URGENT ACTION NEEDED – Unite Against Proposed “Remote ID” Rulemaking

Dear Members,

AMA Government Affairs sent us an email relating to FAA's recent Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NOPR) for "Remote ID" of UAS.  As written, this NOPR could have significant, negative impact to the modeling community and how we may conduct our hobby.  However, as usual, AMA Government Affairs does have a plan and a strategy to work with the FAA to achieve the best possible outcome (on the final rule) for its membership.  But, they need our help!

The comment period for the NOPR on Remote ID is open now.  AMA is requesting, and the Board of AAM strongly agrees, that all AMA members (and other interested parties) provide comment to FAA.  As usual, AMA has automated this process.  The instructions and link, for providing comment may be found below (in the email from AMA Government Affairs).  To begin, simply click on the "COMMENT NOW" button below.  However, you will also need to "cut and paste" the text from AMA's Template Comment into the comment box.  The Template Comment appears below.

Please note that comments are more effective if they are customized and personalize.  AMA is encouraging everyone to edit the template to include your personal experience, or create your own message entirely.  I have included a copy of my Comment on AAM's website as an example.

The comment period ends 3/2/2020, but please don't delay, DO IT TODAY!!!

Thanks in advance for your cooperation,

Joe Pirozzoli, President
Arvada Associated Modelers

AMA’s Template Comment on UAS Remote ID

I am writing in response to the FAA’s notice of proposed rulemaking on remote identification of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS). I am deeply concerned that some elements of the proposal could impose significant costs on the model aviation community and unnecessarily restrict existing, safe model aircraft operations.

First, while I am glad the proposal includes an option to comply with remote ID by flying at an approved fixed site, I am concerned that the rule arbitrarily limits the number of approved sites and prohibits the establishment of new sites. As such, the rule appears designed to phase out these sites over time, rather than treat them as a viable long-term option for complying with remote ID. I encourage the FAA to view fixed flying sites as part of a viable long-term solution to remote ID, and to amend the rule to allow for the establishment of new sites in the future.

Second, the FAA must create a pathway for remote ID compliance at AMA events and competitions, which may not take place at fixed flying sites. These events take place in defined locations for a short period of time, like an air show. For remote ID compliance purposes, they should be treated like fixed flying sites. I encourage the FAA to create a light process for event organizers to apply for, and receive, waivers from remote ID requirements for these ad hoc events and competitions, many of which support local charities.

Third, the rule must consider hobbyists who fly in rural areas with little or no internet connectivity. As I read the proposed rule, I would be required to have an internet connection even if flying at an approved fixed flying site in a rural part of the country. Unfortunately, some rural areas don’t have adequate cell service, which means I could not be able to fly. Rural locations are frequently the safest places to fly because they are away from people, other aircraft and structures. The FAA needs to provide a solution for these areas, such as the ability to comply from home or other WIFI-enabled locations.

Finally, the FAA should reconsider the proposal to register each aircraft, which will impose a cost and compliance burden on the model aviation community. While individual registration may make sense for beyond line of sight operations, it is an unnecessary requirement for aircraft designed to be flown within line of sight.  We build and fly model airplanes because it is a passion; and many of us own dozens, if not hundreds, of aircraft of different shapes and sizes, some of which we fly infrequently. The time and cost involved in registering each model individually would be substantial and runs counter to the current registration framework for recreational operators. Also, aircraft that are built by hand do not have serial numbers, which makes individual registration more difficult.

Again, I urge you to carefully consider and address my concerns about the remote ID proposal. Model aviation is the natural precursor to careers in aviation, including commercial pilots and engineers and more – jobs which the U.S. desperately needs to fill. Model aviation supports a $1 billion hobby industry responsible for thousands of existing U.S. jobs. We simply cannot afford to further harm the model aviation hobby with overly burdensome requirements. 

URGENT ACTION REQUIRED! Intervene on Proposed FAA Restrictions

Greetings AAM Members,
 
The FAA is at it again!  This time, under the authority granted them by the “FAA REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2018”, the FAA is proposing significant restrictions to model aircraft operations, in terms of altitude limitations in both controlled and uncontrolled airspace.  The memo below from AMA, which many of you may have already received, describes the proposed ruling.  You may recall that, for the past year, we have been operating under the assumption that we have no altitude limitation at our fields.  That may change if the FAA is able to implement these new rules.
 
