[NSRCA-discussion] FAA Rules

Tue Jun 24 17:03:01 AKDT 2014

Well, here's how my thinking went..

Part I, regarding the history of FAA regulation of models and sUAS mentions
the 400 foot rule, guideline 91-57 and further clarification of 91-57 from
2007.

Part II goes on to discuss the statutory requirements in section 336 of the
modernization act.  "the aircraft is operated in accordance with a
community-based (read: AMA, for now the only FAA-recognized organization)
set of safety guidelines..." "the aricraft is operated in a manner that
does not interfere with and gives way to any manned aircraft" and, "when
flown within 5 miles of an airport, the operator of the aircraft provides
the airport operator and the airport ATC tower with prior notice of the
operation" -- when operated as described would be exempt from FUTURE
rulemaking (i.e. implying 91-57 could still be in force).  Similarly, they
say that the law onely prohibits rulemaking specifically "regarding a model
aircraft" the prohibition does not apply in the case of general rules that
they may issue that apply to ALL aircraft such as rules addressing the use
of airspace for safety or security reasons.

They then go on for a long time to justify why they can exclude
goggle-based FPV and any BLOS flight by a sUAS, including a model aircraft.

Then they go to define what constitutes non-hobby flying, and they are
taking a VERY broad view of that (arguably, sponsored pilots would be "not
hobby" pilots).

Similarly, in referencing community based rules, they reference the AMA
safety rules which also has a 400 foot rule (but only within 3 miles of an
airport, if we assume, at the minimum, the AMA would be asked to extend to
5 miles instead of 3 miles, we have quite a few fields that would be
impacted.

PArt III (Scope of FAA enforcement authority) they state:

Reading the broad reference to the NAS, along with Congress’ clear interest
in
ensuring that model aircraft are safely operated, we conclude that Congress
intended for
the FAA to be able to rely on a* range of our existing regulation*s to
protect users of the
airspace and people and property on the ground.

Part IV: Examples of Regulations that Apply to Model Aircraft

The FAA could apply several regulations in part 91 when determining whether
to
take enforcement action against a model aircraft operator for endangering
the NAS.

[PAV -- correct me if I'm wrong, but circular 91-57 is, in fact, considered
an extension of part 91?]

All of that said, in the most liberal and favorable interpretation of this
document, the 400 foot everywhere rule implied by 91-57, does, in fact,  go
away.  But I think one of the things the AMA should be asking for in the
public comment should be clarification that models and full scale can, in
fact, share airspace (as implied by several statements in this document)
and therefore the 400 foot rule is null & void and it becomes a standard
See & Avoid rule as applies to all aircraft in the NAS, regardless of type
or altitude.

Peter+

On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 5:04 PM, SilentAV8R <Silentav8r at cox.net> wrote:

>  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&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 listNSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.orghttp://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
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>  --
> Director, Fixed Wing Flight Training
> Santa Clara County Model Aircraft Skypark
>
>
>

-- 
Director, Fixed Wing Flight Training
Santa Clara County Model Aircraft Skypark
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20140625/156ff6ce/attachment.html>