The NATA VOICE - gonata.netgonata.net/images/voice_july_2016.pdf · The NATA VOICE Website: http ... Aviation, the Civil Air Patrol, ... to report drone sightings to FAA and to keep

The NATA VOICE JULY 2016 Website: http://gonata.net

Nebraska’s Aviation Voice Published by the Nebraska Aviation Trades Association, Judy McDowell, Editor

192 W Lakeshore, Lincoln, NE 68528—Phone/Fax: 402-475-6282, Email: [email protected]

Weather was not a factor at the two day fly in unless you took into ac-count the temperature, it was a warm 96F both days and you had to keep

hydrated. Young Eagle rides started early Friday and continued well after the prime rib dinner be-gan at 6:30pm. Tandem parachute rides were in full swing all day and Stephany and Spencer Hunt from Omaha were just two of the people experiencing the thrill of free flight followed by a para-chute descent to the ground.

Over 200 people attended the evening dinner featuring ham, prime rib, scalloped potatoes and green beans. The

social hour prior to the meal seemed to make folks congenial and there was good conversation by all. There was also a three piece band playing during the meal and singing a lot of those good “oldie” songs we all enjoyed.

Saturday morning started off with exhibitors, meal stands, a climbing

wall and jump house for the kids to try out their skills. First off was a KC135 NE ANG fly by with the refueling boom extended.

Of course there were many airplanes flying in and a large number on display from the previous day including a Fagan restored B25 bomber from WWII.

STATE FLY IN AT COZAD Article and Pictures by Jeff Banks

Nebraska Aviation Trades Association 2 Page 2

For some of the younger children there was an airplane ride with room for the “pilot” and four passengers. Delbert Gitchel was the “pilot” ensuring all were strapped in and twirling their pro-pellers! Everyone seemed to be having a great time.

Meanwhile Reggie Schmidt from Grand Island was up on the scissors lift overseeing all the air traffic. Air Boss, Dale Byrkit was busy coordinating the aerobatic activities and working closely with Reggie to ensure this would be a safe, accident free airshow day. Just prior to the airshow, Diane Bartels, NE Aviation Council State Fly In Coordinator, presented a plaque to

Allison Donner who planned all the activities which took place Friday and Saturday. Standing with Allison was her good friend Stacey Darling who had worked along side Allison helping make arrangements for the fly in.

The airshow began at 1pm with a member of the NE Skydiving School com-ing in streaming our US flag while American Legion members stood at atten-tion and the P51 Mustang, Gunfighter, flew by. Heather Wellman from Cozad sang our National Anthem. It was a great start for an airshow and then Harry

Barr in his Piper Cub entertained the crowd with a strong woman, Haylee Shelton From Goth-enburg, attempting to hold back the Cub. Someway her dress was ripped away and she could-n’t keep the Cub from moving!

Next up, Harry landed on the Midwest’s Shortest Runway, a converted Chevy Suburban, and then took off from the

same platform. Jessy Panzer started the aerobatics show flying her purple Pitts Special and performing some amazing stunts that we all enjoyed watching. After the air-show, Jessy flew to Reno, NV to do training for the Reno Air Races held in September.

Doug Roth always does a fantastic low level aerobatic show in his Staudacher and it is amazing to watch him perform. Other demonstrations were the RV7s flown by the “Rocky Mountain Renegades” and formation flying by the CJ6 (YAK) pilots Keith Harbor, Kurt Muhle and Terry Callaway.

It was a great two day State Fly in and one we all enjoyed.


