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

[dth7]

The 3DRCForums -Discuss Anything Thread-

I think this FAA stuff from this week needs its own thread.

AMA's Response: http://www.modelaircraft.org/files/FAAInterpretiveRule.pdf

Good idea! "FAA 2014-0396- interpretation of new rule for Model Aircraft" would make a good title- thanks [MENTION=139]aronph[/MENTION]
My suggestion and what I plan to do when the memo is published on regulation.org for comment is to copy and paste this AMA response.
Thanks for posting it.
Hey Gary I think this does deserve thread, sadly. Time for a little activism in the ranks to re educate our elected fools in DC!

 

[aronph]

Dont title it "Government BS". Title it something like "2014 AMA/FAA Regs". If you you title it "Government BS" the thread will fill up so fast it will crash the servers. Then somebody will want to see records. Then somebody will "lose" them. Then.......

 

[dth7]

The 3DRCForums -Discuss Anything Thread-

Dont title it "Government BS". Title it something like "2014 AMA/FAA Regs". If you you title it "Government BS" the thread will fill up so fast it will crash the servers. Then somebody will want to see records. Then somebody will "lose" them. Then.......

Yes you are correct, good idea. I did just check and it is not up for comment yet. However the comments are due by July 25th! Only 30 days! Nice! This will require some action.
I plan to comment on line but in the mean time I printed the AMA response that I will fax with a letter stating my comments as well. I'm going to suggest to AMA that they put out a form letter response that the membership can copy and paste or print and mail, fax, etc. this is what the airline pilots union does.

 

[dth7]

Thanks [MENTION=109]NJSwede[/MENTION]

 

[Azhar]

I dont think FPV./Goggle is banned (unless you are flying out of line of sight). Remember, this a radio controlled hobby, not UAV . A UAV is almost autonomous. What the FAA is trying to avoid is loss of control when it is out of sight. So FPV flights will eventually require a spotter (if not already a requirement). Commercial flights (manned or unmanned) are highly regulated, the hobby stuff is not. They dont want to see Tom, **** and Mary flying iffy stuff and crashing them into something. That is the bottom line from FAA.

Now, it will be interesting to see how local enforcement interpret the law. Hopefully common sense will prevail.

Also remember, your local law enforcement also want to play with these toys and dont want anyone encroaching their airspace.

 

[njswede]

Actually, it's pretty clear that the interpretation bans FPV googles.

(Full document here: http://02b954f.netsolhost.com/docs/model_aircraft_spec_rule.pdf)

By definition, a model aircraft must be “flown within visual line of sight of the
person operating the aircraft.” P.L. 112-95, section 336(c)(2).
1
Based on the plain
language of the statute, the FAA interprets this requirement to mean that: (1) the aircraft
must be visible at all times to the operator; (2) that the operator must use his or her own
natural vision (which includes vision corrected by standard eyeglasses or contact lenses)
to observe the aircraft; and (3) people other than the operator may not be used in lieu of
the operator for maintaining visual line of sight. Under the criteria above, visual line of
sight would mean that the operator has an unobstructed view of the model aircraft. To
ensure that the operator has the best view of the aircraft, the statutory requirement would
preclude the use of vision-enhancing devices, such as binoculars, night vision goggles,
powered vision magnifying devices, and goggles designed to provide a “first-person
view” from the model. reducing his or her ability to see-and-avoid other aircraft in the area. Additionally, some
of these devices could dramatically increase the distance at which an operator could see
the aircraft, rendering the statutory visual-line-of-sight requirements meaningless.

 

[Azhar]

You are right. But I think it need to be voiced out by AMA that if a spotter is used, and teh model is withing line of sight of the spotter, than it should be fine. This is where the FPV guys needs to voice out to the AMA to advocate for them.

But i think it does not preclude flying with a monitor.

 

[hone]

AMA response. Seems they're not too happy with it.
http://www.modelaircraft.org/files/FAAInterpretiveRule.pdf

 

[njswede]

Nope. The FAA covered that too:

Finally, based on the plain language of the statute, which says that aircraft must be
“flown within the visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft,” an operator
could not rely on another person to satisfy the visual line of sight requirement. See id.
(emphasis added). While the statute would not preclude using an observer to augment the
safety of the operation, the operator must be able to view the aircraft at all times.

It actually gets worse than that. The FAA says that it still has jurisdiction over model aircraft, since they fall under the generic term "aircraft". In other words, FAA says they are only barred from regulating model aircraft specifically, but nothing stops them from regulating them as part of other non-model-related aircraft.

I'm not a lawyer, but I'm not sure the latter would stand up in court if challenged.

 

[Azhar]

I know it says that but AMA needs to stand up and challenge the spotter rule.