straight-ahead via camera. Model aircraft can see AND hear VERY well around their flight path because the aircraft never leaves the sight of the pilot and spotter on the ground.
Yes, the drones should be regulated by the FAA. But model aircraft, which already operate under AMA safety regulations should not be further regulated. Both the House, Senate and President agree – and it’s RARE when they agree on anything!
“drones currently can’t see the airspace surrounding themselves very well – just straight-ahead via camera”
This is also true of not a few “full scale” aircraft, in that the pilot(s) often have restricted vision and possibly awareness of things to the rear and sides of aircraft. Even vision to the front is quite restricted in some aircraft.
The difference is contact with ATC / other pilots via radio.
As of yet there is nothing in the works that would require MA pilots to be in radio contact with ATC.
Rich Hanson
AMA Government and Regulatory Affairs
This appears to be a ‘scripted’ conversation, with no embarrassing questions.
Also, when/how did they decide that 4 pounds was the limit? What happens if a model does weigh more than 4 pounds??
Joe, I’ve got to admit… It sounded a bit scripted to me as well.
In the recently passed FAA reauthorization bill the FAA is required to establish agreements with government agencies so as to:
Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment enter into agreements with appropriate government agencies to simplify the process for issuing certificates of waiver or authorization with respect to applications seeking authorization to operate public unmanned aircraft systems in the national airspace system.
The agreements shall (in part)…
…allow a government public safety agency to operate unmanned aircraft weighing 4.4 pounds or less, if operated:
(i) within the line of sight of the operator;
(ii) less than 400 feet above the ground;
(iii) during daylight conditions;
(iv) within Class G airspace; and
(v) outside of 5 statute miles from any airport, heliport, seaplane base,
Rich Hanson
AMA Government and Regulatory Affairs