FAA Issues "Interpretation of the special rule for model aircraft"
06-23-2014, 03:25 PM
#1
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Apopka,
FL
Posts: 1,367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FAA Issues "Interpretation of the special rule for model aircraft"
This deserves it's own thread, and note that this FAA document is open for comments for 30 days.
http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives..._spec_rule.pdf
What I saw that will be controversial is that it bans the use of FPV goggles for the person flying the aircraft.
By definition, a model aircraft must be “flown within visual line of sight of the
person operating the aircraft.
They even acknowledge that the AMA has a different opinion. A big problem for FPV.
http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives..._spec_rule.pdf
What I saw that will be controversial is that it bans the use of FPV goggles for the person flying the aircraft.
By definition, a model aircraft must be “flown within visual line of sight of the
person operating the aircraft.
Based on the plain language of the statute, the FAA interprets this requirement to mean that: (1) the aircraft
must be visible at all times to the operator; (2) that the operator must use his or her own
natural vision (which includes vision corrected by standard eyeglasses or contact lenses)
to observe the aircraft; and (3) people other than the operator may not be used in lieu of
the operator for maintaining visual line of sight. Under the criteria above, visual line of
sight would mean that the operator has an unobstructed view of the model aircraft. To
ensure that the operator has the best view of the aircraft, the statutory requirement would
preclude the use of vision-enhancing devices, such as binoculars, night vision goggles,
powered vision magnifying devices, and goggles designed to provide a “first-person
view” from the model. Such devices would limit the operator’s field of view thereby
reducing his or her ability to see-and-avoid other aircraft in the area. Additionally, some
of these devices could dramatically increase the distance at which an operator could see
the aircraft, rendering the statutory visual-line-of-sight requirements meaningless.
Finally, based on the plain language of the statute, which says that aircraft must be
“flown within the visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft,” an operator
could not rely on another person to satisfy the visual line of sight requirement. See id.
(emphasis added). While the statute would not preclude using an observer to augment the
safety of the operation, the operator must be able to view the aircraft at all times.
1
For purposes of the visual line of sight requirement, “operator” means the person manipulating the model
aircraft’s controls.
2
The FAA is aware that at least one community-based organization permits “first person view” (FPV)
operations during which the hobbyist controls the aircraft while wearing goggles that display images
transmitted from a camera mounted in the front of the model aircraft. While the intent of FPV is to
provide a simulation of what a pilot would see from the flight deck of a manned aircraft, the goggles may obstruct an operator’s vision, thereby preventing the operator from keeping the model aircraft within his or her visual line of sight at all times.
3
In construing statutory language, agencies should assume that the ordinary meaning of the language accurately
expresses the legislative purpose of Congress. Agencies are also permitted to presume that Congress was aware of the
agencies’ administrative or adjudicative interpretations of certain terms and intended to adopt those meanings. See
BedRoc Ltd. v. U.S., 541 U.S. 176, 183 (2004); see also Haig v. Agee, 453 U.S. 280, 300 (1981); Lorillard v. Pons, 434
U.S. 575, 580-81 (1978).
must be visible at all times to the operator; (2) that the operator must use his or her own
natural vision (which includes vision corrected by standard eyeglasses or contact lenses)
to observe the aircraft; and (3) people other than the operator may not be used in lieu of
the operator for maintaining visual line of sight. Under the criteria above, visual line of
sight would mean that the operator has an unobstructed view of the model aircraft. To
ensure that the operator has the best view of the aircraft, the statutory requirement would
preclude the use of vision-enhancing devices, such as binoculars, night vision goggles,
powered vision magnifying devices, and goggles designed to provide a “first-person
view” from the model. Such devices would limit the operator’s field of view thereby
reducing his or her ability to see-and-avoid other aircraft in the area. Additionally, some
of these devices could dramatically increase the distance at which an operator could see
the aircraft, rendering the statutory visual-line-of-sight requirements meaningless.
Finally, based on the plain language of the statute, which says that aircraft must be
“flown within the visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft,” an operator
could not rely on another person to satisfy the visual line of sight requirement. See id.
(emphasis added). While the statute would not preclude using an observer to augment the
safety of the operation, the operator must be able to view the aircraft at all times.
1
For purposes of the visual line of sight requirement, “operator” means the person manipulating the model
aircraft’s controls.
