FAA will require a pilot's license to fly a drone
11-30-2014, 09:00 PM
#51
1. Federal Aviation Act of 1958 established the FAA and gave them the authority to regulate "aircraft", and sections 102(b) & 102(e) discussed safety
2. FAA publishes the Federal Air Regulations as a consequence of their authority under the law.
3. 14 CFR 91.113(a) does not exclude model aircraft from regulation
4. 14 CFR 91.13(a) states “No person may operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.”
Thus FAA has clear authority to regulate in any US airspace to ensure that "No person may operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.” In the NTSB's own words: "The Administrator’s authority to ensure aviation safety largely rests upon the Administrator’s statutory responsibility to regulate the operation of “aircraft.” 12 Title 49 U.S.C. § 40102(a)(6) defines “aircraft” as “any contrivance invented, used, or designed to navigate, or fly in, the air.” Similarly, 14 C.F.R. § 1.1 defines “aircraft” for purposes of the FARs, including § 91.13, as “a device that is used or intended to be used for flight in the air.” The definitions are clear on their face. Even if we were to accept the law judge’s characterization of respondent’s aircraft, allegedly used at altitudes up to 1,500 feet AGL for commercial purposes, as a “model aircraft,” the definitions on their face do not exclude even a “model aircraft” from the meaning of “aircraft.”
11-30-2014, 09:36 PM
#52
OTOH, if one feels that that it's okay to drive a golf cart on the interstate highways when it doesn't involve commerce, who am I to discourage him from doing so?
11-30-2014, 09:41 PM
#53
Unfortunately, the NTSB judge disagrees with you. Navigable airspace is not germane, what's germane to the discussion is safety impact.
This has not yet been ruled on. The FAA act gave the FAA the right to regulate navigable airspace. They never regulated model airplanes, or UAV's for pay. So its a whole nother ball game not addressed in any of those regulations. Being an aircraft has nothing to do with it. After all they said they had no reason to regulate ultralights in the same manner as full scale.
BTW I am still researching the ruling and there are a few discrepancies and some of the arguments were never ruled on.
I plan to start a new topic on the ruling and merits, It will be fact based on what was or not said.
Last edited by Sport_Pilot; 11-30-2014 at 09:43 PM.
11-30-2014, 10:10 PM
#54
.
This has not yet been ruled on. The FAA act gave the FAA the right to regulate navigable airspace. They never regulated model airplanes, or UAV's for pay. So its a whole nother ball game not addressed in any of those regulations. Being an aircraft has nothing to do with it.
This has not yet been ruled on. The FAA act gave the FAA the right to regulate navigable airspace. They never regulated model airplanes, or UAV's for pay. So its a whole nother ball game not addressed in any of those regulations. Being an aircraft has nothing to do with it.
Good luck with that.
11-30-2014, 11:40 PM
#55
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: valley springs, CA
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The only way the feds can be judge , jury and executioner is to license the drone pilots. The drone operators are now under there jurisdiction, no grey areas this time. The cats already out of the bag. You can now buy a off the shelf , programmable ordnance delivery system capable of pin point accuracy. The first time it's used domestically will be the end of RC. I always said RC was a passing fad and we would eventually go back to U- Control
12-01-2014, 12:16 AM
#56
Thread Starter
The only way the feds can be judge , jury and executioner is to license the drone pilots. The drone operators are now under there jurisdiction, no grey areas this time. The cats already out of the bag. You can now buy a off the shelf , programmable ordnance delivery system capable of pin point accuracy. The first time it's used domestically will be the end of RC. I always said RC was a passing fad and we would eventually go back to U- Control
12-01-2014, 07:43 AM
#58
I don't claim to know all on the quad technology.. But if Amazon IS given permission to do it. Is it even POSSIBLE to have a fleet of 50,000 drones properly maintained,charged, and flying? That just seems like compete talk to me ... It would take a bigger army of workers to deliver nationally that way , then with trucks wouldn't it?
Last edited by foodstick; 12-01-2014 at 09:08 AM.
12-01-2014, 08:07 AM
#59
12-01-2014, 12:13 PM
#61
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Round Hill, VA
Posts: 1,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, it's just more trash on the roadside to me.
