A local paper in Miami today, 8/9/05, reported that "The FAA announced last month that it is issuing a notice of proposed rulemaking, but only for visual, line-of-sight operated UAVs that fly outside of commercial areas below 400 feet. The rules are not expected to be in effect until 2008."

Does anyone know anything about this? Would the rules as now contemplated affect RC aircraft and if so, how so? I read Dave Brown's recent comments in Model Aviation about altitude restrictions in general but wondered if any other information is available?

Went to the FAA's web site and nothing is posted in the NPRMs, a search for UAV's got a two page talking paper that the issue needs to be fully addressed.

Why not give AMA a call or Email? They are the ones that keep up with this stuff.
Apparently that is what DB was alluding to in his article.


3dbob

Even better idea... why not call the FAA, and ask them directly? I am getting to the point that I take anything DB has to say with a grain or two of salt. I will tell you this, from having experience with the FAA as a full scale pilot, if this NPRM does apply to R/C aircraft, and the R/C community as a whole does not band together and work to resolve the matter, the FAA will put rules into play, and get exactly what they want. If we sit around and wait and think "oh, that's what I pay my AMA dues for; so the AMA can handle stuff like this", we're gonna get screwed royally. If that happens, we all deserve exactly what we get for not standing up and protecting the R/C hobby.

What paper, and are there any references to the NPRM itself ?

http://www.helifreak.com/about8099.html
This just one website that current discussions are on going. AMA reps met with the FAA yesterday and today, no word on what was decided or what actually was discussed. I suggest that EVERYONE start reading all that they can on any hobby related website concerning this topic and become EDUCATED on what is at stake here. NO one wants the FAA sticking their RULES/REGS on our hobby, and if they get half a chance, all of us will have to start 'jumping thru the hoops' just to fly our models! (IMHO) Start reading, and become better informed. Then, let your AMA District VP know what YOUR thoughts are concerning the FAA's attempt to regulate our hobby!
JhonR
AMA District V - AVP Central AL Region

Here's the main discussion starter:

"Ok as many of you are aware the FAA has now made it clear that the AMA needs to update its guidelines with regards to how we interact with the national airspace system.
President Brown talked about it last month in his letter published in Model Aviation.
Several people have talked with the FAA and confirmed that recreational use of model aircraft needs to be addressed and the AMA is discussing it with them.
I know how some of you feel about the AMA so here is your chance to speak.
I was just informed that members of the ASTM F38 committee are headed to DC today for meetings with the FAA tomorrow.
He is being asked to present his ideas on UAS (including recreational) and present an airworthiness package he has been working on for his small UAS.
Dave asked me specifically to get some ideas from all on this so he can share them so here is your chance.

The outcome of the recreational use guidelines has a great impact on how they treat commercial use of the under 55 lb UAS.

We want your inputs. I started a thread at RCAPA for just that.
Please give us your thoughts on constructive ways to make model aviation more responsible and safer for everyone.

http://www.rcapa.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=634

That thread will be important long after tomorrow as several groups have been asked to meet with the FAA on this.
We as the RCAPA can only do whats best if we hear from those involved.
Recreational use is not what we started out to do, but now it sounds like we need to have our say in the matter also to give us a better foundation to work the commecial side of things.

This is posted here in the main discussion because EVERY modeler out there needs to speak up or risk being told how they can fly instead of giving the "rule makers" the "rules" to write.

If you can post on the RCAPA site that would be great (one less thread to keep track of. ) if not post it here.
I am not going to start another discussion here. That has been done ad nausium in other areas of all the forums.
I would like to have constructive ideas placed here in more comment form if you can. This round we have a limited amount of time (there are going to be other opportunities) so arguing about it is not productive.

Also if you would like there is a letter I wrote to President Brown posted there as well. To date it has gone unanswered..

JhonR-

Very good thinking, on your part and the other participants in the thread you posted a link to. I find a lot to agree with both in the necessity for and direction of what you are trying to accomplish. I'll lurk for a while before I offer my thoughts (if any), but I can say now that I am behind what you are doing and thank you for doing it.

