FAA Issues "Interpretation of the special rule for model aircraft"
07-21-2014, 10:09 AM
#502
Besides the FAA has no business regulating intrastate commerce. The government only gives them the right to regulate interstate commerce. sUAV's flying under FAA minimum altitude limits and flying from point A to point A are intrastate commerce.
07-21-2014, 10:19 AM
#503
No it does not speak for payment for hobby use. If you are doing a demo and are paid, it is still for hobby use. If you are testing a plane as a paid employee it is still hobby use. If you win money at a contest it is still for hobby use. Just as many win money for bowling, racing, and many many other hobbies.
Besides the FAA has no business regulating intrastate commerce. The government only gives them the right to regulate interstate commerce. sUAV's flying under FAA minimum altitude limits and flying from point A to point A are intrastate commerce.
Besides the FAA has no business regulating intrastate commerce. The government only gives them the right to regulate interstate commerce. sUAV's flying under FAA minimum altitude limits and flying from point A to point A are intrastate commerce.
07-21-2014, 10:30 AM
#504
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Round Hill, VA
Posts: 1,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No it does not speak for payment for hobby use. If you are doing a demo and are paid, it is still for hobby use. If you are testing a plane as a paid employee it is still hobby use. If you win money at a contest it is still for hobby use. Just as many win money for bowling, racing, and many many other hobbies.
Besides the FAA has no business regulating intrastate commerce. The government only gives them the right to regulate interstate commerce. sUAV's flying under FAA minimum altitude limits and flying from point A to point A are intrastate commerce.
Besides the FAA has no business regulating intrastate commerce. The government only gives them the right to regulate interstate commerce. sUAV's flying under FAA minimum altitude limits and flying from point A to point A are intrastate commerce.
Amateur bowlers win trophies. That is recreational.
The recreational model aviation industry is commercial but it supports the recreational side of the hobby. As such, the FAA should either clarify their language or grant an exemption.
07-21-2014, 10:33 AM
#505
My Feedback: (198)
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: El Reno, OK
Posts: 6,707
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
porcia83 - I believe you are correct, particularly as in the Interpretive Rule, FAA takes a lot of extra words to be very exact, and very precise in their defining "Hobby" and "Recreational". In many of the comments submitted to the FAA, this sponsorship/prize/contest demo issue has been mentioned by many people as being something that needs additional exemption to the FAA's definition of "Commercial". As it is written right now, unless changed, ALL of those "sponsored" activities are DOA.
07-21-2014, 10:37 AM
#506
Professional bowlers win money. That is commercial.
Amateur bowlers win trophies. That is recreational.
The recreational model aviation industry is commercial but it supports the recreational side of the hobby. As such, the FAA should either clarify their language or grant an exemption.
Amateur bowlers win trophies. That is recreational.
The recreational model aviation industry is commercial but it supports the recreational side of the hobby. As such, the FAA should either clarify their language or grant an exemption.
that if one cents changes hands it is a commercial operation needs to go.
07-21-2014, 10:48 AM
#507
Professional bowlers win money. That is commercial.
Amateur bowlers win trophies. That is recreational.
Amateur bowlers win trophies. That is recreational.
Last edited by Sport_Pilot; 07-21-2014 at 12:01 PM.
07-21-2014, 12:03 PM
#509
Well like I said it's their game and "THEY MAKE ALL THE RULES".
07-21-2014, 12:35 PM
#510
Section 336(c) of the law defines “Model Aircraft” as “… an unmanned aircraft that is –
(1) capable of sustained flight in the atmosphere;
(2) flown within visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft; and
(3) flown for hobby or recreational purposes.Each element of this definition must be met for a UAS to be considered a Model Aircraft under the Act. Under Section 336(a) of the Act the FAA is restricted from conducting further rulemaking specific to Model Aircraft as defined in section 336(c) so long as the Model Aircraft operations are conducted in accordance with the requirement of section 336(a). Section 336(a) requires that—
(1) the aircraft is flown strictly for hobby or recreational use;
Sport_Pilot started to go into this in post 502, but I'd like to get just a bit deeper into it:
I'd like to throw something out here, concerning part of "336c". I'm certainly no lawyer, but I'd like to hear/read a lawyer's input on just one word - "hobby". In many venues - including here, I've seen many posts and articles arguing for/against the various manufacturers' flight efforts/rights, as pertains to "336c". This includes demo flights, flight instruction, flight testing, the whole gamut.
