Disturbing FAA Analysis - distance from airports

[Insight Aerials]

I think we are saying the same thing. Drones are aircraft; aircraft can't be operated commercially unless they meet certain requirements such as licensing of the pilot, and all of the requirements of an aircraft certification. That would presumably include the transponder at <30 miles from a major airport.

No, aircraft cannot be operated at all (commercially or not) unless the aircraft and pilot meet all those requirements. Commercial use is an even higher hurdle, but certainly not the only one.

The no-commercial-use thing for UAVs is mostly a canard--they're trying to find some way to hold back the tide while they get their regulatory act together, and RC aircraft have been around for decades, so they don't have much leverage beyond the 1981 A/C. Nobody's really cared about commercial use of RC aircraft until now, so I see it as a (quasi-) legal stopgap for the short term.

If the existing FARs are any indication, I would expect more regulation on commercial use than on private use, but I would expect private use to be regulated to some extent as well.

From what I have read and understand. The 1981 AC 91-57 http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/91-57.pdf is still in effect and should be followed until the FAA comes out with the new rules.

 

[gmtx]

Interesting read, but I'm curious: It specifically states that compliance is voluntary. Are these regulations or merely recommendations?

Geoff

 

[dkatz42]

From what I have read and understand. The 1981 AC 91-57 http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/91-57.pdf is still in effect and should be followed until the FAA comes out with the new rules.

While I would tend to agree, obviously the FAA sees it differently.

These things are not your father's RC airplanes...

 

[dkatz42]

Interesting read, but I'm curious: It specifically states that compliance is voluntary. Are these regulations or merely recommendations?

An A/C is not regulatory, but the FAA has broad powers of enforcement (particularly the catchall 91.13) if they really want to.

What makes all this interesting is that the FAA's usual leverage is certificate action (pulling your ticket for 30 days, requiring remedial training, occasionally a revocation). Civil and criminal action is very rare.

However, most folks operating these beasts don't have a certificate to act against, so all they really have to go on is the cease-and-desist letter (notwithstanding the guy facing the $10K fine).

I suspect that if I got caught being an idiot, the FAA would try to do something with my commercial multi ticket, even though I was on the ground with a drone at the time.

 

[cfionthefly]

Interesting read, but I'm curious: It specifically states that compliance is voluntary. Are these regulations or merely recommendations?

An A/C is not regulatory, but the FAA has broad powers of enforcement (particularly the catchall 91.13) if they really want to.

What makes all this interesting is that the FAA's usual leverage is certificate action (pulling your ticket for 30 days, requiring remedial training, occasionally a revocation). Civil and criminal action is very rare.

However, most folks operating these beasts don't have a certificate to act against, so all they really have to go on is the cease-and-desist letter (notwithstanding the guy facing the $10K fine).

I suspect that if I got caught being an idiot, the FAA would try to do something with my commercial multi ticket, even though I was on the ground with a drone at the time.

Ive been thinking about this too. Ive got my ATP and depend on my certificate to feed my family. Not knowing exactly what is and what is not permissable is very unsettling to me.

 

[rmklaw]

Interesting read, but I'm curious: It specifically states that compliance is voluntary. Are these regulations or merely recommendations?

An A/C is not regulatory, but the FAA has broad powers of enforcement (particularly the catchall 91.13) if they really want to.

What makes all this interesting is that the FAA's usual leverage is certificate action (pulling your ticket for 30 days, requiring remedial training, occasionally a revocation). Civil and criminal action is very rare.

However, most folks operating these beasts don't have a certificate to act against, so all they really have to go on is the cease-and-desist letter (notwithstanding the guy facing the $10K fine).

I suspect that if I got caught being an idiot, the FAA would try to do something with my commercial multi ticket, even though I was on the ground with a drone at the time.

Ive been thinking about this too. Ive got my ATP and depend on my certificate to feed my family. Not knowing exactly what is and what is not permissable is very unsettling to me.

