FAA Crack Down

[fast]

This document is currently in affect?

This means all AP business is grounded until they come out with the certifications and licensing?

If that is the case who do we have to contact to get this ball rolling to limit downtime?

I am all for certifications especially government ones, nothing like advertising your are FAA certified and fully insured to make your customers feel good.

I would also like know where my skill set stands, I am definetly not a 1 gallon expert but my flight skills can always be sharpened.

Are these the people we need to chew their ear off?

Nick Sabitini
Associate Administrator for Aviation Safety
202-267-3131
FAA National Headquarters
800 Independence Ave., SW
Washington, DC 20591

Kenneth (Doug) Davis
Manager UAV Program office
202.385.4636


My recomendation to you is this. If you are doing AP with an RC aircraft for profit call your local FSDO. They are the ones that you will have to deal with. Explain your concerns and questions and get them to give you some kind of answer. It might take awhile for them to come up with something. If you are realistic with your expectations from them, eventually they will tell you something. They may just tell you that they don't care. They may tell you something else. Most likely, the concept of using a RC helicopter for the things you are using it for hasn't even crossed thier minds yet. Bottom line is that, its up to the local FSDO as to what you can get away with, at least for starters. In your case the contact information is:


Allentown Flight Standards District Office (FSDO)

961 Marcon Blvd.
Suite 111
Allentown, Pennsylvania 18109

Phone: (610) 264-2888, Fax: (610) 264-3179

Office Hours: 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday - Friday
Office visits by appointment only


You can look up other FSDOs at http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/field_offices/fsdo/

I am not a pilot but am involved in aviation activities. The local FSDO is the place to start. If you start trying to call people way up the chain you will 1. Piss off the local people and 2. Get ignored. If the local FSDO blows you off then work up the chain of command a bit. They may tell you they don't know anything about it (unlikely, but possible) in which case they will most likely give you someone else to contact.

For the record, I am not involved in AP (yet) but I have done some research into how things happen at the FAA. Admitly, my recomendation may be way off base because I haven't been following the AP / FAA topic a whole lot. I just know that for anything else FAA I have had to deal with, calling the FSDO is how it got started.

[fast]

The only thing to add to that is, if you call your FSDO and they tell you no, then you are that much more in trouble if you just ignore them and do it anyways. My guess is they will tell you that you can't do it, but its up to you wether or not you want to make noise.

[R Hudson]

Fast, where you at?

I see Wisconsin.

[spork]

The only thing to add to that is, if you call your FSDO and they tell you no, then you are that much more in trouble if you just ignore them and do it anyways. My guess is they will tell you that you can't do it, but its up to you wether or not you want to make noise.

You can ask for permission or you can ask for forgiveness. :mrgreen:

[oscillator]

there is a big difference between making comments to the FAA on rules and requesting authorization or clarification directly from the FAA. Fast is correct, requests should be made first with the local FSDO. However, inputs and comments on FAA regulations should be made directly to the FAA either in writing or through the web site.

The AOPA (Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association) routinely requests its members to comment directly to the FAA on proposed rulings.

And fast is correct again - if you plan on doing as you please regardless of what the FAA says, then don't contact your local FSDO.

But please, provide comment to the FAA! If you read my comments to the FAA you will note I did not say I was or was not operating an AP business, but simply pointed out the undesirable consequences of this ruling.

[AZ ChopperCam]

this bites...

I hope we are just misinterpreting the document

[R Hudson]

DJ,

Hopefully that is indeed the case.

Perhaps many of us are taking the doomsday approach.

Time will tell.

I'll re-read and perhaps check with the local FSDO

Rod

[RCAV8R1]

I think we will feel a small pinch but nothing major. We may have to register with the FAA eventually and possibly get tested somehow.

I'm betting and hoping not. Even manned ultralights and hang gliders are specifically ignored by the FAA (as long as they remain within the legal weight, power, and airspace limitations). We've had FAA arrive at the site of a fatal accident, take one peek at the body and wreckage, say "it's not an airplane" and walk away.

In the case of UAV's I imagine there will also be weight, power, and airspace restrictions. Stay within those and be ignored. Outside of those, and the FAA will come knocking. I think there may very well be different guidelines for remote piloted vs. robotic as well.

As of Jan 2007 they no longer ignore ultra-lite over 250lbs! You even need a license now to fly an ultra-lite or a powered parachute over the Part 103 regulation. SO the FAA is placing their arms out and pulling in a lot of aircraft that they have been somewhat ignoring. It just a matter of political time before model aircraft RC or programmed model aircraft for private use gets gobbled up in the bureaucracy of post 9/11.

