<div dir="ltr">Well, here's how my thinking went..<div><br></div><div>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.</div>
<div><br></div><div>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. </div>
<div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>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).</div>
<div><br></div><div>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. </div>
<div><br></div><div>PArt III (Scope of FAA enforcement authority) they state:</div><div><br></div><div><div>Reading the broad reference to the NAS, along with Congress’ clear interest in </div><div>ensuring that model aircraft are safely operated, we conclude that Congress intended for </div>
<div>the FAA to be able to rely on a<b style="background-color:rgb(255,255,0)"> range of our existing regulation</b>s to protect users of the </div><div>airspace and people and property on the ground. </div></div><div><br>
</div><div>Part IV: Examples of Regulations that Apply to Model Aircraft</div><div><br></div><div><div>The FAA could apply several regulations in part 91 when determining whether to </div><div>take enforcement action against a model aircraft operator for endangering the NAS.</div>
</div><div><br></div><div>[PAV -- correct me if I'm wrong, but circular 91-57 is, in fact, considered an extension of part 91?]</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>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.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Peter+</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 5:04 PM, SilentAV8R <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:Silentav8r@cox.net" target="_blank">Silentav8r@cox.net</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div>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. <br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Bill<div class=""><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 6/24/14, 4:57 PM, Peter Vogel wrote:<br>
</div></div>
<blockquote type="cite"><div class="">
<div dir="ltr">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.
<div>
<br>
</div>
<div>Peter+</div>
</div>
</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote"><div class="">On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 4:48 PM,
SilentAV8R <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:Silentav8r@cox.net" target="_blank">Silentav8r@cox.net</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
</div><div><div class="h5"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div>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??
<div><br>
<br>
<br>
On 6/24/14, 10:47 AM, Peter Vogel wrote:<br>
</div>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">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.
<div> <br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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.</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 7:58 AM,
SilentAV8R via NSRCA-discussion <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org" target="_blank">nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div>Actually, the FAA is now prohibiting
FPV of any kind.<br>
<br>
<a href="http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-faa-is-trying-to-ban-first-person-view-drone-flights?trk_source=recommended" target="_blank">http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-faa-is-trying-to-ban-first-person-view-drone-flights?trk_source=recommended</a><br>
<br>
<a href="http://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsId=16474&cid=TW223" target="_blank">http://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsId=16474&cid=TW223</a><br>
<br>
<a href="http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/uas/media/model_aircraft_spec_rule.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/uas/media/model_aircraft_spec_rule.pdf</a><br>
<br>
Bill
<div>
<div><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 6/24/14, 7:27 AM, Scott McHarg via
NSRCA-discussion wrote:<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_default">Gentlemen,</div>
<div class="gmail_default"> <br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default">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.</div>
<div class="gmail_default"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default"><font color="#0000ff" face="comic sans
ms, sans-serif"><a href="http://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/news/2014/06/23/faa-drones-rules-model-hobbyist-plane-pilots/11268597/" target="_blank">http://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/news/2014/06/23/faa-drones-rules-model-hobbyist-plane-pilots/11268597/</a></font><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default"><font color="#0000ff" face="comic sans
ms, sans-serif"><br>
</font></div>
<div class="gmail_default"><font color="#0000ff" face="comic sans
ms, sans-serif"><br>
</font></div>
<div> <br>
</div>
-- <br>
<b style="color:rgb(51,51,255)"><font size="4">Scott A. McHarg</font></b><br>
Sr. Systems Engineer -
Infrastructure<br>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset></fieldset>
<br>
</div>
</div>
<pre>_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
<a href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org" target="_blank">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a>
<a href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion" target="_blank">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</a></pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
NSRCA-discussion mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org" target="_blank">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion" target="_blank">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<br clear="all">
<div><br>
</div>
<div> -- <br>
<div>Director, Fixed Wing Flight Training</div>
<div>Santa Clara County Model Aircraft Skypark</div>
<img src="http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7163/6513778381_5569cc985d_m.jpg" height="154" width="200"><br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div></div></div><div><div class="h5">
<br>
<br clear="all">
<div><br>
</div>
-- <br>
<div>Director, Fixed Wing Flight Training</div>
<div>Santa Clara County Model Aircraft Skypark</div>
<img src="http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7163/6513778381_5569cc985d_m.jpg" height="154" width="200"><br>
</div></div></div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div>Director, Fixed Wing Flight Training</div><div>Santa Clara County Model Aircraft Skypark</div><img src="http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7163/6513778381_5569cc985d_m.jpg" width="200" height="154"><br>
</div>