FAA Issues "Interpretation of the special rule for model aircraft"
06-26-2014, 06:12 PM
#76
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.
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.
06-26-2014, 08:41 PM
#77
My Feedback: (17)
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Hartland,
WI
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Folks, I probably have a reading comprehension problem here, so help me out.
I read the 17 page interpretive rule release - I have to say that it sounds very similar to something we in the medical device industry call "The Preamble" to an act of congress which enables the FDA to pretty much do whatever it wants ... and it does that very capriciously, which has generated an entire industry of "QA Experts". Bottomline, it starts out seemingly innocuous and ten years later you are so rule bound you can't do much of anything.
But I digress.
The AMA's response is what caught my eye. I think it is too heavy handed, and we need more reason in our response ... it probably is reflecting the anger at a lot of time and treasure spent with a big surprise at the end. But they make reference to the age make up of the AMA ... 20% are under 19, or over 65 ... why is that relevant? Does FAA in one of the FARs limit those age groups? I did not see anything about limiting ages in the 17 page FAA document. Can someone point me to the FAA rule that targets those age groups?
And BTW, I've been an AMA guy since 1967 (12 years old at the time), and I support them. I do not see the sinister side some see. I don't think they intend to grow membership or raise dues to line their pockets as some have stated in this thread. Not many rich guys in the EC from the AMA salaries as far as I know.
I read the 17 page interpretive rule release - I have to say that it sounds very similar to something we in the medical device industry call "The Preamble" to an act of congress which enables the FDA to pretty much do whatever it wants ... and it does that very capriciously, which has generated an entire industry of "QA Experts". Bottomline, it starts out seemingly innocuous and ten years later you are so rule bound you can't do much of anything.
But I digress.
The AMA's response is what caught my eye. I think it is too heavy handed, and we need more reason in our response ... it probably is reflecting the anger at a lot of time and treasure spent with a big surprise at the end. But they make reference to the age make up of the AMA ... 20% are under 19, or over 65 ... why is that relevant? Does FAA in one of the FARs limit those age groups? I did not see anything about limiting ages in the 17 page FAA document. Can someone point me to the FAA rule that targets those age groups?
And BTW, I've been an AMA guy since 1967 (12 years old at the time), and I support them. I do not see the sinister side some see. I don't think they intend to grow membership or raise dues to line their pockets as some have stated in this thread. Not many rich guys in the EC from the AMA salaries as far as I know.
06-27-2014, 04:12 AM
#78
My Feedback: (198)
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: El Reno, OK
Posts: 6,707
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps - and I'm going way out on a much too small limb - as I've wondered for some time whether the AMA was perceived as a serious player in Washington, particularly by the FAA when all this stuff started. FAA uses the info provided by AMA to meet it's obligation to Congressional law in 336. The news media and probably more than a few members of Congress are beating the doors about the lack of FAA Rules. That gets more intense nearly daily; you almost can't go a day now, without reading some article or other about "drones" and "rc toy cameras", but not anything about "model aircraft operations".
So if you're the FAA, reading the tea leaves of public outcry, media, and some Congresspersons....what are you gonna do? Write an interpretation to put into effect immediately that can be plastered on the Internet, news outlets, and mailed to Congress.
Two things I know in my many years of dealing with both the FAA and AMA....they don't want to be asked to do something that they aren't already doing, and particularly, neither of them want to have a whole body of "interested parties" giving them a bunch of advice.
Both seem to prefer to just take their best stab at something mainly to appease their attackers, both public and private.
FAA is accustomed to dealing with lobbyists of multi-milliondollar enterprises who routinely "protect their interests" and they stay pretty much "in their face" at the FAA.
The AMA is a group of good ol' boys playing with model airplanes who offer safety guidelines in exchange for liability coverage for their membership.
Taking today's headlines, negative news articles, issues with various FPV camera copters and their owners, and the distorted view being presented by media to them, just exactly what would YOU do if you were the FAA getting probably daily reminders that they don't have the rule ready yet, what's the hold up???
I think, personally, that the FAA wants to be able to ignore model airplanes who play like they are supposed to (following the Safety Guidelines imposed by the only CBO with any voice).
OTOH, I also think the FAA is in a "do something NOW" mode, to try to address the noisemakers out here getting news coverage, creating situtations for local law enforcement struggles, and the courts. BTW, let's not forget that the FAA is charged with doing this without messing with model airplanes.
The only real problem they have as a rule-making authority is figuring out the ten zillion ways that models AREN'T models, depending on their particular activity, and whether or not the activity itself is in compliance with the CBO Safety Programming or not.
Who in their right mind would want this job?
So if you're the FAA, reading the tea leaves of public outcry, media, and some Congresspersons....what are you gonna do? Write an interpretation to put into effect immediately that can be plastered on the Internet, news outlets, and mailed to Congress.
Two things I know in my many years of dealing with both the FAA and AMA....they don't want to be asked to do something that they aren't already doing, and particularly, neither of them want to have a whole body of "interested parties" giving them a bunch of advice.
