FAA Issues "Interpretation of the special rule for model aircraft"
07-01-2014, 05:04 AM
#176
My Feedback: (58)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: here
Posts: 5,413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks in advance.
07-01-2014, 05:46 AM
#177
Franklin, I think that you missed the fact tha the Special Rule said tha there would be no regulation of model airplanes, and there was no regulation before, and is none now. That includes payment for flying models IMO. Not exactly interstate commerse is it?
The experts were saying Hobby Lobby would lose their case as well.
The experts were saying Hobby Lobby would lose their case as well.
07-01-2014, 05:54 AM
#179
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Round Hill, VA
Posts: 1,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
07-01-2014, 05:57 AM
#180
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Round Hill, VA
Posts: 1,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LCS, the law never said that you had to join a CBO. It says only that you must follow the rules.
07-01-2014, 05:59 AM
#181
Senior Member
My Feedback: (3)
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: VA, USA
Posts: 332
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Hypothetically I should be able to call the tower and ask if there are any restrictions to flying for any operation on that day. If not, I tell them I'm flying my toys and practicing "see and avoid" and have a nice day. Hypothetically.
TL;DR
If general aviation is flying, so are my toys.
07-01-2014, 05:59 AM
#182
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Round Hill, VA
Posts: 1,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually, if you belong to a club, you must follow the rules or be ejected. If you do not belong, you are responsible to the higher authority of local and federal law enforcement.
07-01-2014, 06:27 AM
#183
How can a club enforce rules for someone flying at a park or maybe his own field miles away? Sure some clubs are enforcing rules, and others are not. But I saw nothing that said that the FAA expects the CBO to enforce rules.
07-01-2014, 06:47 AM
#184
There are strict traffic laws but people still speed, run red lights and park where they should not. We have police to enforce the laws. Theoretically the same police can enforce the flying laws to, to the extent that it falls in their jurisdiction. While full scale traffic spans many jurisdictions and would be hard for police to enforce, model aviation has the pilot stationary, on the ground. Doesn't matter where the plane is, it is where the pilot stands that matters.
In my note to the FAA I encourage them to encourage municipalities and local authorities to establish model aviation flying fields where safe flying can be promoted and, to some degree, enforced. If such sites existed, were convenient and reasonable in cost, or free, people would have appropriate locations to fly model airplanes. Today, many do not have such sites and so they fly in parks, school yards and parking lots without permission and without supervision to help insure safe practices.
07-01-2014, 07:07 AM
#185
Bob, I think your comments are worth a shot, certainly can't do any harm. It'll all come down to how hard they want to regulate the operations. I suspect the more often careless / irresponsible events make the news, the more likely they'll be inclined to regulate. The biggest hurdle I think is the logical inconsistency of the issue. Full size, if I accept compensation (with very few exceptions) in exchange for flying then I need a commercial ticket; but a "model aircraft" can? I support the effort to distinguish between "model aircraft" and other operations regulated by the FAA. But merely calling them model aircraft, as some have done, clearly isn't working; as the FAA is by this rule reaching deeper into regulating activities than before - moving the line so to speak. Whether or not a local airport over interprets the rule is interesting, but probably a losing arguement for us ultimately. All the airport has to do is demonstrate an instance or two where there's real or perceived (by the public) danger to manned flight ops, and the line drawn by the FAA will get moved again. If not by FAA, by local officials that can have the same effect via ornances or zoning. Someone will say "but that's not legal." Sure, maybe not, but who's got the deep pockets to sue? Every time?
Some have asked what would enforcement look like for a CBO? Not sure, but I certainly would have hoped that someone in that CBO would have strategized this course of action (COA) out "just in case" it comes to that. It seems to me that it would be wise to embark on such an exercise before one injects themselves into the regulatory mix -- which is done by default when the CBO started working directly with the regulatory body, the FAA, as a representative of the hobby. To me, I think the CBO is challenged in this regard. As one person pointed out, how do you regulate something that happens in a park outside the control of the CBO? You can't. The problem is, that irresponsible operation is seen by the public as "model aircraft" and thus whether we like it or not gets linked in the public's mind with the hobby in general and, by extension, the CBO. Is the CBO really going to issue a press release everytime someone does something dumb, or everytime a bystander ges hurt, and say "the person was not operating in accordance with our safety code?" Sooner or later my fear is the public will ask an obvious and logical question: "Then what good is your code?" We can point at safe operations all day long, but those aren't nearly as sensational as the innocent kid that's badly hurt by some rogue flier.
Were I in charge of this problem, and putting my professional risk managment experience into the mix (I do this for a living), I think it would be wise to take a hard look at the safety rules and maneuver restrictions in place for every sanctioned event. Asking "What if there's an equipment failure at this point (worst possible) in the maneuver?", then doing hard physics calculations looking at worst possible case of velocity and altitude to impact point. That plus a safety factor becomes the "safe line" or "no closer than" line. Unfortunately, as size and speed increase, so does the distance of the line -- that's the 55lb turbine at 200 mph problem. Next step would be for the CBO to require that same level of safety planning at clubs. While far fewer of the public attend flights at these fields, those ops still carry the official sanction of the CBO. The last piece is the hardest, and that's the control / enforcement at the local park by the guy who ordered his stuff on the internet. Need to think on that one more, but it probably involves a combination of personal intervention by a CBO member (hallmark of a strong safety culture), CBO members working directly with jurisdictions and leglislaters on local ordnances, and in rare instances, engage law enforcement.
