I want to clear up a myth about the FAA's proposed remote ID rules that I've been seeing floating around. People think that amateur home-built model aircraft will be largely unaffected by this, since they can just fly at AMA fields. Or people think that to build and fly model aircraft outside of AMA fields, all they would have to do is slap some kind of transponder on their model and they are good to go. This is completely wrong. This proposal will effectively outlaw home-built model aircraft as most people actually build them. 

The reason for this is the production standards. The proposal contains two completely different types of rules: operational rules and production rules. The operational rules allow UAS without remote ID to be flown at a FRIA site. The production standards prohibit anyone from producing a UAS that does not comply with the remote ID rules, regardless of whether it is even flown. Just building a UAS for private use that does not comply with remote ID is a violation of the law, unless one qualifies for an exemption from the production rules.

Many people (including the AMA apparently) read that amateur-built models are exempt from the production requirements and think that means they're fine. However, the devil is in the details, which in this case is the definition of amateur-built, which "means an unmanned aircraft system the major portion of which has been fabricated and assembled by a person who undertook the construction project solely for their own education or recreation." 

The FAA's proposal clarifies that this means more than 50% of the total components in the Unmanned Aircraft System (which includes the ground control station) must be fabricated and assembled by the hobbyist. Home-built models using mostly parts that are pre-fabricated and purchased separately are expressly excluded from this exemption:

UAS assembled completely from pre-fabricated parts. The FAA anticipates that some model aircraft enthusiasts may assemble UAS entirely from pre-fabricated parts and that commercial vendors may wish to sell UAS parts, including packages that contain more than 50 but less than 100 percent of the parts necessary to build a UAS. The resulting UAS would not qualify as amateur-built because the person building it would be fabricating and assembling 50 percent or less of the UAS. The UAS would not qualify as built from a kit because it did not include 100 percent of the necessary parts. Under these circumstances, the person assembling the UAS would be considered the producer and would be required to comply with the design and production requirements of proposed subpart F. (NPRM p. 152.)

We’ll leave aside the fact that the proposed regulation provides no way to quantify parts. Raw number of all components down to individual chips on circuit boards? Number of black-boxed components like receivers and flight controllers? Total mass? As currently written, the amateur-built exception to the production requirements would not apply to the vast majority of modelers. 

Even assuming parts are quantified by black-boxed components, most amateur model aircraft would fall into the pre-fabricated, rather than amateur-built category, as most people assemble model aircraft from a collection of pre-fabricated parts they buy separately from various manufacturers. They might buy the airframe as a pre-cut styrofoam body (for planes) or carbon fiber sections (for quads), then glue/screw it together and mount and wire up motors, flight controllers, speed controllers, receivers, and cameras and video transmitters for FPV craft.

The most anyone ever fabricates themselves is the aircraft body. Nobody is fabricating their own receivers, speed controllers, lithium batteries, motors, or remote controllers, so virtually no model aircraft hobbyists would actually qualify for the amateur-built exception which requires more than 50% of parts (however that is quantified) to be fabricated and assembled by the builder.

The vast majority of RC hobbyists would fall under the category of using more than 50% prefabricated parts that do not come as a single kit with 100% of the parts necessary to fly. The proposed regulation would treat such modelers as UAS producers, and would require them to comply with all the production standards to produce and certify a UAS as RID compliant. This process is long and convoluted, and is clearly contemplated to only be used by large corporations developing mass produced UAS to be sold to consumers (the proposal estimates this process would only ever be used by a few hundred corporate entities).

Let’s assume a hobbyist could even comply with the technical requirements to equip a model with remote ID (doubtful given the tamper-resistant requirement which would at minimum prohibit the use of open source flight controllers and could be interpreted to require the person who built the model to somehow prevent himself from bypassing the remote ID system). The certification process requires the purchase of multiple standards that could cost hundreds of dollars to even read, and the filing of extensive forms and reports with the FAA that is estimated to exceed over 50 pages and take hundreds of man hours to produce. It would be completely impossible for any individual hobbyist to comply with these procedures for their home-built model aircraft.

Thus as written in the currently proposal, building your own home-built model aircraft the way the vast majority of hobbyists actually do that would be illegal. It doesn’t matter where you fly them, or even if you fly them at all. Merely building a UAS without equipping it with remote ID and following the process to certify it with the FAA would be an independent violation of the law. It goes without saying that this would be completely unenforceable, but that’s not the point. Legally at least, this proposal will completely outlaw home-built RC model aircraft as they are actually made by hobbyists.

