FAA Reauthorization Bill Signed

[Snert]

Tools:
[h=The Wait Is Over: FAA Reauthorization Bill Signed Into Law]1[/h]
February 14, 2012 - President Obama today signed the FAA Reauthorization Bill into law, ending a five-year wait for long-term FAA funding and ending a string of 23 short-term funding extensions. One week after the Senate passed the measure and sent it to the White House, the president approved the measure that offers a number of victories for GA. Among those are no user fee provisions or fuel tax increases, as well as funding for:

• NextGen air traffic modernization and implementation
• Unleaded avgas research and safe deployment
• $13.4 billion for airport improvement projects

While it is not specifically funded, the bill also authorizes the Department of Transportation to develop an incentive program to help GA equip for the NextGen transition.

The reauthorization bill also contains language strongly supported by EAA to benefit airports and vintage aircraft owners. The bill would enable:

• Residential through-the-fence agreements between airport sponsors and adjacent landowners, where they make operational sense, without being in violation of FAA funding grant assurances.
• The release of certain vintage aircraft type certificate and design data essential to safely maintain and operate vintage aircraft when they are no longer supported by a manufacturer.

"We appreciate all the efforts of lawmakers – especially those in the General Aviation Caucuses in the House and Senate – that made this legislation possible, as well as the aviators throughout the country who contacted lawmakers in support of the measure," said Doug Macnair, EAA vice president of government relations. "We still have many battles ahead, especially on the user fee issue, but stability in FAA funding is a plus for everyone in aviation."


From
EAA News

[Tim]

sounds like good news to me

[aktango58]

Wow, looks like forward progress...

[Gunny]

...The release of certain vintage aircraft type certificate and design data essential to safely maintain and operate vintage aircraft when they are no longer supported by a manufacturer...

I wonder if this means we might see the PA-12 come back out of limbo??? And maybe the others too (J-5, PA14 and L-14) that fell down the same rabbit hole.

[RanchPilot]

I wonder if this means we might see the PA-12 come back out of limbo??? And maybe the others too (J-5, PA14 and L-14) that fell down the same rabbit hole.

Gunny, I'm new to this. Could you explain the PA-12 limbo issue, or point me to a thread that does? I was just digging around on the FAA site and was scratching my head about the absence of the J-5 and the PA-12 from the other active type certificates listed there.

[mike mcs repair]

Gunny, I'm new to this. Could you explain the PA-12 limbo issue, or point me to a thread that does? I was just digging around on the FAA site and was scratching my head about the absence of the J-5 and the PA-12 from the other active type certificates listed there.

search for FS2003? 4? or such in TCD data base.... Canadian company bought those from piper...

[RanchPilot]

Thanks, Mike. Found the type cert. here for the -12, based on your lead.

http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Gu...FILE/a-780.pdf

[mvivion]

The VERY bad news in that bill was the rider inserted, which mandates the FAA to approve UAS operations in the National Airspace System within three years, and to approve three UAS "experimental" zones in SIX MONTHS.

The media that I've seen talking about this seems to be wetting their pants over the ramifications of every police agency in the country being able to maintain 24/7 aerial surveillance over us.

Me, I'd worry more about getting T-Boned by one of these pilotless wonders. Blind as a bat. This goes through without a whimper, and the US will look like Russian airspace system.....narrow airways where WE are permitted to fly, and the rest of the airspace will be reserved for UAS.

Even a small one of these things will leave a mark, and the first time a Predator size UAV lands in someone's back yard, or takes out an airliner......

Of course, the LOGICAL answer is to REQUIRE EVERY aircraft to install ADS-B out, rather than the current mandate to have ADS-B Out installed to operate in Class A,B or C airspace by 2020. So, plan on a significant avionics bill to come shortly.....but.....

Try that with your no electric J-3.

MTV

[sierra bravo]

MTV,

Have you read the section of the bill that deals with UAVs? It isn't as scary as the pro-militia/ACLU websites would have you believe. At least that's my interpretation. UAV use is not mandated. Discussion and rule making is. This bill positions UAVs into the FAA's jurisdiction. I think that's a good thing for GA. There are lots of references to requiring that UAVs not pose a safety risk to other users of the airspace system. At face value it looks pretty well balanced. Aside from UAVs there are several sections of the bill that I'm interested in.

Read it for yourself. It's an interesting document. See section 331, page 62 for Subtitle B regarding UAVs.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-1...12hr658enr.pdf

SB

[Cub Builder]

Read through section 321. Here comes the Photo ID Pilot's License again. The FAA has 270 days to come up with a time line to replace all pilots' licenses, then 2 years from start to finish of implementation to replace all pilot's licenses. With the Photo/Fingerprint/Iris biometric and smart card requirement and no bureaucracy in place to produce them, I'll bet these won't be cheap and I would expect us to be required to to travel to the nearest FSDO to get a new ticket made.

