RC Jets Discuss RC jets in this forum plus rc turbines and ducted fan power systems

FAAs new rules interpretation

Reply
Old 06-28-2014, 08:08 PM
  #76
ace_drummond
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Parker, CO
Posts: 19
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Does anyone know for sure whether this letter is currently binding and in effect immediately or subject to review after the comment period?
ace_drummond is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2014, 02:44 AM
  #77
Bob_B
 
Bob_B's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Bluegrass State of Mind
Posts: 3,571
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by afterburner View Post
Good points Wes. I can already hear Cuomo and Malloy calling for a ban on "high capacity" lipo's! "You don't need 5000 milliamps to fly a drone!!"

Marty
Didn't NY drop that recently and now a large Coke is like 64oz!!!
Bob_B is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2014, 05:29 AM
  #78
afterburner
 
afterburner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: New City, NY
Posts: 2,929
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob_B View Post
Didn't NY drop that recently and now a large Coke is like 64oz!!!
Yes, the restaurant association won in court but de Blasio has vowed to continue to fight against large soft drinks where Bloomberg left off although he said Big Gulp Kool-aids are ok and recommended in some parts of NYC!
afterburner is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2014, 05:36 AM
  #79
Sport_Pilot
 
Sport_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 16,908
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VF84sluggo View Post
Sounds like the FAA also has "a pen and a phone"...
If the internet is using a pen and a phone I hope the AMA is using the internet and MS Word.
Sport_Pilot is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2014, 08:15 AM
  #80
jrf
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Burbank, CA
Posts: 2,844
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ace_drummond View Post
Does anyone know for sure whether this letter is currently binding and in effect immediately or subject to review after the comment period?
This notice reflects the FAAs current interpretation of the rules that are already in place. They are telling us that these points will guide their enforcement activity effective immediately. Whether or not their enforcement activities hold up in court is a different question, but unless you have the wherewithal to fight them in court, it would be best not to be the subject of their enforcement.

Once again, from the press release. While todays notice is immediately effective, the agency welcomes comments from the public which may help further inform its analysis. The comment period for the notice will close 30 days from publication in the Federal Register.
jrf is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2014, 03:57 PM
  #81
Terry Holston
 
Terry Holston's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Fort Wayne, IN
Posts: 3,746
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

They don't have enough people to enforce our border laws, how are they gonna enforce these "New Rules"
Terry Holston is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2014, 04:49 PM
  #82
rhklenke
 
rhklenke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 5,480
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Terry Holston View Post
They don't have enough people to enforce our border laws, how are they gonna enforce these "New Rules"
The bottom line is, they won't - unless somebody does something that comes to their attention, then they'll use this to stop/punish the offenders...

Bob

Last edited by rhklenke; 06-29-2014 at 05:39 PM.
rhklenke is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2014, 05:18 PM
  #83
jeffharris75
 
jeffharris75's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: RALEIGH, NC
Posts: 32
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

What disappoints me is the lack of professionalism and imaturity demonstrated by Mr. Mathewson. AMA's history is a moot point in this case. With advances in technology the AMA membership (20% <= 19 years old) now had access to fly unmanned aircraft out of the pilots line of sight. This places an unlicensed pilot at the controls of the machine with no requirements as to the pilots knowledge of airspace regulations. As I mentioned earlier I have had conversations with FPV pilots who self admit taking photos from within 10 miles of a class B airspace at an altitude between ground level and 3000 ft.
IMHO both FAA and AMA are having difficulty understanding the issues at hand. I am a person that would prefer to believe that human beings always assume personal responsibility but have seen behavior to prove myself wrong far too many times in my 57 years. This includes the idiotic activities of my young adulthood.
There is allot at stake here: I hope folks on both ends can down-regulate their testosterone receptors; not listen to pride and ego and address the situation at hand through definition of the hobby, potential risks, known rewards and democratic process.
Perhaps something like this:
The AMA believes that any sudden action to limit the use of FPV aircraft by the general hobbyist interferes with the constitutional rights of both the manufacturers and hobbyists alike.;
The AMA recognizes that the capabilities of remote controlled aircraft have changed: allowing the operator to fly beyond line of sight. The AMA acknowledges additional risks to civilian non-participants and suggests go-forward strategy wherein the AMA and FAA create a special committee to 1) determine if further legislative activity is required and 2) draft such legislation with sufficient public comment period as would be the case with any new or altered FAR. Until such time the AMA will notify its membership of the need to assure FPV aircraft are flown within line of sight of the operator or his/her designated lookout. All rules for maximum altitude and operating distance from airports listed on common sectional charts will remain the same.
jeffharris75 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2014, 06:02 PM
  #84
ledd4u
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Miramar, FL
Posts: 350
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Agree with above statement. What I read dictates and upholds the current rules about flying near an airport. At Florida Jets, this policy exists and works excellent. We have had no problems with the local airport or the FAA ATC. As far as I am concerned it has to do with the UAV which I care nothing about.
ledd4u is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2014, 03:14 AM
  #85
HoundDog
 
