Rant time

[LuvMyTJ]

I don't have it "in print" but the live video webinar with Kevin from the FAA went over this a few months back. He produced the written transcripts of it but I didn't sign up for them. I'll reach out to him and see if he can provide "documented" support to back this up.

Thank you sir. I will change my views on this if it comes from a credible source such as that.
They really need to make a clear & concise web page with the rules in a way we can all understand them.

 

[sar104]

For whatever it's worth I completely agree with sar104. From what I've read and heard from the FAA directly it comes down to this:

You have 2 options and only 2 options.

A) Fly within the rules/guidelines (not law not regulation) as a hobby/recreational pilot
B) Everything else defaults to Part 107 operations regardless if it's for commerce or not.

If you do everything right you then fit completely inside the HOBBY box. If anything falls outside that box the box is completely irrelevant and you are operating under Part 107.

That is exactly my interpretation, but I'm completely open to counter-arguments.

 

[Monte55]

So you started a thread you know is a controversial subject then sit back as the crap flies... please refrain from doing this in the future.

I didn't start the thread to start any crap. I wanted different views on the rules we are supposed to abide by. As you can see, there are many opposing views on the same rules. I think the thread is useful as some have explained them better. It wouldn't be
controversial if we all understood the same thing, which obviously we don't.

 

[sar104]

I didn't start the thread to start any crap. I wanted different views on the rules we are supposed to abide by. As you can see, there are many opposing views on the same rules. I think the thread is useful as some have explained them better. It wouldn't be
controversial if we all understood the same thing, which obviously we don't.

Personally, I think that this has turned into a useful thread, whatever you may have intended.

 

[Monte55]

Personally, I think that this has turned into a useful thread, whatever you may have intended.

I would like to understand the rules better. That's the reason I started the thread. But...I can't help it if some want to leave rude remarks and get off topic .

 

[LuvMyTJ]

Please follow the link that I provided in post #21. It is a clear (I think) statement of the FAA position. That's the source that I have been quoting in this thread. I would also argue that the text of Part 107 essentially says the same thing, but requires more patience to read.

While I'm starting to feel that I'm beating a dead horse here, I'll add a few more observations. I'm not disputing your interpretation of the model aircraft special rule - what I'm saying is that it is now subsidiary to the FAA Part 107 regulation governing UAS operations. I think that the confusion is arising because the special rule came first, and is leading to a backwards understanding of the current state of the law. Part 107 is now the FAA law on all sub-55-lbs UAS operations. As the FAA statement that I linked to clearly (IMO) states, the special rule is now a specific exemption from Part 107, but it only applies if you follow the model aircraft guidelines. It doesn't matter that those are guidelines rather than rules, laws, regulations or whatever because, if you don't follow them, you are no longer flying under the special rule, and instead are subject to the full provisions of Part 107. To put that another way, Part 107 is not a specific set of regulations that apply if you choose to fly commercially - it is the law on UAS operations unless you claim exemption under the special rule and follow the appropriate guidelines.

As I said previously - that's not some obscure interpretation that I'm making - it is spelled out in black and white by the FAA. So - if you disagree, having read the FAA interpretation that I linked to - please explain your reasoning. Simply quoting recreational guidelines does not address the overarchinbg applicability of Part 107.

I used your link to make my prior post and not much on there is 'black & white', I wish it was.
By belonging to a community-based group with a set of safety guidelines (AMA) and following those guidelines, you may fly for example, fly at night or over 400' as a hobby flier.
I may be wrong, and I will admit & accept that, but until I can see evidence of that, I am going by what I have read on the AMA and the FAA web sites.

SOURCES:
Fly for Fun

 

[dwallersv]

Were model AC ever allowed to fly over 400'? I seem to remember somewhere in the back of my head this limitation from RC glider and heli days, but it's ghostly at best so I may be hallucinating.

Anyway, my memory says this was always a rule for model AC because of the 500' floor for manned AC.

 

[LuvMyTJ]

I didn't start the thread to start any crap. I wanted different views on the rules we are supposed to abide by. As you can see, there are many opposing views on the same rules. I think the thread is useful as some have explained them better. It wouldn't be
controversial if we all understood the same thing, which obviously we don't.

The title and this quote seems to say otherwise Monte... "I haven't responded to anyone because I think it would just become another forum war."

I am all for learning and getting the correct information. This is a good topic (it's the reason I didn't close it already), but if your claims are true, you went about it the wrong way.
Lets move on and continue to learn & grow in a positive way.

 

[sar104]

I used your link to make my prior post and not much on there is 'black & white', I wish it was.
By belonging to a community-based group with a set of safety guidelines (AMA) and following those guidelines, you may fly for example, fly at night or over 400' as a hobby flier.
I may be wrong, and I will admit & accept that, but until I can see evidence of that, I am going by what I have read on the AMA and the FAA web sites.

SOURCES:
Fly for Fun

Good points, but what, specifically, about the following FAA statement is not black and white?


Part 107 does not apply to UAS flown strictly for fun (hobby or recreational purposes) as long as these unmanned aircraft are flown in accordance with the Special Rule for Model Aircraft (Section 336 of P.L. 112-95).

 

[LuvMyTJ]

Good points, but what, specifically, about the following FAA statement is not black and white?


Part 107 does not apply to UAS flown strictly for fun (hobby or recreational purposes) as long as these unmanned aircraft are flown in accordance with the Special Rule for Model Aircraft (Section 336 of P.L. 112-95).

