SMALL - espritmodel.com SMALL - Telemetry SMALL - Radio
Reply
Thread Tools
Old Feb 27, 2015, 09:40 AM
Free Sarcasm!
United States, OH, Worthington
Joined Nov 2014
36 Posts
Discussion
Petition the FAA to revise the restrictive laws placed on model aircraft!

The title says it all. There are a few (two, actually), petitions on petitions.whitehouse.gov petitioning the FAA to revise the restrictive laws they have placed on us. Here's more information: http://www.faa.gov/uas/model_aircraft/

While these laws may seem reasonable, they aren't. According to this interpretation, you cannot fly any model aircraft within 5 miles of an airport, be it a umx champ or a 1/4 scale cessna, without notifying the airport manager. These rules also prohibit FPV. Now, some may say FPV is dangerous, but banning it completely is not the solution. A set of reasonable rules (i.e fly away from populated areas, fly with a spotter, don't fly anything weighing more than a few pounds, and don't fly above 500 feet) would be perfectly acceptable. This law also prohibits monetary compensation for any flight of a model aircraft. This really irks me. This rule has nothing to do with safety and everything to do with the FAA wanting money from licensing model aircraft pilots.

If you disagree with any of these rules, please sign one (or two) of the below petitions:
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/pet...rcial/Lk3qmjCY

or

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/pet...-uavs/5DfF3rDK
Decroxx is offline Find More Posts by Decroxx
Reply With Quote
Sign up now
to remove ads between posts
Old Feb 27, 2015, 10:06 AM
Team Futaba
Silent-AV8R's Avatar
Orange County, CA
Joined Aug 2004
4,943 Posts
What exactly, are the "restrictive laws" on model airplanes that you oppose?

I suggest you try to understand that actual laws better. First, there is no prohibition against flying within 5 miles of an airport. The law merely requires notification.

Secondly, the law does not ban FPV, it does ban using goggles or flying BLOS. For hobby uses why do you feel there is a need to fly BLOS? Even the AMA Safety Code allows FPV use of goggles, but again it must be within VLOS and use a spotter.

The FAA interpretation of compensation as applied to models mainly impacts those companies who develop model aircraft for hobby use and their sponsored pilots.

The AMA has challenged the FPV goggle ban and restrictions on development of hobby aircraft. Neither of those are in the actual law, P.L. 112-95 Section 336, and exist only in the FAA's interpretation document.

It appears to me that you have confused the proposed commercial rules (recent sUAS NPRM), Section 336 law, and the FAA interpretation of that law. There is absolutely no requirement for licensing of model aircraft pilots for instance, not is there a ban on flying within 5 miles of an airport. When commenting to the FAA, which is the only actual meaningful method for changing anything along these lines, it is important to demonstrate that you at least understand what they have proposed, what the law actually is, and not to confuse the commercial sUAS NPRM with Section 336 authorization for model aircraft.
Silent-AV8R is online now Find More Posts by Silent-AV8R
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 06, 2015, 09:30 AM
Free Sarcasm!
United States, OH, Worthington
Joined Nov 2014
36 Posts
It depends on the interpretation. Some say it bans goggles FPV, some say it bans all FPV. Most people fly goggles anyways, so it still affects them. Here is what the special interpretation for model aircraft defines as a a model aircraft:

• the aircraft is flown strictly for hobby or recreational use;
• the aircraft is operated in accordance with a community-based set
of safety guidelines and within the programming of a nationwide
community-based organization;
• the aircraft is limited to not more than 55 pounds unless otherwise
certified through a design, construction, inspection, flight test, and
operational safety program administered by a community-based
organization;
• the aircraft is operated in a manner that does not interfere with and
gives way to any manned aircraft; and
• when flown within 5 miles of an airport, the operator of the aircraft
provides the airport operator and the airport air traffic control
tower


The document also says that " Under the criteria above, visual line of
sight would mean that the operator has an unobstructed view of the model aircraft", which I interpret to mean no FPV whatsoever. After all, you can't be looking at your model if you are staring at a screen.
Decroxx is offline Find More Posts by Decroxx
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 06, 2015, 09:48 AM
Free Sarcasm!
United States, OH, Worthington
Joined Nov 2014
36 Posts
Is anyone else out there?
Decroxx is offline Find More Posts by Decroxx
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 07, 2015, 09:28 PM
Registered User
United States, KS, Olathe
Joined Jan 2015
75 Posts
I think the rules are great, considering what could have been issued. If anything, I would like to see the commercial part be altered some. This would low some usage of aerial photography applications without having to file for a commercial license, etc.

In regards to the FPV part, I think if it is open to some level of interpretation is better than a difenitive "no" answer. You could always get a 9.00 video powered splitter and maybe a $35.00 screen to use as a secondary goggle system. Then with the slip of the nose, you can go back to LoS, video goggles, or the screen.

Ultimately, they are NOT going to allow non-LoS view of flying. The wording now is good, because you can demonstrate a direct LOS (even though you may not be physically able to see it with your own eyes - but it is within the line of your sight). The less wordy and restrictive language, the better. People risk of the inverse occurring by asking or requesting other terminology.

The airport thing is a fine consession to have as well. I don't think you need to be flying next to an airport anyhow. Just my opinion.

