[NSRCA-discussion] AMA & FAA responce to Ron Hansen letter

[Patternpilot One]

  Hi All,


After reading Ron's email from the FAA class he was at I reached out to the AMA to confirm some items in that letter.  As I have been in contact with  Chad Budreau who is in the government affairs office at AMA about some other FAA issues to clarify.  Here is the original letter that Ron sent and then today AMA reply to it from Chat.

I looks like in the FAA the right hand does not know what the left is doing.



I just attended a FAA meeting at the Columbus, OH Airport on Small UAS.

Several AMA members including Mike Barbee and numerous full scale pilots were in attendance.

The powerpoint presentation was given by:

John P. Welsh

Aviation Safety Inspector Maintenance

Flight Standards District Office

Great Lakes Region

A couple of very important takeaways:



1.      He stated that you could not fly above 400 ft even if you are an AMA member.  I pressed him on this.  He said if you want to fly according to the rules you must stay below 400 ft.  If you need to fly above 400 ft, he suggested you apply for a COA.  I told him that is not what the AMA is telling us.  He said the AMA is not well informed.

2.      He stated that FPV with a spotter does not meet their requirements even if you are an AMA member.  He said FPV flyers must be able to see the plane and not through a video screen.

This does not surprise me because the Small UAS Certification states this.  What AMA is telling us is only their interpretation of their discussions with the FAA.

The AMA needs to obtain a letter from the FAA that states clearly that AMA members are exempt from all of the requirements for Small UAS and are only required to comply with AMA rules.  Every member would need to carry this letter on their person because the FAA is not going to enforce these regulations local law enforcement will.  If a police officer sees you flying above 400 ft, he isn’t going to care if you are an AMA member.  All he knows is you are flying above 400 ft and the card you’re carrying says you can’t do that.

It is possible this person from FAA is ill informed.  However, this person is on the front lines educating local law enforcement, full scale pilots and model airplane enthusiast.



Hi Scott,

Thank again for sharing.   I can confirm yesterday morning we contacted the FAA UAS Integration Office with this information.  Later in the day they followed up and told us they assigned an FAA staffer to contact Welch’s office to correct the misinformation.

I don’t have access to the NSCRA thread.  We asked a couple to post the following response.  Can you verify if the following was posted?



Thanks,

Chad



We at the AMA are resolving this issue.



As the FAA is working to understand our hobby, unfortunately it’s not uncommon to find misinformation coming from local and regional representatives of the agency.  The statements by Mr. John A. Welsh contradict the position held by FAA’s Senior Advisors, Directors, and legal counsel within the UAS Integration Office.  In addition, Mr. Welsh’s statements are also contrary to the 2012 Special Rule for Model Aircraft passed by Congress and signed into law by the president.



There is no regulation that says a model aircraft must fly below 400’. The reference to 400’ is found in Advisory Circular AC 91-57A. An advisory curricular is just that, advisory. It is not regulatory.

We would also point out that Mr. Ron Hansen’s comment about AMA’s position is in error. Our position is not AMA’s interpretation of discussions with the FAA. It’s the law and can be found in the Special Rule for Model Aircraft from the 2012 FAA Modernization and Reform Act (PL 112195; section 336). The law references no attitude limitation for members operating within the safety programming of a community based organization (AMA). AMA members are expected to subscribe to see and avoid and situational awareness techniques.

We are working with the FAA’s UAS Integration Office to help correct this misinformation.



AMA’s Government and Regulatory Affairs Team









-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20160211/a4ddcf5b/attachment.html>