HoundDog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Apache Junction AZ. WI 0WI8
Posts: 4,468
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ledd4u View Post
Agree with above statement. What I read dictates and upholds the current rules about flying near an airport. At Florida Jets, this policy exists and works excellent. We have had no problems with the local airport or the FAA ATC.
As far as I am concerned it has to do with the UAV which I care nothing about.
That's one of the greatest problems with a lot of people in this hobby/sport and other walks of life. "If they don't do it they don't care enough to fight for others rights to do it. i.e. be it IMAC, Pattern, Big Bird, Pylon Racing, Gliders Jets. ECT. If we don't defend every ones rights soon none of us will have any rights to fly at all. Besides there is more than FPV at stake here ... The right of someone, Be it a private person demonstrating a model or developing a model for sale or a Manufacture doing the same. If the FAA interperts their existing regulations it won't be long before they go after all forms of Model Flying in one way or another.

The bottom line here we must stick together to safe guard our right to continue to enjoy our hobby/sport and all it's facets. If U can't defend all forms of our hobby U might as well just sell all your planes Quads or what ever, Go buy a Sail Boat, A lawn Chair and a
6 pack. Then when U sober up U can wonder where your Boat went. They'll figure how to take that away from U too.
HoundDog is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2014, 04:27 AM
  #86
Sport_Pilot
 
Sport_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 16,908
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Quote:
What disappoints me is the lack of professionalism and imaturity demonstrated by Mr. Mathewson. AMA's history is a moot point in this case
IMO when you start with such a strong negative there is no point in reading further.
Sport_Pilot is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2014, 05:52 AM
  #87
Terry Holston
 
Terry Holston's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Fort Wayne, IN
Posts: 3,746
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HoundDog View Post
That's one of the greatest problems with a lot of people in this hobby/sport and other walks of life. "If they don't do it they don't care enough to fight for others rights to do it. i.e. be it IMAC, Pattern, Big Bird, Pylon Racing, Gliders Jets. ECT. If we don't defend every ones rights soon none of us will have any rights to fly at all. Besides there is more than FPV at stake here ... The right of someone, Be it a private person demonstrating a model or developing a model for sale or a Manufacture doing the same. If the FAA interperts their existing regulations it won't be long before they go after all forms of Model Flying in one way or another.

The bottom line here we must stick together to safe guard our right to continue to enjoy our hobby/sport and all it's facets. If U can't defend all forms of our hobby U might as well just sell all your planes Quads or what ever, Go buy a Sail Boat, A lawn Chair and a
6 pack. Then when U sober up U can wonder where your Boat went. They'll figure how to take that away from U too.
Well said...................+ one
Terry Holston is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2014, 06:39 AM
  #88
flyinfool1
Thread Starter
 
flyinfool1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Cudahy, WI
Posts: 757
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ledd4u View Post
As far as I am concerned it has to do with the UAV which I care nothing about.
You do realize that ALL RC aircraft are considered UAVs??
UAV means Unmanned Ariel Vehicle, it makes no distinction on power source or method of generating lift.

Government has used the divide an conquer theory since government existed. You start by regulating out the easy targets because to many people will say "As far as I am concerned it has to do with the UAV which I care nothing about." to reduce the number of people that care about something. Once that small segment is gone those people will not care about the rest of the hobby because they are already out of it. The government will nibble away at the easiest targets all the while shrinking the size and strength of the main target.

This is exactly the attitude that the government wants and needs to get rid of everything.
Turbines are also a comparatively small group and could be an early target.

