What is the latest FAA laws?

Koz said:
So unless any lawsuits make there way through the courts before Congress takes action we're all essentially in limbo.

Not sure what action you expect from Congress. As things sit now as far as hobby use goes, unless the FAA amends their "Interpretation" document we will have to wait for the various lawsuits to work their way through the courts. Once the courts make a ruling, then Congress might get involved, but even then I think it is unlikely.

In the meantime the FAA is supposed to get their sUAS Rule out, which likely would not take effect until early 2016 even if things go quickly, and until then commercial users will continue to live in limbo.
 
SilentAV8R said:
Not sure what action you expect from Congress. As things sit now as far as hobby use goes, unless the FAA amends their "Interpretation" document we will have to wait for the various lawsuits to work their way through the courts. Once the courts make a ruling, then Congress might get involved, but even then I think it is unlikely.

By definition, an Act is a constitutional plan that is passed by Congress but has not been ratified into law (also known as a Bill). The 2012 FAA Modernization Act tasked Congress, the FAA, and the Secretary of Transportation to come up with standards regarding unmanned aircraft and their pilots. So Congress is most definitely involved with what happens next as far as drone usage and restrictions.

Here's something that explains it better than I can: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyeJ55o3El0

BTW, I don't mean that link as a shot or an insult. As I was typing my reply I remembered Schoolhouse Rock from back when I was a kid.

What hurt the FAA in the Pirker case was that they were relying on FAA guidelines and not U.S. Law. You can bet the is licking its wounds and wants laws passed so they have something concrete to back them up. By the same token, you can bet the Congress is interested in these because of privacy issues and the impact UAV's can have on employment and income. It should be one heck of a battle, especially on the privacy side. You can bet some members of Congress will try and make Americans fearful of all UAV's. That's why it's up to us to try and educate our Congressmen on the difference between a Phantom and a Predator drone. Yes, that sounds silly. But you can always bet a handful of Congressmen will play it to the extreme.

Since the time that the hobby aircraft laws and regulations were enacted there has been a tremendous advance in technology. Back then hobby aircraft were a novelty and very few people were involved. Today I can spend $100 and get a great RC plane or helicopter and attach a cheap $30 mini camera to it. Back then this was James Bond type stuff.

So I believe we need to educate Congress on the opportunities presented by our under 5 pound aircraft, Make sure they differentiate between these and larger UAS systems. Explain how we can make a few extra bucks with these rigs. I'd even agree to reasonable licensing requirements for commercial use. But don't group what we do into what Amazon and Google want to do with UAS. That's simply not fair.
 
This is the letter that I sent to Senator Tim Scott. He visits our area frequently and I'm hoping he takes me up on my offer for a flight demonstration. I'll send it out to our other Senator and Representatives later this week.

I'm taking the time to contact you regarding the 2012 FAA Modernization and Reform Act (H.R. 658) and the future of legislation regarding Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS). To be more precise, my concerns involve what the public commonly refers as "drones". My concern is that sweeping regulations will have a negative impact on hobbyists and the potential to utilize UAS in small business endeacors.

I am in agreement with the FAA and some members of Congress that there is an immediate need for new regulations regarding unmanned aircraft. Back when the laws on hobby aircraft were written no one imagined the technological advances we have today nor had anyone imagined how small hobby aircraft could be utilized to create new jobs and benefit existing industries.

Take for example one of the aircraft that I fly, the DJI Phantom 2 quadcopter. This amazing piece of technology weighs less than three pounds and carries a GoPro camera that allows me to take still photos and high definition video. I can fly this aerial camera all over Hilton Head and the South Carolina Lowcountry and take stunning photos and video of our area. I can post these videos on YouTube and share the photos with my family and friends. But if the Hilton Head Chamber of Commerce asks me to shoot aerial video so they can use it to promote the area the FAA states that I am breaking the law. If a local real estate agent asks me to take aerial photos of a local home to showcase its proximity to the beach the FAA states that is currently against the law. As it stands today I have the opportunity to increase my income by tens of thousands of dollars a year and pump those dollars back into the local economy, but if I do so the FAA states it can fine me up to $10,000. In a time when the economy is still sputtering and wages are stagnant I could really use the additional income.

The current FAA regulations are a complete hypocrisy. For example, I can take photos and video for myself but if I try and sell those exact same photos and video I am considered to be breaking the law. The location where I fly and the pictures that I take are exactly the same. The fact that I am compensated for the flight or photos is the only difference. How does that make sense? This hypocrisy is not only with photos and video, but also with the agriculture industry. If I fly my aircraft in my back yard and use the video or video link to check on the status of my plants I am operating within the law. But if I'm a farmer doing the same thing I am considered to be breaking the law because farming is a commercial enterprise.

