Separate names with a comma.
Sign up for a weekly email of the latest drone news & information
Discussion in 'News' started by Khudson7, Dec 1, 2014.
Not likely. If any of the reviewers outside FAA make substantial changes to any Rule then the agency has to take the time to incorporate those changes, revise the Rules and basically start the process over again. This can significantly delay getting the Rule out. I'm betting the WH (and other reviwers) will determine that a less than perfect Rule is better than no Rule at all.
Probably not. In fact, the White house cannot overrule an agency decision but they can exert a lot of pressure one way or the other. Of all the comments to the NPRM, the White House is the most influential. After all, if the President doesn't like what the director of an agency is doing, he can fire him.
The WSJ is the ONLY news organization telegraphing the secret internal work of the FAA team that is writing the NPRM. And like other branches of NewsCorp, they don't cite a source.
As I said on a prior post, when the FAA releases an NPRM it will be the most restrictive version of the proposed rules, then they will relax some restrictions in the final version based on comments to the NPRM. (Get ready, we need to make our position loud and clear with individual comments - don't just sit back and just trust the AMA speak for you).
The same thing happened in 1982 when the FAA created rules that became FAR Part 103-Ultralight Vehicles. (And the process from an Advisory Circular to final rule took eight years).
A couple of things. First, the AMA is not really involved with the coming sUAS Rule. That Rule is directed towards commercial uses and not the recreational/hobby use that is the focus of the AMA. AMA is looking at trying to get the FAA to allow what they call "intentional use", which means use of a model aircraft by a hobbyist in the furtherance of their own business interests. For instance, a realtor could use his personal Phantom to takes photos of his listings, but not other realtor's. A farmer could use it on his land for his farm, but not for others.But beyond that the AMA is not the group anyone should be looking to with regard to the commercial uses of sUAS.
Second point. Regardless of how many comments the FAA may receive on a NPRM they are not under any obligation to change a single word of the proposed Rule. They can if they want to, but they are not required to do so.
But I agree, we need to be ready to make our voices heard!!
The White House can do what they did with the FCC over Net Neutrality which is to advise them on how to proceed. It isn't an order so it doesn't have to be followed but it will likely carry a significant amount of influence. There have been rumors for a few weeks now of a similar move by the White House on drones. Whether it's a pro innovation or tin foil hat thinking remains to be determined.
Ding-Ding-Ding!! Give that man the Blue Ribbon!!!
That is precisely the problem. The AMA has an awful lot of influence and history with the FAA and I fear that the AMA response will protect the hobby flyers while conveniently throwing potential commercial users under the bus.
I am sick and disgusted that anyone would inject partisan politics into a discussion about drone law. I come here to read and post information about Phantom UAV's, I can get politics pretty much everywhere else and I come here to avoid the BS! Please don't discuss your political beliefs in these forums, I beg you! :shock: David
BTW, I read and enjoy the WSJ. I am sorry it offends you but I will continue to read it.
Ummm... The AMA is the Academy of MODEL Aeronautics.
Take a look at their mission: http://www.modelaircraft.org/files/102.pdf
Not anywhere does it say anything about commercial activities. The SOLE purpose of the AMA is the development of MODEL aviation as a HOBBY. It is their JOB to protect hobbyists. Thinking that they should in any way be there to lobby for or otherwise protect commercial activities demonstrates a singular lack of understanding what the AMA is all about.
I've been a member for 48 years now, and I am pretty pleased with what they have done to protect my hobby of flying radio control MODEL airplanes.
I like flying my Phantom and I look forward to being able to use it for work once the FAA gets their head's out of their @$$&$. Flying Phantoms may be "a" hobby, but it is NOT model aviation.
Since most consumer "drones" are considered model aircraft by just about everyone except a few ignorant judges and the FAA I'd say the AMA has a large stake in the coming laws regardless of the commercial aspect. The FAA has after all attempted to "outlawed" FPV flying even for recreational use.
The difference between hobby and commercial are extremely vague. Is teaching a beginner how to fly for a nominal fee considered commercial even if it's for hobby use? Is taking a picture of a home which is used for real estate marketing a year later considered commercial?
Do you define what is and isn't model aviation? Why is it that a remote helicopter is a model aircraft but a quad isn't?
Looks a lot like a sketch of a Vision on the AMA home page:
AMA is making a desperate attempt to embrace the sUAS community in an effort to bolster membership. Section 336 basically requires that you belong to the AMA if you want to operate "within the programming" of the AMA. AMA first tried with the failed Park Flyers program to capture that group. Now they are eyeing the hobby quad/multicopter community. But ask the average member what they think and you will hear essentially what I stated above. Most do not want quads/multicopters lumped in with traditional model aircraft.
But regardless of the AMA's current expansion focus, they are still NOT aligned with the commercial use community. They are NOT there for folks who want to use their aircraft as part of a money-making venture. Section 336 which they helped write excludes commercial use, their insurance excludes commercial use, and their mission statement excludes commercial uses. So looking to the AMA for help in that arena is misplaced.
OK, you are correct and I've removed the politics from the post.
I fully agree that politics is just another issue to divide us, but I don't mind a tad. I understand that it shapes our opinions in ways we really can't escape. That said Steve is right, but he didn't go far enough. All the news outlets suck goat balls, and you'd have to be an idiot to stare at the screen and be told what to think.
I fear the power of the sheepole and their madding march to conformity of thought.