AMA’s response to the FAA’s sUAS NPRM
On February 23, 2015, the FAA published its proposed regulations for small unmanned aircraft systems (sUAS) as a Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM). This began a 60-day comment period during which the public could comment on the proposed regulations. When finalized, the proposed rules would become the safety regulations for operating small, nonrecreational, unmanned aircraft.
The NPRM referenced FAA’s June 2014 interpretation of the Special Rule for Model Aircraft (P.L. 112-95, Sec. 336). The AMA took exception to several aspects of FAA’s interpretation. The proposed rule essentially took the language in the 2012 Special Rule (the AMA amendment) and placed it in the Federal Aviation Regulations. AMA members were encouraged to submit comments commending the FAA for appropriately separating model aviation from the new regulations and also encouraged members to include in their comments the need to resolve the discrepancies stemming from the Interpretive Rule before finalizing the sUAS rule. The comment period ended on April 24, 2015.
“The Academy believes that the FAA must address and adjudicate the 33,000-plus comments to its interpretation of the Special Rule for Model Aircraft and resolve the issues and concerns presented before moving forward in finalizing the small UAS rule,” stated AMA Director of Public Relations and Government Affairs Rich Hanson.
Rich offered the following synopsis of the AMA’s response to the Interpretive Rule:
Overall, the AMA views the proposed sUAS regulations as a positive first step. AMA believes that the proposed rules in the new Part 107 are an important and appropriate approach to enabling the rapidly emerging and highly beneficial unmanned aircraft industry. However, the AMA has some concerns regarding FAA’s sUAS proposal and offered comments and suggestions for improvement.
The AMA supports the exemption of model aircraft from the regulation for unmanned aircraft systems. As Congress recognized in its Special Rule for Model Aircraft, self-governance under community-based safety guidelines has worked exceptionally well for decades, and should remain in place.
However, in the preamble to the proposed rule, the FAA has repeated its June 2014 statement that model aircraft are “aircraft” and as such are subject to all existing aviation regulations. The AMA has taken exception to this stance, as well as several other elements of FAA’s interpretation of the “Special Rule” (see AMA’s previous comments to the Interpretive Rule, Docket No. FAA-2014-0396 at www.modelaircraft.org/files/AMAComments_InterpRule0914.pdf).
AMA believes that the FAA must revise this interpretation so that it is in agreement with what Congress directed in 2012—specifically that recreational model aircraft are subject to community-based safety guidelines, not aviation regulations.
For additional information concerning AMA’s entire response, please visit the AMA blogs.
ADVOCATING ON YOUR BEHALF
Rich Hanson provides answers to your questions on the government-relations section of our website: www.modelaircraft.org/gov. Visit regularly for updates.
Rich’s blog contains information on timely topics and news items. Check out the AMA government relations blog at http://amablog.modelaircraft.org/amagov. This complex issue affects the entire aeromodeling community.
AMA’s proposed changes to the Interpretive Rule
The FAA predicates its exemption for model aircraft in the proposed rule on its interpretation of the Special Rule for Model Aircraft. However, future regulations for model aircraft should not be based on incorrect interpretations of what Congress wrote. As presented in AMA’s comments to the Interpretive Rule, some of the interpretations that must be changed to the extent that they form the basis for any current or future regulation include:
- Asserting model aircraft to be “aircraft,” and effectively making model aircraft subject to all regulations applicable to full-scale, manned aircraft.
- Making model aircraft subject to airspace requirements such as air traffic control clearance, that have never been applicable in the past and with which it is impossible or impractical to comply. Congress indicated the maximum obligation, which is actually stricter than what the FAA’s guidance has been for the past 34 years, is to notify the airport when operating within 5 miles. That is the most that model aircraft hobbyists should have to do.
- Portraying the criteria for operating model aircraft within 5 miles of an airport in a manner that effectively changes the requirement from providing prior “notification” to a requirement of obtaining prior permission.
- Rigidly defining a requirement to operate within visual line of sight that calls into question the use of a specific technology and type of equipment, namely first-person view (FPV) goggles. The language of the 2012 statute concerning “within visual line of sight” indicates how far away a person should fly the model aircraft, not what method of control may be used for the recreational experience. The proposal for commercial unmanned aircraft acknowledges that an observer (spotter) can be used to ensure airspace safety, just as the AMA’s community-based safety guidelines do.
- Narrowly interpreting the words “hobby or recreational use.” The FAA should not attempt to regulate and segregate those involved in the hobby industry from the hobby and the hobbyists they’ve supported for decades. Distributors and manufacturers producing unmanned aircraft for personal and recreational use must be allowed to develop, test-fly, and demonstrate their products under the hobby guidelines as stated in Section 336 and as intended by Congress.
For decades, enthusiasts have participated in contests and competitions that have cash prizes, have been paid to instruct others on how to safely fly models, and have received compensation for aerobatics displays. These payments are incidental to the hobby and do not change the underlying recreational purpose of the activity. Regulating these activities would be highly disruptive to the hobby without any benefit.
The FAA should clearly define flying unmanned aircraft for compensation or hire in a manner similar to that applied to the manned aircraft air show industry. Factory pilots, sponsored pilots, and other pilots flying for indirect compensation, such as sponsorship for promotional purposes, should not be considered as flying for compensation or hire or for nonrecreational purposes.
FAA’s narrow interpretation of hobby and recreational use also excludes the use of model aircraft as a tool for teaching science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). AMA has been directly involved in youth education for decades and advancements in science and technology, as they relate to aeronautical and aerospace disciplines, have been the core mission of the organization since it was founded in 1936.
Hundreds of AMA chartered clubs across the nation are active in AMA’s Adopt a School program. These clubs are directly involved in their communities and have introduced hundreds of thousands of students, Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, youth of the 4-H, and members of the Boys and Girls Club to the wonders of aviation and the application of math and sciences to the marvels of flight.
