Sport_Pilot

Actually a cop would make me more likely to deny access. I would ask, "Where is your warrant?". Never ever allow a cop to inspect your property without a warrant. You may have been a good law abiding citizen, but that doesn't mean the police will. In fact with priests and preachers at the top of good to bad, cops are third to the bottom, right above lawers and criminals.

I have been fleesed by cops at least two times in my life. The only good cop I knew flew helicopters. Not to inlcude many MP's who do not seem to be as ethically challanged. Not to say there are not plenty of good cops, but then I have not known many.

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

I dunno...Seems to be working out ok for them...a little this and that for the necessary misdirection... Abracadabra...Alakazam and some other Hocus Pocus... walla, walla bing bang...the shinny NCBO appears out of the smoke.

People sure are gullible nowadays...LOL

Sport_Pilot

It us working great for them. Just wait till they hit us with fees for increased legal funds. They will be very happy to hire lawers and clerks and take a percentage of it to pay management as "overhead", while we wonder why the legal actions never seem to help.

rgburrill

yaaaaaaaaaaaay

Bob Pastorello

My Feedback: (198)

Here is the FAA website for Comments for this Interpretive Rule. Note that we can read all current comments; 91 so far.

http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketD...=FAA-2014-0396

Also - FWIW - most of the comments seem to be simply a copy/paste of some suggested text written by unidentified persons, and probably well-intentioned. In my experience with similar sorts of issues - "quantity" is almost meaningless, as the "quality" of a response seems to be viewed as more valuable, because it indicates the author at least put in some minimal effort to put his/her views in their own words.

Just a suggestion....

cj_rumley

Well, at the time of this post the counter reads 91 comments received but only 5 are listed and they are obviously all the same form letter, some with additional comments from the sender.

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

so very true! +10

Was going to make a post along those lines but you said it better than I ever could have...

Sport_Pilot

Actually quantity does matter. The FAA wil figure it has no fight if they recieve only a handfull of coments. Quality also matters so a large number or quality comments is best.

N410DC

The federal government has indeed paid informants in the past for Medicare fraud. It would not be a stretch to see them do the same for FAA violations.

I love the idea of referring to a group of individuals as a single operator. The "team" could even legally designate themselves as a single entity by forming a company (e.g. "Look at Me FVP, LLC"). Forming an LLC in is not difficult, or expensive in many states. Of course, I am not an attorney, and one should seek legal advice before pulling this stunt.

Agreed. Local law enforcement can generally enter private property if they feel that a crime is being committed at the time of entry. This, of course, is a generalization. Laws related to the 4th amendment, warrants, etc. apply. If local law enforcement is able to legally investigate an alleged violation, they can simply hand over the information to the FFA, FBI, DOJ, etc. for prosecution. Bottom line: prosecution can occur, and ASIs can get involved, even if the ASI is unable to investigate the incident when it occurs.

N410DC

It might also be worthwhile to send your comments to your local US Senator or US Representative. Better yet, our clubs should make their objections known to their local legislators. It's one thing if a single person speaks up, but it's quite another if a group of dozens or hundreds of individuals speaks up. Given the fact that the FAA seems to be side-stepping a congressional mandate, it might be helpful for us to let them know that we disapprove.

bradpaul

What I find interesting is that the FAA is ignoring the requirement from the CBO (AMA) for safe VLOS FPV flight. The AMA in Document 550 requires the use of a spotter to maintain situational awareness for the pilot and to satisfy the needs to "seek and avoid" full scale aircraft. This pilot / spotter model is in many ways equivalent to the pilot copilot model used in large full scale planes.

I would suggest that a FPV VLOS flight using a pilot and spotter is safer than a VLOS non FPV flight by just a pilot.

It just makes no sense unless there is a much bigger agenda by the FAA.

skylark-flier

To me, it's simply another case of the "4th branch of government" flexing its' new-found muscle again. The US was formed with 3 branches of government (Legislative, Judicial and Executive), AMA worked with the Legislative branch (Congress) to come up with an equitable solution to an issue, and the "NEW" Agency branch (FAA) objected to being left out - so it's working its own "interpretation" to the law. Another case of "what is the meaning of 'is'."

In all cases, after 22 years of serving the nation/government (for which, I've since become quite penitent) I learned that government will control anything/everything it can. That which it can not absolutely control, it will destroy.

FAA definitely has an overriding agenda here - total control of airspace, and whatever else it can control, but I'm sure there's more. I'm also sure we'll find out eventually, probably 1 minute too late.

