• If you are new to GiantScaleNews.com, please register, introduce yourself, and make yourself at home.

    We're 1st in Giant Scale RC because we've got the best membership on the internet! Take a look around and don't forget to register to get all of the benefits of GSN membership!

    Welcome!

FAA 2014-0396- interpretation of new rule for Model Aircraft

alawson999

70cc twin V2
As I watch the news this week, I see that booth Google and Amazon appear to actaully be serious about fielding door to door package deliver by autonomous aerial vehicle ( I refuse to use the "D" word).

I have a hypothesis that the FAA will not be able to hold it's position in the face of two private, powerful companies. Too much money and legal clout will likely force concessions that the AMA and all of us individual taxpayers could not.

Of course, the next question is "concessions to do what? beneficial, detremental or irrlelevant to the interests of our hobby?"

Since we all are likely to be regular users of Google and Amazon - maybe we should be doing a little lobbying with them as well?

What do you think?
 

aronph

70cc twin V2
I think the FAA should put heavy sanctions on commercial drone use. It's going to be a disaster and the normal "know nothings" are going to want fpv/drone/rc banned completely because they are idiots
 

njswede

150cc
I'm not sure Google and Amazon are beneficial to our cause. In fact, they'd probably be happy if they could monopolize the skies and keep us regular folks grounded.

Also, I think Aron is making an interesting point. It seems like AMA is fighting on behalf of commercial drone operators to some extent. I think Aron is correct that we, as modelers, need to separate ourselves from the commercial FPV folks and to some extent from the hobby FPV people. That proverbial crap will hit the fan sooner or later, when the skies fill up with random FPV vehicles operated by people without skills or even interest in learning. I spoke to a friend who lives in Brooklyn and he's telling me that every hipster now has a Phantom and is flying around in the city snapping pictures. AMA needs to take a must firmer stance that that's not what we're about. I would even go as far as to say they should sacrifice FPV if (or when) the entire hobby is threatened with extinction. FPV *will* be heavily regulated. And soon. Let's not get dragged into that just because our aircraft happen to be radio operated as well!
 

aronph

70cc twin V2
Theres a simple solution here that doesn't involve the AMA at all. The FAA simply needs to put common sense laws in place. In scale aviation, the laws change between Private and Commercial lisenses. The same should apply to RC. If you are using an RC aircraft commercially, regulate it so the personal use of RC is not affected (or INfected) by commercial incidents.
 

AKfreak

150cc
I hope that the FAA gets on the ball and writes the rules to add UAVs into the general aviation and commercial sectors. I for one would love to add a UAV endorsement to my ticket. Experimental UAV, it has a certain ring to it don't you think? Maybe then the FAA will leave us to our toys.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

AKfreak

150cc
Theres a simple solution here that doesn't involve the AMA at all. The FAA simply needs to put common sense laws in place. In scale aviation, the laws change between Private and Commercial lisenses. The same should apply to RC. If you are using an RC aircraft commercially, regulate it so the personal use of RC is not affected (or INfected) by commercial incidents.

Amen brother!
 

3dmike

640cc Uber Pimp
Here is an article [MENTION=3]GYRO[/MENTION] forwarded to me a couple minutes ago. Yicks!



Some very bad news for drone pilots this morning: An appeals board has ruled that the Federal Aviation Administration has wide latitude to make all drone flights illegal in the United States.


​The decision, by the National Transportation Safety Board, determined that the FAA's existing "aircraft" regulations can apply to model aircraft, drones, and remote controlled aircraft, which is perhaps the most restrictive possible outcome for drone pilots in a legal saga that has dragged on for more than a year.


The case, ​which we have covered extensively, concerns Raphael "Trappy" Pirker, a Swiss pilot who was fined $10,000 by the FAA for a "reckless flight" at the University of Virginia in 2011. There was nothing overly interesting about Pirker's flight, other than the fact that he was paid for his work—something that the FAA has been trying to say is illegal for quite some time now. Pirker originally won his court case, in which a federal judge ruled that model aircraft aren't technically "aircraft" subject to the FAA's existing regulations.

[video=youtube;OZnJeuAja-4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZnJeuAja-4[/video]

The appeals board disagreed, saying that the federal "definitions on their face do not exclude even a 'model aircraft' from the meaning of 'aircraft.'"


"Furthermore, the definitions draw no distinction between whether a device is manned or unmanned," the board wrote. " ​An aircraft is 'any' 'device' that is 'used for flight.' We acknowledge the definitions are as broad as they are clear, but they are clear nonetheless."


The decision is close to what the FAA originally pushed for, ​which is so broad that perhaps frisbees and baseballs could be considered "aircraft."


And that's the devastating part of this decision for drone enthusiasts: The FAA's existing aircraft regulations cannot be reconciled with its guidelines for model aircraft flights. ​The statute that the FAA used to fine Pirker suggests that any flight by an "aircraft" below 500 feet can be considered reckless. The FAA's model aircraft guidelines, meanwhile, suggest that any flight over 400 feet by a drone is unsafe and potentially illegal.


" With this decision, the NTSB has declared model aircraft, paper airplanes and even children's toys to be 'aircraft,' subject to the same regulations as 747s, which ignores entirely the fact that for decades none has ever been treated as such," Peter Sachs, a Connecticut-based lawyer and founder of the Drone Pilots Association told me. "I don't think that's what Congress ever intended or that common sense and logic support today's NTSB's decision."


Brendan Schulman, Pirker's lawyer, told me that the court failed to address "whether the safe operation of drones for business purposes is prohibited by any law" and said that he is "reviewing options for our next steps in the Pirker case."


In this particular instance, the case was sent back down to a lower court for more evidence gathering and a discussion of whether Pirker’s flight was actually “reckless.” But, considering the FAA’s definition that any flight under 500 feet by an aircraft is reckless, that seems like a mere formality.


"While we disagree with the decision, today’s NTSB ruling in the Pirker case is narrowly limited to whether unmanned aircraft systems are subject to an aviation safety regulation concerning reckless operation," Schulman said, which is "an issue that the NTSB has said requires further factual investigation before a penalty is imposed."


So, for the time being, any drone flight by anyone in the country can be considered "reckless" by the FAA under the NTSB's latest ruling, meaning that the FAA can fine you $10,000 for flying one anywhere, for any purpose. And the fact that "any device that is used for flight" can be considered an aircraft seems to suggest that even tiny toy aircraft are subject to the FAA's whim.


Whether that's likely is another question altogether, but it's sure to have a chilling effect on the industry until the FAA releases clear drone regulations—something that it says it will do before the end of the year. It has missed multiple deadlines for that, so I wouldn't hold your breath. The state of drone regulations were already a mess—things just got a bit messier.

NTSB ruling

Article link: http://motherboard.vice.com/read/faa-can-make-all-drone-flights-illegal-appeals-court-rules
 

3dbandit

100cc
This is very upsetting.

Rc aircraft classified as full aircraft...

The guy was flying a 5 pound flying wing with no fpv or cameras, what's the big deal,..
 
Top