FAA has drawn the line in the sand

[Greg McNair]

There's nothing ambiguous about this, it's plainly spelled out in black and white. I have it on good authority that the FAA is working hard to establish a certification process for small UAS aircraft and we could expect to see something in the coming months, as opposed to years. In the meantime, outdoor for-hire or commercial r/c aircraft activities are prohibited by the FAA. Certainly not good news.

http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/pdf100/452254_web.pdf

[Blimpman]

I take it you work for the FAA, Greg!

[Greg McNair]

What brought about that statement?

[Blimpman]

Just wondering.

[Greg McNair]

I work for myself.

[Ed Couch]

Greg/Blimpman

I reviewed the CFR 91 this morning and this will impact me as much as anyone else flying commerically outdoors. I've emailed FAA with a number of questions and plan on dropping by the Fort Worth office after work to see what they know about the subject. I have work scheduled that this may impact. Type certification of 1/4 scale Cub or a 20 foot airship would be a pain to say the least, although the cost may be at a minimum. Having to file a flight plan to fly over an event and wait for approval is also of great concern. It does seem that it is written for larger and heavier vehicles than we would normally fly but we are lumped into the same basic catagory.

I know there are quite a few folks that monitor this site and if so please comment on what we are looking at.

T, if you know anything more come on in and help us out. Ultimate end this is money out of our pockets and I honestly like to keep what I have. It does not effect our inside work at this time but try and get insurance coverage for an RV or boat show, arena events cover themselves but if you drop coupons its another story.

[Majortomski]

This is a notice of proposed rule making. It is not a law being implemented it is a notice that one is in the works

It is the FAA’s legal obligation to ask the users for input on proposed changes to the FAR’s

In this case, the positive items in the text are that the FAA does recognize that model-like or model-based commercial operations cannot provide any form of airworthiness certification, other than demonstration, much like an experimental home built flys off a 50-hour restriction to prove it’s airworthy. And the intent in the document is to issue a new Advisory Circular AC much like the existing 91- 57 covers modeling the new one would cover commercial operations of model-like or model-based vehicles. That is a relatively positive statement from the DC rule makers.

This document is your invitation to help in working out the details. Point of contact is listed in the last paragraph. The more positive and helpful your comments, the better product we’re going to be saddled with.

HTH
Tom

[Greg McNair]

Ed, there's been quite a long ongoing discussion about this recent turn of events, found in the following forums:

http://www.runryder.com/helicopter/t319149p1/

http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=641653

I posted it here because I don't know to what level blimp operators pay attention to the FAA activity. As a fulltime AP'er, I pay attention to it regularly, and as of late, daily. I suppose going by blimpboys logic, everyone that started those threads to warn others about what the FAA is up to are also employed by the FAA. This impacts everyone who operates a remote controlled aircraft for commercial gain, and the FAA states "from 12oz hobby toy model aircraft to 737's." They certainly didn't want to exclude anyone. :(

(edit: Tom, you were posting as I was typing, sorry for not acknowledging your post. For what it's worth, I have already contacted the FAA, my senators, and my congressman. I've got some lengthy posts in those threads I referenced which sum up my involvement.)

[Ed Couch]

Tom/Greg

I agree that this is only in a proposal format asking for an opinion but this particular item was updated/released "Tuesday, February 13, 2007". As some of the earlier threads mention it may be 3 or 4 years before anything becomes formal. Personally, I am curious what our local FAA office has to say at this time on the subject and also since the FAA is asking questions, I feel we all should be responding in kind. As the ACTION item states "opportunity for feedback" we had better continue responding and providing input as we are the eventual ones directly affected by the final regulations.

[Majortomski]

Guys, notice that this thread is also being hashed out on the AP discussions too.

[Greg McNair]

Guys, notice that this thread is also being hashed out on the AP discussions too.

Tom, see my post 2 up for direct links

[Majortomski]

Tom, see my post 2 up for direct links


Actually there is yet another horse being beat upon

http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=642118

[Greg McNair]

Yeah, but that's only a couple pages long. The "news" one is running a bit more in-depth. Also, RCAPA.net has a thread, as does Helifreak.com, RCU, and others.

