f you’ve been following this column
during the last year or so, you’ll recall that
I’ve written about the FAA’s Aviation
Rulemaking Committee (ARC) that was
created by Executive Order of the FAA acting
administrator in April 2008. The purpose of
this ARC, as established in order number
1110.150 (http://rgl.faa.gov/regulatory_and_
guidance_library/rgOrders.nsf/0/8616600949d
cc4b78625742c004c52b0/$FILE/1110.150.pd
f), was to draft recommendations for the FAA
to consider in developing a regulatory basis
for the operation of small unmanned aircraft
systems (sUAS) in the National Airspace
System (NAS).
By definition, radio-controlled model
airplanes are considered “aircraft” and the
FAA has included model aviation in its effort
to create new enabling regulations for sUAS.
The ARC comprised roughly 20 members
from throughout the sUAS community
including representatives of the military,
several commercial entities, the U.S.
Department of Defense, the U.S. Department
of Justice, and FAA Air Traffic.
Associations with seats at the table include
the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association,
the Airline Pilots Association, the Radio
Control Aerial Photography Association
(RCAPA), the Association for Unmanned
Vehicle Systems International, the
International Association of Chiefs of Police,
and the Helicopter Association International.
The AMA was also extended an invitation to
participate.
By accepting the invitation to be part of the
ARC, AMA also agreed to abide by the
FAA’s Rules of Engagement (ROE)
established to govern the process. One of the
rules was that members of the committee
would not speak publicly about the specifics
of the ARC’s work until after the process was
President’s Perspective
AMA President Dave Mathewson
I
Our collective voices may be needed to help
guide the direction of model aviation in the future.
June 2009 5
Mission Statement
The Academy of Model Aeronautics is a world-class association of modelers organized for the purpose of
promotion, development, education, advancement, and safeguarding of modeling activities.
The Academy provides leadership, organization, competition, communication, protection, representation,
recognition, education and scientific/technical development to modelers.
complete. This put AMA in the difficult
position of weighing our members’ right to
know against honoring the agreement made at
the first committee meeting in May 2008. We
felt it was important that model aviation has a
representative on the ARC and we agreed to
the stipulation. We’ve honored that
commitment throughout the process.
The ARC completed its work in late
March 2009, and sent its draft of
recommendations to the FAA hierarchy for
review. As I am writing this in April, the FAA
is still reviewing the material and the
recommendations have not been released to
the public. I anticipate that the information
will be released and ARC members will be
free to discuss the recommendations by the
time this issue of MA reaches you.
In accepting the FAA’s invitation to
participate on the ARC, AMA believed our
main role would be to separate model aviation
and its activities from that of the commercial
and public use sUAS operators, which was the
focal point of the FAA’s Executive Order. In
fact the only specific reference to model
aircraft in the order was Item 4, Section (c).
This section charged the ARC with
establishing, “the regulatory basis allowing
small UAS to operate in the National Airspace
System for compensation or hire, and clarify
the definition of a model aircraft.”
As the process evolved, the scope of the
ARC expanded beyond the specifics of the
Executive Order. At the first meeting, Bruce
Tarbert, ARC co-chairperson from the FAA
Unmanned Aircraft Program Office, cautioned
all participants not to bring personal agendas
to the table. This turned out to be easier said
than done, especially for those who represent
companies with a vested interest in the
commercial sUAS market.
Another component of the ROE stipulated
that the ARC recommendations would be
consensus based and any single dissenting
vote from a member on the committee would
table a proposal. This stipulation should have
created a level playing field for a diverse
group of people with differing viewpoints and
in some instances competing interests.
This didn’t turn out to be the case. Early in
the proceedings it proved to be nearly
impossible for the group to come to a
consensus on many of the issues. The
consensus approach was abandoned and the
“go-no go” standard was dropped in favor of
majority rule. This shift in the ROE clearly put
the AMA and model aviation at a
disadvantage.
It quickly became clear that the intent of the
ARC was to do more than merely “clarify the
definition of a model aircraft.” The
undertaking shifted to creating federal
regulations to govern model aviation. In short,
a workgroup, led by AMA but composed
mostly of individuals with virtually no
aeromodeling interest or experience, began
formulating the guidelines for model aviation
and its integration into NAS.
