Call your local FSDO and have them cite this for you. No matter what we say, do, quote on here you have your mind made up already. Get it in writing directly from them (one way or the other) and the debate can be put to rest.
I've more than provided all the sources for this, as stated I'm the messenger and I'm giving you sources PLUS 40 years of aviation experience. These aren't my rules, its what the Feds put out. Bottom line NO UAV IN CONTROLLED AIRSPACE WITHOUT AUTHORIZATION!
If this doesn't sit well with you try going to your closest Class B airport and fly your drone. FAA fines start at $500.00
CFR PART 91!!!! See post 10!!!!!
I don't have any opinion on the subject. I am trying to find information.
But asking enforcement officials if the law really says what they think it says isn't the best way to really understand what the law really says.
congress also passed section 336. So what is your point? We've already established that thier authority is less than plenary with respect to model aircraft.
No, all you said in post 10 was that if someone endangers the NAS, the FAA can act. I don't disagree. But unless you are willing to argue that a flight at 5 feet AGL 4.9 miles from the runway endangers the NAS, then the mere presence of class b airspace isn't enough.
So, assuming no danger to the NAS, by what authority? For the sake of this exercise, please ASSUME NO DANGER TO THE NAS.
And finally, I am not talking about flying AT an airport. Or anywhere visible from an airport. Or anywhere one could see an airport.
You just don't get it - an FAA safety inspector potentially can violate you for being "5 feet AGL 4.9 miles from the runway." Yes, its silly but that's the law!!!! Have you ever heard of traffic cops writing tickets for someone driving 1 mph over the speed limit!?!! I've seen an FAA maintenance inspector violate a maintenance operation because he felt they weren't injecting enough grease into zerk fittings found on landing gears. If you commit a direct violation or do something that has the potential of endangering the NAS, technically you are violating the law, to include being "5 feet AGL 4.9 miles from the runway."
Last edited:
336 has NOTHING to do with the FAA's control of airspace!!!!
If the FAA can't pass rules about drones, then it can't pass drone rules. It doesn't matter if you classify it as an "airspace for drone rule" or a "drone proximity to airport rule" or a "drone flying on Sunday Rule" or a "drone color scheme rule", etc. 336 doesn't have to say "airspace" to prohibit rules about "airspace", because it prohibits all rules, except as expressly limited by the statute. And airspace isn't one of those (exceptions).
Yes, but the cop isn't operating pursuant to a statue that says "the city shall not pass any laws regarding the operation of passenger cars driven for fun". The cop can point to a statute that authorizes the speed limit and can show that you were over the speed limit.
Just because a cop or safety inspector can write the ticket, doesn't mean the ticket will hold up to a challenge against the authority to issue the ticket. That happens ALL THE TIME. E.g., red light cameras. Someone wrote the ticket and the court throws it out because the police didn't have the authority to write it.
What I am looking for, and no one has provided, is the source of FAA's claimed authority to restrict drone flights in Class B airspace differently than any other airspace - assuming no danger to the NAS. In other words, where is the (speeding statute) Class B airspace statue that says Class B is different from the treatment Congress provided for all airspace in Serc. 336.
OK - you believe what you want. You came on here asking for information, we put it out there so if you don't believe us go out and challenge the law and let us know how you fare. I've only been in this business for 40 years and am currently an FAA safety counselor, Certified Flight Instructor A&P/IA and have a 107 certificate.
My challenge to you then is to openly fly your drone in Class B airspace.
This is from last year. Maybe you could volunteer to defend those violated for illegally flying in Class B airspace.
"Many of the flights occurred in Class B Airspace. Class B airports tend to be in major cities. The radius for Class B airspace extends 5 nautical miles out (10 NM diameter) and in some instances even more. Here is a graph of all the types of airspace that the defendants flew in. Notice that a defendant can fly in different types of airspace for one flight.'
Twenty Three Drone Operator Prosecutions by the FAA – What Every Recreational and Commercial Drone Operator Needs to Know. - sUAS News - The Business of Drones
"Many of the flights occurred in Class B Airspace. Class B airports tend to be in major cities. The radius for Class B airspace extends 5 nautical miles out (10 NM diameter) and in some instances even more. Here is a graph of all the types of airspace that the defendants flew in. Notice that a defendant can fly in different types of airspace for one flight.'
Twenty Three Drone Operator Prosecutions by the FAA – What Every Recreational and Commercial Drone Operator Needs to Know. - sUAS News - The Business of Drones
Again, I've never said the FAA doesn't believe this. I've never said that the FAA is unwilling to prosecute. I've never even said the FAA is wrong for either of those item. I'm simply asking for the source of their claimed authority. Law enforcement and regulatory agencies routinely take actions that are either unlawful or ultra vires. They get away with until they don't.
