Sport_Pilot

Arrr!! "The code is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules."

Quote from Captain Barbossa from Prirates of the CarribBean: The Curse of Black Pearl.

JohnShe

Yup! Pretty succinct translation. Sail planes tend to go for a much higher altitude and have always been allowed so that probably won't change much.

DocYates

My Feedback: (102)

Nothing in this section shall
be construed to limit the authority of the Administrator to pursue
enforcement action against persons operating model aircraft who
endanger the safety of the national airspace system.

SP, you might want to read tht again.

Sport_Pilot

The fact that it does not limit the authority does not mean that it adds to the authority. They had guidelines before and the Judge threw out the case. However, the interpretation does put us and others on notice. I think the sUAV croud will have alot of comments. For models all they can do is publish guidelines as the example in the article I was refering to, becasue they cannot regulate model aircraft.

JohnShe

Actually, the judge threw out the case because the events took place before law was even signed.

The FAA can regulate any aircraft that violates the rules in the FAR and that is where this special rule is going. I advise you to download it and read it carefully.

DocYates

My Feedback: (102)

SP don't confuse the issues. If you are classified as a "hobbyist" they will not prosecute. Take money or act otherwise and they will do so. It might be an extremely costly endeavor to pursue.
G
ENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law

relating to the incorporation of unmanned aircraft systems into

Federal Aviation Administration plans and policies, including this

subtitle, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration

may not promulgate any rule or regulation regarding a model
aircraft, or an aircraft being developed as a model aircraft, if—

(1) the aircraft is flown strictly for hobby or recreational
use;

(2) the aircraft is operated in accordance with a communitybased
set of safety guidelines and within the programming
of a nationwide community-based organization;

(3) the aircraft is limited to not more than 55 pounds

unless otherwise certified through a design, construction,

inspection, flight test, and operational safety program administered

by a community-based organization;

(4) the aircraft is operated in a manner that does not
interfere with and gives way to any manned aircraft

JohnShe

If you fail to follow the CBO rules you may be in trouble. The FAA can and will prosecute if you create a hazard or cause damage or injury.

Sport_Pilot

The time the law was signeed doesn't matter. The issue is tha there was no regulation. A notification explaining their interpretation is not a regulation. Necessary step before writing a regulation perhaps.

Sport_Pilot

The time the law was signeed doesn't matter. The issue is tha there was no regulation. A notification explaining their interpretation is not a regulation. Necessary step before writing a regulation perhaps.

You are confusing the issue. My pirate joke is about the guide lines they issued. You are discussing the congressional law they are interpreting. But anyway the CBO rules are not laws. The FAA can only step in when you fly in front or near full scale aircraft. Well my interpretation anyway.

JohnShe

That is correct. FAA covers aviation hazards, damage or injury. Local law enforcement will take care of local damage and injury.

As long as you fly according to CBO rules you are safe. Any accident will be just that and covered by insurance either your own home owners or the clubs insurance.

If you read the special rule, you will see that it is going into the FAR and will be enforceable. As I have told others it is now time for public responses to the FAA. You have 30 days.

JW0311

Don't see anything that seems unreasonable to me. Maybe I'm missing something but it looks pretty straight forward.

James

JohnShe

It is pretty reasonable. The only flaw that I have noted is that the LOS requirement will kill recreational FPV operations. They don't have an exception for the use of a buddy box. Cest la Vie!

bradpaul

Well depends if you fly FPV, are a sponsored pilot or fly in competitions...................................... ....... this is from Brendan Schulman the lawyer that defended Trappy in the FAA case.

https://www.facebook.com/dronelawyer?fref=nf



FAA's "interpretation" asserts for 1st time ever that model aircraft contests & sponsored pilots are prohibited http://t.co/EfwYbiR6Et

JohnShe

Fascinating, that might call for a comment, asking for clarification, to the FAA.

Jim Branaum

My Feedback: (3)

Well, I guess you won't mind if I hope you get the chance to experience a similar incident when with friends and family. Apparently according to your take (and that of others here), it should be safe enough - right?

I wonder how long it will be before the operator presses charges for the destruction of his/her property. Any bets?

bradpaul

Just what we did not need and the FAA wanted .................................................. ........

Quote from article: "The Pirates say once confronted, the man flying the drone admitted to doing it, saying he thought it would be fun."

http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2014/06/27/man-flies-drone-over-pnc-park-during-game/

How STUPID do you have to be to fly a FPV multirotor at a major league baseball park over 36,000 spectators?

But as the article went on to explain (see the video), he may not have broken any laws or regulations.

Probably a member of "The Black Sheep Squadron".

cj_rumley

Deleted

JohnShe

Couldn't resist. :-)

jtotten

Here's a interesting example - posted by a TV station, obviously FPV control, probably lower than 400 ft most of the time (but I dont know what height the firworks are usually set for). I doubt any manned aircraft could get the shots, and it is probably "art". https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...&v=a9KZ3jgbbmI

jonnyjetprop

My Feedback: (3)

This is is why regulation is needed. Sorry, but it needs to be said. There's a difference between flying RC planes at a model flying field and stuff like this. Did the pilot consider any risks to the public? The AMA wants to defend people like this.

Thomas B

My Feedback: (4)

i am not buying the lawyers take that competitions in general will break the FAA intent expressed in their letter. Even if cash prizes are awarded, there is ample precedent in current FAA policy that allows private pilots to compete for cash prizes: Air racing and precision competition flying (lot of college teams do the latter) come immediately to mind. A legal challenge to this FAA interpretation should be straightforward.

i see zero evidence that normal model competitions for trophies or awards is affected.

Full scale air racing private pilots are currently allowed to have equipment and cash sponsorships.

Another easy solution for current sponsored RC pilots is to assert that they are not getting free equipment that could be called reimbursement, but that they are in fact doing reviews, durability testing and in service testing of aircraft and equipment. An occasional report to the manufacturer should be easy enough. How could the FAA prove otherwise?

mongo

My Feedback: (15)

simple,
they read your suggestions in this forum.
some things really do need to be handled "back channel".

Thomas B

My Feedback: (4)

It does not matter if they read about it in here or not. It is a valid option that could be explored.

Given the extreme inconsitency of the FAA response when compared to other policies that the FAA has, I predict much of their position will not stand up in the enevitable legal proceedings.

NorfolkSouthern

I would say, that it doesn't matter if the competitor is given something for winning a match, or wins a free car wash. It's still likely to be considered by the FAA as a "demonstrating acrobatics on a model plane for pay" or something like that. I'll voice my opinion here: I think the AMA and that congressman should have stepped out of the rule making progress. Had it not been for 336, I'm sure the modelers would have far fewer restrictions. And who knows? Maybe Dominos could have been delivering pizzas without weaving through traffic by now.

Sport_Pilot

What restrictions? This is not yet a rule or regulation. AMA did the right thing. The FAA would have done the same and we would have less ammon in court.