FAA Crack Down

[DKTek]

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/02/12/212035/faa-cracks-down-on-use-of-model-aircraft-rules-for-uavs.html

This SUX!

[AZ ChopperCam]

and to think there were many on other forums who laughed and said it would never happen.

we can thank all the idiots who routinely fly "way the hell up there" or beyond line of sight and brag about it!

[spork]

and to think there were many on other forums who laughed and said it would never happen.

we can thank all the idiots who routinely fly "way the hell up there" or beyond line of sight and brag about it!

To tell you the truth I think this comes more from the industry (NASA, AeroVironment, universities, etc.) doing UAV work. The FAA is ultra paranoid about the offensive potential of UAV's, particularly after 9-11. I don't think the R/C guys are really very much on their radar. We're just getting caught in the same filter.

When they grounded all aircraft after 9-11, that included hang gliders. I'm sure they didn't have HG in mind, but we were grounded just the same.

[AZ ChopperCam]

agreed, but I do believe they keep a closer eye on us than you might think.

[spork]

That could be.

[Brady Longmore]

closed

[DKTek]

:arggg: That would definately do R/C unjust cause reguardless of the target! I hope it won't happen but there are those who will try.....eventually. :( My job was affected by 9/11 and now it looks like it's hitting my hobby as well. The terrorist arseholes hit more than they'll ever know....then again, this might have came up anyway due to the changing technologies that give Joe Blow the ability to afford a UAV for BLOS. Good intentions or not, the FAA would've done this anyway for this reason.

[MLaBoyteaux]

It'll be interesting to see exactly what the FAA releases today, if anything, and just how regulatory in nature it will be.

I, like many others, have used AC 91-57 as a guideline that if I'm under 400' and more than 3 miles away from an airport then I'm legal.

Another good reference document is a memorandum the FAA released in September 2005 http://www.faa.gov/ats/ata/uas/AFS_Policy_Sept16_2005.pdf. What's curious is section 6.13 of that document, which states that UAS operations that comply with AC 91-57 are considered model aircraft and are not evaluated by the UA criteria within their policy.

I guess we'll have to wait and see what they come out with and how the language reads.

[loopzilla]

Hey guys, my understanding on this situation is a bit different. I was slightly involved in some initial proposals that were sent to the FAA back in September 2006, that were intended to be a guide as to what both the RC community, and those flying RC aricraft for commercial gain (now termed UAV or MAVs) were to expect in the coming years. There was a small committee, quite a few tele-conferences, etc. to try to determine how both sides of the fence could see the other's viewpoints, and help make rules that we could all abide by.

First and foremost, to the best of my knowledge, the FAA has absolutely no plan to moderate, mediate, regulate, or otherwise limit recreational RC aircraft, other than the AC91-57 advisory.

The difference is when you are making commercial profits (income based on a business offering aircraft or services to the general, industrial, or government entities) and not following any sort of rules other than AC 91-57. There is just too much liability to have every Sheriff Deputy flying a 'UAV' into someone and killing them. Who is to certify their training? Who is to certify the aircraft is airworthy?

The intention is only to make sure the aircraft is safe, the pilot is competent, and the general public is not endangered.

In all honesty, this is the best thing that could happen, and those AP businesses who have the company strength and desire will flow with whatever proposals the FAA releases without much effort.

The guys over at RCAPA could give you a much better idea of what is happening, as I have been away from it since then.

[Cryofix]

Hey guys, my understanding on this situation is a bit different. I was slightly involved in some initial proposals that were sent to the FAA back in September 2006, that were intended to be a guide as to what both the RC community, and those flying RC aricraft for commercial gain (now termed UAV or MAVs) were to expect in the coming years. There was a small committee, quite a few tele-conferences, etc. to try to determine how both sides of the fence could see the other's viewpoints, and help make rules that we could all abide by.

First and foremost, to the best of my knowledge, the FAA has absolutely no plan to moderate, mediate, regulate, or otherwise limit recreational RC aircraft, other than the AC91-57 advisory.

The difference is when you are making commercial profits (income based on a business offering aircraft or services to the general, industrial, or government entities) and not following any sort of rules other than AC 91-57. There is just too much liability to have every Sheriff Deputy flying a 'UAV' into someone and killing them. Who is to certify their training? Who is to certify the aircraft is airworthy?

The intention is only to make sure the aircraft is safe, the pilot is competent, and the general public is not endangered.

In all honesty, this is the best thing that could happen, and those AP businesses who have the company strength and desire will flow with whatever proposals the FAA releases without much effort.

The guys over at RCAPA could give you a much better idea of what is happening, as I have been away from it since then.

Thats was my thought when I read this, there has been a TON of UAV coverage in the news about how the military is now using this stuff, large manufacturers like Boeing and Grumman are now setting it up etc... I dont think they know who Mikado or align is, they just don't want something with a 10-30 mile range on it flying up to the white house and dropping hundreds of ounces of unknown liquids.

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.

[spork]

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.

