In this interpretation, we explain the history of FAA oversight of model aircraft operations and the new statutory requirements that apply to model aircraft operations, and then clarify how the FAA intends to apply its enforcement authority to model aircraft operations that endanger the safety of the National Airspace System (NAS).

(3) UAS used as model aircraft. With respect to UAS used as model aircraft, the FAA reiterated the operating guidelines in AC 91-57, and further noted that to qualify as a model aircraft, the aircraft would need to be operated purely for recreational or hobby purposes, and within the visual line of sight of the operator.

UAS fall within the statutory and regulatory definition of “aircraft” as they are devices that are “used or [are] intended to be used for flight in the air with no onboard pilot.”

My cost of flying just went down. I don't have to subsidize all those name guys anymore with increased product cost.

Yes and no. I wouldn't expect manuf. to change any pricing. For what the pay some of the sponsored pilots it may amount to pennies per heli sold in savings for them. However, since they can't flight display their products at events I'd expect them to stop sponsoring events. Since they can't develop anything and flight test without commercially rated pilots, I wouldn't expect much development within this country, so I don't see it as making the hobby less expensive, it will probably be more expensive as manufacturers die off and there is less competition.

And yes, I always view the glass as half empty,..unfortunately.

Gary Wright

Like Gary said, IRCHA just became just another FF, no Demo pilots, no Sponsors just a bunch of Hoosiers kicking back enjoying the rarified air while a bunch of amateurs have some fun in the sun. Come to think about it I can do that in my back yard. Thanks Gary, you just saved me money on travel this summer.

(3) UAS used as model aircraft. With respect to UAS used as model aircraft, the FAA reiterated the operating guidelines in AC 91-57, and further noted that to qualify as a model aircraft, the aircraft would need to be operated purely for recreational or hobby purposes, and within the visual line of sight of the operator.
UAS fall within the statutory and regulatory definition of “aircraft” as they are devices that are “used or [are] intended to be used for flight in the air with no onboard pilot.”

You may want to send that memo to all the folks that can't fly "line of sight" and use FPV as a crutch since by the rules they would need spotters whenever they are doing their FPV gig as well as have "line of sight" capabilities on top of that. I would also direct your attention to this little blurb: "The FAA interpretive rule effectively negates Congress' intentions, and is contrary to the law. Section 336(a) of the Public Law states that, 'the Federal Aviation Administration may not promulgate any rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft...', this previously subject to and is in direct violation of the interpretive rule specifically addresses model aircraft, effectively establishes rules that model aircraft were not congressional mandate in the 2012 FAA reauthorization bill." I am optimistic that this whole shooting match will be tied up in court for years to come.

Delayed Response Operator Not Engaged
AMA SECTION 336 = Good
Drones = EVIL

reason for FPV being banned

"Fly at just 100 FT in the air or over 10,000!"

http://www.marcusuav.com/zephyruav/

336(a)

attention to this little blurb

"if"

Line of sight hobbyists need not worry....factory pilots that are compensated (compensation is more than receiving $$$) may have some issues down the road. The AMA was hugely involved with the language that was put into law to protect the hobbyist.

Response from ReadyMadeRC

http://www.readymaderc.com/FAA/RMRC_FAA.pdf

We need to identify who in the FAA is pushing this agenda and publish their names and actions.

pay attention

identify who

read the pdf

So . . . what page is the perpetrator's name on ?

FAA ~ AMA

So

1:0

Those of you flying FPV and are questioning this position of the FAA, are missing a big point. According to the AMA, you should have been flying with a spotter, that made sure the aircraft was within line of sight, since the AMA published their updated Safety Code a long time ago. If you have not been using a spotter, you were not covered by the AMA insurance. Now, if you are not following the AMA rules to begin with, why are you suddenly worried about the FAA?

As an FPV pilot I have an issue with the spotter requirement, always have.

If I am flying a quad in my back yard. going no higher than my roof. Why do I need a spotter? I have a privacy fence that prevents anyone from entering my back yard. If I were to run into a full scale airplane, I wouldn't worry, because it would have to be in the process of crashing into my house for me to hit it. I would be far more concerned about the resulting fireball.

What about the people who do not live in the city, nor do they live near any airports? They fly on their property or property of people they have known for years. In the past 20 years no aircraft has ever passed over their land at under 30,000 feet. There is no reason to expect that just because they decide to fly FPV some rogue pilot will decide to overfly his location at under 500 feet, just when he happens to be under his goggles, when it hasn't happened in the past decade. Even If the billion to one odds lined up against this guy and a plane did come in flying lower than 500 feet, how would that be any different than the guy who has his back to the aircraft and is watching his LOS model?

What about the case when an FPV pilot is at the good old model airplane airfield? One that has had a NOTAM on it for decades. There are helicopters, jets, war birds, 33% 40% giant scale aircraft all filling the sky. Why would an FPV pilot be the danger? When chances are the FPV pilot would actually see the aircraft approaching long before the rest of the pilots. If you tell and FPV pilot to land his plane, he doesn't have to get to the runway he can land just as well anywhere. It makes no difference to him if he lands on the runway or the opposite corner of the field, his landing will still be just as easy/competent. How many LOS pilots typically have to make at least 3 or 4 attempts at a landing on the runway? How many times had someone had to make an emergency go around on a landing because someone's plane had stopped on a take off roll because the engine was too rich, and it took the whole field screaming at him to get him to go around because he had his back to the problem on the runway. The FPV pilots can always see where he's going and what's in front of him, and always knows what orientation he's in. Some can turn their cameras to see what's left right and behind. Not to mention the last time I flew I knew EXACTLY how high I was, looking on my OSD. How many of those big planes bust the 400 foot rule? How would they even know? How would a spotter know?

The spotter rule was concocted by people who are not in the FPV hobby. Sure in some circumstances it's a good idea. In those circumstances EVERYONE should use one, to include LOS pilots, but making it a hard and fast rule. Is a waste of everyone's time. It causes people to believe that LOS is in some way safer than FPV.

Why are we concerned with the FAA? because until recently the FAA requested, stay under 400AGL and away from airports. Which I did, and I played with my toys my way. Now they are telling me not only to stay away from the airplanes, airports and airspace which they control, but how to play with my toys period. If an airplane isn't supposed to be within 500 feet of me EVER, then it shouldn't matter to the FAA what I do in those 500 feet. If My toy hits someone else or their property, that is not the concern of the FAA, as long as my toy was out of their airspace and away from their airplanes. My concern isn't for the AMA's supplemental insurance. It's for being within the guidelines of the FAA, and I think the FAA may be over reaching just a bit. I fly model airplanes and helicopters, I can also fly kites, throw Frisbees and launch model rockets. I think the FAA needs to stay in the airspace business and out of the hobby business.

now is everyone certain this whole schpeeloozerl isn't an effort on behalf of whacko lawyers to stir the pot? and hobbyests aren't caught in the middle? like monkeys? hey hey?

I suggest that no one overreact to this latest nonsense from the FAA. Simply provide your input via the public comment period (AMA should have already sent you an email of how to do this in the past day or so) for the NPRM FAA-2014-0396 and contact your elected officials in Washington.

We will likely see some intense Congressional guidance of the FAA shortly. You see they not only have targeted model aircraft in defiance of Congress, but they just pulled the proverbial tiger's tail with proposed new building height restricts within up to 10 miles of an airport. The economic impact to real estate properties in some of the most desirable and densely populated areas of our country would be hundreds of billions of dollars. This has mobilized the real estate community (some with insanely deep pockets) to contact their representatives in Washington. This is a great thing for us modelers. We can tag along with the real estate moguls to let Congress know it's time to put the FAA in its proper place - which does not include regulating RC models of any sort and/or adversely impacting an airport's host community more than they already do.

http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2014...rk-during-game/

This is the sort of thing that is causing us all a big problem. I guess we can thanks the folks at DJI for producing a system that any moron can buy and any moron can fly so they can go out and do moronic things like flying a quad over a Pirates game. This is exactly the sort of thing the draws attention to our hobby and incites an FAA opinion as outlined in the story above. Anyone that is a long time RR member hopefully knows better than to do this BS with a model.

Delayed Response Operator Not Engaged
AMA SECTION 336 = Good
Drones = EVIL

No, no, it's not DJI's fault for producing the Phantom. It is, and always has been, the fault of the user for how the product is used. Remember the old saying "guns don't kill people, people kill people"? Same thing here.

As for the new interpretation, of course go and submit a comment (I put mine in the next day), but I think it's all over but the shouting. FPV will be regulated as something other than "model aircraft" and that's the end of the story. The FAA will not be deterred; we are no longer "model aircraft" and we can count on a new set of rules on us as such for our FPV ops.

We should instead shift our concentration to trying to minimize the horribleness of whatever rules they come up with at this point, at least as soon as we have the opportunity to do so. There will be an NPRM eventually that outlines what the proposed regulations will be and we can participate in that when it happens.

And I had just gotten good enough to start doing hovering autos with my FPV trex 800!... dammit..

LS

FAA Involvement due to idiots

Here is the problem. I fly Helis and Multirotors. I've been flying since the 80's and was an early adopter of multirotors. "Way back when" there was a time that you had to find a mentor to help you learn to fly, or you found an areas where you could practice and crash all by yourself.

The Multirotor changed all of that. Suddenly, there was an R/C Aircraft that could be flown by a rank amateur. People came out of the woodwork to buy and fly these amazing machines. Then someone put a camera on one. Now the whole scene changed. People became "Film-makers" and used the Multis as a camera platform. Then they started to fly them over houses, crowds, gatherings etc. Then they began to crash them into buildings, crowds, houses etc. In other words, people who had NO EXPERIENCE, didn't know the AMA from a hole in the ground, (which they often made themselves) couldn't fly their model back to themselves without course lock or home lock or failsafe, were in the air.

Of course the press got wind of this and began the "DRONE" scare. "They're going to look in your bedroom window!", "NO ONE IS SAFE!!!"

Companies like Amazon and Pizza companies used Multirotors in an absurd advertising campaign about delivering packages and pizza with "drones" (aka multirotors). The Public (which is dumber than the government) bought this hook line and Naza. No one mentioned the 15 minute run time on a 5000 pack (with NO LOAD). So deliveries are in a half block area?

The government isn't concerned with finding out the truth about multirotors, all they care about is that someone isn't cutting in on their turf, so FAA decided that new regulations need to be proposed because the R/C hobby has a fair amount of idiots participating.

Maybe the industry needs to limit the sales of R/C aircraft to AMA members only. It wouldn't stop the morons, but at least they would have to comply with joining the association, and maybe, just MAYBE, they would be a little more intelligent in the way they operate.

Pandora's box is open and no one can close it. The only thing you can do is try to educate the uneducable and hope that we're not banned outright. (although I can forsee a 'TAX" being imposed to gain clearance to fly).

It's the same 'ole story.
Pass more laws so the idiots can't act like idiots,
. . . instead of holding the idiots directly responsible for their idiocy.

When you try to make something idiot proof, all you get is a smarter idiot.

It's the same 'ole story.
Pass more laws so the idiots can't act like idiots,
. . . instead of holding the idiots directly responsible for their idiocy.
When you try to make something idiot proof, all you get is a smarter idiot.

Exactly!