The 2018 FAA Reauthorization Act and what it means for sUAS Operators

[Earnest Ward]

This is the most thorough and insightful overview of the 2018 FRA I've seen to date - with detailed coverage of what it calls for, which agencies will be responsible (contrary to the Act's title, it involves far more than just the FAA), how long they have to meet the assigned goals, and who the "winners" and "losers" may be.

Both hobbyists and professionals will find it a worthwhile read. (Example: instructing the FAA to implement a more transparent COA/COW application & processing system - and setting a timetable for said - came as quite a pleasant surprise.)

The "Why's" of the 2018 FAA Reauthorization Act - Inside Unmanned Systems

 

[Phaedrus]

I am not impressed. First, in their discussion of the hobby rules they do not even know what AMA stands for. It is the Academy of Model Aeronautics, not the "American Modelers Association". Big face plant there.

Second, the big losers in the new Section 349 are the tens of thousands of pre-multi rotor model airplane enthusiasts who will now be subjected to intense regulations and testing because of the action of a few irresponsible drone hobbyists. How the authors think this gets traditional modelers back to how the FAA has long viewed them shows a near total ignorance of that subject.

I'll view the rest of this article with great skepticism based on the missteps in this one section of their analysis.

 

[BryanD]

Have not read the article yet but you are correct in saying that the RC hobbyists that have been flying responsibly for many years at AMA fields are the losers in this fiasco. And it is all because of a few misguided idiots.

 

[Earnest Ward]

Have not read the article yet but you are correct in saying that the RC hobbyists that have been flying responsibly for many years at AMA fields are the losers in this fiasco. And it is all because of a few misguided idiots.

I understand where the AMA is coming from, but would disagree with the term "losers."

When the ultralight aircraft phenomena materialized a few decades ago it was, initially, regulation-free. As it grew in popularity it eventually became necessary to create the Sports Pilot rating to keep the NAS safe for all users. And no one "lost out."

There will be tradeoff for hobbyists going forward - necessitated in part by rapid advances in technology (think flight above 400' AGL and BVLOS) and in part due to easy, inexpensive access to high performance equipment by newbies who have no understanding of existing rules and responsibilities.) Among the gains hobbyists are expected to acquire - LAANC access to controlled airspace, and the ability to establish community fields within controlled airspace. (This will be a big plus for an organization like AMA, which has a long history of commitment to educating the next generation of hobbyists and aeronautical engineers.)

Interesting times.

 

[Phaedrus]

I understand where the AMA is coming from, but would disagree with the term "losers."

When the ultralight aircraft phenomena materialized a few decades ago it was, initially, regulation-free. As it grew in popularity it eventually became necessary to create the Sports Pilot rating to keep the NAS safe for all users. And no one "lost out."

Ultralight pilots can still operate under Part 103. Sport pilot rating was a bridge between true ultralights and a newer class/type of aircraft more similar to the normal ASEL type of plane.

There will be tradeoff for hobbyists going forward - necessitated in part by rapid advances in technology (think flight above 400' AGL and BVLOS) and in part due to easy, inexpensive access to high performance equipment by newbies who have no understanding of existing rules and responsibilities.) Among the gains hobbyists are expected to acquire - LAANC access to controlled airspace, and the ability to establish community fields within controlled airspace. (This will be a big plus for an organization like AMA, which has a long history of commitment to educating the next generation of hobbyists and aeronautical engineers.)

Interesting times.

Not sure I follow your line of reasoning. What you view as "wins" access to controlled airspace, etc. are things hobby model airplane pilots have been doing safely for decades without LAANC, etc. How is having a new system like that a "win"?

How is it I will now need a test to operate my model airplanes in order to be deemed "safe" after 53 years of doing so without a single issue? I am flying the same planes that I have always been flying.

