FAA Issues "Interpretation of the special rule for model aircraft"
07-13-2014, 04:32 AM
#401
There's no wiggle room, it specifically says nothing between the pilots eyes and the model other than corrective lenses.
Caldwell Banker sent out notice to all their Realtor agents, no using aerial footage for real estate listings to stay out of trouble with the FAA. Interesting.
Caldwell Banker sent out notice to all their Realtor agents, no using aerial footage for real estate listings to stay out of trouble with the FAA. Interesting.
07-13-2014, 06:17 AM
#402
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Apopka,
FL
Posts: 1,367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There's no wiggle room, it specifically says nothing between the pilots eyes and the model other than corrective lenses.
Caldwell Banker sent out notice to all their Realtor agents, no using aerial footage for real estate listings to stay out of trouble with the FAA. Interesting.
Caldwell Banker sent out notice to all their Realtor agents, no using aerial footage for real estate listings to stay out of trouble with the FAA. Interesting.
The AMA has understood that the issue has always been safety in the NAS, i.e. "see and avoid". That was why AMA 550 required:
3. OPERATIONS – REQUIREMENTS – LIMITATIONS:
a) FPV novice pilots undergoing training at low altitude must use a buddy-box system with
an FPV spotter, or must go to a safer altitude if no buddy-box system is used.
b) All FPV flights require an AMA FPV pilot to have an AMA FPV spotter next to him/her
maintaining VLOS with the FPV aircraft throughout its flight.
c) The FPV pilot must brief the FPV spotter on the FPV spotter’s duties, communications and
hand-over control procedures before FPV flight.
d) The AMA FPV spotter must communicate with the FPV pilot to ensure the FPV
aircraft remains within VLOS, warning the FPV pilot of approaching aircraft, and
when avoidance techniques are necessary.
e) During an FPV flight, the FPV spotter must be prepared to acquire the transmitter/control
from the FPV pilot and assume VLOS control of the model aircraft at any time safe
operation of the flight is in question.
f) If an FPV pilot experiences a safety issue that does not appear to be a brief glitch, they
must abandon FPV mode and fly VLOS.
g) Before the initial FPV flight of an FPV model aircraft and/or after any changes or repairs to
essential flight systems, the FPV model aircraft must have an R/C test flight by
conventional VLOS.
h) FPV model aircraft must use frequencies approved by the FCC for both the RC system and
the wireless video system. Pilots must meet applicable FCC licensing requirements if they
choose to operate the RC flight control system or the wireless video system on Amateur
Band frequencies.
i) AMA FPV pilots must first be capable of flying their FPV model aircraft manually
before utilizing FPV flight
a) FPV novice pilots undergoing training at low altitude must use a buddy-box system with
an FPV spotter, or must go to a safer altitude if no buddy-box system is used.
b) All FPV flights require an AMA FPV pilot to have an AMA FPV spotter next to him/her
maintaining VLOS with the FPV aircraft throughout its flight.
c) The FPV pilot must brief the FPV spotter on the FPV spotter’s duties, communications and
hand-over control procedures before FPV flight.
d) The AMA FPV spotter must communicate with the FPV pilot to ensure the FPV
aircraft remains within VLOS, warning the FPV pilot of approaching aircraft, and
when avoidance techniques are necessary.
e) During an FPV flight, the FPV spotter must be prepared to acquire the transmitter/control
from the FPV pilot and assume VLOS control of the model aircraft at any time safe
operation of the flight is in question.
f) If an FPV pilot experiences a safety issue that does not appear to be a brief glitch, they
must abandon FPV mode and fly VLOS.
g) Before the initial FPV flight of an FPV model aircraft and/or after any changes or repairs to
essential flight systems, the FPV model aircraft must have an R/C test flight by
conventional VLOS.
h) FPV model aircraft must use frequencies approved by the FCC for both the RC system and
the wireless video system. Pilots must meet applicable FCC licensing requirements if they
choose to operate the RC flight control system or the wireless video system on Amateur
Band frequencies.
i) AMA FPV pilots must first be capable of flying their FPV model aircraft manually
before utilizing FPV flight
aircraft remains within VLOS, warning the FPV pilot of approaching aircraft, and
when avoidance techniques are necessary. ".
This IMHO will be where the AMA will defend in court their rule as fully complying with safety in the NAS without banning a type of flying model aircraft and hopefully will prevail.
07-13-2014, 06:38 AM
#403
My Feedback: (198)
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: El Reno, OK
Posts: 6,707
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reading your post... *if* FAA ignores comments and sticks to their interpretation, the "AMA will defend in court" part will only happen after someone has been cited, violated, fined, and prosecuted. Pity that poor "test case" FPV guy, I really do. This area appears to be the messiest one in the Rule, except for the several others... 