12-01-2014, 12:56 PM
#62
Seem simple, doesn't it?
Maybe if AMA et al were not crying Wolf! about FAA wanting to regulate model airplanes, it might come across that what FAA really wants to control is the airspace, and so safety of operations therein. Regulating safety of navigation in the airspace isn't the same as regulating any particular sorts of 'aircraft.' Model aircraft, drones (dromes in another thread) kites, cannonballs and pumpkins flying in some parts of the airspace that have been segregated out for operations by particular types of aircraft are potentially obstructions to safe navigation by the designated types. An analogy that comes to mind is rules of the road. In the interest of highway safety DMV doesn't allow golf carts, skateboards or bicycles on the freeways. That doesn't mean they need or have any nefarious desire to regulate golf carts, skateboards or bicycles.
OTOH, if one feels that that it's okay to drive a golf cart on the interstate highways when it doesn't involve commerce, who am I to discourage him from doing so?
Maybe if AMA et al were not crying Wolf! about FAA wanting to regulate model airplanes, it might come across that what FAA really wants to control is the airspace, and so safety of operations therein. Regulating safety of navigation in the airspace isn't the same as regulating any particular sorts of 'aircraft.' Model aircraft, drones (dromes in another thread) kites, cannonballs and pumpkins flying in some parts of the airspace that have been segregated out for operations by particular types of aircraft are potentially obstructions to safe navigation by the designated types. An analogy that comes to mind is rules of the road. In the interest of highway safety DMV doesn't allow golf carts, skateboards or bicycles on the freeways. That doesn't mean they need or have any nefarious desire to regulate golf carts, skateboards or bicycles.
OTOH, if one feels that that it's okay to drive a golf cart on the interstate highways when it doesn't involve commerce, who am I to discourage him from doing so?
12-01-2014, 06:47 PM
#63
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: South Florida
Posts: 375
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anything with a radio can be modified to function as a drone, whether it be a plank or an egg beater. Fixed or rotary wing, multiple or single. Gas, glow, or electric. If there is a will, there is a way. Outlaw quads, and there will be a work around. One incident, and the RC hobby is toast. I got out of it, and haven't renewed my AMA insurance in over five years (as of this writing).
Now the FAA and NTSB are going to be invading our kitchens and clamping down on the Pillsbury Dough Boy, Martha Stewart, and Rachel Ray too! We're all doomed now!!!
We're going to need licenses to operate egg beaters and the price of birthday cakes are going to soar!
And do you know how upset the pirates are going to be now that their wooden planks are going to be regulated by the FAA. You better not sleep anymore. Those upset pirates will be looking for you.
12-01-2014, 07:06 PM
#64
Thread Starter
Damn! What the hell made you open your mouth about wood planks and egg beaters???
Now the FAA and NTSB are going to be invading our kitchens and clamping down on the Pillsbury Dough Boy, Martha Stewart, and Rachel Ray too! We're all doomed now!!!
We're going to need licenses to operate egg beaters and the price of birthday cakes are going to soar!
And do you know how upset the pirates are going to be now that their wooden planks are going to be regulated by the FAA. You better not sleep anymore. Those upset pirates will be looking for you.
Now the FAA and NTSB are going to be invading our kitchens and clamping down on the Pillsbury Dough Boy, Martha Stewart, and Rachel Ray too! We're all doomed now!!!
We're going to need licenses to operate egg beaters and the price of birthday cakes are going to soar!
And do you know how upset the pirates are going to be now that their wooden planks are going to be regulated by the FAA. You better not sleep anymore. Those upset pirates will be looking for you.
12-01-2014, 07:09 PM
#65
My Feedback: (155)
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Colorado Springs ,
CO
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
We teach on a military reservation in restricted airspace or over in theater where it is not governed but is controlled by whomever is in charge of the local airspace, usually the TOC.
I believe that something needs to be done to control those who think it's fun to just buy a drone and see how far or high they can go, giving no thought to what may be flying above them. We teach our people to be diligent about Airspace Management and ALWAYS have permission to launch to ensure the airspace is clear.
So, yes I believe that the FAA will require some sort of medical and license for operators in the near future. I hope not but unfortunately believe it's just around the bend...