The FAA attempted to disguise this by putting in the amateur-built exemption, and then defining it in such a way as it will be impossible to actually qualify for. I fully expect the AMA to fall for this trick and act like everything is fine because of the amateur-built exemption and the FRIA sites, because they have always sucked at statutory interpretation and anticipating how regulations affecting model aircraft will actually be applied (Sec. 336 anyone?). That’s even without considering that the FRIA exemption for AMA fields is only intended to be temporary and will be phased out over time, leaving hobbyists with nowhere to fly where they are not subject to the operational remote ID requirements.

No matter what the AMA says, this regulation will be the death of amateur home-built model aircraft, period. It doesn’t matter if it’s a quadcopter or traditional RC plane, flown by an AMA member or not. We’re all affected by this equally, and all RC hobbyists have a duty to oppose this regulation wholesale as bringing about the extinction of our hobby. 

Back in April I filed a FOIA request with the FAA requesting the following documents:

“All releasable records related to civil enforcement actions or certificate actions against operators of unmanned aerial systems (UAS) or model aircraft, initiated in 2014 or 2015. This request includes, but is not limited to, letters of investigation, notices of penalty assessment, investigative reports, and other releasable documents, [and] a list of all incidents involving unmanned aerial systems or model aircraft that have been investigated by the FAA in 2014 or 2015 but are still pending or did not result in enforcement action, and all releasable documents related to those incidents.”

After several months of back of forth correspondence with the FAA's FOIA personnel requesting extensions of the response deadline, I finally received a response on August 13. While the FAA did not provide me with copies of actual enforcement action documents such as letters of investigation or notices of penalty assessment (I will follow up to see if any of those will be forthcoming), they did provide me with a list of all UAS related incidents/investigations thus far in 2015. The list contains 237 records from the FAA's National Program Tracking and Reporting System (NPTRS) and one record from the Accident / Incident Data System.

While I will leave it to professional journalists to conduct a more detailed analysis of the 237 records from the NPTRS system, here are a few interesting facts I gleaned from reading through the list:

• The vast majority of incidents recorded are unsubstantiated reports of UAS sightings by pilots or home owners where the FAA was never able to conclusively prove that a UAS was flown in the area or identify the UAS operator. In at least a couple cases, the FAA concluded the object sighted was likely a weather balloon or party balloons. To me, this suggests that whatever regulations are ultimately passed, the FAA will have a very difficult time actually enforcing them.
• Most other investigations resulted from complaints about unauthorized commercial UAS operations, and resulted in the FAA sending out their standard form letter advising the operator to apply for a Sec. 333 exemption.
• Of the 237 records, only two appear to have resulted in new civil enforcement cases being filed:
  • The first was the infamous incident where a drunken government employee crashed a quadcopter on the White House lawn. While there appears to have been some disagreement between FAA officials as to whether an enforcement action was truly merited, the final decision appears to have been to file an enforcement case. A Letter of Investigation was sent on May 12 and the most recent update in that file, dated May 20, said, "Washington FSDO finishes enforcement package for Eastern Region based on the United States Secret Service report." I do not recall seeing it reported in the media that this incident actually resulted in an enforcement action by the FAA.
  • The second enforcement case concerns an incident that occurred on January 28, 2015 at Merrill Field in Anchorage, Alaska, where a quadcopter was flown too close to the airport and a helicopter on a training flight with an instructor and student on-board had to take evasive action. The local police tracked down the drone pilot and put the FAA in-touch with him. The drone operator was contrite and the incident appeared unintentional. While the local safety inspector considered education appropriate in this case, he appears to have been overruled by the legal department, which insisted on initiating a civil enforcement action. The current status of this case is unknown.
• While no formal enforcement action appears to have resulted, a Letter of Investigation and a couple subpoenas were generated in the course of the FAA investigating a news report by WFAA News of Dallas, which aired a story on November 7, 2013 featuring Louisiana Hog Control operating a UAS to hunt feral hogs. The FAA subpoenaed and interviewed several reporters involved in producing the story.
• The FAA received several complaints over animal rights groups flying UAS for their activism. Each of these investigations was closed when the safety officials concluded the animal rights groups were operating safely as model aircraft.
• Several reports involve loss of control of military or border patrol UAVs.
• In one record dated April 20, 2015, the Academy of Model Aeronautics (AMA) Government and Regulatory Affairs Office reported a pair of UAS operators who flew UAS over community events. That investigation was closed when the FAA talked to the two men who stated that they did not know the rules and promised not to fly over crowds again. I found this interesting since it appears on occasion the AMA is actively reporting UAS operators to the FAA.
• The only record from the Accident/Incident Data System concerned an incident on November 15, 2014 when a UAS struck a person in the parking lot of the Bryant-Denny Football Stadium in Tuscaloosa, Alabama. No injuries were reported.

I am sure there are many more interesting things to be gleaned from these records, but those are the highlights I have noticed so far. Links to the PDF files on Dropbox of the documents I received can be found below.

