Sport_Pilot

There is presently no law against owning a sUAV so Homeland can do nothing about it. The FAA can make a rule against using them, but you can buy one and ignore the FAA, so Homeland Secuity can do nothing until the crime is commited.

Bob Pastorello

My Feedback: (198)

A large, trainer-type, gas-powered rc craft well under 55 lbs. can carry enough fuel to fly autonomously or under FPV easily for an hour or more at airspeeds in the 60-80mph range. We all should realize that such a reality hasn't escaped notice. If such a craft were flown FPV, BLOS, using GPS on-screen, the potential for "interference" in the NAS should be obvious even to most jaded or naïve reasonable person. Off the shelf RC products exist to do so. Does such a scenario possibility play into current rule-making? Who knows?

Should the FAA be concerned about such potentialities?

I think so.

aeajr

My Feedback: (2)

If you got to this page, it says 927 comments received.
http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketD...=FAA-2014-0396

As of this morning, according to this page, there have been over 1050 comments submitted.
http://www.regulations.gov/#!documen...2014-0396-0001

According to the * at the lower part of the page:

This count refers to the total comments received on this document, as of 11:59 PM yesterday,

If you hit the view all, it only shows you 50 and I can not see a way to view the rest. Anyone know how this site works?

aeajr

My Feedback: (2)

Forget about terrorists for the moment.

No matter how good the current FPV systems are they don't give the pilot the same situational awareness that you would have sitting in the pilot seat. As such, I agree that FPV should be restricted to LOS flying and would prefer that occur on a buddy box. If you want to fly beyond LOS then I would want you to have some kind of FPV pilot's license with a relevant aircraft spec requirement.

I have seen too many hobby pilots put an aircraft in the air with little or no training and/or little or no understanding of what it means to have an aircraft that is air worthy. And I have seen experienced hobby pilots who were less than responsible in they way they fly.

Having that situation at a "flying field" in LOS is one thing. The risk is known and contained. But having these flying out beyond LOS is not what I call hobby model aviation. Frankly I don't want you flying over my house via FPV. This has nothing to do with privacy or terrorist attacks. Those are valid discussions. I am talking safety and the context of model aviation.

Sorry guys. I know there are many who love this stuff but that is my opinion. Enjoy FPV but do it with a buddy box and keep the aircraft within LOS of the master/instructor pilot.

Let the fire storm begin.

Silent-AV8R

Comments do not appear until they have been "reviewed" by the FAA. No time limit on them doing that.

JohnShe

The FAA Regulations web site provides instructions on how to write an effective comment. It is important that each and every one of us, who intends to write a comment, read and understand this document. These instructions will provide the necessary guidance that we will need to insure that our comments are listened to and may actually be acted upon.

http://www.regulations.gov/docs/Tips...e_Comments.pdf

Please read it carefully, those who have already posted comments, should consider revising, and reposting, their comments to reflect the guidance provided to ensure that their comments are indeed effective.

Of the 50 comments posted, as of this date and time, Not a single comment reflects this advice and they are likely to be ignored by the FAA.

The AMA response does not reflect this guidance is is likely to be ineffective.

aeajr

My Feedback: (2)

Good advice John.

bradpaul

For those out there that believe that the FAA Interpretation is no big thing, there has been a report from a AMA RC club in Kansas that,

Sport_Pilot

I saw a couple of good comments of the 50 I could see, but it is 50 of over a thousand and probably the 50 latest. I did not proof it against the FAA recommendations, however.

N410DC

Nice. Every single modeler in the club needs to spend a few thousand dollars to get a Sport Pilot's License, just to fly model aircraft. That money could be used to secure a new flying site that's outside of the 5 mile radius.

Sport pilots who fly full-scale aircraft do not have this many restrictions. They are no legally required to "get prior authorization for EACH FLIGHT" or to "announce our intent, depart, and approach," since they are not allowed to fly under instrument flight rules (assuming that the airport does not have a control tower.) It's is certainly a good practice to announce landings, takeoffs, and intents under visual flight rules, though it's not legally required in many cases.

Sport_Pilot

This is what happens when you try to make friends of one of the most onerous bureaucracies in the government.

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

I learned a long time ago not to kick lying dogs... FWIW there are those that are giddy as a school girl about the turn of events...LOL They really are enjoying their perceived validation...Hehe

Bob Pastorello

My Feedback: (198)

[TABLE="width: 568"]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #CCFFCC, colspan: 2"] Sorry - I was wrong about this.
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 50%, bgcolor: #CCFFCC"]

[/TD]
[TD="width: 50%"]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 50%, bgcolor: #CCFFCC"]
[/TD]
[TD="width: 50%"]

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 50%, bgcolor: #CCFFCC"]

[/TD]
[TD="width: 50%"]

[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

Sport_Pilot

Deleted because Bob deleted his.