[galaxyrpv]

We have been working with the FAA for the past several years. We are in the process of having our entire outdoor blimp fleet certified under a new classification call experimental expanded. This would allow us to operate our ships in class B airspace legally. Our new 60ft blimp is being built to the European TAR standards for full size airships. We have incorporated all of the safely feature required on full size blimps. The FAA guys from DC are coming some time next month to inspect our new 60ft blimp. We have no problem with the FAA wanting to regulate commercial UASs. There needs to some kind of standard set for people operating UASs in public places. It’s going to happen regardless of what most people think. We are trying to do our best to work with the FAA and not complaining about the inevitable.

[Greg McNair]

There needs to some kind of standard set for people operating UASs in public places. It’s going to happen regardless of what most people think. We are trying to do our best to work with the FAA and not complaining about the inevitable.

Amen

[Ed Couch]

Tony, thanks for the information and I was to understand that you had been in communications with the FAA on the subject. Let us know what the final outcome is after your meeting with the folks. Thanks again. ed

[Blimpman]

Been flying for 4 years will continue.

[galaxyrpv]

If you are operating in safe manner, and your equipment is built to a high standard you have nothing to worry about.

[Blimpman]

I have followed your lead Tony.
Keep up the good work.

[galaxyrpv]

Well its official, the FAA has banned all flights of unmanned aircraft in the National airspace. This effectively puts all of us out of business. I have been talking with the FAA for the past 2 weeks confirming my worst fears. We are still seeking our experimental certification, which still will not allow us to operate over populated areas or for compensation. The only flights we will be legally able to perform would be for R&D purposes and to further develop our system. I have been talking with a few other blimp companies to try and form a united front, and get regulations in place that would allow use to continue our operations. This is a very big blow to our business and its time to join together and start this fight.

[aldro7]

Galaxy you can count with me because i am starting a outdoor blimp buisnes in Puerto Rico and is a US island.

[Majortomski]

Could you please site the policy letter putting this into effect?

[Guga]

Well its official, the FAA has banned all flights of unmanned aircraft in the National airspace. This effectively puts all of us out of business. I have been talking with the FAA for the past 2 weeks confirming my worst fears. We are still seeking our experimental certification, which still will not allow us to operate over populated areas or for compensation. The only flights we will be legally able to perform would be for R&D purposes and to further develop our system. I have been talking with a few other blimp companies to try and form a united front, and get regulations in place that would allow use to continue our operations. This is a very big blow to our business and its time to join together and start this fight.

There is a lot of demand for professional Outdoor Services in Brasil and also Latin America in general ... specially in the areas of AeroPhotogametry, for Agronomy purposes, Marketing and others...
Aviation rules in these countries have only a few restrictions to airpace used near airports...
Maybe concentrating the Marketing efforts of American companies (Outdoor Blimps) in these areas would be a good Idea... :cool:

[Greg McNair]

There's nothing ambiguous about this, it's plainly spelled out in black and white. I have it on good authority that the FAA is working hard to establish a certification process for small UAS aircraft and we could expect to see something in the coming months, as opposed to years. In the meantime, outdoor for-hire or commercial r/c aircraft activities are prohibited by the FAA. Certainly not good news.

http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/pdf100/452254_web.pdf

Well its official, the FAA has banned all flights of unmanned aircraft in the National airspace. This effectively puts all of us out of business. I have been talking with the FAA for the past 2 weeks confirming my worst fears. We are still seeking our experimental certification, which still will not allow us to operate over populated areas or for compensation. The only flights we will be legally able to perform would be for R&D purposes and to further develop our system. I have been talking with a few other blimp companies to try and form a united front, and get regulations in place that would allow use to continue our operations. This is a very big blow to our business and its time to join together and start this fight.

There's quite an echo in here.

[Blimpman]

Could you please site the policy letter putting this into effect?
No policy yet.

[galaxyrpv]

It is attached to McNair's reply.
http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/pdf100/452254_web.pdf

If you are currently operating outdoor blimps you are doing so illegally. IF you are interested forming a blimp association to deal with this issue please PM me.

[Majortomski]

My bad, I misread the proposal. You're correct. the good news is it is not the end, they want a compromise solution.

[Blimpman]

Will be doing video for surveillance law enforcement department.
Will get paid.
No problem with FAA.

[galaxyrpv]

Who at the FAA did you get approval from? What law inforcement group will you be flying for?

[Blimpman]

can't give that info.
fyi, blimps fall under totally different category, LTA
that makes a difference when it comes to regulations.