[oscillator]

So has anyone found the actual FAA text? The article states the FAA was to issue a policy notice Feb 13th (today), but I can't find it on the FAA web site. Checked RCAPA, AOPA, AVWEB, etc but didn't see anything there either.

I remain cautiously hopefully. Being a pilot I am all too familiar with the FAA's capacity to issue bone headed rulings. It is vitally important to comment back to the FAA during open comment periods on proposed new rules.

That said, licensing and regulation add legitimacy to the industry and prevent just any joe with a toy heli and a camera from claiming he is in the AP business (yea, I know that description probably fits most of us, but we are working on it).

Most importantly, regulation reduces the chances of someone getting seriously hurt and the resulting knee jerk legislation.

[loopzilla]

The AOPA and resulting RTCA SC-203 is something to watch.

http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/regulatory/unmanned.html
http://www.rtca.org/comm/Committee.cfm?id=45

Yes, regulation is good. Insurance will be more readily available, liability litigation will be resolved more quickly, etc. In the end, it will actually be easier to conduct a legitimate AP business, but service rates will need to be adjusted to suit...

[oscillator]

Well, as a pilot I appreciate the AOPA's efforts and can personally attest to the stress generated when a controller advised me that there was a UAV in my area operating over a significant area and with a significant block altitude - an no, he didn't have the UAV on radar! Basic translation - "there is a small object flying around in your area that could kill you and I have no idea where it is. Good luck seeing it before it hits you!"

That said - this argument, and the "sense and avoid" certainly applies to the government type UAV's, but not really to the R/C heli doing low level AP. Hopefully the FAA will look at altitude limits and operational profiles and set some sensible limits. A R/C craft flying under 200 ft and not near an airport should pose no risk to fixed wing craft - who should be above 1,000 AGL and rotor craft - who should be above 500 AGL.

Besides an operational celling and avoiding landing zones, the real regulation for our "UAV's" should be focused on insuring the safety of persons/property on the ground and on protecting privacy. I hope the FAA will be able to make this distinction.

[spork]

My suspicion is that for most retail AP work you may run into more trouble with local ordinances than with the FAA. But here's crossing my fingers that the FAA exercises reasonable common sense. My opinion is that they generally do a pretty good job in the long run - sometimes they just seem to take the long way around the park getting there.

[oscillator]

My suspicion is that for most retail AP work you may run into more trouble with local ordinances than with the FAA....

Agreed, but here is the beauty of the FAA getting involved - federal law trumps state and local laws.

We see this all the time with airports and general aviation. The city or the county will try to pass some law regulating the use of an airport or where planes are or are not allowed to fly. In every case I know of, the federal government has stepped in and told the local government they had no jurisdiction in this area.

So...If the FAA does indeed exercise control over our "hobby" then local governments could not enforce their own restrictions. Certainly they will try, but ultimately they will fail.

[spork]

So...If the FAA does indeed exercise control over our "hobby" then local governments could not enforce their own restrictions. Certainly they will try, but ultimately they will fail.

That's surprising and interesting. I've never known that.

[MLaBoyteaux]

It was posted in the Federal Register yesterday. Here's a link to a pdf version of it:
http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/p89/452254.pdf

It spells out that flying under AC 91-57 is not for business purposes. So our models are defined as "UAS" vehicles and therefore need a special airworthiness certificate, which is unobtainable.

I truly believe there will be some form of relief, but what it is and how long it takes to develop is unknown.

I copied this from Patrick Egan on the RCAPA website, as it's great information and PLEASE, call or write your local Senator, Congressman, and the Department of Commerce.


“We still have a few options left but they will take more time and effort so if you want to see yourself in the future of commercial RC AP now’s the time to make a stand.”

I quoted myself from the February RCAPA newsletter. We have a plan and options, some of which have already been enacted. The light at the end of the tunnel plan the FAA says it will come up with is rumored to be at least a year out other reports say 2011.

RCAPA will be implementing new programs and rules.
I ask that you take the test(s) and comply with all other recommendations implemented they are implemented for a reason.

What can you do?
You can call and write to the people/agencies below.

You can ask what you are supposed to do with your equipment.

You can join RCAPA and take the test(s)

You can hit the donate button, if we had more money we’d have more options.

You can volunteer your time skill set to further the cause.

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
He likes letters too!
Same address as above

Dept. of Commerce

http://www.oig.doc.gov/oig/Hotline_contact.htm
• Phone:
Toll Free 1-800-424-5197
In the D.C. metro area 202-482-2495
TDD Toll Free 1-800-854-8407
TDD in the D.C. metro area 202-482-5923
• Fax: (202) 482-2803
• Mail:
U.S. Department of Commerce
Office of Inspector General
Hotline
P.O. Box 612
Ben Franklin Station
Washington, D.C. 20044
• E-mail: hotline@oig.doc.gov
Remember: Because the Internet is not secure, it is possible, though unlikely, that e-mail complaints may be read by persons other than your intended source. If you are concerned about this you may choose to mail or call us.
• Online Hotline Complaint Form:
Submit a complaint using our online submission form.

House directory
http://clerk.house.gov/member_info/index.html

[Cryofix]

we should extend this out to the rest of the heli community also as it may affect them over time.

maybe post in the general section.

