"FAA Legal tether"

It is with a hearty serving of humble pie that I have to come back and admit the nay-sayers were right. Today we received a letter from the FAA regarding the use of the tether. I can't publish the entire letter because it is considered an internal document at my company but I will give you an excerpt:

"Viking Unmanned Aerial Systems provided [your company], with a letter from an office in the Air Traffic Organization which states that the a specific operation would not be objectionable in terms of its effect on navigable airspace. This letter is being adverstisd as a "compliance statement", which will give the purchaser of the MX-X1 system the authority to operate a UAS platform legally. Unfortunatly, this letter is not authorization to operate legally in the National Airspace system. I have forwarded the information being advertized by Viking Unmanned Aerial Systems to both the Air Traffic Organization and the FAA Headquarters General Council's Office for further action."

(yes, the spelling errors are in the original)

This came from:
UAS Integration Office, AFS-80
HQ, Federal Aviation Administration
490 L'Enfant Plaza, Suite 3200, Washington DC, 20224

The rest of the letter basically reads like a cease and desist telling us not to use the UAV un-tethered OR tethered.

So, I take back all the good things I said about this particular tether. It sounded like a great idea. It just wasn't to be.

If you bought one, send it back for a refund. And if you bought one because of my "endorsement", I sincerely apologize.

I hope this is more help than I was before.

The "I-told-you-so's" may now begin! I can take it!

J
 
jtw29 said:
It is with a hearty serving of humble pie that I have to come back and admit the nay-sayers were right. Today we received a letter from the FAA regarding the use of the tether. I can't publish the entire letter because it is considered an internal document at my company but I will give you an excerpt:

"Viking Unmanned Aerial Systems provided [your company], with a letter from an office in the Air Traffic Organization which states that the a specific operation would not be objectionable in terms of its effect on navigable airspace. This letter is being adverstisd as a "compliance statement", which will give the purchaser of the MX-X1 system the authority to operate a UAS platform legally. Unfortunatly, this letter is not authorization to operate legally in the National Airspace system. I have forwarded the information being advertized by Viking Unmanned Aerial Systems to both the Air Traffic Organization and the FAA Headquarters General Council's Office for further action."

(yes, the spelling errors are in the original)

This came from:
UAS Integration Office, AFS-80
HQ, Federal Aviation Administration
490 L'Enfant Plaza, Suite 3200, Washington DC, 20224

The rest of the letter basically reads like a cease and desist telling us not to use the UAV un-tethered OR tethered.

So, I take back all the good things I said about this particular tether. It sounded like a great idea. It just wasn't to be.

If you bought one, send it back for a refund. And if you bought one because of my "endorsement", I sincerely apologize.

I hope this is more help than I was before.

The "I-told-you-so's" may now begin! I can take it!

J

god **** government destroying free enterprise
 
I'm curious; what is the CFR that the FAA is using, as an enforcement action? What CFR are they using, to say that a Phantom is an Aircraft?

I know there are some "legal eagles" out there......I don't want a particular FAR...I want the actual Code of Federal Regulation...that way, I can Sherpadize it, and see if there are any past cases of documented enforcement action, that held up in an Administration Hearing.
I already know about the 1 case that is/was being discussed on here, about some guy flying around a University, for hire.
 
havasuphoto said:
Thanks-that's what I was looking for.
Their "paper airplane" analogy is perfect.
Thanks. Glad you find it helpful. Please remember as I posted on the site, it's not intended to be legal advice, but rather my legal opinion.
 
petersachs said:
havasuphoto said:
Thanks-that's what I was looking for.
Their "paper airplane" analogy is perfect.
Thanks. Glad you find it helpful. Please remember as I posted on the site, it's not intended to be legal advice, but rather my legal opinion.
I completely understand. And, I have "reserved" my comments, to basically-"I have no opinion" at this time.....as the FAA probably visits this site often........ ;)
 
havasuphoto said:
I completely understand. And, I have "reserved" my comments, to basically-"I have no opinion" at this time.....as the FAA probably visits this site often........ ;)
Thanks. You can say whatever you want as a non-attorney.
And I'm not worried about the FAA. It's well-aware of me. ;)
 
petersachs said:
havasuphoto said:
I completely understand. And, I have "reserved" my comments, to basically-"I have no opinion" at this time.....as the FAA probably visits this site often........ ;)
Thanks. You can say whatever you want as a non-attorney.
And I'm not worried about the FAA. It's well-aware of me. ;)

Loved the site ... rationality and logic .... for using those, you most certainly will have the Govt "aware" of you .... ;)
 
That is a great site. I thought it funny that I made the "paper airplane" analogy to a friend just yesterday, and then found your site a few hours later. Great minds.
 
Re: "FAA Legal tether"

I've said it before, I think is buried in another thread, but the FAA also consider those cable strung (spider cam) cameras you'll see at the NFL in America or AFL/cricket in Australia to be UAV's, so tethering your helicopter does nothing to make it legal!
 
It will be interesting to see the result of the Raphael Pirker case. He is saying that the FAA does not have jurisdiction of model aircraft as well. (although they will try to make the case that he was flying dangerously rather than waste their time trying to prove the have the right to stop commercial flying).
 
Re:

Driffill said:
I've said it before, I think is buried in another thread, but the FAA also consider those cable strung (spider cam) cameras you'll see at the NFL in America or AFL/cricket in Australia to be UAV's, so tethering your helicopter does nothing to make it legal!