Last edited by flyinfool1; 06-30-2014 at 08:54 AM.
flyinfool1 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2014, 06:54 AM
  #89
N410DC
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Cartersville, GA
Posts: 360
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HoundDog View Post
That's one of the greatest problems with a lot of people in this hobby/sport and other walks of life. "If they don't do it they don't care enough to fight for others rights to do it. i.e. be it IMAC, Pattern, Big Bird, Pylon Racing, Gliders Jets. ECT. If we don't defend every ones rights soon none of us will have any rights to fly at all. Besides there is more than FPV at stake here ... The right of someone, Be it a private person demonstrating a model or developing a model for sale or a Manufacture doing the same. If the FAA interperts their existing regulations it won't be long before they go after all forms of Model Flying in one way or another.

The bottom line here we must stick together to safe guard our right to continue to enjoy our hobby/sport and all it's facets. If U can't defend all forms of our hobby U might as well just sell all your planes Quads or what ever, Go buy a Sail Boat, A lawn Chair and a
6 pack. Then when U sober up U can wonder where your Boat went. They'll figure how to take that away from U too.
I also concur. If we let the FAA walk all over FPV pilots, then we are next.

I do not own any FPV equipment or quadcoptors, However, I see the benefit of the modeling community sticking together, even if only one segment of the community is threatened at the moment. I therefore plan to give the FAA and my congressmen a piece of my mind.

Furthermore, I have no way of knowing what my interests will be in the future. When 2014 rolled in, I had no interest in returning to this hobby. Since then, I have invested a lot of money and time as a modeler.

Last edited by N410DC; 06-30-2014 at 06:56 AM.
N410DC is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2014, 07:56 AM
  #90
Sport_Pilot
 
Sport_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 16,908
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

If you are going to concur there is no need to divide, just say yes!
Sport_Pilot is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2014, 08:00 AM
  #91
HoundDog
 
HoundDog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Apache Junction AZ. WI 0WI8
Posts: 4,468
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

There is more than just FPV at stake here ... The FAA is saying that any flying of anything for as deamed by them for profit pay or any commercial purpose is now Illegal. Company's nor anyone else may operate anything in the NAS if it is in anyway can be considered as part of or leading to monetary gain or companion, Unless U as the operator, the vehicle, and equipment are first approved by the the powers that be. Right now the powers that be i.e. the FAA have only approved, I be believe one company, and they are authorized to operate only in remote parts of Alaska. Make no mistake the FAA is/will do everything it can to control any thing and every thing that flies in the NAS.
This may be a bit of an exaggeration but make no mistake about it Like I've said before "If the FAA could mandate Altitude Encoding Transponders on Geese it would be done by now.

Last edited by HoundDog; 06-30-2014 at 08:06 AM.
HoundDog is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2014, 08:54 AM
  #92
flyinfool1
Thread Starter
 
flyinfool1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Cudahy, WI
Posts: 757
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sport_Pilot View Post
If you are going to concur there is no need to divide, just say yes!
Darn auto correct......
flyinfool1 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2014, 09:36 AM
  #93
dw_crash
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Edmonton, AB, CANADA
Posts: 645
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sport_Pilot View Post
The FAA never had a rule, they had an advisory of 400 feet. The same applied to flying near airports, it was not against the law or regulations to fly RC near an airport, but a voluntary advisory not to do so. Now it is against the law to fly near airports. Nevermind it was never a big problem.
sorry.....you better read up on the controlled airspace rules around airports etc. Full size have the space above 500 ft within 5 miles of an airfield. A cone extends out from an airport. Then, there are flight corridors radiating out from the runways. NAS is far more regulated and segmented than modellers appreciate. Ask a commercial pilot to explain it all.
dw_crash is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2014, 09:42 AM
  #94
Sport_Pilot
 
Sport_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 16,908
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dw_crash View Post
sorry.....you better read up on the controlled airspace rules around airports etc. Full size have the space above 500 ft within 5 miles of an airfield. A cone extends out from an airport. Then, there are flight corridors radiating out from the runways. NAS is far more regulated and segmented than modellers appreciate. Ask a commercial pilot to explain it all.
I am well aware of the regulations but part 91 does not apply to model aircraft in any way so there is actually no restriction only an advisory. A judge recently through out a case and said that the FAA has no regulation for use of model aircraft.
Sport_Pilot is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2014, 09:56 AM
  #95
FalconWings
 