[cainebean]

ahhh, it is so nice to get back over to a place that talks about the issues instead of bickering and blowing crap out on the computer.

And with all of this going on right now, on another board, the top thread is how high have you gone. People are still posting. The thread above that one deals with what's coming in the near future. They should change it to,"How can we fuel the FAA's fire!"

With that in mind, and all of the "One gallon experts" out there trying to get into AP, I say bring on the rules and regulations. If we continue the current path, someone will end up getting hurt, or cause major damage to a structure then the hobby as a whole will be dealing with this same problem.

I think we need a certification program! It is obvious that a lot of people can't think themselves through a safe sortie. And when they do something as dangerous as going above the 400 foot mark, they can't keep their big fat mouths shut! If looking cool to a bunch of people sitting behind their computers is so important to the poster, should they really be able to fly in the same air space as...... the birds! And I'm not trying to talk smack about those people because we all started from somewhere and we have all done stupid things in the past to get to where we are.... But going public about it, come on.

While we all play, Hurry up and wait, I'm going to keep on keeping on with my mast setup. I live by the saying, "There is a price you pay for the girls you lay!" You can pretty much adapt that to just about anything in life. I know a mast can't get a lot of of the shots that we see and love, but 50 feet is more than high enough to do real estate and some construction type jobs. Regardless, a lot of us out there need to find some way to pay for the large amounts of cash we have invested in our equipment. A mast might be a uesful tool!

What about a tethered blimp or ball? And what about all of the people that use kites for AP? Will we all be lumped together?

[Piton]

Interesting turn of events. I've flown my paraglider to 16,000ft. We can legally fly to 18,000ft. My "AUW" of my paraglider and myself is 220 pounds, if I'm using a motor, it's closer to 260 pounds. We fly over residential areas all the time, and all over the mountains. But a 20 pound AP set up is nixed.

[MLaBoyteaux]

I understand what you're saying, but the difference is as a paraglider, you're a much easier target to see AND you've got two eyes on board and you're in direct control of your craft. You also know that if an aircraft is approaching head on, the pilot is trained to always divert to the right.

I hate being grounded as well, it's going to cost me revenue, but I think in the longrun it'll be a positive thing. Just like operating a motor vehicle, you need to demonstrate proficiency and be responsible enough to maintain liability insurance.

I'm just glad my business model is diversified enough to generate income without AP from a UAS until we can all get this sorted out.

[Cryofix]

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

[R Hudson]

I think in the long run, this will turn out to be a good thing.

Yes, there are some "One Gallon Experts" out there that just boggle my mind.

I have been lurking and posting WITHOUT actually doing AP probably for longer than anyone else here or any other forum. Many of you have posted for a shorter time but are actually doing AP. I have posted, read, researched, offered advice, etc for quite a while. I've been working on trying to decide which way to go....heli?, Mast?, Plane?, I've owned many helis and a few planes and worked on some mount ideas and researched insurance, cameras, etc till the cows came home. This was the year I was going to make a go of it. I have a reliable platform, a solid mount idea, and potential clients.

Now this happens. I feel like I need to participate in this battle, however, as a "not yet" AP operator, I don't know how much what I say means to the powers that be.

I think I'm going to proceed with my plan, but shift to Mast work mostly.

This really is a shock. I mean, most of knew this day would come, but I know a lot of us thought it would sort of trickle into place. NOT!!

I really feel for you guys who are doing this FT, but I know that you are good enough businessmen that you'll figure out a workaround for the time being.

It couldn't have happened at a worse time for me, but in the same respect, I don't have thousands and thousands invested yet or a line of eager clients waiting for a product that can't be delivered.

This news saddens me but at the same time, I do feel that it will indeed weed-out the crackpots who would inevitably crash into some child or something like that.

I'm going to redirect my business plan, but I will throw my hat into the ring and fight the good fight because it's what I feel is right.

It's the American way.

I know, cliche, cliche, but it's the truth;)

Rod

[oscillator]

You can submit your feedback to the FAA by going to http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/avs/offices/air/hq/engineering/uapo/ and clicking the "Contact UAPO" link at the bottom of the page.

Below is the msg I jsut sent:
As a private pilot I applaud the FAA's efforts to regulate UAS's and am concerned about the safety of such craft.

HOWEVER - the FAA has shut down an important industry without recourse. Small model aircraft (primarily model helicopters) are used for areal photography and video applications by a wide range of industries from film making to real estate. These aircraft operate well below 400' AGL and pose no threat to other aircraft.

Under the new rules, these model aircraft can not operate under AC 91-57 since their use is for hire (commercial). Nor can they obtain an experimental certificate for the same reason. The only other recourse is the COA - which does not apply since their operation is not governmental and there are no standards for applying an airworthiness certificate to a model aircraft.

So what are these operators to do? Is this entire industry expected to just stop and wait for the FAA to come up with new rules in 10 years? Please advise how this industry can comply. Failure to do so will not only effect hundreds of small business operators, but the movies you see, or the next house you buy.