Sport_Pilot

Only from certified aircraft. No such responsibility for hang gliders for instance The FAA tells the operator not to fly in a dangerous manner but there is no certification to ensure that the craft does not fall apart. They are not responsible for bullets flying through the air harming people. Not responsible for baseballs smashing cars or windows, Not responsible for model rockets falling on your house. The list is rather long.

Sport_Pilot

And if their are local laws broken they, the local police, will act. But I know for a fact they have told the FAA that they will not act in some actual cases. They can tell the FAA if federal regs are broken it is not their matter.

bradpaul

[h=1]Man walking on beach with child, hit by plane; 1 dead[/h]
http://www.wtsp.com/story/news/local...sota/13241963/

phlpsfrnk

While this is tragic I don't think a 21 hundred lb plane is hardly comparable to the drones that are the subjects of these many discussions.

bradpaul

If a "drone" hit a family on a beach and even resulted in no injuries some of the posters here would be calling for the police to arrest the pilot ............................................... an the media would go wild with the story.

phlpsfrnk

Agreed, but one of the only drones that come close to a PA-28 Charokee Arrow would be a MQ-1B Predator. I feel sorry for the man that lost his life and the pilot that made the decision to land on the breach.

Frank

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

For sure!

At least the pilot was able to minimize damage to his precious airplane and insure he and his passenger could walk away.

phlpsfrnk

What a disingenuous thing to say. I would hope that you would never have to make that kind of decision and I wonder how wanting you would be if you did.

Frank

NorfolkSouthern

Though some would disagree with me, I believe that this makes sense. I am sorry, but although some full-scale pilots are good-natured folks, I have found that mose of them are quite arrogant and will likely think more for themselves, than others. The Piper on the beach incident was tragic, but that also has little to do with drones and "model aviation" anyway.

Oh by the way: What ever came of that event at that one park, where a person got injured by the little electric heli? I haven't seen or heard of any mention about that incident in a long time.

phlpsfrnk

If you mean the teen girl in Tampa it was a pretty big Heli. She had many stitches in her head and almost severed a finger on her right hand that required surgery. I heard the pilots were cited because there was an ordnance against flying in the park and there was talk of a lawsuit against the pilots. You usually never hear what the settlements are in lawsuits.


Frank

r_adical

My Feedback: (19)

We have wondered way off topic

NorfolkSouthern

I still think it's relevant to the topic. The park incident involved a model helicopter that was NOT being flown FPV, but LOS (line of sight). After the FAA wrote its interpretation, does anybody feel that the FAA would have stepped in today, as opposed to when the heli incident actually took place?

Veltro

My Feedback: (1)

Once again, a UAV operator doing something stupid:

Drone hinders aviation on Sand FirePosted on July 28, 2014 by Bill Gabbert

A privately operated drone (or unmanned aerial vehicle) caused concern on the Sand Fire south of Placerville, California on Sunday. The person that was controlling the aircraft and getting video footage of the blaze was told by authorities to stop because of the potential danger to helicopters, lead planes, and air tankers flying over the fire.

A video shot from the drone was uploaded to YouTube showing that the aircraft was directly over the fire, which could have been a serious hazard to helicopters and air tankers operating at 50 to 180 feet above the ground.

There are reports that Air Attack, when informed of the drone, came close to grounding all firefighting aircraft until the threat could be mitigated. However the operator was found and instead, the drone was grounded.

A person would think that a Temporary Flight Restriction (TFR) which was probably in effect over the fire would prohibit all non-authorized aircraft including drones under 400 feet, from operating in the area. If so, then penalties could be applicable. A pilot of an airplane can lose their pilot’s license for 90 days or so if they bust a TFR. Of course a doofus who buys $1,000 worth of drone and does stupid things with it has no license to begin with.

This problem will get worse before it gets better. There will be more and more consumer-grade drones flying around and keeping them out of fire areas is going to be very difficult.

http://fireaviation.com/

cj_rumley

Yup, stupid. While he doesn't have a pilot's license for authorities to lift, he was breaking the law (that has been in effect since congress passed what AMA lobbied for) and penalties do apply. Betcha FAA won't let this one pass.

cj

Sport_Pilot

I believe that there are two or more types of TFR's. The ones for national security for the President specifically say that it includes all forms of model aircraft. The others are under part 91 and since the applicability clause says it applies to all persons on board the aircraft, Part 91 does not apply to model aircraft. But the FAA has maintained it does, but yet an NTSB judge said it did not. The article says nothing about the drone being in the way, in fact it looks like they knew nothing about it till they saw the You Tube video.

Sport_Pilot

That law does not apply until the FAA writes regulations that comply with the law. It is a law instructing the FAA to write regulations, one said they should write no regulation for model aircraft. I

phlpsfrnk

There was;

http://tfr.faa.gov/save_pages/detail_4_6046.html

These are issued for all major fires and natural disasters. This one was for 5 Nautical miles around (Latitude: 38º34'00"N, Longitude: 120º48'40"W) From the surface up to and including 7000 feet MSL.