H.R. 658 specifically addresses UAS under 55 pounds and if legislation is enacted based upon that arbitrary weight limit I believe that it will place undo restraint of trade on a burgeoning industry and unfairly subject hobby sized aircraft to regulations intended for much larger UAS such as those that Amazon wants to utilize for parcel delivery. I am asking that as H.R. 658 proceeds that special provisions or a special classification be enacted for UAS under the weight of 5 pounds (with payload).

I do realize that there is an immediate need for regulation in this area, even for UAS under 5 pounds. I agree with the FAA that these aircraft should be kept under 400 feet and they should not be allowed to fly within 5 miles of an airport. I would not be opposed if a license or certification was required to fly even a small UAS for compensation. But the FAA's current stance on hobbyist versus commercial makes absolutely no sense when the only difference in regulations is whether or not the pilot is compensated. Compensation should not be the distinguishing factor between what the FAA considers legal and illegal. The FAA should establish rules for safe operation of the aircraft and perhaps even certification for pilots and the worthiness of the aircraft, but they should not be allowed to regulate my ability to generate income if I meet all of their qualifications. Furthermore, it is imperative that proposed legislation include provisions to distinguish small, lightweight UAS aircraft from larger platforms carrying heavier payloads.

Thank you for taking the time to hear some of my concerns. There is much more to be said on this topic including privacy and security concerns, and I will be happy to answer any questions that you may have. I know that you enjoy visiting the Hilton Head area for both business and pleasure and the next time that you are in the area I'd be happy to provide you with a flight demonstration of my Phantom 2 quadcopter. I'll even give you a chance to take it for a spin.
 
Koz said:
The 2012 FAA Modernization Act tasked Congress, the FAA, and the Secretary of Transportation to come up with standards regarding unmanned aircraft and their pilots. So Congress is most definitely involved with what happens next as far as drone usage and restrictions.

Thanks. Fact remains that until the cases are either withdrawn or settled in court Congress is unlikely to do anything. Especially since that would mean Amending the FMRA of 2012. Until the courts determine if the FAA overstepped their direction relative to model airplanes (Section 336) there is not much Congress can do without either making a new law, or going back and changing the FMRA.

And the FAA is doing what it was directed to do, albeit at a slower pace than Congress wanted. FAA IS developing Rules to integrate UAS/sUAS into the NAS. The sUAS Rule will be first, as I mentioned. Then they will turn to rules for larger UAS.

Review this FAA document to get a better understanding of what the FAA is doing and what they are planning to do in the future.

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/hea ... e_Plan.pdf

Oh, one other thing, people seem very confused by the various types of authorization the FAA uses. Section 336 deals ONLY with hobby/model/recreational aircraft.

The upcoming sUAS Rule will deal with and authorize commercial civil and public agency uses. Trying to conflate the two only causes confusion and muddies the waters.
 
Koz - This may confuse your COngressman:

I am asking that as H.R. 658 proceeds that special provisions or a special classification be enacted for UAS under the weight of 5 pounds (with payload).

Here's why:

H.R. 658 (112th): FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012

Introduced: Feb 11, 2011 (112th Congress, 2011–2013)
Status:Enacted — Signed by the President on Feb 14, 2012
Law: This bill became the law numbered Pub.L. 112-95.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr658

So there is nothing to proceed. It is already law.
 
Today I received a phone call from one of Senator Tim Scott's aides regarding this issue. He was very informed on the topic and we talked for about 25 minutes regarding current laws and restrictions and upcoming legislation. He did inquire as to whether or not I had applied for an FAA waiver for commercial use and I responded that I had not based upon what the FAA had previously stated regarding who they would consider for an exemption as well as what I had read about other that applied.

While he stated that he had seen that the FAA had granted some movie studios permission to fly UAV he was in agreement that big money and lobbyists played a role in that happening. It is unlikely that any exemptions would be granted to individuals or small businesses outside of the movie industry and research or educational institutions. We then talked about using UAV's for the real estate industry, the NAR's updated position in regards to asking the FAA to change their policy, and licensing and training requirements.

He also stated that Senator Scott was in agreement that it was completely ridiculous that as a hobbyist I am allowed to take photos and video, but if I were to sell those same photos and video that I would be subject to fines. Senator Scott understands that in my area both tourism and real estate are key components of the economy and that the use of UAV's could be beneficial to those sectors and open new business opportunities that are needed in the current economy.

