To whom it may concern:
I've been flying model airplanes for XXX years, and am vice-president of the Anywhereville RC Club, which has thirty members and works with youth in the Anywhereville area to teach them how to fly, build, and repair model airplanes, teaching them scientific and technical skills (the local high school loves sending us kids to get them interested in science!) I have some very deep concerns about the proposed interpretation of the Special Rule for Model Aircraft and its potential consequences for my lifelong hobby and for our club. In your reinterpretation, you state:
"The statute sets a requirement for model aircraft operating within 5 miles of an airport to notify the airport operator and control tower, where applicable, prior to operating"
"For example, the FAA regulates low-altitude operations to protect people and property on the ground. The FAA permits aircraft operations below 500 feet when flown over open water and in sparsely populated areas. 14 CFR 91.119(c). Such operations may not be conducted ''closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.''
Your proposals would negatively impact our ability to reach out to youth and teach them how to fly because our flying site is only four miles away from a rarely-used grass airstrip, but under your regulations, that is too close. It's also near a church that donates the space to us for flight, but the proposed regulations state that we can't fly within 500 feet of structures. Our club has never had an incident that injured anyone or caused damage to the property of others, and we make sure all members learn the AMA's guidelines and have the skills needed before flying. We believe that the AMA's guidelines are more than sufficient, having been developed from the expertise of decades spent flying model airplanes.
I also don't understand how, when the law clearly states that model airplanes are exempt from FAA regulations, you can reinterpret the law to apply these same FAA regulations to model aviation. Just what part of "exempt" was not clear?
You further state:
"Any operation not conducted strictly for hobby or recreation purposes could not be operated under the special rule for model aircraft. Clearly, commercial operations would not be hobby or recreation flights. Likewise, flights that are in furtherance of a business, or incidental to a person's business, would not be hobby or recreation flights."
The FAA is charged with protecting the national air space ad not regulating commerce. This concerns me. Another area that concerns me is that the FAA is ignoring the fact that there is not a "rule" for hobbyists. Hobbyists, by way of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, are "exempt," so there is no rule for model aircraft.
Another concern is the restrictions placed on compensation, even reimbursement of expenses, for hobbyists who may wish to travel to competitions, or companies demonstrating their wares. We host a gathering every year that is sponsored by several local hobby shops, and by my reading of your interpretation, that would no longer be allowed as you interpret 'hobby' very narrowly. Also, according to this reinterpretation, we would not be allowed to give prize money or awards for competitions held at the gathering. I help the local hobby shop flight test new model airplanes, and they do pay me for the assistance; it's a pittance, but under your proposed rules, I'd be unable to accept it.
The third thing that I am concerned about is the potential for a pilot's license to be required. I'm flying model airplanes. We never go more than 400 ft above the ground, we follow Ac-91-57, so why would I need a pilot's license or a medical? This would make it impossible to continue to pursue the hobby, and also make it difficult for us to keep working with youth, especially disadvantaged youth that can't afford a license or qualify for one due to age.
I believe that Congress was wise and made the right decision when they chose to exempt model aviation under the purview of the AMA and other community-based organizations that understand our craft and what we need to be safe. Your proposed reinterpretation seems to open the door to unnecessary and burdensome regulation (something that our government is known for) that will make it very difficult for most hobbyists to continue to enjoy flying.
Let us work to change the reputation that the FAA has and keep flying. We do not need requirements that are completely unnecessary for our hobby. Lets get the lawyers out of the way and use the AMA as an example and have the FAA adopt their training programs, which have worked since the 1930's (longer that the FAA has even been in business.)
Thanks for your consideration and I look forward to a positive outcome.
Sincerely,
Orville Lindbergh
Anywhereville, Georgia