I have a commercial/multi also. Further I am an attorney that has done a lot of FAA regulatory work on behalf of clients. You are right. The FAA would, if they suspect an FAR violation, to take enforcement action against the certificate. That is how they get jurisdiction. Personally, I am very conservative (for obvious reasons), and don't push it.

Having said that, I welcome any opportunity to assist my fellow hobbyists, but it does not constitute legal advice (my disclaimer). :mrgreen:

 

[pbleic]

I think we are saying the same thing. Drones are aircraft; aircraft can't be operated commercially unless they meet certain requirements such as licensing of the pilot, and all of the requirements of an aircraft certification. That would presumably include the transponder at <30 miles from a major airport.

No, aircraft cannot be operated at all (commercially or not) unless the aircraft and pilot meet all those requirements. Commercial use is an even higher hurdle, but certainly not the only one.

The no-commercial-use thing for UAVs is mostly a canard--they're trying to find some way to hold back the tide while they get their regulatory act together, and RC aircraft have been around for decades, so they don't have much leverage beyond the 1981 A/C. Nobody's really cared about commercial use of RC aircraft until now, so I see it as a (quasi-) legal stopgap for the short term.

If the existing FARs are any indication, I would expect more regulation on commercial use than on private use, but I would expect private use to be regulated to some extent as well.

So, I live 6 miles from a major airport. You are suggesting that I have to go 25 miles further out to fly my Phantom under 400 ft? When model RC clubs operate at fields much closer in? The FAA has clearly stated in 2007 and in new regulations in 2012 - as well as at conferences, on videos etc. that operating as a hobbyist under 400 ft. and 5 miles or more from an airport under visual conditions is ok.

 

[pbleic]

This is a nice, straightforward article that summarizes the current status: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/ ... uxvy7K9KSM

 

[Insight Aerials]

This is a nice, straightforward article that summarizes the current status: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/ ... uxvy7K9KSM

Good article and worth following to see what the outcome is

 

[dkatz42]

So, I live 6 miles from a major airport. You are suggesting that I have to go 25 miles further out to fly my Phantom under 400 ft? When model RC clubs operate at fields much closer in? The FAA has clearly stated in 2007 and in new regulations in 2012 - as well as at conferences, on videos etc. that operating as a hobbyist under 400 ft. and 5 miles or more from an airport under visual conditions is ok.

No, I'm suggesting that this is the way the FAA sees it when they see fit (and the FAA is notorious for having multiple opinions, depending on which FSDO you talk to).

I think the mode C veil thing is absurd, but the FAA isn't making it up the FAR, just getting creative in their interpretation. Which is why we the regs need to be brought into the modern age.

I also don't think that drones and their capabilities are what the FAA was thinking about in 1981.

And I sure don't want to see one from the left seat of my airplane.

 

[pbleic]

And I sure don't want to see one from the left seat of my airplane.

Definitely in agreement there. I am very conservative about this. I thought that if I am in Class G airspace that this isn't an issue if I am keeping below 400' AGL, as you aren't supposed to be flying below 500' AGL.

That is one of the points brought up in the lawsuit arguments. That the navigable airspace for aircraft away from airports is above 500' AGL. So, the FAA asks for voluntary compliance for RC models to a ceiling of 400' AGL, but classifies them as aircraft at 500' AGL - leaving no logical airspace in which they can fly.

 

[dkatz42]

I thought that if I am in Class G airspace that this isn't an issue if I am keeping below 400' AGL, as you aren't supposed to be flying below 500' AGL.

It's 500 feet away from (not above) any person, structure, or vessel, so full-scale aircraft can be quite low. But that generally constitutes a Stupid Pilot Trick.

The conundrum is that the 400' thing was plucked from the...air in 1981 and doesn't mesh with anything else, and now the FAA is flailing because there aren't any regs and seem to be relying in defining drones as FAR 1.1 "aircraft" in order to assert what level of authority they can muster.

I'm not worried about running into drones at 400 AGL. But the guy flying his drone at 1200 AGL over Denver (right where I am coming into BJC) has me wound up.