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

[AKfreak]

You are not allowed to fly an uncertified aircraft for compensation. Also the aircraft must be flown by a pilot that is certified to fly that specific type of craft and is current with both skills, and medical certification. Who is also responsible to know and follow every single FAA reg to the letter, or be subject to stiff Federal penalties.

It's a huge difference than some dude that went to a hobby shop bought a quad copter, slapped a gopro on it and started a aerial photography business don't you think.

 

[3dbandit]

It looks like there is an exception for commercial purposes.

(My interpretation bellow, not fact or official statement)

IF you can get a COA, a pilots license, and have your aircraft certified as airworthy, then it looks like you can make money with UAS as an individual. Only problem with this is the FAA doesn't like to give out COA waivers to everyone, very few have been granted, and only two UAS' have been certified (and they are only rated to fly in the Arctic for commercial use) (this excludes law enforcement UAS use)


I don't think we want, or the FAA to grant, RC companies the right to use model aircraft under COA waivers.

 

[njswede]

You are not allowed to fly an uncertified aircraft for compensation. Also the aircraft must be flown by a pilot that is certified to fly that specific type of craft and is current with both skills, and medical certification. Who is also responsible to know and follow every single FAA reg to the letter, or be subject to stiff Federal penalties.

It's a huge difference than some dude that went to a hobby shop bought a quad copter, slapped a gopro on it and started a aerial photography business don't you think.

But that's really not what we talked about here. I'll get to the aerial photography business later... My point had to do with the guy who occasionally appears in a video shoot for promotional material for an airplane vendor. And no, I don't think he needs to go through medical certification, and have every bolt of his airframe checked. What he's doing isn't that much different from what I'm doing as a hobby every weekend. If you look at the interpretation document, you'll see that the distinction between commercial and non-commercial gets completely absurd. If I'm flying my Phantom over my cornfield to check that the corn has enough water, it's OK, as long as I don't sell the corn. If I eat it myself, it's fine, but if I sell it to the neighbor, I'm breaking federal laws. The latter case does not pose a higher risk to anyone. The interpretation becomes completely arbitrary and has very little bearing on safety.

What I would like to see is an exemption for "casual commercial use". That way, there would be a little wiggle room for the guy who demos a plane or the farmer who checks his fields a couple of times a year. In fact, when I first read the distinction between checking the crops for profit and non-profit, I thought it was a joke.

So what about the guy running his aerial photography business using radio controlled vehicles? I agree with you that he needs some kind of certification. However, there are currently no way to get such a certification. Even if I paid a million dollars and spent a year in classes, I couldn't get it. Because it doesn't exist. And given the tone of the interpretation, I'm expecting the certification requirements to be extremely tough once they come out. Maybe even as tough as for manned flight. And I think that's absurd too. There is a huge difference between flying an unmanned camera vehicle weighing 10 pounds and a manned plane made up of a ton of metal! The risk the camera drone poses is negligible in comparison. However, there are much bigger issues, such as privacy concerns. But it's pretty silly when the FAA is trying to regulate 10 lbs unmanned vehicles under the pretense that they are somehow comparable to a Cessna 172.

BTW, this is a very interesting discussion!

 

[3dbandit]

But that's really not what we talked about here. I'll get to the aerial photography business later... My point had to do with the guy who occasionally appears in a video shoot for promotional material for an airplane vendor. And no, I don't think he needs to go through medical certification, and have every bolt of his airframe checked. What he's doing isn't that much different from what I'm doing as a hobby every weekend. If you look at the interpretation document, you'll see that the distinction between commercial and non-commercial gets completely absurd. If I'm flying my Phantom over my cornfield to check that the corn has enough water, it's OK, as long as I don't sell the corn. If I eat it myself, it's fine, but if I sell it to the neighbor, I'm breaking federal laws. The latter case does not pose a higher risk to anyone. The interpretation becomes completely arbitrary and has very little bearing on safety.

What I would like to see is an exemption for "casual commercial use". That way, there would be a little wiggle room for the guy who demos a plane or the farmer who checks his fields a couple of times a year. In fact, when I first read the distinction between checking the crops for profit and non-profit, I thought it was a joke.

