FAA Interpretation of the Special Rule for Model Aircraft - Time Running Out for Comments on regulations.gov - Blogs

"Flown within visual line of sight of a person operating the aircraft" appears to be the only part of the FAA's interpretation that can be contested.

I take "visual line of sight" to mean a specific distance from the operator beyond which the aircraft could not be seen with normal vision even when prescription eyeglasses or contact lenses are used.

I don't see how the use of FPV gear or high powered eyewhere changes this "visual line of sight" distance. For example, if you can't see your model beyond 200 feet when not using any vision augmentation then you simply don't fly your aircraft beyond that distance even if you are using FPV gear or other vision augmentation system that could let you.

Some may call this interpretation sketchy but I don't see how we can argue anything else. This is about their interpretation of an existing rule and not the time or place to discuss whether you agree with the "visual line of sight" rule. The rule is already there. Any talk about visual line of sight being an absurd requirement should be left for a separate discussion about changing the rules, instead of interpreting what is already there.

You need to be a member of diydrones to add comments!

Join diydrones

Comments

RCvertt July 11, 2014 at 6:25pm

"Flown within visual line of sight of a person operating the aircraft" appears to be the only part of the FAA's interpretation that can be contested.

I take "visual line of sight" to mean a specific distance from the operator beyond which the aircraft could not be seen with normal vision even when prescription eyeglasses or contact lenses are used.

I don't see how the use of FPV gear or high powered eyewhere changes this "visual line of sight" distance. For example, if you can't see your model beyond 200 feet when not using any vision augmentation then you simply don't fly your aircraft beyond that distance even if you are using FPV gear or other vision augmentation system that could let you.

Some may call this interpretation sketchy but I don't see how we can argue anything else. This is about their interpretation of an existing rule and not the time or place to discuss whether you agree with the "visual line of sight" rule. The rule is already there. Any talk about visual line of sight being an absurd requirement should be left for a separate discussion about changing the rules, instead of interpreting what is already there.
T3

healthyfatboy July 11, 2014 at 9:45am

Alright, must be me then. I'll do it tonight.
T3

healthyfatboy July 11, 2014 at 9:32am

So, is it because I'm at work that I can't access that page or is it not working for everyone else?
T3

healthyfatboy July 11, 2014 at 5:07am

With regard to 55k members, my guess is less than 10% have even logged on in the last year, although I could be wrong. It would be a lot more interesting and useful to see active user numbers than the normal "we're at 55,000 members now!"
So, what's going on with the comment website? I could get to it last night but I can't now. Any ideas?

This reply was deleted.