What can you do?  Simple, click on the link below and fill out the form to send letters to your Congressional representatives.  For most of us that will include US Senators, Cory Gardner and Michael Bennet, and US Representative Ed Perlmutter.  With just a few simple clicks you can, “Join the fight for higher flight!!!”
 
 

Thanks, and please DO NOT hesitate, ACT NOW!!!  It is extremely important that WE ALL participate in this movement.

You may contact me if you have any questions or concerns.

Best regards,

 
Joe Pirozzoli
AAM Director of Public Relations

Warbirds Over the Rockies 2019

We hosted yet another great year with Warbirds Over the Rockies. There was a great turnout with some new pilots this year and several of the, being very young.

Pictures taken by Lee Jay Fingersh can be found here.

Parkway Development Update

Dear Members,
 
I’ve heard from many of you inquiring about the impact of recent developments related to the Jefferson Parkway development schedule.  I had previously reported that Parkway construction could start as early as the Spring of 2020.  However, I also cautioned (as I have on numerous occasions) that the schedule could be delayed due to unforeseen circumstances.  IOW… we didn’t know what was “lying in the weeds”.
 
Prior to very recent events JPPHA (Jefferson Parkway Public Highway Authority) was poised to issue, this summer, an RFP (Request for Proposal) to 3 viable candidates to design, build, operate, and maintain the Parkway.  The successful bidder would become the Concessionaire of the Parkway and be the entity that would effectively fund and construct our relocation.
 
Many of you are now aware that there are 2 very significant issues which must be resolved before any further development will occur.  They are:  1) Broomfield, one of the 3 partners of JPPHA, is wavering on its commitment to the project; and 2) the discovery of elevated levels of plutonium contamination along the Indiana street ROW (on the east side of the Rocky Flats refuge).  Failure to resolve either one of these issues could result in a substantial delay of the project.  The project schedule is currently on hold until these issues can be resolved.
 
The Airpark’s relocation is directly tied to the selection of a Concessionaire, successful financing of the project, and a “go” decision to begin design and construction.  The authority (or lack of supervisory opposition) for the project to go forward will come from many sources and entities.  And, it appears that such authority will take more time to acquire.  The amount of time it will take to resolve these issues is unknown at this time, but it is feasible that construction could still begin sometime next year.
 
I remain in contact with key individuals, both at the City and at JPPHA, for information and perspective on the issues facing the Parkway development.  However, a recent series of articles appearing in the Arvada Press is an excellent source of this information.  The 5th installment, in this series, appears in the August 29th edition of the Press.  If you are outside the City of Arvada and wish to read these articles, go to (https://arvadapress.com/eeditions/).  The 1st installment appears in the August 1st edition.  There have also been articles published in the Denver Post on the local news channels.
 
AAM’s Design and Construction committee continues to work with the City to develop and locate our new Airpark. Their work is not complete and work will continue as long as there is a clear path for Parkway development.  However, our progress will be hindered somewhat coincidentally with Parkway delays.  It would be premature to speculate on any new schedule for Parkway development until the aforementioned issues have been resolved.  And, there is always the possibility of additional issues “jumping out the weeds”.
 
All I can say for now is… be patient and I will continue to update you as things progress.
 
Have a happy and safe Labor day weekend,
 
Joe Pirozzoli, Director Public Relations
Arvada Associated Modelers

Consequences and Impact of the “FAA REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2018”

Members,

First, I want to thank everyone that participated in the call to action to oppose this legislation.  Unfortunately, and despite our best efforts, President Trump signed the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018 (“2018 Act”) into law on Oct 5, 2018.  Sad news to be sure, yet according to AMA, our voices were heard loud and clear and AMA is still in negotiations with the FAA as it pertains to certain provisions of the 2018 Act.

How is the 2018 Act different than the legislation that was passed in 2012 (i.e. the “FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012)?  Primarily, as it pertains to modelers and hobbyists, the 2018 Act no longer has a “Special Rule for Model Aircraft” (formerly referred to as Section 336).  There are, however, several provisions in the 2018 Act relating to our hobby that were championed by our government affairs team at AMA.  Some of these provisions require continued dialogue and coordination with the FAA.  The provisions, in the 2018 Act, which primarily impact our hobby are contained in Section 349 (please see attached).  One of the most impactful provisions of Section 349 is the rule limiting operation of aircraft to no more than 400 feet above ground level.

Fortunately, according to AMA, there are NO changes that AMA members need to follow immediately.

AMA is telling its members that we should continue to fly in accordance with AMA’s safety guidelines and local club rules, and that existing agreements between AMA clubs and the FAA should continue to be followed.  I would add that neither AAM nor the City of Arvada are in a position or inclined (in any way) to enforce FAA regulations at this time.

