President’s Perspective - 2011/03

March 2011 5
’m sure the cover of this month’s MA got
your attention. That is the intent. The
question on the cover is reasonable for
model aviation enthusiasts to ask. The small
Unmanned Aircraft Systems (sUAS)
regulatory process continues to move forward,
and in a few short months the FAA will release
its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)
detailing the proposed rule and opening the
subject for public comment.
As we near the public comment period it’s
imperative that aeromodeling enthusiasts
become aware of the issues at stake and the
challenges that lie ahead. It is imperative that
we make our congressional representatives
aware of our concerns and mindful of the
potential detriment unnecessary regulations
will have on a meaningful and viable
recreational activity.
AMA has been at the table since the onset
of the proposed rulemaking process in early
2008. We are committed to continuing to work
directly with the FAA in an effort to safeguard
the interests of the aeromodeling community
and to ensure the future of model aviation.
A clear, compelling case for regulating
model aircraft has yet to be made. It is essential
that our elected representatives be enlightened
to the crucial nature of this issue and the
societal benefits of model aviation.
Please read the feature article in this
magazine covering this subject and visit our
Government Relations Web page at www.mo
delaircraft.org/gov. The site provides
background material and information about
how to contact your representatives assertively
and respectfully. What follows is some of the
important background information.
Where have we been and how are things
going? For the past nearly two years, since the
FAA Aviation Rulemaking Committee’s
(ARC’s) recommendations were released to the
public, AMA has been developing a set of
standards that, once adopted by the FAA, will
allow modelers who follow these standards
some latitude from the restrictions anticipated
in the (default) rule.
The FAA is prohibited from discussing the
contents of the NPRM until it is released for
President’s Perspective
AMA President Dave Mathewson
I
public comment; no one outside of the FAA
knows exactly what will be in the rule. This
has created a challenge for our workgroup
that is developing AMA’s standards. The
members are being asked to piece together
part of a puzzle and make it fit a complete
puzzle without the luxury of seeing any of its
other pieces.
This has been a difficult, and at times
frustrating, process. If you’ve followed my
columns for the past year, this is evident,
especially in the November 2010 issue. I
wrote that column in September after we had
returned from a meeting with members of the
Unmanned Aircraft Program Office (UAPO)
in Washington DC. From AMA’s perspective,
it was not a particularly good meeting.
Since then things have improved
considerably. Shortly after the meeting, there
was a change in the UAPO staff working with
AMA, which marked an improvement in
communication between the two groups.
We have received more help and guidance
from the primary UAPO staff members
working with AMA—James Sizemore and
Lynn Spencer—in the last few months than
we have from the UAPO in the past year and
a half.
James and Lynn traveled from
Washington DC to California for a two-day
meeting with our workgroup before the AMA
Expo, and a tremendous amount of progress
was made. They participated in an open
discussion forum, speaking directly to our
members and answering their questions. This
new level of engagement has helped
significantly.
What are the AMA standards that will be
submitted to the FAA, and who is developing
them? AMA’s standards are primarily
composed of documents we’ve had in place
for years. The foundation of our work is the
AMA Safety Code and its supplemental
documents, including our Turbine Waiver
Program and our Large Model Aircraft
Program.
Several other documents are being drafted
that will serve as supporting guidance to
ensure safety in our operations. Additionally,
the FAA has identified several areas of
concern that it would like to see addressed in
our standards. All of these issues reflect the
FAA’s obligation to ensure safety in the NAS.
Our intent is that our standards will be
adopted and combined with the rule; modelers
who comply with both will continue to
operate much as they do today. Our intent is
to preserve all model aviation activities. We
advocate for each of our members, regardless
of modeling discipline.
AMA’s standards workgroup comprises a
diverse cross-section of the model aviation
community. Each member is an
acknowledged expert in his chosen discipline
and has worked tirelessly on the process.
Meetings, weekly hours-long
conference calls, and countless e-mails
have been the norm for this group. A list of
the members of the workgroup, along with
their short biographies, can be found on the
AMA Web site.
When the standards draft is complete, it
will be vetted by the model aviation
community including manufacturers,
distributors, retailers, AMA SIGs, the
modeling media (both electronic and print),
and our members. There will be an
opportunity for everyone to comment before
the standards are eventually submitted to the
FAA for consideration. In essence, AMA will
be conducting its own NPRM.
Where We Stand!
It is imperative that we make our congressional
representatives aware ...
Continued on page 147
• Throughout the past 75 years, model
aviation has posted an impeccable
safety record—one that surpasses
any other aeronautical activity in the
aviation community.
• We are an exceptional group of
recreational modelers, and under
AMA’s leadership the modeling
community has proven to be
decisively effective in self-policing
our hobby and sport.
• We believe that we have proven our
ability to operate safely and
harmoniously in the National
Airspace System (NAS). We have
clearly demonstrated that
aeromodeling activity is distinctly
different and separate from the
commercial sUAS community, which
poses a different set of concerns that
is the primary focus of the FAA’s
need to regulate unmanned aircraft.
• We believe the inclusion of model
aircraft in the sUAS rule to be
extremely impractical, unnecessary,
and a questionable use of taxpayer
dollars.
• We are concerned that model
aviation will be unduly curtailed for
future generations, especially for
young people who represent general
aviation’s pipeline of talent.
• Model aviation has a proven track
record and poses little to no threat to
the safety of the NAS, the general
public, or community property.