SMALL - espritmodel.com SMALL - Telemetry SMALL - Radio
Reply
Thread Tools
This thread is privately moderated by Gary Evans, who may elect to delete unwanted replies.
Old Jan 31, 2013, 03:18 PM
Your customer
Silverexpress's Avatar
Berkley, MI
Joined Dec 2009
1,385 Posts
All of this is starting to remind me of Amateur radio. There was one fellow who thought he could skirt the system, and was made an example of by the US Government. Scary stuff.

http://www.oocities.org/techno001/freq/Bcheek.htm

I still have the original issue that has his article on how to build a 4 level data slicer. As the years go by, I find less and less information on Bill Cheek. Eventually, he'll be deleted from the internet and from our memories. RIP.

How will they find you..

http://www.optoelectronics.com/vs5800.htm

http://www.optoelectronics.com/videosweeper.htm

http://www.optoelectronics.com/xplorervskit.htm

It's not just the FAA, but the FCC has got some serious S*** that can hone in on a signal hundreds of miles away. The Ham guys will probably add to their hobby of locating and reporting "FPV pirates".
Silverexpress is offline Find More Posts by Silverexpress
Last edited by Silverexpress; Jan 31, 2013 at 03:26 PM.
Reply With Quote
Sign up now
to remove ads between posts
Old Jan 31, 2013, 03:33 PM
OSUFPV - KF7VFT
Corvallis, OR
Joined Apr 2010
1,770 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daemon View Post
And we know that everything, every FAA Rep says is 100% accurate.
I'm more interested in the actual laws that grant them their authority,
and from what I can find, it's just really vague. And one wonders where
does definition of "Civil Aviation" actually begin and end. It obviously
doesn't cover *everything* that flies through the air, or they'd get to
regulate frisbees, boomerangs and footballs too. I'll bet if someone
really took em to task in court, you'd find that it would be pretty
hard to find any legal justification for them regulate RC aircraft all,
which may be why the original modeling exemption exists.

ian
You're absolutely right, the actual laws on the books are what really matters.
However, the quote lends some perspective of the FAA's view on the extent
of their regulatory powers.

We've been discussing in this thread for a long time now
what gives the FAA the ability to regulate commercial UAVs, for instance the
notice about businesses operating UAVs, and if they could really back it up in
court if a business did decide to completely ignore the cease and desist
letters
they send. I think that all UAVs probably fall into this legal grey area
and the FAA have been struggling to maneuver themselves legally into a
position where they can actually pursue those who ignore them.

-Blues
Blueshy is offline Find More Posts by Blueshy
Last edited by Blueshy; Jan 31, 2013 at 03:40 PM.
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 03, 2013, 11:40 PM
Registered User
San Marcos, CA
Joined Aug 2009
2,849 Posts
Ok this is actually pretty cool:

http://news.sky.com/story/1047004/mi...ny-helicopters
flyandi is offline Find More Posts by flyandi
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 04, 2013, 12:02 AM
Registered User
Daemon's Avatar
Lakewood, Colorado
Joined Aug 2002
28,637 Posts
At 20mil (about $31mil) for 160 units it better be.
Daemon is online now Find More Posts by Daemon
RCG Plus Member
Old Feb 04, 2013, 06:59 PM
Registered User
Daemon's Avatar
Lakewood, Colorado
Joined Aug 2002
28,637 Posts
Should probably link this this new thread here from the guy who flew around the Texas capitol
asking for help.
http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1824792
Daemon is online now Find More Posts by Daemon
RCG Plus Member
Old Feb 04, 2013, 08:19 PM
FPV Browncoat
prelator's Avatar
United States, CO, Parker
Joined Mar 2011
1,514 Posts
Thanks for posting that Ian. I posted over there to let them know my thoughts on it. That bill as written is absurdly overbroad and likely unconstitutional to boot. I'd be happy to help them target it more narrowly at the actual evil it's supposed to prevent rather than criminalizing all RC aerial photography for any purpose.
prelator is online now Find More Posts by prelator
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 05, 2013, 03:17 AM
FPV Desert Beta Test Center
Mesa, Arizona
Joined Nov 2006
2,432 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blueshy View Post
You're absolutely right, the actual laws on the books are what really matters.
However, the quote lends some perspective of the FAA's view on the extent
of their regulatory powers.

