FAA Issues "Interpretation of the special rule for model aircraft"
08-20-2014, 05:21 PM
#751
How's this for an example, from the statute being discussed:
" Model aircraft that do not meet these statutory requirements are nonetheless unmanned aircraft, and as such, are subject to all existing FAA regulations, as well as future rulemaking action, and the FAA intends to apply its regulations to such unmanned aircraft."
So I submit that something of considerable value has been taken away from modelers that are not CBO members (a condition in the statute for being excepted from regulation) that were excluded from AMA's advocacy, the freedom to fly as indies sans undue FAA regulation. We're talking about a large majority of modelers here, far outnumbering AMA members. Is that specific enough for you?
Good for you on flying in Canada. I presume Transport Canada doesn't require modelers to be MAAC members to fly model airplanes unfettered by such as "all existing FAA regulations."
" Model aircraft that do not meet these statutory requirements are nonetheless unmanned aircraft, and as such, are subject to all existing FAA regulations, as well as future rulemaking action, and the FAA intends to apply its regulations to such unmanned aircraft."
So I submit that something of considerable value has been taken away from modelers that are not CBO members (a condition in the statute for being excepted from regulation) that were excluded from AMA's advocacy, the freedom to fly as indies sans undue FAA regulation. We're talking about a large majority of modelers here, far outnumbering AMA members. Is that specific enough for you?
Good for you on flying in Canada. I presume Transport Canada doesn't require modelers to be MAAC members to fly model airplanes unfettered by such as "all existing FAA regulations."
Dennis
Last edited by Propworn; 08-20-2014 at 05:25 PM.
08-20-2014, 05:28 PM
#752
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Round Hill, VA
Posts: 1,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How's this for an example, from the statute being discussed:
" Model aircraft that do not meet these statutory requirements are nonetheless unmanned aircraft, and as such, are subject to all existing FAA regulations, as well as future rulemaking action, and the FAA intends to apply its regulations to such unmanned aircraft."
So I submit that something of considerable value has been taken away from modelers that are not CBO members (a condition in the statute for being excepted from regulation) that were excluded from AMA's advocacy, the freedom to fly as indies sans undue FAA regulation. We're talking about a large majority of modelers here, far outnumbering AMA members. Is that specific enough for you?
Good for you on flying in Canada. I presume Transport Canada doesn't require modelers to be MAAC members to fly model airplanes unfettered by such as "all existing FAA regulations."
" Model aircraft that do not meet these statutory requirements are nonetheless unmanned aircraft, and as such, are subject to all existing FAA regulations, as well as future rulemaking action, and the FAA intends to apply its regulations to such unmanned aircraft."
So I submit that something of considerable value has been taken away from modelers that are not CBO members (a condition in the statute for being excepted from regulation) that were excluded from AMA's advocacy, the freedom to fly as indies sans undue FAA regulation. We're talking about a large majority of modelers here, far outnumbering AMA members. Is that specific enough for you?
Good for you on flying in Canada. I presume Transport Canada doesn't require modelers to be MAAC members to fly model airplanes unfettered by such as "all existing FAA regulations."
08-20-2014, 05:36 PM
#753
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Round Hill, VA
Posts: 1,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK, but that page is complete nonsense. And it is not what this thread was originally about. Take the part about notifying an airport if you are flying within five miles. No law or regulation requires that, and they can't (yet) possibly penalize anyone for not doing it. The five-mile thing comes from the text of the 2012 law on FAA regulations, which purports to limit what they can regulate. It imposes no duties whatever on modelers. What we have to worry about is not this nonsense, but what the FAA will do when it writes the regulations, which will impose limits on us. So far, the only real clue about what those limits will be is their "interpretation," which is far from encouraging.
TG, I think you are mistaken about the FAA regulations. The "interpretation" explicitly states that the FAA will not regulate model aviators who obey section 336 of the modernization act. And, section 336 explicitly calls out the requirement to notify airports within 5 miles of your flying field.
08-20-2014, 05:53 PM
#754
My Feedback: (6)
TG, I think you are mistaken about the FAA regulations. The "interpretation" explicitly states that the FAA will not regulate model aviators who obey section 336 of the modernization act. And, section 336 explicitly calls out the requirement to notify airports within 5 miles of your flying field.