2
The FAA is aware that at least one community-based organization permits “first person view” (FPV)
operations during which the hobbyist controls the aircraft while wearing goggles that display images
transmitted from a camera mounted in the front of the model aircraft. While the intent of FPV is to
provide a simulation of what a pilot would see from the flight deck of a manned aircraft, the goggles may obstruct an operator’s vision, thereby preventing the operator from keeping the model aircraft within his or her visual line of sight at all times.
3
In construing statutory language, agencies should assume that the ordinary meaning of the language accurately
expresses the legislative purpose of Congress. Agencies are also permitted to presume that Congress was aware of the
agencies’ administrative or adjudicative interpretations of certain terms and intended to adopt those meanings. See
BedRoc Ltd. v. U.S., 541 U.S. 176, 183 (2004); see also Haig v. Agee, 453 U.S. 280, 300 (1981); Lorillard v. Pons, 434
U.S. 575, 580-81 (1978).
Last edited by bradpaul; 06-23-2014 at 03:31 PM.
06-23-2014, 06:30 PM
#2
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Round Hill, VA
Posts: 1,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This deserves it's own thread, and note that this FAA document is open for comments for 30 days.
http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives..._spec_rule.pdf
What I saw that will be controversial is that it bans the use of FPV goggles for the person flying the aircraft.
By definition, a model aircraft must be “flown within visual line of sight of the
person operating the aircraft.
They even acknowledge that the AMA has a different opinion. A big problem for FPV.
http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives..._spec_rule.pdf
What I saw that will be controversial is that it bans the use of FPV goggles for the person flying the aircraft.
By definition, a model aircraft must be “flown within visual line of sight of the
person operating the aircraft.
They even acknowledge that the AMA has a different opinion. A big problem for FPV.
06-23-2014, 08:08 PM
#4
That the way I read the rules also that the FAA wants to ban FPV even when done under AMA rules. The way I see it if a model is not interfering with full scale operations
and flown at a site designated for model operations the FAA should leave them alone.
06-24-2014, 04:19 AM
#5
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Apopka,
FL
Posts: 1,367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another interesting part of the FAA document, what is hobby/recreational and what is commercial.
Not Hobby or Recreation
Receiving money for demonstrating
aerobatics with a model aircraft.
Why that choice? Who demonstrates aerobatics and where? Is this the FAA looking at vendor/manufacturer employed or sponsored pilots flying demos/competing in events?
In the past this has come up in context of does AMA Insurance, which only covers "recreational use", cover sponsored pilots? The AMA answer has been yes. Like with FPV the FAA seems to have a much more restrictive interpretation of the requirements. Has the infamous "comma" in AC 91-57 come back to make the FAA less then confident on how the "AMA CBO" will set standards?
BTW for those that fly FPV with a "monitor" not "goggles" it looks like you are fine as long as you never look at the "monitor"
Not Hobby or Recreation
Receiving money for demonstrating
aerobatics with a model aircraft.
Why that choice? Who demonstrates aerobatics and where? Is this the FAA looking at vendor/manufacturer employed or sponsored pilots flying demos/competing in events?
In the past this has come up in context of does AMA Insurance, which only covers "recreational use", cover sponsored pilots? The AMA answer has been yes. Like with FPV the FAA seems to have a much more restrictive interpretation of the requirements. Has the infamous "comma" in AC 91-57 come back to make the FAA less then confident on how the "AMA CBO" will set standards?
BTW for those that fly FPV with a "monitor" not "goggles" it looks like you are fine as long as you never look at the "monitor"
06-24-2014, 04:25 AM
#6
My Feedback: (6)
The FPV rules aren't the only troublesome thing about the FAA interpretation. Note that it gives any airport operator an absolute veto over model airplane flying within five miles of an airport. In a lot of places, you can't find a flying site that isn't within five miles of some airport. (In the county where I live, there were 13 airports listed on the FAA web site the last time I looked.)
Even worse, perhaps, the interpretation essentially deprives the exclusion for model airplanes of all meaning by noting at pages 15 and 16 that, even in the case of model aircraft, the FAA can regulate them to prevent operations that "endanger[] the safety of" the national airspace. Of course, the law itself says that, so this isn't a huge surprise. But it makes the whole exclusion for models meaningless (unless the FAA itself decides to let us do something). Suppose, for instance, the FAA decides that flying a model higher than 400 feet would endanger the airspace. According to this interpretation, it could then adopt rules prohibiting flying above 400 feet, requiring models to have equipment measuring and recording altitudes, and so on.