07-13-2014, 08:26 AM
#404
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Apopka,
FL
Posts: 1,367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The AMA could have Bob Brown or Rich Hansen who have been working with the FAA fly a multirotor using goggles and a spotter in front of the FAA Headquarters and let it go on from there. Why put the burden on an ordinary Joe pilot to go to court?
Last edited by bradpaul; 07-13-2014 at 09:54 AM. Reason: sp
07-13-2014, 10:30 AM
#406
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga,
CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
07-13-2014, 04:37 PM
#409
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Round Hill, VA
Posts: 1,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the AMA wanted to test the FAA's interpretation of VLOS, they would have to do it on club property and invite the FAA. They could use a volunteer pilot or test the compensated pilot interpretion by using AMA paid pilots.
07-13-2014, 04:47 PM
#410
My Feedback: (198)
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: El Reno, OK
Posts: 6,707
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is no way that anyone with the AMA could do that. CBO rules require flying in a safe location with the property owners permission. The whole thing would blow up in their faces when the FAA fined them for failing to obey CBO rules, thus placing them directly under FAA rules.
If the AMA wanted to test the FAA's interpretation of VLOS, they would have to do it on club property and invite the FAA. They could use a volunteer pilot or test the compensated pilot interpretion by using AMA paid pilots.
If the AMA wanted to test the FAA's interpretation of VLOS, they would have to do it on club property and invite the FAA. They could use a volunteer pilot or test the compensated pilot interpretion by using AMA paid pilots.
07-13-2014, 10:32 PM
#412
Reading your post... *if* FAA ignores comments and sticks to their interpretation, the "AMA will defend in court" part will only happen after someone has been cited, violated, fined, and prosecuted. Pity that poor "test case" FPV guy, I really do. This area appears to be the messiest one in the Rule, except for the several others...
There is no need to wait for a violation. The courts require standing. One way to get standing is to get fined. Another is to show damage. Another way is to be an origination representing many, and to show that the regulation violates laws or rights. An individual can do the same as well but it is easier for the courts to find that there is no standing. For violation of rights damages do not have to be shown. After all, many times there are no tangible monetary or property damage when rights are violated.
07-14-2014, 02:16 AM
#413
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Spring Hill, FL
Posts: 893
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The FAA Interpretation of Section 336 (c) (2) "flown within visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft" adds the restrictions you quote, not the Law.
The AMA has understood that the issue has always been safety in the NAS, i.e. "see and avoid". That was why AMA 550 required:
I highlighted the critical point " The AMA FPV spotter must communicate with the FPV pilot to ensure the FPV
aircraft remains within VLOS, warning the FPV pilot of approaching aircraft, and
when avoidance techniques are necessary. ".
This IMHO will be where the AMA will defend in court their rule as fully complying with safety in the NAS without banning a type of flying model aircraft and hopefully will prevail.
The AMA has understood that the issue has always been safety in the NAS, i.e. "see and avoid". That was why AMA 550 required:
I highlighted the critical point " The AMA FPV spotter must communicate with the FPV pilot to ensure the FPV
aircraft remains within VLOS, warning the FPV pilot of approaching aircraft, and
when avoidance techniques are necessary. ".
This IMHO will be where the AMA will defend in court their rule as fully complying with safety in the NAS without banning a type of flying model aircraft and hopefully will prevail.
Add the use of a “buddy” box and require AMA FPV spotter be the Pilot In Command (PIC) on the primary transmitter with positive control at all times and we would be in compliance. The key difference being that the PIC can take control at anytime. No reason for a “court case”.
Regards
Frank
07-14-2014, 06:13 AM
#414
My Feedback: (58)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: here
Posts: 5,413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Brad,
Add the use of a “buddy” box and require AMA FPV spotter be the Pilot In Command (PIC) on the primary transmitter with positive control at all times and we would be in compliance. The key difference being that the PIC can take control at anytime. No reason for a “court case”.
Regards
Frank
Add the use of a “buddy” box and require AMA FPV spotter be the Pilot In Command (PIC) on the primary transmitter with positive control at all times and we would be in compliance. The key difference being that the PIC can take control at anytime. No reason for a “court case”.
Regards
Frank
07-14-2014, 06:53 AM
#416
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Cartersville, GA
Posts: 360
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There's no wiggle room, it specifically says nothing between the pilots eyes and the model other than corrective lenses.
Caldwell Banker sent out notice to all their Realtor agents, no using aerial footage for real estate listings to stay out of trouble with the FAA. Interesting.
Caldwell Banker sent out notice to all their Realtor agents, no using aerial footage for real estate listings to stay out of trouble with the FAA. Interesting.
07-14-2014, 06:56 AM
#417
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Cartersville, GA
Posts: 360
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Brad,
Add the use of a “buddy” box and require AMA FPV spotter be the Pilot In Command (PIC) on the primary transmitter with positive control at all times and we would be in compliance. The key difference being that the PIC can take control at anytime. No reason for a “court case”.
