Go Back  RCU Forums > RC Airplanes > AMA Discussions
Reload this Page >

FAA Issues "Interpretation of the special rule for model aircraft"

Notices
AMA Discussions Discuss AMA policies, decisions & any other AMA related topics here.

FAA Issues "Interpretation of the special rule for model aircraft"

Old 07-17-2014, 02:24 PM
  #476  
Bob Pastorello
My Feedback: (198)
 
Bob Pastorello's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: El Reno, OK
Posts: 6,707
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Charley
No Roberto, that's a politician. Bureaucrats obfuscate.

CR
Touche` - but in this AMA/FAA thing, aren't they the same????
Old 07-18-2014, 08:23 AM
  #477  
cj_rumley
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga, CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by franklin_m
That should be an interesting read. Would love to hear the FAA's side of it to compare.
I would too, but from AMA's report on the meeting it appears that AMA did all the talking.
Old 07-18-2014, 08:34 AM
  #478  
Bob Pastorello
My Feedback: (198)
 
Bob Pastorello's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: El Reno, OK
Posts: 6,707
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

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.
Old 07-18-2014, 09:48 AM
  #479  
anthnchav9
Junior Member
My Feedback: (5)
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: clinton, IA
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

maybe flying an rc fpv airplane 3000-6000 ft. and then posting it on a video site for everyone and GOD/FAA to see was a bad idea, in retrospect.
Old 07-18-2014, 10:23 AM
  #480  
JohnShe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Round Hill, VA
Posts: 1,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by anthnchav9
maybe flying an rc fpv airplane 3000-6000 ft. and then posting it on a video site for everyone and GOD/FAA to see was a bad idea, in retrospect.
What are you referring to?

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.
Old 07-18-2014, 10:24 AM
  #481  
cj_rumley
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga, CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Bob Pastorello
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.
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
Old 07-18-2014, 10:38 AM
  #482  
phlpsfrnk
Senior Member
 
phlpsfrnk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Spring Hill, FL
Posts: 893
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by JohnShe
What are you referring to?

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.
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.

Last edited by phlpsfrnk; 07-18-2014 at 10:45 AM. Reason: Add PS
Old 07-18-2014, 10:40 AM
  #483  
porcia83
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Hartford, CT
Posts: 7,269
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by anthnchav9
maybe flying an rc fpv airplane 3000-6000 ft. and then posting it on a video site for everyone and GOD/FAA to see was a bad idea, in retrospect.
"Google beautiful FPV clouds flying"....that's at 10,000 feet as well. Saw one recently that said 11,000 feet. Both had them going in and out of clouds. Virtually impossible for a scale plane of any size to see.
Old 07-18-2014, 10:50 AM
  #484  
phlpsfrnk
Senior Member
 
phlpsfrnk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Spring Hill, FL
Posts: 893
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by porcia83
"Google beautiful FPV clouds flying"....that's at 10,000 feet as well. Saw one recently that said 11,000 feet. Both had them going in and out of clouds. Virtually impossible for a scale plane of any size to see.
This is exactly the kind of thing the FAA is concerned about.

Frank
Old 07-18-2014, 10:51 AM
  #485  
aeajr
My Feedback: (2)
 
aeajr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 8,573
Likes: 0
Received 11 Likes on 11 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by JohnShe
What are you referring to?

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.
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.
Old 07-18-2014, 11:12 AM
  #486  
Sport_Pilot
 
Sport_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 16,916
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by phlpsfrnk
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.
I hate to agree with JohnS but that is a completly off topic.
Old 07-18-2014, 11:15 AM
  #487  
Sport_Pilot
 
Sport_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 16,916
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by aeajr
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.
That is correct and we can see and avoid easily but FPV cannot, at least without a spotter and not in the clouds. But this is actually way off topic.
Old 07-18-2014, 11:25 AM
  #488  
Bob Pastorello
My Feedback: (198)
 
Bob Pastorello's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: El Reno, OK
Posts: 6,707
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by cj_rumley
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
I hope everyone reads that FAA document you linked to in your post.
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!
Old 07-18-2014, 02:45 PM
  #489  
BarracudaHockey
My Feedback: (11)
 
BarracudaHockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 26,959
Received 343 Likes on 274 Posts
Default

Looks like the FAA took another blow from a federal appeals court today
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the...ls-court-rules
Old 07-18-2014, 03:24 PM
  #490  
bradpaul
Thread Starter
 
bradpaul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Apopka, FL
Posts: 1,367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

This was what I found very interesting in the court decision:

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.
AC 91-57 which is an ADVISORY and not their own "Interpretative Rule" ????????????????????????????

Last edited by bradpaul; 07-18-2014 at 03:29 PM.
Old 07-18-2014, 04:26 PM
  #491  
JohnShe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Round Hill, VA
Posts: 1,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by phlpsfrnk
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.
I don't do U-Tube and I have no knowledge of the type of aircraft, nor do I do FPV. It certainly isn't for sale at my local hobby shop. Maybe it isn't a legitimate model airplane.

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.
Old 07-18-2014, 05:22 PM
  #492  
cloudancer03
My Feedback: (22)
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: palm harbor, FL
Posts: 2,232
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

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.
Old 07-18-2014, 05:54 PM
  #493  
cj_rumley
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga, CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by BarracudaHockey
Looks like the FAA took another blow from a federal appeals court today
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the...ls-court-rules
The proposal by bradpaul above (that an AMA honcho should test FAA by flying an FPV UA at their doorstep) which I took as TIC, is now looking more like a practical solution. Two-for-two now in Fed courts, and by interests very small when compared to AMA in both cases. I'd like to nominate former prexy Dave Brown to pilot the craft. Is he still alive?

cj
Old 07-19-2014, 07:20 AM
  #494  
franklin_m
 
franklin_m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 4,561
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

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/

Last edited by franklin_m; 07-19-2014 at 07:25 AM. Reason: Fix font sizes to be consistent
Old 07-19-2014, 07:53 AM
  #495  
N410DC
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Cartersville, GA
Posts: 360
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by bradpaul
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" ????????????????????????????
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.

Last edited by N410DC; 07-19-2014 at 07:56 AM.
Old 07-19-2014, 07:53 AM
  #496  
NorfolkSouthern
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 1,588
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by franklin_m
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/
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!!
Old 07-19-2014, 08:32 AM
  #497  
Sport_Pilot
 
Sport_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 16,916
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by N410DC
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.

That was a change to a policy order, not to the AC.
Old 07-19-2014, 08:48 AM
  #498  
Sport_Pilot
 
Sport_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 16,916
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by franklin_m
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/

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.
Old 07-19-2014, 08:49 AM
  #499  
Thomas B
My Feedback: (4)
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Fort Worth, TX
Posts: 1,257
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by Sport_Pilot
That was a change to a policy order, not to the AC.

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)
Issued by Service Areas

Last edited by Thomas B; 07-19-2014 at 08:58 AM.
Old 07-19-2014, 08:50 AM
  #500  
Sport_Pilot
 
Sport_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 16,916
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by NorfolkSouthern
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!!
The weatherization bill conceded that the FAA has the duty to protect the airspace. So likely the regulations will do that. Presently the sUAV can be considered obstuctions and handled under those regulations.

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.