Department of Aeronautics Director, Ronnie Mitchell, thanked rep-resentatives of General Aviation: Duncan Aviation, Silverhawk Aviation, the Civil Air Patrol, the NE Aviation Trades Association representing the aerial applicators of Nebraska, the Air Force Asso-ciation, the FAAs Flight Standards District Office, and many others who strengthen the economic vitality of our great state through avia-tion. Additionally, Senator Deb Fischer was not there but she held a Transportation Forum at Scottsbluff and these are paraphrased comments she made concerning that meeting. “In addition to reliable highways, roads, bridges, and rail corridors, safe air travel is another priority for Nebraskans. Consumers, busi-nesses, and working families in remote regions across the state un-derstand the importance of access to reliable airports. It’s no secret that many of our small airports are struggling. For several years, we have seen air carriers reduce service and options to these airports

and the communities they serve. Adding to their challenges is a new federal regulation, which threatens to deprive airports of hundreds of thousands of dollars in Airport Improvement Pro-gram (AIP) funding. Fortunately, the Senate is taking steps to right this wrong. Earlier this month, we passed legis-lation to reauthorize the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The bill included several key measures I advocated to strengthen funding for Nebraska’s rural and community airports. I coordinated closely with Congressman Adrian Smith on two critical rural airport funding pro-visions in the Senate FAA bill. One of these provisions was a bill I cosponsored called the Small Airports Relief Act. This legislation, which was included in the final version of the FAA bill, would create an exemption for airports facing reductions in annual enplanements, allow-ing them to continue receiving AIP funds. With the restoration of this funding, the airport can make future investments in infrastructure, safety, and efficiency that will benefit travelers and businesses for years to come. The FAA bill also strengthened the Essential Air Service Program. This critical program pro-vides incentives to air carriers who offer service to rural areas. Thanks to this funding, small airports in Alliance, Chadron, Grand Island, Kearney, McCook, North Platte and Scottsbluff are able to maintain their operations and continue attracting business to their facilities. Nebraska’s small and rural communities bring enormous value to our economy. I am strength-ened to fight for Nebraska’s values each and every day in the U.S. Senate. This is essential when it comes to addressing rural, multi-modal, transportation challenges in Nebraska. By updating our transportation infrastructure, securing funding for small airports, highways and railways, and strengthening safety, we can empower our local communities and bolster our economy in the process.” With this in mind Thank you Governor Ricketts for declaring the month of May as General Aviation Appreciation Month. Ronnie Mitchell, Director, NE Department of Aeronautics



Nebraska Operation S.A.F.E. I am writing this very short article about two hours before my wife and I are traveling to Australia for three weeks of pattern testing. Pattern testing has been fairly slow during the past few months in Nebraska mainly due to weather, but I will be returning home July 5, and will be ready to test the planes that I have lined up, and any others needing tested prior to the fungicide run. That is about all I have time for right now – I look forward to getting back to Nebraska and resuming Operation S.A.F.E. pattern testing in July. I would like to again thank BASF for their support of the program, and thank GarrCo Products for donating the dye. I hope to see a number of you later this summer, and please save a SAFE spray season! Alan Corr NATA Education Director, Certified S.A.F.E. Analyst Web site: agrisprayconsulting.com

Brad Stauffer


Casey Williams

Flynn Baker


Rob Kietzman

Ron Troyer


Tim Williams

Tom Monroe


Houston, We May Have a Drone Enforcement Problem!

To fly an unmanned aircraft system (UAS) for commercial purposes in the U.S., one first needs a Section 333 exemp-tion. FAA has granted 5,291 of these exemptions since 2014, which the FAA hopes will increase safety in the skies. But can the FAA really prevent people without a Sec. 333 exemption from flying UAS? For now, it seems like the answer to that question is “no.” FAA Deputy Administrator Michael Whitaker said at a congres-sional hearing in October that the number of drone businesses operating illegally are “too big for us to track, and we don't have those resources…” Not only does FAA not have the resources to track illegal drone businesses, they also don’t have the resources to en-force current FAA law. FAA doesn’t have thousands of police flying around the country trying to find UAS users violating the law. And even if they did, they are unlikely to know who is flying any drone they caught breaking the law. This high-lights how difficult it is to enforce the law when it comes to unmanned vehicles. But even if FAA did have some way of tracking down rogue drone operators who are flying for commercial use without a Sec. 333 operation, it’s not clear FAA has the legal authority to prosecute them. Peter Sachs, a Connecticut-based drone attorney said that he’s not so sure FAA has been authorized to prosecute commercial users for this purpose. Loretta Al-kalay, former regional counsel for FAA, similarly said “I think it’s pretty obvious the FAA doesn’t think it can win a case on this whole commercial issue, which is why they haven’t really pushed it.” FAA has, however, fined companies and individuals for flying recklessly, including a $1.9 million fine to Chicago-based SkyPan. But we have yet to see a company be fined for flying without a Sec. 333 exemption, even though we know they’re doing it. Hopefully FAA can find a way to enforce the law against renegade UAS users soon. But until then, it’s up to you – the manned aircraft pilot – to report drone sightings to FAA and to keep an eye out for these obstacles. NAAA will continue to work with FAA to push for strobe lighting and ADS-B-like requirements on all UAS—which if required would make it less difficult to enforce illegal UAS use. Courtesy NAAA


