PDA

View Full Version : Laws that have to do with FPV/RC, sticky thread suggestion



SilviaSGP06
22nd November 2011, 05:23 AM
I was thinking after responding to a recent post that maybe we should have a thread stickied to the top of "Information Booth" that has laws that pertain to what we are doing.

deny replies and have a separate discussion thread so it is easy to skim for laws in the stick thread. Of course moderator should delete as member's find a law to be old, false or w/e. or OP could annotate why law is not valid.

Optimal format would/could be as follows


direct quote of law,rule, etc from the website so it is easy to skimexample source link (http://fpvlab.com/forums/www.google.com)

-Daryl

ssassen
22nd November 2011, 05:26 AM
example source link (http://fpvlab.com/forums/www.google.com)

-Daryl

Not Found

The requested URL /forums/www.google.com was not found on this server.

SilviaSGP06
22nd November 2011, 05:30 AM
no no no lol. the link wasnt a real link, I was just providing an example of how the format should or could look. I just put in google.com I thought so it would show the link correctly in the thread. sorry if I was confusing, its late :)

format example


law quotelink to source (http://fpvlab.com/forums/www.fpvlab.com)

ssassen
22nd November 2011, 05:31 AM
Sorry, couldn't resist :D

SilviaSGP06
22nd November 2011, 05:33 AM
well thanks for getting that possible confusion out of the way, you know someone would of asked :]

my original response to you reminded me of this video, made me crack up thinking about it so I went looking and found it
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoMgnJDXd3k&feature=related

saucisse
22nd November 2011, 07:16 AM
Such thread needs to be dedicated to a specific country? We're not all from USA...

SilviaSGP06
22nd November 2011, 11:03 AM
that is true, wouldnt want to be selfish. Plus Im sure im not alone but in that it would would be interesting to see how the rest of the world is treating FPV

pesbra
22nd November 2011, 03:59 PM
that would be ineresting. I would certainly be happy to contribute with Mexico's legal framework.

prelator
23rd November 2011, 11:22 AM
Wait, Mexico *has* a legal framework? I thought it was all just "do as the drug lords say or they shoot you" over there...

pesbra
28th November 2011, 08:40 PM
Yep, that's what a law is right! I decide you should do something and if you don't I coerce you with the use of force. We just have a different government. Lol

Macsgrafs
29th November 2011, 12:14 AM
Here in the UK we can fly FPV on models under 1.8Kg, though we must have a spotter (no longer needs to be buddy boxed to you) and we have to join a special FPV insurance of £15 per year. Range is still limited to LOS :(

volto
29th November 2011, 12:23 AM
This would be a good addition to the fpvwiki. http://fpvwiki.wikispaces.com/

Oh, Ugrd started it already: http://fpvwiki.wikispaces.com/Legal+Laws

MASHTON1138
29th November 2011, 10:06 AM
That document is a little confussing. I didn't think our equipment was classified as 802.11 a/b/g? Am I wrong, or are the Frequencies what the 802.11 is refering to? 802.11 is what this document is for, we use the same freq's but the equipment is not in the same catergory as a wireless network adapter or bridge and as I interpret it this doesn't apply. Am I way off here or am I close? Our equipment is transmiting basically as a TV station not a network access point so does this document really apply?

This is where all the confussion is when it comes to what is and what isnt legal. I have heard so many differing versions of what is legal it's not funny. I am no lawyer and yet am expected to know and follow the "law" that appears at best to be more or less a bunch of people who don't actually know what they are talking about interpreting what ever document they come across when doing a freaking goolgle search for FPV "laws". I know when I look for anything to do with this I get so much crap I half give up looking. I know the "legal" Frequencies and I use them, I know that I can't use a transmiter over 1 watt so I don't, I know I shouldn't fly over govenment buildings so I don't and I know I should use a little good judgement so I do, if the govenment wants to regulate this hobby then fine do it so an idiot can understand the "law" and publish it where it can be found. Don't listen to the AMA alone as most of them don't want our portion of the hobby to even exist. Talk to the people who fly FPV and get their input. I like the idea and the spirit of this thread but there is too much misinformation out there I think you almost need someone from the FCC legal department to be the only one allowed to post in it. That would alleviate all the misguided wannabe police, attornies and judges putting in their "you are wrong and not following the law" posts. Last I checked 90% of them are dumbasses anyway and their crap is cluttering up the internet and making it difficult for people who want know the law to find useful info. There is my rant for the week thanks for reading and providing a little education and have a nice day.

prelator
29th November 2011, 12:23 PM
It is certainly confusing, I'll give you that. What FPV needs (and will probably eventually get) is its own legal support group. The AMA provides that for the rest of the RC community in America, but since they have shown zero interest in supporting FPV, we'll probably need to form our own group like that at some point. They could then have their lawyers provide a detailed and hopefully authoritative analysis of relevant laws. Such a group could also be helpful for lobbying to keep FPV legal, and maybe eventually legalize limited commercial use of FPV aircraft.

volto
29th November 2011, 02:32 PM
Mashton where did you get the 1W thing from? Are you a HAM? As far as I know in the US, you can use 10mw or less on 2.4ghz legally, and 25mw or less on 5.8ghz if you are not a HAM. Anything other than that, and on other frequencies you must have a HAM technicians license or higher. There is a 1W limit for remote control applications, so those 7W boosters for 433 LRS are illegal in the US.

MASHTON1138
29th November 2011, 03:58 PM
Volto,
I am not currently a HAM but I plan on taking the test on December 10th. Now you state "As far as I know..." and that is really the point. Not saying what you have said is wrong because as far as I know you may very well be right (please post a link so we can be properly informed), but that is the first time I have heard of the US being subject to the 10mW 25mW limits for non-HAMs, I have heard guys in Europe say they are limited to this. I have read from several people that you need to have a HAM to operate our Txs and so I started preping for the exam. That was really my original point here, I think this is a wonderful sticky thread idea but it needs to be locked and only one person who is an expert in FPV regulations and who stays in regular contact with the FCC and any other agency that decides to stick their hand in the cookie jar and try to control FPV pilots. That is the only real way for it to prvent the mis-information on FPV "Laws" from continuing. Regulations cant be up for debate and an open thread will only allow for that. Too many people google search for regulations and laws that govern our hobby but all that is available is what someone over on RCG says is what they "found" but does it apply? Also the AMA puts out some info but they are not a Regulatory Agency, they are simply a Lobbying organization who works to improve their image and who offers insurance for members their "rules" really only apply to members and clubs they charter, for everyone else these "rules" are really nothing more than a suggestion for safe flying. So again we are back to he said she said and that is the most frustrating thing for FPV new comers- all the people who want to be experts but aren't, all the people who find a document on the internet and claim it applies but don't tell you why, all the this is how I understand it and all the hey you can't do that its not "legal".

Marc

prelator
29th November 2011, 04:19 PM
Volto, the 1W limit comes from the FCC's Part 97 regulations for amateur radio. Specifically:



§97.215 Telecommand of model craft. - (http://www.arrl.org/part-97-amateur-radio#) An amateur station transmitting signals to control a model craft may be operated as follows:
(a) The station identification procedure is not required for transmissions directed only to the model craft, provided that a label indicating the station call sign and the station licensee's name and address is affixed to the station transmitter.
(b) The control signals are not considered codes or ciphers intended to obscure the meaning of the communication.
(c) The transmitter power must not exceed 1 W.