12-01-2014, 08:42 PM
#66
We're going to need licenses to operate egg beaters and the price of birthday cakes are going to soar!
12-02-2014, 05:13 AM
#68
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Round Hill, VA
Posts: 1,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
12-02-2014, 05:40 AM
#69
I described interstate not intrastate commerce and they will only be below 400 feet on the property of the person who made the order. It is against civil law to fly below FAA minimums over other property without the property owners permision so they would have many legal issues so this would have to be in navigable airspace.
12-02-2014, 06:09 AM
#70
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Apopka,
FL
Posts: 1,367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So I guess the FAA will also require a license for kite flying? That will be a hoot to watch......... FAA enforcer at the local park arresting kids.
BTW you guys do know that the FAA does have regulations for kites,
Subpart B - Moored Balloons and Kites
Source: Docket No. 1580, 28 FR 6722 June 29, 1963, unless otherwise noted. 101.11 Applicability. This subpart applies to the operation of moored balloons and kites.However, a person operating a moored balloon or kite within arestricted area must comply only with �101.19 and with additionallimitations imposed by the using or controlling agency, as appropriate. 101.13 Operating limitations. (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, no person may operate a moored balloon or kite- (1) Less than 500 feet from the base of any cloud; (2) More than 500 feet above the surface of the earth; (3) From an area where the ground visibility is less than three miles; or (4) Within five miles of the boundary of any airport. (b) Paragraph (a) of this section does not apply to the operation of a balloon or kite below the top of any structure and within 250 feet of it, if that shielded operation does not obscure any lighting on the structure
Interesting though that kites get 500' while a lot here talk about 400' for model aircraft that can "see and avoid". And what about kites in a MTR?
BTW you guys do know that the FAA does have regulations for kites,
Subpart B - Moored Balloons and Kites
Source: Docket No. 1580, 28 FR 6722 June 29, 1963, unless otherwise noted. 101.11 Applicability. This subpart applies to the operation of moored balloons and kites.However, a person operating a moored balloon or kite within arestricted area must comply only with �101.19 and with additionallimitations imposed by the using or controlling agency, as appropriate. 101.13 Operating limitations. (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, no person may operate a moored balloon or kite- (1) Less than 500 feet from the base of any cloud; (2) More than 500 feet above the surface of the earth; (3) From an area where the ground visibility is less than three miles; or (4) Within five miles of the boundary of any airport. (b) Paragraph (a) of this section does not apply to the operation of a balloon or kite below the top of any structure and within 250 feet of it, if that shielded operation does not obscure any lighting on the structure
Interesting though that kites get 500' while a lot here talk about 400' for model aircraft that can "see and avoid". And what about kites in a MTR?
12-02-2014, 06:49 AM
#71
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Round Hill, VA
Posts: 1,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So I guess the FAA will also require a license for kite flying? That will be a hoot to watch......... FAA enforcer at the local park arresting kids.
BTW you guys do know that the FAA does have regulations for kites,
Subpart B - Moored Balloons and Kites
Source: Docket No. 1580, 28 FR 6722 June 29, 1963, unless otherwise noted. 101.11 Applicability. This subpart applies to the operation of moored balloons and kites.However, a person operating a moored balloon or kite within arestricted area must comply only with �101.19 and with additionallimitations imposed by the using or controlling agency, as appropriate. 101.13 Operating limitations. (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, no person may operate a moored balloon or kite- (1) Less than 500 feet from the base of any cloud; (2) More than 500 feet above the surface of the earth; (3) From an area where the ground visibility is less than three miles; or (4) Within five miles of the boundary of any airport. (b) Paragraph (a) of this section does not apply to the operation of a balloon or kite below the top of any structure and within 250 feet of it, if that shielded operation does not obscure any lighting on the structure
Interesting though that kites get 500' while a lot here talk about 400' for model aircraft that can "see and avoid". And what about kites in a MTR?
