As AMA members are well
aware, drones, or more properly,
unmanned aircraft systems
(UAS), have become a daily feature
in the news. And, with the FAA
Modernization and Reform Act enacted
earlier this year calling for integration of
UAS into the national airspace over the
next several years, public interest in UAS
has never been higher.
Interest, however, does not necessarily
imply support. In fact, there have been
calls for an
outright ban on
domestic UAS,
as well as a spate
of legislative
initiatives
aimed at
imposing various
restrictions on
UAS use and
data collection.
AMA members
are rightly
concerned that
these or future
initiatives, no
matter how well
intentioned,
may end up
negatively
impacting the
fl exibility that
aeromodelers
have enjoyed for generations.
Fortunately, through the efforts of Rich
Hanson and others, the concerns of AMA
members are being heard in Washington,
and there is cause for optimism that
lawmakers and regulators will continue to
recognize the value of modeling.
Including the AMA’s voice in the UAS
policy dialog is critical to protecting the
hobby. However,
there is an additional
reason that the
AMA’s voice is so
vital: The AMA’s
many decades of experience with
American civil unmanned aviation is
unique and directly relevant to many of
the regulatory questions raised by UAS,
particularly “small” UAS (sUAS) weighing
less than 55 pounds.
As a nonmodeler who has had
extensive
interactions
with the AMA
in recent
months, I have
gained a strong
appreciation
for knowledge
embodied in
the AMA and
its 154,000-
plus members.
I have come to
believe that while
nonmodelers—
including many
regulators and
legislators—
certainly can
understand
why the AMA
seeks to protect
aeromodeling,
they may not know how valuable the
AMA’s knowledge can be with respect to
the many detailed and complex questions
that will arise with sUAS integration into
the airspace.
The experience of aeromodeling
organizations can provide important
guidance for aviation regulatory
authorities addressing sUAS.
In Australia, for example, the Australia
Civil Aviation Safety Authority’s Advisory
Circular on “Unmanned Aircraft and
Rockets,” provides that the “structural
design of small UAVs should meet the
standards applicable to the construction
of model aircraft of the same weight
category, which may be obtained from
the Model Aircraft Association of
Australia (MAAA).”
Australian aviation regulators realized,
quite logically, that the MAAA had given
substantial attention to structural design
over the years, and that there was no
need to reinvent the wheel.
Model aircraft and sUAS are operated
differently, and raise different policy
and regulatory questions. No one would
claim that that the AMA’s approach to
issues such as safety and “see-and-avoid”
protocols will map directly onto all sUAS
applications.
For instance, commercial sUAS
fl ights over populated areas will involve
questions outside the scope of the fl ight
operations that the AMA has considered.
But, despite these differences, the AMA’s
expertise is a valuable national asset with
respect to civil unmanned aviation in the
United States.
All of us, modelers and nonmodelers
alike, have an interest in maintaining the
safest possible national airspace as sUAS
use becomes more common. Achieving
that goal will be easier if we leverage
the collective wisdom accumulated by
the AMA across more than 75 years of
unmanned aircraft operations.
—John Villasenor
Edition: Model Aviation - 2012/12
Page Numbers: 15