President’s Perspective - 2004/08
Dave Brown, AMA president
If we fail to act responsibly, we could lose the right to self-regulate aeromodeling.
I went to Washington, D.C., so this column will be full of abbreviations which the government is so fond of using. I'll try to define each as it is used, but I will begin by making sure you know that AMA is "us," FAA is the Federal Aviation Administration, and FCC is the Federal Communications Commission.
My trip began with two days of meetings at the National Aeronautic Association (NAA), where various air-sports organizations discussed subjects we have in common and some issues we will have in the future. Among those subjects were access to airspace for our activities, membership, insurance, site access, and myriad other issues which we share.
I had an appointment with the FAA and need to impart what I learned during that meeting. If you have ever been to most government offices in Washington, D.C., you know the security drill you go through and how someone "escorts" you to the meeting place. While riding the elevator, my escort (who was the person with whom I had the appointment) told me that there were a number of people who heard I was coming and were waiting to see me! This wasn't what I expected and I wasn't sure why this was happening. What had I done to draw that kind of attention? As it turned out, a number of AMA members work at the FAA and were waiting to meet the AMA president. Needless to say, I was relieved to hear that we were not in that much trouble.
Unmanned Aircraft (UA) designation and FAA jurisdiction
The meeting was to discuss the issue of FAA's future regulation of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs)—formerly referred to as Remotely Piloted Vehicles (RPVs)—and its impact on model aviation. One of the first things I learned was that there is a new designation for these vehicles, the importance of which was not lost on me. The new abbreviation and term are UA—Unmanned Aircraft.
The reason for this change, or at least the effect of it, became obvious later in the meeting. This change makes it very clear that the FAA has jurisdiction over UAs and that they can be subjected to certification and licensing requirements, just as with any other aircraft.
This may not seem significant, but it could become so. The FAA doesn't give the impression that it wants to regulate model airplanes, but it does have responsibility for all of the navigable airspace in the United States, and we fly in that airspace. The people in the FAA seem to want to ensure we integrate into that airspace without creating a safety problem for its other users. I don't think anyone would disagree with that need.
High-altitude operations
When I was asked about high-altitude operations by model airplanes, I didn't know what they were getting at. I was unaware of any recent record attempts in this area, which would require a waiver from the FAA. I knew we often flew slightly above the 400 feet specified in the FAA Advisory Circular (AC) which addresses aeromodeling.
I assumed that might be the issue, but I was surprised when the FAA personnel explained that they were not talking about those incidents but referring to models flying at 10,000 feet and above! They specified three individuals who were purportedly flying at altitudes of as much as 25,000 feet. These individuals were bragging about it—complete with pictures on various Internet sites. One was boasting that he was "flying up there with the big boys," and that "the FAA doesn't have a clue." After I saw one of the Internet sites, I had to do some fast thinking. How could I explain this? Fortunately, the FAA was reasonable in its approach to this and didn't condemn all aeromodelers for the unreasonable acts of a few. The FAA representatives asked for our help in putting a stop to this type of activity. While they didn't say it outright, it was obvious that they would step in to act if we do not. Please, if you know of anyone involved in these extremely high-altitude flights, do whatever you can to put a stop to this type of activity. If we fail to act responsibly, we could lose the right to self-regulate aeromodeling. We have an exceptionally good relationship with the FAA and a fine track record of safety in terms of full-scale aircraft, but we could quickly blow that if we do not act responsibly.
Commercial uses of model aircraft
The next subject was "commercial" uses of model aircraft. This brought about some interesting perspectives. In full-scale aircraft and model aircraft, the FAA is much more critical of commercial operations than it is of recreational operations. While it is willing to let the recreational aeromodeling community regulate itself through AMA, it is not willing to allow any commercial operations under that arrangement. This is significant and bears some explanation of the FAA's view of what constitutes "commercial" flying.
AMA has used the idea of "payment for that specific flight" as its guideline for determining what is commercial, but our principal reason for needing to establish these guidelines is for insurance purposes. "Casual" flight instruction—for pay—is allowed by AMA under the insurance program. Those "sponsored" aeromodelers who compete are not defined as being paid for "that specific flight," so they do not constitute a problem to AMA.
The FAA has a different view of what constitutes commercial. I can't relate specifics because I don't know them, but I can relate the concepts as I understand them based on our meeting. The FAA is concerned with operations such as aerial photography, air sampling, air patrols (pipelines, power lines, and security), advertising (banner towing or aerial billboards), traffic reporting, etc. This includes any operations involved in the gathering of data, performing a service for another party, or where pilots are compensated for their service or where there's an expectation of profit. That is the line the FAA is drawing for these types of operation.
Ironically, test flying a model which is under development for sale as a recreational model airplane wouldn't trigger the FAA's concern, but test flying one intended for commercial operations would. It's a fine line and one which I can't define more clearly.
What do you do if you want to develop such a commercial model aircraft or become involved in commercial model aircraft (UA) operations? Contact the FAA and it will work with you to grant whatever waiver or process is necessary to allow those operations.
I contacted the Washington, D.C., office and asked for the people involved in "Unmanned Aircraft," rather than going to the local FAA people who might be prone to misinterpretation or simply have no knowledge of the situation.
According to the people charged with dealing with UAs at the FAA home office, there is no "magic size or weight" where such an aircraft becomes a recreational model and not subject to FAA regulation if it is to be used commercially. I realize this isn't a very clear definition, but I think you get the idea. I believe the change will improve as the FAA gains experience in dealing with UAs. We will have to monitor developments as the FAA gains experience.
Transcribed from original scans by AI. Minor OCR errors may remain.