DOT Announces Rebate Program to Defray Cost of ADS-B Out

The Department of Transportation (DOT) announced this week that it will launch a rebate program for ADS-B Out on small, fixed-wing aircraft. DOT hopes this program will help defray the cost of its requirement that ADS-B out be equipped to most aircraft operating in Classes A, B, C, E, and other airspace by January 1, 2020. FAA created the requirement in 2010 as a part of NextGen, the FAA project meant to transform our nation’s air traffic control system. ADS-B Out is an important component of this FAA overhaul as pilots and controllers will be able to see real-time displays of air traffic to help improve safety. Between 100,000 and 160,000 general aviation aircraft are expected to need ADS-B Out. Since many aircraft owners are waiting until technological advances make ADS-B cheaper to equip it, Congress authorized FAA to incentivize air-craft owners to equip their aircraft with avionics equipment. FAA decided to provide a limited-time, $500 rebate to aircraft owners who equip their aircraft with ADS-B Out on a first come, first served basis. There are only 20,000 rebates available so if you’d like a $500 rebate, you need to act fast. You may decide, however, that the cost of ADS-B Out will fall more than $500 in the next three and a half years that you have to equip your aircraft with the device, and that waiting is worth the price to drop. You could also decide to wait for the cost of a dual ADS-B Out/In combination to drop, which would let you spot other aircraft and potentially UAVs if they’re required to be similarly equipped with ADS-B Out technology. An aircraft owner is eligible for up to one rebate if they have a Technical Standard Order (TSO)-certified Version 2 ADS-B Out system purchased on or after June 8, 2016, and have a fixed-wing single-engine piston aircraft registered before Jan. 1, 2016. NAAA will continue to keep you updated on ADS-B Out requirements, and work to lessen regulatory burdens on the agri-cultural aviation industry. Courtesy NAAA


EPA Provides Clarification on Application Exclusion Zone Within Revised Worker Protection Standards

EPA has released a document clarifying its application exclusion zone (AEZ) provision within the agency’s revised Worker Protection Standards (WPS) that it finalized last year. The aerial AEZ, which was a new WPS provision, established a no-entry application exclu-sion zone of up to 100 feet surrounding the aerial pesticide application equipment to protect workers and others from exposure to pes-ticides being applied. The application exclusion zone can extend off of the target field property to adjacent roads or buildings for the length of time it takes the aircraft or ground application equipment to pass by. Applicators must immediately suspend application if any person other than a properly-equipped handler involved in the application enters the application exclusion zone. NAAA expressed concerns to the EPA about the AEZ, because it didn’t take into account wind direction and aerial drift reduction technology equipment that is able to prevent applied material from moving outside of the target field and not into an AEZ that extends beyond the target field property line. As such the adjacent property, which could include passing vehicles or parked vehicles stopping to watch an application in progress, would be classified as an AEZ resulting in the applicator to suspend the application even if they are are fully upwind of the applying aircraft and application techniques are utilized to ensure the entire spray swath is away from any passing vehicles or people. EPA’s Clarification document titled “Q&A Fact Sheet on the Worker Protection Standard Application Exclusion Zone Requirements,” does provide some clarification and addresses some of NAAA’s concerns. For example, the EPA states that a pesticide application must be suspended if any worker or other person is within the AEZ beyond the boundary of the agricultural establishment. However, the agency goes on to state in the Q&A document that “Before resuming the application when workers and other persons are in the AEZ but located off the establishment, the handler must take measures to ensure that such workers and other persons will not be contacted by the pesticide application either directly or through drift. Examples of such measures include assessing the wind and other weather conditions to confirm they will prevent workers or other persons from being contacted by the pesticide either directly or through drift; adjusting the application method or employing drift reduction measures in such a way to ensure that resuming the appli-cation will not result in workers or other persons off the establishment being contacted by the pesticide; asking the workers or other persons to move out of the AEZ until the application is complete; or adjusting the treated area or the path of the application equipment away from the workers or other persons so they would not be in the AEZ. The handler may resume the pesticide application when a worker or other person is in the AEZ only if the handler can ensure that it can be carried out in compliance with all of the pesticide’s applicable labeling requirements and restrictions, and that workers and other persons on and off the establishment will not be con-tacted by the pesticide as a result of the application except as may be permitted by the pesticide’s labeling. It is important to note that this answer only applies in regard to workers and other persons beyond the boundaries of the establishment; if a handler were to re-sume an application while workers or other persons on the establishment are still within the AEZ, that would give rise to a violation of § 170.405.” NAAA recommends you become familiar with the contents of this document. The implementation date is January 2, 2018.


