FAA Finally Proposes ‘Flexible’ Rule On Small UAS
02-16-2015, 08:29 AM
#1
FAA Finally Proposes ‘Flexible’ Rule On Small UAS
http://aviationweek.com/commercial-a...rule-small-uas
Quote;
Anyone wanting to fly a small unmanned aircraft commercially in U.S. airspace will have to obtain an special operator certificate and pass a test on the “rules of the air”, but the aircraft themselves will not require airworthiness approval, according to a proposed rule finally released Feb.15 by the FAA.
According to the long-delayed small unmanned aircraft systems (SUAS) notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), aircraft must weigh less than 55 lb., must remain within unaided visual line-of-sight of the operator or visual observer and can fly only in daylight. Maximum speed is restricted to 100 mph. and altitude to 500 ft. “Operations are restricted near airports and in certain airspace unless air traffic control gives permission, to provide a buffer between manned and unmanned aircraft,” says FAA Administrator Michael Huerta.
Announcing release of the NPRM, Huerta and Transportation Secretary Antony Foxx stressed that the proposed rule does not apply to hobby or recreational use of model aircraft. They will continue to be required to fly within the FAA’s model aircraft guidelines, he says.
Quote;
Anyone wanting to fly a small unmanned aircraft commercially in U.S. airspace will have to obtain an special operator certificate and pass a test on the “rules of the air”, but the aircraft themselves will not require airworthiness approval, according to a proposed rule finally released Feb.15 by the FAA.
According to the long-delayed small unmanned aircraft systems (SUAS) notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), aircraft must weigh less than 55 lb., must remain within unaided visual line-of-sight of the operator or visual observer and can fly only in daylight. Maximum speed is restricted to 100 mph. and altitude to 500 ft. “Operations are restricted near airports and in certain airspace unless air traffic control gives permission, to provide a buffer between manned and unmanned aircraft,” says FAA Administrator Michael Huerta.
Announcing release of the NPRM, Huerta and Transportation Secretary Antony Foxx stressed that the proposed rule does not apply to hobby or recreational use of model aircraft. They will continue to be required to fly within the FAA’s model aircraft guidelines, he says.
02-16-2015, 10:01 AM
#2
Much more relevant information is here:
http://amablog.modelaircraft.org/ama...rule-for-suas/
It includes links to all of the FAA's info. on the subject, including a copy of the proposed rule...
Bob
http://amablog.modelaircraft.org/ama...rule-for-suas/
It includes links to all of the FAA's info. on the subject, including a copy of the proposed rule...
Bob
02-16-2015, 04:19 PM
#4
First, as I read it so far, these rules *do not* apply to these types of aircraft if they are operated for recreational purposes as long as they are operated within the rules of a "community-based organization" (like the AMA). That is as we want it...
Second, as I read it, these rules do not impose restrictions on who may buy these types of vehicles - only on who may operate them for commercial purposes and under what circumstances/qualifications. That is also what we should expect as a free-market society...
Bob
02-16-2015, 08:54 PM
#5
Sorry but the reality is they wont be operated in a Eutopian manner. They will continue to be operated just as they are now and worse as more idiots up the game. Im just counting down until a fool attempts the use of a payload if you get my meaning.
If these RC vehicles were heavily restricted it would benefit us all. If organizations and pros want to use them for professional applications and they are registered and licensed like other aerospace pros then great thats good for the segment and safety.
I hate more restrictions and rules but what I wont stand for is losing my hobby to a bunch of fools.
If these RC vehicles were heavily restricted it would benefit us all. If organizations and pros want to use them for professional applications and they are registered and licensed like other aerospace pros then great thats good for the segment and safety.
I hate more restrictions and rules but what I wont stand for is losing my hobby to a bunch of fools.
02-17-2015, 03:41 AM
#6
Sorry but the reality is they wont be operated in a Eutopian manner. They will continue to be operated just as they are now and worse as more idiots up the game. Im just counting down until a fool attempts the use of a payload if you get my meaning.
If these RC vehicles were heavily restricted it would benefit us all. If organizations and pros want to use them for professional applications and they are registered and licensed like other aerospace pros then great thats good for the segment and safety.
I hate more restrictions and rules but what I wont stand for is losing my hobby to a bunch of fools.
If these RC vehicles were heavily restricted it would benefit us all. If organizations and pros want to use them for professional applications and they are registered and licensed like other aerospace pros then great thats good for the segment and safety.
I hate more restrictions and rules but what I wont stand for is losing my hobby to a bunch of fools.
02-17-2015, 06:22 AM
#8
My Feedback: (19)
This is a good thing for the guys that want to be "legal." It gives a path for those that want to do it the right way and are capable of doing it the right way. This is very much needed. I have been seeing more and more TV shows that are obviously using quads for some of the shots. They were not truly legal doing this in the US.
That said, the idiots are still going to be idiots. You don't have to have a license to buy a car. You can drive without insurance even though it is not legal. There are responsible gun owners and irresponsible ones. Our only hope is that some of the idiots can be made examples of without there being a true tragedy first.