FAA Response Letter

Responsive Documents

I have recently learned of a piece of draft legislation soon to be introduced in the Colorado State Senate by Senators Linda Newell and Kevin Lundberg (who I interned for in high school ironically), which if passed as worded would effectively ban all recreational and commercial use of unmanned/remote-control aircraft in Colorado. The full text of the draft bill, which has not yet been formally introduced, is available here.

There will be a stakeholders meeting this Tuesday, January 13th, at 2PM in room SCR356, at the Colorado State Capital building to discuss the bill. Anyone in Colorado who has an interest in drones/UAVs/model aircraft should try to attend.

What the bill does is incorporate a vague and flawed interpretation of current FAA UAS regulations into state law. The new law would apply to ALL uses of unmanned aircraft of any size, whether commercial, hobbyist, or even toy class RC models. Because the bill's requirements are essentially impossible to meet, it would have the effect of prohibiting all uses of unmanned aircraft in Colorado, and make criminals of everyone from traditional RC hobbyists, to FPV enthusiasts, to commercial aerial photographers, to a 12 year-old operating a 5oz toy helicopter in his backyard.

The relevant portion of the bill states:

41-6-102. Nongovernmental use of unmanned aerial vehicles.
(1) A PRIVATE PERSON WHO USES AN UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLE SHALL
MEET THE EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE TO THE CLASS OF
AIRSPACE WITHIN WHICH THE UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLE IS OPERATED.

(2) A PRIVATE PERSON WHO USES AN UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLE
FOR RECREATIONAL USE SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL INSTRUMENT FLIGHT
RULES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO FLYING THE UNMANNED AERIAL
VEHICLE WITHIN THE OPERATOR'S SIGHT, FOR NO FARTHER THAN THREE
MILES, FOR NO MORE THAN FOUR HUNDRED FEET ABOVE THE GROUND,
DURING DAYLIGHT, INSIDE UNCONTROLLED AIRSPACE, AND AT LEAST FIVE
MILES FROM AN AIRPORT OR OTHER LOCATION WITH AVIATION ACTIVITIES.

AN UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLE THAT IS USED FOR RECREATIONAL
PURPOSES SHALL NOT USE AUTONOMOUS OPERATIONS.

(3) IF A PERSON OR ENTITY WANTS TO USE AN UNMANNED AERIAL
VEHICLE FOR RECREATIONAL OR COMMERCIAL USE OR FOR UNMANNED
AERIAL VEHICLE RESEARCH, THE PERSON MUST OBTAIN AN EXPERIMENTAL
AIRWORTHINESS CERTIFICATE OR CERTIFICATE OF WAIVER OR
AUTHORIZATION FROM THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION.

From this language it is quite clear the senators have absolutely no idea what they are talking about and have no understanding of aviation law. None of the requirements they mention are part of Instrument Flight Rules, which in fact require a person to hold a pilots license with an instrument rating, and impose numerous requirements such as filing flight plans and having certain kinds of navigational equipment on board the aircraft.

I cannot imagine this is what the Senators intend. Nor do I think they realize that the FAA waivers they are requiring are not even available for recreational users as Congress has expressly prohibited the FAA from regulating hobbyist model aircraft and therefore cannot require any kind of licensing or certification for them. And since waivers have been issued to only a handful of commercial UAS operators and impose excessive restrictions that make them utterly useless for most small businesses, this bill would force dozens of innovative small Colorado businesses that are already using unmanned aircraft to shut down.

The line of sight requirement and the prohibition on autonomous operation would prohibit FPV and most autopilot systems built-in to many popular models, and would ironically make RC aircraft less safe, since automated return-to-home systems would be prohibited. Prohibiting all RC aircraft within 5 miles of an airport would also shut down several established AMA model airfields in Colorado, including one at Cherry Creek State Park in Denver which is inside Centennial Airport's class D airspace and is only about 3 miles from the end of the main runways. 

It is critical that as many UAV enthusiasts as possible contact Senators Newell and Lundberg between now and Tuesday when the stakeholders meeting will be held, so that we can convince them to remove this disastrous language from the bill before it is introduced. You can email them at kevin@kevinlundberg.com, and linda.newell.senate@gmail.com.

Since the FAA has exclusive jurisdiction over airspace regulation, there is absolutely no reason why non-governmental use of unmanned aircraft should be regulated by state law, and any such law will be automatically preempted by federal regulations anyway. We need to act fast and hard on this to discourage future attempts by legislators to interfere with our hobby and livelihood, and to educate them about this safe and beneficial activity. As an example, you can read the email I wrote to Sen. Lundberg here.

The FAA has finally provided the first set of documents in response to a FOIA request I filed back in April 2013, requesting copies "of all records related to investigations and enforcement actions related to alleged violations of regulations, rules, policies, or advisory circulars by operators of unmanned aerial systems." After months of delays, excuses, and requesting extensions, they have provided copies of 17 cease and desist letters sent by various FAA regional offices to UAS operators in 2012 and 2013.

