Welcome to PhantomPilots.com

Sign up for a weekly email of the latest drone news & information

New FAA Model Aircraft Guidance - June 2014

Discussion in 'News' started by SilentAV8R, Jun 23, 2014.

  1. SilentAV8R

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2014
    Messages:
    943
    Likes Received:
    18
    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/

    http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/ua ... raphic.png
     
  2. SilentAV8R

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2014
    Messages:
    943
    Likes Received:
    18
    Location:
    Orange County, CA - USA
    This is from the actual text:

     
  3. PATHETICfallacy

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2014
    Messages:
    23
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Surprise, AZ, United States
    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!
     
  4. SilentAV8R

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2014
    Messages:
    943
    Likes Received:
    18
    Location:
    Orange County, CA - USA
    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.
     
  5. Elginet

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2013
    Messages:
    178
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Illinois
    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.
     
  6. SilentAV8R

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2014
    Messages:
    943
    Likes Received:
    18
    Location:
    Orange County, CA - USA
    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.
     
  7. EliasD

    Joined:
    May 13, 2014
    Messages:
    38
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    DelMarVa peninsula somewhere in the beanfields
    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.
     
  8. Buk

    Buk

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2013
    Messages:
    653
    Likes Received:
    29
    Location:
    Iowa, United States
    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.
     
  9. PhantomRock

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2014
    Messages:
    120
    Likes Received:
    1
    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.
     
  10. macheung

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2013
    Messages:
    246
    Likes Received:
    4
    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.
     
  11. EMCSQUAR

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2013
    Messages:
    1,692
    Likes Received:
    6
    Location:
    N 44.895 W 93.354 Minnesota
    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)
     
  12. derrickduff

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2014
    Messages:
    188
    Likes Received:
    0
    Now every time I fly my paper airplane in the back yard I need to get clearance from the airport.
     

    Attached Files:

  13. SilentAV8R

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2014
    Messages:
    943
    Likes Received:
    18
    Location:
    Orange County, CA - USA
    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.
     
  14. BigTulsa

    Joined:
    May 29, 2014
    Messages:
    207
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Tulsa, OK
    The AMA (of which I am a member) responds.

    Good for them.

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

    The good part:

     
  15. SilentAV8R

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2014
    Messages:
    943
    Likes Received:
    18
    Location:
    Orange County, CA - USA
    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
     
  16. BigTulsa

    Joined:
    May 29, 2014
    Messages:
    207
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Tulsa, OK
  17. SilentAV8R

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2014
    Messages:
    943
    Likes Received:
    18
    Location:
    Orange County, CA - USA
    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.
     
  18. BigTulsa

    Joined:
    May 29, 2014
    Messages:
    207
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Tulsa, OK
    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.
     
  19. CarlJ

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2014
    Messages:
    782
    Likes Received:
    19
    Location:
    Peru, Indiana
    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.