Frank

phlpsfrnk

The 112th Congress also wrote;

(b) STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the authority of the Administrator to pursue enforcement action against persons operating model aircraft who endanger the safety of the national airspace system.

Frank

.

Sport_Pilot

Was that issued under Part 91? Part 91 says it applies to all people aboard the aircraft so it does not actually apply to sUAV. But those issued under the authority of NSA (I think it's NSA that issues the ones for Presidential trips) specifically says they include model airplanes and UAV.

Sport_Pilot

Yes but flying above 400 feet, by itself, doesn not endanger the safety of the NAS. But still they may try to write that in, but in fact we can show them we have a proven good safety record with thousands of aerobatic and sailplane contests held flying well above 400 feet with no accidents. Not that there has never been an accident, just that there are thousands with no accidents.

HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

Did U send your opinions to the FAA? if so Great ... If not WHY Not?

phlpsfrnk

Really!
"However, the prohibition against future rulemaking is not a complete bar on rulemaking that may have an effect on model aircraft. As noted above, the rulemaking limitation applies only to rulemaking actions specifically "regarding a model aircraft or an aircraft being developed as a model aircraft." P.L. 112-95, section 336(a). Thus, the rulemaking prohibition would not apply in the case of general rules that the FAA may issue or modify that apply to all aircraft, such as rules addressing the use of airspace (e.g., the 2008 rule governing VFR operations in the Washington, DC area) for safety or security reasons. See 73 FR 46803. The statute does not require FAA to exempt model aircraft from those rules because those rules are not specifically regarding model aircraft. On the other hand, a model aircraft operated pursuant to the terms of section 336 would potentially be excepted from a UAS aircraft certification rule, for example, because of the limitation on future rulemaking specifically "regarding a model aircraft, or an aircraft being developed as a model aircraft." P.L. 112-95, section 336(a). The FAA interprets the section 336 rulemaking prohibition as one that must be evaluated on a rule-by-rule basis"

Nothing in the TFR specifies man carring aircraft, it states all aircraft. The intent is pretty clear.

Frank

Sport_Pilot

Yes, of course. But not the detail I really wanted. Had other things to do and wanted to get it in by the 25th.

Sport_Pilot

Non presiential TFR's are issued under part 91 as are some NOTAM's. The name implies notices to certified pilots. Last March a Judge threw out a case claiming that there are no FAA regulations applicable to model aircraft, that would include Part 91. As far as intent, the law is interpreted for what it says, intent is not a factor. Though it can be for civil cases and especially oral contracts.

For a more common sense view. would you expect a teen who bought a drone at a toy store to even know about NOTAM's or even understand them?

phlpsfrnk

PL 112-95, section 336 is specific to “Model aircraft” that operate under specific conditions to be exempt from regulations. The FAA is responsible for the safety and efficiency of the NAS. We operate our “Model Aircraft” within the NAS. Let’s examine the most recent definitions and statements;

[1.]AIRCRAFT.— means a device that is used or intended to be used for flight in the air.

[2.]SMALL UNMANNED AIRCRAFT.—The term ‘‘small unmanned aircraft’’ means an unmanned aircraft weighing less than 55 pounds.

[2.]UNMANNED AIRCRAFT.—The term ‘‘unmanned aircraft’’ means an aircraft that is operated without the possibility of direct human intervention from within or on the aircraft.

[2.]UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEM.—The term ‘‘unmanned aircraft system’’ means an unmanned aircraft and associated elements (including communication links and the components that control the unmanned aircraft) that are required for the pilot in command to operate safely and efficiently in the national airspace system.

[1.]Pilot in command.— means the person who:

(1) Has final authority and responsibility for the operation and safety of the flight;

(2) Has been designated as pilot in command before or during the flight; and

(3) Holds the appropriate category, class, and type rating, if appropriate, for the conduct of the flight.

[3.]Historically, the FAA has considered model aircraft to be aircraft that fall within the statutory and regulatory definitions of an aircraft, as they are contrivances or devices that are “invented, used, or designed to navigate, or fly in, the air.


[1.] From GPO Title 14: Aeronautics and space, Part 1 - Definitions and Abbreviations, 1.1 General definitions.
[2.] From H. R.658-63 Subtitle B-Unmanned Aircraft Systems, SEC.331. DEFINITIONS.
[3.] From [4910-13] 14 CFR Part 91, FAA-2014-0396, Interpretation of the Special Rule for Model Aircraft

By congressional action a “Model” aircraft has been defined by its mode of operation and certain other restrictions such as LOS and weight and shall not be regulated by the FAA. As “aircraft” however they still have to comply with certain requirements and restrictions to operate safely in the NAS. What was advisory in 1981 is becoming regulatory in 2014. Model aircraft are still bound by NOTAMs and TFRs which apply to all aircraft. PL 112-95, section 336 does not give us a free pass to do whatever we want wherever we want with our “models.”

Regards
Frank