AMA and FAA Discuss
Regulatory Process

   On November 29, 2010, AMA President Dave Mathewson and AMA Government and Regulatory Affairs Representative Rich Hanson met with FAA Associate Administrator for Aviation Safety Peggy Gilligan. Following are excerpts from the discussion with Ms. Gilligan regarding the proposed regulation for small Unmanned Aircraft Systems (sUAS) and its potential impact on model aviation.

AMA: When our discussion and negotiation started three years ago, we were told that the objective was to merely define model aviation, and that it would be exempt from regulations. That has changed in the past six to nine months; we are concerned that the “square peg” of model aviation is being put into the “round hole” of the regulatory process, and that the FAA is going in a direction that is detrimental to model aviation and its industry as a whole.
     What can we do to help move things forward?
FAA: Model aviation is a very diverse community with many different vehicles used by the model hobbyist. We must make sure that flights are done safely. The introduction of more sophisticated vehicles—whether they are unmanned systems as recognized by the military or some of the civil operators, or even some of the aircraft that AMA members are operating—is making the system even more complex.
     We have to make sure we are balancing everyone’s access to the National Airspace System [NAS] at the same time that we are balancing safety. AMA has a great safety record, and the FAA would like to build on that. The FAA wants to make sure there is real clarity around “what is a hobbyist?”
     This all started because the FAA saw people taking advantage of the old advisory circular, which was really aimed at what model aviation was in 1981, and they believed that they could operate under that guidance. In 2007 the FAA realized that it wasn’t quite as simple as it was back in 1980. Now the FAA has to clarify for everyone what the definitions are and where everyone fits into a very complex system.

AMA: Why has the FAA deemed it necessary to regulate model aviation activity at this point and to a level that might be extensive?
FAA: Until we see the proposal [proposed rule due in June], don’t assume what it will or will not say regarding the operation of small aircraft that are unmanned that are operating in the system. Drawing some of those lines are complicated.
     The FAA wants to make sure that it is balancing the equities in all of this. There are some AMA members who are operators of small unmanned vehicles that FAA believes need to have a safety framework just like everything else that operates.

AMA: Can you tell us about the outreach that the FAA will provide to the aeromodeling community to ensure that modelers and the hobby industry understand the FAA’s need for regulatory intervention?
FAA: When the FAA established the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee, we asked that the modelers be a member and the AMA joined the committee. That is really where this process starts.
     We look for recommendations from the community to make sure that we are getting the breadth and depth of experience that organizations like AMA can bring to the FAA when we consider setting these kinds of standards. Beyond that, when the proposal comes out, there will be an opportunity for comments, just like all of our other regulations.
     The FAA really does encourage comments. We want to make sure, again, that the FAA is well informed about what the impacts might be of what we propose, including intended consequences and unintended consequences. Only you and your members may be able to understand better than we could possibly understand.
     And, again, we want to understand the unique niche that AMA serves in the aviation community and make sure that we aren’t having unintended consequences and that, in fact, we are ensuring safe operations. That is kind of the balance that FAA is always faced with.

AMA: There probably will be unintended consequences. What is the suggested path for addressing those probable inequities?
FAA: Again, commenting on the proposal when it is published, and that won’t be for a while. We have quite a heavy rulemaking workload now. We have had some congressional direction that we need to meet.
     Once the proposal is out, we really do want to know how you see it impacting your community. At the same time, I know that there have been some discussions and AMA has voluntary standards. We very much encourage the development of industry voluntary standards being put forward as something FAA can accept or can use as a way of meeting safety requirements for a particular part of the community.
     We did that quite successfully with light sport aircraft, for example, where we have industry standards for the design and production of light sport aircraft. The industry puts those forward and reviews them to make sure there is an appropriate level of safety. Then the community can build and design to those standards, for example.
     So we would encourage AMA, either in advance or as a part of the public comment period, to make sure that we understand the standards you have set voluntarily for your community so we can consider them as the set of standards for the whole community.

AMA: We are torn right now; we understand the limitations of federal law, and UAPO [Unmanned Aircraft Program Office] representatives are unable to tell us what exactly is going to be in the NPRM. We are stuck between participating in the process and our duty to let our members know what’s going on. Can you understand this discomfort?
FAA: The public’s right to know is when we issue the notice. Your members and anyone else interested will have the notice at the same time. In that regard, I don’t think your membership is necessarily at a disadvantage.
     We will provide a sufficient comment period, and if you are concerned that is isn’t long enough, you can always ask for an extension to the comment period. You have a large membership, and you want to do some outreach, which could be a basis under which we might consider extending the comment period if you think the standard 60 or 90 days isn’t sufficient.
     As you point out, we can’t share in advance what we are proposing. We have to do it in a public setting at one time for everyone.

AMA: Reworking our standards and supporting the NPRM [Notice of Proposed Rulemaking] is almost, in essence, signing a blank check. If we wanted to support the NPRM before it is released, how could we do that without knowing exactly what it contains?
FAA: You can share with your members that the voluntary standards that AMA has set, the leadership that AMA has always shown in this area, is exactly what FAA is relying on to provide to us now in this context as well. We know that you are leaders in this community and that the voluntary standards as you have described have provided a level of safety which is quite high.
     I think if I were you, I would make it clear to your membership that FAA very much values the experience and the expertise that AMA can bring to this discussion, and that we will seriously look at the voluntary standards that you have in place to see how well they can serve as setting the safety framework for modelers throughout the country.

AMA: Why now, after 75 years of an impeccable safety record? What have we done to make this action on your part necessary?
FAA: The NAS is getting more complicated every day. Again, as we saw in the mid-2000s, the guidance that FAA had out at the time as it related to hobbyists was being misapplied by those who I think were well intended, but they thought they saw themselves reflected in that guidance. FAA has to update that guidance.
     We have to establish an appropriate clarification around what is model hobby activities and what is really the use of small unmanned aircraft in the NAS. If there are concerns that there is no avenue for you to be heard, let me know. We will make sure that we are listening to this community, which likely will be impacted by our regulations. But we want to do that in a fair way.
     We want to make sure that we are enhancing safety but that we are, at the same time, supporting the hobbyists who have been active members of this community for a very long time. So we are trying to find that balance.

AMA: From the beginning of this process we have gone along with the UAPO, to get through this leaving model aviation intact as it exists today. Is that still the intent?
FAA: We certainly mean for it to remain intact. As I said before, I can’t promise that doesn’t mean there won’t be some differences. Because, again, I personally don’t know what the risks are.
     But as the NAS becomes more complex, and as we change approach procedures, and as airspace is redesigned for commercial operations, those changes may also have an effect on whether and where the hobbyists can operate. We need to make sure that we are balancing those factors and be aware of how those changes interact, while assuring that there is still the opportunity for the model aircraft flier to have a place to operate safely.

AMA: What kind of assurances can you give our community that these proposed regulations will not be so onerous as to be debilitating?
FAA: We have a responsibility when we propose regulations to know what both the cost and the benefits are and to balance those with an eye toward making the operations safer. It is never our intention to put any aviation entity out of business. We obviously want to be able to encourage the growth of aviation at the same time that we are making sure that we are doing that safely.
     So the proposal will set out where we see as the potential impacts to your community. If we are inaccurate, we need your comment then and your data that helps support what you see as the impact so we can better balance the proposal.
     Again, the whole point of the proposal is for us to learn from those who will be affected by those aspects that, in our own analysis, we either overlooked or did not fully consider, or maybe didn’t even consider at all. It will be very important for your community especially, and for AMA, to provide us that kind of input. MA

—AMA Headquarters

Return to main In The Air page