Dianne Feinstein has caused turbulence in the aviation industry this week by introducing amendments to the hugely anticipated FAA Reauthorization Act making it’s way through Congress. The bill is an important adjunct to previous legislation which aims to stymie attempts by terrorist organizations like ISIS to cross our borders.
Therefore, addressed within the bill, is the Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS). It’s cross-border (state and federal) use and sometimes misuse justifiably deserves inclusion, however, Feinstein’s amendments to the bill exemplify a nescient understanding of aviation as a whole.
Whether manned or unmanned, the moment an aircraft has “slipped the surly bonds of earth” (John Gillespie Magee), it enters a nationally regulated system, independent of state lines. Aviation is an interstate system not intrastate. If UAS operated on a different set of laws than manned aircraft, midair incursions, confusion and anarchy would trump federal and state rule.
UAS is not a state issue, it is strictly federal and Feinstein’s amendments, which target UAS (Unmanned Aircraft Systems), should be managed by one entity, in this case the federal government. As a committed Federalist, it pains me to write those words, but there are limited circumstances that require an all-hands-on-deck approach; aviation is one.
“Reckless drone use varies significantly in different states and even within a state, which is why we need to maintain the ability for states to set their own standards of drone operation.”
“One in five incidents of reckless drone use nationwide has occurred in California, and densely-populated areas with critical infrastructure like Los Angeles and San Francisco need flexibility to enact rules that address their unique challenges.”
“AOPA’s (Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association) primary concern is the safety of pilots and passengers of manned aircraft, and the best way to ensure the safe integration of UAS’s into the airspace is to have clear and uniformed rules across the country.” – Jim Coon, AOPA, Senior VP of Government Affairs
“The big difference here is that these young ladies had been fused for 29 years, so their brains were extraordinarily adherent to each other. So we didn’t have the advantage of being able to establish planes and to pull them apart.” – Dr. Ben Carson, “Twins’ Surgeon Talks of Failed Separation”
So goes separating any two distinct entities. Success will depend on whether they can survive without the direct support of the other.
The entities, Britain and the EU (European Union), have been up to some pretty serious discussion as to whether it will behoove Britain to unlink ties to the EU (European Union) and if they did, the pros and cons for the state of the EU going forward. And further, the effect internationally. There’s even a catchy mash-up for the British Exit, Brexit.
The contention is,
“A series of treaties have given courts and politicians in Brussels the power to change national laws and bring them in line with European standards. Up to 55 percent of Britain’s laws and regulations are now set by Europe…This forfeiture of national authority lies at the root of concern among many British voters.”
President Obama will attempt anti-Brexit rhetoric during a visit with Britain’s Prime Minister, David Cameron. The three-day trip this week comes ahead of a June 23rd citizen vote whether to Brexit.
Conservative London’s Mayor, Boris Johnson on Obama’s opinion,
“Referring to the US as ‘Uncle Sam,’ he called an Obama intervention in the debate ‘a piece of outrageous and exorbitant hypocrisy’ since America defends its own sovereignty with ‘hysterical vigilance.'”
Conservative MP Daniel Hannon weighed in on Twitter,
“I accept that there may be some arguments for staying in the EU. Humouring Barack Obama is not one of them.”
Cuba will have a new leader by 2018 when Raul Castro retires and perhaps new leadership for the party. Here’s an article to get you thinkin’.
And now back to you, RedStaters…