KingCrash

I was just breezing through the President's blog on the AMA website and saw this.
That's hitting a little close for my comfort. Now we'll have a "clarified" Federal Definition of "Model Aircraft"

Yikes![sm=47_47.gif]

Greg S

rt3232

My Feedback: (6)

Like George Washington said coverment is dangerous

Bob T AMA13377

goliathman

My Feedback: (3)

yes but a spell checker is not.

HH

That's one reason why I was Not thrilled a few years back when they flew an RC plane across the Atlantic. Once the powers that be realize what can be done with our "toys", They're gonna want to control everything.

heliothiszea

My Feedback: (1)

Guys I think this may be a response to aerial photography rc planes for hire and similar. These do not fit the definition of hobby rc aircraft. You can find more info at [link=http://members.tripod.com/wcs_bbs/reporter/index.html]http://members.tripod.com/wcs_bbs/reporter/index.html[/link] - Seth

STLPilot

My Feedback: (21)

The rules are already in place and have been in place for sometime. Now they are probably just going to enforce them.

http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert...s/uas/uas_faq/

Sport_Pilot

I think covermant might have been a Freudian slip!

BillHarris

Yes, and wonderfully so.

It may be good that AMA is stepping up to the plate on this. Earlier attempts by the AMA with the informal agendizing of AC 91-57 have resulted in confusion and ambiguity. I recall when the FAA questioned DB about 'Net reports of people flying R/C planes to 30,000' and DB reacting in a clue-challenged manner. I don't want to see regulation of R/C AP any more than the next person, but _will_ be a fact of life but the more help we have, the better. Admittedly, there is the real difference between hobbyist and commercial AP, but one mode will help the other.

Bill

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

but

Questions & Answers
Operating UAS


Based on how I operate, do I need an experimental certificate for my UAS?
Yes, if you plan to fly your unmanned aircraft as a civil aircraft (defined in 14 CFR §1.1). The FAA's current policy is to issue only special airworthiness certificates to UAS's in the experimental category for the purposes of research and development, crew training, or conducting market surveys (14 CFR §21.193).

No, if you are a hobbyist and intend to fly your model aircraft in accordance with the guidance in Advisory Circular 91-57, Model Aircraft Operating Standards.

No, if you intend to operate your UA as a public aircraft for the purposes of governmental (civil or military) functions. In this case, the FAA's Air Traffic System Operations and Safety Office (ATO-R) may issue a Certificate of Authorization or Waiver (COA). Normally, the government proponent (not the UAS manufacturer) contacts FAA to initiate the COA process.

Do I need a pilot certificate to operate a UAS in the National Airspace System (NAS)?
Yes. In general, 14 CFR part 61 prescribes the requirements for issuing pilot certificates. Section 61.3 states that a person may not act as pilot in command or in any other capacity as a required pilot flight crew member of a civil aircraft of the U.S. registry, unless that person has a valid pilot certificate. Because the FAA has determined that UAS are civil aircraft in accordance with 14 CFR §1.1, these aircraft must be operated by a pilot in accordance with part 61.

Can I be paid or compensated for operating my UAS under an experimental airworthiness certificate?
No. UAS issued experimental certificates may not be used for compensation or hire. See Federal Register Notice, Unmanned Aircraft Operations in the National Airspace System (PDF) for FAA policy.



-

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

It is important to know when you are ahead and winning. There are many instances of adverse rulings because of the inability to recognize when you are ahead.[:@]

NorfolkSouthern

Keep in mind that it was hobbyists who flew their planes to 30,000 feet. I remember one web site where someone was doing something similar with a scale Cub, only I think he reached somewhere around 20,000 AGL or so. He had a video link and a Ham radio license. And then there are those who endanger our hobby by flying their models in inappropriate locations. For example, the student who accidentally flew his electric Twin Jet into one of the windows of a gym in Albuquerque, NM. This caused one injury. The bomb squad was called in due to the batteries catching fire after the crash.

The commercial AP community rarely takes their equipment above 200', and they use planes that only weigh a few ounces: Slow Sticks, for example. They fly very slowly to get the best exposure with the sharpest image possible. These are professionals, they want to minimize any chance of damage and protect their expensive hardware. The better quality the image, the more food that gets put on the table. Professional photographers are the least of our worries, and you can add environmental scientists and climatologists to the list. It amazes me that the people who are most conscientious about safety are the ones the FAA seems to want to go after the most.

NorfolkSouthern

STLPilot

My Feedback: (21)

Exactly, which simply states that AC 91-57 has actual teeth to it, it's not just a guideline or voluntary mechanism. If you intend to fly above 400' the UAS policy kicks in, as per our other discussion. UAS is a relativley new mechanism, but like I said, the FAA is going to start enforcing the policies someday soon, instead of what many people beleive, are currently overlooking.

This document clearly states that AC 91-57 is policy. It's also the best referernce of where hobbyists stand in the grand scheme of things.

http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert...notice_uas.pdf

Bottom of page 5: The current FAA policy for UAS operations is that no person may operate a UAS in the National Airspace System without specific authority. For UAS operating as public aircraft the authority is the COA, for UAS operating as civil aircraft the authority is special airworthiness certificates, and for model aircraft the authority is AC 91-57.

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

stl
More semantics...please… give it a rest already.

Now if or when someone gets bitten then we can truly determine the score of the teeth…dang! Cite a case example sometime!!! So we can see the extent of the teeth you talk about. In this country with 300 mil people, if it was truly an issue, at least a few examples should be evident.

STLPilot

My Feedback: (21)

Obviously your looking for a bout, once again. I'm posting literal facts, that's it. The teeth is the FAA policy, it's their wording and it's clear as day, plain english. There is a reason DM is meeting with the FAA in regards to the UAS policy. Because the link I posted above said that tighter rules are on the way. But the teeth are already there LCS, it's black and white, these are AMA forum guesses. Now the FAA is just going to start biting down. That's why the FAA does and that's what they've always done.