(c) REQUIREMENTS.—Improved pilot licenses issued under this
section shall—
(1) be resistant to tampering, alteration, and counterfeiting;
(2) include a photograph of the individual to whom the
license is issued for identification purposes; and
(3) be smart cards that—
(A) accommodate iris and fingerprint biometric identifiers;
and
(B) are compliant with Federal Information Processing
Standards-201 (FIPS–201) or Personal Identity
Verification-Interoperability Standards (PIV–I) for processing
through security checkpoints into airport sterile
areas.

[mvivion]

MTV,

Have you read the section of the bill that deals with UAVs? It isn't as scary as the pro-militia/ACLU websites would have you believe. At least that's my interpretation. UAV use is not mandated. Discussion and rule making is. This bill positions UAVs into the FAA's jurisdiction. I think that's a good thing for GA. There are lots of references to requiring that UAVs not pose a safety risk to other users of the airspace system. At face value it looks pretty well balanced. Aside from UAVs there are several sections of the bill that I'm interested in.

Read it for yourself. It's an interesting document. See section 331, page 62 for Subtitle B regarding UAVs.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-1...12hr658enr.pdf

SB

Yes, I have Stewart. A couple of quotes:

(ii) ensure that any civil unmanned aircraft system
includes a sense and avoid capability

(3) DEADLINE.—The plan required under paragraph (1)
shall provide for the safe integration of civil unmanned aircraft
systems into the national airspace system as soon as practicable,
but not later than September 30, 2015.

That orders the FAA to integrate UAS into the national airspace system by 2015.

The first quote requires that UAS be equipped with "sense and avoid" technology prior to being approved for operation in the NAS. The only way that's going to work is if other aircraft have some sort of transmitter or transponder to enable the UAS to detect its presence. In the current world, that implies ADS-B out, since that is going to be required in SOME areas by 2020 anyway. This 2015 timeline accelerates that a lot, and as I noted, how are you going to accomplish this "sense and avoid" if you're flying an airplane with no electrical system?

Further, not everyone is going to be able to afford additional technologies added to their airplanes. And, what about all these folks who post on here, trying to find ways to lighten up their Cubs? Last I checked, the ADS-B boxes in our aircraft weigh quite a lot, and they're not small.

This is purely a response to the UAS industry lobby, and they've paid the Congress to force the FAA to open Pandora's box.

If this doesn't seem scary to you, that's fine. It scares the hell out of me.

MTV

[sierra bravo]

I definitely see a brighter future than you, Mike. I'll leave you to your unhappiness.


SB

[mvivion]

I definitely see a brighter future than you, Mike. I'll leave you to your unhappiness.


SB

Good for you, Stewart. But I'm not unhappy. I am frustrated with the Congress in this country, which it seems has become totally driven by lobbyists, and that is precisely what this piece of the bill is about. Whether you realize it or not, there is a HUGE lobby, and many many people out there who are working very hard every day to get drones fully functional in the national airspace system. What that means is tens of billions of dollars to the people who are poised to manufacture these devices, and many billions of dollars NOT put into manned aircraft and pilots.

Now, I have no problem with the concept of drones, which is what these things really are...the UAS moniker is simply a more "professional" sounding name for them. Drones certainly have a place in our future world. Monitoring the happenings in Afghanistan is one of those, and there are certainly others.

The question is: How do we INTEGRATE these things into the airspace that we ALL use on a daily basis?

To date, the FAA has done a commendable job of holding back the floodwaters on this subject, while trying to find the key that will make this integration work. That didn't please the lobbyists, who leaned on the Congress, and placed a REQUIREMENT on the FAA to make this happen, post haste.

To me, that is a recipe for disaster, and I have notified my congressional representatives of my views on this subject.

The first time one of these drones impacts an airplane, there will be hell to pay, but once the drones are in the air, it is general aviation that will lose the battle, and be restricted as to where WE fly.

But, Stewart, me...unhappy? Not hardly. I love the freedom of flight. I love flying. I also help to educate the some of the next generation of pilots, who may well be denied a job by these things.

Tell me what's to like about this part of the bill?

