FAA Regulations--Please Read

[Buzz313th]

^^ General, Commercial and Military Aviation all share the same airspace, although General and Commercial isn't allowed into Restricted Airspace Unless Cleared (Highly Unlikely unless you have a real good reason like an emergency)... And TBH, I think Military Flights need to be cleared as well.. Biter 262 needs to contact Edwards Tower or Socal before they enter the Edwards Restricted.

The Military Drone pilots are flying and communicating with ATC just like everyone else. I hear them from time to time out near Mojave/Edwards. But, they are always in radar contact with some controller..

 

[Timtro]

I may lose some Twitter followers for this but something has to be said. To some I'm preaching to the choir. To the others, I fully intend to get in your face.

The attitude I see in response to the Govman post is serious problem with some portions of the "drone" community will be the biggest hindrance to progress for both the hobby and the commercial drone industry. I don't care if Govman is FAA or not. It doesn't matter. What was posted is reality.

There are lots of places where even 400 feet is a bad idea. If you do not know this chart, then learn it now.

The FAA's concern is for safety for everybody in the air and below. If your reflex response is "no rules for me" then consider common sense: Would you run into a four lane highway if there were no "rules" against it or you were only "strongly encouraged" not to?

Almost everyone is acutely aware that the next serious accident involving a drone, due to some stupid action by the operator, will negatively affect every last one of us and result in responses that none of us wants to see. If something falls from the sky it will come down on all of us. This is not a game. We either act responsibly or accept the consequences, whether those consequences happen to be an unfortunate accident or unreasonable regulations.

Legislators are all too happy to generate ill conceived regulations in response to perceived public pressure. The actions of the Florida legislature last week is just the most recent example. Politicians are only too happy to make "points" regardless of whether they just serve to muddy the waters. We don't need to give them any more excuses. (See Blog post)

Something else that has been bugging me: I find the Flytrex "badges" for altitude and distance to be the worst example of corporate negligence. Consider if the NTSB finds a Flytrex circuit among the wreckage of a serious accident and they find that the Flytrex "challenge" as a contributing factor to the accident: no more Flytrex.

If we don't police ourselves then we can only expect someone else to do it in a way we may not like.

So take "Goveman" seriously. Take the "voluntary" guidelines seriously. Take flying seriously. Take safety seriously. Learn why you NEED TO KNOW about wind vortexes, microbursts, updrafts and other weather factors, airspace classes, reading sectional charts.

Sorry, but to HELL with "enforcement" one way or the other. Act responsibly flying your drone. Accept the responsibility that ANY flying activity requires. If you don't, we all will suffer.

Count on it. Believe it.

Now make way for the trolls and cowboys to prove my point.....

 

[Buzz313th]

If I could like your post more than once I would...

Well Written Post.. I hope people take it seriously..

Thank you

 

[Clipper707]

+1 on Timtro's post.

The purpose of the FAA is not to ruin your hobby and your day.

 

[MikeTess]

Govman's pubes are just growing out. Give him a break.
Btw, that original post reads like something written by a remedial ESL student.

 

[IflyinWY]

I logged on just to like timtro's post.

Very nice, Thank You.

 

[general01]

Still how do we tell on the piper planes and helis that think they are ok to fly below the limit of 500 feet

Believe me I never go above 400 feet just for safety for myself(one you can barely see the phantom at 400 feet line of sight) and any other possible aircraft in the air near me if I hear another craft I always bring my bird in(it's what you do) but when a small manned craft flies over me around 3-400 feet up how are you to let the proper people know

 

[Buzz313th]

Sorry General.. I didn't understand your question.

 

[general01]

Sorry General.. I didn't understand your question.

I am asking how do you report idoits who fly below the legal limit when they ain't supposed to

Seriously i understand if they are getting pics of storm damage(had it happen when a tornado went through back of this but I didn't mind at the time) but just flying below the limit without a need is not legal and I know there is no airports in the area where I live

 

[Buzz313th]

That's a good question..

It's easy.. Write down the tail number of the aircraft. And if your in the US.. Look up the local phone number in your area for your regions FAA Flight Standards District Office and ask for an examiner or investigator and report what and where you saw the violation.

The number for the FSDO offices can be found at the FAA web site.

