Might want to watch this.

Marleysky wrote:Feel like a squashed bug.  splat.  

Yup bout the way I feel. N numbers for all model aircraft...wow.
I don't know if this is going to effect us Control liners but if you're into RC this is something to watch closely.
(Bandit)

............What is this world coming to .........

...thanks to a few select individuals, likely not even hobbyists, who had to fly their quadcopters over an airport and stadium.

They were talking about this on the radio last night. The guy they had on claimed that each person would need to complete a course to obtain a permit and then pay to register their aircraft.

Admin wrote:
They were talking about this on the radio last night. The guy they had on claimed that each person would need to complete a course to obtain a permit and then pay to register their aircraft.

Yup which if not done right could spell the end of our beloved hobby With registration, it ceases to be a family orientated hobby and everyone in our ranks know that it's vital to get young folks involved in order for it to survive. with this, you can about say "it's been nice knowin' ya" because for one i can about say that they will put an age limit on it. People have got to understand that in this world of paranoia all it takes is one person to blow it for all of us. *Sighs*    
As I said I'm not sure if this is going to effect us control line fliers but from the way they are saying, it might.
(Bandit)

I never did like rotary winged aircraft.. maybe why I haven't worked on the Rod-O-Gyro.. It's the explosion of the quads that's done this.. because now "we" can spy on "them".. and they're freaked about it.   just some food for thought.

I don't see how this could affect short-tethered flying models.. but Free-Flight would definitely be regulated. I can just imagine how S.A.M. feels about that..

The vast majority of this is already very well covered under CRF 14 part 91 (the FAR's). It is a shame that we now have to abide by more rules and probably expense because the government can't get the word out about the operating rules to the appropriate people. It is just how the government works: if at first you don't succeed make more rules.

Admin wrote:...thanks to a few select individuals, likely not even hobbyists, who had to fly their quadcopters over an airport and stadium.

They were talking about this on the radio last night. The guy they had on claimed that each person would need to complete a course to obtain a permit and then pay to register their aircraft.

All: If you listened to the entire story on CBS they were talking about COMMERCIAL drone pilots having to take and pass a course to get a permit to fly COMMERCIALLY used drones, aircraft and quadcopters. Wait and see before you jump to conclusions, but keep your aircraft, quad-copters, boats and cars close by.

happydad

happydad wrote:

Admin wrote:...thanks to a few select individuals, likely not even hobbyists, who had to fly their quadcopters over an airport and stadium.

They were talking about this on the radio last night. The guy they had on claimed that each person would need to complete a course to obtain a permit and then pay to register their aircraft.

All: If you listened to the entire story on CBS they were talking about COMMERCIAL drone pilots having to take and pass a course to get a permit to fly COMMERCIALLY used drones, aircraft and quadcopters. Wait and see before you jump to conclusions, but keep your aircraft, quad-copters, boats and cars close by.

happydad

The way he made it sound on the radio was that once a law is passed (that would go in effect sometime in early-mid 2016), everyone that wishes to fly a model aircraft (drones, model planes, model helis...) would have to obtain a permit and register their model so that if someone does something stupid with their quadcopter and the officials get a hold of it, they can track down and prosecute the owner.

This was in my email ... from the AMA.

Pay particular attention to the last few paragraphs.

..................................

Dear Members,

As you might be aware, in a press conference on Monday October 19, 2015, the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) announced its intent to require registration for certain small unmanned aircraft systems (sUAS).

Led by Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx and FAA Administrator Michael Huerta, a concept was laid out calling for the creation of a task force to develop a plan to implement the registration process.

AMA was represented at the press conference by Government and Regulatory Affairs Representative Rich Hanson who offered comments on behalf of our organization. Representatives from the Association for Unmanned Vehicles Systems International (AUVSI) and the Air Line Pilots Association also provided input. A video of the press conference can be found here.

AMA has also been invited to participate in the task force which has been charged with completing its work by mid-November 2015.

The DOT is looking at the full spectrum of sUAS that would be subject to registration, and AMA agrees that registration may be appropriate at some level; however, before the process can be established, AMA believes that a threshold must be identified that will determine which platforms, what aircraft with what capabilities, will require registration and which will not.

AMA believes that traditional model aircraft, as well as the “toy-type” drones with minimal capability would fall below the threshold and not be subject to the registration process.

In a prepared statement released yesterday, AMA was clear in its position that any required registration process “should not become a prohibitive burden for recreational users who fly for fun and educational purposes and who have operated harmoniously within our communities for decades.”

