HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

Comment with held so as not to get kicked off RCU.

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

Man...just kidding around...Didn't mean to offend.

Sport_Pilot

Not true. You can be a PIC for an ultralight without a pilots license.

phlpsfrnk

Just so you are aware the pilots of UAS are known as PICs.

http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives...admap_2013.pdf

The FPV operator operating outside the rules defined for "Model Aircraft" becomes the PIC of an UAS. Wether or not he is doing so legally is another discussion.


Frank

N410DC

Interesting point. However, while it is true that the FAA does not require ultralight pilots to possess a pilot's license or a medical certificate, the regulations that pertain to ultralight aircraft (part 103) do not use the term "pilot in command." I made my argument because I have never seen the FAA use the term "pilot in command" to refer to a pilot who does not possess a pilot's license. In the end, I would think that the term should be reserved for licensed pilots who are flying aircraft that cannot be piloted without a licensed pilot on board. Aircraft that do not require a licensed pilot (e.g. model aircraft and ultralights) therefore do not have a designated pilot in command.

Though I have some concerns that MA pilots may need to be licensed at some point in the future, the example of ultralight pilots could be used to argue that licensure is not necessary. A 200 pound manned aircraft poses a far greater risk than a model aircraft that weighs less than 55 pounds.

Sport_Pilot

Part 91 defines PIC and because it applies to all on board an aircraft, then part 91 applies to ultralights but not model airplanes.

N410DC

On page 48, that document defines PIC as:
I think the 3rd point states (or at least implies) that an pilot's license is required to act as PIC, since one cannot obtain a category, class, or type rating without a pilot's license. Thus, if an unlicensed pilot operates an UAS, then he or she is in violation of the law because he/she is operating an aircraft that requires a PIC, and he/she is cannot legally act as a PIC. This would be the same as an unlicensed pilot flying a full scale aircraft. I don't think the FAA would define an unlicensed individual as a PIC. They were refer to him/her as a defendant. :-)

The document is basically arguing that individuals MUST posses a pilots license to operate any Unmanned Aircraft System. This is one of the central points of this entire debate. The FAA's interpretation states that anything that is not defined as a model aircraft is a UAS, and that a UAS cannot be flown in the national airspace system (NAS) unless the FAA has issued a airworthiness certificate for that aircraft, and the pilot possesses a pilot's license. The interpretation also states that a model with FPV gear is a UAS unless the model is flown solely for recreation and hobby purposes, and the pilot maintains VLOS of the aircraft at all times.

This is just a guess, but I think the FAA plans to add a new category or class of aircraft entitled "Unmanned Aircraft Systems," along with regulations regarding what a person must do to obtain a pilot's license for these aircraft. If the FAA takes this course, even pilots who are currently licensed for other categories/classes of aircraft would probably need to get training to get the UAS category or class rating, in addition to passing a written test and a practical test ("check ride.) They could go so far as to require separate category/class ratings for multirotor and fixed wing aircraft UAS, since separate category and class ratings are required for full-scale fixed wing and rotorcraft privileges. This could result in a lot of new training requirements.

I think our goal should be to insure that model aircraft are not included in the definition "UAS," and that MA pilots are not legally considered to be pilots in commend, as this will open up a very large, nasty can of worms.

N410DC

That is in interesting interpretation. However, the document that phelpsfrnk cited states that the FAA considers Unmanned Aircraft System as aircraft that require a licensed pilot in command. Thus, a pilot in command could be someone who is not physically on board the aircraft.

Your point actually brings up the debate as to whether or not model aircraft should be subject to the regulations in Part 91. The FAA seems to think so, though others do not agree.

Sport_Pilot

A judge recently threw that document out of court, saying it was not a regulation and therefore cannot be enforced.
Special rule 336 specifically says that no regulation be applied to model airplanes, so the arguement is moot.

N410DC

I agree, in both respects. My comments were regarding the FAA's interpretations of the law, no what is actually written in law (or what legal precedent state.)