I'm not saying by any means that I have the answers, but I do see a policy change in the publication of this rule, which while small, is a definite move in a direction that portends concern. What I do know is that even here in rural PA, "drone" stories are making the news more and more. I fear that our hobby is one bad public accident away from a lot of regulation that we do not want.
I fear that unless the CBO steps up and more aggressively manages this issue, then our hobby runs the risk of having it managed for us by legislators and rule makers.
Some have asked what would enforcement look like for a CBO? Not sure, but I certainly would have hoped that someone in that CBO would have strategized this course of action (COA) out "just in case" it comes to that. It seems to me that it would be wise to embark on such an exercise before one injects themselves into the regulatory mix -- which is done by default when the CBO started working directly with the regulatory body, the FAA, as a representative of the hobby. To me, I think the CBO is challenged in this regard. As one person pointed out, how do you regulate something that happens in a park outside the control of the CBO? You can't. The problem is, that irresponsible operation is seen by the public as "model aircraft" and thus whether we like it or not gets linked in the public's mind with the hobby in general and, by extension, the CBO. Is the CBO really going to issue a press release everytime someone does something dumb, or everytime a bystander ges hurt, and say "the person was not operating in accordance with our safety code?" Sooner or later my fear is the public will ask an obvious and logical question: "Then what good is your code?" We can point at safe operations all day long, but those aren't nearly as sensational as the innocent kid that's badly hurt by some rogue flier.
Were I in charge of this problem, and putting my professional risk managment experience into the mix (I do this for a living), I think it would be wise to take a hard look at the safety rules and maneuver restrictions in place for every sanctioned event. Asking "What if there's an equipment failure at this point (worst possible) in the maneuver?", then doing hard physics calculations looking at worst possible case of velocity and altitude to impact point. That plus a safety factor becomes the "safe line" or "no closer than" line. Unfortunately, as size and speed increase, so does the distance of the line -- that's the 55lb turbine at 200 mph problem. Next step would be for the CBO to require that same level of safety planning at clubs. While far fewer of the public attend flights at these fields, those ops still carry the official sanction of the CBO. The last piece is the hardest, and that's the control / enforcement at the local park by the guy who ordered his stuff on the internet. Need to think on that one more, but it probably involves a combination of personal intervention by a CBO member (hallmark of a strong safety culture), CBO members working directly with jurisdictions and leglislaters on local ordnances, and in rare instances, engage law enforcement.
I'm not saying by any means that I have the answers, but I do see a policy change in the publication of this rule, which while small, is a definite move in a direction that portends concern. What I do know is that even here in rural PA, "drone" stories are making the news more and more. I fear that our hobby is one bad public accident away from a lot of regulation that we do not want.
I fear that unless the CBO steps up and more aggressively manages this issue, then our hobby runs the risk of having it managed for us by legislators and rule makers.
Last edited by franklin_m; 07-01-2014 at 07:42 AM.
07-01-2014, 07:52 AM
#186
Another thought as folks contemplate commenting on the rule. Legislators and rule makers generally like "bright line tests" for the regulation of dangerous activities. For example, to use full scale operations again, the bright line test for private vs. commercial license is receipt of "compensation." That term is clearly defined in existing case law, in other regulations (IRS code for example), and tested in the courts. The issue with things like "support the hobby," "raise awareness," and other terms is defining that bright line test. What is support for the hobby? More importantly perhaps, what is not? I think the CBO and the hobby in geneneral would be wise to come up with a definition. Just my 2cents.
07-01-2014, 07:53 AM
#187
My Feedback: (19)
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Garrison, MT
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Out here in the Boonies we don't have Towers at all municipal airports. We filed a letter of understanding with the airport authority in one town yesterday which in effect notifies the airport we are conducting model operations at the airport. At another town which is much larger we have been flying wthin 2,5 miles of the airport for over 40 years with no issues. Fortunately we have a modeler who is on the airport board in that Town and since their is no control tower there either (The nearest controlling authority is Salt Lake Center) we are doing the same thing with that authority. We hope this will cover us in the event of an overzealous or bored FSDO inspector from the FAA. I think cooperation and responsible modeling solve some of the issues. Flying a drone over the Pittsburgh Pirates Baseball game last week is not in our best interests nor is flying an FPV around the statue of liberty.
We also use a handheld and check Flightaware for arriving flights so that we know they are coming and they know we are there if needed.
Enjoy Modeling and be smart about it.
Also I did talk to the AMA about how to work through this with our airports and they were very helpful.
We also use a handheld and check Flightaware for arriving flights so that we know they are coming and they know we are there if needed.