Given the change to a majority rule
standard, this became problematic as the
recommendations moved forward to the full
ARC. Other than our AMA representative,
Rich Hanson, and two other members of the
ARC, Fred Marks and Patrick Egan, none of
the members of the ARC had any modeling
experience. Although Fred and Patrick
understand model aviation and generally
supported AMA’s position, neither directly
represented model aviation.
Fred was invited by the FAA to participate
and help with the sUAS radio spectrum
concerns and Patrick represented the RCAPA.
As the ARC’s work concluded, there were
many lingering areas of concern for model
aviation. Given the makeup of the committee
and the change in the ROE, there was little
AMA could do to influence the outcome.
There were many instances where the ARC
was unable to come to a consensus on specific
sUAS issues, many more on the commercial/
public-use side than on the recreational side.
Each member with a dissenting viewpoint was
given the opportunity to provide comments,
and AMA submitted our opposing views and
rationales regarding the committee’s
recommendations impacting model aviation.
These comments were included in the final
document and listed along with the
recommendations as “Alternative Viewpoints
and Rationales.”
Now that the ARC’s final document has
been sent for review, the next step in the
rulemaking process is about to begin. The FAA
Continued on page 167
06sig1.QXD 4/24/09 10:06 AM Page 5
has the latitude to accept the ARC’s
recommendations in total, accept a portion
of the recommendations, or put aside the
recommendations altogether and start over.
The latter is fairly unlikely.
During this period, AMA will be
working directly with the FAA to try to
find reasonable solutions to our remaining
concerns. When the FAA has completed its
work, which includes drafting regulatory
language, conducting a safety assessment,
and performing an extensive intra-agency
and interagency review, it will create a
final set of proposed regulations.
These proposed regulations will be
released for a period of public comment
known as a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NPRM). The current timeline
targets the second quarter of 2010 for the
NPRM process; however, this may be
slightly optimistic. It is unlikely that there
will be an sUAS Special Federal Aviation
Regulation (SFAR) in place before the first
half of 2011.
I want to be clear that while it appears
there will be some changes to the way
model aircraft can operate in the future, for
most of us the changes will be negligible.
The most likely change will be codifying
some of the current guidelines in AC 91-
57. This FAA Advisory Circular has
guided model aircraft operations in the
NAS since 1981. Some of the guidelines,
that until now have been
recommendations, may become regulation.
AMA represents the full spectrum of
aeromodeling activities and we’re
committed to advocating for all of our
members. We feel strongly that some of
the recommendations sent to the FAA from
the ARC are unrealistic, unnecessary, and
impose an unjustifiably detrimental impact
on the modeling community. As mentioned
previously, AMA will continue to work
directly with the FAA to address these
concerns.
The FAA has stated numerous times
that it does not wish to diminish model
aviation and it intends to regulate the
activity by exempting it from regulation
and pointing to a community-based set of
safety standards such as those established
and administered by the AMA. It is clear
that the FAA has an obligation to ensure
the safety of all those who operate within
the NAS. AMA acknowledges this
obligation and supports the FAA’s effort
toward this goal.
We feel that model aviation has an
impeccable safety record dating back to the
1930s and modelers should be allowed to
continue to enjoy their hobby as
unencumbered as possible in the future.
Aeromodeling must not suffer unjustified
negative consequences as a result of the
FAA’s effort to draft regulations enabling
the operations of the commercial sUAS
industry.
Depending on how the final FAA
document addresses model aircraft, we
may ask our members to voice their
concerns during the NPRM process. As
was the case during the FCC frequency
reallocation in the early 1990s, it may
become necessary to alert our elected
representatives to our distress.
By working together we can make a
difference and have a positive effect on
the final outcome of these proposed
regulations. As I wrote in an earlier
column, the value of associations such as
the AMA is its strength in numbers. Our
collective voices may be needed to help
guide the direction of model aviation in
the future. MA
See you next time.