Both seem to prefer to just take their best stab at something mainly to appease their attackers, both public and private.
FAA is accustomed to dealing with lobbyists of multi-milliondollar enterprises who routinely "protect their interests" and they stay pretty much "in their face" at the FAA.
The AMA is a group of good ol' boys playing with model airplanes who offer safety guidelines in exchange for liability coverage for their membership.
Taking today's headlines, negative news articles, issues with various FPV camera copters and their owners, and the distorted view being presented by media to them, just exactly what would YOU do if you were the FAA getting probably daily reminders that they don't have the rule ready yet, what's the hold up???
I think, personally, that the FAA wants to be able to ignore model airplanes who play like they are supposed to (following the Safety Guidelines imposed by the only CBO with any voice).
OTOH, I also think the FAA is in a "do something NOW" mode, to try to address the noisemakers out here getting news coverage, creating situtations for local law enforcement struggles, and the courts. BTW, let's not forget that the FAA is charged with doing this without messing with model airplanes.
The only real problem they have as a rule-making authority is figuring out the ten zillion ways that models AREN'T models, depending on their particular activity, and whether or not the activity itself is in compliance with the CBO Safety Programming or not.
Who in their right mind would want this job?
06-27-2014, 04:58 AM
#79
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Round Hill, VA
Posts: 1,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
First , FPV. Their LOS interpretation is correct to the point that the pilot must have an unobstructed view of the aircraft. Therefore, an FPV pilot cannot operate with a hood or goggles. However, with a buddy box, the pilot in charge of the aircraft will always have that unobstructed view. He, or she, may then allow the FPV pilot to operate the aircraft safely and take over the instant the FPV pilot gets in to trouble. The FAA seems to have forgotten this option.
Second, the commercial interpretation seems to have created an obstacle that will prevent manufacturers and vendors from marketing their products through demonstrations at safe venues such as club fields during flying events. I think they are too restrictive and need to allow these types of activities. Our club has a local hobby shop sponsor several events. They provide an opportunity for the store to present new products while supporting our recreational activities. the FAA interpretation would put a chill on these activities.
I have noticed that many of the commentators are claiming that the FAA has rewritten the special rule. As I see it, they are interpreting it correctly though very narrowly.
I was terribly disappointed by the AMA response. They sounded more like whining children. It would have been better if they had intelligently pointed out the specific issues of disagreement.
Last edited by JohnShe; 06-27-2014 at 10:32 AM. Reason: spelling errors
06-27-2014, 06:38 AM
#80
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Apopka,
FL
Posts: 1,367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well at least they did not "blame it on the video" although in this case the FPV videos on youtube could be part of the blame.
06-27-2014, 07:53 AM
#81
Telling a large group of people they can't do something in lnstead of going after the people that are the actual problem does not do any good in the long run
in fact it usually makes things worse.
in fact it usually makes things worse.
06-27-2014, 10:13 AM
#83
So, how is this really going to impact model aviation? People who fly at clubs should be happy that they can still do their activities. Perhaps we should wait until the next funding bill, to see if that 336 clause still exists. Then, perhaps people will truly have something to complain about. I am sure the clubs will continue doing the same things they have been doing for the last 80 years or so. I think the FAA mostly has issues with the modern technology. In view of this "commercial" stuff: People work "under the table" all the time. Some will even go as far as buying a lawn mower, weed whacker, and pickup truck.
06-27-2014, 10:34 AM
#84
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Round Hill, VA
Posts: 1,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pirker was flying FPV. That is what they are responding to. Irresponsible behavior. The U-Tube videos just show how many irresponsible idiots are out there.
06-27-2014, 10:39 AM
#85
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Round Hill, VA
Posts: 1,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, how is this really going to impact model aviation? People who fly at clubs should be happy that they can still do their activities. Perhaps we should wait until the next funding bill, to see if that 336 clause still exists. Then, perhaps people will truly have something to complain about. I am sure the clubs will continue doing the same things they have been doing for the last 80 years or so. I think the FAA mostly has issues with the modern technology. In view of this "commercial" stuff: People work "under the table" all the time. Some will even go as far as buying a lawn mower, weed whacker, and pickup truck.
Sorry, 336 is the law of the land. It won't change. I actually think it is a good law. What we have to do is provide the FAA with sufficient sound and reasonable comments to get them to recognize and widen the the narrowness of their interpretation. I have found two so far. I am sure there are many more. The comments that have been posted so far are pathetic. The sound like whining children, just like the AMA response.
06-27-2014, 11:04 AM
#88
Well for one, you have to notify any airport within 5 miles and they must AGREE to let you fly there. You can't just "make them aware".
When the smoke clears, i believe this is THE issue with these new rules, and I think the AMA is in a tight vicelike sqeeze right now. This is the law of the land NOW. This rule is in clear conflict with the safety code NOW. This FAA ruling is not just a request for comment, the effectivity is immediate.
Before, the airport did not HAVE to agree. Now if they don't agree what happens?
