NorfolkSouthern

Here is a link to the article:

http://gizmodo.com/report-faa-will-r...-to-1662563404

Note that this is currently for commercial use only, and does not apply to recreational flying. A drone must stay under 400', fly only in daylight, and cannot be flown beyond sight. Will all this eventually apply to model planes? It possibly could, if there is ANY money exchange or type of compensation involved.

JohnShe

And, your point being?

NorfolkSouthern

My point? Maybe it's a way of showing some optimism for people interested in flying their warbirds and scale models for recreation. But keep in mind, this could also mean that a DJI phantom can also now qualify as a model airplane, since it would be a model of a drone if it's not flown for commercial use. Myself? I wouldn't mind having a decommissioned ScanEagle (40 pounds, gas engine, well within the size and weight limit of a gas-powered model plane), stripped of most of its gear and equipped with standard RC receiver and servos, as a warbird. I'm sure it would work fine if a landing gear were installed so it can be flown off a standard RC club runway. Why not?

JohnShe

I don't have a clue as to what a DJI phantom or a ScanEagle are. I presume that they are sold in local hobby shops or toy stores. As such they can qualify as is as recreational model airplanes according the definition in section 336. And, can be flown, as is, for recreational purposes as long as the operators follow reasonable safety guidelines

In either case, commercial drone operations are of no direct interest to me, so I don't really care what regulations the FAA cooks up for them.

ira d

I think at some point this could apply in some way to recreational flying no one can say for sure it wont, The very fact that the FAA is concerned about money
changing hands in connection with our models shows they don't intend to leave recreational operation totally alone.

NorfolkSouthern

A very good point. The FAA said that they had no intention of being involved with model aviation. But then again, nobody really thought that the Gun Control Act of 1934 would become law, either. I guess we will have to wait and see what happens by the end of December.

JohnShe

Let's see now, the Gun Control Act of 1934 was a desperate attempt to control gangland violence leftover from the prohibition era. The FAA Modernization act of 2012 includes direction for the FAA to integrate commercial and public service drones (sUAS and UAS) into the NAS. Alright, how are they related? Well the gun act created the ATF to restrict and control the type of firearms that may be bought, sold and used in the US. Since the courts approved it on second amendment grounds, that means that no one of sound mind and body is being deprived of their right to serve in a well regulated militia.

On the other hand, the FAA act has a rather tiny but important (to us anyway) section that tells the FAA not to regulate model airplanes that are flown for recreational purpose. But, squeezed into that section is a statement that reminds the FAA that they still have control over any idiot, miscreant or sociopath who might endanger the NAS. Now I admit that might seem to be a fine line to some, but not to me.

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

Ummm... government reach arounds that you enjoy so much???

Hossfly

Now that the "pilot's license" is going to be a thing, think on this: A pilot license is worthless without a current medical certificate. Does that mean if one cannot qualify with a current medical, then the pilot's license is also worthless for aviation purposes?
Will the "FUZZ" (FAA) also start requiring certain "TYPE RATINGS" such as those required on various "Pilot Licenses"? I have an "Airline Transport Pilot" (ATP) license, yet it has not been used for years. There are type ratings on the license such as B-727, Lear Jet, etc. plus certain Commercial privileges. Right now, I seriously doubt that the license could even qualify for a light aircraft medical.

SO, just where will the almighty FAA go with their new law? IMO, there is no limit. I would be very satisfied if AMA could satisfy the FAA with a limit on AMA RC Drones limited to nothing longer in any direction more than 20 inches, nothing commercial use, and fully in line-of-sight at ALL times. AMA folks could play with their toys and the FAA could go wipe butts of Commercial Drone activities to their heart's delight.

JohnShe

Well done, you have lifted my words out of context and edited them in a futile effort to give it new meaning and accomplished nothing. thanks for the morning chuckle. Now, what is your point?

JohnShe

Since it is only for commercial drones, why do you care? Have you forgotten that a valid drivers license counts as adequate medical certification for a sports pilot certification? That being the case, what is to stop the FAA from setting the same standard for commercial drone licenses or certification?

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

I haven't edited... I just repeated a few sentences of your subliminal line.