Enjoy Modeling and be smart about it.
Also I did talk to the AMA about how to work through this with our airports and they were very helpful.
Last edited by r_adical; 07-01-2014 at 07:56 AM.
07-01-2014, 07:53 AM
#188
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Round Hill, VA
Posts: 1,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You are correct, I should have been more specific. Club rules apply only on club property where they can be enforced. Outside of club and private property, outlaws are subject to local and federal law enforcement.
07-01-2014, 08:00 AM
#189
Your approach is excellent. The problem is that from the public's perspective, your club's rational, pragmatic, and lawful actions -- that comply with spirit and intent of the regulation -- can be so easily outweighed by sensationalized stories of the type you mentioned. Unfortunately for our hobby, regulators and lawmakers often react to the latter not the former.
07-01-2014, 08:17 AM
#190
My Feedback: (19)
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Garrison, MT
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having Grown up in Pittsburgh I was watching the Pirates on Root Sports last week when the kid outside the stadium was flying the Quad Copter over the outfield and immediately went into shock at how stupid a trick that was. Apparently the Pittsburgh Police conviced him to land it and leave the area but Brother FAA is getting involved so who knows where it goes.
07-01-2014, 09:24 AM
#191
Currently AMA members are not required to fly at clubs. However the AMA safety rules still apply no matter where you are flying. So if you are an AMA member you are expected to follow the rules. If you don't, insurance will not cover you and you can't look to AMA to support you.
07-01-2014, 09:29 AM
#192
The biggest hurdle I think is the logical inconsistency of the issue. Full size, if I accept compensation (with very few exceptions) in exchange for flying then I need a commercial ticket; but a "model aircraft" can?
Last edited by Sport_Pilot; 07-01-2014 at 09:34 AM.
07-01-2014, 09:31 AM
#193
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Round Hill, VA
Posts: 1,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Any AMA chartered club that does not follow the AMA safety guidelines should have their charter revoked. It is not the AMA that enforces club rules, it is the club. And again, any activities conducted unsafely off of club property is subject to local and federal law enforcement.
07-01-2014, 09:33 AM
#194
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Round Hill, VA
Posts: 1,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why not? The FAA exists because the courts said that the Federal Governemt can rule the sky because they are allowed to regulate interstate commerse. Full scale planes can go from A to B and fly accross state lines on a regular basis. Model airplanes fly from A to A and very rarely cross state lines. Therefor the Federal government should cede intrastate commerse to the states.
The FAA is charged with protecting the NAS. Crossing state lines is irrelevant.
07-01-2014, 09:38 AM
#195
The problem will be how this plays out over time. Consider this scenario. Say for a moment that the CBO does not engage in enforcement, but rather writing the "standards." Now, what happens when people continue to not follow those standards? If it reaches a point where the general public demands action, then the regulators / lawmakers get involved. The product of that is, at best, laws regulations and ordnances that are at least as restrictive as the CBO rules -- but quite possibly more restrictive. Is that really what we in the hobby want? I think the CBO, and by extension the hobby, is now in a really tough spot. What do we think will happen when there's a couple more near misses at airports? Will the 5 miles go to ten? Will it be within five miles but surface to unlimited? Will it be 10 miles surface to unlimited? Etc. IMO, it will only get worse unless we in the hobby find a way to get our collective arms around the problem of the rogue operators.
07-01-2014, 09:39 AM
#196
Having Grown up in Pittsburgh I was watching the Pirates on Root Sports last week when the kid outside the stadium was flying the Quad Copter over the outfield and immediately went into shock at how stupid a trick that was. Apparently the Pittsburgh Police conviced him to land it and leave the area but Brother FAA is getting involved so who knows where it goes.
It was stupid but should have nothing to do with the FAA or any FAA regulations. The park has air rights to the air above it and the quad was trespassing. Though also unsafe it was a local issue and dealt with as such.
07-01-2014, 09:41 AM
#197
Any AMA chartered club that does not follow the AMA safety guidelines should have their charter revoked. It is not the AMA that enforces club rules, it is the club. And again, any activities conducted unsafely off of club property is subject to local and federal law enforcement.
07-01-2014, 09:43 AM
#198
The FAA is charged with protecting the NAS. Crossing state lines is irrelevant.
07-01-2014, 09:45 AM
#199
The problem will be how this plays out over time. Consider this scenario. Say for a moment that the CBO does not engage in enforcement, but rather writing the "standards." Now, what happens when people continue to not follow those standards? If it reaches a point where the general public demands action, then the regulators / lawmakers get involved. The product of that is, at best, laws regulations and ordnances that are at least as restrictive as the CBO rules -- but quite possibly more restrictive. Is that really what we in the hobby want? I think the CBO, and by extension the hobby, is now in a really tough spot. What do we think will happen when there's a couple more near misses at airports? Will the 5 miles go to ten? Will it be within five miles but surface to unlimited? Will it be 10 miles surface to unlimited? Etc. IMO, it will only get worse unless we in the hobby find a way to get our collective arms around the problem of the rogue operators.