"If the model aircraft operator provides notice of forthcoming operations which are then not authorized by air traffic or objected to by the airport operator, the FAA expects the model aircraft operator will not conduct the proposed flights. The FAA would consider flying model aircraft over the objections of FAA air traffic or airport operators to be endangering the safety of the NAS. "
Is there any way to read those words as allowing people to fly models within five miles of an airport if the airport operator objects? The FAA is saying that we are not obeying section 336 if we fly within five miles of an airport over their objections. Now, it so happens that I don't think that's what section 336 means, and I suppose you don't either. But our opinions don't count: it's what the FAA thinks that matters.
08-20-2014, 05:54 PM
#755
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga,
CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CJ, you have lifted the quote out of context. When the full context is taken into account the quote has a totally different meaning. In this case, as long as you obey the rules of section 336(a)(1 through 5) you are flying a recreational model aircraft and are immune from FAA oversight. Pretty simple really. Except it depends on exactly what section 336 means to all involved.
08-20-2014, 06:13 PM
#756
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Round Hill, VA
Posts: 1,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, I didn't. The language is is plain enough for me, standalone. Without fantasizing, how does 'in context' change the meaning? If one is not in compliance with section 336(a)(1 through 5), which includes a requirement to be 'within the programming of" a CBO, you do not meet the conditions for being exempted from FAA regulations. What dependency on "what section 336 means to all involved" changes that meaning?
08-20-2014, 06:16 PM
#757
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Round Hill, VA
Posts: 1,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The "interpretation" relies on section 336 in requiring modelers to notify airports within five miles. It then addresses a matter that section 336 is silent about: what happens if the airport operator objects? It says that, if that happens, the FAA will treat flying models within five miles of the airport as endangering the airspace. I don't see how it could be any clearer. Here are the exact words:
"If the model aircraft operator provides notice of forthcoming operations which are then not authorized by air traffic or objected to by the airport operator, the FAA expects the model aircraft operator will not conduct the proposed flights. The FAA would consider flying model aircraft over the objections of FAA air traffic or airport operators to be endangering the safety of the NAS. "
Is there any way to read those words as allowing people to fly models within five miles of an airport if the airport operator objects? The FAA is saying that we are not obeying section 336 if we fly within five miles of an airport over their objections. Now, it so happens that I don't think that's what section 336 means, and I suppose you don't either. But our opinions don't count: it's what the FAA thinks that matters.
"If the model aircraft operator provides notice of forthcoming operations which are then not authorized by air traffic or objected to by the airport operator, the FAA expects the model aircraft operator will not conduct the proposed flights. The FAA would consider flying model aircraft over the objections of FAA air traffic or airport operators to be endangering the safety of the NAS. "
Is there any way to read those words as allowing people to fly models within five miles of an airport if the airport operator objects? The FAA is saying that we are not obeying section 336 if we fly within five miles of an airport over their objections. Now, it so happens that I don't think that's what section 336 means, and I suppose you don't either. But our opinions don't count: it's what the FAA thinks that matters.
08-20-2014, 06:31 PM
#758
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga,
CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, you said that the FAA was going to write regulations. Well, they will, but the regulations will not cover recreational model aircraft. We are immune from regulation as long as we obey the agreed upon interpretation of 336. The problem is, at present, there is no "agreed upon" interpretation. Isn't that what this thread is all about?
08-20-2014, 07:04 PM
#759
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Round Hill, VA
Posts: 1,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes (we are immune from (future) regulation), if 'we' means 'CBO members' and AMA is the only CBO, and except for the fact that FAA has already written the existing regulations they referred to. AMA marketeers think they are the only CBO, so their wildest dreams have been realized, hence my previous mention of 'crocodile tears' over the FAA interpretation here or in another thread. All I have to say about that is 'nature abhors a vacuum."
08-20-2014, 07:17 PM
#760
Fine. But why bring up this set of "recommendations" rather than the FAA's "interpretation," which seems to me to give us a line on what the regulations, when they are written, will say, unless the FAA changes its mind? The fact that their recommendations, which have no legal effect, speak only of notifying airports is not much comfort when their "interpretation," which is what they propose to put into the regulations, says the airports get a veto.. Perhaps I am taking the title of this thread too seriously, but I thought the subject was that "interpretation."
Furthermore, this recommendation is not the first time they have incorporated "line of sight" in the definition of recreational model flying. That, too, was in their "interpretation."