We've been discussing in this thread for a long time now
what gives the FAA the ability to regulate commercial UAVs, for instance the
notice about businesses operating UAVs, and if they could really back it up in
court if a business did decide to completely ignore the cease and desist
letters
they send. I think that all UAVs probably fall into this legal grey area
and the FAA have been struggling to maneuver themselves legally into a
position where they can actually pursue those who ignore them.

-Blues
Commercial and recreactional license separation is standard practice with FAA. A private pilots license does not allow commerical use of an aircraft to carry people or cargo. That requires a commercial license.
Gary Evans is offline Find More Posts by Gary Evans
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 05, 2013, 08:00 AM
Registered User
Joined Aug 2010
913 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by prelator View Post
Thanks for posting that Ian. I posted over there to let them know my thoughts on it. That bill as written is absurdly overbroad and likely unconstitutional to boot. I'd be happy to help them target it more narrowly at the actual evil it's supposed to prevent rather than criminalizing all RC aerial photography for any purpose.
I'm not sure the constitution is applicable any more.
thekubiaks is offline Find More Posts by thekubiaks
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 05, 2013, 08:00 AM
FPV Browncoat
prelator's Avatar
United States, CO, Parker
Joined Mar 2011
1,514 Posts
@Gary - Be that as it may, since they have yet to promulgate a binding FAR actually prohibiting commercial use of UAS's, it remains to be seen if they actually have the legal authority to punish anyone for doing so. They can say they're "not authorized" all they want, but are they actually prohibited? That's the question.

@thekubiaks - True enough, but the courts actually have lately been standing pretty strongly behind people's first amendment rights to take photographs in public spaces. I don't think they would look favorably on laws basically prohibiting any use of unmanned aircraft to take pictures from public airspace.
prelator is online now Find More Posts by prelator
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 05, 2013, 08:35 AM
FPV Desert Beta Test Center
Mesa, Arizona
Joined Nov 2006
2,432 Posts
This discussion has been going on for so many years that the details are becoming foggy but I think this was the sequence of events that explains why a specific FAR wasn't necessary.

1) All aircraft in NAS require specific FAA authorization. There currently is no authorization for UAV's other than the one by one COA process.

2) Amateur models were exempted from FAR's by AC91-57.

3) Early UAV's doing commercial AP thought that AC91-57 would cover their activity.

4) Years ago FAA clarified that AC91-57 only applied to amateur recreational use.

5) Commercial AP via UAV therefore has never had authorization to operate in NAS and a special FAR to state that wasn't needed. Tha FAR explain the requirements to operate and it is up to the users to comply.
Gary Evans is offline Find More Posts by Gary Evans
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 05, 2013, 11:27 AM
DX5e fatal flaw- PM me!!!!
United States, NY, Cortland
Joined Sep 2010
2,839 Posts
What's really messed up with the Oregon bill is if it can't take a picture, or sense something, or fire a weapon, it's not a drone (their term), but my Fokker D-VII with a 505 keychain camera IS a drone.
CNY_Dave is offline Find More Posts by CNY_Dave
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 05, 2013, 12:04 PM
Registered User
San Marcos, CA
Joined Aug 2009
2,849 Posts
Especially if you put it on a Fokker JK

I hope there are some aviation freaks in the Senate in Oregon who have a better understanding and I hope that people in Oregon who have knowledge about this bill are contacting them and tell them that this bill is just ridiculous.

What scares me most if this bill is passing .. other states without legislation may take a look at the Oregon Bill and may introduce the same or similar measure. Soon we will have a network of laws .. and it's a whole mess .. law suits.. supreme court decisions, etc .. however a process that can take years if not decades .. in the meantime that local law is active and can be enforced .. brrr.. not good!
flyandi is offline Find More Posts by flyandi
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 05, 2013, 12:45 PM
Registered User
Daemon's Avatar
Lakewood, Colorado
Joined Aug 2002
28,637 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Evans View Post
This discussion has been going on for so many years that the details are becoming foggy but I think this was the sequence of events that explains why a specific FAR wasn't necessary.