The how are they able to use them legally in the US?
 
Re: "FAA Legal tether"

Erroneous007 said:
Driffill said:
I've said it before, I think is buried in another thread, but the FAA also consider those cable strung (spider cam) cameras you'll see at the NFL in America or AFL/cricket in Australia to be UAV's, so tethering your helicopter does nothing to make it legal!

The how are they able to use them legally in the US?

Because in the us, you can get legal authorisation to use a UAV, but as it currently stands, it's to costly to be feasible for small business. I haven't been on the FAA site recently, but there was FOI requests for a list of approved operators. In Australia (under CASA) there is also a complete list of those with an "operators certificate", one of the listings on the CASA website shows a business in Bathurst NSW, the raceway at Bathurst uses a cable strung camera for the main straight!

Not that I know myself, but other people have mentioned "No-Fly-Zones" exist over some sporting stadiums (and Disneyland??), I think it might be related to the way the FAA grant approval for UAV use, I remember reading a section that spoke about an authorised organisation is allocated an airspace to operate within. If the stadium has UAV approval for the cable strung cams, the would be allocated the airspace, thus making it a NFZ for other pilots. I might have that all wrong, but either way its interesting!
 
Erroneous007 said:
It will be interesting to see the result of the Raphael Pirker case. He is saying that the FAA does not have jurisdiction of model aircraft as well. (although they will try to make the case that he was flying dangerously rather than waste their time trying to prove the have the right to stop commercial flying).
There's a reason why the complaint in Pirker is based solely on Part 91 "recklessness," and not also upon the supposed "commercial use" restriction. The FAA knew there is nothing in our bodies of law that would support the "commercial use" argument. Hence, it went after Pirker in the only other way it felt possible— Part 91.
 
Much like the paper airplane analogy is interesting, I think you can also make a valid comparison to RC cars and the Department of Transportation and state DMVs. Neither the DOT nor state DMVs regulate RC cars as far as I am aware and it would be ridiculous for them to do so. Meanwhile the use of RC cars on public roads I am pretty sure would be illegal or at least could be construed as public endangerment in cases where it presents such an element of danger. This could easily be compared to use of drones or any aerial RC device in uncontrolled air space below 400' AGL.

The current classes of air space don't effectively address the space above the ground away from controlled airspaces where people can safely fly kites, put up balloons, throw paper airplanes, fly RC planes, etc. The FAA should simply declare a new class of space for non-aviation use where aircraft subject to FAA rules are not allowed to enter except in case of emergency. And then they can leave us all the flock alone unless we transgress other classes of airspace. And this space is already implied in most all areas where aircraft are forbidden from operation below 500' AGL so it's not like it would be disruptive!

The commercial vs. private drone use is a fallacy. I almost want to start using my P2 commercially just to get myself a cease and desist letter from the FAA. I'll frame it. Set up an LLC, get some really broad spectrum liability insurance that doesn't have any exclusions for drone operations and go to work.
 
Re:

Driffill said:
Erroneous007 said:
Not that I know myself, but other people have mentioned "No-Fly-Zones" exist over some sporting stadiums (and Disneyland??)
Virtually all large sporting events end up with a Temporary Flight Restriction within a certain radius and below a certain altitude.

Disneyland has a permanent Temporary Flight Restriction (due to a misguided act of congress).

Whether these apply to UAVs or not depends on the whim of the FAA, I suppose.
 
ianwood said:
And this space is already implied in most all areas where aircraft are forbidden from operation below 500' AGL so it's not like it would be disruptive!
Aircraft are not forbidden below 500 AGL. They are forbidden within 500 feet of any person, vessel, or structure. It is completely legal to fly with your wheels in the weeds, at least until you crash (then you will face 91.13 "careless or reckless operation" as well as all other manner of problems, assuming you live through it).

There already is a class of airspace--it is Class G, which is uncontrolled. It is typically below 1200 AGL, except in areas near smaller airports where it may be below 700 AGL, and of course doesn't exist anywhere where there is controlled airspace all the way to the ground (including smaller airports with instrument approaches, which may have Class E to the ground). There are areas in the western US where Class G goes much higher; these are typically remote mountainous areas.

Basically, in Class G airspace you're on your own, so if you run into a quad with your airplane there, you've got a tough row to hoe.

In general the FAA's rules correspond to ICAO (the international body), and the various airspace classes are ICAO-defined (there is no Class F airspace in the US, but there is elsewhere). While they could (perhaps) in theory declare some new kind of airspace, in practice it is very unlikely. If nothing else, you need to set things up so that legitimate use by Real Aircraft is still possible (think crop dusting, helicopters, etc.) so flat-out prohibition is extremely rare.

Given the lack of regulation, the whole thing is a big mess (UAVs are aircraft, except when they're not). I would guess that the end result will be a formal classification of UAVs (probably with subclasses involving weight, size, and/or speed) and rules about how and where each class can operate, presumably with training/licensing requirements for the bigger ones. Hopefully the little ones will have some limitations on where, but won't require formal training.
 
Yes, class G is pretty close but there are areas where it extends quite high so maybe the criteria is within class G but where it extends beyond xxx height, it can only be up to that height. That way GA flights have a reasonable expectation to not encounter tiny remote controlled death objects if they maintain at a reasonable distance above that height.
 

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
143,066
Messages
1,467,356
Members
104,934
Latest member
jody.paugh@fullerandsons.