Here's the reg. On a quick read, it appears that the FAA is taking a hard line on drones in commercial faming and FPV flight with googles. Only Hobby and Recreation is allowed without a COA
Regarding FPV, this doesn't sound good:
By definition, a model aircraft must be “flown within visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft.” Based on the plain language of the statute, the FAA interprets this requirement to mean that: (1) the aircraft must be visible at all times to the operator; (2) that the operator must use his or her own natural vision (which includes vision corrected by standard eyeglasses or contact lenses) to observe the aircraft; and (3) people other than the operator may not be used in lieu of the operator for maintaining visual line of sight. Under the criteria above, visual line of sight would mean that the operator has an unobstructed view of the model aircraft. To ensure that the operator has the best view of the aircraft, the statutory requirement would preclude the use of vision-enhancing devices, such as binoculars, night vision goggles, powered vision magnifying devices, and goggles designed to provide a “first-person view” from the model.
Footnote 2: The FAA is aware that at least one community-based organization permits “first person view” (FPV) operations during which the hobbyist controls the aircraft while wearing goggles that display images transmitted from a camera mounted in the front of the model aircraft. While the intent of FPV is to provide a simulation of what a pilot would see from the flight deck of a manned aircraft, the goggles may obstruct an operator’s vision, thereby preventing the operator from keeping the model aircraft within his or her visual line of sight at all times.
-----------------
Press release here:
For Immediate Release
June 23, 2014
Contact: Les Dorr, Jr. or Alison Duquette
Phone: (202) 267-3883
Agency issues interpretation of 2012 Reauthorization Law, restates authority to take enforcement action against hazardous operations.
WASHINGTON – The U.S. Department of Transportation’s Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) today published a Federal Register notice on its interpretation of the statutory special rules for model aircraft in the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012. The guidance comes after recent incidents involving the reckless use of unmanned model aircraft near airports and involving large crowds of people.
Compliance with these rules for model aircraft operators has been required since the Act was signed on February 14, 2012, and the explanation provided today does not change that fact. The FAA is issuing the notice to provide clear guidance to model operators on the “do’s and don’ts” of flying safely in accordance with the Act and to answer many of the questions it has received regarding the scope and application of the rules.
“We want people who fly model aircraft for recreation to enjoy their hobby – but to enjoy it safely,” said Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx. “At DOT, we often say that safety is a shared responsibility, so to help, we are providing additional information today to make sure model aircraft operators know exactly what’s expected of them.”
In the notice, the FAA restates the law’s definition of “model aircraft,” including requirements that they not interfere with manned aircraft, be flown within sight of the operator and be operated only for hobby or recreational purposes. The agency also explains that model aircraft operators flying within five miles of an airport must notify the airport operator and air traffic control tower.
The FAA reaffirms that the Act’s model aircraft provisions apply only to hobby or recreation operations and do not authorize the use of model aircraft for commercial operations. The notice gives examples of hobby or recreation flights, as well as examples of operations that would not meet that definition.
“We have a mandate to protect the American people in the air and on the ground, and the public expects us to carry out that mission,” said FAA Administrator Michael Huerta.
The law is clear that the FAA may take enforcement action against model aircraft operators who operate their aircraft in a manner that endangers the safety of the national airspace system. In the notice, the FAA explains that this enforcement authority is designed to protect users of the airspace as well as people and property on the ground.
The FAA will be working with its inspectors and model aircraft operators across the country to ensure they give standard information to the public on how to satisfy these statutory requirements and avoid endangering the safety of the nation’s airspace.
The FAA is also developing a plan to work with the law enforcement community to help them understand the FAA’s rules for unmanned aircraft systems, as well as the special statutory rules for model aircraft operators, so they can more effectively protect public safety.
The agency wants the public to know how and when to contact the FAA regarding safety concerns with UAS operations. You can visit the Agency’sAviation Safety Hotline website or call 1-866-835-5322, Option 4.
While today’s notice is immediately effective, the agency welcomes comments from the public which may help further inform its analysis. The comment period for the notice will close 30 days from publication in the Federal Register. >View the notice
See Section 336 of the 2012 FAA Modernization and Reform Act.