Furthermore, this recommendation is not the first time they have incorporated "line of sight" in the definition of recreational model flying. That, too, was in their "interpretation."
Neither represents a regulation at this point, if I understand the process.
08-20-2014, 07:48 PM
#761
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Cartersville, GA
Posts: 360
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK, but that page is complete nonsense. And it is not what this thread was originally about. Take the part about notifying an airport if you are flying within five miles. No law or regulation requires that, and they can't (yet) possibly penalize anyone for not doing it. The five-mile thing comes from the text of the 2012 law on FAA regulations, which purports to limit what they can regulate. It imposes no duties whatever on modelers. What we have to worry about is not this nonsense, but what the FAA will do when it writes the regulations, which will impose limits on us. So far, the only real clue about what those limits will be is their "interpretation," which is far from encouraging.
A cop can arrest someone for a crime, but he/she cannot pass down a consequence. Only a Court can do that. However, the cop can cause the suspect to be in jail for one or more nights, and the arrest can compel the suspect to spend tens of thousands of dollars defending himself, before a not guilty verdict is handed down.
By that same token, the FAA can (and has) issued fines to model aircraft pilots. If the pilot refuses to pay, the FAA can do nothing, aside from referring the matter to a federal Court, and thus compelling the model aircraft pilot to spend time and money defending himself. This is not an easy or painless process, as Mr. Pirker could could attest.
Given the current example, the FAA can (and very well may) fine a pilot for flying within 5 miles of an airport. Good news: The law is on our side, so I am almost 100% certain that the pilot would ultimately win the case in Court. Bad news: the "victory" will come only after the pilots spends a great deal amount of money and time. Having the law on our side is not good enough. We need to fight to minimize the chance that the FAA will attempt to take this actin in the first place!
Model Aircraft Operations Limits
According to the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 as (1) the aircraft is flown strictly for hobby or recreational use; (2) the aircraft is operated in accordance with a community-based set of safety guidelines and within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization; (3) the aircraft is limited to not more than 55 pounds unless otherwise certified through a design, construction, inspection, flight test, and operational safety program administered by a community-based organization; (4) the aircraft is operated in a manner that does not interfere with and gives way to any manned aircraft; (5) when flown within 5 miles of an airport, the operator of the aircraft provides the airport operator and the airport air traffic control tower…with prior notice of the operation; and (6) the aircraft is flown within visual line sight of the operator.
These are not FAR's YET There is nothing that says anything about getting Approval to fly when with in 5 miles of a controled airport with an active control tower. Just " prior notice of the operation"
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Oc...2f7545fd?hl=en
We fly here for the last 44 years and have never had so much as any conflicts. In the summer when we are surrounded by 10' corn, we station a person by the Wind Tee, that watches for aircraft coming from the hangers to the north and departing on runway 18.
According to the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 as (1) the aircraft is flown strictly for hobby or recreational use; (2) the aircraft is operated in accordance with a community-based set of safety guidelines and within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization; (3) the aircraft is limited to not more than 55 pounds unless otherwise certified through a design, construction, inspection, flight test, and operational safety program administered by a community-based organization; (4) the aircraft is operated in a manner that does not interfere with and gives way to any manned aircraft; (5) when flown within 5 miles of an airport, the operator of the aircraft provides the airport operator and the airport air traffic control tower…with prior notice of the operation; and (6) the aircraft is flown within visual line sight of the operator.
These are not FAR's YET There is nothing that says anything about getting Approval to fly when with in 5 miles of a controled airport with an active control tower. Just " prior notice of the operation"
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Oc...2f7545fd?hl=en
We fly here for the last 44 years and have never had so much as any conflicts. In the summer when we are surrounded by 10' corn, we station a person by the Wind Tee, that watches for aircraft coming from the hangers to the north and departing on runway 18.
08-20-2014, 08:13 PM
#762
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga,
CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The FAA absolutely cannot require us to join a CBO. We must only follow the safety guidelines of a "recognized' CBO. The AMA gets nothing out of this and, in fact if they wish recognition as a CBO, will be forced to publish their safety guidelines for all to read and follow, member or not.
08-20-2014, 08:59 PM
#763
Well, they will, but the regulations will not cover recreational model aircraft. We are immune from regulation as long as we obey the agreed upon interpretation of 336.
