The bill would have the newer parts of the hobby (like those aerial photography drones) join in the self-regulation that AMA has been doing satisfactorily for ages. Sensible and not very controversial for most.
But it also puts the hobby directly under the authority of the FAA in a way that it hasn't ever been before. This gives FAA the ability to impose new regulations directly on hobbyists without the input that would happen in either congressional legislation or community group standards.
That is an epic big deal from the point of view of the old hobbyists and the new.
Among the requirements for recreational use is "(7) The operator has passed an aeronautical knowledge and safety test described in subsection (g) and administered by the Federal Aviation Administration online for the operation of unmanned aircraft systems and maintains proof of test passage to be made available to the Administrator or law enforcement upon request."
[1] https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/4/te...
Frustratingly the story doesn't specify a bill number, which makes it harder than it should be to track down the actual text.
I found some discussion of it on the AMA's Government Relations blog (see https://amablog.modelaircraft.org/amagov/2018/09/26/faa-reau...) -- but confusingly, they cite the relevant bill as "H.R. 302," which if you look it up on Congress.gov is actually a bill titled the "Sports Medicine Licensure Clarity Act of 2017" (see https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/302/...) which has nothing at all to do with UAVs.
I then searched Congress.gov for the bill title they gave, the "FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018", and found H.R. 4, which appears to be the actual bill in question. The UAV-specific part of the bill is Title 2, Subtitle B ("Unmanned Aircraft Systems"), which can be jumped to directly here: https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/4/te...
If it hits your windscreen, you were more likely driving where you shouldn’t be rather than someone with a literal kids toy doing something wrong.
Also nobody flies those toys in airfields. They're barely suited for backyards as they are.
The supply of transferable machine guns is fixed, and low, and it only shrinks over time. Technically yes, if you have the money you can buy one today. Technically no, we can't all go buy one because there aren't enough to go around.
There’s a national firearms act license and transfer tax.
Do you routinely stop what you're doing to listen to random people that claim that they're more of an authority on various aspects of your life?
Yes, regardless of what I'm working on, be it construction/maintenance on my house, basic electrical or plumbing work, driving my car, handling/transporting a firearm, and any other number of cases I have to stop and listen to "random people" i.e. cops, regulators, politicians, FAA, and whoever else regardless of how I feel about them because they are, unfortunately or not, the authority
Completely agree! Children should be allowed to play with toy guns in public areas.
Mostly because as as a remote pilot, I have a feeling the proposals may be much less onerous than we're being lead to believe by Bloomberg here and what hobbyist groups are complaining about.
Stated as a Licensed Part 107 operator. I think everyone should be required to undergo some kind of training, with tiers for educational, hobbyist, and commercial. I learned a lot more in those classes than just how to fly a Phantom DJI and found the regulatory knowledge alone to be HIGHLY insightful.