Let's say, just for the sake of argument, that I work for a model manufacturer and I'm going to test-fly a plane as part of my work. I've heard/read lots of arguments saying that those kinds of flights would be commercial in nature and therefore the "aircraft/air-vehicle/whatever-you-wanna-call-it" would NOT be a model airplane, legally.
I say IT IS a model airplane, legally, and the rule that I've copied above states it - categorically. The rule is written in English. "Hobby"-use of an "aircraft/air-vehicle/whatever-you-wanna-call-it" is specifically allowed in the rule. "Hobby"-use can/should/usually-is understood to include the industry itself, is it not?. The "hobby" industry would be test-flying the "aircraft/air-vehicle/whatever-you-wanna-call-it" in support of the "hobby", therefore, I see it as a model airplane. The rule states: "...strictly for hobby or recreational use" - and that's "hobby" use.
Being paid, or not paid, doesn't even come into the equasion.
Could a lawyer not make that argument? Could WE not make that argument?
(1) capable of sustained flight in the atmosphere;
(2) flown within visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft; and
(3) flown for hobby or recreational purposes.Each element of this definition must be met for a UAS to be considered a Model Aircraft under the Act. Under Section 336(a) of the Act the FAA is restricted from conducting further rulemaking specific to Model Aircraft as defined in section 336(c) so long as the Model Aircraft operations are conducted in accordance with the requirement of section 336(a). Section 336(a) requires that—
(1) the aircraft is flown strictly for hobby or recreational use;
Sport_Pilot started to go into this in post 502, but I'd like to get just a bit deeper into it:
I'd like to throw something out here, concerning part of "336c". I'm certainly no lawyer, but I'd like to hear/read a lawyer's input on just one word - "hobby". In many venues - including here, I've seen many posts and articles arguing for/against the various manufacturers' flight efforts/rights, as pertains to "336c". This includes demo flights, flight instruction, flight testing, the whole gamut.
Let's say, just for the sake of argument, that I work for a model manufacturer and I'm going to test-fly a plane as part of my work. I've heard/read lots of arguments saying that those kinds of flights would be commercial in nature and therefore the "aircraft/air-vehicle/whatever-you-wanna-call-it" would NOT be a model airplane, legally.
I say IT IS a model airplane, legally, and the rule that I've copied above states it - categorically. The rule is written in English. "Hobby"-use of an "aircraft/air-vehicle/whatever-you-wanna-call-it" is specifically allowed in the rule. "Hobby"-use can/should/usually-is understood to include the industry itself, is it not?. The "hobby" industry would be test-flying the "aircraft/air-vehicle/whatever-you-wanna-call-it" in support of the "hobby", therefore, I see it as a model airplane. The rule states: "...strictly for hobby or recreational use" - and that's "hobby" use.
Being paid, or not paid, doesn't even come into the equasion.
Could a lawyer not make that argument? Could WE not make that argument?
Last edited by skylark-flier; 07-21-2014 at 12:42 PM.
07-21-2014, 01:04 PM
#511
My Feedback: (4)
Spoke with a club member over the weekend that has a full time job with a large aviation company and spends working most of his time in communication with the FAA on compliance issues. His take after talking to his contact is that in terms of flying withine 5 miles of an airport and having to notifiy said airport is: That requirement will only apply to class A, B, C and D airports. There are no class A airports in the US, based on a little quick research. There are around 37 class B airports and around 122 class C airports. There are some unknown number of class D airports (having some type of manned control tower), but the total of all types of these airports will be far, far less than the figure of 17,000 airports bandied about recently that modelers would have to negotiate with to be able to fly within 5 miles.