Your 40 years of experience flying aircraft subject to FAA control while having an FAA license to fly such aircraft is impressive. Really. It is a skill I very much admire. But it has zero to do with the immediate question. Absolutely zero. We are all clear on the fact that FAA has authority to regulate general and commercial aviation. Crystal clear. But that isn't the issue here. Or in other words, just because you have a hammer (and have had it for 40 years) doesn't mean everything is a nail.
Although the FAA has been hamstrung by Congress in many of its enforcement actions against Hobby operators, endangering the National Airspace System is one of those "catch all" rules that can impact anyone. It's the equivalent to "disturbing the peace". I would agree with the OP in that there are no EXPLICIT RULES prohibiting hobby flights in Class B airspace, it is strongly suggested that ANY UAV flight without authorization in Class B is automatically "endangering the national airspace" due to the proximity of such a busy airport. The regulations specified in this thread related to receiving explicit authorization from ATC to enter Class B airspace applies only to manned aircraft. It was written specifically for that purpose. Part 107 already prohibits entry into ANY controlled airspace without authorization, so there would be no need to write it again to apply to commercial UAV operations.
Congress has hard coded regulations for hobby flights that the FAA really can't touch. But it does leave some wiggle room to govern safety. So, if the FAA believes your flight is unsafe....then you are in for a ride.
No matter your opinion on this matter, when the FAA targets you, whether you believe they have explicit authority to do so or not, your life is forever changed. It will cost you thousands to defend, even if you win. In a case as to whether you should or should not fly in a specific area, if you are unsure, you probably shouldn't. Safety of all aircraft should be at the front of your thoughts, whether you are a Part 107 or Part 101 pilot.
Congress has hard coded regulations for hobby flights that the FAA really can't touch. But it does leave some wiggle room to govern safety. So, if the FAA believes your flight is unsafe....then you are in for a ride.
No matter your opinion on this matter, when the FAA targets you, whether you believe they have explicit authority to do so or not, your life is forever changed. It will cost you thousands to defend, even if you win. In a case as to whether you should or should not fly in a specific area, if you are unsure, you probably shouldn't. Safety of all aircraft should be at the front of your thoughts, whether you are a Part 107 or Part 101 pilot.
It isn't a question of what I believe. I'm willing to believe whatever you or anyone else can convince me is the correct answer. Simply parroting miscellaneous rules, statutes or worst of all, informal guidance, unrelated to hobby flights of model aircraft doesn't convince me.
Look at this way. Pretend you need to submit a legal brief to a court answering this question. The court won't care that you have 40 years experience. They won't care about your flight instructor status or your 107 certificate. What they want to see is the law or series of laws that, when read together in a logical manner, answer the question presented. Only the words on paper matter. And you don't just get to pick words that sound right. You have to justify the answer. But as importantly, you have to explain why words that seem contrary should, according to very specific rules, be disregarded. Policy considerations don't count. What should be doesn't count. Why it is important doesn't count. Those are all matters for the legislature to consider. They do not, and cannot, be used to answer the question of what the law actually says (assuming no ambiguity).
Disturbing the peace charges are frequently unsuccessful, especially if any competent challenge is raised. But the point is well taken. In any event, my question isn't about what should someone do. Prudence and wise counsel often involves telling the client that while it appears the law is weak on a particular subject, there are significant risks. "What is the law" and "What are the risks" are two separate questions every lawyers needs to have with clients. I am comfortable I understand the "risk" answer and my thoughts are much the same as yours. What I am trying to get is the "What is the law"?
Excellent post. Thanks!
To answer your original question specifically, I believe the FAA will tag you with "Endangering the National Airspace" due to proximity to the airport. It would have to be challenged in court to determine whether it was the proper enforcement action or not. So far, I don't see anyone has done that...and it would be a strong stretch to say the FAA can't enforce reasonable safety measures. I believe the FAA would win that one. I believe they would tag you with #4 below.
The hobby rules ensrined by Congress say the following:
SEC. 336. SPECIAL RULE FOR MODEL AIRCRAFT. (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law relating to the incorporation of unmanned aircraft systems into Federal Aviation Administration plans and policies, including this subtitle, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration may not promulgate any rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft, or an aircraft being developed as a model aircraft, if— (1) the aircraft is flown strictly for hobby or recreational use; (2) the aircraft is operated in accordance with a community based set of safety guidelines and within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization; (3) the aircraft is limited to not more than 55 pounds unless otherwise certified through a design, construction, inspection, flight test, and operational safety program administered by a community-based organization; (4) the aircraft is operated in a manner that does not interfere with and gives way to any manned aircraft; and (5) when flown within 5 miles of an airport, the operator of the aircraft provides the airport operator and the airport air traffic control tower (when an air traffic facility is located at the airport) with prior notice of the operation (model aircraft operators flying from a permanent location within 5 miles of an airport should establish a mutually-agreed upon operating procedure with the airport operator and the airport air traffic control tower (when an air traffic facility is located at the airport)).