The most important take-a-way from all of this is that, for now, we are operating under the same set of AMA guidelines and Club rules that have always been in place.  Of utmost importance to our future, is the continued safe operation of model aircraft according current AMA and Club rules as AMA continues to work cooperatively and diligently with FAA’s leadership in Washington to address the issues that impact our hobby.  

You can learn more about this legislation and the work that AMA is doing with the FAA at this link:

https://www.modelaircraft.org/about-ama/advocacy

Lastly, the end of the year is quickly approaching.  I would like to encourage everyone, especially those of you who have calendar year renewals, to get your AAM and AMA memberships renewed soon.

Best regards and happy holidays,

Joe Pirozzoli, Director Public Relations
Arvada Associated Modelers

URGET ACTION REQUIRED! Ask Congress to Vote “NO” on FAA Reauthorization!

Once again, we are in a battle for our rights and freedom as responsible, law-abiding modelers.
 
The last time I wrote you, we were trying to protect Section 336 (i.e. the Special Rule that protected model aircraft).  This new Bill (H.R. 302) repeals Section 336 and replaces it with a much more restrictive and onerous rules (i.e. Section 349 – see link below or the attached document).  I’ve highlighted critical items in the attached document.
 
“As written, this bill puts our community (modelers) under the authority of the FAA, which means the agency can, at any time, impose additional regulations on model aircraft. In addition, the bill specifically imposes a 400′ altitude limit on model aircraft operating within the programming of a community-based organization (CBO), which will curtail long-standing AMA competitions and events that support local charities and non-profits. These and other changes will make it even more difficult to fly and will stifle the broader benefits of model aviation to STEM education and the broader aviation community.

It is important for you to know that this bill has not yet been voted into law. This is a critical moment and Congress needs to hear from our members on the harm this bill would do to our safe, long-standing hobby.

 
The easiest way for you to write your representatives is to use the link below.  However, I highly encourage you to personalize the form letter provided.  Edit the letter to described how this legislation will also impact your individual and community activities!
 
 
Form letter provided:
 
*******
Dear [Official],
 
I am a model aviation hobbyist and I am deeply concerned about the impact the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018 would have on my community, given the modifications made to the Special Rule for Model Aircraft, also known as Section 336.  I strongly urge you to vote “no” on the FAA bill. 
 
The current language in this bill is a non-starter. It puts unnecessary and burdensome restrictions in place that will curtail – or even cancel – long-standing model aviation competitions and events, which support local charities and non-profits. Beyond harming charities, the bill may stifle the benefits of model aviation to STEM education and manned aviation. Model aviation hobbyists have been flying safely in the skies since before the FAA was even created. We’re not the problem. Yet, this bill will deal a devastating blow to our hobby and the many local communities, charities and educational programs we support. On behalf of hobbyists like me across the country, I urge you to vote “no” on the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018.
 
Sincerely,
[Your Name]
*******
 
Thanks, and please DO NOT hesitate, ACT NOW!!!  It is extremely important that WE ALL participate in this movement.

2018 Design-Build-Fly (DBF) Concludes with Drama and Rousing Success for CO Teams

By:  Joe Pirozzoli

The 2018 DBF fly-off was completed last weekend (Apr 19-22) in Wichita, KS.  Two (2) Colorado teams competed and finished very, very well – University of Colorado (CU) and the CO School of Mines (CSM).  Both teams completed all required missions and both were in the top 25 out of 90!  CU finished 13th and CSM finished 22nd!

One of the biggest accomplishments you can achieve, beyond just showing up and competing (because that in-and-of itself can be a daunting task when you have to travel half way around the world), is completing all the required missions.  And, that does not guarantee you a top 10 finish.  I estimate that less than 20% of all 90 teams completed all required missions (1-ground + 3-flight).  Many, many teams never even got off the ground.  When you see some of the contraptions that showed up at DBF, you wonder… what were they thinking?  Nevertheless, you have to remember that this competition is about innovation and thinking outside the box.