MASHTON1138
29th November 2011, 04:26 PM
^ thanks I was trying to sift through my links to find that.

not a ham yet
29th November 2011, 04:34 PM
I agree whole-heartedly it took me almost 20 hrs of research to find out that there is NO commercial flight in the US and approx two weeks to get a second opinion

Vitamin J
29th November 2011, 05:02 PM
FPV is in a limbo area right now where the only laws that really apply are in relation to our radio equipment. Flying RC airplanes for hobby is pretty much unregulated as long as it's at least 3 miles from an airport. The most stringent laws in regards to RCs come from local state and city governments and park regulations.

bsliv
29th November 2011, 06:11 PM
Is the 1 watt limit for peak power or for average power at a given frequency? I think most of the uhf systems are frequency hopping so the total power at any given frequency for a given time period is not very large. If it is the average power at a given frequency, the 7 watt booster may be legal. Spread the 7 watts over 14 frequencies fast enough and its only .5 watts per frequency.

Myron
30th November 2011, 10:46 AM
I agree that there needs to be a place here to discuss (cuss) the legalities and pending regulations.

For those that dont know, the AMA and FAA are wroking on a re-write of the model aiplane safety code (AC 91-57) it used to be one short page, and its going to be many pages on the new one. Also, in the USA, the FAA has deemed that any model airplane that is flown for anything but LOS recreation is now considered a SUAS or Small Un-Manned Aircraft System and its is subject to PENDING regulations, in the mean time all such aircraft are GROUNDED.
I could keep posting links but it pisses me off the more I read!!

Myron

UA FACT SHEET http://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?newsId=6287

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ato/service_units/systemops/aaim/organizations/uas/coa/faq/media/uas_guidance08-01.pdf
http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ato/service_units/systemops/aaim/organizations/uas/coa/faq/
http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/apl/aviation_forecasts/aerospace_forecasts/2011-2031/media/Unmanned%20Aircraft%20Systems.pdf

prelator
30th November 2011, 10:59 AM
Umm, not quite. Those documents apply to all COMMERCIAL uses of unmanned aircraft. At this point they do not apply to hobbyists. According to the UAS Guidance document you linked to (page 5):

This document and the processes prescribed do not apply to hobbyists and amateur model
aircraft users when operating systems for sport and recreation. Those individuals should
seek guidance under Advisory Circular (AC) 91-57, Model Aircraft Operating Standards,
which is currently under revision.
Currently under revision does not mean "grounded until the revision is implemented," but rather that you can continue doing what you've always done until they change things.

MASHTON1138
30th November 2011, 11:14 AM
right in the second doc you linked to


Notes:


• This document and the processes prescribed do not apply to hobbyists and amateur model aircraft users when operating systems for sport and recreation. Those individuals should seek guidance under Advisory Circular (AC) 91-57, Model Aircraft Operating Standards, which is currently under revision.


Thanks for proving my point here. I know you are just trying to help but you mis-interpreted what you found and then post here that we are "grounded" because of what you think you read. If a state decides to rewrite the definition of Murder in the 1st degree the old definition still applies until the new one takes effect on a specific date. Under your logic there would be no way to prosecute criminals everytime the gov decided to rewrite a law. And we all know that is wrong. So again there is only an Advisory not law at least in the eyes of the FAA. Now when they finally release something that is definitive that is what should get posted not a bunch of well you can do this but not that only that document that regulates our hobby not any rambling from anyone else to include myself.

Myron
30th November 2011, 11:21 AM
Prelator,

I think you may have mis-interpreted what I said. You will see that in my first post I mentioned that any use of the aircraft OTHER THAN LOS /Recreation is going to be regulated.. So as long as you fly line of sight there shouldn't be any problem, However many FPV'ers here regularly fly beyond LOS.. Why would so many of us be buying hopped up video and RC gear right? The second you fly beyond LOS your now a UAV and subject to regulation. The "grounded" part of what I said is for any activity the FAA deems "commercial". As we are hearing, the new revision of AC91-57 is much more restictive and it will affect anyone flying a model airplane.

FYI. I am co-founder of a non-profit (501C-3) corporation that uses model airplanes with digital cameras/video to aid in the recovery of missing persons AND any other situation that eyes in the sky would be of good use for emergency managers.. Were NOT FOR HIRE, however.. the FAA has gounded us on MANY occasions because they didnt deem the use of our aircraft a (life or death) situation...We have been fighting this mess for 7 years. Trust me, FPV is going to be under the gun as well.

Hope this clears things up a little...

Myron

MASHTON1138
30th November 2011, 11:37 AM
FYI. I am co-founder of a non-profit (501C-3) corporation that uses model airplanes with digital cameras/video to aid in the recovery of missing persons AND any other situation that eyes in the sky would be of good use for emergency managers.. Were NOT FOR HIRE, however.. the FAA has gounded us on MANY occasions because they didnt deem the use of our aircraft a (life or death) situation...We have been fighting this mess for 7 years. Trust me, FPV is going to be under the gun as well.

Hope this clears things up a little...

Myron

Non-profit would fall under the "commercial" catergory not sport or leisure. I am flying for sport or leasure. Did an attorney tell you once any RC aircraft flies beyond LOS they are now considered "commercial"? Because I don't see how that could be as I am not flying for anything other than my own personal pleasure. I admire what your organization is doing and think if the FAA is grounding you they have no idea what they are doing. I think they consider you a company not a sport or leisure pilot and therefore that is their reasoning. And it is easy to fly within LOS at 30K if you have spoters along the route so there is a way around that for guys like TBS or whom ever wants to fly that far. I personally plan on never going beyond 2-3K because I prefer to not have to drive a long way ito find a plane that might go down.

prelator
30th November 2011, 11:56 AM
Myron, I don't there's anything in the current regs restricting you to line of sight. As long as you are not flying commercially (which I think means on behalf of any type of corporate entity including a non-profit), you still fall under the regs for hobby use, which are actually only advisory anyway. But yes, that's the big fear when the new regs come out that they will restrict us to LOS, which would pretty much kill FPV (assuming people actually follow the law, which most probably won't). On my end, I'm a law student with some experience working with comments to NPRMs, so I'm hoping to write a comment to the FAA whenever the NPRM actually comes out. I'll probably post it here and on RC Groups and see if anyone else wants to sign on, so we can have a group of FPVers represented.

volto
30th November 2011, 02:20 PM
Radio signals only work within line of sight. You have to have an autopilot drone to go beyond line of sight, and that's not what FPV is about.

prelator
30th November 2011, 02:25 PM
Radio line of sight and visual line of site are two completely different things. All the rumors say that the FAA and AMA want to restrict FPV to visual line of sight, which at least one AMA document I've read defines as a 1500 foot radius. Heck, I was flying further than 1500 feet away on my first day flying FPV. Nobody is going to follow that.

Myron
30th November 2011, 03:26 PM
@ mashton1138

I never said all model airplanes were grounded..... You might want to call anyone in the UA office of the FAA in DC.. Some of the names have changed but Bruce Tarbert, Doug Davis, Ardyth Williams or Steve (cant remember his last name) and they will tell you that when you go out of LOS that your asking for trouble. I thought that I made it clear that if you ONLY fly for recreation and you stay within LOS you should be OK... When I said "Grounded" it was strictly about non-recreational flight or outside of LOS.. An Attourney didnt tell me anything, however, The FAA has my partner and the other co-founder of RP Search Services on speed dial. They stated very clearly that if an aircraft goes beyond LOS, it no longer has "Sense and Avoid" capabilities and therefore it becomes a problem. For every loophole you think you have, they have a "gotcha" on their end.. the grandiose of them all is The Patriot Act and DHS... Remember the guy that was going to fly RC jets loaded with C4 into the Whitehouse and Pentagon?

No, there arent any laws or penal code on the books for operating a UA in the NAS,(but they are coming) but are you going to be the one that gets thrown under the bus as an example?