AMA does not and will not support any proposal that calls for the registration of any sUAS that fall below an established threshold and is resolute in its position that all forms of traditional model aircraft must remain exempt from the registration process.

Having a physical attachment to the plane (control lines) should negate the "unmanned" element for our aircraft.

This is really stringent on you mates in the US, and I agree a C/L airplane attached to the pilot is not to be classified as an unmanned aircraft...

I am flying R/C here in Hungary and while there are no such stringent rules of registration - yet, or not that I would know of -I expect the same regulation will spread around the world with the proliferation of drones/gyrocopters etc. that pilots often use to infringe privacy....I assume the privacy aspect is more to have triggered the registration issue in the US than safety...even though safety is also important but I have never heard of a model aircraft grounding a commercial jet, let alone causing it to crash...but the reference to the San Francisco 49's joining the initiative gives me again the feeling it is the privacy infringement i.e. illegal filming of football games (??) that is behind the story..

Sorry to have given my uneducated opinion from a continent away..

Balogh,

(This is Not meant to sound argumentative, just some thoughts spurred by your comment)

USA Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and other agencies are not in the least concerned with citizen privacy. The drone issues relating to privacy are mostly citizens who don't want a police or neighbor drone peeking into a window or back yard. Lots of discussion on shooting them down ...but all that is a side show

The Safety issue really is a concern:

Earlier this year, during a bad California wild fire with loss of life and property; The aircraft fighting the fire (rescue, retardant/water droppers, and those coordinating air activity) were grounded because some unknown idiots (most likely TV or Radio news folks) were flying drones in the immediate flying space and posed a risk to the aircraft and crews. Grounding air support in the middle of a active event is totally unacceptable.

I am sure that most current large Boeing/Airbus could sustain ingesting a drone in the giant turbofan and safely return to airport. BUT now we have 100~500 passengers needing transport on other airplane(s), and a engine rebuild at $100s of thousands. Again unacceptable.

Many, like me, don't want to see new laws and regulations. AND I would love to see arrests, prosecution and a lot more education for anyone using any RC unmanned aircraft.

That said, The current fad of non line of sight drone (unmanned aircraft) with these easy to buy and fly aircraft do pose a real danger from terrorist and plain old ignorant citizens. Much more so than the stupid idiot with a laser pen pointing at approaching aircraft ( I have been in a Army Helicopter that was lased by someone on the ground)

In either case it is extremely unlikely to ever catch or prosecute the idiot

I predict these laws and regulation will be done, done poorly, and mostly unenforceable because no training or $$$ resources will ever be added to the law enforcement side.

Fred,

thank you for this..I did not know about those encounters in the US between drones and fire fighting planes, sorry for that.

In Hungary there is also some talk about the future regulation of where and how to legitimately use these model aircraft, but the noisiest argument against them was privacy and not so much the air traffic security.

Of course the safety should never be compromised.
I hope though that whatever regulation will be enacted in the US and globally, we, benevolent modelers will be the least affected while pursuing our tame hobby...

As the AMA rep stated, establishing a threshold above which UAV's must be registered is critical. To require registration of a electric toy airplane that weighs less than a kilo and a range limit below 2-3 miles just seems ludicrous.

Also, what are the limits of FAA airspace? Does it extend all the way down to ground zero? Or is there a minimum altitude below which one can operate private UAV's without infringing on the 'Federal Airspace System' as Mr. Huerta put it?

VUgearhead wrote:As the AMA rep stated, establishing a threshold above which UAV's must be registered is critical. To require registration of a electric toy airplane that weighs less than a kilo and a range limit below 2-3 miles just seems ludicrous.

Also, what are the limits of FAA airspace? Does it extend all the way down to ground zero? Or is there a minimum altitude below which one can operate private UAV's without infringing on the 'Federal Airspace System' as Mr. Huerta put it?

The FAA has rulings all the way to the runway, but that doesn't mean that they will set up rules for the general model aircraft user to ground level. Remember what THEY said previously. The rules "would primarily control the commercial user of drone type aircraft", so just chill and wait until it looks like it is going to really hit the fan. I personally don't think there is any way in the world or in the universe that the FAA or congress or anyone else could ever think they could control the tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands if not millions of casual, or fanatical, users of TOY drone planes or quad-copters. Commercial users is another story. Commercial is defined in this case as using for gain or for profit, like Google, Amazon and now Walmart. Using quad-copter and multi-copter devices to deliver products.
    Now that is crazy, unpredictable and just plain stupid. In my opinion that is like giving cars to every 5 year old and saying "drive yourself to school, you're smart enough". And that's my 2 cents.

happydad