Notice one very specific thing about that law. IF, and ONLY IF you follow ALL the rules, are you immune to FAA enforcement action.
Kcgunesq - thank you for your kind words but it seems you are an attorney that is questioning the way the FAA and NTSB implements and enforces the law. Unless you're ready to go and challenge them on the arguments presented here you're not going to sway those out there looking for violators.
Bottom line -
FAR one defines "aircraft" It also defines "unmanned" aircraft. Your "hobby drone" will be considered an aircraft.
In post 10 I showed you the link to FSIMS. I'll post it again...
http://fsims.faa.gov/PICResults.aspx?mode=EBookContents&restricttocategory=all~menu
Read Volume 16 Chapters 1 through 5
16-4-4-11 ACTION.The FAA could apply several regulations in 14 CFR part 91 when determining whether to take enforcement action against a model aircraft operator for endangering the NAS. Part 91 regulations are the baseline rules that apply to all aircraft operated in the United States with limited exceptions, and are the appropriate rules to apply when evaluating model aircraft operations. When determining which rules are relevant to model aircraft operations, inspectors should consider:
· How the aircraft is operated;
· Operating rules for designated airspace; and
· Special restrictions such as TFRs and Notices to Airmen (NOTAM).
This how an FAA safety inspector will interpret the law. You're not convinced, I'll respect that. I don't know if you've ever been to an NTSB hearing, perhaps you will start looking into aviation law. Again, I'm a messenger that's been in this business for many years and its a very rare thing when common sense wins out during violation hearings. I will say this, I expect, in the near future the feds to eventually un-do the Taylor ruling, be it by a congressional action or by a revision to an existing FAR or implementation to a new one.
Bottom line -
FAR one defines "aircraft" It also defines "unmanned" aircraft. Your "hobby drone" will be considered an aircraft.
In post 10 I showed you the link to FSIMS. I'll post it again...
http://fsims.faa.gov/PICResults.aspx?mode=EBookContents&restricttocategory=all~menu
Read Volume 16 Chapters 1 through 5
16-4-4-11 ACTION.The FAA could apply several regulations in 14 CFR part 91 when determining whether to take enforcement action against a model aircraft operator for endangering the NAS. Part 91 regulations are the baseline rules that apply to all aircraft operated in the United States with limited exceptions, and are the appropriate rules to apply when evaluating model aircraft operations. When determining which rules are relevant to model aircraft operations, inspectors should consider:
· How the aircraft is operated;
· Operating rules for designated airspace; and
· Special restrictions such as TFRs and Notices to Airmen (NOTAM).
This how an FAA safety inspector will interpret the law. You're not convinced, I'll respect that. I don't know if you've ever been to an NTSB hearing, perhaps you will start looking into aviation law. Again, I'm a messenger that's been in this business for many years and its a very rare thing when common sense wins out during violation hearings. I will say this, I expect, in the near future the feds to eventually un-do the Taylor ruling, be it by a congressional action or by a revision to an existing FAR or implementation to a new one.
I only just saw this thread, but it does raise a question that I have wondered about for some time. To be completely clear, the OP is not asking whether the FAA has implemented the rule regarding hobby flights in Class B airspace, but rather is asking whether it was within their authority to do so in light of the Special Rule contained in the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (Public Law 112-95). 14 CFR 101 avoids promulgating any new rules as required and simply restates section 336 of the reform act, and does not mention Class B airspace. The Class B airspace restriction is asserted one webpage and it is not clear from where its authority is derived.
One could argue that it derives from 14 CFR 91, but there are many rules in there that clearly do not apply to model aircraft. One could also argue that the FAA is simply implying that flying into Class B airspace without authorization immediately constitutes endangering the NAS. But, they do not spell out what their basis is, and I don't find either of those explanations particularly compelling. Were there any clear rules on model aircraft operation in any class of airspace prior to the FAA UAV regulations? If model aircraft have always required explicit authorization to operate in Class B then that would be a good starting point, but I'm not sure that's the case. Anyone know for sure?
One could argue that it derives from 14 CFR 91, but there are many rules in there that clearly do not apply to model aircraft. One could also argue that the FAA is simply implying that flying into Class B airspace without authorization immediately constitutes endangering the NAS. But, they do not spell out what their basis is, and I don't find either of those explanations particularly compelling. Were there any clear rules on model aircraft operation in any class of airspace prior to the FAA UAV regulations? If model aircraft have always required explicit authorization to operate in Class B then that would be a good starting point, but I'm not sure that's the case. Anyone know for sure?
Yep...if you don't follow EACH AND EVERY provision of the hobby rules established by Congress, all bets are off. The FAA can ping you with everything they can, whether they think it will stick or not. Unlike your local cop ticketing you with "disturbing the peace", the FAA enforcement actions have a stronger tendency to stick.
Similar threads