As far as the AMA goes, the old AC 9175 is being rewritten with "help" from the FAA..... the FAA already takes a dim view of where the R/C hobby is going and now they have their hands in writing the regs. more than likely all model airplane recreational flying will be only allowed on designated AMA fields... Its MESSED UP!!!... and if you want to be in denial that RC/FPV arent going to take a hit, you may just want to make that call the FAA DC hear it for yourself.. Heck, tape it and put it on youtube so we can all hear it.

Another thing.. On 2-13-08 the FAA put out a document(im looking for it right now) that basically said that the model airplane excuse was no longer going to fly and that if said model airplane was used for ANYTHING BUT RECREATIONAL flying that is now a UAV..

Myron

Myron
30th November 2011, 03:49 PM
Here is another pretty good link...

http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/uas/uas_faq/#Qn1

MASHTON1138
30th November 2011, 04:13 PM
Myron,
Again you state "...if said model airplane was used for anything but recreational flying that is now a UAV..." You are flying for purposes other than recreation I am not. Therefore I dont fall under the "other than recreation" clause you keep bringing up. Again I do not fly beyond LOS so there wont be any making an example of me anytime so until there is regulation saying otherwise I am going to fly period. And Really DHS come on. Who are you trying to scare? I am not trying to get C-4 or anything so they arent going to be trying to get me until I break the law or attempt to break it. I have no doubt that they are going to try and stop us from flying RC aircraft but money drives the US govenment nothing else, and an entire industry is not going to cave to the you can only fly at an AMA field because that would destroy the RC industry and not just FPV. They may be kicking that around but it wont ever work. And that sounds like a ploy anyway to get more people to pay the AMA so they can continue to line their pockets. Again to my original point though this is just the he said she said crap I was refering to. And all it does it get people wound up I am sure at this point everyone is calling you out and its not fair because you are just trying to educate us but I see it as more I know and you are wrong talk because of all the are you going to or you call them. I am not going to call anyone if you are on speed dial with them you call them and record the conversation. Or the easiest thing for them to do is to post a notification on their website that is clear and easy to find to let us all know what is going on and define in clear terms what recreational and LOS is. Until they do that I dont think they take it seriously. I am done talking about this as I think it proved the original point I was making last night.

Myron
30th November 2011, 05:51 PM
DUDE, I get it! Your a recreation ONLY flyer. You have nothing to worry about..yet.. However, some of us here are looking at the potential commercial and public service uses for these things. I dont see anywhere on this forum that its for recreational only flyers. This thread is for discussion of current or potential rules... I'm not trying to scare anyone. I'm only trying to help educate the ones that have a little vision. As far as the AMA goes.. I have NO use for them and I hate flying at their designated sites. As far the the govt goes, there is no such thing as taking the easy rout. Hopefully your smart enough to know that. And your dead a$$ wrong about them not taking it seriously, just read through some of the links I have posted... And NO-ONE is calling me out other than you and I think thats because they all know that more regs are on the way.

Myron

Macsgrafs
30th November 2011, 06:54 PM
Dont forget that you guys in the states are about to get new laws that means anyone can be held indefinately without charge!!!!! I think they vote on it on Monday. Also if you have more than 7 days worth of food you could be considered a terrorist...welcome to the home of the free & the land of the brave :)

Ross

MASHTON1138
30th November 2011, 07:16 PM
I have spent the last 15 years working for a government agency so no lecture needed on how easy they make things. I never disagreed that there is stricter regulation to come either. In fact I agreed on that point I just disagree on how far they are truely willing to go. Personally it makes me sick that they want to over regulate but I also know if you are not doing anything illegal you are not going to be bothered. I have read your other threads about your endevours for S&R and again I say I applaude what you are trying to do. Dont misconstreu what I am saying as I am not calling you out I missed a few words as I was thinking faster than I can type. That should have said you may feel everyone is .... but that didnt get typed. I then show you my perspective on how you presented certain portions of your post. I'm not mad so I hope you aren't either I tend to forget sometimes that you dont know me and are not able to see me and what my actual tone is. Tone gets lost behind a keyboard and so does frustration which has been building for the past few months thanks to all the misinformation I keep reading, taking as what it is and then somoeone else comes along and says otherwise.

Now I have a useful suggestion on your particular ordeal and others like you. Perhaps there should be two seperate threads relating to the US Regulations. One for those of us who only want to fly around for fun and those who are looking at commercial aspects such as what you are trying to do with S&R. That would then hopefully limit or eliminate the cross "contamination" (I use that word loosely) of certain rules that wont apply to both.

MASHTON1138
30th November 2011, 07:19 PM
Dont forget that you guys in the states are about to get new laws that means anyone can be held indefinately without charge!!!!! I think they vote on it on Monday. Also if you have more than 7 days worth of food you could be considered a terrorist...welcome to the home of the free & the land of the brave :)

Ross
ROTFLOL

ssassen
30th November 2011, 07:32 PM
Gents, for what it's worth. One of the things that I find highly objectionable with the laws and regulations being drafted is that there's a line being drawn between what is allowed for recreational purposes, which is basically hobbyists and people that do this for fun and commercial ventures. The fact that they make this distinction solely on whether you use this to make a buck, or just for the fun of it, shows me their motivations are mostly for monetary reasons, and quite possibly due to heavy lobbying from professional SUAS/UAV manufacturers or users.

In reality the laws and regulations should be concerned with risk and liability to the general public, which is pretty much identical for either recreational or commercial use, the airframes, the components used, the RC radios, etc. etc. it is all the same or equivalent. So lets not kid ourselves here, any over regulation and pinning down of the hobbyist with overly restrictive regulations is primarily fueled by economics, not by fair risk assessment. That is clear to me after Myron's effort to offer his services for S&R purposes, which should be welcomed with open arms, but is shot down waiting for regulation to pass that'll only allow multimillion dollar coorporations, or government funded organizations, to be given free reign.

That has nothing to do with offering a service to the public, but everything with micro managing civilians. I'm sorry to say that the United States of America which I dearly loved and visited often a decade ago is not longer that, which saddens me, as it is not the people to live there, but the government and their officials that have made things take a turn for the worse. If this kind of over regulation and micro managing is kept up for another two decades we'll see 1984 become reality.

MASHTON1138
30th November 2011, 07:44 PM
Well said sander. I saw one answer to one of the FAQs in the link that Myron provided that it could take up to 1 year to get certification for all you equipment not to mention the plane. WTF? If that doesnt tell something about what the FAA is thinking...

volto
30th November 2011, 08:04 PM
Sassen, you are correct except that the people aren't to blame, they are. They became sheep who gladly fund our government's illegal wars and vote more warmongers into office, only now are they starting to wake up. I still love this country and hope it can turn around in my lifetime.

Myron
30th November 2011, 09:54 PM
@ Mashtown I'm not mad.. just frustrated because I know whats coming and there are many people that think it isnt going to affect them in any way. I would personally wager with you that when the regs do surface for both commercial AND recreation it will directly impact you... Maybe not financially but it will affect your flying... Something no one here wants...

@ SSassen Your 100% correct on where its going with the regulating and marketing of SUAS in the NAS.. Bet you will never guess the names of the top 5 companies that have been named to the ARC. All of them are top tier DOD contractors... No "little guys" on the list.. BTW: I feel like a nice set of klompen have ben dropped on my head.

@ Volto I agree. Voters are to blame.... I'm about ready for that TEA PARTY!!!... The local DJ calls it the "wussification" of America.. We have become a bunch of sheep.. So far, I have only stockpiled about 700 rounds of .223!