The point that keeps being lost here, is all this "new technology" and "newbies" needing to learn the rues applies nearly 100% to camera equipped multi-rotor aircraft with semi-autonomous flight capabilities. Basically in my mind all these new rules should apply only to aircraft that won't crash if you let go of the sticks and take your eyes off them for 30 seconds. Try that with an actual model airplane and you'll be headed to the trash bin.

 

[Earnest Ward]

Phaedrus said:

"How is it I will now need a test to operate my model airplanes in order to be deemed "safe" after 53 years of doing so without a single issue? I am flying the same planes that I have always been flying."

If I had to venture a guess it would be that: 1) the FAA has no way of distinguishing you (or any other hobbyist veteran) from the newbie who just got a quad or fixed-wing sUAS for Christmas. And 2) short of testing, the FAA cannot be assured that an individual's model aircraft experience (even 53 years experience) has given them the aeronautical knowledge deemed necessary for integration into the NAS.

In the interest of full disclosure, I will admit that it was an annoyance - with 35 years of manned commercial flight/flight instruction experience - that I was still required to take a written for the 107. But that's all it was - a passing annoyance.

Then again, I fully expect to see point-of-purchase registration, universal Remote ID, and a low alt. UTM adopted in short order too. Some will no doubt find that bothersome too. But if that, and advancements in robust and reliable r/c technologies, will reassure the flying public of their safety and lead to BVLOS and fuller integration into the NAS for sUAS operators, I'm all for it.

 

[Phaedrus]

Phaedrus said:

"How is it I will now need a test to operate my model airplanes in order to be deemed "safe" after 53 years of doing so without a single issue? I am flying the same planes that I have always been flying."

If I had to venture a guess it would be that: 1) the FAA has no way of distinguishing you (or any other hobbyist veteran) from the newbie who just got a quad or fixed-wing sUAS for Christmas. And 2) short of testing, the FAA cannot be assured that an individual's model aircraft experience (even 53 years experience) has given them the aeronautical knowledge deemed necessary for integration into the NAS.

In the interest of full disclosure, I will admit that it was an annoyance - with 35 years of manned commercial flight/flight instruction experience - that I was still required to take a written for the 107. But that's all it was - a passing annoyance.

Then again, I fully expect to see point-of-purchase registration, universal Remote ID, and a low alt. UTM adopted in short order too. Some will no doubt find that bothersome too. But if that, and advancements in robust and reliable r/c technologies, will reassure the flying public of their safety and lead to BVLOS and fuller integration into the NAS for sUAS operators, I'm all for it.

Again totally missing the point that traditional model airplanes have been safely operating in the NAS for several decades. So why now? What's changed?

Now drones? Nope, they have little proven experience and are very prone to misuse by uninformed newbies. Plus, since few, if any, will operate at established model aircraft flying sites it is even more important that they know airspace, rules, etc. And they do have a well documented record of misuse in inappropriate places.

SO the FAA failing to understand the differences ends up lumping both together. And the AMA bears a good deal of the blame for this. They failed from Day One to draw a big black line in the sand to educate both the FAA and the public that there IS a difference. Instead they embraced multirotors in hopes of getting new members and thus lost the chance to protect their traditional membership more effectively.

 

[BryanD]

I understand where the AMA is coming from, but would disagree with the term "losers."

When the ultralight aircraft phenomena materialized a few decades ago it was, initially, regulation-free. As it grew in popularity it eventually became necessary to create the Sports Pilot rating to keep the NAS safe for all users. And no one "lost out."

There will be tradeoff for hobbyists going forward - necessitated in part by rapid advances in technology (think flight above 400' AGL and BVLOS) and in part due to easy, inexpensive access to high performance equipment by newbies who have no understanding of existing rules and responsibilities.) Among the gains hobbyists are expected to acquire - LAANC access to controlled airspace, and the ability to establish community fields within controlled airspace. (This will be a big plus for an organization like AMA, which has a long history of commitment to educating the next generation of hobbyists and aeronautical engineers.)

Interesting times.

Agreed, losers was not exactly the right term. Maybe they are the group that may be impacted the most. You make good points.