BarracudaHockey

My Feedback: (11)

Bob, Full scale at 500, us at 400 = 100 ft for buffer for depth perception on our end and mis set altimeters on their end.

Bob Pastorello

My Feedback: (198)

Deleted.

impulse09

My Feedback: (3)

Maybe the FBO should try reading the law. If mentions notification, not asking for permission.

FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, Sec.336 (5)

when flown within 5 miles of an airport, the operator of the aircraft provides the airport operator and the airport air
traffic control tower (when an air traffic facility is located at
the airport) with prior notice of the operation (model aircraft
operators flying from a permanent location within 5 miles of an
airport should establish a mutually-agreed upon operating pro-
cedure with the airport operator and the airport air traffic con-
trol tower (when an air traffic facility is located at the airport)).

The FAA interpretation repeats same. The FBO is making %#^& up.

mr_matt

My Feedback: (10)

Actually the FAA interpretation says this:

Accordingly, as part of the requirements for model aircraft operations within 5 miles of an airport set forth in section 336(a)(4) of P.L. 112-95, the FAA would expect modelers operating model aircraft in airspace covered by §§ 91.126 through 91.135 and part 73 to obtain authorization from air traffic control prior to operating.

mr_matt

My Feedback: (10)

But it does not say anything about calling in your takeoffs and landings!

Bob Pastorello

My Feedback: (198)

Not much guidance (thankfully) about airports who do NOT have air traffic control, nor 24/7 FBO coverage. Probably lots of us operate at RC sites where we simply are "on file" with the local airport(s), as well as 911 services (not related to FAA, but always a good idea to be sure that local rescue/emergency services know where we're at)

ira d

The FAA has given power to the airports to make modelers sing dance and jump through hoops if they want to fly within the 5 mi zone.

ira d

Double post

N410DC

The words "would expect" do not seem to imply a strong mandate.

I am not an attorney, but it seems that this recent notice/interpretation from the FAA is not legally binding. It is simply an interpretation of a law that has been on the books for some time. That said, however, the notice serves as a warning that the FAA will try to prosecute anyone who does not act in accordance with their interpretation of the pre-existing law. We all learned in grade school that only the judicial branch of out government has the authority to interpret the laws. Thus, the courts, not the bureaucrats at the FAA, have the final say as to whether or not a model aircraft pilot has violated the law. We all know of at least one incident where a federal Judge told the FAA that it does not have the authority that it thinks it has, in regards to model aviation.

I am not trying to minimize the impact of the FAA's interpretation. I am simply stating that they cannot directly enforce it.

franklin_m

Standing back a bit, it seems to me that we may be on our way to losing. IMO, I think the fundamental flaw has always been "a community based organization" that is not actively enforcing. FAA has an obligation to keep the public safe, in the air and on the ground. AMA has put forth the story that they can help manage this task, yet it appears they've had a couple blind spots in their approach. These are compliance, compensation/business purposes, and size/speed.

Compliance: Simply put, every time there's a news story of a kid in a park getting hurt by a model helicopter, a pilot getting killed by his own aircraft, someone using a quad or other aircraft to shoot pictures of people that don't want their photo taken, a model that comes too close to a commercial aircraft, or other irresponsible act, then it merely reinforces to the public that the "Community based organization" is either unable or unwilling to control the activities of the group. Thus, the FAA needs to step in - and they are by this rule. What's worrisome, is that unless the community based organization shows some ability to reduce these events, then I fear the FAA will only get more involved over time.

Compensation: For years I've wondered how sponsored pilots and teams are allowed to be compensated (in cash / free or reduced price equipment) in exchange for commercial endorsements. No full scale private pilot would be allowed to do that, yet the UAS industry does it all the time. From my perspective, that may be about to end too. It may be too late for the community based organization to stop this aspect of FAA involvement. The logical disconnect from the FAA's perspective is easy to see: a private pilot accepts anything in exchange for appearing in a corporate advertizement, and he needs a commercial rating - UAS pilots are being compensated and used to promote commercial products -- and the industry is so brazen about it that it's hard for the FAA to escape that public inconsistency.

Size/speed: The proposed rule sets a hard limit, 55 lbs. I believe this is another blind spot in our community based organization because as the size and speed of aircraft have grown in the past few years, the group has been loathe to put hard limits on things. One has to ask what would happen when (note I don't say "if") one of these 50lb 200+ MPH turbine jets lands among the crowd at an event? Can you imagine multiple injuries of innocent bystanders in this instant media world? What will be really ugly is when the media learns that the event was sanctioned by the very "community based organization" that presents itself as capable of helping FAA keep people safe! What happens when the media learns the UAS was doing maneuvers that had several maneuvers with the UAS velocity vector pointed at the crowd? Full size airshows severely limit maneuvers where the velocity vector is aimed at the crowd -- perhaps our "community based organization" should get out in front of this problem and do the same? Think of all the 3D helicopter and fixed wing maneuvers that have large, heavy, sharp and spinning objects repeatedly aimed at the crowd and/or flight line during maneuvers at any number of sanctioned events and/or our flying fields.