08-21-2014, 09:33 AM
#764
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Orange County CA
Posts: 1,170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
336 also states that the FAA CANNOT PROMULGATE ANY RULE OR REGULATION REGARDING A MODEL AIRCRAFT OR AN AIRCRAFT BEING DEVELOPED AS A MODEL AIRCRAFT.
08-21-2014, 09:48 AM
#765
My Feedback: (198)
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: El Reno, OK
Posts: 6,707
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yup. That's why the FAA Interpretive Rule says FAR 91 will apply, as it is the EXISTING 'catch all' (among hosts of other FARs) that already are on the books that CAN, and likely WILL be applied to what we and they call model aircraft, once said model aircraft operates outside the rules of the CBO. In other words, the definition of "model aircraft" really only applies as long as the operator isn't violating anything. Once a violator, then FAA says they can (and probably will) throw a much larger chunk of the FARs at the violator.
08-21-2014, 10:02 AM
#766
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Cartersville, GA
Posts: 360
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yup. That's why the FAA Interpretive Rule says FAR 91 will apply, as it is the EXISTING 'catch all' (among hosts of other FARs) that already are on the books that CAN, and likely WILL be applied to what we and they call model aircraft, once said model aircraft operates outside the rules of the CBO. In other words, the definition of "model aircraft" really only applies as long as the operator isn't violating anything. Once a violator, then FAA says they can (and probably will) throw a much larger chunk of the FARs at the violator.
08-21-2014, 10:28 AM
#767
They are working from the concept that if you are doing this for money you are commercial. Of course their interpretation of "for money" or for "business" differs from what they impose on full scale aircraft. I have a problem with some of that. A farmer using a camera mounted on a quad may be using it for commercial purposes but he is not being paid. It is for his own use. I don't see a problem with that as long as it is flown line of sight.
As for protection of the national air space, well, I want them to do that. The question will be, what is reasonable or necessary to do that. Right now they seem to be heavily focused on the area around airports. Well, when I am on that airplane coming in from LA, I want to be confident that nothing is going to cause a problem with that aircraft that has me in it.
I am concerned, and I would guess they are concerned about some idiot who is trying to set a speed record flying at 1000 feet across the landing pattern. That is something I would want to discourage.
Look, I hate regulation as much as anyone but there is a place for it. Traffic lights at an intersection are a pain, but they are necessary to the safe conduct of traffic. And 60 mph speed limit does not mean you can do 60 mph in snow and ice. The term "conditions permitting" exist in those laws in most states.
I submitted two comment letters to the Interpretation of the special rule for model aircraft. Two of my suggestions would appear to have been accepted or were consistent with their thinking, not that it was MY note that did it.
* They have recognized AMA as a "community based organization" as outlined by Congress.
* They have confirmed that model aircraft are flown line of sight.
I endorse both of these points.
That does not necessarily say there can't be other community based organizations. Nothing mandates this is exclusive to AMA.
That does not say that you could not fly FPV. It just means that the command pilot has to have the plane in line of sight and under his control. As I read it, you could fly FPV on a buddy box giving the FPV pilot control with the trainer switch as "co-pilot", just as we do for training. But that is just my interpretation of their interpretation. And, I would endorse that as well.
If we assume that the command pilot can see the aircraft .5 mile out then the FPV pilot has a 1 mile diameter circle in which to fly. If the command pilot can see the plane 1/4 mile out then the FPV pilot has a 1/2 mile circle in which to fly, barring any other restrictions, "conditions permitting".
That is how I read it.
As for protection of the national air space, well, I want them to do that. The question will be, what is reasonable or necessary to do that. Right now they seem to be heavily focused on the area around airports. Well, when I am on that airplane coming in from LA, I want to be confident that nothing is going to cause a problem with that aircraft that has me in it.
I am concerned, and I would guess they are concerned about some idiot who is trying to set a speed record flying at 1000 feet across the landing pattern. That is something I would want to discourage.
Look, I hate regulation as much as anyone but there is a place for it. Traffic lights at an intersection are a pain, but they are necessary to the safe conduct of traffic. And 60 mph speed limit does not mean you can do 60 mph in snow and ice. The term "conditions permitting" exist in those laws in most states.
I submitted two comment letters to the Interpretation of the special rule for model aircraft. Two of my suggestions would appear to have been accepted or were consistent with their thinking, not that it was MY note that did it.
* They have recognized AMA as a "community based organization" as outlined by Congress.
* They have confirmed that model aircraft are flown line of sight.