Even worse, perhaps, the interpretation essentially deprives the exclusion for model airplanes of all meaning by noting at pages 15 and 16 that, even in the case of model aircraft, the FAA can regulate them to prevent operations that "endanger[] the safety of" the national airspace. Of course, the law itself says that, so this isn't a huge surprise. But it makes the whole exclusion for models meaningless (unless the FAA itself decides to let us do something). Suppose, for instance, the FAA decides that flying a model higher than 400 feet would endanger the airspace. According to this interpretation, it could then adopt rules prohibiting flying above 400 feet, requiring models to have equipment measuring and recording altitudes, and so on.
06-24-2014, 05:18 AM
#7
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Round Hill, VA
Posts: 1,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That may be the case, but I doubt it. I think they just forgot about the possibility of using a buddy box. I suggest that you FPV'ers start posting comments requesting and justifying the use of a buddy box. You have 30 days, so get on it.
06-24-2014, 05:51 AM
#8
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Apopka,
FL
Posts: 1,367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1. For purposes of the visual line of sight requirement, “operator” means the person manipulating the model
aircraft’s controls.
aircraft’s controls.
Last edited by bradpaul; 06-24-2014 at 05:53 AM.
06-24-2014, 06:22 AM
#9
Senior Member
My Feedback: (5)
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Ormond Beach,
FL
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It appears that the FAA currently holds the view that FPV flight does not comply with the model aircraft exemption from rules.
This is from the FAA press release dated 6-23-14 when the above notice was released.
"While today’s 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"
This is from the FAA press release dated 6-23-14 when the above notice was released.
"While today’s 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"
06-24-2014, 07:08 AM
#10
My Feedback: (198)
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: El Reno, OK
Posts: 6,707
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Of interest, also, is the statement the model aircraft must be operated "within rules established by the CBO"....and the proposed stuff **STILL** fails to address maximum altitudes. I just don't understand an FAA interpretation like this that is failing to address one of (if not "the") greatest potential risk/safety issue relative to model operations in FS space.
BTW - I believe airports have ALWAYS had the "authority" to shut down model aircraft operations within 5 mile radius.
BTW - I believe airports have ALWAYS had the "authority" to shut down model aircraft operations within 5 mile radius.
06-24-2014, 07:24 AM
#11
My Feedback: (6)
BTW - I believe airports have ALWAYS had the "authority" to shut down model aircraft operations within 5 mile radius.
06-24-2014, 07:31 AM
#12
My Feedback: (198)
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: El Reno, OK
Posts: 6,707
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry I included that line as it is off-topic of original post/thread.
06-24-2014, 11:11 AM
#14
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Round Hill, VA
Posts: 1,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah there is already in other forums the idea of using a "buddy box" to meet the proposed regs. BUT............................................ this is from the footnote:
So you can "view" the flight using goggles you just cannot "manipulate the aircraft's controls" i.e. fly the model.
So you can "view" the flight using goggles you just cannot "manipulate the aircraft's controls" i.e. fly the model.
Perhaps you misunderstood me. The following statement is included in the special rule.
"DATES: Comments must be received on or before [INSERT DATE 30 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].
ADDRESSES: You may send comments identified by docket number FAA-2014-0396 using any of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your comments electronically.
• Mail: Send Comments to Docket Operations, M-30; US Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
• Hand Delivery: Take comments to Docket Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
• Fax: (202) 493-2251.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean E. Griffith, Attorney, Regulations Division, Office of the Chief Counsel, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-3073; email: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
The FAA invites interested persons to submit written comments, data, or views concerning this interpretation. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the interpretation, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, please send only one copy of written comments, or if you are filing comments electronically, please submit your comments only one time.
The FAA will file in the docket all comments received, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this interpretation. The FAA will consider all comments received on or before the closing date for comments and any late-filed comments if it is possible to do so without incurring
expense or delay. While this is the FAA’s interpretation of statute and regulations relevant to model aircraft, the FAA may modify this interpretation based on comments received."
That was what I meant by comments. If you care about FPV I urge you to post carefully worded and constructive comments on the FAA's eRulemaking Portal. Post haste, you have 30 days.
06-24-2014, 11:16 AM
#16
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Round Hill, VA
Posts: 1,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 400" foot rule only applies within 5 miles of an airport and anytime a real airplane is close at hand.
06-24-2014, 11:25 AM
#17
My Feedback: (102)
johnShe
I went back and read it and you are correct, the 400' rule is only mentioned in the portion about government allowed activites. they do not mention it under hobbyist, but refer to organization for recommendations.