Abel

Clarification:

I did NOT 'author' that post above (copy/paste from the listed website above). Lets give credit where it's due:

fitenfyr
Location: Port Orchard, Washington

Now, I want to go on record (as a CFI/MEI for the past 15 years) stating that I do NOT want the FAA trying to REGULATE model aircraft.. PERIOD. However, in this day in age with 'Homeland Security' issues abound, there 'might' be some form of 'informal training' needed for those who buy/fly the 'park flyer' aircraft..who don't have a good general knowledge of how model aviation affects full size aviation in certain circumstances. That be it may, history has shown that once a government agency gets it's 'teeth' into a particular activity, it's like cancer....it spreads until it chokes the very activity it was trying to 'protect'.. yeah, right! whatever..

Like I said folks, READ whatever you can find concerning this development concerning the FAA and it's recent discussions concerning our hobby with the AMA. Looks like we're going to have to let our District VP's know how we feel concerning this matter..and SOON! Be sure to respond to ANY Notice of Proposed Rule Making that might affect our hobby. Keep a close eye on this..is all I'm saying.

JhonR
District V - AVP Central AL District.

BTW, there are other Special Interest Group websites hosting discussions such as this one as well. Some more 'lively'. Google them and you'll find them.
JR

I'm not worried about park flyers because I doubt that those things would ever get into the flight path of a rider-scale a/c, and if it did the damage would likely amount to a sparrow strike. I 'spose if you took it to the nth degree a 1:1 might suffer damage from running over a park flyer, but not likely very much.

What I'm worried about is that FAA doesn't know diddly about model aviation in general except that we exist and that our models look very much to the untrained eye like something a terrorist might employ. Worse, in their ignorance, FAA would likely make no distinction between park flyers and my giant models, lumping them into the same undesireable class of nuisance objects to be severely controlled.

What bothers me even more is Dave Brown spouting max altitude recommendations off the top of his myopic head. 1000' (if I recall his statement correctly) won't cut it for the glider guiders, and his off-the-cuff 'recommendation' sure looks to me like yet another situation where heretofore acceptable record flight attempts will soon fall into the 'you need a waiver to do that' category.

Letting paranoia run rampant, it's not too difficult to envision a future where model aviation waivers for whatever purpose are under the purview of FAA, you can't get a waiver from FAA if you don't have an FAA license, and I betcha you can see where that thought leads.

In the end, AMA members have brought this on themselves by ignoring the election process and letting political animals stay on the EC for decades, and those political animals didn't do anything at all to plan for the future. Granted, no one was concerned with FAA prior to 9/11/01, but it's been _four years_ and STILL nothing has been done.

Tony and Dave and Andy are the newbies on the EC, but they've not had time to make a dent in the good ol' boy mindset that plagues the EC.

I'm worried that the horse is long gone and AMA leaders don't even know we have a barn.

Guys,
I am the author of that post.
Didn't know this was here as I don't visit RCUniverse much. My focus has been on the commercial side of things until lately.

I have been the brunt of those !QUOT!lively!QUOT! discussions on other sites.

I have been turned onto the point of contact at the AMA who is discussing this with the FAA and as soon as possible I am going to be talking to him to get some questions answered.

A brief history of why I am now interested in what the AMA is doing and where myself and several others have been over the last year.

About a year ago a group of us you by now have probably heard about (the RCAPA) got wind that the FAA was going to mandate regulation (the NPRM you are talking about. Which by the way is not out that I can find either. I will check on it to be sure) for !QUOT!UAV'S!QUOT!
From those sporadic and very limited discussions we were told that R/C aircraft were going to get lumped in there. Then we were told that only if they were used for commercial purposes were they going to be included. Then that kind of changed again...well you get the idea.
Now after a year of working we have finally gotten through to the people at the FAA who are working on this. Finally we are getting some direct answers to the questions regarding who and what.
They are not pretty.
The who is ALL model aircraft in one way shape or form and the what is some sort of increased regulation.
Mr. Steve Swartz at the FAA told me directly he has been talking to the AMA and is !QUOT!concerned!QUOT! about the outdated AC 91-57 and the !QUOT!guidelines!QUOT! the AMA has regarding altitudes and distance from a manned aircraft airport.
This led me to be more than interested in what the AMA is doing and ironically right after that I read President Browns article in MODEL AVIATION.
It concerned me as being way too generic in nature and not something that the FAA is going to take seriously. I too am a certified pilot and could as a pilot see lots of problems with the generic idea presented.
I have been trying to get some direct contact with the AMA to sort out the position and !QUOT!plan!QUOT! they have been discussing with the FAA. In hopes that I can help with it and at the same time maybe we can bring something to the table that will help us out in the commercial area as well. The RCAPA has the position that we are not much different than a hobbyist and we don't want to be over burdened by regulation that is not really necessary. The RCAPA wants to basically self regulate also.

