|
 |
 |
Our collective voices
may be needed to help
guide the direction of model aviation
in the future.
|
|
If
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, 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 regulation 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 included 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
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
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. Ultimately,
we felt it was important that model aviation be represented
on the ARC and agreed to the stipulation. We've honored that
commitment throughout the process.
The ARC completed its work in late March 2009, and sent
its 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 the information will be released
and the 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
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
represented 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 did not turn out to be the case. Early in the
proceedings it proved to be nearly impossible for the group
to come to 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 recommending federal
regulation 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
guidelines for model aviation and its integration into the
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. And though Fred and Patrick certainly
understand model aviation and generally supported AMA's
position, neither served on the committee to represent model
aviation interests.
Fred was invited by the FAA to assist in addressing the
sUAS radio spectrum concerns and Patrick represented 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 views
and rationales regarding specific recommendations that pose
a detrimental impact to model aviation. These comments were
included in the final document and listed along with the
ARC's 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 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 work directly with the FAA
to try to find reasonable solutions to our remaining
concerns. When the FAA completes 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
much 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 is not its
intention to diminish the aeromodeling activity and seeks to
regulate model aviation 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
recognized 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 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
|
|