(C) allow a government public safety agency to operate
unmanned aircraft weighing 4.4 pounds or less, if operated—
(i) within the line of sight of the operator;
(ii) less than 400 feet above the ground;
(iii) during daylight conditions;
(iv) within Class G airspace; and
(v) outside of 5 statute miles from any airport,
heliport, seaplane base, spaceport, or other location
I went back and read it and you are correct, the 400' rule is only mentioned in the portion about government allowed activites. they do not mention it under hobbyist, but refer to organization for recommendations.
(C) allow a government public safety agency to operate
unmanned aircraft weighing 4.4 pounds or less, if operated—
(i) within the line of sight of the operator;
(ii) less than 400 feet above the ground;
(iii) during daylight conditions;
(iv) within Class G airspace; and
(v) outside of 5 statute miles from any airport,
heliport, seaplane base, spaceport, or other location
06-25-2014, 04:25 AM
#19
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Apopka,
FL
Posts: 1,367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The AMA response
.http://www.modelaircraft.org/files/F...retiveRule.pdf
This is a good example of why membership in the AMA is the right thing to do.
.http://www.modelaircraft.org/files/F...retiveRule.pdf
FAA Interpretive Rule addressing “Special Rule for Model Aircraft”
Academy of Model Aeronautics response
The Academy of Model Aeronautics (AMA) has reviewed FAA’s recently released Interpretive
Rule in which the agency provided its interpretation of the “Special Rule for Model Aircraft”
established by Congress as part of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (Public Law
112-95). The Academy is extremely disappointed and troubled by the approach the FAA has
chosen to take in regards to this issue.
As a community-based membership association, the AMA has managed and overseen the
nation’s model aircraft activity for the past 77 years and has grown to over 165,000 members in
all 50 states, the U.S. territories and at military installations around the world. Over the years the
Academy has developed an effective safety program that has achieved an exceptional safety
record and has evolved to accommodate new technologies, new modeling disciplines, and a
diverse aeromodeling community. AMA’s achievements and ability to manage the model
aircraft activity in a safe and harmonious fashion was recognized by Congress in its
reauthorization of the Federal Aviation Administration in 2012. In an effort to protect the
aeromodeling community from overreaching and onerous regulation, Congress established the
Special Rule for Model Aircraft which exempts this activity from regulation provided it is
conducted in accordance with and within the safety programing of a community-based
organization, AMA.
States AMA President Bob Brown, “The FAA interpretive rule effectively negates Congress’
intentions, and is contrary to the law. Section 336(a) of the Public Law states that, ‘the Federal
Aviation Administration may not promulgate any rule or regulation regarding a model
aircraft…’, this interpretive rule specifically addresses model aircraft, effectively establishes
rules that model aircraft were not previously subject to and is in direct violation of the
congressional mandate in the 2012 FAA reauthorization bill.”
The interpretive rule reflects the FAA’s disregard for and its unfamiliarity with the makeup of
the modeling community. Nearly 20% of the AMA membership is 19 years old or younger and
an even greater percentage is retirees over the age of 65. FAA’s intention to impose a strict
regulatory approach to the operation of model aircraft in the hands of our youth and elderly
members threatens to destroy a wholesome and enriching activity enjoyed by a vast cross-section
of our society.
“AMA cannot support this rule.” said AMA Executive Director Dave Mathewson. “It is at best
ill-conceived and at worst intentionally punitive and retaliatory. The Academy strongly requests
the FAA reconsider this action. The AMA will pursue all available recourse to dissuade
enactment of this rule.”
Founded in 1936, the Academy of Model Aeronautics continues to be devoted to the safe and
responsible operation of model aircraft. With its nearly 2,400 clubs across the country, it serves
as the nation’s collective voice for the aeromodeling community. Headquartered in Muncie IN,
AMA is a membership organization representing those who fly model aircraft for recreation and
educational purposes.
Academy of Model Aeronautics response
The Academy of Model Aeronautics (AMA) has reviewed FAA’s recently released Interpretive
Rule in which the agency provided its interpretation of the “Special Rule for Model Aircraft”
established by Congress as part of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (Public Law
112-95). The Academy is extremely disappointed and troubled by the approach the FAA has
chosen to take in regards to this issue.
As a community-based membership association, the AMA has managed and overseen the
nation’s model aircraft activity for the past 77 years and has grown to over 165,000 members in
all 50 states, the U.S. territories and at military installations around the world. Over the years the
Academy has developed an effective safety program that has achieved an exceptional safety
record and has evolved to accommodate new technologies, new modeling disciplines, and a
diverse aeromodeling community. AMA’s achievements and ability to manage the model
aircraft activity in a safe and harmonious fashion was recognized by Congress in its
reauthorization of the Federal Aviation Administration in 2012. In an effort to protect the
aeromodeling community from overreaching and onerous regulation, Congress established the
Special Rule for Model Aircraft which exempts this activity from regulation provided it is
conducted in accordance with and within the safety programing of a community-based
organization, AMA.