JohnShe

That's what you say. LOL!

franklin_m

I think what will be interesting here is whether FAA considers flights by sponsored pilots to be commercial operations. If a full scale pilot accepts free or vastly discounted motor oil, or free or vastly discounted radios, or money in exchange for demonstrating that equipment or putting advertising on his aircraft, it requires a commercial license. Receive free or greatly discounted servos, radios, aircraft etc. in exchange for advertising and/or demonstration, and how will FAA interpret that?

rgburrill

franklin_m, while your example certainly raises an issue I think the more important one is the pilots who "demo" aircraft and systems for the sole purpose of selling them. Take Pete, for example, from Banana Hobby. He is an employee (if not an owner) and the primary reason for all the youtube videos is free advertising. Now he stands to make money out of his flaying and that, IMHO, should be considered commercial, not hobby related. OTOH, a national pilot competing in competition is doing so for his own pleasure, not to make money. I see nothing wrong with a company like Futaba providing support and getting some advertising along with it. That is the way it has been for ages.
What a lot of you guys keep glossing over is that RC aircraft have been "regulated" for years. It's just their "regulation" has been in the form of AMA guidelines WITH THE FAA PERMISSION. 400 feet elevation and line-of sight are only new to those who don't accept the "restrictions on fun" from the AMA. You don't have, and never have had, a RIGHT to fly that model any way, any where, any time you want.
BTW, medicals for a drone operator are absurd - why even bring up such nonsense. No one is saying you have to get a private pilots license to fly an RC drone, just a drone pilot license. And it seems to me that's not such a bid thing because it opens to door to a structured way of increasing levels of "drone" operation to things like non-line of sight. It could even be used to distinguish between full commercial use such as movie shots and minor commercial use such as real-estate ads. After all, a private license needs a commercial license to carry people for hire, just like a cab driver.

JohnShe

The FAA interpretation seems to be confusing over this issue, I brought it up in on of my comments. I hope that they pay attention. There is a large and profitable industry that supports the hobby of recreational model aviation. I hope that the FAA understands that this, even as a commercial activity, is for the hobby and no other purpose. In that case, anything done for payment, such as testing or demonstrating model aircraft and their components should be recognized as a hobby activity. If they don't, it will really put a crimp in the industry. But, we will see.


Right, the medical thing is a joke.

BobbyMcGee

Ahh. It's only an article written by some uneducated writer who knows nothing other than gossip.

But to be really stupid about this whole thing, I suppose having a Drone Certificate automatically makes you a Commercial Pilot with a Commercial Rating???

How about getting a license for IFR Drone Activity? And what about Jet powered Drone licenses? Or multi-engine drone type ratings? I want to apply for them!

JohnShe

Right on!

Ludicrous. LOL!

Any one or all of those may be a real possibility. The military is flying GPS and jet Powered already. Multi-engine weight lifters may already be on the way. Don't laugh till you find out that it is impossible, which it isn't.

Geek1945

Stop flying around airports and congested urban areas, each time a pilot sees a model it's likely to get reported, all a pilot needs to do is advise the nearest FAA facility via AC radio. BTW, just who has more credibility a FAA certified pilot or RC flyer? This is like handing ammo to the FAA giving one more bullet to present to courts and Congress.

If you see someone obviously flying where they shouldn't pass the word they are putting all flying modelers in jeopardy of governmental controls. Since just about anyone can now buy an RTF RC aircraft today without any knowledge of where to safely fly. The problem is likely to get worse before getting better. FAA Retiree

Silent-AV8R

That is a valid question. Based on what I've been told the FAA was surprised by that twist. They also did not grasp the way models are designed, developed and marketed. I'm betting that gets sorted out, and unless somebody in one of those situations does something remarkably stupid with their model I do not think there will be any issues.

As far as a license, right now all the FAA has required of those Section 333 permits they've issued is a PPL. I would not be surprised to see that at the start in the NPRM. But at the very least I'm sure they want to make sure that people flying sUAS for hire or compensation know the basic rules of the road. That should not be a surprise to anyone.

FAA has also been clear with their field folks on how to approach enforcement when a model is involved. You can read that policy here:

http://www.faa.gov/regulations_polic...mentID/1024967

franklin_m

That's generally aligned with the way they enforce full scale, educate first, track to ensure continued compliance, etc. As for the sponsored pilots, I'm generally opposed to treating them any differently than full scale pilots who receive compensation for flying. I think from a policy standpoint it's best to keep that as a clear bright line. Though that's just my opinion and, I suspect, an unpopular one.

ira d

I read the policy and it seems fair enough, I wonder if that policy was followed in the cases where the FAA has been trying to fine people that we have been hearing about lately.

Granpooba

My Feedback: (5)

I think this whole subject matter is just a lot of DUNG !!

Retired ATP !

JohnShe

Well, that's a nice way of putting it. But then, what would we do for laughs?

Hircflyer

From the way I read it, and other posts, it appears that to operate a UAV in commercial service one would need to be a certificated commercial airplane pilot. That seems to be the rub, since it takes 250 hours plus a checkride in an airplane in order to fly your UAV. Obviously written by an FAA minion who does not have a clue --