Bob Pastorello

My Feedback: (198)

I've read, and re-read, the FAA's document quite thoroughly....I see repeated statements about "model aircraft" being excluded from the interpretation, and that some aircraft that no longer meets the definition of a model aircraft is the subject of the limitations and additions which seem to be what many of us are interpreting and onerous and over-stepping (or violating) the Congressional mandate.

IF that is the case - then the FAA interpretive rule is for non-model-aircraft , by definition, and thus seems to comply, if not actually fulfill, the Congress' mandates in law.

Is the definition of model aircraft the issue as it relates to FPV ???Or have I missed something really vital? I'd like to hear from some of you before I compose and submit my comment, as it seems I may be misunderstanding exactly what the issue is that the AMA is rallying the troops to battle???

cj_rumley

Probably true they are ignoring AMA and their requirement DOC 550. They are responding to direction from Congress, not from AMA. IOW they know who their boss is, and can read and comprehend the directive. Part of the language in that directive was crafted by AMA, including the part restricting model flight to unaided VLOS (and not including the conditional exception from that rule in DOC 550), lifted nearly verbatim from the AMA SC. Congress codified regulation that is part of the AMA SC into PL, as AMA petitioned them to do in an end run around FAA. Now we have federal regulation of model airplanes, the first instance of that infringement of our freedom to enjoy our hobby/sport, and certainly not the last. Who is responsible for making that happen? Hint: it wasn't FAA.
FAA addressed primarily restrictions in the PL that apply to those modelers claiming exemption from FAA regulation based on their CBO 'programming.' They did not address restrictions on modelers operating independently of regulation by a CBO, i.e., the large majority of modelers in the US that the CBO- 'apparent' kicked under the bus. That will get more notice from me than the casual attention I give to the VLOS issue of what vision "unaided except corrective lenses" means. Banning FPV from the ranks of the CBO exemption groupies doesn't stop them from flying FPV - though it will stop them from flying at CBO sanctioned sites and so negate their singular reason for paying dues to a CBO.

daytonarc

My Feedback: (5)

On February 14, 2012, the President signed into law the FAA Modernization and
Reform Act of 2012 (P.L. 112-95) (the Act), which established, in Section 336, a “special
rule for model aircraft.” In Section 336, Congress confirmed the FAA’s long-standing
position that model aircraft are aircraft. Under the terms of the Act, a model aircraft is
defined as “an unmanned aircraft” that is “(1) capable of sustained flight in the
atmosphere; (2) flown within visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft; and
(3) flown for hobby or recreational purposes.”...

Section 336 also prohibits the FAA from promulgating “any rule or regulation
regarding a model aircraft, or an aircraft being developed as a model aircraft” if the
following statutory requirements are met:
• the aircraft is flown strictly for hobby or recreational use;
• the aircraft is operated in accordance with a community-based set
of safety guidelines and within the programming of a nationwide
community-based organization;
• 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;
• the aircraft is operated in a manner that does not interfere with and
gives way to any manned aircraft; and
• when flown within 5 miles of an airport, the operator of the aircraft
provides the airport operator and the airport air traffic control
tower … with prior notice of the operation….

Congress directed that the FAA may not “promulgate any rule or regulation
regarding a model aircraft, or an aircraft being developed as a model aircraft” if the
aircraft is being operated, or being developed to be operated, pursuant to the five criteria
enumerated in the statute as described above. P.L. 112-95, section 336

FPV with a spotter is still "flown within visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft" and is "operated in accordance with a community-based set
of safety guidelines and within the programming of a nationwide
community-based organization;" but the FAA has stated that to be within visual line of site does not mean to be within visual line of site it means you must actually be looking at it regardless of what safety guidelines are set by the CBO and if you are not actually looking at it it is not a model as exempted by Congress.

Flying demonstrating aerobatics as in a sponsored pilot or a manufacturer's rep is still a model that is flown for hobby or recreational purpose but not according to the FAA.so therefore according to the FAA this would not be an exempt model aircraft.

when flown within 5 miles of an airport, the operator of the aircraft
provides the airport operator and the airport air traffic control
tower … with prior notice of the operation…. means just that, provide notice so ATC is informed and can plan accordingly but the FAA now has unilaterally expanded this to require permission not just communication and therefore without permission, not just notification, if you fly your model is not an exempt model aircraft.

The Congress specifically excluded model aircraft from the FAA regulations so the FAA is now rewriting the definition of model aircraft. If an aircraft is not an exempt model aircraft to legally operate the aircraft it and all of its systems need to be certified by the FAA and the pilot needs to be licensed.

This is a backdoor method of regulating what the congress specifically stated they can not regulate. FAA always had the right, on a case by case basis to stop anything that was a hazard to the national airspace but they had the burden of proving it was a hazard. Now they are saying you are not flying a model therefore you are required to comply with the same regulations that all non model aircraft have to comply with.