In the case you cited, the Court ruled that that aircraft in question was indeed a model aircraft, and therefore not under the FAA's jurisdiction.The FAA's new interpretation is arguably contrary to the Court's ruling. The quadcopter in that case was being used for compensation (since the pilot sold the video footage.) Under the FAA's new interpretation, that aircraft would not be considered to be a model aircraft. Thus, the FAA has stated an intent to prosecute anyone who operates any UAS (including model aircraft) for compensation or hire, regardless of what the Court said. Whether or such a prosecution will be successful is up to the Courts is to be determined. As I said, "The FAA seems to think so, though others do not agree." The "others" I referred to include the Jude in that case. ;-)

The FAA's interpretation of 336 acknowledges that it has no authority over model aircraft, and it does not attempt to claim otherwise. The FAA is trying to get around the law by claiming that certain unmanned aircraft are not defined as model aircraft when they are flown out of VLOS, etc. If a particular aircraft is not defined as a model aircraft, then the FAA has authority over it. Again, this claim is not clearly stated in the law, and no Court has ruled on the issue since the FAA wrote published their interpretation. I think the Courts are "on our side," though they cannot prevent the FAA from issuing a fine and obligating the defendant to hire an attorney to make the aforementioned arguments on his behalf.

Come to think of it, the document that phlpsfrank cited is a "roadmap;" essentially a plan or proposal. Nothing in that document is legally binding.

Thomas B

My Feedback: (4)

Actually, over the years, the FAA has made a number of exceptions to the no compensation rule for private pilots: Towing of banners or sailplanes, and in-flight demonstration of aircraft for prospective customers or for magaziner review articles are three of them.

It is my understanding that you are allowed to race aircraft and participate in precision flying competitions (a number of colleges have teams that do this) as a private pilot and can win cash prizes and accept cash and merchandise sponsorships.

These exceptions help make the FAA hard line against any type of commercial involvement in hobby R/C seem even sillier!

N410DC

I agree completely.The exceptions you cited are only the tip of the iceberg. The AMA has mentioned the FAA' hypocrisy in their response to the FAA's interpretation.

Bob Pastorello

My Feedback: (198)

Under the Rules Interpretation, the FAA says when RC aircraft operate outside the CBO Guidelines, THEN FAR Part91 takes over and the models (and operators) then will be subject to Part 91. They may not mess with models per 336, but they reserve the authority to throw the book-after the fact if you (we) don't play by their interpretation of the CBO guidelines.

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

I agree... Funny though...we can say how silly the FAA is but any statement that can be construed as AMA silliness is not allowed.

F-16 viperman

Wow! I'm really feelin old. In My day, We did'nt split hairs like this. I've got a 5 digit AMA that in the 60's to 70's actually was called an "AMA model aircraft sporting license" when the headquarters were still in DC. Still have some of them. Just for nostalgia. I acually was approached by police officers at a school in the 70's where I was flying and told them I had a license, showed it to Them and everything was good! My dad, rest His soul, thought that was hilarious! pilot in command/spotter, instructor/student, Master/slave, etc. etc. what's the difference? Semantics and splitting hairs! Do We have to live now where We have to worry 24/7 that we're breaking some rule? If so, and You don't like it, do what I did, Buy some land out of the city and build Your own field of dreams. If You can't afford it on a idividual basis, Clubs need to rally members for more so They can fly somewhere collectively owned. Doing that will keep more of us off the radar and away from fullscale. And don't be stupid and call anything in our hobby "drones". most people believe it or not, think that "drone" has military implications, and can be seen as a threat. bottom line, IMO We all should do Our best to not be seen as a threat to anyone, or ring the FAA's bell with Our "toy airplanes". Notice how the media is not refering to them that way anymore? Coincidence You think? Wishes of Good fortune to all who truly love the art of Flight! Ron.

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

Ron,

Some great insight and you said much to give us food for thought.