DBF is sort of like a fun fly, except the scoring is very complex and specific to each of the missions.  There is a little luck involved, there are timed events, and a duration event with heavier payload.  DBF challenges teams to come up with a design that will be versatile enough for the entire rigor of the fly-off.  For the ground event, teams rolled diced to determine the challenges.  Among the challenges were removing/replacing the Rx, removing/replacing the rudder, prop, etc.  A score was awarded only if you were able to do these tasks within the allotted time.  The first flying mission was an empty plane for 3 laps around the field within 5 minutes (piece of cake).  The second flying mission was with passengers (i.e. rubber “bouncy” balls).  The teams would choose the number of balls, but the size varied, again, by a roll of the dice.  Then fly the same 3 laps in the shortest amount of time, without any balls coming loose from their restraints in the fuselage.  The third and last mission was flown with passengers and payload (i.e. extra weight), the heavier the better.  Then fly as many laps as you can within a maximum limit of 10 minutes.  All flying missions had to end with a successful landing on the runway.  Cessna’s runway is several thousand feet long, but only about 35 feet wide.  Planes were also weighed after each flying mission to help determine the final score.  Extra attempts at missions 2 and 3 were allowed to improve scores, but not many teams would be in a position to complete 3 missions let alone any extra attempts.

I found out later that some teams had their own goals.  For instance, I was informed that Stanford’s goal was to win missions 2 and 3 by carrying the most passengers and payload for the longest time.  The geometry of their plane (i.e. long wingspan and heavy weight) eliminated them from winning DBF.  There was no doubt in my mind that there was a contest within a contest going on!  However, it was also obvious that in order to contend to win DBF, you had to have a very light plane with short wingspan.  Thus, some very small planes were built.  So small, was the plane from Clarkson University, that I could not see it at the far ends of each lap (500’ north and south of center field).  Simply put, I could not have flown that plane because my eyes are not good enough anymore.  USC’s pilot admitted to the same affliction flying their tiny plane (i.e. less than 11” span).  Small planes in low visibility are a bad combination!  That proved to be an added challenge for the test pilots at DBF this year.

As usual, the weather in Wichita was abominable.  All 3 flying days (Friday – Sunday) were plagued with high winds (gusting to 35 mph), chilly temps and a full day of rain on Saturday.  I do not remember ever seeing the sun.  There was only 1 day when the wind wasn’t a crosswind.  It’s bad enough dealing with the wind when you have good flying airplane.  When you combine experimental design, marginal power, dicey construction and a substantial lack of practical experience… crappy flying conditions are the last thing any pilot wants to deal with.  Despite that, however, the test pilots were able (in many cases) to “make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear!”

As I mentioned in the previous update, CU’s plane was the 3rd generation, and many things improved along the way including construction quality and precision.  CSM’s plane was a bit more crude, but more conventional in design, so it ended up being the easier plane to fly.  Also, based on the aforementioned, less competitive in terms of mission scoring due to its size, but a success design nonetheless.  CSM had not asked for help from either Dan, myself or AAM prior to the competition.  A situation I hope to rectify in the future.  However, I did end up flying for both teams even though CSM already had a student pilot.  He was inexperienced and had never flown is high wind or attempted a crosswind landing.  As it would turn out, I not only flew for CU and CSM, but also for UCLA, Cornell (for the 2nd time in 2 years), Rutgers, Notre Dame and a university from Istanbul, Turkey.  Needless to say, I was a busy test pilot.

CSM had a rough start.  On their way out of town, Thursday morning at 3 am, they hit a deer on Hwy 58.  No one was injured (except the deer), but it caused them to miss tech inspection that day, which cascaded into missing their first flight que (i.e. opportunity to fly) on Friday.  Missing flight ques is a bad thing because you don’t get another chance until all other teams have gone through the que, and that takes a lot of time when there are 90 teams competing.  The flight order is set based on your report score.  CSM and CU were 4th and 7th, respectively, with their reports.  Anything in the top 10 is impressive and both schools have historically done very well.  This is particularly impressive for CSM despite the obvious disadvantage of NOT having an aero-engineering program.

CU did get their tech inspection on Thursday and we flew a successful 1st mission early Friday morning when the winds were calmer.  Thus, CSM was immediately behind the 8-ball to get in all required missions over the weekend.  Plus, there was a new wrinkle this year.  The ground mission had to be opted for in place of a flight mission.  That rule ended being changed on Saturday during the rain delay, but it still impacted CSM negatively because they opted to do the ground mission late Friday afternoon instead of flying when they came up in the que for the 2nd  time.  They did that partly because of severe crosswind conditions.  The thinking (at the time) was that they’d still get in 3 flights attempts between Saturday and Sunday.  So after Friday, CU had successfully completed its ground and 1st flying missions while CSM had only completed its ground mission.