Bob Pastorello

My Feedback: (198)

daytonarc - thank for a very good summary of several important points. Although I differ in view, what you posted helps my curiosity about the salient issues.

It does seem that the AMA may have failed to provide adequate guidance establishing the definition of sponsored model aircraft operators, as it seems that the FAA is taking the stance that operation of a device for remuneration ( the lawyers will have to eventually establish whether cash, merchandise, or payment-in-kind constitutes "payment") automatically places that operation as a "non model", and thus able to be regulated. Motives aside, that is a feasible mechanism to address commercial enterprises using hobby-grade devices, which is what I believe the FAA is trying to corral under it's auspices to protect the safety of the NAS.

Great conversation; thank you.

cj_rumley

daytonarc,

It would be truly ironic if FAA is really redefining model aircraft to further their agenda. AMA has done that a number of times to suit some purpose du jour. This link http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/ama-...-airplane.html will take you to a discussion on that topic that transpired on this forum over a decade ago. It is relevant to this discussion as it was prompted by a re-definition of MA to exclude FPV and autonomous operation from AMA sanction that is a living artifact in the current AMA Safety Code, and what AMA provided to Congress that ended up in PL 112-95 Sec 336.

cj

daytonarc

My Feedback: (5)

Bob P, the problem is by allowing the FAA to make their own definitions to keep commercial interests from using hobby aircraft you allow the burden of proof to shift from the government to the citizen. By defining a model as not a model the FAA can site to the operator for hundreds of violations of the FARs.

Consider this; our club has a spring fly in, we do it for recreational purposes, to introduce new people to the hobby and to raise money to maintain the field. We advertise on the internet and with flyers at local businesses and schools. The posted flyers bill the fly in as an "Radio Controlled Airplane Airshow " to get kids and families interested in coming. We charge pilots a landing fee. Weallow vendors to set up on site. We allow swap meet style selling. We open the kitchen and charge for food. We conduct a raffle. We have flying contests with prizes. We have a manufacturer's rep demonstrate the latest and greatest. FAA has redefined all of the flying as not model exempt because it is an "Airshow" where money and compensation are exchanged.

Even though we are an AMA club and the event is AMA sanctioned every pilot is breaking multiple FARs. By allowing the aFAAA to define what is not a model based on unilateral definitions Pandora's Box has been opened.

Now suppose at this event, despite all possible safety precautions being taken, a bystander is injured. Lawyers site FAA Regulations not followed because planes are not exempt. Do you think the third party, AMA insurance would represent the pilots or the club. The answer is no.

Unforeseen consequences of ill advised rules are common. Rather than defining our models as not models the FAA should publish a clear set of actions, that they think could be a hazard to the NAS that exempt models should avoid.

Bob Pastorello

My Feedback: (198)

daytonarc - THAT was an extremely articulate scenario-based explanation of an equally-complex set of circumstances. Is perhaps the difference between Not-for-Profit and For Profit organizations part of the discussion? Can Not for Profits have "Commercial" operations? Just thinking out loud, I have no idea, and really need to ponder both of your posts.

Most excellent.

JohnShe

Not for profits are non-commercial. I don't see how the FAA can object to not for profit activities. However, You should consider posting your issue on the FAA's e-comment website.

http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketD...=FAA-2014-0396

daytonarc

My Feedback: (5)

CJ there is some irony there however AMA has Officers elected by the members. They will change with the times and the changing views of the membership our be voted out. Same with Congress but much more slowly. FAA does not answer to a voting body and they therefore do not have the authority to make law. FAA is using unilateral interpretation of definitions to basically rewrite laws passed by Congress.

daytonarc

My Feedback: (5)

Bob P, in this day and age do we really want to open the door to the "what is a non for profit"? The fact is the club is non for profit, but the vendors, manufacturer's reps, some or all of the pilots are not. With your pondering should the FAA involve, the IRS to determine if the models are models?

I see a simple answer. Section 336 also prohibits the FAA from promulgating “any rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft, or an aircraft being developed as a model aircraft”

FAA has the ability and duty to regulate any activity that creates a hazard to the airspace. That is all they need. Redefining models does not do this. Let them rule on a case by case basis.

daytonarc

My Feedback: (5)

John She

I will be responding to the public comment period. Trying to educate and inform others so they may do so as well with responses to that are not just copy and paste.

mongo

My Feedback: (15)

appears that some, like me, believe that manufacturers demo, as well as mfgr sponsored competition, type flying is neither hobby or recreational use, as called for in 336.

ira d

+1