06-27-2014, 11:17 AM
#89
My Feedback: (198)
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: El Reno, OK
Posts: 6,707
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Harshly put, but I must agree with the position you describe. If the Airport says "No Way", it would be a most interesting case to plead before the FAA, because that's who would say yay or nay. I would imagine it extremely unlikely that the Agency would overrule the local airport operator or traffic control center. Sounds like some serious, proactive PR is needed in advance of poking the bear.
As bad as I hate to admit it, Mr. Matt, you may have struck the chord that will resonate across the hobby....the nugget in the nutshell, so to speak.
As bad as I hate to admit it, Mr. Matt, you may have struck the chord that will resonate across the hobby....the nugget in the nutshell, so to speak.
06-27-2014, 11:31 AM
#90
This is one of several
http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2192231
06-27-2014, 11:40 AM
#91
To clarify a point.
550 did away with the buddy box rule for FPV, it required a spotter.
I think BLOS is a danger to manned aircraft personally and don't think it should be allowed.
I have mixed feelings on the buddy box thing but in general don't think its a bad idea, though I think we can get by just fine within LOS with a spotter, it may be a concession worth making on both sides.
550 did away with the buddy box rule for FPV, it required a spotter.
I think BLOS is a danger to manned aircraft personally and don't think it should be allowed.
I have mixed feelings on the buddy box thing but in general don't think its a bad idea, though I think we can get by just fine within LOS with a spotter, it may be a concession worth making on both sides.
06-27-2014, 01:48 PM
#92
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Cartersville, GA
Posts: 360
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
First , FPV. Their LOS interpretation is correct to the point that the pilot must have an unobstructed view of the aircraft. Therefore, an FPV pilot cannot operate with a hood or goggles. However, with a buddy box, the pilot in charge of the aircraft will always have that unobstructed view. He, or she, may then allow the FPV pilot to operate the aircraft safely and take over the instant the FPV pilot gets in to trouble. The FAA seems to have forgotten this option.
Harshly put, but I must agree with the position you describe. If the Airport says "No Way", it would be a most interesting case to plead before the FAA, because that's who would say yay or nay. I would imagine it extremely unlikely that the Agency would overrule the local airport operator or traffic control center. Sounds like some serious, proactive PR is needed in advance of poking the bear.
As bad as I hate to admit it, Mr. Matt, you may have struck the chord that will resonate across the hobby....the nugget in the nutshell, so to speak.
As bad as I hate to admit it, Mr. Matt, you may have struck the chord that will resonate across the hobby....the nugget in the nutshell, so to speak.
06-27-2014, 03:00 PM
#93
My Feedback: (58)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: here
Posts: 5,413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the future what do you think their position will be given current trends?
06-27-2014, 03:08 PM
#94
My Feedback: (198)
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: El Reno, OK
Posts: 6,707
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think it's time for the AMA to step up with MAPS detailing locations of their sanctioned fields, overlayed with airport locations....Might be some work to get done, but if the AMA cannot make a case about the amount of space potentially in jeopardy. Just in case "someone" has to try and make a case to the FAA for permitting "authorized" airfields to operate....
06-27-2014, 03:14 PM
#95
My Feedback: (58)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: here
Posts: 5,413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think it's time for the AMA to step up with MAPS detailing locations of their sanctioned fields, overlayed with airport locations....Might be some work to get done, but if the AMA cannot make a case about the amount of space potentially in jeopardy. Just in case "someone" has to try and make a case to the FAA for permitting "authorized" airfields to operate....
06-27-2014, 03:19 PM
#96
My Feedback: (198)
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: El Reno, OK
Posts: 6,707
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unfortunately, I truly believe with regard to dealing with the FAA, the AMA is "it"....it may not be much, and maybe not what many of us would like it to be, but it's the only face card in the deck...
06-27-2014, 03:23 PM
#97
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Round Hill, VA
Posts: 1,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A = πr**2
I get 78 square miles.
Big deal. Congress wrote the rule not the FAA. The FAA must enforce it and the rule says you must make an agreement with the airport.
How close is your field to a "qualifying" airport? My field is more than 10 miles each from two airports, one is a 5 runway international and the other is a single runway executive airport.
06-27-2014, 03:31 PM
#98
My Feedback: (58)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: here
Posts: 5,413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not sure how the AMA could ever think such a small organization as ours would ever have much weight... They need to put forward the thought that there are possibly millions of people enjoying model aviation...not just an almost insignificant number as our membership numbers might convey.
06-27-2014, 03:33 PM
#100
My Feedback: (58)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: here
Posts: 5,413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's
A = πr**2
I get 78 square miles.
Big deal. Congress wrote the rule not the FAA. The FAA must enforce it and the rule says you must make an agreement with the airport.
How close is your field to a "qualifying" airport? My field is more than 10 miles each from two airports, one is a 5 runway international and the other is a single runway executive airport.
A = πr**2
I get 78 square miles.
Big deal. Congress wrote the rule not the FAA. The FAA must enforce it and the rule says you must make an agreement with the airport.
How close is your field to a "qualifying" airport? My field is more than 10 miles each from two airports, one is a 5 runway international and the other is a single runway executive airport.