1) All aircraft in NAS require specific FAA authorization. There currently is no authorization for UAV's other than the one by one COA process.

2) Amateur models were exempted from FAR's by AC91-57.
Here's the thing. AC91-57 isn't a regulation or even an exemption from other regulations.
It's just a list of guidelines suggesting how one could operate a model to avoid
conflicts with full scale aircraft.
Everyone seems to agree that the modelling exemption exists, but it's not
codified anywhere, which implies that it exists by exclusion meaning there's a hole
somewhere that FAA doesn't fill. This has been bugging me for a while so I went digging in
the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 and I *think* it might work something like this.
http://libraryonline.erau.edu/online...tionlawpt1.pdf

Sect 101. Definitions:
(29) "Navigable airspace" means airspace above the minimum altitudes of flight prescribed by regulations issued under this Act, and shall include airspace needed to insure safety in take-off and landing of aircraft

... jump down to the section which basically describes their airspace jurisdiction....
Airspace Control and Facilities
Use of Airspace
SEC. 307. (a) The Administrator is authorized and directed to develop plans for and formulate policy with respect to the use of the navigable airspace; and assign by rule, regulation, or order the use of the navigable airspace under such terms, conditions, and limitations as he may deem necessary in order to insure the safety of aircraft and the efficient utilization of such airspace. He may modify or revoke such assignment when required in the public interest.


In other words, while FAA reps today may claim they have ultimate jurisdiction over all
airspace from the ground up, the Federal Aviation Act seems to only grant them
jurisdiction above prescribed minimums, except near airports. I think the modelling
exemption just falls out of that because it was assumed model aircraft generally
operated below minimums anyway. They couldn't actually create rules for model aircraft
but they could issue an AC to make suggestions.

Now an interesting side effect of this, in the current context of States like Oregon trying to
ban drones is they may try to lay claim to all the airspace below minimums and
get into a fight with the FAA over where their jurisdiction truly begins and ends.
We're probably a little better off if FAA wins, but maybe not by much.

ian
Daemon is online now Find More Posts by Daemon
RCG Plus Member
Old Feb 05, 2013, 01:28 PM
FPV Desert Beta Test Center
Mesa, Arizona
Joined Nov 2006
2,432 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daemon View Post
Here's the thing. AC91-57 isn't a regulation or even an exemption from other regulations.
It's just a list of guidelines suggesting how one could operate a model to avoid
conflicts with full scale aircraft.
Everyone seems to agree that the modelling exemption exists, but it's not
codified anywhere, which implies that it exists by exclusion meaning there's a hole
somewhere that FAA doesn't fill.
AC91-57 as everyone should know by now is a federal guideline but it is our exemption from FAR. FAA has published that fact and it does not need to be a regulation to do so. You may not like the wording or how it was communicated but that horse is long since gone over the fence.
Gary Evans is offline Find More Posts by Gary Evans
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 05, 2013, 01:51 PM
Registered User
Daemon's Avatar
Lakewood, Colorado
Joined Aug 2002
28,637 Posts
FAA has clarified no such thing. An AC is still not a regulation. It's not a law.
What the FAA said was that commercial operations could not "operate under AC91-57"
as many were attempting to do on the premise that it defined an exemption for all model aircraft,
commercial or otherwise, when in fact, it defines/creates nothing. FAA has certainly implied that
an amateur modelling exemption exists by saying that you can't operate sUAS commercially, but
it's still not codified anywhere.

Besides, my point is really separate from this. It's about what airspace they really have jurisdiction over.

ian
Daemon is online now Find More Posts by Daemon
RCG Plus Member
Reply


Thread Tools

Similar Threads
Category Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Poll Proposed U.S. FPV Guidelines - Max Range Gary Evans FPV Talk 65 Aug 10, 2008 02:27 AM
Poll Proposed U.S. FPV Guidelines - Max Weight Gary Evans FPV Talk 16 Jul 30, 2008 01:30 PM
Poll Proposed U.S. FPV Guidelines - Max Altitude Gary Evans FPV Talk 52 Jul 30, 2008 01:05 PM