States AMA President Bob Brown, “The FAA interpretive rule effectively negates Congress’
intentions, and is contrary to the law. Section 336(a) of the Public Law states that, ‘the Federal
Aviation Administration may not promulgate any rule or regulation regarding a model
aircraft…’, this interpretive rule specifically addresses model aircraft, effectively establishes
rules that model aircraft were not previously subject to and is in direct violation of the
congressional mandate in the 2012 FAA reauthorization bill.”
The interpretive rule reflects the FAA’s disregard for and its unfamiliarity with the makeup of
the modeling community. Nearly 20% of the AMA membership is 19 years old or younger and
an even greater percentage is retirees over the age of 65. FAA’s intention to impose a strict
regulatory approach to the operation of model aircraft in the hands of our youth and elderly
members threatens to destroy a wholesome and enriching activity enjoyed by a vast cross-section
of our society.
“AMA cannot support this rule.” said AMA Executive Director Dave Mathewson. “It is at best
ill-conceived and at worst intentionally punitive and retaliatory. The Academy strongly requests
the FAA reconsider this action. The AMA will pursue all available recourse to dissuade
enactment of this rule.”
Founded in 1936, the Academy of Model Aeronautics continues to be devoted to the safe and
responsible operation of model aircraft. With its nearly 2,400 clubs across the country, it serves
as the nation’s collective voice for the aeromodeling community. Headquartered in Muncie IN,
AMA is a membership organization representing those who fly model aircraft for recreation and
educational purposes.
06-25-2014, 04:56 AM
#20
My Feedback: (198)
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: El Reno, OK
Posts: 6,707
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And yet, TODAY, on "Today" is a segment on "Peeping Tom Drone" relating to picture taken of a UAV outside a 28th floor apartment building in Seattle by the female occupant of the building. We all would agree that THAT particular airspace is "non navigable" (the UAV seems pretty close to the window), and hence probably NOT within FAA purview/jurisdiction. OTOH, how many folks could see a hex-copter UAV at 28 stories up from ground level? (Assuming ground level operation)
If the FAA's Rules grounds this kind of irresponsible use, then it sounds pretty good to me....
If the FAA's Rules grounds this kind of irresponsible use, then it sounds pretty good to me....
06-25-2014, 05:17 AM
#21
My Feedback: (58)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: here
Posts: 5,413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The AMA response
.http://www.modelaircraft.org/files/F...retiveRule.pdf
This is a good example of why membership in the AMA is the right thing to do.
.http://www.modelaircraft.org/files/F...retiveRule.pdf
This is a good example of why membership in the AMA is the right thing to do.
06-25-2014, 06:14 AM
#22
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Apopka,
FL
Posts: 1,367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Prediction; the FAA will appear to acquiesce...at least some... AMA will get desired recognition and kudos for saving FPV "provided its under a (really "the") NCBO"...ticker tape parade and all... Either way...win, lose or draw all the good people in the streets will be saying "This is a good example of why membership in the AMA is the right thing to do" All the while, modelers not within the "programming" will continue to experience erosion in their choice of a hobby that is "worthwhile"...
I have to ask just what is contained in the AMA (a CBO) Safety Code (i.e. programming) that causes the non AMA hobbyist "to experience erosion in their choice of a hobby that is "worthwhile" ?????
I know it if difficult for some here to admit that the AMA does some things right.
Last edited by bradpaul; 06-25-2014 at 06:17 AM.
06-25-2014, 06:29 AM
#24
The AMA response
.http://www.modelaircraft.org/files/F...retiveRule.pdf
This is a good example of why membership in the AMA is the right thing to do.
.http://www.modelaircraft.org/files/F...retiveRule.pdf
This is a good example of why membership in the AMA is the right thing to do.
06-25-2014, 06:37 AM
#25
My Feedback: (58)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: here
Posts: 5,413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can be very lucrative... Let's say John has them on speed dial to report incidences he feels unsafe... FAA levels $10,000 fines without much effort...All the while citing "not being flown within confines of CBO programming"...whatever the interpretation in that instance... Win some, lose some...net profit and justification for an ever larger growth of the nanny state...