Comments
Daniel, I just sent you a friend request. I have a link I want to share with you, but I will send it in a PM if that is OK. Not that it couldn't be shared in here, but I don't want to clutter the discussion with something that could be viewed as a self-promotion.
honestly i would be all for some kind of certification for quad pilots doing fpv and standards for airworthiness on the craft themselves, maybe one for just those wanting to do commercial use, that way we might be able to get insurance to fly and do commercial work.( the FAA did just approve uav use for BP to look at there oil piplines in Alaska, how is that so different) but the FAA is not interested in sensible rules that will work and actually help to make things better. they just want to make blanket rules that ban it completely. and if that is what they want then no i don't think they have the right to do that. and allowing them to is foolish, this is a government organization, and i would expect better from them, than to act in what is obviously a retaliatory way towards a small group of people, 95% of whom would not fly over a runway, and who do operate in a safe manner, and my reading of the AMA response to this supports that.
just for a moment think about flying over large crowds and city's for a moment, i think having large jets over our city's is far more dangerous than any quad, all we have had is a few near misses not one death or injury from a quad that i am aware of ( please correct me on that if i am wrong) but there are many instances of jets crashing into city's and towns and killing people on the ground and i don't see anyone doing anything about that. in fact here in Seattle a news helicopter crashed taking off from a building roof killing the crew and people on the ground, and while there was talk about banning helicopters in the city, i have not heard a thing about it after about the first week, no idea if they fallowed through on that idea or not. the runway thing i can agree on with you, but i dont think any of the 95% i mentioned would do that anyway, and i am seeing new tech coming out that will not allow you to fly within 3 to 5 miles of a airport.
i agree we need to support the AMA right now, and maybe even create a new community based organization for just FPV since it seems to be in a class by its self now
It is easier to ban than regulate. The AMA know FPV and drones are a big part of their future...
Yup...
Did you know that the FAA currently issues notices banning all flight of RC aircraft within 30 miles of the airport that the President / Vice President and other dignitaries fly into (for 24 hours at at time)
I agree that we need to leverage the AMA (I've been a member since 1986) as well as provide our comments directly to the FAA in a reasoned factual way.
But I also encourage the community to have no illusions about the FAA's perspective, goals, and preferred methods. I am also a licensed pilot and have come to the conclusion that the single biggest obstacle to flight safety is the one size fits all approach of the FAA. In the US we fly GA aircraft that are nearing 50 years old on average because the FAA rules have made it impossible for innovation. (innovation like electronic ignition)
Get ready... I fully expect the FAA to ban outright autonomous flight this November for hobby use or not. Simply assuming that if we play by the rules set forth by the FAA that we will be left alone is demonstrably naive.
One does not need to prohibit all activity to prevent one stupid activity (such as flying over a runway).
I won't debate you, but we can't win this fighting it as individuals. We need the resources and leverage of the AMA to carve out a niche where we can enjoy our hobby.
My statement about a quad over an active runway may seem absurd, but wasn't that the case at an airport in Florida a while back? Someone needs the authority to stop that kind of foolishness in its tracks and we as reasonable modelers need to support that kind of control of the airspace or we will won't be allowed to fly paper airplanes in our living rooms. ;-)
Flying a drone for miles and/or at high altitude with a limited FPV cockpit view leaves the pilot unaware of most of the drone's surroundings. There are already too many examples of these kinds of unsafe drone flights, unfortunately (just visit youtube).
The FAA's proposed FPV rule is squarely aimed at pilot situational awareness and the dangers to aviation due to the lack of it. Period.
It's been a matter of good fortune that the FPV pilots disobeying the rules have not caused an accident. Airline pilots are reporting a growing number of near misses. The FAA is reacting. Appropriately, imo. Would you do nothing about it if you were responsible for air safety?
What the DIYDrones community should be doing, imo, is speaking with a clear and consistent message about flying safely. The AMA and many of us already do. We need to educate, rather than complain. Education is especially needed for the thousands of brand new pilots joining this hobby. Youtube presents some horrendous examples of dangerous drones flights. This is not where we want new pilots to learn. Nor do we need them to gain support from this community about disobeying 'unfair' rules.
Reducing the number of hobby pilots flying dangerously is really the only way we're going to keep the FAA from adding more regulations. Otherwise, the growing threats to safety will simply force their hand. And the entire hobby will suffer.
This hobby is a lot of fun. But our fun takes a back seat to air safety in the FAA's world. As it should.
A quad on an active runway is a ridiculous strawman. There is no demonstrated safety issue that is not already addressed by existing law.
Asking the FAA to regulate small UAV's is like asking the railroads to regulate truck transportation. The FAA does not see it in their interests to have UAV's exist at all and they are doing everything they can to slow things down.
And no, they are not going to leave you or I alone if we "play by the rules". (case in point paying for services)... RC companies have had pro pilots for decades... the FAA is changing the rules.
-
2
-
3
-
4
-
5
-
6
of 14 Next