Dave Mathewson
AMA president
[email protected]
Edition: Model Aviation - 2009/06
Page Numbers: 5,167
Edition: Model Aviation - 2009/06
Page Numbers: 5,167
f you’ve been following this column
during the last year or so, you’ll recall that
I’ve written about the FAA’s Aviation
Rulemaking Committee (ARC) that was
created by Executive Order of the FAA acting
administrator in April 2008. The purpose of
this ARC, as established in order number
1110.150 (http://rgl.faa.gov/regulatory_and_
guidance_library/rgOrders.nsf/0/8616600949d
cc4b78625742c004c52b0/$FILE/1110.150.pd
f), was to draft recommendations for the FAA
to consider in developing a regulatory basis
for the operation of small unmanned aircraft
systems (sUAS) in the National Airspace
System (NAS).
By definition, radio-controlled model
airplanes are considered “aircraft” and the
FAA has included model aviation in its effort
to create new enabling regulations for sUAS.
The ARC comprised roughly 20 members
from throughout the sUAS community
including representatives of the military,
several commercial entities, the U.S.
Department of Defense, the U.S. Department
of Justice, and FAA Air Traffic.
Associations with seats at the table include
the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association,
the Airline Pilots Association, the Radio
Control Aerial Photography Association
(RCAPA), the Association for Unmanned
Vehicle Systems International, the
International Association of Chiefs of Police,
and the Helicopter Association International.
The AMA was also extended an invitation to
participate.
By accepting the invitation to be part of the
ARC, AMA also agreed to abide by the
FAA’s Rules of Engagement (ROE)
established to govern the process. One of the
rules was that members of the committee
would not speak publicly about the specifics
of the ARC’s work until after the process was
President’s Perspective
AMA President Dave Mathewson
I
Our collective voices may be needed to help
guide the direction of model aviation in the future.
June 2009 5
Mission Statement
The Academy of Model Aeronautics is a world-class association of modelers organized for the purpose of
promotion, development, education, advancement, and safeguarding of modeling activities.
The Academy provides leadership, organization, competition, communication, protection, representation,
recognition, education and scientific/technical development to modelers.
complete. This put AMA in the difficult
position of weighing our members’ right to
know against honoring the agreement made at
the first committee meeting in May 2008. We
felt it was important that model aviation has a
representative on the ARC and we agreed to
the stipulation. We’ve honored that
commitment throughout the process.
The ARC completed its work in late
March 2009, and sent its draft of
recommendations to the FAA hierarchy for
review. As I am writing this in April, the FAA
is still reviewing the material and the
recommendations have not been released to
the public. I anticipate that the information
will be released and ARC members will be
free to discuss the recommendations by the
time this issue of MA reaches you.
In accepting the FAA’s invitation to
participate on the ARC, AMA believed our
main role would be to separate model aviation
and its activities from that of the commercial
and public use sUAS operators, which was the
focal point of the FAA’s Executive Order. In
fact the only specific reference to model
aircraft in the order was Item 4, Section (c).
This section charged the ARC with
establishing, “the regulatory basis allowing
small UAS to operate in the National Airspace
System for compensation or hire, and clarify
the definition of a model aircraft.”
As the process evolved, the scope of the
ARC expanded beyond the specifics of the
Executive Order. At the first meeting, Bruce
Tarbert, ARC co-chairperson from the FAA
Unmanned Aircraft Program Office, cautioned
all participants not to bring personal agendas
to the table. This turned out to be easier said
than done, especially for those who represent
companies with a vested interest in the
commercial sUAS market.
Another component of the ROE stipulated
that the ARC recommendations would be
consensus based and any single dissenting
vote from a member on the committee would
table a proposal. This stipulation should have
created a level playing field for a diverse
group of people with differing viewpoints and
in some instances competing interests.
This didn’t turn out to be the case. Early in
the proceedings it proved to be nearly
impossible for the group to come to a
consensus on many of the issues. The
consensus approach was abandoned and the
“go-no go” standard was dropped in favor of
majority rule. This shift in the ROE clearly put
the AMA and model aviation at a
disadvantage.