Then the rain came early Saturday morning.  As they did 2 years earlier, the organizers tried to wait out the rain based on the promise of improved conditions (by mid-morning) in the forecast.  However, the weather never broke and it rained all day.  It was a cold, wet, windy, miserable day!  And, not only did we lose 2 ½ hours in the morning, but they suspended flying 2 hours early at the end of the day.  Thus, they barely got through the flight order 1 complete revolution.  Both CU and CSM flew successfully, but only the 1 time.  So after Saturday, CU was sitting comfortably with 1 mission remaining and CSM nervous about getting 2 flight missions in on Sunday.

The rain departed on Sunday, but the wind remained.  Fortunately, it was due north and right down the runway.  Unfortunately, it was 15-20 gusting to 20-30 mph and, at times, very bumpy.  CU was busy strategizing how to fly based on the prospect of a possible 2nd attempt at mission 3.  Meanwhile, CSM was crossing their fingers that they’d get the 2 chances needed to complete all 3 missions.  With CSM and CU both early in the order (at 4th and 7th), their prospects for 2 flights each were pretty good, but not guaranteed.  CSM came up (for the 1st time) and flew a successful mission 2.  Now it was CU’s turn.  A successful mission 3 would be the best result for CU in many years and everyone was excited.  Mission 3 was all about duration.  Their strategy was to complete 3 laps on this attempt.  Then, if a 2nd attempt could be made, run the plane out of batteries (for as many laps as possible) and hope to get back to the runway.  The 3 laps were easily completed, but I just missed the runway on the landing, DQ’ing the attempt.  A nasty gust pushed the plane to the edge of the runway and it bounced off.  It was a crushing outcome, and to add insult to injury, the plane sustained minor damage.

Fortunately, repairs were not going to be the issue.  The team would have ample time to repair/replace broken parts.  The question was whether CU would get another chance to complete mission 3.  CU now found itself in the same boat as CSM… hoping for the flight order to circle around 1 more time to provide another attempt at mission 3.  The first flights for both teams had occurred shortly before noon.  Therefore, the flight order needed to circle all the way around in just under 5 hours (i.e. before the 5 pm deadline).  On the plus side, there is a lot of attrition by Sunday afternoon (i.e. many teams have crashed out).  Very few actually thrown in the towel.  However, many would miss their que by not having repairs completed in time to fly.  So the waiting game began.

The one thing we knew for sure was that all the top teams (i.e. everyone ahead of CU and CSM) would be ready to take their turns at either mission 3 or for an extra attempt (at missions 2 or 3).  Also on the negative side, many teams would be attempting mission 3, which meant up to 10 minutes per flight.  As was the case with Notre Dame at #80.  I flew for them late in the afternoon (around 4:30 pm).  They wanted me to fly 8 minutes, and then more if I thought the batteries would hold up.  However, after 4 laps the batteries felt very weak and the team agreed to let me land.  Subliminally, I may have been in a hurry to get them down as valuable minutes were ticking away from CU and CSM, but honestly, I just did not want to wreck their plane.  From #81 on up, there were very few teams left in the que and we knew, for sure, CSM would get another attempt.  CSM opted for a 1-lap mission 3 because addition laps simply would not improve their score.  In fact, Virginia Tech, at #30 in the que and who was destined to finish 2nd overall, elected to do the exact same thing.  Additional laps would not have significantly improved their score, but completing mission 3 was crucial.

So it was, about 4:45 pm CSM came up.  I completed 1 lap and put it right on the centerline.  Mission 3 complete and a top 25 finish.  CU came up at about 4:50 pm, same plan, same result, 1 successful lap, a perfect landing, and 13th place.  As it would turn out, UCLA also got 1 more chance as they were right behind CU at #8.  We were still trying to complete mission 1 and came up just short.  On the landing, the plane tipped over on its narrow gear and the wing came off its mount, DQ’ing the flight.  Cornell came up right behind UCLA at #9, but they didn’t get to go… it was 5:02 pm and the 2018 DBF fly-off was over.

Epilogue

I was utterly and completely humbled (and exhausted) this past weekend by several things.  First, the incredible enthusiasm, shear tenacity and unwavering determination of the all the teams, but in particular UCLA.  Their 2nd to last flight ended in a complete wreck after the motor quit down wind.  Yet, they managed to put it all back together for the final try.  They could have easily cashed in their chips, but they just wouldn’t quit!