That said, the idiots are still going to be idiots. You don't have to have a license to buy a car. You can drive without insurance even though it is not legal. There are responsible gun owners and irresponsible ones. Our only hope is that some of the idiots can be made examples of without there being a true tragedy first.
02-17-2015, 07:08 AM
#9
You guys need to actually read and understand the rules before you comment.
What the rules say is that for commercial use, you *must* follow these rules. For non-commercial use, you *must* either:
1) operate under the rules of a "community-based organization" (i.e., the AMA, once it is certified as such by the FAA), or
2) follow these rules - i.e., less than 500ft, not over people, not within 5 miles of an airport, not over 100 MPH, proper training, etc.
According to some in the process that I have talked to, there will be significant penalties for violating these rules - i.e., fines and possible jail time if the result endangers people.
Yes, idiots are going to be idiots, but under these rules, idiots will be violating these rules and will be subject to enforcement action. At the same time, those of us who have been, and will continue to, operate under AMA rules, will be unrestricted in our activities. What more could we ask for?
As for the AMA and quads, I see the point of distancing ourselves (i.e., AMA members) from them, but honestly, I've come to agree with the AMA leadership that this approach won't work. The AMA wants the FAA to see them as part of the solution, not part of the problem, and education is a big part of the solution - that's a significant part of what the AMA does. Also, the AMA needs the FAA to designate them as a "CBO", and working with the FAA to help solve the problem is key to that effort...
Bob
What the rules say is that for commercial use, you *must* follow these rules. For non-commercial use, you *must* either:
1) operate under the rules of a "community-based organization" (i.e., the AMA, once it is certified as such by the FAA), or
2) follow these rules - i.e., less than 500ft, not over people, not within 5 miles of an airport, not over 100 MPH, proper training, etc.
According to some in the process that I have talked to, there will be significant penalties for violating these rules - i.e., fines and possible jail time if the result endangers people.
Yes, idiots are going to be idiots, but under these rules, idiots will be violating these rules and will be subject to enforcement action. At the same time, those of us who have been, and will continue to, operate under AMA rules, will be unrestricted in our activities. What more could we ask for?
As for the AMA and quads, I see the point of distancing ourselves (i.e., AMA members) from them, but honestly, I've come to agree with the AMA leadership that this approach won't work. The AMA wants the FAA to see them as part of the solution, not part of the problem, and education is a big part of the solution - that's a significant part of what the AMA does. Also, the AMA needs the FAA to designate them as a "CBO", and working with the FAA to help solve the problem is key to that effort...
Bob
02-17-2015, 12:35 PM
#10
You guys need to actually read and understand the rules before you comment.
What the rules say is that for commercial use, you *must* follow these rules. For non-commercial use, you *must* either:
1) operate under the rules of a "community-based organization" (i.e., the AMA, once it is certified as such by the FAA), or
2) follow these rules - i.e., less than 500ft, not over people, not within 5 miles of an airport, not over 100 MPH, proper training, etc.
According to some in the process that I have talked to, there will be significant penalties for violating these rules - i.e., fines and possible jail time if the result endangers people.
Yes, idiots are going to be idiots, but under these rules, idiots will be violating these rules and will be subject to enforcement action. At the same time, those of us who have been, and will continue to, operate under AMA rules, will be unrestricted in our activities. What more could we ask for?
As for the AMA and quads, I see the point of distancing ourselves (i.e., AMA members) from them, but honestly, I've come to agree with the AMA leadership that this approach won't work. The AMA wants the FAA to see them as part of the solution, not part of the problem, and education is a big part of the solution - that's a significant part of what the AMA does. Also, the AMA needs the FAA to designate them as a "CBO", and working with the FAA to help solve the problem is key to that effort...
Bob
What the rules say is that for commercial use, you *must* follow these rules. For non-commercial use, you *must* either:
1) operate under the rules of a "community-based organization" (i.e., the AMA, once it is certified as such by the FAA), or
2) follow these rules - i.e., less than 500ft, not over people, not within 5 miles of an airport, not over 100 MPH, proper training, etc.
According to some in the process that I have talked to, there will be significant penalties for violating these rules - i.e., fines and possible jail time if the result endangers people.
Yes, idiots are going to be idiots, but under these rules, idiots will be violating these rules and will be subject to enforcement action. At the same time, those of us who have been, and will continue to, operate under AMA rules, will be unrestricted in our activities. What more could we ask for?
As for the AMA and quads, I see the point of distancing ourselves (i.e., AMA members) from them, but honestly, I've come to agree with the AMA leadership that this approach won't work. The AMA wants the FAA to see them as part of the solution, not part of the problem, and education is a big part of the solution - that's a significant part of what the AMA does. Also, the AMA needs the FAA to designate them as a "CBO", and working with the FAA to help solve the problem is key to that effort...
Bob