I filed my FOIA request after this article was published by TheIndyChannel in Indianapolis last April, which described documents they received in response to a FOIA request, stating that:

• 23 investigations were launched by FAA over the past two- years in response to complaints or inspectors finding drone flights depicted online
• 10 drone operators received warning letters or advisories that their flights were illegal
• 5 unauthorized drones were spotted by pilots and reported to FAA
• Several drone operators garnered new complaints after having been previously warned by the FAA that their flights were illegal

Since the Indianapolis news outlet did not make the documents they received public, I filed a FOIA request of my own in an effort to obtain the same documents. Nine months after my request was filed, the FAA has only been able to provide me with copies of the cease and desist letters they have sent out (now numbering 17). They are still searching for other records relating to investigations and enforcement proceedings initiated by their regional offices, which their latest communication estimates will be available in mid-March.

Here is the response letter I received from the FAA, followed by the responsive documents themselves (unfortunately Scribd documents do not seem to embed properly on this site). The documents are also available for download as attachments to this post.

View on Scribd: FAA FOIA Response Letter 2-4-14

View on Scribed: FAA FOIA Response 2-4-14

Impressions

While I have not yet have time to go over the provided documents in detail, here are my initial impressions:

1. Though the cease and desist letters were sent out by different regional offices of the FAA, they all follow the same basic structure and they are all clearly working off the same form letter.
2. The FAA seems to be exclusively targeting UAS operators who are using drones for commercial aerial photography (or in the cases of the University of Missouri and the University of Nebraska, universities that wish to teach people to use drones for aerial photography). Other commercial uses of unmanned aircraft, including agriculture, commercial YouTube channels, sponsored competitions, etc. do not appear to be targeted.
3. Most of the letters were sent to individuals/companies that had either been the subject of recent media coverage highlighting their use of RC aircraft for commercial aerial photography, or who were advertising such services on the web.
4. The FAA routinely misrepresents the law regarding unmanned aircraft in its cease and desist letters.

Legal Misrepresentations

In all of the provided letters, the FAA actively misrepresents that status of the law regarding both commercial and hobbyist model aircraft, as well as the legal effect of key documents and legislation.

1. The FAA misrepresents the legal status of commercial UAS

The most significant misrepresentation is the repeated assertion that flying unmanned aircraft for commercial purposes is prohibited. The FAA repeatedly states that commercial operators are using UAS "without proper authorization" and are therefore "in violation of FAA guidance for UAS," or "in violation of FAA mandates for UAS," warns UAS operators that "operations of this kind may be in violation of the Federal Aviation Regulations and result in legal enforcement action," speaks of "devastating liability" in the event of an accident, and concludes with a command either requiring or "advising" the subject to cease UAS operations.

Each of these letters is premised on the notion that the FAA's 2007 Policy Notice creates a mandatory prohibition that is binding on the general public. However, by law a mere "policy notice" by a federal agency cannot create legally binding and enforceable obligations on the general public. Only "regulations," passed through the proper notice and comment procedures dictated by the Administrative Procedures Act, can be considered mandatory. This is one of the central issues in the ongoing case regarding Raphael Pirker ("Trappy"). In fact, in a legal filing in that case, the FAA even admitted:

"To the extent that the Respondent is arguing that the information contained in the AC 91­57 and
the 2007 Notice supersede the operational requirements contained in 14 CFR part  91 regulations, it
2 is clear that compliance with the regulations is mandatory, while the policies addressed in AC 91-57 
and  the  2007  Notice  are  not  mandatory."

Despite this admission, the FAA continues to label failure to abide by the 2007 Policy Statement's prohibition on commercial use of unmanned aircraft as a "violation" which could subject operators to legal enforcement action. This begs the question, how can someone be penalized for failure to obey a non-mandatory policy? What regulation are they violating, and on what basis could the FAA initiate an enforcement action if compliance is not mandatory? The FAA has no answers to these questions, which is likely why they have never initiated an enforcement action against someone solely for operating a commercial UAS. Yet they continue to misrepresent the law and tell people such operation is illegal, despite having no legal basis for this claim.

2. The FAA Misrepresents the legal status of hobbyist RC aircraft

The boilerplate statement regarding hobbyists in the most recent versions of the FAA's letter says:

Advisory Circular 91-57 for recreational hobbyists. Those who use UAS only for recreational enjoyment and not for compensation or hire, operate in accordance with Advisory Circular 91-57. This generally applies to operations in remotely populated areas away from airports, persons and buildings, below 400 feet AGL and within visual line of sight. The FAA Reauthorization Act of 2012, now Public Law 112-95, Section 336, also defines Model Aircraft and their allowed uses, restricting their operation to visual line of sight operations and to hobby or recreational purposes.