Mike
ZenOhSix is online now Find More Posts by ZenOhSix
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 08, 2015, 09:39 AM
Engineer for Christ
IBCrazy's Avatar
Amherst, VA
Joined Jun 2006
10,864 Posts
In the USA it is the letter of the law. The rule state WITHIN visual line of sight. It does not state by way of visual line of sight. Only bLOS operations are restricted.

-Alex
IBCrazy is offline Find More Posts by IBCrazy
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 08, 2015, 01:08 PM
A man with too many toys
United States
Joined Feb 2001
18,516 Posts
That said why is everyone wanting to get many miles of range. Their seams to be a disconnect between the law and the real world.


.
RC Man is offline Find More Posts by RC Man
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 08, 2015, 01:18 PM
Team Futaba
Silent-AV8R's Avatar
Orange County, CA
Joined Aug 2004
4,943 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by RC Man View Post
That said why is everyone wanting to get many miles of range. Their seams to be a disconnect between the law and the real world.


.
I keep asking this question as well.Not to mention that a great many of the modifications people do are already illegal. For instance, ANY modification to a DJI radio/WiFi antenna is illegal (Part 15.203).

So people are already doing illegal radio modifications which will allow them to operate their sUAS BLOS, which is also not legal.
Silent-AV8R is online now Find More Posts by Silent-AV8R
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 08, 2015, 05:23 PM
Launch the drones ...
Ashtabula, OH USA
Joined May 1999
3,408 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZenOhSix View Post
I think the rules are great, considering what could have been issued. If anything, I would like to see the commercial part be altered some. This would low some usage of aerial photography applications without having to file for a commercial license, etc.

In regards to the FPV part, I think if it is open to some level of interpretation is better than a difenitive "no" answer. You could always get a 9.00 video powered splitter and maybe a $35.00 screen to use as a secondary goggle system. Then with the slip of the nose, you can go back to LoS, video goggles, or the screen.

Ultimately, they are NOT going to allow non-LoS view of flying. The wording now is good, because you can demonstrate a direct LOS (even though you may not be physically able to see it with your own eyes - but it is within the line of your sight). The less wordy and restrictive language, the better. People risk of the inverse occurring by asking or requesting other terminology.

The airport thing is a fine consession to have as well. I don't think you need to be flying next to an airport anyhow. Just my opinion.

Mike
A whole lotta people are within 5 miles of an airport, or within restricted airspace. Check out rcflymaps.com, and you will see what I mean.

And as far as I know - the airports don't have to grant permission.
Tim Green is offline Find More Posts by Tim Green
Last edited by Tim Green; Mar 08, 2015 at 07:14 PM.
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 08, 2015, 07:00 PM
Too many numbers
United States, IL, Lake in the Hills
Joined Oct 2010
1,889 Posts
First of all, we're still in the comment period, so there are no laws being imposed on model aircraft as far as I know (I may be mistaken).

Second, it appears that the only "laws" being applied are towards remote controlled aircraft that are used commercially. The other "laws", such as flying within 5 miles of an airport, are part of the "Interpretation of 336", which they are saying if you do it without notifying the airport first, you are violating existing laws.

So clearly I am missing the point here. What exactly are you petitioning for again?
c131frdave is offline Find More Posts by c131frdave
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 08, 2015, 07:18 PM
Team Futaba
Silent-AV8R's Avatar
Orange County, CA
Joined Aug 2004
4,943 Posts
c131frdave - you're not missing anything. People seem to be having trouble separating the proposed commercial sUAS Part 107 rules from the hobby/recreational Section 336 (P.L. 112-95) existing law. They get them all twisted around in their brains until the confusion is so profound it is hard to unravel them.
Silent-AV8R is online now Find More Posts by Silent-AV8R
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 14, 2015, 11:02 AM
Engineer for Christ
IBCrazy's Avatar
Amherst, VA
Joined Jun 2006
10,864 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by RC Man View Post
That said why is everyone wanting to get many miles of range. Their seams to be a disconnect between the law and the real world.


.
Perception. Many people perceive that a 20 mile link is always better than a 1 mile regardless of flight pattern. While we all know that this is incorrect, it is hard to explain this to the general public.

-Alex
IBCrazy is offline Find More Posts by IBCrazy
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 14, 2015, 11:58 AM
fly by night
BCSaltchucker's Avatar
Joined Sep 2011
6,596 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by RC Man View Post
That said why is everyone wanting to get many miles of range. Their seams to be a disconnect between the law and the real world.


.
some of the folks buying this UHF long range equipment are not using it to fly that far, only to fly mini multis very close, low and around objects that might glitch a 2.4 radio.
BCSaltchucker is online now Find More Posts by BCSaltchucker
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Similar Threads
Category Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Discussion FAA issues guidance on ‘hazardous’ operations of model aircraft BeechMusketeer Atlanta Area RC 18 Jul 19, 2014 02:41 PM
Discussion Petition for FAA to rescind theyre BAN on PERSONAL and Commercial FPV use... RM_Sparks FPV Talk 2 Jul 03, 2014 06:42 PM
Alert PLEASE!! Comment on the FAA's interpretation of the Special Rule for Model Aircraft MtnSnowFlyer FPV Talk 0 Jun 27, 2014 01:44 PM
Discussion AMA: FAA Seeks To Restrict Model Aircraft Flight BE77 Pilot Life, The Universe, and Politics 94 Mar 12, 2011 08:10 AM