It quickly became clear that the intent of the
ARC was to do more than merely “clarify the
definition of a model aircraft.” The
undertaking shifted to creating federal
regulations to govern model aviation. In short,
a workgroup, led by AMA but composed
mostly of individuals with virtually no
aeromodeling interest or experience, began
formulating the guidelines for model aviation
and its integration into NAS.
Given the change to a majority rule
standard, this became problematic as the
recommendations moved forward to the full
ARC. Other than our AMA representative,
Rich Hanson, and two other members of the
ARC, Fred Marks and Patrick Egan, none of
the members of the ARC had any modeling
experience. Although Fred and Patrick
understand model aviation and generally
supported AMA’s position, neither directly
represented model aviation.
Fred was invited by the FAA to participate
and help with the sUAS radio spectrum
concerns and Patrick represented the RCAPA.
As the ARC’s work concluded, there were
many lingering areas of concern for model
aviation. Given the makeup of the committee
and the change in the ROE, there was little
AMA could do to influence the outcome.
There were many instances where the ARC
was unable to come to a consensus on specific
sUAS issues, many more on the commercial/
public-use side than on the recreational side.
Each member with a dissenting viewpoint was
given the opportunity to provide comments,
and AMA submitted our opposing views and
rationales regarding the committee’s
recommendations impacting model aviation.
These comments were included in the final
document and listed along with the
recommendations as “Alternative Viewpoints
and Rationales.”
Now that the ARC’s final document has
been sent for review, the next step in the
rulemaking process is about to begin. The FAA
Continued on page 167
06sig1.QXD 4/24/09 10:06 AM Page 5
has the latitude to accept the ARC’s
recommendations in total, accept a portion
of the recommendations, or put aside the
recommendations altogether and start over.
The latter is fairly unlikely.
During this period, AMA will be
working directly with the FAA to try to
find reasonable solutions to our remaining
concerns. When the FAA has completed its
work, which includes drafting regulatory
language, conducting a safety assessment,
and performing an extensive intra-agency
and interagency review, it will create a
final set of proposed regulations.
These proposed regulations will be
released for a period of public comment
known as a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NPRM). The current timeline
targets the second quarter of 2010 for the
NPRM process; however, this may be
slightly optimistic. It is unlikely that there
will be an sUAS Special Federal Aviation
Regulation (SFAR) in place before the first
half of 2011.
I want to be clear that while it appears
there will be some changes to the way
model aircraft can operate in the future, for
most of us the changes will be negligible.
The most likely change will be codifying
some of the current guidelines in AC 91-
57. This FAA Advisory Circular has
guided model aircraft operations in the
NAS since 1981. Some of the guidelines,
that until now have been
recommendations, may become regulation.
AMA represents the full spectrum of
aeromodeling activities and we’re
committed to advocating for all of our
members. We feel strongly that some of
the recommendations sent to the FAA from
the ARC are unrealistic, unnecessary, and
impose an unjustifiably detrimental impact
on the modeling community. As mentioned
previously, AMA will continue to work
directly with the FAA to address these
concerns.
The FAA has stated numerous times
that it does not wish to diminish model
aviation and it intends to regulate the
activity by exempting it from regulation
and pointing to a community-based set of
safety standards such as those established
and administered by the AMA. It is clear
that the FAA has an obligation to ensure
the safety of all those who operate within
the NAS. AMA acknowledges this
obligation and supports the FAA’s effort
toward this goal.
We feel that model aviation has an
impeccable safety record dating back to the
1930s and modelers should be allowed to
continue to enjoy their hobby as
unencumbered as possible in the future.
Aeromodeling must not suffer unjustified
negative consequences as a result of the
FAA’s effort to draft regulations enabling
the operations of the commercial sUAS
industry.
Depending on how the final FAA
document addresses model aircraft, we
may ask our members to voice their
concerns during the NPRM process. As
was the case during the FCC frequency
reallocation in the early 1990s, it may
become necessary to alert our elected
representatives to our distress.
By working together we can make a
difference and have a positive effect on
the final outcome of these proposed
regulations. As I wrote in an earlier
column, the value of associations such as
the AMA is its strength in numbers. Our
collective voices may be needed to help
guide the direction of model aviation in
the future. MA
See you next time.
Dave Mathewson
AMA president
[email protected]