This statement misrepresents both AC 91-57 and Public Law 112-95. Both by its nature as an advisory circular and by the express terms of its text, compliance with AC 91-57 is entirely voluntary. Contrary to the FAA's clear implication here, there is no implied condition that hobbyists must comply with every provision in AC 91-57 in order to qualify as hobbyists. Given that there are AMA model aircraft fields located in the middle of major cities like New York and on active airport grounds, model aircraft are obviously not restricted to rural locations away from airports. AC 91-57 also contains no mention of the term "visual line of sight." Considering it was written in the 1980s, long before long-range FPV capability existed, this is not surprising.

The first mention of the term "visual line of sight" in reference to hobbyists occurred in the FAA's 2007 Policy Statement, and not even in the actual "policy statement" portion of the document, but in the descriptive section above it. The actual wording was, "The FAA expects that hobbyists will operate these recreational model aircraft within visual line-of-sight." Not even the 2007 Policy Statement says hobbyists are required to remain within visual line of sight. Rather, the non-operative preamble of the document states that the FAA "expects" that hobbyists will remain within visual line of sight. (This expectation, incidentally, is clearly contrary to reality, given that thousands of FPV hobbyists regularly fly beyond visual line of sight all the time.) To the extent the FAA implies that AC 91-57 or the 2007 Policy Statement impose a visual line of sight condition in order to qualify as a hobbyist, they are misrepresenting their own documents.

The same goes for the idea introduced in the 2007 Policy Statement that AC 91-57 somehow provides "authorization" for hobbyists to operate RC aircraft, when the very document says nothing of the kind. Nowhere in AC 91-57 is there any kind of statement of authorization or any other indication that this document is intended to confer some kind of legal authority to operate model aircraft. By its own terms, "This advisory circular outlines, and encourages voluntary compliance with, safety standards for model aircraft operators." Nothing more. To interpret this document as providing the sole legal basis for model aircraft operation is a legal ret-con unworthy of serious consideration.

Second, the FAA misrepresents the legal effect of the FAA Reauthorization Act. The letters state that the model aircraft exception in Sec. 336 restricts model aircraft to non-commercial use within visual line of sight. That is simply false. Section 336 begins:

Notwithstanding any other provision of law
relating to the incorporation of unmanned aircraft systems into
Federal Aviation Administration plans and policies, including this
subtitle, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration
may not promulgate any rule or regulation regarding a model
aircraft, or an aircraft being developed as a model aircraft, if—

By its own terms, the only entity subject to the provisions of Sec. 336 is the FAA itself. The Model Aircraft Exception serves only to restrict the FAA's authority to regulate model aircraft, and the definition of model aircraft it provides only defines what is considered a model aircraft for the purposes of that exemption. The Act in no way purports to establish a general definition of what is and is not considered a model aircraft. Neither does it have any legal effect on the general public or restrict how citizens are allowed to operate remote control aircraft in any way. When you consider that the hobby exception occurs in the context of a congressional directive to the FAA, ordering the agency to create regulations for  unmanned aircraft, it is obvious that the only thing the Act restricts is the FAA's authority to regulate. To suggest that this act imposes restrictions on modelers at large is disingenuous at best.

Conclusion

From the above, it is clear that the FAA is actively misrepresenting the legal status of unmanned aircraft in order to cow business offering unmanned aerial photography services into compliance with an improperly adopted prohibition that is in all likelihood unenforceable. It's time for drone enthusiasts to realize that the 2007 Policy Statement is most likely toothless, and to begin calling the FAA on their illegal attempts to enforce a non-law.

Attachments: FAA Response Letter; Responsive Records.pdf

A new year and the start of new state legislative sessions brings a new crop of absurdly broad and unconstitutional proposals to ban FPV / personal drones.

First up this year, Washington state: http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2...Bills/2178.htm

HOUSE BILL 2178

AN ACT Relating to unmanned aircraft; adding a new chapter to Title 14 RCW; prescribing penalties; and declaring an emergency.BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON:
NEW SECTION. Sec. 1 The legislature finds that technological developments in unmanned aircraft have expanded the vehicles' capacity to be widely deployed in our state and in our communities. The legislature further finds that the recreational use of certain small unmanned aircraft is exempt from federal regulation under the federal aviation administration modernization and reform act of 2012. The potential for these small unmanned aircraft to be operated in close proximity to human dwellings and activities presents opportunities for widespread recreational use and enjoyment. At the same time, the recreational use of unmanned aircraft increases the likelihood of physical trespass onto private property and invasions of personal privacy. The legislature intends to prohibit the unauthorized use of unmanned aircraft in the airspace above private property.