Regards
Frank
Add the use of a “buddy” box and require AMA FPV spotter be the Pilot In Command (PIC) on the primary transmitter with positive control at all times and we would be in compliance. The key difference being that the PIC can take control at anytime. No reason for a “court case”.
Regards
Frank
07-14-2014, 07:19 AM
#418
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Spring Hill, FL
Posts: 893
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Under federal law, only licensed pilots can act as pilot in commend of an aircraft. Suggesting that a pilots license be required for model aircraft pilots is not a road we want to go down. I would suggest that we never use the specific term "pilot in command" in regards to model aircraft.
Frank
07-14-2014, 07:29 AM
#419
My Feedback: (58)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: here
Posts: 5,413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Under federal law, only licensed pilots can act as pilot in commend of an aircraft. Suggesting that a pilots license be required for model aircraft pilots is not a road we want to go down. I would suggest that we never use the specific term "pilot in command" in regards to model aircraft.
07-14-2014, 07:30 AM
#420
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Cartersville, GA
Posts: 360
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anything other that "pilot in command," since this role is already defined under federal law.
IMO, the FAA has already hinted that they would like some, perhaps even most/all model aircraft pilots to obtain a pilot's license from the FAA. I think we should avoid using the FAA's terms that relate exclusively to licensed pilots, in the interest of avoiding implied agreement with this idea.
Not only does the FAA prohibit people from acting as PIC unless they have a pilot's license, there are a slew of regulations that require recent experience for various types of flight activities. At a minimum, all pilots have have to pay a certified flight instructor for a Biannual Flight review every two years. This consists of at least 1 hour of ground training and at least 1 hour of flight training every two years, though the CFI can require more time, as he/she sees fit. I would prefer to not have to jump through this hoop to fly model aircraft.
IMO, the FAA has already hinted that they would like some, perhaps even most/all model aircraft pilots to obtain a pilot's license from the FAA. I think we should avoid using the FAA's terms that relate exclusively to licensed pilots, in the interest of avoiding implied agreement with this idea.
Not only does the FAA prohibit people from acting as PIC unless they have a pilot's license, there are a slew of regulations that require recent experience for various types of flight activities. At a minimum, all pilots have have to pay a certified flight instructor for a Biannual Flight review every two years. This consists of at least 1 hour of ground training and at least 1 hour of flight training every two years, though the CFI can require more time, as he/she sees fit. I would prefer to not have to jump through this hoop to fly model aircraft.
07-14-2014, 07:59 AM
#424
Anything other that "pilot in command," since this role is already defined under federal law.
IMO, the FAA has already hinted that they would like some, perhaps even most/all model aircraft pilots to obtain a pilot's license from the FAA. I think we should avoid using the FAA's terms that relate exclusively to licensed pilots, in the interest of avoiding implied agreement with this idea.
Not only does the FAA prohibit people from acting as PIC unless they have a pilot's license, there are a slew of regulations that require recent experience for various types of flight activities. At a minimum, all pilots have have to pay a certified flight instructor for a Biannual Flight review every two years. This consists of at least 1 hour of ground training and at least 1 hour of flight training every two years, though the CFI can require more time, as he/she sees fit. I would prefer to not have to jump through this hoop to fly model aircraft.
IMO, the FAA has already hinted that they would like some, perhaps even most/all model aircraft pilots to obtain a pilot's license from the FAA. I think we should avoid using the FAA's terms that relate exclusively to licensed pilots, in the interest of avoiding implied agreement with this idea.
Not only does the FAA prohibit people from acting as PIC unless they have a pilot's license, there are a slew of regulations that require recent experience for various types of flight activities. At a minimum, all pilots have have to pay a certified flight instructor for a Biannual Flight review every two years. This consists of at least 1 hour of ground training and at least 1 hour of flight training every two years, though the CFI can require more time, as he/she sees fit. I would prefer to not have to jump through this hoop to fly model aircraft.
I have seen too many so called R/C Pilots wholly in component when it comes to even the basic skills of straight take off. Or capable of the simplest of things like a right hand turn toward them selves. We all know of our fellow pilots in our own clubs that when it comes to R/C Skills they are dearly lacking. It's what our News letter editor refers to when certain people get ready to fly a very possible "KODAK" moment. Trouble is it's not a joke R/C flying should be fun, but fun ceases to be fun when lives are put in jeopardy.
There are 6 AMA fields in my immediate area (20 Driving miles). Only one requires that to fly there, No mater student or advanced pilot, you demonstrate your ability to operate and be accomplished at 10 flight maneuvers from take offs to loops roils crosswind landings ect. This has to be deminstrated to 2 different club Instructors other than a students instructor in order to fly solo.
I proposed this same thing to the club I fly at most and almost got lynched. Yet to this day most of us know when to head for the shelter when certain people take to the air.
Last edited by HoundDog; 07-14-2014 at 08:02 AM. Reason: spelling my spel checker missed