[TooLy]

Simply stated, an unmanned aircraft is a device that is used, or is intended to be
used, for flight in the air with no onboard pilot. These devices may be as simple as a
remotely controlled model aircraft used for recreational purposes or as complex as
surveillance aircraft flying over hostile areas in warfare. They may be controlled either
manually or through an autopilot using a data link to connect the pilot to their aircraft.
The end product of this analysis may be a new flight
authorization instrument similar to AC 91-57, but focused on operations which do not
qualify as sport and recreation, but also may not require a certificate of airworthiness. They
will, however, require compliance with applicable FAA regulations and guidance developed
for this category.That about wraps it up.

[MLaBoyteaux]

ok... after reading and re-reading and a phone call today, honestly I think many are misinterpreting the FAA's statement.

As I and my local FSDO interpret it they are cracking down larger commercial UAV companies who are trying to make the model airplane AC fit their purposes and not the folks like us.

read it over and see what you think

Hi DJ,

I've re-read the document several times. Although it is intended to clarify the FAA's policy that AC 91-57 only applies to modelers, and excludes its use by persons or companies for business purposes, there still is no FAR that says a model aircraft has to have an airworthiness certificate.

However, the policy statement says no person may operate a UAS in the National Airspace system without specific authority. Since all model aircraft are designated UAS's under the FAA's definition (and this includes ANY AND ALL remotely controlled vehicles, recreational or not), they all need authority.

For recreational modelers, it appears the FAA is saying AC91-57 gives them this authority, even though an AC is not regulatory in nature, and AC 91-57 doesn't contain any language that grants this authority. It's nothing more than an advisory setting forth some general guidelines.

But now we have this policy which says AC91-57 grants the authority for modelers to operate their UAV's in the NAS, but it doesn't grant authority if you're using the model for business purposes.

The next level is a UAS operating as a civil aircraft and it requires a special airworthiness certificate. Obviously, I'm not operating my model as a civil aircraft. So, where do we fit in? I don't think I'll be able to obtain a special airworthiness certificate, although I'd like to try.

What is your local FSDO's opinion?

[MLaBoyteaux]

Here is a link to the actual policy as published in the Federal Register:
http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/pdf100/452254_web.pdf

[MLaBoyteaux]

Have a look at this document on the FAA website, specifically section 6.13

http://www.faa.gov/ats/ata/uas/AFS_Policy_Sept16_2005.pdf

This document is the FAA AFS-400 UAS Policy 05-01. Section 6.13 states that "operations that comply with the guidance in AC91-57 are considered model aircraft and are not evaluated by the UA criteria in this policy".

The purpose of AFS-400 UAS Policy 05-01 is to provide guidance to be used to determine if unmanned aircraft systems may be allowed to conduct flight operations in the U.S. NAS.

So if my "Operation" complies with AC91-57, then aren't I a modeler?

For reference, here is a link to AC 91-57 http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/1acfc3f689769a56862569e70077c9cc/$FILE/ATTBJMAC/ac91-57.pdf

[Xcellgasman101]

So if my "Operation" complies with AC91-57, then aren't I a modeler?

Well from what I unerstand from the FAA, is that if you are useing it to make money,, That changes from a model to bussiness, and the ONLY WAY to legally take Aerial Photo's is to be a Commerical Pilot. That is what the man told me himself,, We can all do a play on words, but I want someone to shoot it to me straight, not mix words, or hide the truth, I'm kinda of simple that way,,, I really hope that something comes from this quickly, and will let us get on with our lives, and bussiness,,,, XGM/VGM

[oscillator]

This document is the FAA AFS-400 UAS Policy 05-01. Section 6.13 states that "operations that comply with the guidance in AC91-57 are considered model aircraft and are not evaluated by the UA criteria in THIS policy".


Ah, but THIS is not the policy in question. We are discussing FAA 14 CFR Part 91 Docket FAA-2006-25714 which was published Feb 13, 2007 and thus supercedes older publications. In this Docket the FAA states:


AC 91-57 only applies to modelers, and thus specifically excludes its use by persons or companies for business purposes.


So, if you are a business (i.e. selling your "model" heli services) then AC 91-57 does not grant you authority to operate in the National Airspace System (NAS). The only other options spelled out in the docket are a COA or and experimental type cert - which as discussed previously, you won't get either.

I think the best approach is to call your FSDO and get their take. Hopefully others will agree with the response DJ got - that the FAA is ignoring us for now.