FalconWings's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Fort Worth, TX
Posts: 6,619
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sport_Pilot View Post
I am well aware of the regulations but part 91 does not apply to model aircraft in any way so there is actually no restriction only an advisory. A judge recently through out a case and said that the FAA has no regulation for use of model aircraft.
you mean regulation or jurisdiction?
FalconWings is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2014, 10:12 AM
  #96
HoundDog
 
HoundDog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Apache Junction AZ. WI 0WI8
Posts: 4,468
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Here we go again arguing among our selves over semantics .... It's time to stop saying the FAA has no jurisdiction over model aircraft and realize the FAA believes they do and that is good enough for them.It will cost U a lot of time and money to prove them wrong, if U can.
There is less than 30 days to let the FAA know how U/we feel about their new interpretation of the new
FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 that pertains to Model aircraft.
and how the FAA is viewing and interpreting congress mandate. Interpretive Rule

Last edited by HoundDog; 06-30-2014 at 10:17 AM.
HoundDog is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2014, 10:18 AM
  #97
Sport_Pilot
 
Sport_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 16,908
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Regulation, part 91 is applicable to aircraft carrying people. This is from the applicablity section which says it is applicable to each person in the aircraft, only the FAA's regulations on obstuctions can be applied to model aircraft. Part 77 for example. But I also believe that the FAA only has jurisdiction of navigable airspace, but then we often fly into navigable airspace and there is no rule which prevents that.
Sport_Pilot is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2014, 10:27 AM
  #98
dw_crash
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Edmonton, AB, CANADA
Posts: 645
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sport_Pilot View Post
Regulation, part 91 is applicable to aircraft carrying people. This is from the applicablity section which says it is applicable to each person in the aircraft, only the FAA's regulations on obstuctions can be applied to model aircraft. Part 77 for example. But I also believe that the FAA only has jurisdiction of navigable airspace, but then we often fly into navigable airspace and there is no rule which prevents that.
That is the exact point....FAA regulates and controls the airspace. They have the laws and regulations. Just because the words "model" are not written explicitly. It is explicitly stated what can and can't be in REGULATED airspace. Air ports and corridors are regulated and controlled airspace......it doesn't matter, manned, FPV, model airplane or UFO. If your in the controlled airspace your under the FAA laws and regulation by default. If they could catch them, ET would be fined for flying near a airport in the regulated airspace.

Further, Model flying is a privledge guys.....There is no defined right to fly models, FPV, helicopters etc......so, sorry....this means the gov't makes the rules regards of what anyone wishes. National security is the current fade excuse!!!

DW_CRASH
dw_crash is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2014, 10:38 AM
  #99
mr_matt
 
mr_matt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Oak Park, CA,
Posts: 10,025
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ledd4u View Post
Agree with above statement. What I read dictates and upholds the current rules about flying near an airport. At Florida Jets, this policy exists and works excellent. We have had no problems with the local airport or the FAA ATC. As far as I am concerned it has to do with the UAV which I care nothing about.
Better be careful there with that ATC at Florida Jets. An AMA member in Kansas just reported this on the AMA forum:

Up until Monday, 6/23, we were able to fly under our written agreement with the FBO manager in an area that is listed on both the sectional and NOTAMs, now, way this new rule is interpreted by one FBO manager, we need to get prior authorization for EACH FLIGHT and have means to announce our intent, depart, and approach. This same manager says we need to get Sportsman ratings if we want to continue to fly.
mr_matt is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2014, 10:55 AM
  #100
Sport_Pilot
 
Sport_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 16,908
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Quote:
That is the exact point....FAA regulates and controls the airspace. They have the laws and regulations. Just because the words "model" are not written explicitly. It is explicitly stated what can and can't be in REGULATED airspace. Air ports and corridors are regulated and controlled airspace......it doesn't matter, manned, FPV, model airplane or UFO. If your in the controlled airspace your under the FAA laws and regulation by default. If they could catch them, ET would be fined for flying near a airport in the regulated airspace.
The FAA never wrote a regulation for model airplanes or sUAV's. There were no laws written either. This was specifically pointed out by an NSTB judge in the Pirker case last March. They do have laws and regulations for obstructions to airspace however. Although there is nothing specific about model aircraft there the FAA can say you unlawfully obstucted a full scale aircraft. In the Pirker case however he did not obstuct any aircraft and they were trying to fine him for unsafely flying an FPV model aircraft.

Last edited by Sport_Pilot; 06-30-2014 at 10:58 AM.
Sport_Pilot is offline  
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:48 AM.