Research using IRIS..not allowed!?

Gary McCray February 28, 2015 at 8:45pm

Hi Dan,

It does not seem to me that the (non-recreational - hobbyist - non-commercial) issue itself needs to stop you here.

You are definitely doing this as a non-commercial venture for which you will receive no compensation and you could certainly reasonably maintain that this is in fact, your hobby and thus is a recreational venture.

The fact that your hobby is gathering scientific information does not detract from it's "recreational" status.

That said, as long as you can point out that you are in fact intending to fly below 400 feet, not within 5 miles of an airport and that you will maintain visual line of sight at all times, you are fully qualified to fly under the current hobbyist rules.

And this is the tack you should take if you are seeking permission from the USFS, they have already responded to you that you need to demonstrate your compliance, and if you simply copy this model aircraft link from the FAA website and indicate your intention to follow every single one of those rules, you will in fact have fulfilled the standard the USFS set for you.

https://www.faa.gov/uas/model_aircraft/

That said, I think at that point low level supervisor number one who sent that response to you will then contact higher level supervisor number 2 who will say no we have rules against allowing flight of any aircraft in our jurisdiction.

But it is at least worth a shot.

Best Regards,

Gary

Dan McKenna > Gary McCray February 28, 2015 at 8:54pm

That said, as long as you can point out that you are in fact intending to fly below 400 feet, not within 5 miles of an airport and that you will maintain visual line of sight at all times, you are fully qualified to fly under the current hobbyist rules.

Yes, that is what I said however, I do fly the science flag and as some have said, not the best move.

I agree, yet step by step, we will move forward.

Good thing I have a non drone component to my research.
Joe R > Dan McKenna March 1, 2015 at 2:14pm

From the Electronic Code Of Federal Regulations, as mentioned in the FAA Interpretation of the Special Rule for Model Aircraft:

Title 14: Aeronautics and Space (14 CFR 1.1)

Commercial operator means a person who, for compensation or hire, engages in the carriage by aircraft in air commerce of persons or property, other than as an air carrier or foreign air carrier or under the authority of Part 375 of this title. Where it is doubtful that an operation is for “compensation or hire”, the test applied is whether the carriage by air is merely incidental to the person's other business or is, in itself, a major enterprise for profit.

http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?rgn=div8&node=14:1.0.1.1.1...

---------------

Doesn't sound like this is a major enterprise for profit, and obtaining measurements via model aircraft is a subset of your larger body of research (incidental). In addition, your payload is not chartered for profit, you are not "holding out" your services to the public, and it is not "common carriage" as mentioned in FAA's 'AC 120-12A - Private Carriage Versus Common Carriage of Persons or Property'. That circular is for normal aircraft though, and may not apply to model aircraft. You'd definitely need to dig deeper.

Here is more information on UAS and aeronautical research, which may be helpful: http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/agc/pol_ad... It better defines the term 'aeronautical research' and uses.

Richard Kennedy February 28, 2015 at 5:21pm

No sir this isn't a drone. It's my flying camera. Say cheese!!!

Dan McKenna > Richard Kennedy February 28, 2015 at 6:37pm

In my case a flying thermometer........I won't go there

Dan McKenna February 28, 2015 at 2:05pm

So does that mean I can fly to 500'? I was under the impression I had a limit of 400' AGL and I could use the extra 100 feet.

This is on topic and very interesting.

If something goes wrong and I fall out of the sky then am I flying?

If the angry Bee runs away and gets into other air space even though I am not technically flying

might cause a bit of a problem if someone is watching.

Justin H. February 28, 2015 at 1:32pm

A little off topic here, but are there new cases following up the Federal judge's decision in March of last year?

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/commercial-drones-cleared-takeo...

Because that seems like a clear decision. From what I understand, and after reading through the FAA airspace classes in detail, outside of special areas like airports etc, the FAA has no legal jurisdiction below 500'. Private property air rights extend to 83'. So everything in between that's not specifically called out, like National Parks, should be fair game for responsible recreational or commercial flights.

I would welcome any correction on this impression that would supersede the legal ruling above.

Justin H. > Justin H. February 28, 2015 at 2:14pm

There was also a ruling in November on an appeal of the same case that allowed the classification of the UAV in question as an "aircraft" and therefore under FAA's jurisdiction. Now they are debating whether the flight was "reckless", but the FAA defines any flight by an "aircraft" under 500' as "reckless" (commercial or not). As lots of others have mentioned, their definition of "aircraft" is broad enough that it could include frisbees and paper airplanes, and thus every flight every one of us has made without an exemption is an offense, so I don't think they have a real strong legal leg to stand on there...

Dan McKenna February 27, 2015 at 8:41pm

Matt,

I did, the local office processed my request and had a few questions which I needed to reply

openly, as they are my valued neighbors. You know , that trust and integrity thing..not always convenient but in

my case , required.

Dan

Tom Mahood February 27, 2015 at 12:02pm

Dan:

The problem is you've made an official request for approval to the USFS and they have to respond....officially. They are aware that the only way it is currently legal to fly a non-recreational "drone" in US airspace is with a CoA. When the new rules proposed by the FAA eventually go into effect you would be fine, but until then you are stuck unless you can somehow wrap yourself with the hobbyist flag or stay under the radar.

I'm sure the USFS would love to let you, but they see no way they legally can. As far as I know there are NO restrictions on the flying of hobbyist RC aircraft (or hobbyist drones) within national forests. It's possible for an individual national forest to impose such a restriction, but I know of none that have. If there's a designated Wilderness Area within the national forest that is a higher level of restriction and the use of motorized items, like RC aircraft, are prohibited in wilderness areas. And as we all know, there is a blanket restriction in any US National Park. But non-wilderness areas of National Forests are fine...for hobbyists.

I will point out that the use of an Iris, in the manner you propose (research, non-recreational) is not permitted under current FAA regs. That said, I'd probably do it anyway. A possible loophole is if you can take off and land your Iris on land that isn't controlled by the USFS, say the grounds of Mt Wilson or Mt. Palomar, depending on what you have in mind. Perhaps even from a State highway if it's not official USFS property (I don't know). The Forest Service won't care what goes on at property not under their control. While the USFS has jurisdiction over their property, they have no jurisdiction over the airspace over the forests. Same with national parks.A hobbyist could launch an RC model from outside a national park, fly over it and land again outside without any violation.

Bottom line is that if you want to do this 100% legal, by the book, you can't without a CoA. Or wait until the new rules get approved.

IRIS

Replies