New FAA Model Aircraft Guidance - June 2014

Joined
Apr 2, 2014
Messages
959
Reaction score
27
Location
Orange County, CA - USA
Here it is:

http://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/ ... wsId=16474

http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/ua ... operators/

"Dos"
Do fly a model aircraft/UAS at the local model aircraft club
Do take lessons and learn to fly safely
Do contact the airport or control tower when flying within 5 miles of the airport
Do fly a model aircraft for personal enjoyment

"Don'ts"
Don't fly near manned aircraft
Don't fly beyond line of sight of the operator
Don't fly an aircraft weighing more than 55 lbs unless it's certified by an aeromodeling community-based organization
Don't fly contrary to your aeromodeling community-based safety guidelines
Don't fly model aircraft for payment or commercial purposes

http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/ua ... raphic.png
 
This is from the actual text:

Although the FAA believes the statutory definition of a model aircraft is clear,
the FAA provides the following explanation of the meanings of “visual line of sight” and
“hobby or recreational purpose,” terms used in the definition of model aircraft, because
the FAA has received a number of questions in this area.
By definition, a model aircraft must be “flown within visual line of sight of the
person operating the aircraft.” P.L. 112-95, section 336(c)(2).
1
Based on the plain language of the statute, the FAA interprets this requirement to mean that: (1) the aircraft
must be visible at all times to the operator; (2) that the operator must use his or her own
natural vision (which includes vision corrected by standard eyeglasses or contact lenses)
to observe the aircraft; and (3) people other than the operator may not be used in lieu of
the operator for maintaining visual line of sight. Under the criteria above, visual line of
sight would mean that the operator has an unobstructed view of the model aircraft. To
ensure that the operator has the best view of the aircraft, the statutory requirement would
preclude the use of vision-enhancing devices, such as binoculars, night vision goggles,
powered vision magnifying devices, and goggles designed to provide a “first-person
view” from the model. Such devices would limit the operator’s field of view thereby
reducing his or her ability to see-and-avoid other aircraft in the area. Additionally, some
of these devices could dramatically increase the distance at which an operator could see
the aircraft, rendering the statutory visual-line-of-sight requirements meaningless.
Finally, based on the plain language of the statute, which says that aircraft must be
“flown within the visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft,” an operator
could not rely on another person to satisfy the visual line of sight requirement. See id.
(emphasis added). While the statute would not preclude using an observer to augment the
safety of the operation, the operator must be able to view the aircraft at all times
 
Thanks for sharing! I'm new to hobby and we've been looking at using one here at work. I have been having trouble finding definitive guidelines, but this information helps a lot!
 
PATHETICfallacy said:
Thanks for sharing! I'm new to hobby and we've been looking at using one here at work. I have been having trouble finding definitive guidelines, but this information helps a lot!

I would not view these as hard rules just yet. First, the actual document points out that they are publishing these for public comment. Second, as far as commercial flying goes the NTSB told the FAA that they have no rules so there is nothing to enforce. We are waiting on the NTSB full board to act on the FAA-v-Pirker decision right now. All this does is muddy the waters, since these are still not actual regulations. It appears to me to be just one more attempt by the FAA to bully everyone into believing that whatever they say is the same as the law.
 
But again.....this is simply "guidance", not "law". I think people on this board have continually said to use common sense and not be reckless.
 
Elginet said:
But again.....this is simply "guidance", not "law". I think people on this board have continually said to use common sense and not be reckless.

The trick is that the FAA is saying that Section 336 IS law, and they have provided "clarification" on what several parts of that mean. For instance, the end of FPV and any BLOS flying. No new law needed. it is already in the law, the FMRA Section 336.

But it also looks to be just another attempt by the FAA to intimidate us all into think that what they think IS the law. The NTSB told them not so, but the FAA ignore the NTSB. And so it goes.
 
Interesting too that they brought up not using a "spotter"
(3) people other than the operator may not be used in lieu of
the operator for maintaining visual line of sight.

And no FPV "glasses". :roll:

I'm asking the real life lawyers here.. who holds higher sway in the govt, the FAA or the NTSB? Or are they about equal? I was under the impression the FAA was over the NTSB.
And if so then that means it doesnt matter what the NTSB says, the FAA is higher on the food chain then them.

And yes, I agree with the part of being "licensed", as long as its reasonable. My family already pays for licenses (biz, Real estate) so as long as they are reasonable that wont be an issue.

Will be interesting how this plays out now, overall I agree with it.
 
You can see the impact the AMA, Academy of Model Aeronautics has had and will have in developing the final guidance/rules/regulations.


"Do fly a model aircraft for personal enjoyment" Finally a quote for my signature.
 
I wonder if there can be a national amateur radio club formed for those who want to experiment and further the art of flying FPV.
Then this can be a forum that can discuss using other frequencies or other ham related issues as well, and fall under FCC jurisdiction. This needs an attorney.
 
Most of the rules seems reasonable with the big exception of prohibition on FPV flying. As is, it is a sad thing and will hold back technology development in the US compare to other nations of the world.