Contrary to what some seem to think about me. I am not out to ruin the hobby or try to have everyone attend my !QUOT!special flight school!QUOT! I am secretly developing.
I am just trying to help. I think I have a unique ability to see both sides of the issue and as such can lend a hand with both parties. In fact myself and others think any training that needs done can be easily done on-line at NO cost to the individual.
I am most concerned with the fact that the FAA people admitted know little to nothing about what we do at the hobby level or the commercial level. They have just been told to !QUOT!fix!QUOT! the !QUOT!problem!QUOT!. Typical government. Somebody in a position of power gets his or her proverbial shorts twisted and we as the public suffer. Homeland Security, the FBI and all those government agencies have been and are looking at the potential threat a small unmanned aircraft present to the country so I am sure they have been bugging the FAA about this as well.

I don't want to see the hobby taken away or overbearing regulation placed upon us at any level. I do however see room to make improvements on BOTH sides of the fence. The FAA can do more to educate full scale operators on R/C operations and the AMA can do more to educate the general hobbyist on the hazards associated with our hobby in some areas.

I am a member of the AOPA. Have been for about 13 years. They are one of the strongest forces opposed to letting us do our own thing. The AOPA if you don't know is the Aircraft owners and pilots association. They have over 400,000 members across the country. They represent all of general aviation and have lots of money and ties to the people that be on the hill. I have been in contact with Randy Kenagy the AOPA person in charge of the UAV activities and is the person that is working with the FAA on all of this.

In addition I am a member of the ASTM F38 committee on Unmanned Aircraft systems. These are the industry folks that are working to get the guys like Aerosonde, Boeing, Raytheon, etc...industry standards so they can be self regulating also. These are the real folks the FAA has their sites set on. These guys want to fly on a filed flight plan just like every other aircraft in the country. They want to fly up there with your wife and kids going to see grandma.
However these guys want to do it just as safely and are willing to work with EVERYONE to ensure they are getting the job done and looking for the best way to do it without the FAA burdening them with regulations they cannot handle right now. Let's face it most if not all of those aircraft have roots in the very models we enjoy flying for sport and fun and in fact over 75% of the UAS that the military is looking at or buying are the same size, shape and equipped as what we fly at the field.


Starting to see how all of this is tying together now?


So there is a nutshell version of who I am and what I am about with regards to this.

The RCAPA can be found on the net. There are over 600 people registered as members so the !QUOT!commercial!QUOT! side of the hobby is growing quickly.
I am a member of that group and have been for sometime now. I am one of the small group that is dedicated to working this issue to a solution that is acceptable to EVERYONE involved. We are always looking for more help so if you can spare a few hours a week drop the RCAPA an e-mail and volunteer.
My vest is getting a bit tattered these days with all the bullets being fired at me, but a few repairs and it will be good as new so fire away.....

I was concerned that Dave Brown did not seem to be fully aware of what control the FAA regs have over model aviation. Which is not much.

.....at least not yet. [:-]

Not sure who you are trying to contact at AMA. It is a matter of record that Dave Brown, Jay Mealy, and Don Koranda have been talking to the FAA. If you are not familiar with Koranda, he came to the AMA to serve as Executive Director last December. IIRC, he was President of the NAA for the prior 9 years, and the VP of the AOPA during part of the 21 years he was employeed by them, prior to his service with the NAA.

Koranda's hiring was spearheaded by the current EVP, Doug Holland. Perhaps Holland knows more than he lets on.