Lastly, he said he would again relay my offer to Senator Scott for a demonstration and flying lesson the next time he is in the area.

Truthfully, when I requested a reply to my email I expected some sort of canned letter as a response. But the aide I talked to was knowledgeable of the current situation and relayed that this topic did interest the Senator, especially because I also conveyed a willingness to some sort of oversight for commercial use (i.e. licensing, transponders, etc.) rather than asking for a blanket exemption. He assured me that when the matter comes up in Congress (and it will) Senator Scott would take an interest and possibly ask me for more input and information. Overall, I don't believe that this was just a lip service response to my letter. Obviously there are more important issues that Congress has to deal with right now, but I feel that my Senator is actively interested in this topic as it progresses.
 
I just recently joined the AMA primarily for liability insurance when operating under the definition of "model aircraft" and in accordance with their rules.

Anyone in the US using a model aircraft type "drone", even if they aren't going to join the AMA, should probably read this: http://www.modelaircraft.org/files/AFSCREPORT101.pdf (AMA Advanced Flight Systems Committee Report 101)

This is not the latest news, and it specifically addresses non-commercial hobby use, but it's important background info for understanding anything more recent. It includes both AMA rules and how they relate to FAA regulations. Even if you're not worried about insurance coverage, the more standards you are complying with the better off you'll be if you have any legal problems. (In front of a judge, if you show up with and can point to something like this and can say you're following those standards it will likely look much better than if you just show up and go "duh, I donno judge, I was just flyin dis thing around and stuff....")
 
Section 336 is clearly stating that anyone flying under hobby use of UAS within 5 miles of an airport, must notify ATC or get a permanent agreement with them. The Phantom is flight restricted (and users are admonished not to operate unless) within the 5 mile radius, according to a linearly increasing allowable flight (altitude) from within 1.5 mile radius (35 feet) to the 5 mile radius (400 feet).

In particular, I live near an airport with a calculated allowable altitude limit of 250 feet, based on DJI's flight restriction chart: http://www.dji.com/fly-safe/category-mc

The FAA, being the authority having jurisdiction, would seem to disallow ANY flight within the 5 mile radius unless an agreement or clearance from the ATC is in hand. It would seem that DJI would be liable for unintended consequences, since they have taken steps to impose restrictions, and have made written statements informing customers of their incorrect permissible (restricted) operating area.

The Academy of Model Aeronautics (AMA), having some standing with the FAA, goes on to say that flight of UAS is acceptable under 400 feet altitude when within 3 miles of an airport (Doc #550, section 4b). The AMA provided insurance, (and AMA standing with the FAA) would also seem to be at risk, with their policy guidance.

Knowing these things, I don't plan to fly at home anymore. However, to otherwise uninformed users, the FAA policy and enforcement authority should distribute the liability burden on DJI, AMA, and then the user, if the user has done nothing more than fly according to DJI and AMA guidance.

At a minimum, DJI should include the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 rules in their distribution package of materials, as well as change their documentation, accordingly. The AMA should amend their report #101 to be consistent with this act, as well, because their directions are causing users to be (unknowingly) in violation of the rules.

-Dale-
 
I don't see any comment from the AMA regarding this yet regarding the cancellation of AC 91-57. At the very least they'll need to update their materials to remove references to that or mention that it's been cancelled. Hopefully this will happen sooner rather than later.

DrD: If the AMA is recommending anything that's against any interpretation of "the rules" out there, perhaps they are intentionally gearing up for a court challenge?
 
rjstone said:
I don't see any comment from the AMA regarding this yet regarding the cancellation of AC 91-57. At the very least they'll need to update their materials to remove references to that or mention that it's been cancelled. Hopefully this will happen sooner rather than later.

Well, since the FAA only announced this late on Friday I am not at all surprised that the AMA has not responded yet. Maybe Monday morning (or Tuesday if they take the Holiday). I'm sure the AMA will amend any and all materials that need to be changed.

DrD: If the AMA is recommending anything that's against any interpretation of "the rules" out there, perhaps they are intentionally gearing up for a court challenge?

Not DrD, but the AMA has already filed a court case against the FAA for their "Interpretation" of Section 336. FAA stepped way over the line with their interpretation and AMA is pushing back hard.
 

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
143,066
Messages
1,467,358
Members
104,936
Latest member
hirehackers