Myron

PilotKeeg
1st December 2011, 12:44 AM
Gents, for what it's worth. One of the things that I find highly objectionable with the laws and regulations being drafted is that there's a line being drawn between what is allowed for recreational purposes, which is basically hobbyists and people that do this for fun and commercial ventures. The fact that they make this distinction solely on whether you use this to make a buck, or just for the fun of it, shows me their motivations are mostly for monetary reasons, and quite possibly due to heavy lobbying from professional SUAS/UAV manufacturers or users.

In reality the laws and regulations should be concerned with risk and liability to the general public, which is pretty much identical for either recreational or commercial use, the airframes, the components used, the RC radios, etc. etc. it is all the same or equivalent. So lets not kid ourselves here, any over regulation and pinning down of the hobbyist with overly restrictive regulations is primarily fueled by economics, not by fair risk assessment. That is clear to me after Myron's effort to offer his services for S&R purposes, which should be welcomed with open arms, but is shot down waiting for regulation to pass that'll only allow multimillion dollar coorporations, or government funded organizations, to be given free reign.

That has nothing to do with offering a service to the public, but everything with micro managing civilians. I'm sorry to say that the United States of America which I dearly loved and visited often a decade ago is not longer that, which saddens me, as it is not the people to live there, but the government and their officials that have made things take a turn for the worse. If this kind of over regulation and micro managing is kept up for another two decades we'll see 1984 become reality.

Totally agree. The "Nanny State" mentality that the government should give everyone something and make everything 100% safe is actually killing the country with business and freedom strangling regulation.

The laws being considered for SUAS and FPV are a good example of this. The regulation of the sector is discouraging many many many people from getting commercially involved. Only big corporations can afford to jump through all the hoops to play. I think the key to getting the economy and America back on track is the deregulation of business.

Vitamin J
1st December 2011, 12:58 AM
Sassen's right, it's not about control or safety. It's lobbying from existing companies that use manned aircraft to do the things that UAVs are capable of. It's about $$$. Keeg, you say "Only big corporations can afford to jump through all the hoops to play" no kidding dude, that's by design! Think of the million and millions being spend JUST ON FUEL to keep traffic helis in the air. That job can be done with an upsized EZ*.

Now think about the companies that make these existing technologies, they are also the same ones making weapons of war. They want their monopoly safe and keeping commercial UAVs illegal keeps them in business. Good thing they have so much influence in lawmaking...

sim_io
1st December 2011, 01:05 AM
They should completely deregulate it and let competition work it out by itself naturally.

brosius85
1st December 2011, 05:33 AM
bloated bureaucracy trying to grab more tax and have more control ... i dont care much about laws being passed it's if they get enforced that i would worry about .

they draft this stuff when lobbied, we are such a small hobby there is no way our voice would be listened to. for them to mount an actual prosecution against an individual you are gonna have to do something really serious like cause millions damage, embarrass someone powerful (tricopter footage) or cause serious disruption or death. but things like improper use of RF could get you in hot water easily if you are really stupid about it.

Myron
1st December 2011, 10:23 AM
@ Pilotkeeg

"Only big corporations can afford to jump through all the hoops to play"

TRUE DAT... and the real kicker is that the FAA has appointed all these guys to the Agency Regulatory Committee ARC so basically they get cart blance to do what (write regs and procedures) they want in this arena as long as the "safety" end of it is approved by the FAA.

@ SSASSEN

"In reality the laws and regulations should be concerned with risk and liability to the general public, which is pretty much identical for either recreational or commercial use, the airframes, the components used, the RC radios, etc. etc. it is all the same or equivalent."

another TRUE DAT!!!.. Picture this.. Your flying you Go-PRO equipped tri-copter, Slow Stick, Easy Star ect. on the golf course behind your house (just for fun) when the manager of the course comes by and says hey, thats cool, can you make me a "golf ball view" of the course? A premium course can pay big money for this. I would be willing to bet you would take that deal... you just better keep it on the down low because your aircraft is now classified as a Commercial UAV...


Sure, the FAA is not an enforcement agency, and chances are slim that the MIB will come to your door, but it IS possible. The whole idea of a slowstick with a camera being regulated is ridiculess!!!

Myron

aeryck
1st December 2011, 11:36 AM
Someone once said, "If it's fun, the government will regulate it or outlaw it".. Truer words have never been spoken heh.

Then again, this country follows the golden rule.. He who has the gold, makes the rules.

"..by the people, for the people" my ass.

Myron
1st December 2011, 04:03 PM
Yeah, and when you do the math, we work for the government for about 4 full months of our income.. Imagine working from Jan 1 through April 30 and giving the IRS your entire check.. dont believe me?.. if you make between 68K and 135K... 25% right off the top for the uncle.. So if you make 100K a year(8,333.33) a month you gotta pay in 25,000.00... 8,333.33 x4 = 33,333.00 obviously you have some deductions and write offs that change that # a bit, but think about it.. And when times get tough, throw in a bailout package that keeps the banks in good shape but has the families that pay for their screw ups out on the street...

Myron

Macsgrafs
1st December 2011, 07:04 PM
So then guys if the companies that have all this control are DOD, then thats where your battle lies! Also the FAA, send them a recorded delivery letter & say you know thier game, then start a recreational fliers group, fight hem all the way, expose the corruption & the backhanders that will so obviously be invloved!

ssassen
1st December 2011, 07:11 PM
So then guys if the companies that have all this control are DOD, then thats where your battle lies! Also the FAA, send them a recorded delivery letter & say you know thier game, then start a recreational fliers group, fight hem all the way, expose the corruption & the backhanders that will so obviously be invloved!

Frankly, I say f*ck 'm, I'd rather be flying or spend my time on something else. Obviously they know this which makes it part of their strategy. My take on such matters is simple, I don't need the government to tell me what I can or cannot do if I've taken every precaution to make sure I practice this hobby with the least amount of risk to people or property. Some common sense and knowing when not to take risks goes a long way, but apparantly the government thinks differently, sadly that's their mistake.

Myron
1st December 2011, 08:09 PM
OK.. I spent an hour on the phone with the FAA in DC. He was not able to speak to me about specifics of the up coming regs, but he did say not to expect the regs to be out for another 15-20 months.. The SUAS regs have already been submitted to the DOT.. the DOT has responded and is requesting some changes in verbage and descriptions.. Once those are agreed upon(hopefully 90 days) they will then be submitted to the OMB to determine if there are any ill effects on the taxpayers from the rulemaking. This process is 15-18 MONTHS...

In Addition.. The new AC for model airplanes is in the works and its is supposed to encompass all the new technology (video/OSD/Telemetry/autopilots ect.) and it will only be for AMA sanctioned fields.. basically, if your not flying there, your on your own if you have a problem..

ALSO... IF you have an accident while flying beyond LOS (for Recreation) you will be subject to all the penalties(yes, there are laws) for operating an "aircraft" in an unsafe/negligent manner.. He gave me the place to find this info (google up "49 USC"), I just havent looked it up yet.. The basis of this is "Uncertified equipment on board" and lack of "sense and avoid" and it has a "0" value to the FAA meaning again you are operating in an unsafe manner.... And yes there are laws and penalties for doing so.. Its no different than a DUI... your flying "impaired" with uncertified equipment...

IF you THINK you have a loophole and claim to have a "spotter" reporting back to you any sense and avoid data... NOT SO FAST... there is no such thing in the FAA dictionary as a "Spotter".. PILOT yes, Airman 1-?? class yes, PIC or pilot in command yes.. Certified ground crew yes... Spotter, NOPE.. Take a guess how long it would take for the feds to create, train and certify this new class of Aviation personel.. Lets not even go there...

Hope this helps!

@ ssassen.. He did however say that although he is not privy to the info, the latest ARC is more geared at the bigger stuff.. Global hawk ect..