07-21-2014, 01:13 PM
#514
My Feedback: (198)
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: El Reno, OK
Posts: 6,707
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thomas B - I made a similar suggestion a couple hundred posts ago and was shot down by somebody crowing about "you still have airport OPERATORS, or OWNERS, and THEY must be notified".
My belief is this - simply put - if the FAA is going to be militantly literal in their interpretation and definitions of things, so can we, and as such, the requirement is to report to the TOWER or Traffic Control Center. If your "within-5-mile-airport" doesn't have those two things, I believe we should rely on what we always have. Simple communication to identify our presence, and make sure the local FBO users know, and that we follow the AMA guidelines per see and avoid and altitude.
It will be interesting to see how this part shakes out as well as the "commercial" thing.
My belief is this - simply put - if the FAA is going to be militantly literal in their interpretation and definitions of things, so can we, and as such, the requirement is to report to the TOWER or Traffic Control Center. If your "within-5-mile-airport" doesn't have those two things, I believe we should rely on what we always have. Simple communication to identify our presence, and make sure the local FBO users know, and that we follow the AMA guidelines per see and avoid and altitude.
It will be interesting to see how this part shakes out as well as the "commercial" thing.
07-21-2014, 02:03 PM
#515
Spoke with a club member over the weekend that has a full time job with a large aviation company and spends working most of his time in communication with the FAA on compliance issues. His take after talking to his contact is that in terms of flying withine 5 miles of an airport and having to notifiy said airport is: That requirement will only apply to class A, B, C and D airports. There are no class A airports in the US, based on a little quick research. There are around 37 class B airports and around 122 class C airports. There are some unknown number of class D airports (having some type of manned control tower), but the total of all types of these airports will be far, far less than the figure of 17,000 airports bandied about recently that modelers would have to negotiate with to be able to fly within 5 miles.
U may think that the FAA has no right to make certain Rules, But all they have said is this is how they are going to interpret #336 of the "FAA modernization and reform act of 2012"
Time will tell.
Last edited by HoundDog; 07-21-2014 at 02:13 PM.
07-21-2014, 02:36 PM
#516
My Feedback: (4)
NAS explained: https://www.google.com/search?q=airs...w=1024&bih=692
U may think that the FAA has no right to make certain Rules, But all they have said is this is how they are going to interpret #336 of the "FAA modernization and reform act of 2012"
Time will tell.
U may think that the FAA has no right to make certain Rules, But all they have said is this is how they are going to interpret #336 of the "FAA modernization and reform act of 2012"
Time will tell.
07-21-2014, 02:48 PM
#517
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Cartersville, GA
Posts: 360
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spoke with a club member over the weekend that has a full time job with a large aviation company and spends working most of his time in communication with the FAA on compliance issues. His take after talking to his contact is that in terms of flying within 5 miles of an airport and having to notifiy said airport is: That requirement will only apply to class A, B, C and D airports. There are no class A airports in the US, based on a little quick research. There are around 37 class B airports and around 122 class C airports. There are some unknown number of class D airports (having some type of manned control tower), but the total of all types of these airports will be far, far less than the figure of 17,000 airports bandied about recently that modelers would have to negotiate with to be able to fly within 5 miles.
Class A airspace is all airspace above 18,000' above mean sea level. As you said, we have no airports in the USA that are that high. As far as I can tell, the only terrain in the USA that extends into Class A is Mt. McKinley in Alaska. I think it is perfectly reasonable to prohibit R/C operation in Class A airspace. All full scale aircraft in Class A airspace must fly under instrument flight rules, and must file an IFR flight plan. This also means that the aircraft have to be equipped for instrument flight, and the pilot(s) must be instrument rated. Under instrument flight rules, the usual "see and avoid" rules do not apply. I think one could argue that R/C flight at and above that altitude cannot be conducted safely, at least with our current technology.