MTV

[Ole Bob]

As an active taidragger pilot for 56 years, I've seen a lot of bad stuff. I live very near the Mexico border and it seems only a couple of years ago that one of those UAV's crashed just west of us in Arizona because of "pilot error".
I agree with Mike and I see some of this as one more step toward eventually making it impossible for many of us to fly the way we want to. But who cares about that except we'uns?
As Mike says I'm letting my "representatives" ? in congress know how I feel and I surely hope that lot's of us do the same!

[Bill Ingerson]

This is a interesting time we live in, Its hard to see the future but its coming and we have to adjust. These drones will probably be much higher than any cub could fly. I have heard they use them already along both boarder's Canada and Mexico. Technology is growing so fast, that a live pilot in these jet fighters are already out dated and soon will no longer be needed. Laser's, drones, Micro waves. Star Wars was filmed about 30 some years ago and now its here, except they used pilot's

[aktango58]

How about Star Treck stuff... stun guns (tazer), communicators (cell phones), good looking ladies in tight clothing (Not SJ, Eaton or myself)

The future is interesting, if them drones would just stay up in the class A airspace, I would be fine with it, but down low where the city cops want them.... I can see MTV's point.

[Chuck Avon]

There is a civilian place with a large run way 12 mi west of savannah Tn that they are training people on the drones air ports around there warn pilots about them but they don't exist ask some one that works there about them and they say there is nothing that fly's out there

[mvivion]

This is a interesting time we live in, Its hard to see the future but its coming and we have to adjust. These drones will probably be much higher than any cub could fly. I have heard they use them already along both boarder's Canada and Mexico. Technology is growing so fast, that a live pilot in these jet fighters are already out dated and soon will no longer be needed. Laser's, drones, Micro waves. Star Wars was filmed about 30 some years ago and now its here, except they used pilot's

Bill,

The problem with "drones" is that there are probably more different "flavors" of these things than there are aircraft. They range in size from essentially small model aircraft up to Global Hawk, which has a 100 foot plus wingspan. At present, unless they are operated in Restricted airspace or in Alpha airspace, they can only be operated while in visual contact with a human, either on the ground or in a chase plane.

Many police agencies are looking hard at very small UAS, as in the size of a model airplane. Just big enough to carry the sensors they want. Those will still leave a mark.

As I said before, there is and must be a place for drone technology, but frankly, a lot of the applications and equipment I've seen to date is more expensive than manned aircraft that could easily do the same mission that the drone's doing. One of the arguments for drones is use where it's too hazardous to risk a human pilot. A recent example where that argument was used to justify a drone was the Russian tanker trying to reach Nome. The (very small) drone was used to scout the ice for the ships. The operators of the drone argued that it was too dangerous to put a human out there in a manned aircraft. Really???? This while there were doubtless pilots and aircraft capable of quite safely conducting that mission sitting on the ground. Maybe that drone was a lot cheaper to operate, it was very small. But, that wasn't their argument, since doing away with jobs isn't a popular argument these days.

I know some fellows who routinely fly Predators, some overseas and some on the border. They do go out of control on occasion. The one referred to by Ole Bob was a CBP drone near Sierra Vista. The military has lost more than a couple it seems. Consider the HIGHLY classified drone that that Iranians were "gifted" with not long ago.

I'm perfectly willing to share the national airspace system with drones, as soon as the manufacturers and operators of that equipment can demonstrate that they have an equivalent level of safety as manned aircraft when it comes to traffic avoidance. Problem is, the Congress just put that on OUR backs, and effectively relieved the UAS industry of providing that technology. You can bet that the FAA's answer will be "Next Gen" all the way, and that probably means BIG bucks for your Super Cub.

And, even if you're not a pilot, do you really want these things flying over top of your house?

MTV

[Bill Ingerson]

I sure understand your points Mike, I agree with all of it. But things are changing so fast now for all of us now all we can do is hang on and see what happens.
The new star wars gear they have now like Lazer beams that can be mobile and take a plane down (jet fighter) in a shorter time than a pilot can react tells me drones are a must in the near future. We are probably in the Model T stage of drones but will make them better all the time. With Iran looming in the near future with there program and them sending out hit men all over the world to hit Jewish groups in retaliation, Im going to guess were going to see things happen soon with Iran. The drones are probably another way of looking over us, Protecting us from ourselves. I hate it too.

[swoeric]

I think with the drone argument we should just put it in perspective......get one safe enough to travel just the streets....2d travel, curbed boundaries, all weather, and the chance to pull over if there is an issue. lets see it navigate kids playing and other drivers.....prove one there and ill think of having them cut loose in the sky. other wise yes im for them in uncongested areas...they seem to have some success in war and boarders....have them file a flight plan and stay out of vfr traffic.

[Mark Cav]

Did anyone read about 100.00 user fee for using Controled air space?