[galaxyrpv]

Why can you not give the FAA information? We need to verify what you are doing so it will not shine a negative light on all of our operations. We are working very hard over here and spending allot of money trying to get the FAA to allow us to operate legally. I have talked to the top people at the FAA and have gotten very specific guidelines on what we need to do to become legal (there are no exceptions for LTA). Now you say you will be allowed to operate in the national airspace with the FAAs approval. You can bet I will be checking with all of my contacts to find out how you got permission, or you can just tell me. Either way I will find out. I hope for your sake you are truly operating legally. If you are trying to operate under the radar it was not very smart to post your intentions for every one to see. Again we are spending thousands of dollars over here to try and work with the FAA and we sure hope other operators will not try and push the FAA to take more drastic measures to get this situation under control. Remember they are willing to work with us, but if they are pushed to hard they will simply keep things as they are.

[Blimpman]

Come on now, when a blimp flies it is visible on all radar screens in the area.
Nothing illegal here.
Maybe you are the ones putting a negative light on my operation.

[galaxyrpv]

I guess you do not understand sarcasm, flying under the radar means you are going to operate regardless if it is legal. I suppose this means you have not coordinated with the FAA, and are going ignore the FAA circular, but why would you post your actions on a public form and say you are operating legally. There is only one way to read the FAAs ruling. I really do not think you understand that ALL UASs operating commercially are grounded, until the FAA has established guidelines and airworthiness. This has been explained very clear to me by the FAA. There is no way to operate a UAS for compensation yet. Please let us all know of this loop hole you have found so we can all use it. If you are planning to operate no matter what do not say you are doing it legally. It will give others the wrong impression and cause even more friction with the FAA. This is a very serious issue and all of our businesses are at stake. So do not think for a minute you can try and tell me I do not know what’s going on and I am working in the dark. I have tried to help other operators see what is going on and let them know there are very serious consequences to reckless operations. You must understand the limitations that have been placed on us and not announce to the world that you are going to operate anyway and to hell with every one else.

Please correct me if I am wrong and explain to all of us exactly how you are operating legally. Please quote ANY regulation that gives unmanned LTA an exemption.

[Greg McNair]

can't give that info.
fyi, blimps fall under totally different category, LTA
that makes a difference when it comes to regulations.


Bartender, I'll have two of what he's having...

[Majortomski]

Come on now, when a blimp flies it is visible on all radar screens in the area.
Nothing illegal here.
Maybe you are the ones putting a negative light on my operation.


I think you and your police contractor had best have a nice sit down talk to the FAA FSDO in your area. LTA or Fixed wing, getting paid to fly and take pictures is a commercial operation with a UAV and is subject to the restrictions the document at the front of this thread is imposing on us.

Better talk and be safe than sorry and pay a big fine, and set a bad precident for everyone else in the emerging industry.

[Blimpman]

I understand your sarcasm, when I fly, my blimp is seen on radar screens. Do you really think that the blimp goes unseen by the FAA? I am not trying to build and fly a 60 foot ship and compete with the full sized airships like you are. Yes, what you are doing will cause all kinds of problems with the FAA. Also I do not fly in the national airspace.
By the way you are spinning your wheels if you think you can have even a tiny slice of the network TV blimp pie. You will lose!

[Blimpman]

Bartender, I'll have two of what he's having...
I saw your garbage bags that you were trying to sell as blimps. I don't think you know what a blimp is.

[Blimpman]

I guess you do not understand sarcasm, flying under the radar means you are going to operate regardless if it is legal. I suppose this means you have not coordinated with the FAA, and are going ignore the FAA circular, but why would you post your actions on a public form and say you are operating legally. There is only one way to read the FAAs ruling. I really do not think you understand that ALL UASs operating commercially are grounded, until the FAA has established guidelines and airworthiness. This has been explained very clear to me by the FAA. There is no way to operate a UAS for compensation yet. Please let us all know of this loop hole you have found so we can all use it. If you are planning to operate no matter what do not say you are doing it legally. It will give others the wrong impression and cause even more friction with the FAA. This is a very serious issue and all of our businesses are at stake. So do not think for a minute you can try and tell me I do not know what’s going on and I am working in the dark. I have tried to help other operators see what is going on and let them know there are very serious consequences to reckless operations. You must understand the limitations that have been placed on us and not announce to the world that you are going to operate anyway and to hell with every one else.

Please correct me if I am wrong and explain to all of us exactly how you are operating legally. Please quote ANY regulation that gives unmanned LTA an exemption.

You have got my number feel free to call me and I will gladly tell you what I am doing it and how. I will also explain the difference between what I am doing and what you are trying to do.