07-21-2014, 02:57 PM
#518
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
porcia83 - I believe you are correct, particularly as in the Interpretive Rule, FAA takes a lot of extra words to be very exact, and very precise in their defining "Hobby" and "Recreational". In many of the comments submitted to the FAA, this sponsorship/prize/contest demo issue has been mentioned by many people as being something that needs additional exemption to the FAA's definition of "Commercial". As it is written right now, unless changed, ALL of those "sponsored" activities are DOA.
07-21-2014, 03:56 PM
#520
My Feedback: (4)
As it's written, the FAA's interpretation does not differentiate between airports in Class B/D/C airspace (airspace under control by a tower) and airports in Class E/G airspace (airports without an control tower, or a control tower that is closed.) It think it would be a reasonable compromise for the FAA to limit the 5 mile restriction to Class B/C/D airspace, but I have not see this in writing from the FAA. Remember, even full scale aircraft are strictly prohibited from operating in Class B/C/D unless they are in continuous contact with air traffic control.
Class A airspace is all airspace above 18,000' above mean sea level. As you said, we have no airports in the USA that are that high. As far as I can tell, the only terrain in the USA that extends into Class A is Mt. McKinley in Alaska. I think it is perfectly reasonable to prohibit R/C operation in Class A airspace. All full scale aircraft in Class A airspace must fly under instrument flight rules, and must file an IFR flight plan. This also means that the aircraft have to be equipped for instrument flight, and the pilot(s) must be instrument rated. Under instrument flight rules, the usual "see and avoid" rules do not apply. I think one could argue that R/C flight at and above that altitude cannot be conducted safely, at least with our current technology.
Class A airspace is all airspace above 18,000' above mean sea level. As you said, we have no airports in the USA that are that high. As far as I can tell, the only terrain in the USA that extends into Class A is Mt. McKinley in Alaska. I think it is perfectly reasonable to prohibit R/C operation in Class A airspace. All full scale aircraft in Class A airspace must fly under instrument flight rules, and must file an IFR flight plan. This also means that the aircraft have to be equipped for instrument flight, and the pilot(s) must be instrument rated. Under instrument flight rules, the usual "see and avoid" rules do not apply. I think one could argue that R/C flight at and above that altitude cannot be conducted safely, at least with our current technology.
Class A airports are not defined by the altitude they are at. They are defined by the requirement for IFR operations and flight plans, only. Simliar to the class A airspace requirement, but none of these airports are at 18K feet. I think there are 6 or 7 in the entire world, and, as mentioned, none in the US, so not a problem for modelers.
07-21-2014, 05:19 PM
#521
Simply repeating what an FAA person told the gentleman who works with him. I have a feeling it will work eventually work out that way. Agreed, we will have to see how it shakes out, but worth remembering that the airports without controllers (less than class D) are going to be more difficult to find a responsible party to communicate with.
Class A airports are not defined by the altitude they are at. They are defined by the requirement for IFR operations and flight plans, only. Simliar to the class A airspace requirement, but none of these airports are at 18K feet. I think there are 6 or 7 in the entire world, and, as mentioned, none in the US, so not a problem for modelers.
Class A airports are not defined by the altitude they are at. They are defined by the requirement for IFR operations and flight plans, only. Simliar to the class A airspace requirement, but none of these airports are at 18K feet. I think there are 6 or 7 in the entire world, and, as mentioned, none in the US, so not a problem for modelers.
07-22-2014, 12:09 PM
#525
My Feedback: (198)
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: El Reno, OK
Posts: 6,707
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I hope everyone has read this - although the title is slightly misleading (it is **NOT** only about quads!!!). I would definitely recommend careful, deliberate reading all the way through. It provides some much-needed statutory insight as to "why" the FAA believes their interpretation is valid.
From FAA.gov - http://www.faa.gov/news/press_releas...m?newsId=16674
From FAA.gov - http://www.faa.gov/news/press_releas...m?newsId=16674