I endorse both of these points.
That does not necessarily say there can't be other community based organizations. Nothing mandates this is exclusive to AMA.
That does not say that you could not fly FPV. It just means that the command pilot has to have the plane in line of sight and under his control. As I read it, you could fly FPV on a buddy box giving the FPV pilot control with the trainer switch as "co-pilot", just as we do for training. But that is just my interpretation of their interpretation. And, I would endorse that as well.
If we assume that the command pilot can see the aircraft .5 mile out then the FPV pilot has a 1 mile diameter circle in which to fly. If the command pilot can see the plane 1/4 mile out then the FPV pilot has a 1/2 mile circle in which to fly, barring any other restrictions, "conditions permitting".
That is how I read it.
Last edited by aeajr; 08-21-2014 at 10:37 AM. Reason: fixed typos
08-21-2014, 10:48 AM
#768
The FAA absolutely cannot require us to join a CBO. We must only follow the safety guidelines of a "recognized' CBO. The AMA gets nothing out of this and, in fact if they wish recognition as a CBO, will be forced to publish their safety guidelines for all to read and follow, member or not.
The FAA like the IRS does do a lot of things they aren't supposed to do. If they say U will have to have a "Federal sUAV License" to fly toy airplanes, off the reservation, or join a CBO ie AMA which do U plan on doing. There are no absolutes when it comes to the FAA. That is Except they are the ABSOLUTE AUTHORITY over who is allowed to fly what and where in the NAS. If U don't believe it just ask'em. Call your local GADO. (General Aviation District Office).
08-21-2014, 10:51 AM
#769
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Apopka,
FL
Posts: 1,367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The FAA has always has had the trump card
And who decides when a "model aircraft" endangers the NAS? The FAA of course.
SEC. 336. SPECIAL RULE FOR MODEL AIRCRAFT.
(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.
(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.
08-21-2014, 10:53 AM
#770
My Feedback: (6)
As I read it, you could fly FPV on a buddy box giving the FPV pilot control with the trainer switch as "co-pilot", just as we do for training. But that is just my interpretation of their interpretation. And, I would endorse that as well.
08-21-2014, 11:28 AM
#771
Have you actually read the document you are commenting on? The FAA explicitly rejects this "interpretation" by defining the operator as the person who is manipulating the controls of the aircraft, and requiring the operator to view the aircraft with natural vision, augmented only by glasses or contact lenses. A person manipüulating the controls while seeing what one sees using FPV would not meet these requirements. These requirements have been discussed in this thread at some length.
This is what all of us should be commenting on to the FAA ... They allow an instrument pilot (Even an Instrument student) to fly by reference
to the instruments, ie Under a hood, in VFR with a qualified (Not necessarily instrument rated) safety pilot. So to should we be
allowed to fly FPV with a safety pilot not necessary but advisable on a buddy box, that can take over if need be.
I believe this is one of the major things we should be commenting on to the FAA.
Last edited by HoundDog; 08-21-2014 at 11:31 AM.
08-21-2014, 01:00 PM
#773
My Feedback: (198)
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: El Reno, OK
Posts: 6,707
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Botched or not, the likelihood that any revision would be entertained by a CONGRESS who can't handle what they NEED to handle is about as likely as all those FPV and UAV equipment purchasers getting informed of the FAA rules. Probly ain't gonna happen in our lifetime.
08-21-2014, 01:05 PM
#774
My Feedback: (58)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: here
Posts: 5,413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Botched or not, the likelihood that any revision would be entertained by a CONGRESS who can't handle what they NEED to handle is about as likely as all those FPV and UAV equipment purchasers getting informed of the FAA rules. Probly ain't gonna happen in our lifetime.
08-21-2014, 01:41 PM
#775
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Orange County CA
Posts: 1,170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NOTHING botched in 336. Nothing wrong with this. The FAA can enforce the regulations that are on the books. This does not mean they can create new regulations against Model Aviation to enforce the safety of the NAS.
The FAA has always has had the trump card
SEC. 336. SPECIAL RULE FOR MODEL AIRCRAFT.
(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.
And who decides when a "model aircraft" endangers the NAS? The FAA of course.
SEC. 336. SPECIAL RULE FOR MODEL AIRCRAFT.
(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.
And who decides when a "model aircraft" endangers the NAS? The FAA of course.
Last edited by TimJ; 08-21-2014 at 02:03 PM.