Personally I don't think there will be a big change to AC 91-57 at all. But they will add a new class that seperates AC 91-57 from certified UAS aicraft, again, like the document explains. This will weed out those who think they are flying under AC 91-57 and really are not. But now are hands are in DM's.

But if you really want to know some good examples ... simple ... all of those police departments around the USA who have been grounded and some fined. In every article I read the cops were saying ... "well how come my kid can do it and the police dept cant". We've already been down that road ... do a search for it.

KingCrash

Interesting reading.
I'm hoping the AMA can help un-muddy the water a bit too, but I fear when they start saying things like "clarify definition of MODEL AIRCRAFT" we all may well wind up with sour persimmons!

Greg S

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

Good point. I agree.

KidEpoxy

Perhaps muncie will find a new place to install a comma in these new rules to spin them around too.

The Toolman

He won't because he can't.
If it was law it would be written as law an not an advisory. Another example of stl trying to show us that he is a know it all


Ronnie

The Toolman

Im with LCS on this one "Cite a case example sometime" I rather doubt you can do it..........



Ronnie

ira d

In the fifteen years I have been flying rc I have never heard of anyone that has had
a run with the FAA concearning model operation. It would also seem to me if the FAA
was into regulateing models they would start by informing the AMA and by posting
in all hobby shops.

I for one dont see how the FAA could keep up with all the model activity in this
country, I can see them wanting to regulate very large models say over 200lb
and also models that fly higher than 1,000 feet but to try to regulate everything
else would be a big task IMO.

Hossfly

Anytime any government large agency publishes an ORDER to establish a committee to study something, you can bet your sweet patootie that the results of that study have already been previously determined. [sm=47_47.gif]

The order specifically states to "....clarify the definition of model aircraft." While I have had no model airplane dealings with the "Feds", I certainly have had some with them in the 1:1 scale arena, right up to having absurd criminal charges filed against me. The Feds even tried to appeal the court's "Not Guilty" findings. The Fed. Dist. Court Judge told them to get lost. [>:]
FAA loves their bureaucracy, and will stop at IMO nothing to get something which makes them look busy and productive. Guess who the loser will be! Well, it will not be Mr. Money Bags, or a big-time politician. It will be little ol' Joe Lower-case that will not be able to really fight the accusation, and/or will not be of any significant political concern. (I was glad that the Air Line Pilot's Association was there. Definitely no help came from Unitsd Airlines [:'(] )

Certainly, no one here is so naive as to think the AMA with 150,000 members would be of any political significance in the overall aviation world. OTOH, they are all we have to be a voice for us. Some voice is better than NO voice. For certain those individuals operating outside organized aeromodeling are simply that individuals and will be afforded no consideration, as they have no voice at all.

My favorite thoughts to those that think something cannot happen is that Edward John Smith boasted that for 40 years at sea, he never saw an accident that took human life. Then, shortly later, he sailed as Captain of the Titanic.
In th last 10 years other things have happened that 99.99999999% would have thought could NOT be done.

Never stick the head in the sand when the government or Board of Directors are in session.

KingCrash

Not to derail my own topic here, the only time I've heard of FAA concern over operation of model aircraft by hobbyists are when they directly interfered with civil and commercial airtraffic. For example, the AMA Nats RC pattern event in Lincoln, Ne. Gawd....umm 78 or 79, I think. Anyway Chuck Shade wrote about it. The FAA told the guys not to fly over the grass strip between the inactive runway used for the event and the active runway. A couple of people did and the FAA said they'd shut down the whole event should that happen again.

If they redefine model as well as they define other things, we could become the Academy of AeroAce aeronautics [sm=drowning.gif]
We now return to our regular program

Greg S

STLPilot

My Feedback: (21)

Of course the FAA can't keep up with it all. I mean how many times did you speed in your car this year, few thousand? How many times did you get caught? How many police are there compared to FAA "police" 1000:1? You don't get caught, until you get caught. Usually in the FAA's case, when you interact with another airplane or one of their registered facilities. But one things for sure, don't expect the AMA to ever go around what the FAA mandates.

But keep in the mind the UAS policy is only 1 year old and in the policy they were talking about not effecting AC-91-57, but to define it's limits above AC91-57. This means that those who think they are flying under AC-91-57 will finally know where the real separation is going. Case in the point the FAA is evaluating a new class between 400' and 1200', but it won't be part of AC-91-57, that's for sure. Like I said all this info is clearly stated in the UAS documents, this is not my knowledge, these are literal statements.

Ronnie and LCS, if you want me to confirm my information, do a search on RCU or and UAV forum, or you can just call me a liar which would be a compliment. Frankly I don't care if you think AC-91-57 has teeth or not, go do whatever you want however you want, it makes no difference to how I live my life. I read plain english, give it a try.

KidEpoxy

How many speeding tickets were handed out by police across the nation this year?
There is a huge difference between "cant enforce" and them actually collecting millions in fines. As a pizza driver I can tell you first hand that they sit in the same radar trap every day, and I see between 3 and 5 guys getting tickets at that one trap every night. Not bad for a podunk berg in the sticks with more deer than folks.


To apply this to RC,
would you be happy if only 15k of our 150k members get charged/fined for busting the fed,
as long as you didnt it would mean it aint enforcable?

ira d

I wont argue the fact that the FAA has been looking into model
operation in the last year or so. I guess one could say round and
round they go where they will stop nobody knows.

I do think however if the FAA desides to start to regulate or enforce if you
rather use that word model rules the AMA members will be among the
first to know.