JR,
Yes it is Jay Mealy. I have been in contact with him already. He is out of town till next week and we are going to talk then.
That is good to hear about Mr. Koranda. Sounds like he is a good person for the job.

I guess my point to all this is regulation doesn't have to be a pain in the proverbial backside IF we get involved and persue how it is done.
The FAA has made it clear to a bunch of people that they don't know how to handle this. They have ASKED for help from those of us that want to (The AMA, RCAPA, ASTM, RTCA, etc...) This is such a new concept with government I am still in shock.
However if we don't speak up through our special interest groups we are going to be left out holding the bag.
I also don't feel now is the time to just say things to the effect of go away we don't want regulation.
We need to be giving them ideas to support our use that will provide them with information to write regulation.
The challenge to this is the "goals" of the regulation have been shrouded in darkness this entire time. We are just now starting to learn more about the issues at the commercial level and the hobby level I am still a bit in the dark as to the FAA's needs. I have some ideas, but they are based on the commercial needs we know about.

I would love for all of this to go away as much as the next guy, but until it does I want to be part of the voice that drives this. Hopefully keeping a more level playing field against the governmental machine that usually runs over this stuff.

Try Access 5. I have been watching them for a couple of years. Everyone else seems to be unaware of their existence until they have almost re-invented the wheel, then they find Access 5. Just my opinion.

http://www.access5.aero/site_content/index.html

J_R

I have known about ACCESS 5 however their focus is well beyond what we are doing here.
ACCESS 5 is made up of the 5 "big" manufactures in the industry and NASA.
They are trying to do good things for the bigger UAS, but could really care less about the under 55lb crowd.
Those guys along with RTCA are focusing on the impacts in the National Airspace for the larger Global Hawk kinds of aircraft.
In fact the biggest goal they are going to face in the not too distant future is a fully autonomous cargo aircraft the likes of an MD-11 or 747. [sm=eek.gif]
The FEDEX CEO has already made the statement expressing interest in developing a automated cargo aircraft for his fleet.
Given the current autopilots, GPS advances and FMC's it is not too distant of a goal IMO.
Course I am sure the unions are having a thing or two to say about it. The Airline pilots association is probably giving birth to furry animals over that idea.

That should make an interesting future for some young entrepreneurs in the scrap metals recovery area. It will be well scattered around.
At least the Air Traffic Controllers will be smiling. At long last they will be able to command the airplane rather than have to abide by the Captain's decisions.
First Fly-By-wire, already converting form to scrap, and now automation. Oh well, "Do not worry, nothing can go wrong, go wrong, go wrong, go wrong........"

BTW those that credit the current AMA EVP with the ultimate selection of Mr. Koranda for AMA ED should be good prospects to buy a ticket on the first automated airliner, even if it be a freighter. [>:]

Retired Airline Captain, UAL
Century Club ALPA
National Aviation & Space Exploration Wall of Honor, Stephen F. Udvar-Hazy Center

I'm with you on that one Horace.
I think the idea of something that big covering that much turf should be left to the hands of a human being that has the ability to think through a problem not follow an algorithim.
The idea is all about $$$ and how the company can make more.
What did they used to tell you when you got the first FMC's.. The dog and the pilot sketch. You know the dog is just there to bite the pilots hand if he touches anything.

The scariest part of this was a post I saw on another web site where a gentleman who is trying to work a commercial aerial photography business approached the FAA with his own proposals that would establish a graded training and certification program which seemed to boil down to people who wanted to fly UAVs, commercial or not, except RC models under about 2.5 pounds , would have to go through a series of graduated steps requiring training programs and lisence examinations by the FAA

The FAA has seen several angles on this proposed.
They are open to listen to all and right now I think calmer heads will prevail as the majority of the groups involved would like to see a "less is better" approach.

The groups I am involved in are well aware of the proposal you have mentioned and honestly I wouldn't worry about it at all.
I have discussed that issue directly with my point of contact at the FAA and they are well aware it is on the extreme side of things and probably not necessary given the scope it was written with.

There will be something of that nauture required of the larger (above 55lb) UAS for sure or the equivelant manned aircraft certificates will be required, but for the groups we are interested in (sub 55lb) they are aware such measures would be obtrusive and unecessary.