[Greg McNair]

Blimpboy, I don't even know why you spend time talking with us lowly peons. You have this figured out better than anyone in the industry and are obviously smarter than those guys sitting behind bureaucratic desks in DC. You might need to call the FAA and tell them where the national airspace starts, because they obviously don't know, and have been putting out erroneous information.

[galaxyrpv]

I understand your sarcasm, when I fly, my blimp is seen on radar screens. Do you really think that the blimp goes unseen by the FAA? I am not trying to build and fly a 60 foot ship and compete with the full sized airships like you are. Yes, what you are doing will cause all kinds of problems with the FAA. Also I do not fly in the national airspace.
By the way you are spinning your wheels if you think you can have even a tiny slice of the network TV blimp pie. You will lose!


If you are flying any where in the US you are flying in the national airspace. For a while I thought I was dealing with a professional, but it is plain to see you are going to cause all of us problems. You can bet I will be contacting your local FAA reps and let them know what you are doing. I have already linked this thread to the FAA guys we are working with in DC. Remember that you brought this on your self.

[Thomas B]

Here is a link to a post where one of the AP guys in the AP forum spoke with the FAA gent in charge of the UAV issue:

http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7086585&postcount=510

I think you folks might find it interesting, if you have not alreayd seen it.

[spinbotz]

I read about the police not getting clearance to fly their gps and computer guided uavs from the FAA.

The FAA is trying I'm guessing, to ensure the airspace over cities (yes, including model airfields and parks) and airports remain as safe as can be for full sized aircraft.. but also to deter unauthorized UAV flight that could be intended for a terrorist attack. I've read of bomb loaded drones that were capable of damage, but they can be shot down if detected early enough. *and one indeed was shot down before it could carry out its mission.*

With the ability of drones to carry weaponry, you'd have to be fairly strict about their operation and permissions on where they fly over.

Even a blimp can be dangerous, believe it or not. I managed to crash a RC blimp 30 footer on a sim into a tree, and the gondola came off. Perchance there'd been a spectator at the time at the spot where the gondola fell, you can be sure of a lawsuit... Those gas powered gondolas slung under a gas bag weigh something, and could easily kill someone if they were to tear free from the envelope.

from what I've read and seen, many of the commercial operators of radio controlled airships meant for outdoor flying and over populated areas have practiced as safe as possible flying in order to continue flying. I had hoped one day to be one of those in that rank, but with the restrictions possibly coming into play, that may not be possible.

[Blimpman]

If you are flying any where in the US you are flying in the national airspace. For a while I thought I was dealing with a professional, but it is plain to see you are going to cause all of us problems. You can bet I will be contacting your local FAA reps and let them know what you are doing. I have already linked this thread to the FAA guys we are working with in DC. Remember that you brought this on your self.
Well, I guess I am not a professional, so according to you its legal to fly.
Great! You, on the other hand are a professional, so if you are still flying you are doing so illegally. You also are a lier, you say on your web site, that your blimp can fly in 25 mph winds with gusts up to 30 anyone who knows anything about blimps knows that you are full of sh**. Full sized blimps try to avoid 30 mph winds. I will be reporting you to the FAA and the BBB for spreading lies and miss leading people in an effort to make money illegally. I hope people who are interested in your product will see through your sh** and avoid you like the plague!

[galaxyrpv]

Careful Blimpman,
All of my outdoor blimp operations have been suspended until we get our experimental ticket. I have already talked to the FAA about you. As far as they know you have not received any permission to fly anywhere. And the local law enforcement near you and the state level hasn’t even heard of your company. You can tell the FAA all you want. We are based at an airport in Dallas that is up to speed on what we are trying to get done, so are the FAA officials in DC. We are not hiding anything; as a matter of fact we have turned down several blimp sales in the US until the FAA issues have been resolved.

Nice try though!!

[Ed Couch]

Tony

What is the latest on tethered balloon/airships/blimps etc.? What constitutes a tethered vehicle to your knowledge? The quidelines would seem to be a little bit vague at this time.


As to the subject of Black Tuesday. I'm listening to all including photo choppers/balloons/fixed wing. I've also contacted FAA on subject with mixed results several times. It would seem the answer is variable at this time according to who you tallk with and I do agree we have a serious problem that is going to cost all in the commerical realm a chunk of money.

ed

[galaxyrpv]

FAR 101 covers tethered balloons. The FAA is still coming up with the new regs for all UASs.