NEW SECTION. Sec. 2 The definitions in this section apply throughout this chapter unless the context clearly requires otherwise.
(1) "Person" includes any individual, corporation, partnership, association, cooperative, limited liability company, trust, joint venture, or any other legal or commercial entity and any successor, representative, agent, agency, or instrumentality thereof.
(2) "Personal information" means any information that: (a) Describes, locates, or indexes anything about an individual including, but not limited to, his or her social security number, driver's license number, agency-issued identification number, student identification number, real or personal property holdings derived from tax returns, and his or her education, financial transactions, medical history, ancestry, religion, political ideology, or criminal or employment record; or (b) affords a basis for inferring personal characteristics, such as finger and voice prints, photographs, or things done by or to such individual, and the record of his or her presence, registration, or membership in an organization or activity, or admission to an institution.
(3)(a) "Sensing device" means a device capable of acquiring personal information from its surroundings through any means including, but not limited to, cameras, thermal detectors, microphones, chemical detectors, radiation gauges, and wireless receivers in any frequency.
(b) "Sensing device" does not include equipment whose sole function is to provide information directly necessary for safe air navigation or piloting of an unmanned aircraft.
(4) "Unmanned aircraft" means an aircraft that is operated without physical human presence on board the aircraft and operated either:
(a) Pursuant to the exemption for recreational uses established in the special rule for model aircraft of the federal aviation administration modernization and reform act of 2012 (49 U.S.C. 40101 Sec. 336, "special rule for model aircraft"); or
(b) Without an experimental airworthiness certificate or other authorization by the federal aviation administration.
(5) "Washington state airspace" means all airspace within the territorial limits of this state that is within class G airspace, outside of five statute miles from any airport, heliport, seaplane base, spaceport, or other location with aviation activities, and not otherwise classified as controlled by the federal aviation administration.

NEW SECTION. Sec. 3 (1) Except as provided in section 4 of this act, no person may operate in Washington state airspace an unmanned aircraft that is equipped with a sensing device.
(2) A violation of this section is a gross misdemeanor.

NEW SECTION. Sec. 4 The prohibition under section 3 of this act does not apply to the operation of an unmanned aircraft that is equipped with a sensing device if the following conditions are met:
(1) The unmanned aircraft is clearly and conspicuously labeled with the name and contact information of the aircraft's owner and operator; and
(2) The unmanned aircraft is flown in Washington state airspace above private property, and the landowner and any tenants who have a right to occupy the property have consented to the operation after having received actual notice that the aircraft is equipped with a sensing device; or
(3) The unmanned aircraft is flown in the airspace above public lands in a manner that does not unreasonably interfere with the rights of others and the operation is not otherwise prohibited by law or rule.

NEW SECTION. Sec. 5 Any person operating an unmanned aircraft in the airspace of this state is liable for all damages that state or local government property may sustain as a result of illegal or negligent operation of the unmanned aircraft. When the operator is not the owner of the unmanned aircraft but is operating or moving it with the express or implied permission of the owner, the owner and the operator are jointly and severally liable for any damage. Damage to any state or local government property may be recovered in a civil action instituted in the name of the state of Washington by the department of transportation or other affected government agency. Any measure of damage determined by the state or local government to its property under this section is prima facie the amount of damage caused thereby and is presumed to be the amount recoverable in any civil action therefor. The damages available under this section include the incident response costs, including traffic control, incurred by the department of transportation or other state or local agency.

NEW SECTION. Sec. 6 Nothing in this chapter may be construed to limit a party's ability to bring an action, including an action for damages, based on rights conferred by other state or federal law.

NEW SECTION. Sec. 7 Sections 1 through 6 of this act constitute a new chapter in Title 14 RCW.

NEW SECTION. Sec. 8 This act is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety, or support of the state government and its existing public institutions, and takes effect immediately.

As you can see this bill is expressly targeted at hobbyists, while leaving commercial users with FAA authorization completely alone. It bans any RC aircraft from carrying any "sensing device" that is not essential for operation of the aircraft (whatever that means), except over private property where everyone with a property interest below has consented, or over public property.

The bill is authored by:
Rep. Jeff Morris
(D) 40th LEGISLATIVE DISTRICT

Olympia Office:
436A Legislative Building
PO Box 40600
Olympia, WA 98504-0600
(360) 786-7970
E-mail

The bill's current status is listed here: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summ...2178&year=2013

At this time, it has just been pre-filed for introduction, and is not yet assigned to a committee. Once introduced, however, it could very well be assigned to the Technology and Economic Development Committee, of which Morris is the chair, making it much more likely to pass out of committee. Morris is also on the transportation committee, which it could also be assigned to.