In the end, these are just my opinions, and I'm sure many will find fault with them. But at least I've done my part and raise my concerns about blind spots and potential impact on our hobby if we're not careful about how we operated our equipment and, perhaps, how we think about asking others - perhaps forcefully - to operate differently.

Bob Pastorello

My Feedback: (198)

I'm taking a risk opening this here, but I've included below the draft of what my response will be on the FAA Comment website. As I do not have FPV knowledge nor expertise, I limited my comments to the two areas of specific focus and interest in which I do/have. I would appreciate thoughtful comments and/or suggestions for revisions, and fully expect to get slammed by some. Please consider that my comments are no better, nor any worse, than any I've read already posted and reviewed on the FAA site.
_________________________________________________

Comments on FAA Interpretive Rules

Model Aircraft Operations authorization – Page 14 of the Interpretive Rules, including footnotes 10 and 11 detail the FAA’s position on notification of airport operators, traffic control centers or towers when model aircraft operations will be undertaken within a 5mile radius of the airport. I suggest following clarifications;

1. As per footnote 11, many AMA model aircraft operating locations have already established procedures for their operation in conjunction with the airport operator(s) or traffic control centers. I suggest clarification that these procedures establish authorization for model aircraft operations within the parameters of the local agreements, with an assumption from both the airport operator(s) and traffic control centers and the model aircraft operations site spokespersons/officials/authorities that such agreements are tacit APPROVAL/AUTHORIZATION for model operations, and that exceptions should be communicated as needed to protect full scale operations. I believe many current operational sites within the current 3 mile radius of airports have agreements of this nature in effect, conducting safe operations routinely.

1. Clarification is needed regarding when notifications to airports should take place. In the extreme, having EVERY model aircraft operator notify the airport of EVERY operation (landing and takeoff) surely is not intended by the Interpretation as it would result in overwhelming telephone traffic to airport staff when their time should be focused on full-scale operations. At a large model aircraft facility, there can be as many as 6 or 8 simultaneous airborne operations, each with durations of 5 to 15 minute average flights, which potentially means HUNDREDS of notifications to the airport traffic center or tower during a typical weekend VFR-weather type day. It would seem that it is NOT the intent of the FAA to burden full-scale airport operations traffic centers with this number of distractions. We believe such distractions to be onerous, and certainly could add unacceptable risks to traffic management due to such numerous distractions.

1. Where full-scale operations can potentially be interfered with by model aircraft operations, we suggest clearly establishing “see and avoid” as the over-arching requirement of model aircraft operations in all cases. Although this is referenced in various safety guidelines for model operations, the AMA Safety Code, and many local municipal site rules, it may be helpful to establish such see-and-avoid procedures where needed so that both parties (airport towers/operators/control facilities) and model aircraft operators fully understand and comply with the requirement so that more model operations may be undertaken with less risk to full scale traffic. We support the position of the FAA to apply FARs when needed to those which do not follow the rules established for safe model aircraft operations.

Commercial v.s. Recreational/Hobby Operations of Model Aircraft – p. 9 and 10, including footnote 4, p. 10, detail and define FAA’s perception of commercial v.s. recreational/hobby operations and offers examples from full-scale operations. We would suggest revision of the FAA definition of “commercial” as it pertains to model aircraft operations to read similarly to what follows:

1. Model aircraft operations where equipment is demonstrated, used, provided by hobby industry manufacturers and retailers are NOT commercial operations in the common use of the term, as these operations are for the advancement, improvement, innovation, and growth of model aircraft hobby and recreational operations. Although the “intent” of such operations could be debated as being purposefully done to increase sales or market share of various devices and equipment, the fact is that such operations are primarily an educational and informational operation for users of equipment to advance their own individual skills and abilities and to enhance their PERSONAL enjoyment of the hobby/recreational activity of model aviation.
2. The model industry considers provisioning of equipment for use by selected pilots/operators to be an avenue of customer support, education, and product refinement. Model aircraft operations are not “marketing” operations, but inherently are “demonstrations of capability/features”, and as such must utilize those most highly-skilled and capable to be most effective.
3. Although these activities could be reasonably debated as “commercial” in the business community, we believe that such operations of equipment within the model aviation community are “support and demonstration”, and thus such operations, and pilots, should not be considered by the FAA in the same vein as Commercial Regulated Operators.