I think we agree on some things but maybe not others. I agree with what you just posted, it is 336 thats grey. I think we disagree on how it's applied.

 

[sar104]

I think we agree on some things but maybe not others. I agree with what you just posted, it is 336 thats grey. I think we disagree on how it's applied.

No disagreement on the issue of how it is being applied - as far as I can tell there have been too few test cases to judge. I'm only commenting on how the FAA has set it up, and the implications of their published interpretations.

 

[BigAl07]

I've reached out to our FAA sUAS Liaison and asked him for some clarification and links if possible. My guess is he will link us back to the links we've already been debating but hopefully will give some inside insight into how it's really intended to work.

It's just a shame this "system" is not more clear and defined. My hunch is they've done it this way for a couple of reasons:

• 1) they don't fully know how this is going to play out long-term so they left some "wiggle room" for tweaking when needed (good or bad)
• 2) they wanted to leave it in the "Grey Area" and let future court rulings set the real precedent and go from there

Either way our Community/Industry is left in this Grey Muck trying to figure out things that may not have been designed to be clearly understandable to begin with. I don't think it's left like this "by chance" at all,

 

[BigAl07]

Ok I got some clarification. It seems some of the problem stems from our own misunderstanding of the regs and how they were intended. Part 107 does not mean strictly "Commercial Operations" even though everyone (even the FAA) associates Part 107 with Commercial Use. It's even noted as the "Commercial UAS Rules" by the FAA. Commercial Operations are but one portion of what Part 107 encompasses.

Part 107 technically "allows" for "civil" UAS operations. Part of that "civil" operation can certainly be commercial operations but doesn't exclude other flights that are not "Commercial". Therefore, if you are not in compliance with Part 101 and you're not on an Exemption or Public Use COA, you are operating as a civil UAS and Part 107 applies.

Here is a direct quote from him:

"Think of it this way: Everyone is a civil UAS operator, subject to Part 107 (Public Use excluded). Now, Congress mandated that certain operators be left alone (not subject to Part 107) if they are operating as a hobbyist and codified law to describe what a hobbyist operation must adhere to. The FAA took that law and regurgitated it into Part 101. So, if you're going to claim that you are NOT flying under Part 107, you must follow all of Part 101, or else you revert back to Part 107 regulations."


So with that guidance directly from our FAA Liaison I think it's pretty clear (at least from my stand point which may be slightly skewed) that you must fit completely inside the Hobby/Recreational (Part 101) box or you do indeed default back to Part 107 regulations.

 

[sar104]

Ok I got some clarification. It seems some of the problem stems from our own misunderstanding of the regs and how they were intended. Part 107 does not mean strictly "Commercial Operations" even though everyone (even the FAA) associates Part 107 with Commercial Use. It's even noted as the "Commercial UAS Rules" by the FAA. Commercial Operations are but one portion of what Part 107 encompasses.

Part 107 technically "allows" for "civil" UAS operations. Part of that "civil" operation can certainly be commercial operations but doesn't exclude other flights that are not "Commercial". Therefore, if you are not in compliance with Part 101 and you're not on an Exemption or Public Use COA, you are operating as a civil UAS and Part 107 applies.

Here is a direct quote from him:

"Think of it this way: Everyone is a civil UAS operator, subject to Part 107 (Public Use excluded). Now, Congress mandated that certain operators be left alone (not subject to Part 107) if they are operating as a hobbyist and codified law to describe what a hobbyist operation must adhere to. The FAA took that law and regurgitated it into Part 101. So, if you're going to claim that you are NOT flying under Part 107, you must follow all of Part 101, or else you revert back to Part 107 regulations."


So with that guidance directly from our FAA Liaison I think it's pretty clear (at least from my stand point which may be slightly skewed) that you must fit completely inside the Hobby/Recreational (Part 101) box or you do indeed default back to Part 107 regulations.

Thanks for chasing that down. It's nice to have some direct clarification that the situation was, indeed, as the FAA had described it, even if they didn't try very hard to make it clear in their guidelines.

 

[BigAl07]

Thanks for chasing that down. It's nice to have some direct clarification that the situation was, indeed, as the FAA had described it, even if they didn't try very hard to make it clear in their guidelines.

I completely agree. They could have EASILY made this more clear and understandable from the get-go. I think the ones actually writing the code are merely "Legal Code Writers" and it's in their best interest to make it hard to understand so their jobs are justified.

 

[eatpasta]

Breaking the rules is ok until someone else does it, then people get pissed.

I encounter this all the time on the motorcycle. People want to go 80 and 90 on the freeway but as soon as I want to pass, I'm the jerk doing something illegal?




I can't tell you how many times I have had to push up past 100, 110 just to get around someone that immediately slows down to 75 after I'm long gone.

It's not personal, people. Just trying to get by...

 

[Clipper707]

Anybody driving slower than you is an idiot, and anyone going faster than you is a maniac. - George Carlin

 

[eatpasta]

Anybody driving slower than you is an idiot, and anyone going faster than you is a maniac. - George Carlin

That's the general consensus isn't it...?

I guess I'm a maniac

 

[jwmcgrath]

That's the general consensus isn't it...?

I guess I'm a maniac

+1

 

[jwmcgrath]

Anybody driving slower than you is an idiot, and anyone going faster than you is a maniac. - George Carlin

I'm just grumpy enough today that I was going to start ranting, and then read this. I needed it.