BTW I love the part where you showed the policeman your model license...simply speaks volumes about who we are and how we got here...with just a little more thought we should be able to see where we are going if we don't learn to heed the knowledge of our past.

archerry

My Feedback: (6)

I remember getting angry when CNN and the other lame stream media would call our hobby "toy airplanes". Perhaps I was mistaken after all.... BUT THEY ARE CERTAINLY NOT DRONES...

What is the real intent? Will it be were we all must carry some sort of goverment issued permit or licence and have insurance? Do we have to put "N" numbers on our planes?

How many of you would remain in the hobby when this happens? Who then would be our insurance carrier?

Ron aka "Pumbaa"

Hossfly

Makes no diff. to me about numbers. Some groups still have the rule that the AMA number must be on the right wing at least 1" high. Even Scale models once allowed the AMA number to be used rather than a SCALE "N" number. That went away when the "holey-grailers" got the rules changed to their liking. HA!
BTW, I still use the term Toy Airplanes. I do place the AMA number on the upper right wing for non-Scale Models.
How many of you abide by the AMA rule that the pilot's name and address, or AMA number is supposed to be in or on the model?

phlpsfrnk

That document may not be "binding" but NTSB reports that state the individuals controlling UAVs are the Pilot-in-command certainly sets the precedence. It seems simple to me. If it flies and you are the individual controlling it, you are the PIC. If you fly as PIC within the definition of a model aircraft you are not required to have a license. If you fly outside the definition of a model aircraft you do.


Frank

N410DC

I see you point, and I am not in 100% disagreement with you. HOwever, I will believe it when I see it written in black law or the Federal Aviation Regulations. Given the fact that both the FAA and NTSB have used these terms in relation to UAVs, I have a feeling this will happen sooner rather than later. I just don't think we, as modelers, should encourage this process by using the term.

F-16 viperman

I think the scariest scenario is that if the hobby of big boys "toy airplanes" keeps making the news in negative ways, new laws can and will be made against our hobby just as they have against fireworks! FAA does'nt have to make them. They can be made at the state, or city ordinance level. Just this morning on GMA reports a near miss with drone and helicopter in cleveland, ohio. Think people! Next thing You know, You'll have to factor in where You live based on wheather rc operations are legal in Your area, or take up another hobby. I like it all including fireworks. idiots think You can regulate everything until nothing bad will ever happen. Thats the way They're wired and You'll never get rid of them. My suggestion is to think realistically, and mitigate danger in all that you can, so We don't all get Our hands slapped by Our Multi level Govt. Just My two cents. I'm going flying now!

N410DC

I think you make a very good, and unrecognized point. Drones have already been banned in all National Parks. AFAIK, the NPS made this decision, and the FAA had little to no involvement.

The only saving grace is that local club members may have more influence over a elected official at the City, County, or State level, since these officials are elected by a smaller number of constituents (as compared to US Representatives.) This may make lobbying efforts by Clubs or individuals more effective.

phlpsfrnk

I agree with sooner but what other term applies? The AMA's own safety code uses the term pilot more than a dozen times and makes it pretty evident that we are responsible for our actions when we fly. I think the only true distinction that can be made is to clearly define the environment/mode that we as model aircraft pilots fly in. Fly outside the defined box so to speak and you are no longer a model aircraft pilot and you become subject to the rules and regulations of the FAA. I think the FAA aluded to that 33 years ago in AC 91-57 and the basics of that have not changed, only the details.

Regards
Frank

F-16 viperman

I just watched the report "drone helicopter near miss channel 5 cleveland ohio". "The helicopter came dangerously close to a remote control model aircraft. A DRONE". That's what They said WORD FOR WORD! Now Air age publications has Their own special mag calling them DRONES! MA calls them DRONES! I'm starting to wonder if Their not cooking Our own goose for Us. I think it was better when the idiots in the media thought of them as toys! Hope Our toys are'nt the new fireworks. Just another 2 cents. Now I'm going flying!

N410DC

I have no problem with referring to model aircraft as "pilots." The issue I have is the with specific term "pilot in command." The AMA does not use this term, and with good reason.