[medwards]

Hey Ed,

Here is a link to Part 101.

http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=dfeb4351d22885a4251adce5bcdd6b2e&rgn=div5&view=text&node=14:2.0.1.3.15&idno=14

Seems fairly straightforward.

Mike Edwards

[Ed Couch]

Gentlemen

Thanks for the information and link to 101, clears up a couple of questions I had from some misinformation I was given.

ed

[Ed Couch]

We seem to have been awful quite lately on the subject of the FAA and commerical use of our "models" for hire. The more I think about it the more ticked I get and I'm just finishing up on two new 20 foot vehicles for limited outdoor use. My partner (Tony Roberts) in crime recently had a discussion with a Stephen Glowaki of the FAA (202-267-8565) on the subject and basically he was told it could be 12 to 18 months before anything is released on a SFAR regulating the use of models for commerical use in the national airspace. Tony also ask Mr Glowaki his opinion if he thought we would be able to fly an advertising airship over populated areas. His opinion was simply "no". Tony spent about 20 minutes on the phone with the gentlemen. The discussion touched on if its ok to fly a 20 foot airship for fun why is it any different if we fly it for compensation? Again, simply put "Its the mission" and its unsafe to fly for hire. Go figure. You really want to yank some hair every once in a while but you got to be nice and T was biting his tongue a number of times during the discussion. The discussion went a lot further but thats enough for now. You can figure how frustrating one can get after 20 minutes with folks that really don't give a rats a@# about your problem.

I spent a little time this afternoon digesting 14 CFR Part 91, AC 91-57, and several other documents and noticed something thats really got me ticked. By the FAA's own definition the term policy in part reads "...A policy statement gives guidance or acceptable practices...These documents are explanatory and not mandated.They...". The "ACTION" item at the beginning of Part 91 reads "Notice of POLICY; opportunity for feedback". I almost feel we have been beating ourselves against a wall at this stage. I read and understand the English language very well but honestly never noticed the exact language of the document until I went back and read the FAA's difinition of the term "policy". I read this as its not illegal at all at this stage but a recommendation as the guidelines are up for grabs and subject to change before final implimentation in a couple of years. This is like trying to explain the difference between the terms "and" and "or" to a lawyer. Totally different meanings but they have been taught that they are the same. Some days.

Right now according to Mr Glowaki we the LTA segment of commerical avaition has no real voice or lobbying group, maybe its time as much as I hate to think of it that we join together to provide at least a group of dedicated commerical LTA flyers to help push this along. Maybe work with the chopper and fixed wing photo/camera folks to raise a little hell on the subject. I know Tony White has brought the subject up once or twice and as stated before, I'm willing to help in any way I can.

ed

[Greg McNair]

Now you see why I put the brakes on the 4 26' ships I have sitting in my shop right now Ed. Very frustrating. But even though the FAA definition of policy is what it is, I am not as concerned about being chased by the FAA as I am being nailed by some plaintiffs attorney. If I were to be unlucky enough to have a serious accident right now and cause someone else serious injury by direct contact, or via indirect such as causing an accident, I can open my phonebook and find several hundred ambulance chasers ready to nail me for negligence, which in this state, opens the door for punitive damages. I don't fear the wrath of the FAA. I fear the wrath of a hen-pecked jury. So anyone else can do what the heck they want. I know where I am willing to draw the line of risk, and right now, I am staying well this side of it. Fortunately my fullscale AP business is keeping me busy and making my banker smile.

The RCAPA has been dedicated to the fight for ALL types of rc aircraft. You might want to visit rcapa.net and throw your hat in the ring to help in whatever capacity you are willing. I stood on the frontlines for nearly 2 years helping to work on these regs, and now that others are finally seeing the light, I'm stepping back and letting those others put some energy into it.

[Ed Couch]

I understand what you are saying but if the FAA definition of policy is not a mandate then you are covered under your normal libility policy and it should be no different than it was when you flew at the first of the year. I appreciate all the work done by the folks before now but as you say you are setting on 4 balloons I assume you were going to move. Myself, I only build to advertise for a client and not for sell but I'll stay within the "letter" of the law when I fly for hire. ed

[Greg McNair]

I planned on flying them, not selling them.
GM

[skywork]

Faa

[galaxyrpv]

Check this out http://wcbstv.com/local/local_story_137002709.html

[Zeppman]

In the UK one is limited to 60 metres (196') and half that in an aerodrome traffic zone.