Frankly speaking, most people can more reliably control their model aircraft with an FPV device such as goggles rather than direct LOS or viewing through a small video screen. This will especially be true with the next generation of goggles and HD video link. I am especially bothered by the no spotters allowed statement as it seems intentional to prevent a reasonable way to ensure safeguard in FPV flying just so it can be prohibited.

Perhaps here is a work around... make it dual operator. We have a LOS operator (spotter) that also have a controller linked to the co-operator with another controller under the goggles.

These rules effectively prevent autonomous, semi-autonomous operation, or any sort of remote operation, and will hold back the state of development of these technologies in the US by discouraging the next generation of engineers and hobbiest from tinkering and pushing the envelope of what is possible. It is a sad state of affairs.

Lets hope it gets modified before it becomes final.
 
macheung said:
Perhaps here is a work around... make it dual operator. We have a LOS operator (spotter) that also have a controller linked to the co-operator with another controller under the goggles.

In pro applications that's how it's done - dual operators one mans the controls the other uses FPV + LOS. Many Euro film companies do it this way.

The biggect problem w/FAA making any rules governing UAVs is none of those folks (making the rules) fly UAVs. Pilots complained for years until the FAA had pilots in the decsion making process. The process for UAVs is going to be harder because of the wide spectrum of experience between users, unless of course they make us get a license and have safety courses but the wheels of DC turn slow (sometimes backwards)
 
Now every time I fly my paper airplane in the back yard I need to get clearance from the airport.
 

Attachments

  • Red_PowerUp_3.0_600X325_grande.jpg
    Red_PowerUp_3.0_600X325_grande.jpg
    52.5 KB · Views: 601
macheung said:
Perhaps here is a work around... make it dual operator. We have a LOS operator (spotter) that also have a controller linked to the co-operator with another controller under the goggles.

That is exactly what the AMA used to require. Until the FPV folks within the AMA raised significant objection to doing it. Plus none of the DJI transmitters can be connected via a buddy box cord.
 
The AMA (of which I am a member) responds.

Good for them.

http://www.modelaircraft.org/files/FAAI ... veRule.pdf

The good part:

“AMA cannot support this rule.” said AMA Executive Director Dave Mathewson. “It is at best ill-conceived and at worst intentionally punitive and retaliatory. The Academy strongly requests the FAA reconsider this action. The AMA will pursue all available recourse to dissuade enactment of this rule.”
 
BigTulsa said:
SilentAV8R said:
I know several of the people involved in all this with the FAA over the years and I can tell you they all feel like the FAA kicked them squares on the nutsack. FAA shows their true colors, once again.

Here's FAA's new theme song:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzTeLePbB08

Here's a good article breaking it down

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/drone- ... -new-rules

The author has at best a passing understanding of the AMA and what it has done and where it stands. FWIW, I've been an AMA member for 47 years, and was an Associate District VP for 12 years. I am a Leader Member and a recipient of the AMA's Distinguished Service Award, and I am personally acquainted with and have know all the key AMA leadership for almost 2 decades, so I feel pretty comfortable when I make statements about the AMA.
 
SilentAV8R said:
BigTulsa said:
SilentAV8R said:
I know several of the people involved in all this with the FAA over the years and I can tell you they all feel like the FAA kicked them squares on the nutsack. FAA shows their true colors, once again.

Here's FAA's new theme song:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzTeLePbB08

Here's a good article breaking it down

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/drone- ... -new-rules

The author has at best a passing understanding of the AMA and what it has done and where it stands. FWIW, I've been an AMA member for 47 years, and was an Associate District VP for 12 years. I am a Leader Member and a recipient of the AMA's Distinguished Service Award, and I am personally acquainted with and have know all the key AMA leadership for almost 2 decades, so I feel pretty comfortable when I make statements about the AMA.

I'm not saying I disagree. I'm just saying that it gives a starting point. I've been an on and off member since I was a youngster (my dad was a member until he became ill) so I'm glad there is someone advocating for modelers. My problem right now, however, lies with the way that many UAV owners treat the privileges, especially brand new users . There are some that think flying a model a/c at *ANY* altitude is fine. That is clearly not the case.
 
Man what a kick in the nuts for the people here saying "these awful videos will have no impact on the FAA's decisions". WRONG! :lol:

Looks like they're using the ole 3 steps on us.

Step 1: Tell them how you're gonna screw them
Step 2: Screw them
Step 3: Tell them how you screwed them

And all of this is brilliant and beautiful and everything, but the only real surprise here is going after FPV...what a kick in the nuts! What about enforcement? While many will be more than willing to provide the evidence of their transgressions by way of youtube, how do you enforce the guidelines/soon to be legislation for people with more than one brain cell? I'll have to assume if you'll be wanting a license, violations will have an impact on your ability to obtain one, much like a drivers license. And if they're smart enough not to implicate themselves on youtube, they might also be smart enough to realize their actions can affect their license.
 

Recent Posts

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
143,066
Messages
1,467,357
Members
104,935
Latest member
Pauos31