 

[SteveMann]

If the faa is really so strict on real aircraft(I am including helicopter pilots too in this) why are they not enforcing the 600 foot limit on them(see I have seen them fly over my property multiple times below the limit to the point you can clearly see the leters of the call signs on the craft along with the people in the craft(this is from the ground)

600 ft?? If the area is not congested (not in a city) then manned A/C may legally fly at 500 ft.
The human eye is the absolute worst instrument for measuring height and distance. And yes, you can read the 12-inch high registration number at 500 ft.

 

[SteveMann]

The PIC in this case was breaking quite a few Rules.. If you would of reported to the local FSDO office what he did and his tail number, he would of lost his license and received a hefty fine.

Only if there is supporting evidence such as a radar track or observation by an FAA inspector or photos with ground reference. How would you like it if you could receive a speeding ticket solely on witness testimony? But, if you can read the tail number, or better yet take photos, then the FASO can at the least "have a chat" with the pilot. Maybe he will self-incriminate.

 

[SteveMann]

You forgot to quote a few paragraphs that also make recreational drone operators responsible for following the same FARs as manned aircraft.

This is just wrong.

Public Law 112–95 Sec. 336. Special Rule For Model Aircraft says:

(b) STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section shall
be construed to limit the authority of the Administrator to pursue
enforcement action against persons operating model aircraft who endanger
the safety of the national airspace system.​

This does not make all FAR's enforceable on model aircraft. In fact the only FAR that could apply is 91.13 Careless and Reckless. That's all they need. You can't name a single other rule that would apply to model aircraft.

91.13 is so ridiculously broad that the FAA could bust the kid with a balsa wood hand-launched glider. They really don't need any other rules

Are you referring to the Pirker decision?

The first decision:

When respondent moved to dismiss the complaint, he argued the Federal Aviation
Regulations (FARs),3 which govern the operation of “aircraft,” did not apply to respondent’s
Ritewing Zephyr. In this regard, respondent argued the aircraft was a “model aircraft” not
subject to the regulatory provisions applicable to “aircraft.” After considering the parties’
written submissions on the motion, the law judge concluded in his decisional order the Zephyr
was a “model aircraft” to which § 91.13(a) did not apply.
​

And the second decision:

C. Conclusion
This case calls upon us to ascertain a clear, reasonable definition of “aircraft” for
purposes of the prohibition on careless and reckless operation in 14 C.F.R. § 91.13(a). We must
look no further than the clear, unambiguous plain language of 49 U.S.C. § 40102(a)(6) and 14
C.F.R. § 1.1: an “aircraft” is any “device” “used for flight in the air.” This definition includes
any aircraft, manned or unmanned, large or small. The prohibition on careless and reckless
operation in § 91.13(a) applies with respect to the operation of any “aircraft” other than those
subject to parts 101 and 103. We therefore remand to the law judge for a full factual hearing to
determine whether respondent operated the aircraft “in a careless or reckless manner so as to
endanger the life or property of another,” contrary to § 91.13(a).​

The Pirker decision said only that 91.13 applies to all aircraft including model aircraft.

There is nothing in the FARs or Pirker decision that says model aircraft must follow "the same FARs as manned aircraft".

 

[Buzz313th]

Your wrong.

The FAA can site any FAR against any definition of what they consider an aircraft.

600 ft?? If the area is not congested (not in a city) then manned A/C may legally fly at 500 ft.
The human eye is the absolute worst instrument for measuring height and distance. And yes, you can read the 12-inch high registration number at 500 ft.

Certain Helicopter Operators have been cleared or can be cleared on a case by case basis to work at any altitude. To name a few..

Law Enforcement
Agricultural (Experimental)
Static Line Heavy Lift (Experimental)

600 ft?? If the area is not congested (not in a city) then manned A/C may legally fly at 500 ft.
The human eye is the absolute worst instrument for measuring height and distance. And yes, you can read the 12-inch high registration number at 500 ft.

Rotorcraft Operators can routinely be cleared to operate lower than the basic altitude limits in all areas (Congested through Unpopulated)

They apply for the waiver specifically as an operator.