Next, this challenged my flying skill and emotional courage to the utmost.  Every plane and every situation presented a new challenge and any slight lapse in concentration could end in disaster, and it did on a couple occasions.  Granted, most planes were poorly built, underpowered and pushed boundaries.  In addition, the conditions were truly miserable.  However, the sense of despair I felt after an unsuccessful flight was truly monumental.  All the hopes and optimism of a dozen students (after months of sweat and hard work) rests on your shoulders.  And, if you fail, those hopes are dashed in an instant.  It is tough to shake that off.  You want to quit, but you cannot because they refuse to.  And, they never place blame or show frustration.  They just want to keep trying.  I guess that is why I enjoy this so much.  You just can’t buy that kind of spirit anywhere!

Below are pictures from the event.  Needless to say… these 2 teams went home very happy and satisfied.

University of Colorado

University of Colorado

Colorado School of Mines

Colorado School of Mines

Map of DBF Teams/Reports

Map of DBF Teams/Reports

Scores were projected in real time (top 45 shown)

Scores were projected in real time (top 45 shown)

The “Essence” of DBF

The “Essence” of DBF

Georgia Tech – 3rd Place

Georgia Tech – 3rd Place

Stanford – Built for passengers and heavy payload

Stanford – Built for passengers and heavy payload

USC – Top Contender (but didn’t finish M-3)

USC – Top Contender (but didn’t finish M-3)

MIT – Winner “Weirdest Design”

MIT – Winner “Weirdest Design”

USC T-Shirt – They are “in it to win it!”

USC T-Shirt – They are “in it to win it!”

The two above equals this (I don’t believe this ever flew)

The two above equals this (I don’t believe this ever flew)

This actually flew (but not very well)

This actually flew (but not very well)

Beautiful craftsmanship by Team Lederhosen (Austria)

Beautiful craftsmanship by Team Lederhosen (Austria)

This was mostly carbon fiber and very tiny

This was mostly carbon fiber and very tiny

Turkey’s all carbon fiber entry – the elevator failed

Turkey’s all carbon fiber entry – the elevator failed

Virginia Tech – 2nd Place (the Tech’s have it)

Virginia Tech – 2nd Place (the Tech’s have it)

UCLA (before crash) – It flew well, but underpowered

UCLA (before crash) – It flew well, but underpowered

Notre Dame – large, conventional and easy to fly

Notre Dame – large, conventional and easy to fly

Homework – always beckoning

Homework – always beckoning

Sleep – get it when you can!

Sleep – get it when you can!

The Insanity inside the hanger

The Insanity inside the hanger

“Fly Like an Egyptian”

“Fly Like an Egyptian”

Does this look like fun to you?

Does this look like fun to you?

Arial view of field/flight pattern (North =>)

Arial view of field/flight pattern (North =>)

AMA Requests Help to Protect Section 336

The AMA has sent out the following email:

Dear AMA club leaders,

Most of you have probably read our recent letter to AMA members, requesting help to protect the Special Rule for Model Aircraft (Section 336). We are requesting our clubs’ assistance to reach as many model aircraft enthusiasts as possible and amplify our message.

Congress has begun drafting language to address Section 336.  During this process, some are asking for the repeal of Section 336 – which has allowed AMA to manage our members and fly safely and responsibly, as we have for over 80 years. Losing the Special Rule would be an enormous burden for our hobby.

There are currently two paths to fly legally in the U.S. – either under Section 336 or under the FAA’s Small UAS Rule (Part 107).  If Section 336 is repealed, everyone will have to take an in person test, pay for a remote pilot’s certificate, and fly under Part 107 rules.  Under Part 107, an individual must be at least 16 years of age to obtain the remote pilot’s certificate, so this path leaves AMA’s 50,000 youth members unable to fly.

This is a critical moment to let your elected representatives know the importance of Section 336 to education, innovation, and hobbyists. You can help by doing the following:

  1. Share AMA’s Facebook and Twitter posts to contact their legislators.
  2. Forward this email (or the original email request) to your club member list, in case our membership records do not contain a person’s most current email address or as a reminder to those that have not yet contacted their representatives. 
  3. Mention this campaign at the flying site and during your next meeting to your members that may not utilize email or social media.

Please ask everyone to click here to send a letter to your elected representatives in support of the Special Rule for Model Aircraft. In addition to sending a letter, you will also have an opportunity to call your representatives. We encourage everyone to take the time for this as well.

We need your help to demonstrate the value of the Special Rule for Model Aircraft for our community and future generations of hobbyists. We appreciate your assistance in protecting Section 336 and promoting the safe integration of model aircraft into the national airspace system.

Sincerely,

AMA Government Affairs