I hope Washington FPVers and drone enthusiasts can get on top of this. Start writing and meeting with your state representatives NOW! This bill has the same problems as similar ones last year, namely it is likely preempted by federal law since the FAA (probably) has exclusive jurisdiction over all US airspace, and even if not preempted it likely violates the First Amendment by instituting a blanket ban on amateur aerial photography using unmanned aircraft, while leaving manned aircraft and commercial unmanned aircraft unaffected. The sooner your legislators understand this, the better.

As soon as the bill is assigned to a committee, every personal drone enthusiast in Washington should try to set up meetings with each committee member to explain your concerns with this bill, and make sure to sign up to testify at any committee hearings on it. If it all possible, it is best to kill this sort of thing in committee before it even makes it to the House floor.

The DIY drone community will need to monitor this one closely....

The recent Colorado floods are giving us a great look at how useful UAVs will be in disaster recovery and photography in the future.

While FEMA may have grounded Falcon UAV's aerial survey mission of the flooding around Boulder and Lyons, causing quite a buzz in the media, that hasn't prevented other local drone pilots and hobbyist FPVers from capturing some amazing aerial footage of the disaster. ABC News ran a report yesterday showing footage from a multicopter flying over

swollen rivers and flooded streets in one town affected by the flooding.

Meanwhile, local hobbyist FPVers have managed to capture some stunning footage of the flooding on the eastern plains in Weld County. The following videos and the video at the top of this post were filmed on Friday, September 13 during the height of the flooding, and are courtesy of YouTube user Neutography.

These videos were captured with a small FPV Slowstick fixed-wing RC plane. The flights to capture the footage were described in this post on RCGroups:

For Our side of the story: we flew on friday the 13th at I-25 / SH66 / 119/ and county road 20 1/2, me i was way nervous perty much the whole time because there was ALOT of air traffic even though more than half were news copters and Sightseer's ( not sayin there's anything wrong with that).
Kept it low and always had spotters as well as a good ears listening/watching out.
The main reason for my video's is that i wanted to see what everything looked like from the air, not selling or promoting sales, I'm sure one of these days FPV copters/planes will come in to there own for search/rescue/damage assesment type operations, kinda dread it at the same time because the "Regulations" usually fallow such things.

Since I live in southeast Denver, I've considered capturing some aerial video of the floods myself, but haven't so far mainly because of lack of time and worry about interfering with rescue aircraft. Still, I'm glad some other local FPVers were able to film this event, and I think it illustrates how useful SUAS will be in the future for filming natural disasters and assisting in relief efforts.

Last Saturday I was finally able to do a flight I've been wanting to do pretty much since starting FPV. I took my Deep Reaper flying wing up to the top of Loveland Pass, Colorado for some awesome proximity action along the ridge line above the Arapahoe Basin ski area. Even though the lighting wasn't the best because of the dark clouds and my Deep Reaper isn't all that stable in high speed dives, the result turned out fantastic.

At the summer 2013 Colorado FPV meet in South Park, near Hartsel, Colorado, a group of us did a special project. We did a one-way, point-to-point FPV flight from the top of a hill next to our campsite to the far side of a reservoir 8.6 miles away, handing off control from the pilot at the launch site (myself) to a pilot at the landing site halfway through the flight. We accomplished this using the multimaster mode on the Rangelink UHF Long Range System, which allows two (or possibly more) radios to be bound to a single receiver.

Here is the video combining footage from the onboard HD camera (a Contour Roam2) and ground recordings from both sites, along with ground audio from both sites. We coordinated the flight via cell phone, and you can hear the running dialog in the background.

The plane used for the mission was my Crash Test Hobbies Deep Reaper XL flying wing, equipped with Rangelink 433 mhz control and a 1280 mhz video link. The OSD onboard is a Cyclops Breeze Pro. The power system is a 1250kv Turnigy SK3 motor, 10x6 prop, 80A Detrum ESC, and 2x 4000mah 4S Zippy lipos. It also has an FY-30A stabilizer.

We launched from the top of a hill, with clear line of sight all the way to the eastern shore of Spinney Reservoir, where the destination team was located. Here is the view from the launch site.

Here is an overview of the flight on Google Earth:

The mission was not without its challenges. We were originally planning to use a different plane, but it was crashed in a test flight which busted its motor. After several unsuccessful repair attempts, we decided to switch to my Deep Reaper at the last minute. Since the destination team was already in position, we had to talk them through the settings for their radio over the phone, made easier since the control radios were a Turnigy 9XR and an older Turnigy 9X, both running the ER9X firmware.

We had also originally planned to do a two-way flight, changing batteries at the lake and flying back to the launch site. Since the other team did not have fresh batteries for my plane, and because of the lack of a clear landmark for the return flight, we decided to only do it one way. It was also pretty windy, which made keeping the plane level and flying in the right direction challenging. Multiple ground stations equipped with high-gain antennas were set up at each site for redundancy.