Jason:

Are you also a member of RTCA SC-203. If not, I would recommend that you also participate in this activity. We are working on the MASPS for UAS, Command and Control and Detect, See and Avoid for UAS. if you want link to the KSN site, drop me a line.

There are many other people working this issue right now, and I wouldnt be surprised to see some sort of draft doc before the end of the year.

Also, I would most assuredly disagree that the FAA doesn't know anything about our hobby. The DFO on SC-203 is a pattern guy in addition to working UAV issues for FAA. At least 5 people in our meeting of 18 people flyRC, and those include guys that are flying MQ-1 and MQ-9, so commercial guys do know something about our hobby.

If you visit the AeroViroment mfg facility, half (or more) of the guys working in the mfg area's are RC guys and work on their own projects and bring their enthusiam and expertise to help make products like Desert Hawk and others work so well.

is F38 continuing their efforts? i know they published a standard, but what else are they going to be working on?

I'm glad that someone is taking about this, because when i read the letter in MA, i was not pleased to see a reference to 18000 feet as "not smart". why are we mentioning 18000 feet at all. its like waving a red flag in front of a bull to the FAA

We are also not doing ourselves any favors by advertising gyro stabilized camera platforms for "performing aerial photography in your neighborhood" and then saying that we don't want any regulation.

Its gonna happen, but i think that the guys who are just hobbiests, like most of the AMA members, are not going to be really inconvienced.

and i don't know where 1000 feet came from. when i checked the data from my EagleTreeSystems DFDR, I showed 600 plus feet and it didnt seem that high to me, but without a visual reference, its kinda hard to tell. the jet guys pulling aloop?? im thinking that 1000 feet is not gonna cut it. and i think that the pattern guys regularly exceed 400 feet.

just my 4 cents (inflation).

Regarding RTCA SC-203, they are not "just" interested in GH or HALE/MALE vehicles. ACCESS 5 is a HALE project. Many of the people involved in ACCESS 5 are also involved with SC-203.

As for stating that FAA is not going to be require anything for below 55# UAS, I think that is a nice thought, but what airspace you are operating, and who you are (Public Use Aircraft vs private use) will also factor into it.

Imagine JoeBagodonuts LLC flying his copercam for Channel 3 news providing traffic reports at the junction of the Edens and Kennedy (90-94) about 5 miles from O'hare. I believe that it is a resonable assumption that a less than 55# UAS flying in close (or even IN) Class B airspace is going to require a PILOT, not an operator, and single string systems arent going to cut it.

But will these systems evolve into the single pilot freighters that Fred Smith would like? It's possible, but the level of reliability, security, redundency are not going to happen overnight (even if the Airbus briefing stated single aisle freighter ops in 2020). Just look at D0-178B and believe that to certify to that level, is serious money. TCAS took over 400 Million dollars and that happened because of a Congressional mandate.

anyhow, this is the last place i expected to see this discussion but its kind of fun to be discussing this here.

on another note, are there so many jets for sale because of the clampdown on jet meets????

cheers

Joe,
I am not sure I disagree with you simply because of the public safety issue. That being said, I also am sure that redundant systems can and will be developed to improve the reliability of smaller systems. That does not mean man certified, however it does mean system controlled and probably at lighter weights.

Most of the turbine guys sell their stuff to buy newer, bigger, and better stuff.

My comments on the Fred Smith thing was can it be done, not should it be. And my point of view is stricktley from a safety case.

Certification issues are huge, and hugely expensive. When mfg's sit down and realize what it will cost for certifying systems to operate in the NAS, some will elect not to create certified systems, and my just sell to the DOD. Others, with experience in the certification process, will go ahead, but until the regulations exist (and that's what the output of SC-203 is supposed to propose to the FAA), everyone has an opinion and its just that.

I, for one, am not happy with the idea of unmanned freight ops because the ops, while it might not have people on board, still flys over populated areas and would operate within the same National Airspace System (NAS) that you and I fly in. Will we as the public accept any lower level of safety of the overall NAS for UAV activity? I certainly hope not.