Myron
1st December 2011, 08:30 PM
Here is what started this whole mess... start reading at "background" on the left......

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2007-02-13/pdf/E7-2402.pdf

Myron

prelator
1st December 2011, 09:22 PM
Very interesting. Thoughts on this:

1. It will be another 2-3 years before any of the new rules take effect, so worrying too much now, especially before we see anything solid, is rather premature.

2. Without more specifics, it's impossible to say what specific laws and penalties apply if you cause an accident while flying beyond LOS. The reference to 49 USC doesn't help, as that is the entire title of the US Code where all transportation related laws are. You can't violate an entire title of the US Code--we need to know specific provisions or that does us no good. And unlike the FAA's own regulations, which are contained in the Code of Federal Regulations rather than the US Code, the US Code is drafted by Congress and is applicable only in certain situations specified in the statute. The FAA can't just say, "if you don't do this, then you are in violation of X provision in the US Code" (at least unless the law says they can do that). Your activity has to actually fit within the statutory language, which given that the US Code doesn't address model airplanes at all and still won't after the FAA regulations are implemented, I find it rather unlikely that model airplanes could fall under any of the safety laws in the US Code. The penalties for operating an unsafe aircraft you refer to were all created with full scale aircraft in mind, so it would be very hard to construe them to apply. Really, we need a lot more specifics before we can come to any conclusion about this.

3. Even if they could construe laws for unsafe aircraft operation to apply to flying model planes beyond VLOS, as you described it, there is no outright prohibition of that activity, only a liability rule that applies if you cause an accident. That I would actually be fine with, especially if that liability rule incorporates some reference to regular civil negligence (which would actually apply regardless of any FAA regulation). Under negligence law, basically as long as you are operating in accordance with the way a "reasonably prudent person" would when doing the same activity, you're fine. Then in court you could introduce evidence showing the standard practice for that type of activity and how most people regularly do it, and as long as you don't deviate too much from that you're usually not considered negligent. Just because an accident happens doesn't mean you were automatically negligent. You have to actually have done something unreasonable to be considered negligent.

Really, regular negligence law is all that's necessary to deal with stuff like FPV. That way, if you're being stupid and cause an accident, you're liable. Otherwise not. If the FAA wants to do something like create a safe harbor for flying within VLOS at an AMA field, under which you are not liable; and if you're flying beyond VLOS or away from an AMA field, you can be liable under civil negligence law, I would be just fine with that. I'm not exactly sure if that's what they have in mind, but it would be great if they could be persuaded to leave model airplanes completely alone and leave liability issues to be decided under regular civil negligence law.

Vitamin J
1st December 2011, 10:11 PM
In Addition.. The new AC for model airplanes is in the works and its is supposed to encompass all the new technology (video/OSD/Telemetry/autopilots ect.) and it will only be for AMA sanctioned fields.. basically, if your not flying there, your on your own if you have a problem..This sounds like good news for hobbyist FPVers. They can give me all the recommendations and guidelines they want.

Myron
1st December 2011, 10:50 PM
@ Prelator.. Yes, its going to be a while before anything official comes down the pipe. and I agree about some of the liability laws. I would just be careful about what I post and how I operate. The guy at the FAA office did give me the location and other stuff that applies to aircraft.. I havent had time to find the exact docs. but he mentioned title 14 #1-1000... maybe page 23-25 and 113 -115 and part 91... I was driving and trying to write all this down. As I understand it, this doc( http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2007...df/E7-2402.pdf ) is where model airplane gets lumped into the "mess" as an aircraft/UAV which are subject to aviation laws under 49 USC.

@ Vitamin. He did say the AMA has a great safety record and its usually the "1% of dumba$$es" that ruin the fun for everyone else.. citing an incident where a glow heli guy thought it would be cool to buzz a teenage girl with the heli.. The ensuing crash netted 62 stitches and tendon damage for her. I can tell you this..The AMA is not going to condone FPV and they will probabaly only allow it at their field for a passenger... Not the pilot of the plane..
I would just procede with caution and dont be in that 1%


Overall, I feel I had a great chat with him and I gained a bit of insight on how the FAA views the whole deal. I also hope that anyone getting really serious about FPV and the potential commercial and public uses does their own due dilligence before they just fly at will..

Myron

prelator
1st December 2011, 11:09 PM
Hmm yeah, sorry but those code numbers don't make any sense. Title 14 is about the Coast Guard. The US Code is arranged in titles and section numbers. Usually a legal document would cite it like this: 49 U.S.C. § 40102, which happens to be the definitions section of the subtitle on aviation. More specific cites to particular provisions would be in parenthesis after the section number.

I don't blame you for not getting those numbers down right--legal citations would confuse the hell out of anyone without legal training. But I'm afraid they aren't going to help pin down what provisions the guy was talking about.

Oh and the link in your most recent post doesn't work. You copied a truncated version with an ellipsis in it, not the full URL.

Myron
1st December 2011, 11:20 PM
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2007...df/E7-2402.pdf

works from my end.. If you want I can email it to you... Also if you wanted clarification you can contact Steve Glowacki at the FAA UAPO office for more info...

Myron

MASHTON1138
1st December 2011, 11:42 PM
Ok so then as I read that last doc AC 91-57 is still current and as long as I am a modeler/hobbyist and not flying for "business purposes" I can fly at or under 400 feet and be good so far as the FAA is concerned right now. Right? Then in the foreseeable future (15 or more months down the road) they will have come up with as they refer to it... "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" which means what exactly? As long as I am not flying for business purposes I can continue flying under AC 91-57? Or are they going to lump us as a seperate group from the sport/recreation (LOS) flyers (who dont want anythning to do with us) and put stricter regs on just us? Dont know what that really means but to me it looks like they dont know either or just arent sure still as to what to do with us.

sander,
I thought I read that some or all of the UHF systems could have one receiver "bound" to multiple transmiters, if I did could that not allow two users to fly the aircraft? Say one as the Pilot and then in an emergency the other or "co-pilot" if you will could override the Pilot and evade a threat or rescue the aircraft from a stupid move by the pilot. Similar to the trainer cord but wirelessly and even from a remote site that would have LOS of the aircraft. Not sure how that would work exactly but if you could come up with a way to make it happen it would put us at an advantage and maybe help our cause. Basically the co-pilot could be 2km away but have los via binoculars and naked eye and have a radio he could use if there is a problem and then the pilot could fly from the main site. Is this posible?

prelator
1st December 2011, 11:43 PM
Myron,

It goes to a 404 page. Not sure why it would work for you, since the ... in the middle indicates that's not the full URL. I Googled it and found the full link http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2007-02-13/pdf/E7-2402.pdf.

Oh and now I see where you got the title 14 reference from. That's not from the US Code, but the Code of Federal Regulations, which is the compilation of administrative law rather than congressional law. At any rate, now we're actually getting somewhere. I think I found the provision they were talking about:

14 C.F.R. § 91.13 Careless or reckless operation. (a) Aircraft operations for the purpose of air navigation. No person may operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.
(b) Aircraft operations other than for the purpose of air navigation. No person may operate an aircraft, other than for the purpose of air navigation, on any part of the surface of an airport used by aircraft for air commerce (including areas used by those aircraft for receiving or discharging persons or cargo), in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.
The definition of "aircraft" from the US Code is "any contrivance invented, used, or designed to navigate, or fly in, the air," (basically any man made object that flies), so model aircraft would be covered by that. But all that says is that you can't operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner that endangers life or property. That's pretty darn general.