FAA 2015 GA Survey Final Mailing Completed

The FAA’s contractor, Tetra Tech, has notified NAAA they recently sent out the final mailing to those aircraft owners selected to complete the General Aviation and Part 135 Activity Survey (referred to as the GA Survey). If you have already completed the survey, they express their appreciation. FAA encourages you to complete the survey before the approaching closing date if you have not done so already. The information gathered by this survey is important to general aviation and the agricultural commu-nity because it is the only source of information on the size and activity of our aircraft. Data gathered helps to prepare safety statistics and develop an industry accident rate which is extremely important due to the fluctuation in ag aviation activity from year to year. According to information received from Tetra Tech, 45 percent of experimental, 40 percent of rotor-craft, 38 percent of fixed-wing piston, and 32 percent of fixed-wing turbine aircraft owners have re-sponded. Many of ag aviation’s aircraft fall in the least reported category of fixed-wing turbine air-craft. Please do not fail to report this vital information! Tetra Tech reminds aircraft owners to com-plete the survey even if they did not fly the aircraft or sold it during 2015.

Previous years’ GA Survey results can be found on the FAA’s website.

If you have any questions, please contact Tetra Tech toll-free at 1-800-826-1797 or email [email protected].


FAA Small UAS Rule Finalized, Short of Many NAAA Safety Recommendations Protecting for Low-level Manned Aircraft The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) finalized its small Unmanned Aircraft Systems (sUAS) rule, more than one year after releasing its No-tice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM). The final rule will be published in the Federal Register in five to seven days, and will go into effect 60 days thereafter. The rule applies only to commercial sUAS; hobbyists are exempt from every regulation in the rule (although the rule does codify FAA’s en-forcement authority in part 101 by prohibiting model aircraft operators from endangering the safety of the National Airspace System). The final rule, while similar to the NPRM, is short of many safety recommendations requested by NAAA to protect manned, low-level aircraft and their pilots but it does include some slight changes. Notably, the limit for sUAS operations will be 400 feet above ground level or above a structure, which-ever is higher, instead of 500 feet as proposed. This is in part thanks to NAAA comments on the NPRM from April 2015, recommending the ceiling be lowered to 400 feet. Moreover, the age limit for sUAS operations is lowered from 17 to 16 years old, and a visual observer other than the UAS operator is no longer required. Operational limitations for sUAS include:

The aircraft plus cargo must weigh less than 55 lbs.

The operation must be conducted within visual line-of-sight when weather visibility is at least 3 miles from the control station during daylight or civil twilight (30 minutes before sunset, or 30 minutes after sundown). If an operation is conducted during civil twilight, it must have appropriate lighting.

The aircraft may not operate over any persons not directly participating in the operation.