So what about the guy running his aerial photography business using radio controlled vehicles? I agree with you that he needs some kind of certification. However, there are currently no way to get such a certification. Even if I paid a million dollars and spent a year in classes, I couldn't get it. Because it doesn't exist. And given the tone of the interpretation, I'm expecting the certification requirements to be extremely tough once they come out. Maybe even as tough as for manned flight. And I think that's absurd too. There is a huge difference between flying an unmanned camera vehicle weighing 10 pounds and a manned plane made up of a ton of metal! The risk the camera drone poses is negligible in comparison. However, there are much bigger issues, such as privacy concerns. But it's pretty silly when the FAA is trying to regulate 10 lbs unmanned vehicles under the pretense that they are somehow comparable to a Cessna 172.

BTW, this is a very interesting discussion!

Actually, the FAA has a means for applying to get a COA waiver for this stuff.

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org...e_units/systemops/aaim/organizations/uas/coa/

Only problem is like our last big federal application website, it doesn't work...

 

[AKfreak]

That's the problem with the Feds. The strokes are too broad and far reaching. When they, the Feds, decide to push their agenda they have no personal stake in the game. As long as they can convince that small group of clueless people who are with them, they can go any direction they want. The can reek havoc on the little guy who stands the chance loose everything in court, while personally they have lost nothing. They are just paid suits that get to press their agenda. It's really not a fair system.

I know what the laws are, and I choose to abide most of them. Like stop signs, I see the reason for them, and for me it's a good thing. Other laws, ones that I think are BS, I disregard them just like they don't even exist. I will live the way I want to live regardless. I try night to hurt people, and help as many as I can.

Personally I say fly it if you got it, don't hurt anyone, but if you do, pay the price.

 

[3Daddict]

I do not know about you guys, But I do not think there is any reason to make someone get a full scale pilots licence to fly an multirotor and take video and sell it. That would kill the new industry before it ever gets off the ground. They should just have a class or two you have to take on safety rules, and have you demonstrate that you can control the multi rotor safely. after all knowing how to fly a full scale plane will not help you at all with a rc multirotor. It just makes no sense at all.

 

[AKfreak]

I do not know about you guys, But I do not think there is any reason to make someone get a full scale pilots licence to fly an multirotor and take video and sell it. That would kill the new industry before it ever gets off the ground. They should just have a class or two you have to take on safety rules, and have you demonstrate that you can control the multi rotor safely. after all knowing how to fly a full scale plane will not help you at all with a rc multirotor. It just makes no sense at all.

Well I disagree with you, there is so much more going on to safely operate in any given airspace. As far as killing a new industry, this is the problem. The industry is totally illegal and until recently the FAA just let it slide.Things are in for big changes. A class or two, LOL

 

[3Daddict]

Well I disagree with you, there is so much more going on to safely operate in any given airspace. As far as killing a new industry, this is the problem. The industry is totally illegal and until recently the FAA just let it slide.Things are in for big changes. A class or two, LOL

flying 400 feet or lower you are never going to encounter another full scale plane anyhow so long as you are not near an airport. and it is not like these are the big Drones, just rc planes and multi rotors people are strapping cameras too. They seen to be doing fine is Austrailia now. Also i could go out right now with the multi rotor and take as much video as i wanted. That is perfectly legal. However if I were to sell that video then would have broken the law somehow.

 

[alawson999]

Check your email, looks like the AMA is giving us all guidance on how to get the results we want by responding in unison.

 

[gyro]

Well I disagree with you, there is so much more going on to safely operate in any given airspace. As far as killing a new industry, this is the problem. The industry is totally illegal and until recently the FAA just let it slide.Things are in for big changes. A class or two, LOL

I'm not sure I follow the whole model airplane/helicopter/multi-copter sect as an industry the FAA has complete jurisdiction over...

What I think is reasonable:

1- no flying above 500ft within 2mi of an airport, or 1000ft within 5mi.

2- regulation of the commercial industry. However, regulation without licensure or avenues to comply is illegal IMHO.

3- no restrictions on sponsored pilot/commercial model operation at AMA sanctioned events.

4- model/commercial aircraft certification when flown in congested area, or within close proximity to people. Obviously, this wouldn't apply at approved flying fields, but rather in city parks, residential areas, etc.

5- FPV flying at sanctioned fields or in unpopulated areas is allowed as long as a spotter can maintain sight of the aircraft. There is a precedent for this with military RPA that I'm sure the lawyers will find and exploit.

There is nothing wrong if government wants to get involved with regulating activities that could be potentially dangerous to the population, however a knee jerk reaction that makes it impossible to participate in an entire hobby virtually overnight, is absurd.