If the guy you talked to meant that once you fly beyond VLOS you're potentially liable under that rule, that's not too bad, since all you have to do is show that you weren't flying in a careless or reckless manner. Maybe if they have some other regulation that defines FPV flying beyond VLOS as per se careless and reckless, that would be bad. But on it's own that's pretty open ended and open to interpretation and fact specific arguments that you were flying safely by the standards of the hobby, which are really up to us, the community of FPV flyers, to define.

not a ham yet
2nd December 2011, 01:24 AM
http://www.alternet.org/news/153278/how_the_drone_warfare_industry_took_over_our_congr ess?utm_source=feedblitz&utm_medium=FeedBlitzRss&utm_campaign=alternet

not really on topic but i bet you want to read it

a_marmot
2nd December 2011, 04:24 AM
Gents, for what it's worth. One of the things that I find highly objectionable with the laws and regulations being drafted is that there's a line being drawn between what is allowed for recreational purposes, which is basically hobbyists and people that do this for fun and commercial ventures. The fact that they make this distinction solely on whether you use this to make a buck, or just for the fun of it, shows me their motivations are mostly for monetary reasons, and quite possibly due to heavy lobbying from professional SUAS/UAV manufacturers or users.

In reality the laws and regulations should be concerned with risk and liability to the general public, which is pretty much identical for either recreational or commercial use, the airframes, the components used, the RC radios, etc. etc. it is all the same or equivalent. So lets not kid ourselves here, any over regulation and pinning down of the hobbyist with overly restrictive regulations is primarily fueled by economics, not by fair risk assessment. That is clear to me after Myron's effort to offer his services for S&R purposes, which should be welcomed with open arms, but is shot down waiting for regulation to pass that'll only allow multimillion dollar coorporations, or government funded organizations, to be given free reign.

That has nothing to do with offering a service to the public, but everything with micro managing civilians. I'm sorry to say that the United States of America which I dearly loved and visited often a decade ago is not longer that, which saddens me, as it is not the people to live there, but the government and their officials that have made things take a turn for the worse. If this kind of over regulation and micro managing is kept up for another two decades we'll see 1984 become reality.

Hmm... I don't really buy the argument that there is a corporate conspiracy out their trying to corner the market on unmanned aircarft! My interpretation of the FAA's position is that they are being extremely conservative with respect to liability and safety. The distinction between commercial vs. non-commercial has less to do with money – I think it’s more a matter of what is or is not considered an “aircraft” from the perspective of the shared and regulated airspace (which the FAA is responsible for regulating).

For example, there isn't a distinction between commercial and non-commercial use of manned aircraft. Even if you operate a small plane as a hobby, you need a pilot’s license, your plane needs to comply with certain minimal safety standards, you have to know how to use the radio and talk to the control tower, etc. This is because your plane (no matter how small) flies within the national air space, and shares the sky with commercial airliners, small business aircraft, government aircraft, etc.

Up until recently, model airplanes haven’t really been considered as “aircraft” from this perspective, so the FAA hasn’t really cared about them. They are small, they stay within a very small area close to the ground near the “pilot”, etc. So the FAA has not worried about integrating such craft into the national airspace plan - there’s no point.

But don’t kid yourself into thinking that means there is no regulation! In Seattle, for example, there are city and park ordinances (local government) laws that pretty much disallow ANY model airplanes ANYWHERE except in designated flying fields having an AMA charter. This means if you want to fly a model airplane legally, you need to join a club and fly at their designated field (only), or drive out to a rural municipality where no such local regulations exist.

However, now that FPV allows “model airplanes” to fly higher and farther, and thus into the national airspace, the FAA definitely cares about it. This means that there will definitely be regulation, and the distinction between “commercial” and “non-commercial” is ultimately going to disappear (just as it did for manned aircraft during the early 20th century). Anyone flying these things is going to have to get some kind of training, some kind of FPV pilot’s license, etc. It’s just a matter of time…

People that I know in the northwest who work on civilian applications of UAS must work under the present draconian system, obtaining government clearance for EACH and EVERY product development flight, even if those flights are conducted in the middle of nowhere on a test range! These companies have lobbyists, but these lobbyists are not pushing for more regulation, I assure you. They are doing exactly the opposite – trying to get the FAA to make regulatory decisions that make it as easy as possible for them to conduct business. No one is going to buy their products if no one can fly them legally.

On the other hand, Sassen is right that commercial UAS developers are definitely NOT looking out for the interests of hobbyists. If commercial developers are the only people in Washington helping to shape the regulations, these regulations are going to favor them, not independent hobbyists. If we are smart, we (meaning the FPV community) should try to stay aware of what is going on in this arena, maybe even get some lobbyist of our own in play!

As an example, hams have done a pretty good job over the year defending choice bits of the EM spectrum from commercial interests. They have been able to do this becasue they have successfully argued that amateur radio activities are an important aspect of radio technology development, and thus are in the national interest to protect. I see our role the same way – by constantly pushing the technology forward with new aircraft designs, electronics, approaches to radio communication, auto-piloting systems, etc., we are helping to develop the equipment and practices that will make unmanned aircraft safer and more reliable for everyone. So it is in the national interest for us to be part of the FAA’s plan. We need to convince them of this, or we are just going to get frozen out of the plan when the regulations come…

a_marmot
2nd December 2011, 04:43 AM
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2007...df/E7-2402.pdf

works from my end.. If you want I can email it to you... Also if you wanted clarification you can contact Steve Glowacki at the FAA UAPO office for more info...

Myron

Myron- this link does not work for me either. Are you sure you are copying the link itself and not just abbreviated text associated with the link? Try going to the site and copying and pasting the entire path from the URL line.

Myron
2nd December 2011, 10:38 AM
@ Mashton "Ok so then as I read that last doc AC 91-57 is still current and as long as I am a modeler/hobbyist and not flying for "business purposes" I can fly at or under 400 feet and be good so far as the FAA is concerned right now. Right?"

yes, for now LOS only....

@ Prelator "If the guy you talked to meant that once you fly beyond VLOS you're potentially liable under that rule, that's not too bad, since all you have to do is show that you weren't flying in a careless or reckless manner."

As he explained it to me, none of the electronics in a model airplane are certified by the FAA so that could be considered Careless/Reckless...

@ Marmot "For example, there isn't a distinction between commercial and non-commercial use of manned aircraft. Even if you operate a small plane as a hobby, you need a pilot’s license, your plane needs to comply with certain minimal safety standards, you have to know how to use the radio and talk to the control tower, etc. This is because your plane (no matter how small) flies within the national air space, and shares the sky with commercial airliners, small business aircraft, government aircraft, etc."

Yes there is! A private pilot cannot carry persons or cargo for compensation. If he wants to he has to get more certs and training to do so. I have a drivers license that allows me to drive a vehichle as long as it meets certain critera and its insured ect. I cannot start a taxi service or delivery service unless I get a different license.

the document I keep trying to post explains that a model aircraft is infact considered an aircraft by the FAA...
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2007...df/E7-2402.pdf (http://api.viglink.com/api/click?format=go&key=c1d25e831406ba20a5afa355d5950d05&loc=http%3A%2F%2Ffpvlab.com%2Fforums%2Fshowthread. php%3F2439-Laws-that-have-to-do-with-FPV-RC-sticky-thread-suggestion%2Fpage6&v=1&libid=1322836225170&out=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gpo.gov%2Ffdsys%2Fpkg%2FFR-2007-02-13%2Fpdf%2FE7-2402.pdf&ref=http%3A%2F%2Ffpvlab.com%2Fforums%2Fshowthread. php%3F2439-Laws-that-have-to-do-with-FPV-RC-sticky-thread-suggestion%26p%3D41425%23post41425&title=Laws%20that%20have%20to%20do%20with%20FPV%2F RC%2C%20sticky%20thread%20suggestion&txt=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gpo.gov%2Ffdsys%2Fpkg%2FFR-2007...df%2FE7-2402.pdf&jsonp=vglnk_jsonp_13228367130225).

