Unmanned aircraft systems: Why AMA’s input is vital
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 flexibility 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 the 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 Australian 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 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 flights over populated areas will involve questions outside the scope of the flight 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
Transcribed from original scans by AI. Minor OCR errors may remain.