A pilot may only operate one sUAS at a time.

An aircraft must not travel faster than 100 mph or above 400 AGL (or remain within 400 feet of a structure).

Operations in Class B, C, D and E airspace are allowed only with ATC permission. Commerciali sUAS operations in class G airspace do not re-quire prior approval from an airport.

A UAV may not carry hazardous materials or operate recklessly.

An aircraft must be inspected by the remote pilot prior to flight.

A remote pilot must be in good physical and mental condition to operate a sUAS. A sUAS must give way to all other aircraft. Many of these restrictions are waivable, however, if an applicant demonstrates that an operation can safely be conducted under the terms of a certifi-cate of waiver. Pilot requirements for sUAS include: A sUAS operator must hold either a remote pilot airman certificate with a sUAS rating or be under the direct supervision of someone with a remote pilot certificate. (To qualify for this certificate, a person must pass an aeronautical knowledge test at an FAA-approved knowledge testing center. Alterna-tively, they can hold a part 61 pilot certificate, complete a flight review within the previous 24 months, and complete a sUAS online training course pro-vided by FAA. A certificate-holder must also be at least 16 years old and be vetted by the Transportation Security Administration.) Other requirements include:

Making available to the FAA, upon request, the sUAS for inspection or testing and any associated documents or records.

Reporting to FAA within 10 days of any operation that results in serious injury, loss of consciousness, or at least $500 in property damage (not including the sUAS). Registration of the sUAS with FAA. Responding to NAAA comments on the NPRM requesting a 2-mile UAS-free buffer from all aerial applications, FAA stated: “The FAA understands that agricultural operations may present seemingly unpredictable flight patterns to an observer. However, the visual-line-of-sight requirements…will allow the remote pilot to react appropriately to any other users in the NAS that may approach his or her small unmanned aircraft. The right-of-way requirements ensure that the remote pilot yields to any other users of the NAS...” Answering NAAA comments requesting ADS-B requirements on all UAS, FAA responded: “While there are benefits associated with technological equipage, there can also be significant costs…The FAA …ultimately decided against this be-cause the risk associated with certain small UAS operations…can be mitigated through operational restrictions without any equipage requirements.” FAA believes the visual line-of-sight, yield right of way, and minimum flight visibility requirements are enough to ensure safety. FAA gave the same justification for not requiring flight termination systems. Regarding strobe lighting requirements, FAA stated: “Remote pilots can effectively see-and-avoid other aircraft during daytime operations without an additional lighting requirement.” In other words, it’s nearly entirely up to the UAS pilot to avoid a crash. This is because prescriptive lighting requirements are seen as impractical by FAA. However, FAA will require lighting for sUAS operation during periods of civil twilight. NAAA also recommended requiring operational proficiency to operate a sUAS prior to obtaining a remote pilot certificate. FAA believes that because sUAS will be operated in a confined area, the aircraft weight is relatively low and poses low risk, and because a sUAS pilot can easily terminate a flight at any point, such a requirement would have more costs than benefits. About 30 commenters, along with NAAA, commented to FAA supporting the inclusion of a liability insurance requirement. However, FAA does not have jurisdiction to require sUAS to obtain insurance coverage. In all, the final rule is as expected and differs only slightly from the NPRM. Reducing the ceiling for sUAS to 400 feet from the proposed 500 feet is a welcomed change, and NAAA will continue to push for other safety measures as detailed above. Courtesy NAAA Wayne Woldt, Ph.D, P.E., UNL Biological Systems Engineering & School of Natural Resources stated “This will “open the door” for commercial use of UAV, and has the potential to increase the number of UAV’s flying across Nebraska agricultural landscapes. Here at UNL, we continue to develop the UAV Safety Beacon, in an effort to increase the safety of low flying piloted aircraft when operating in the vicinity of unmanned aircraft.”


Documents

The NATA VOICE - gonata.netgonata.net/images/voice_july_2016.pdf · The NATA VOICE Website: http ... Aviation, the Civil Air Patrol, ... to report drone sightings to FAA and to keep