Vitamin J
2nd December 2011, 11:06 AM
@ Mashton "Ok so then as I read that last doc AC 91-57 is still current and as long as I am a modeler/hobbyist and not flying for "business purposes" I can fly at or under 400 feet and be good so far as the FAA is concerned right now. Right?"

yes, for now LOS only....
No, you do not have to fly your model aircraft 400 feet or below and no you do not have to fly LOS. These are advisories, not rules or laws.


the document I keep trying to post explains that a model aircraft is infact considered an aircraft by the FAA...
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2007...df/E7-2402.pdf (http://api.viglink.com/api/click?format=go&key=c1d25e831406ba20a5afa355d5950d05&loc=http%3A%2F%2Ffpvlab.com%2Fforums%2Fshowthread. php%3F2439-Laws-that-have-to-do-with-FPV-RC-sticky-thread-suggestion%2Fpage6&v=1&libid=1322836225170&out=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gpo.gov%2Ffdsys%2Fpkg%2FFR-2007-02-13%2Fpdf%2FE7-2402.pdf&ref=http%3A%2F%2Ffpvlab.com%2Fforums%2Fshowthread. php%3F2439-Laws-that-have-to-do-with-FPV-RC-sticky-thread-suggestion%26p%3D41425%23post41425&title=Laws%20that%20have%20to%20do%20with%20FPV%2F RC%2C%20sticky%20thread%20suggestion&txt=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gpo.gov%2Ffdsys%2Fpkg%2FFR-2007...df%2FE7-2402.pdf&jsonp=vglnk_jsonp_13228367130225).
It is indeed an aircraft but in that document hobby/sport models are exempt from UAS rules and are not subject to any federal laws. There are only recommendations for safe operation.

In your last post you said the FAA is going to update the AC (that's Advisory Circular) to incorporate new technology. As long as it's an AC then we have nothing to worry about, again, because it's just an advisory document with no hard rules. Yes you will be on your own if something goes bad, duh. Perhaps I am misunderstanding you though.

MASHTON1138
2nd December 2011, 11:31 AM
No, you do not have to fly your model aircraft 400 feet or below and no you do not have to fly LOS. These are advisories, not rules or laws.

It is indeed an aircraft but in that document hobby/sport models are exempt from UAS rules and are not subject to any federal laws. There are only recommendations for safe operation.

In your last post you said the FAA is going to update the AC (that's Advisory Circular) to incorporate new technology. As long as it's an AC then we have nothing to worry about, again, because it's just an advisory document with no hard rules. Yes you will be on your own if something goes bad, duh. Perhaps I am misunderstanding you though.

I understand that J, I tried to point that out quite a few posts ago. I actually fly 2.98 miles away from an airport right now so I am limited to the 400 foot ceiling anyway. I should have pointed that out. Now there is a new flying site that the county is currently trying to set up for us that will be about 3.4 miles away and out of the flight path so then we wouldnt be subject to the ceiling of 400 feet. But we will only be allowed to fly there once it is open as they are going to change or create a few ordinaces on flying RC aircraft in the city/county.

Now I am a little more confused now on one thing. An Ultra-lite is considered an aircraft but as I understood a few years ago you did not need a pilots license or radio equipment of anykind to fly one just a COA. Has that changed? Maybe someone here flies Ultra-lites and could verify. My confusion is this if they require little to nothing to fly and realistically are far mor dangerous than a 2 pound or less RC plane how do they circumvent the FAAs rules for powered flight. Ugh!!! I am getting so frustrated with this.

Vitamin J
2nd December 2011, 12:07 PM
Sounds like you just need to fly .2 miles away from the airport to enjoy an unlimited ceiling :)

MASHTON1138
2nd December 2011, 12:33 PM
Yeah Just need to find a spot that works for us.

Drednox
2nd December 2011, 01:32 PM
The only way they could enforce that crap is if they spent tens of millions on hiring, training, and equipment for thousands of people to drive around all day hunting for some jackass with an rc plane. There's no money to be made in it, only money lost. The only way you'll get hit with any of that is if you really screw up and cause some serious damage with your plane that has your name and # plastered on it. Politicians worry about their image also. Could you imagine the media saying how they're wasting all that time, money, and resources on friggin rc planes? They'd look like fools. Especially in this economy. That's the reason they are going to use those spectacular words like terrorism, spying, public hazard, and then they'll show clips of crashed airliners saying 'this is what could happen'. Most of us fly over vast areas of nothing anyway so who's to know?

prelator
2nd December 2011, 01:46 PM
Yeah really. As a practical matter, you'd never really have to worry about these laws unless you do something really stupid, like crash in the middle of a freeway and cause a huge car accident or something. Otherwise nobody is going to care.

aeryck
2nd December 2011, 01:50 PM
Now I am a little more confused now on one thing. An Ultra-lite is considered an aircraft but as I understood a few years ago you did not need a pilots license or radio equipment of anykind to fly one just a COA. Has that changed? Maybe someone here flies Ultra-lites and could verify. My confusion is this if they require little to nothing to fly and realistically are far mor dangerous than a 2 pound or less RC plane how do they circumvent the FAAs rules for powered flight. Ugh!!! I am getting so frustrated with this.

I believe now you need a SPL, or Sport Pilots License, for ultralight and similar classed aircraft. The requirements are far less than the traditional license you would need for, say, a single-engine Cessna. There's specific categories of aircraft that the SPL applies to. I don't know all the details as I only briefly read about it a while ago.

You can find out more information about it here: http://www.sportpilot.org/ (That is, if you're interested in flying ultralights.)

MASHTON1138
2nd December 2011, 02:17 PM
not interested just curious because I see them as more dangerous in a failure that causes the craft to go down than we are. Thats all.

I do agree with the practical aspect of enforcement on these rules it would not be cost effective. It really would be more of a way to fry you if you screw up. They have regulations in place and you violate them, your plane goes down on a highway causing a huge wreck or you fly into a passenger jet causing it to crash then your ass is grass because they have all they need to get you and can make an example of you. At this point most of this discussion is speculation at best and until the new AC is released and any Regs to go with it.

Myron
2nd December 2011, 08:28 PM
@ Mashton.. An ultra-light has "sense and avoid" technology... your very own two peepers! Sense and avoid is the biggest buzzword besides safety at the FAA when it comes to these aircraft. They said they dont want to regulate recreational flyers but they have to because of the 1% of jackasses out there that ruin it for the rest of us.

YES I agree that enforcement will be a nightmare and if it happens, it will be done by the local PDl... And it will also be unlikely for any purely recreational pilot to fade any heat other than where he flies. However, some of us that want to do more with our birds will be under the gun...

@ Vitamin... you are partially correct about the Advisory 9157.. In earlier FAA documents I posted, the FAA DOES lump model airplanes in with full scale aircraft because they do fly in the NAS and there are laws and penalties in that area. They(FAA) is "working diligently" with the AMA to re-write 9157 to supposedly encompass FPV and small commercial UAV's.

@ Mashton "Now I am a little more confused now on one thing." and "Ugh!!! I am getting so frustrated with this." JOIN THE CLUB BROTHER!!

The whole thing is a confusing mess and I'm not here to be an alarmist or chicken little or anything... I'm just pointing out issues that may or may not pop up in the future when it comes to FPV..... You have read my history and other post I have made... I'm speaking 100% from personal experience in this field.... How do you think it feels when the FAA calls your cell phone and tells you not to fly a foamy with a camera to look for a missing person? Then you gotta tell the family.. sorry this technology cant be used to help find your pregnant daughter.... It SUX!!!