In the future we would like to experiment with doing a three-plus radio handoff, depending on the capabilities of the Rangelink multimaster mode and how many radios it can synchronize. And while on this flight, both teams had line of sight to the plane the whole way (the team at the lake was actually able to control the plane even before launch), this would enable flights up and over a mountain, which would be impossible for a single pilot to accomplish without breaking line of sight and losing radio contact.

All in all it was a very fun experiment, and I am very happy it was successful.

Earlier this week I was able to fulfill one of my long-time goals of making an FPV assent of one of Colorado's 14,000 foot peaks (14ers in local lingo). I flew my Deep Reaper XL flying wing to the top of the 14,065 foot Mount Bierstadt.

Flying at high altitudes can be a challenge. My launch point was at the top of Guanella Pass, which is around 11,600 feet elevation. This was the first time I've tried flying at that altitude, and I wasn't even completely sure my plane would be able to launch. But because I have around a pound more thrust than the plane's weight and there was a stiff wind to toss it into, the plane launched just fine.

The weather wasn't terribly favorable, and was constantly threatening rain. On my second flight I ended up getting myself and all my equipment drenched in a sudden downpour. The air was very turbulent in the lee of the mountain and my plane got tossed around quite a bit. I also had a very bad video signal near the peak--I suspect because of multipathing off the mountain combined with interference from the thunderstorms in the area.

Despite all the challenges, the flight was a success and the video turned out beautifully. I'm hoping to do a lot more high altitude flying in the Colorado mountains before the end of the summer.

Filmed with a Contour Roam2 HD camera. Edited in Sony Vegas Pro 12.

Gear:
Crash Test Hobbies Deep Reaper XL flying wing
1250kv Turnigy SK3 motor, 10x6 APC propeller
2x 4000 mah 4S 20C Zippy batteries
800mw 1.3ghz VTX w/ Mad Mushroom antenna on the plane; crosshair antenna on the ground

An exciting, action-packed compilation of the best flights from the last few months of my FPV Deep Reaper's life, featuring lots of fun proximity flying at various locations around Colorado's Front Range. At the end is the video of my plane's unfortunate demise when I accidentally flew through the signal beam of a TV tower on Mt. Morrison, causing my elevon gyros to lock up, sending the plane into a death spiral straight into the top of an outlying rock formation at Red Rocks Park (it was in a closed area, so no one was around). Skip to 4:34 for the crash.

I recovered the plane the next day and while the airframe was a total loss, I was able to salvage all the electronics except the batteries and GoPro, which was so destroyed it had even lost its memory card (the only piece I never found). Thanks to my SquareTrade accidental damage warranty, the camera will be replaced with a Contour Roam2 which I think has better colors and contrast than the GoPro 3 White Edition I had before and has a better form factor for my next plane. I am currently building a Ritewing Zephyr II to replace my Deep Reaper.

This is a quick video of a flight after some fresh snow in Castlewood Canyon State Park south of Denver, which was one of my favorite places to go as a kid. This is the first video I've posted using my new GoPro3 White Edition. It's taken me forever to figure out the right settings for color correction, since the raw video from this camera is normally flat and lacking in contrast. I think I finally got it right, though the flat lighting and the sun shining through the clouds confusing the GoPro's light meter didn't help.

This canyon is a real challenge to fly and get smooth video, since the slightest wind is amplified by the canyon walls producing a lot of turbulence. My Deep Reaper can handle it better than my old Hawk Sky, but it's still a little bumpy. It was also fun to fly as low through the canyon as possible without blocking LOS with an intervening hill. Enjoy!

Here is a compilation of clips from the best flights from my first month flying my new FPV Deep Reaper wing. The first minute or so is my maiden flight, and the rest of the video features clips from various flights around the Denver area.

Here's a shot of my plane and ground station:

And here's a close-up of the plane:

This plane turned out a bit heavy for a Deep Reaper (around 6.5 lbs) so I am currently working on finding the right motor combination to keep the plane as light and balanced as possible while having enough power, speed, and endurance. Flight times are currently around 25 minutes with an NTM 35-36 motor and 9x6 prop. Next I plan on trying the lighter NTM 35-30 motor with the same prop to see if I can cut a few ounces and get the correct CG without putting led weights on the nose.

I am using an 800mw 1.2 Ghz video TX with a cloverleaf antenna on the plane and crosshair antenna on the ground. Control radio is a ChainLinkDare UHF LRS mounted on a cheapo FlySky TX.

This is an awesome compilation of my best FPV flights from the first half of the summer since I moved home to Colorado after graduating from law school in Virginia. Lots of low-level proximity action and beautiful scenery from the Colorado low lands south of Denver. Highlights include Daniels Park, Mount Herman in Monument, Castlewood Canyon, and the new Rueter-Hess Reservoir in Parker.