FAA Crack Down

[oscillator]

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)

Well, ahemm, prop planes are "real" airplanes. And yes, there are multi million dollar single engine prop planes that are used for serious missions like medical transport. The biggest concern I have is having something come through the windshield. Provided you weren't blinded by the debris hitting your eyes, tyring to make a controlled landing with a 100+ MPH wind in your face and LOTS of noise would be more than exciting.

Probably the most serious issue with an airliner hitting a foreign object is damage to a turbo fan. Best cast this would cause the crew to shut the engine down and make a non scheduled landing. Worse case, the engine would rip itself apart and send shrapnel everywhere.

[GGoodrum]

Wasn't there a thread about something similar going on in Australia? I seem to remember some discussion about "workarounds", where you don't actually sell the photos? Anyway, I hope some sort of clarification comes out of the FAA soon.

This was on the news in Denver yesterday: http://www.9news.com/news/article.aspx?storyid=64836

-- Gary

[flyinfool]

N74DV
I have seen those vids also.
But this vid did not have any telemetry on it and I dont know if a slostick would glide much at all with that much gear on it.

I recall seeing one once that showed 32K feet, I have no idea where I saw it.

[rroback]

I still can't grasp what's going on, because I don't understand the details in the faa jargon. To me, in most simply reads, model aircraft operating for business are shut down, unless they get certified, but there seems to be no actual was for that to happen. However, DJ said there was no flight resitrction, but does that have to be in writing or simply verbalized? I wish I could speak with someone locally, and someone knowledgable, but I feel I'd cause more trouble with my lack of faa protocol. I've been saying those other modelers flying by downlink are idiots. They're going to get all of modeling restricted.

Rhett

[cainebean]

I just want to thank everyone here for acting like adults, and treating your peers with respect. You guys are going to have to allow a "I did fly AP with helis" person call this home. I'm a mast Ap'er until something changes.


This is our problem! RC people not knowing the rules.

http://www.wattflyer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=16188

I'm done with that place. You guys are stuck with me, sorry!

Caine

[AZ ChopperCam]

However, DJ said there was no flight resitrction, but does that have to be in writing or simply verbalized?

TFR's are published and can also be obtained verbally from your Flight Service Station (FSS).

But I question the applicability of FAR's in how they apply to us because we and our aircraft are not certificated. There is NO certificate required to fly a model aircraft. Commercial or not. Some may argue that ultralights hold no certificate and neither do the pilots and the FAA can bust them. True. But the FAR's include them in Part 103. They are legally recognized and are regulated. Under 250lb empty and restricted to flight over unpopulated areas.

NO FAR for rc model aircraft. Just an AC and AC's are not regulatory. Only Advisory.

the saga continues....

[DavidH]

No need to worry about any of this.
It is in good hands now.

http://www.runryder.com/helicopter/t322570p1/


David

[AZ ChopperCam]

HA!!! that's funny!

[cbergen]

Riiiiightttt.....

[cbergen]

Guys,

My opinion holds no more weight than any other here, but my phone calls with the FAA leads me to agree with the asessment that their intention of this policy clarification was to ground all the civil UAV's, and yes, this includes our birds used for commercial purposes.

Their definition of a UAV includes our birds used for commercial purposes, therefore must have a certificate of some kind. Unfortunately, at this time, there is no avenue for us to obtain a certificate as civil UAV's.

I have been told they are working on it, but the time frame when we may have a workable solution is a guess.

We do have Governmental customers who are going through the process of obtaining their COA's, but since most of them only fly in restricted airspace, their applying for a COA is purely an administrative paperwork thing, but may help us in the future, having our birds already cleared for use.

At this time, my advice is to fly your heli's, practice, test, work on business proposals and marketing, but do not tempt fate and fly commercially. When you fly, do it safely and in the confines of AC 91-57.

When we have regs in place that allow us to fly commercially again, you can bet that we will be doing our part to help with whatever airworthiness needs are met, documentation, flight testing, minimum requirements, etc, and will pass this on to our customers.

[Tonystott]

I must say that once more, the posts on this forum show a greatly increased professional attitude, with far less uninformed smoke-blowing than is seen elsewhere. The contrast is amazing.

[GJestico]

Not to disagree with your assesment Tony, But this forum gets much less traffic than the "other two". A day can pass here with no new posts. The other sites are getting way more viewers and such way more opinions. It seems that only the best hang out at Helifreak hehe :glasses2:

Greg

[dreslism]

Guys,
We do have Governmental customers who are going through the process of obtaining their COA's, but since most of them only fly in restricted airspace, their applying for a COA is purely an administrative paperwork thing, but may help us in the future, having our birds already cleared for use.

Sweet. Can you make an electric?

I can't do gas, nitro, turbine.... You know all those non-electric thingies... :D

[cbergen]

In the works....

[Tonystott]

Not to disagree with your assesment Tony, But this forum gets much less traffic than the "other two". A day can pass here with no new posts. The other sites are getting way more viewers and such way more opinions. It seems that only the best hang out at Helifreak hehe :glasses2:

Greg
exactly Greg! I was specifically alluding to the "quality vs. quantity" thing :)

[Cryofix]

I just hope that the certifications are not going to cost an enormous amount of money, if its $100 or $200 its ok anything above that would be ridiculous. Then who and where will they certify air worthiness and how often will certifications need to be done? that could be a pain.

[Tonystott]

Even under Draconian Australian regs, there has been no mention of airworthiness inspections. The way I read it, they would certify the operator as being competent to maintain the aircraft. Obviously, in the event of a failure, they would then look to the operator for evidence of negligence.

[bladebreaker]

Once something is certified, you end up paying $50 for a simple screw or bolt.

[cainebean]

Did anyone see the Nascar race? My wife kept asking me, "Why if everyone is grounded, do you see some video from a heli cam?" I never saw the actual helicam but the video looked like it was from a heli, and the shadow sure did look small with an underslung mount. The only other thing I could think is it was a camera mount on a wire????

Just curious if anyone else might have seen the race.

[Bigdipper]

...it was a cable cam.....

[staplegun]

Don't forget about the GYB cam.

Now to get on track. I have 2 helicopters that are dedicated to AP, they are intended for commercial use. Am I allowed to fly a test flight with a dummy weight in place of the camera? Am I allowed to fly with a camera mount (no weight)? Where is the line between commercial and hobby?

[Tonystott]

Absolutely simple -you can fly as long as you are not making money from the mission. So testing or taking pictures in an amateur capacity is totally unaffected.

[Brady Longmore]

Absolutely simple -you can fly as long as you are not making money from the mission. So testing or taking pictures in an amateur capacity is totally unaffected.


So maybe you could take pics now just for the "hobby" aspect, that you might be able to sell for $$ later. Like some stock photos

[aaronredbaron]

One of the ideas that I have seen floating around some of the forums is to sell ground based photos with free additional aerial pictures. might work for some :dontknow

[Tonystott]

Invoices can be for full-size, mast, kite, tethered blimp or ground photos (not sham invoices, but for actual photos provided). If the aerial shots are genuinely offered free of charge and there is no contractual link between them and the invoiced photos, the heli flight is truly amateur.