FAA Issues "Interpretation of the special rule for model aircraft"
#477
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga,
CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#478
My Feedback: (198)
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: El Reno, OK
Posts: 6,707
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If history teaches anything about dealing with these types of agencies, we should remember always a couple of points:
1. Agencies *NEVER* have to say a word, unless compelled by rulings of appropriate jurisdiction courts and
2. Those in "contest" with agencies can be irreparably harmed by saying the "wrong things" in public.
My point being, that I would most certainly wager that AMA counsel has said "Ya'll be VERY careful what you say - anyplace" and that the FAA's counsel has reminded them "You have jurisdiction and legal authority; you don't need to say anything to anyone".
I know these comments may be uncomfortable to read, but my experiences dealing with various legal entities related to FDA, Medicare, SSA, and the DHHS professionally over many, many years has taught me well.
1. Agencies *NEVER* have to say a word, unless compelled by rulings of appropriate jurisdiction courts and
2. Those in "contest" with agencies can be irreparably harmed by saying the "wrong things" in public.
My point being, that I would most certainly wager that AMA counsel has said "Ya'll be VERY careful what you say - anyplace" and that the FAA's counsel has reminded them "You have jurisdiction and legal authority; you don't need to say anything to anyone".
I know these comments may be uncomfortable to read, but my experiences dealing with various legal entities related to FDA, Medicare, SSA, and the DHHS professionally over many, many years has taught me well.
#480
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Round Hill, VA
Posts: 1,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I never thought that you could get a toy airplane that high. Although some of the serious competition model sailplanes are good for maybe 2k. But, even that is a stretch and only if you start from 1k.
#481
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga,
CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If history teaches anything about dealing with these types of agencies, we should remember always a couple of points:
1. Agencies *NEVER* have to say a word, unless compelled by rulings of appropriate jurisdiction courts and
2. Those in "contest" with agencies can be irreparably harmed by saying the "wrong things" in public.
My point being, that I would most certainly wager that AMA counsel has said "Ya'll be VERY careful what you say - anyplace" and that the FAA's counsel has reminded them "You have jurisdiction and legal authority; you don't need to say anything to anyone".
I know these comments may be uncomfortable to read, but my experiences dealing with various legal entities related to FDA, Medicare, SSA, and the DHHS professionally over many, many years has taught me well.
1. Agencies *NEVER* have to say a word, unless compelled by rulings of appropriate jurisdiction courts and
2. Those in "contest" with agencies can be irreparably harmed by saying the "wrong things" in public.
My point being, that I would most certainly wager that AMA counsel has said "Ya'll be VERY careful what you say - anyplace" and that the FAA's counsel has reminded them "You have jurisdiction and legal authority; you don't need to say anything to anyone".
I know these comments may be uncomfortable to read, but my experiences dealing with various legal entities related to FDA, Medicare, SSA, and the DHHS professionally over many, many years has taught me well.
Sobering, but good observations.
Saw reference to this in another forum, may dispel thoughts some may have about FAA not taking seriously such things as model aircraft operating in the wrong places: FAA Enforcement
#482
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Spring Hill, FL
Posts: 893
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just google 1 mile FPV and you'll find all kinds of examples. See link below at the 1 hour mark, he's at 10,000 feet, at 2 hours he's at 22,000 feet. Plane is a Winrider Queen bee (wing).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_PxhU9i9Ng
Frank
PS; Note the flashing low battery voltage toward the end.
Last edited by phlpsfrnk; 07-18-2014 at 10:45 AM. Reason: Add PS
#484
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Spring Hill, FL
Posts: 893
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Frank
#485
My Feedback: (2)
Put up a nice 5 meter cross country glider (16 foot wing span) in a cross country competition and you will want to thermal up to AT LEAST 3000 feet before you even cross the start line. And that is certainly not the highest you might fly. And I am not talking about rouge pilots I am talking about AMA sanctioned events. All flown line of sight.
Typical 3.5 to 4M TD gliders regularly break 2000 feet during AMA sanctioned events and we do it within AMA safety guidelines. We operate under the same see and avoid rules the full scale pilots follow. We see our glider and we see other planes and we move to avoid them. We do not expect them to move to avoid us.
An FPV pilot who is out of site line distance can't necessarily do that. He likely does not have the situational awareness that we have when flying within sight from the ground. That is not a knock it is just an observation.
#486
John,
Just google 1 mile FPV and you'll find all kinds of examples. See link below at the 1 hour mark, he's at 10,000 feet, at 2 hours he's at 22,000 feet. Plane is a Winrider Queen bee (wing).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_PxhU9i9Ng
Frank
PS; Note the flashing low battery voltage toward the end.