[AZ ChopperCam]

well I just spoke with the head of the UAV office at the FAA in D.C.

He stated CLEARLY that our aircraft ARE included and that we ARE grounded.
So things are clearer but still shady.

He says he is working as fast as he can to get new rules in place for us. I asked him what brought this on and what the current problems were.

His response

"go to Google and search for rc aerial videos, you see guys flying at 20,000ft. and we have a VERY STRONG problem with that"

[MLaBoyteaux]

I didn't find one for 20,000' but I found this one from a Mini Ultra Stick that's waaay up there.

http://www.rcuvideos.com/view_video.php?viewkey=68bca401dca9ea5b181d

[oscillator]

Well from what I unerstand from the FAA, is that if you are useing it to make money,, That changes from a model to bussiness, and the ONLY WAY to legally take Aerial Photo's is to be a Commerical Pilot.


Sounds like typical FAA bureaucratic nonsense. OK, I'm looking at my pilot's license and the FARs. I don't see anything that grants me any authority to operate a R/C aircraft - regardless of size.

Am I to further assume that I must have a rotary wing commercial licence to fly my R/C heli for commercial purposes, or does my fixed wing license cover me?

Those same FARs state that I must be at least 1,000 AGL over populated areas - oops. Guess that isn't going to work with a model heli.

I could go on, but there simply isn't anything in the FARs that deals with small remote controlled aircraft. The pilot licensing requirements are also in the FARs, so stating that one of the current licenses applies to small rc aircraft is ludacris.

The FAA, in classic fashion, has stepped into a pot of its own goo. Once again they have issued ambiguous and conflicting regulations. It will take some time for them to sort this out and issue guidance that makes sense. In the mean time, make sure your local FSDO doesn't have a problem and or stay out of the FAA's sight.

[oscillator]

I didn't find one for 20,000' but I found this one from a Mini Ultra Stick that's waaay up there.

http://www.rcuvideos.com/view_video.php?viewkey=68bca401dca9ea5b181d

Wholly @#$#$! Hard to say, but he could be 10,000 AGL. Yea, I know it is just a little slow stick, but I have a BIG problem with that too! Ask any pilot who has experienced a bird strike (I have) - hitting ANYTHING in flight is a serious and potentially life threatening incident.

Unfortunately the people flying high like this are (overwhelmingly) still the hobby folks and either don't have a clue or don't care. The only way for the FAA to deal with this is to every once in a while catch one of these fools and make a big example out of him/her.

DJ,

Glad to hear the FAA has made some acknowledgement that the current ruling needs work. As you and I both know, the FAA rarely acts quickly, so we may be stuck here for some time.

[MLaBoyteaux]

If they FAA was worried because of the 20,000' videos on Google, why didn't they address THAT issue. All they've done at the moment is ground commercial operators, which for the most part, are VERY responsible operators (there are exceptions).

So they've grounded the professionals, but meanwhile any amateur is free to fly anywhere they want and as high as they want. :dontknow

Their argument doesn't hold water.

Yep, I've hit 'em too. Scared the crap out of me.
http://www.hawkeyemedia.com/images/bird_strike_01.jpeg

[AZ ChopperCam]

...

[flyinfool]

I didn't find one for 20,000' but I found this one from a Mini Ultra Stick that's waaay up there.

http://www.rcuvideos.com/view_video.php?viewkey=68bca401dca9ea5b181d

Based on the glide duration I would be very surprised if it was even up to 1,000' AGL.
Not to mention that a lite stick would be hard to see at 1,000 feet.
A wide angle lens can make it look very high.

I worked with some one once on an official FAI altitude record attempt for a glider.
It was a large RC glider with a 16 foot wingspan, and it disappeared to the naked eye at 4,000 feet straight up. and had colors optimized for visibility.

[AZ ChopperCam]

Jeff,

These guys are doing it beyond VLOS (visual line of site) with video downlinks. There ARE videos online with OSD (on screen displays) with GPS data and I've seen them at 10,000' +

[fast]

Fast, where you at?

I see Wisconsin.

I'm from the greater milwaukee area.

[TooLy]

hitting ANYTHING in flight is a serious and potentially life threatening incident.

Imagine if it happpened in a "real" ariplane, not just a prop plane.(Airliner or private jet)

[bat1]

There may not be a TFR in place but "I pitty the fool" who tries to joyride at 20,000 ft now he'll have both the FAA and RCAP community after him. These idiots messed with peoples livelihoods. :arggg: