[NSRCA-discussion] FAA Rules

Tue Jun 24 16:45:03 AKDT 2014

http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/uas/media/model_aircraft_spec_rule.pdf

Paragraph I.   last sentence.

From: NSRCA-discussion [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of SilentAV8R via NSRCA-discussion
Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2014 7:05 PM
To: Peter Vogel
Cc: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] FAA Rules

Can you tell me where that is?? The one and only pace the FAA ever mentioned 400 feet was in AC 91-57, which is no longer in effect based on their new "interpretation." Section 336 makes no mention of altitudes and based on what the FAA is saying is they will selectively apply specific sections of Part 1 in a case where enforcement action is required. They even said it would be a case by case basis.   

This thing is onerous enough without reading more into it than is there. AMA is crafting a response right now and I suspect that there will be more clarification coming shortly. One thing is certain, BLOS and FPV are dead as of yesterday. No exceptions or wiggle room there.

Bill

On 6/24/14, 4:57 PM, Peter Vogel wrote:

There are several references to "rules for model aviation in the NAS already existing in section 91" (where the 400 foot rule exists) with the extended authorization of the modernization act to operations within 5 miles of an airport. 

Peter+

On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 4:48 PM, SilentAV8R <Silentav8r at cox.net> wrote:

I have read it twice now and I have not seen any specific mention of the "400-foot rule."  Can you cite the section of the document since it appears I missed it?? 

On 6/24/14, 10:47 AM, Peter Vogel wrote:

I read the full text of their interpretation of the "special rule for model aircraft" last night, I think the potential impact to pattern is their attempt to reinforce the 400 foot altitude limit (with no radius considerations for full scale airports) and extend the full scale airport notification radius to 5 miles (from 3 that was in 91-57) to require notification of model aircraft activity. 

Their absolute denial of goggle-based FPV (the pilot MUST always maintain LOS to their plane, it's not sufficient to have a spotter ready to take over) is going to create a lot of lawlessness in the FPV community but shouldn't impact pattern.

On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 7:58 AM, SilentAV8R via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:

Actually, the FAA is now prohibiting FPV of any kind.

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-faa-is-trying-to-ban-first-person-view-drone-flights?trk_source=recommended

http://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsId=16474 <http://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsId=16474&cid=TW223> &cid=TW223

http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/uas/media/model_aircraft_spec_rule.pdf

Bill 

On 6/24/14, 7:27 AM, Scott McHarg via NSRCA-discussion wrote:

Gentlemen,

This article was published in USA Today.  It doesn't really affect us as Pattern folk but it is something we should be cognizant of as well as be on the lookout at our local fields for.  The main thing is that the FAA is allowing FPV flight but not outside of visual range.  I've seen many many people take their quad copters far beyond visual range.  Big fines can happen for sure.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/news/2014/06/23/faa-drones-rules-model-hobbyist-plane-pilots/11268597/

-- 
Scott A. McHarg
Sr. Systems Engineer - Infrastructure

_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

-- 

Director, Fixed Wing Flight Training

Santa Clara County Model Aircraft Skypark

  <http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7163/6513778381_5569cc985d_m.jpg> 

-- 

Director, Fixed Wing Flight Training

Santa Clara County Model Aircraft Skypark

  <http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7163/6513778381_5569cc985d_m.jpg> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20140625/305f20e3/attachment.html>