Just google 1 mile FPV and you'll find all kinds of examples. See link below at the 1 hour mark, he's at 10,000 feet, at 2 hours he's at 22,000 feet. Plane is a Winrider Queen bee (wing).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_PxhU9i9Ng
Frank
PS; Note the flashing low battery voltage toward the end.
#487
2000 feet? Not a big deal.
Put up a nice 5 meter cross country glider (16 foot wing span) in a cross country competition and you will want to thermal up to AT LEAST 3000 feet before you even cross the start line. And that is certainly not the highest you might fly. And I am not talking about rouge pilots I am talking about AMA sanctioned events. All flown line of sight.
Typical 3.5 to 4M TD gliders regularly break 2000 feet during AMA sanctioned events and we do it within AMA safety guidelines. We operate under the same see and avoid rules the full scale pilots follow. We see our glider and we see other planes and we move to avoid them. We do not expect them to move to avoid us.
An FPV pilot who is out of site line distance can't necessarily do that. He likely does not have the situational awareness that we have when flying within sight from the ground. That is not a knock it is just an observation.
Put up a nice 5 meter cross country glider (16 foot wing span) in a cross country competition and you will want to thermal up to AT LEAST 3000 feet before you even cross the start line. And that is certainly not the highest you might fly. And I am not talking about rouge pilots I am talking about AMA sanctioned events. All flown line of sight.
Typical 3.5 to 4M TD gliders regularly break 2000 feet during AMA sanctioned events and we do it within AMA safety guidelines. We operate under the same see and avoid rules the full scale pilots follow. We see our glider and we see other planes and we move to avoid them. We do not expect them to move to avoid us.
An FPV pilot who is out of site line distance can't necessarily do that. He likely does not have the situational awareness that we have when flying within sight from the ground. That is not a knock it is just an observation.
#488
My Feedback: (198)
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: El Reno, OK
Posts: 6,707
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bob-
Sobering, but good observations.
Saw reference to this in another forum, may dispel thoughts some may have about FAA not taking seriously such things as model aircraft operating in the wrong places: FAA Enforcement
Sobering, but good observations.
Saw reference to this in another forum, may dispel thoughts some may have about FAA not taking seriously such things as model aircraft operating in the wrong places: FAA Enforcement
Effective 8/1,ALL FAA ATCC's are directed to report ANY UNUSUAL RC ACTIVITY TO THE NATIONAL FAA NETWORK!!!
That is pretty huge directive!
#490
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Apopka,
FL
Posts: 1,367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This was what I found very interesting in the court decision:
In addition did anybody else notice that in the FAA document that cj posted :
AC 91-57 which is an ADVISORY and not their own "Interpretative Rule" ????????????????????????????
Today's decision shouldn't be too surprising—in its own argument in the case, theFAA said that pilots should ignore its orders because they aren't actually orders in a roundabout attempt to get the case thrown out in order to keep drones in legal limbo.
In addition did anybody else notice that in the FAA document that cj posted :
I. ANY OTHER SITUATION THAT MAY INDICATE A SUSPICIOUS AIRCRAFT, INCLUDING ANY REPORTED OR OBSERVED UNAUTHORIZED UNMANNED AIRCRAFT ACTIVITY OR REMOTE CONTROLLED MODEL AIRCRAFT THAT DEVIATE FROM NORMAL PRACTICE AREAS/FLIGHT ACTIVITIES OR WOULD BE CONSIDERED SUSPICIOUS OR A SAFETY HAZARD.
REFERENCE- ADVISORY CIRCULAR 91-57 MODEL AIRCRAFT OPERATING STANDARDS.
REFERENCE- ADVISORY CIRCULAR 91-57 MODEL AIRCRAFT OPERATING STANDARDS.
Last edited by bradpaul; 07-18-2014 at 03:29 PM.
#491
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Round Hill, VA
Posts: 1,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
John,
Just google 1 mile FPV and you'll find all kinds of examples. See link below at the 1 hour mark, he's at 10,000 feet, at 2 hours he's at 22,000 feet. Plane is a Winrider Queen bee (wing).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_PxhU9i9Ng
Frank
PS; Note the flashing low battery voltage toward the end.
Just google 1 mile FPV and you'll find all kinds of examples. See link below at the 1 hour mark, he's at 10,000 feet, at 2 hours he's at 22,000 feet. Plane is a Winrider Queen bee (wing).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_PxhU9i9Ng
Frank
PS; Note the flashing low battery voltage toward the end.
One thing that puzzles me is this. Was that narrow box, showing the movie, the pilots FPV image? If so, no wonder the FAA is up in ARMS.
#492
My Feedback: (22)
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: palm harbor,
FL
Posts: 2,232
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I won't rat out anyone for the got .they can do their own.as for any other aircraft I know guys fly around and usually with a schools permission or a private owners own place.lets get real.
#493
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga,
CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looks like the FAA took another blow from a federal appeals court today
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the...ls-court-rules
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the...ls-court-rules
cj
#494
AMA appears to have learned a hard lesson: “Be careful whatyou wish for, as you just may get it.” They fought for specific language in the law, and they got “any rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft, or an aircraft being developed as a model aircraft” as well as “strictly for hobby or recreational use.” Back in February 2011*, AMA praised this language. Now they’retrying to effectively say “that’s not what we meant.”
Unfortunately, the biggest sticking point for the hobby will be the phrase “strictly for hobby or recreational use,” as there’s every little room for interpretation in that language. As a dues paying member of AMA, I have to ask how much of my dues was wasted helping to craft the very language that the FAA is now using to help squeeze the hobby.
While the current discussion focuses on the FAA interpretation with respect to recreation and FPV, the larger looming problem is the FAA’s clearly established authority to regulate anything that flies in the name of safety. Sadly, it’s becoming increasingly difficult to make our case when there are so many instances of people are “handing the FAA the stick to beat us with.” Large aircraft crashes into or near spectators at AMA sponsored events is only handing the FAA yet more sticks. I believe that we have to either got to raise our game with respect to safety of our operations or risk having regulators and lawmakers do it for us.
* http://amablog.modelaircraft.org/ama...om-suas-rules/
Unfortunately, the biggest sticking point for the hobby will be the phrase “strictly for hobby or recreational use,” as there’s every little room for interpretation in that language. As a dues paying member of AMA, I have to ask how much of my dues was wasted helping to craft the very language that the FAA is now using to help squeeze the hobby.
While the current discussion focuses on the FAA interpretation with respect to recreation and FPV, the larger looming problem is the FAA’s clearly established authority to regulate anything that flies in the name of safety. Sadly, it’s becoming increasingly difficult to make our case when there are so many instances of people are “handing the FAA the stick to beat us with.” Large aircraft crashes into or near spectators at AMA sponsored events is only handing the FAA yet more sticks. I believe that we have to either got to raise our game with respect to safety of our operations or risk having regulators and lawmakers do it for us.
* http://amablog.modelaircraft.org/ama...om-suas-rules/
Last edited by franklin_m; 07-19-2014 at 07:25 AM. Reason: Fix font sizes to be consistent
#495
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Cartersville, GA
Posts: 360
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Also keep in mind that the AC only requires full scale pilots to notify the FAA of inappropriate RC activity. It does not specify what the FAA will do once they are informed. I think they are going to be hesitant to take legal action, since they just lost their second case against a pilot of a R/C pilot.
Last edited by N410DC; 07-19-2014 at 07:56 AM.
#496
AMA appears to have learned a hard lesson: “Be careful whatyou wish for, as you just may get it.” They fought for specific language in the law, and they got “any rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft, or an aircraft being developed as a model aircraft” as well as “strictly for hobby or recreational use.” Back in February 2011*, AMA praised this language. Now they’retrying to effectively say “that’s not what we meant.”
Unfortunately, the biggest sticking point for the hobby will be the phrase “strictly for hobby or recreational use,” as there’s every little room for interpretation in that language. As a dues paying member of AMA, I have to ask how much of my dues was wasted helping to craft the very language that the FAA is now using to help squeeze the hobby.
While the current discussion focuses on the FAA interpretation with respect to recreation and FPV, the larger looming problem is the FAA’s clearly established authority to regulate anything that flies in the name of safety. Sadly, it’s becoming increasingly difficult to make our case when there are so many instances of people are “handing the FAA the stick to beat us with.” Large aircraft crashes into or near spectators at AMA sponsored events is only handing the FAA yet more sticks. I believe that we have to either got to raise our game with respect to safety of our operations or risk having regulators and lawmakers do it for us.
* http://amablog.modelaircraft.org/ama...om-suas-rules/
Unfortunately, the biggest sticking point for the hobby will be the phrase “strictly for hobby or recreational use,” as there’s every little room for interpretation in that language. As a dues paying member of AMA, I have to ask how much of my dues was wasted helping to craft the very language that the FAA is now using to help squeeze the hobby.
While the current discussion focuses on the FAA interpretation with respect to recreation and FPV, the larger looming problem is the FAA’s clearly established authority to regulate anything that flies in the name of safety. Sadly, it’s becoming increasingly difficult to make our case when there are so many instances of people are “handing the FAA the stick to beat us with.” Large aircraft crashes into or near spectators at AMA sponsored events is only handing the FAA yet more sticks. I believe that we have to either got to raise our game with respect to safety of our operations or risk having regulators and lawmakers do it for us.
* http://amablog.modelaircraft.org/ama...om-suas-rules/
#497
The new AC asks ATC to report any RC aircraft that “…deviate from normal practice areas/flight activities. . .” I interpret this to mean any RC aircraft that are not flying at an established flying field. I would therefore assume that any RC pilot who flies at an established field would not be a problem under the new AC, since RC aircraft at established flying fields is a “normal practice area” and a “normal flight activity.” RC fields that are close to an airport need to notify that airport, in accordance to AC 91-57. To be safe, it may be prudent to also get permission from the airport operator and tower (if applicable) in order to be in compliance with the recent interpretation as well, though there is some confusion and contention as to whether or not this interpretation is enforceable.
Also keep in mind that the AC only requires full scale pilots to notify the FAA of inappropriate RC activity. It does not specify what the FAA will do once they are informed. I think they are going to be hesitant to take legal action, since they just lost their second case against a pilot of a R/C pilot.
Also keep in mind that the AC only requires full scale pilots to notify the FAA of inappropriate RC activity. It does not specify what the FAA will do once they are informed. I think they are going to be hesitant to take legal action, since they just lost their second case against a pilot of a R/C pilot.
That was a change to a policy order, not to the AC.
#498
AMA appears to have learned a hard lesson: “Be careful whatyou wish for, as you just may get it.” They fought for specific language in the law, and they got “any rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft, or an aircraft being developed as a model aircraft” as well as “strictly for hobby or recreational use.” Back in February 2011*, AMA praised this language. Now they’retrying to effectively say “that’s not what we meant.”
Unfortunately, the biggest sticking point for the hobby will be the phrase “strictly for hobby or recreational use,” as there’s every little room for interpretation in that language. As a dues paying member of AMA, I have to ask how much of my dues was wasted helping to craft the very language that the FAA is now using to help squeeze the hobby.
While the current discussion focuses on the FAA interpretation with respect to recreation and FPV, the larger looming problem is the FAA’s clearly established authority to regulate anything that flies in the name of safety. Sadly, it’s becoming increasingly difficult to make our case when there are so many instances of people are “handing the FAA the stick to beat us with.” Large aircraft crashes into or near spectators at AMA sponsored events is only handing the FAA yet more sticks. I believe that we have to either got to raise our game with respect to safety of our operations or risk having regulators and lawmakers do it for us.
* http://amablog.modelaircraft.org/ama...om-suas-rules/
Unfortunately, the biggest sticking point for the hobby will be the phrase “strictly for hobby or recreational use,” as there’s every little room for interpretation in that language. As a dues paying member of AMA, I have to ask how much of my dues was wasted helping to craft the very language that the FAA is now using to help squeeze the hobby.
While the current discussion focuses on the FAA interpretation with respect to recreation and FPV, the larger looming problem is the FAA’s clearly established authority to regulate anything that flies in the name of safety. Sadly, it’s becoming increasingly difficult to make our case when there are so many instances of people are “handing the FAA the stick to beat us with.” Large aircraft crashes into or near spectators at AMA sponsored events is only handing the FAA yet more sticks. I believe that we have to either got to raise our game with respect to safety of our operations or risk having regulators and lawmakers do it for us.
* http://amablog.modelaircraft.org/ama...om-suas-rules/
I see nothing wrong with the wording. It says nothing about commercial use. The FAA and the federal government has no right to restrict commercial use of sUAV anyway so the matter will become moot.
#499
My Feedback: (4)
It was actually a GENOT, whch is FAA-speak for General Notice(s), originates at the FAA HQ in Washington and is circulated to all FAA offices and personel.
From an FAA training guide. The bold face is my addition:
Notices
Give temporary direction or make one-time announcements
Used for emergencies or when a situation requires immediate action
Remain in effect for 12 months or less
Are self-canceling and may not be revised or extended
Sent out via the electronic means deemed most appropriate
Three types of notices are:
General Notices (GENOTs)Issued by Washington Headquarters
Regional Notices (RENOTs)Issued by the Regions
Service Area Notices (SERNOTs)Give temporary direction or make one-time announcements
Used for emergencies or when a situation requires immediate action
Remain in effect for 12 months or less
Are self-canceling and may not be revised or extended
Sent out via the electronic means deemed most appropriate
Three types of notices are:
General Notices (GENOTs)Issued by Washington Headquarters
Regional Notices (RENOTs)Issued by the Regions
Issued by Service Areas
Last edited by Thomas B; 07-19-2014 at 08:58 AM.
#500
It looks to me like if the AMA gets their way with this fix they are requesting, then people will continue to do as they please. It will limit the FAA's authority to enforce their their part 91 rules on model airplanes, including FPV quad copters flying over 5,000 feet. Boy, won't it be fun when that amendment goes through!!