BTW you guys do know that the FAA does have regulations for kites,
Subpart B - Moored Balloons and Kites
Source: Docket No. 1580, 28 FR 6722 June 29, 1963, unless otherwise noted. 101.11 Applicability. This subpart applies to the operation of moored balloons and kites.However, a person operating a moored balloon or kite within arestricted area must comply only with �101.19 and with additionallimitations imposed by the using or controlling agency, as appropriate. 101.13 Operating limitations. (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, no person may operate a moored balloon or kite- (1) Less than 500 feet from the base of any cloud; (2) More than 500 feet above the surface of the earth; (3) From an area where the ground visibility is less than three miles; or (4) Within five miles of the boundary of any airport. (b) Paragraph (a) of this section does not apply to the operation of a balloon or kite below the top of any structure and within 250 feet of it, if that shielded operation does not obscure any lighting on the structure
Interesting though that kites get 500' while a lot here talk about 400' for model aircraft that can "see and avoid". And what about kites in a MTR?
12-02-2014, 07:37 AM
#72
With all due respect , and not to let the air out of your "the sky is falling" thoughts , much ........You have Boston Massachusetts checking in there to tell you that YES SIR !!!! , , , , IN FACT , , , there HAVE been "Incidents" already , and as of this date the RC hobby is very well much alive !!!!
You may have heard of a nasty bit of domestic terrorism called "The Boston Marathon Bombing" ???? This did , 100% MOST CERTAINLY , happen with the use of devices scavenged from some RC cars . That IS about as "Close to home" as such negative association can get and yet we sane and safe hobbyists are still here . ALSO ,
Did you hear of the jerk terrorist wannabe from Ashland Massachusetts who the FBI busted trying to figure a way to weaponize RC planes to be used in attacks ? Rezwan Ferdus or some such (ever notice ya never see terrorists named Murphy
) was his name and he too made national headlines . So there ya have it , right off of the top of my head , two incidents , one with deaths resulting and one in the planning stages , that brought negative attention to our hobby and we still survive ! Yes , I have the same basic healthy distrust of our government as the next guy , but I also have hope in the fact that most sane folks would no more blame the entire RC hobby for a few terrorist A holes than would blame the major automakers for the problem of drunk driving .....
12-02-2014, 08:02 AM
#73
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Apopka,
FL
Posts: 1,367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
4. ADDITIONS TO OPERATING IN THE DC FRZ 14 CFR SECTION 93.341. ALL OPERATIONS ARE PROHIBITED WITHIN THE
FRZ (INCLUDING TRANSIT) UNLESS OUTLINED BELOW:
A. THE FOLLOWING OPERATIONS ARE NOT AUTHORIZED WITHIN THE DC FRZ: FLIGHT TRAINING, AEROBATIC FLIGHT,
PRACTICE INSTRUMENT APPROACHES, GLIDER OPERATIONS, PARACHUTE OPERATIONS, ULTRA LIGHT, HANG GLIDING,
BALLOON OPERATIONS, TETHERED BALLOONS, AGRICULTURE/CROP DUSTING, ANIMAL POPULATION CONTROL FLIGHT
OPERATIONS, BANNER TOWING OPERATIONS, MAINTENANCE TEST FLIGHTS, MODEL AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS, MODEL
ROCKETRY, FLOAT PLANE OPERATIONS, UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS (UAS) AND AIRCRAFT/HELICOPTERS
OPERATING FROM A SHIP OR PRIVATE/CORPORATE YACHT.
12-02-2014, 08:07 AM
#74
My Feedback: (21)
Everybody chill out, in the context that the feds and the media use the word drone we can substitute FPV and quad copter. I think it will all come down to having to have a special license to operate FPV. Without the video camera aspect of FPV all the problems go away. Simple solution is to require a license to operate. Of course there will be people operating without a license so you will see the FAA coming down hard on any one caught without one. Our club has taken the position to not allow quad copters at our field and I can see that becoming commonplace at AMA fields. According to one of our members who flies FPV FCC rules currently require a license to broadcast on the video channels he uses and he is required to transmit his call sign embedded into the video so he can be traced. Of course he follows the rules unlike the idiots who make news.
Larry
Larry
12-02-2014, 09:04 AM
#75
My Feedback: (80)
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: clute, TX
Posts: 141
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Genie is out of the bottle, I don't think that anyone, let alone our Government can put it back in. The laws can be passed and most likely will but I really doubt that they can and will be enforced at a local hobbyist level. Commercial is a different story and really of little relevance to the hobbyist, imho. If they were able to muster even a quarter of the success as the war on drugs I would be surprised.