 

[Buzz313th]

Only if there is supporting evidence such as a radar track or observation by an FAA inspector or photos with ground reference. How would you like it if you could receive a speeding ticket solely on witness testimony? But, if you can read the tail number, or better yet take photos, then the FASO can at the least "have a chat" with the pilot. Maybe he will self-incriminate.

I have personally been witness to fellow pilots who have had their hands slapped, to a full loss of their certificate, because they did something stupid and the reports were based entirely on eyewitness testimony that was not accompanied by a radar track, photograph etc...

 

[Buzz313th]

This is just wrong.

Public Law 112–95 Sec. 336. Special Rule For Model Aircraft says:

(b) STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section shall
be construed to limit the authority of the Administrator to pursue
enforcement action against persons operating model aircraft who endanger
the safety of the national airspace system.​

This does not make all FAR's enforceable on model aircraft. In fact the only FAR that could apply is 91.13 Careless and Reckless. That's all they need. You can't name a single other rule that would apply to model aircraft.

91.13 is so ridiculously broad that the FAA could bust the kid with a balsa wood hand-launched glider. They really don't need any other rules

Are you referring to the Pirker decision?

The first decision:

When respondent moved to dismiss the complaint, he argued the Federal Aviation
Regulations (FARs),3 which govern the operation of “aircraft,” did not apply to respondent’s
Ritewing Zephyr. In this regard, respondent argued the aircraft was a “model aircraft” not
subject to the regulatory provisions applicable to “aircraft.” After considering the parties’
written submissions on the motion, the law judge concluded in his decisional order the Zephyr
was a “model aircraft” to which § 91.13(a) did not apply.
​

And the second decision:

C. Conclusion
This case calls upon us to ascertain a clear, reasonable definition of “aircraft” for
purposes of the prohibition on careless and reckless operation in 14 C.F.R. § 91.13(a). We must
look no further than the clear, unambiguous plain language of 49 U.S.C. § 40102(a)(6) and 14
C.F.R. § 1.1: an “aircraft” is any “device” “used for flight in the air.” This definition includes
any aircraft, manned or unmanned, large or small. The prohibition on careless and reckless
operation in § 91.13(a) applies with respect to the operation of any “aircraft” other than those
subject to parts 101 and 103. We therefore remand to the law judge for a full factual hearing to
determine whether respondent operated the aircraft “in a careless or reckless manner so as to
endanger the life or property of another,” contrary to § 91.13(a).​

The Pirker decision said only that 91.13 applies to all aircraft including model aircraft.

There is nothing in the FARs or Pirker decision that says model aircraft must follow "the same FARs as manned aircraft".

As long as the FAA can define a model aircraft as an "Aircraft" which they can do under 49 U.S.C. § 40102(a)(6). Then all FAR's that pertain to aircraft can be sited against a UAS.. This includes equipment requirements for operation in certain airspace, Communication Requirements in certain airspace. If you haven't noticed, the advisories for recreational drone use limits the drone operators in Class G airspace only... When you look at the requirements for current commercial use (333 waiver) and all the requirements necessary to meet to fly in airspace other than G which can be approved, you will notice they include, contacting the tower or (Controlling agency) to operate in B,C, D or E airspace.

If any authorities caught a recreational drone operator flying the drone in any airspace other than G, I can assure you they would site as many FAR's as they could that would apply to an "Aircraft".

And of course they would site 91.13... It was made to be broad, so that the FAA can have a tool to protect the NAS if they need.

I am not the FAA.. I am just a Pilot. The FAA has never in my mind done anything unfair. They tend to rule more on the side of the operator, than they do against the operator. Sooner or later this Drone mess will be worked out.. But until then, the community should try and set a precedence.

 

[SteveMann]

I have personally been witness to fellow pilots who have had their hands slapped, to a full loss of their certificate, because they did something stupid and the reports were based entirely on eyewitness testimony that was not accompanied by a radar track, photograph etc...

There probably was supporting evidence or one of those witnesses was an FAA inspector. Or the hand slap was something completely unrelated to the offense such as incomplete paperwork. Since this is third hand information, do you know that the slapped pilot didn't inadvertently incriminate himself?

