Thread Tools
Aug 30, 2016, 06:26 PM
Internet Pilot
fATAL's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Julezwatts
Maybe I should sell my FPV gear and go buy an ultralight. Less hassle than the hobby is nowadays...
Or a balloon which you can fly low and drunk!
Sign up now
to remove ads between posts
Aug 30, 2016, 06:27 PM
Internet Pilot
fATAL's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by RC Man
Looking at all the FAA rules i don't see anything that covers beyond VLOS FPV for recreational use. As I read it 107 is only for within VLOS. Am I missing something?



.

its experimental waiver with 107... I believe!
Aug 31, 2016, 10:15 AM
Registered User
You can't fly BLOS for recreation/hobby and 107 has nothing to do with recreation/hobby.
Nov 01, 2017, 06:42 PM
Registered User
Jeff.1.S's Avatar
So if I fly Beyond LOS, and thus not in compliance with Part 107 recreational flying, Does the FAA consider me to be flying commercially? and if yes, then what type of Legal risk am I open to? Are there any documented cases of RC pilots being charged or fined for flying beyond LOS?

From the FAA.gov site UAV registration FAQ's: Failure to register an unmanned aircraft that is required to be registered may result in regulatory and criminal penalties. The FAA may assess civil penalties up to $27,500. Criminal penalties include fines of up to $250,000 and/or imprisonment for up to three years.
Wow! No matter how you slice it, flying beyond LOS could put RC pilots in a tough legal spot if a flight went bad. My local club field is within 5 miles of an airport, but the club has a long standing agreement/ exemption, but If I start flying beyond LOS at the club field, I imagine, It won't take long for them to ask me to stop or leave.
Last edited by Jeff.1.S; Nov 01, 2017 at 07:44 PM.
Nov 03, 2017, 02:44 PM
A man with too many toys
The problem is there is hole in the regulations. Current no regulations cover the case of recreational flying beyond VLOS. Also there is no legal definition of VLOS. Everyones vision is different so that makes it more complicated. FAA has some ideas but nothing in federal law. Some, like me, think that flying behind trees for a short period of time does not violate the VLOS rule. Many fly in in wooded areas where you can't see the aircraft 100% of the time. Also would it be illegal to fly behind a cloud? I have been flying on days with very low clouds.

AMA is working to make this OK. I have never seen anyone arrested by the feds for flying FPV behind trees.

If commercial you need a special waver to fly beyond VLOS.

.
Feb 05, 2018, 06:47 PM
Registered User

AMA Government Relations Blog Has FPV Solution


I would suggest reading this blog for FPV situation with the FAA.

http://amablog.modelaircraft.org/ama...ue-flying-fpv/

Basically, the rules interpretation is on hold until they finish with 33,000 comments. If Enforcement is to begin, they must notify. That has not happened. I agree that the definition of "line-of-sight" is key to this entire FPV argument. I cannot see the FAA enforcing action on FPV pilots flying less than 100 Feet AGL inside a property designated for RC model aircraft. They would have hundreds of thousands of goggle owners calling their congressmen. The number of hobbyists gives us power if we speak up.
Feb 05, 2018, 07:25 PM
Registered User
Daemon's Avatar
Perhaps you should have read this thread instead.
That blog post is coincident with this thread (Aug of 2016) and the state of the law
with regard to FPV hasn't changed since. FAA made clear their stance on FPV back in 2014
with their interpretation of PL 112 Section 336 and most of the RC community (including AMA) disagreed with it.
FAA ignored every one of those 33,000 comments and implemented the registration rule
in spite of them (which the court rightly struck down as a new regulation affecting only
model aircraft, which was prohibited by the plain language of Section 336).
Legally we're in exactly the same place we were when this thread started,
although the FAA did get their hand slapped for overreach (but that doesn't change
their stated interpretation).
Feb 07, 2018, 03:32 PM
Registered User

New faa rules part 107 non commercial fpv license required...


Just for clarification, Congress has reinstated the hobbyist registration process that the FAA illegally implemented. I have heard recently attorney's argue that when Congress reinstated the registration process, they did so illegally.

Congress likely does not have the authority to simply tell a regulatory body to reinstate regulations that the court deemed illegal. The judicial branch is supposed to be a check on the legislative branch.

What congress needed to do was tell the FAA to legally create a new set of regulations that achieve the desired goal (which would likely mean altering 336).

Anyway, the whole thing is a complete mess, being instituted by incompetent amateurs who apparently don't understand the basics of the separation of powers, or how to properly follow their own processes.
Feb 07, 2018, 05:17 PM
COFPV Addict
Starbuckin's Avatar
The FAA should have done EXACTLY what Congress told them to do, incorporate military and commercial drones into the NAS and pass NO new rules regarding hobby model aircraft.

Instead they broke the law, did exactly what Congress told them not to do and made a bunch of excuses why they did it anyway.

Unless the 2012 336 is repealed or changed all the new stuff they've made up as 'rules' for hobby craft is legally ILLEGAL null and void.


Quick Reply
Message:

Thread Tools