Myron

a_marmot
2nd December 2011, 08:36 PM
@ Marmot "For example, there isn't a distinction between commercial and non-commercial use of manned aircraft. Even if you operate a small plane as a hobby, you need a pilot’s license, your plane needs to comply with certain minimal safety standards, you have to know how to use the radio and talk to the control tower, etc. This is because your plane (no matter how small) flies within the national air space, and shares the sky with commercial airliners, small business aircraft, government aircraft, etc."

Yes there is! A private pilot cannot carry persons or cargo for compensation. If he wants to he has to get more certs and training to do so. I have a drivers license that allows me to drive a vehichle as long as it meets certain critera and its insured ect. I cannot start a taxi service or delivery service unless I get a different license.

Sure, of course. Perhaps I didn't word that very well. I didn't mean to say that the regulation is applied uniformly - only that it is applied to everyone who flies in the NAS. Certainly what you are allowed to do depends on your level of licensure and certification, but your activity is still regulated. Even ultralights (which don't require a pilots license), have heavy restrictions on where and when you can fly. If you want to fly from an airport, you need a pilot's license. With more privilege comes more licensing and certification.

I think my point was that these levels of certification are less about economics, and more about the degree or risk to others and/or responsibility you have as an operator. e.g. If you take passengers for hire, you have a responsibility to the safety of those passengers that extends beyond your own personal safety.

My hope is that when the regulations come, the FAA creates restrictions and licensing options that are not overly burdensome, yet allow FPV to share the NAS. I'd rather be told that I need special training, a license, and an aircraft communication system to fly above 400 feet than be told I cannot fly above 400 feet period.

Macsgrafs
4th December 2011, 09:52 AM
I have a drivers license that allows me to drive a vehichle as long as it meets certain critera and its insured ect. I cannot start a taxi service or delivery service unless I get a different license.



So that clearly tells me tht to use your car in a commercial means you need a license, but for travelling you do NOT need a license.
Commercial use could be...going to your place of employment, giving a mate a lift to work etc. Here in the UK people are starting to travel without licenses, etc as they are purely travelling & not for any commercial gain.
You guys need to go back to basics, research your Birth Certificate etc & suddeenly you will realise all statutes/acts are given the force of law with YOUR consent!

Myron
4th December 2011, 12:31 PM
@ Macsgrafs,

Why do you think I'm stock piling ammo!!... Some hear are calling it the "Tea Party" movement... I'm guessing you in the UK know a little about the original! :)
I disagree a bit though... It only takes just over half to get something turned into law... Being I am law abiding citizen (for the most part) I do want people on the road to be "certified" to drive a car.... For people flying model airplanes less than 5 lbs, I dont really see the point... But the Govt does because of the idiot 1%'s that ruin it for the rest of us...

Myron

Macsgrafs
4th December 2011, 02:59 PM
@ Macsgrafs,

Why do you think I'm stock piling ammo!!... Some hear are calling it the "Tea Party" movement... I'm guessing you in the UK know a little about the original! :)
I disagree a bit though... It only takes just over half to get something turned into law... Being I am law abiding citizen (for the most part) I do want people on the road to be "certified" to drive a car.... For people flying model airplanes less than 5 lbs, I dont really see the point... But the Govt does because of the idiot 1%'s that ruin it for the rest of us...

Myron

Your license is only needed when acting as an agent or employee of the government, but can they prove that in a court of law...NO!
Tea party...havent got a clue on this one, apart from it being some political party in the states.....I originally thought it was a Teddy bears picnic :)
In common law you dont need statutes..as there are only 4 laws to follow
1)No injury
2)No Harm
3)No loss
4)No fraudulent contracts
All these cna be condensed into 1 & 2. So what difference does a license make...none! Statutes are man made & against gods law, but please dont take my word for it...read the bible, you will find where God states "Man is not allowed to make his own laws"...so when you see Obama saying "God bless America", You know he's talking utter feces...because he wouldnt be makign statutes/acts if he followed gods law..we call it the Hypocritical states of Ammoca over here...but we have our own version as well, so please dont feel its just the states ;)

I see a UAV was shot down today over Iran!

Ross

Myron
4th December 2011, 10:12 PM
Lets not turn this into a religious debate.. Thats the last place it needs to go..

As far as the UAV.. the article kinda indicates that it may have crash landed and was not actually brought down by gunfire.. My guess it lost coms and was a fly away and managed to "land" itself.. I'm sure its going to be used as a propaganda piece either way..

Myron

volto
4th December 2011, 10:44 PM
I would bet that if com is lost it will keep flying it's designated course. It probably had engine trouble or some major failure.

SENTRY
4th December 2011, 10:50 PM
I would bet that if com is lost it will keep flying it's designated course. It probably had engine trouble or some major failure.

Agree. These have terrain detection and fresh maps are loaded at mission-planning. Sounds like a powertrain issue - POSSIBLY from small arms fire or a manpod or something. Let's just hope that there were no TOP SECRET sensors on it.

ni8av8r
5th December 2011, 01:36 AM
Good discussion going on here. I assume what started this was the "Notice of proposed rule making". Look at http://regs.dot.gov/rulemakings/201112/report.htm#8 for the schedule. Rules are coming. Might be a good idea to find a way to make some sort of positive impact on the process. This website is a good start. I'm guessing the AMA thinks r/c is just fine without FPV, or only if it occurs on AMA approved fields. I don't want to get too boxed in by rules but there is lots to consider. Great comments about safety, common sense, and just enjoying the hobby were made here. Since I'm putting some serious money into FPV equipment I sure want FPV to last, and I think it will. Even after 23 years in the military, 3 in civil service, and now flying wide-body aircraft for an airline, I can't wait to put on a pair of goggles and enjoy some ground rush. In the mean time I read the posts and crash foamies.

Macsgrafs
5th December 2011, 06:14 AM
Lets not turn this into a religious debate.. Thats the last place it needs to go..

Myron

Im not religious, but there is no harm seeing where things are wrong from the start! Surely its better to cure the problem rather than treat a problem?

Ross

Myron
5th December 2011, 10:08 AM
@ AV8R. Good link.. I'm gonna watch and see if the due dates keep changing..

@ Sentry and Volto... Wonder what happened to the Self Destruct button!... I'm still curious what they call it the "Beast of Kandahar".. this one is not armed.. as far as we know...

@ Macsfrafs.. Neither am I, but when you start using the "G" word, things can somehow turn weird real quick...


Lets try to keep this one on topic...

The link AV8R posted is a good one that does confirm what Steve Glowacki at the FAA told me over the phone... Its nice to know that my conversation with him wasnt smoke and mirrors.... He seemed genuine and indicated that the regs *MAY* not be to restrictive for the small business man or recreational flyer... It sure would be nice if all this huffin and puffin over the past 4 years turned out to be a non issue...

Myron

Vitamin J
5th December 2011, 10:50 AM
How do you think it feels when the FAA calls your cell phone and tells you not to fly a foamy with a camera to look for a missing person? Then you gotta tell the family.. sorry this technology cant be used to help find your pregnant daughter.... It SUX!!!

Myron
That freakin sucks and is just plain stupid. What's to stop you from doing the search as a "hobby?"

Myron
5th December 2011, 11:14 AM
Well, it sort of IS a hobby..kinda morbid huh?.. We actually have a 501c3 non-profit set up so we could prove to the FAA that we werent flying for compensation..

We beleive in this particular case that the FAA was fading alot of heat from the AOPA because we were within 5 miles of a muni... Either way, our foam wing flying LOS only was grounded... Thats me in the video.. there are more on my youtube channel....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mtyRMfLRX6Q

Myron