 

[SteveMann]

As long as the FAA can define a model aircraft as an "Aircraft" which they can do under 49 U.S.C. § 40102(a)(6). Then all FAR's that pertain to aircraft can be sited against a UAS.. This includes equipment requirements for operation in certain airspace, Communication Requirements in certain airspace. If you haven't noticed, the advisories for recreational drone use limits the drone operators in Class G airspace only... When you look at the requirements for current commercial use (333 waiver) and all the requirements necessary to meet to fly in airspace other than G which can be approved, you will notice they include, contacting the tower or (Controlling agency) to operate in B,C, D or E airspace.

If any authorities caught a recreational drone operator flying the drone in any airspace other than G, I can assure you they would site as many FAR's as they could that would apply to an "Aircraft".

And of course they would site 91.13... It was made to be broad, so that the FAA can have a tool to protect the NAS if they need.

I am not the FAA.. I am just a Pilot. The FAA has never in my mind done anything unfair. They tend to rule more on the side of the operator, than they do against the operator. Sooner or later this Drone mess will be worked out.. But until then, the community should try and set a precedence.

You are completely wrong here. The FAA doesn't usually make up rules on the fly as in the case of Pirker where the FAA stretched the meaning of Aircraft to apply multiple charges against Pirker. The NTSB initially slapped down the FAA saying that model aircraft do not fall into the definition of aircraft so Pirker violated no rules. The NTSB appeal reversed ONLY the decision that model aircraft are aircraft for the purpose of enforcing 91.13.

ONLY 91.13.

All other charges against Pirker were dropped. The NTSB can't adjudicate a rule where there is no charge.

For another opinion, read this.

 

[Buzz313th]

There probably was supporting evidence or one of those witnesses was an FAA inspector. Or the hand slap was something completely unrelated to the offense such as incomplete paperwork. Since this is third hand information, do you know that the slapped pilot didn't inadvertently incriminate himself?

Nope... It wasn't.. Unfortunately your assuming...

The Handslap was my hand.. I flew into a TFR and continued to work in the TFR for a few hours. I did not do a proper Briefing and therefore did not know about the NOTAM that contained that TFR that popped up that day. Magu APP contacted me and asked me to land immediately and contact them on a landline.. I did and explained that I made a mistake not doing a proper briefing that morning.. They said don't fly there again, and that was it.. I could of lost my License.

Then I had a friend who was attending a graduation at the Airforce academy. During the graduation ceremony a Small Single engine aircraft did a fly by that was considered too low by many in the audience.. They reported it to the FAA.. There was no radar track, there were only eyewitnesses. It turned out it was a Cadet in the academy that had another year left that did the flyby. It spent 3 years in court and he finally lost. Got removed from the airforce, lost his cert. He claimed he was above 600 feet, but lost the case to the first rule of VFR altitude... Which states that you must maintain an altitude high enough that with a loss of power you can execute an emergency landing without harming anyone on the ground..

So there...

One example that they coulda thrown the book at me and had a radar track and I incriminated myself by admitting fault.. the other was based on eyewitness accounts only and was fought in court.

The one they pursued was someone screwing around on purpose.. the one they didn't, was someone who made a mistake and turned it into a valuable lesson.

The FAA isn't there to ruin your day.. They are there to govern and keep it safe and organized.

 

[Buzz313th]

You are completely wrong here. The FAA doesn't usually make up rules on the fly as in the case of Pirker where the FAA stretched the meaning of Aircraft to apply multiple charges against Pirker. The NTSB initially slapped down the FAA saying that model aircraft do not fall into the definition of aircraft so Pirker violated no rules. The NTSB appeal reversed ONLY the decision that model aircraft are aircraft for the purpose of enforcing 91.13.

ONLY 91.13.

All other charges against Pirker were dropped. The NTSB can't adjudicate a rule where there is no charge.

For another opinion, read this.

I strongly disagree with you on this point, but I refuse to take this conversation further as it is here say and you can't tell me that the FAA won't use every tool at their disposal to try and stick a conviction by using multiple regulations.

And they have the right to do so as any thing defined as being an aircraft is subject to any and all FAR's pertaining to aircraft.. Just because the outcome of the Pirker case ruled in one direction, does not mean they would would rule the same way again.. You would first have to take it to court to find out.

The FAA can and will use any and all FAR's against Recreational UAS's and Commercial UAS operations.. This can be answered by simply by speaking with the someone at the FSDO office which I have..

I guess I took it further