"The FAA has released a set of cease and desist letters sent in 2012 and 2013 to people operating drone vehicles for a variety of purposes including: tornado research, inspecting gas well stacks, aerial photography, journalism education, and other purposes. Drone cease and desist letters sent during 2014 are available from the FAA upon request." The text of the letters (bureaucratically polite, but bureaucratically firm) often starts with notes indicating that the UAV operators to whom they were sent that the FAA became interested in them because it "became aware of" their web sites, or even because someone tipped them off about an article in a community newsletter. The letters go on to outline the conditions under which the FAA allows the operation of unmanned aircraft, and specifically notes: Those who use UAS only for recreational enjoyment, operate in accordance with Advisory arcular 91-57. This generally applies to operations in remotely populated areas away from airports, persons and buildings, below 400 feet Above Ground Level, and within visual line of sight. On February 6, 2007 the FAA published UAS guidance in the Federal Register, 14 CPR Part 91 / Docket No. FAA-2006-25714 I Unmanned Airaaft Operations in the National Airspace System. Toward the end of the docket it says, ''The FAA recognizes that people and companies other than modelers might be flying UAS with the mistaken understanding that they are legally operating under the authority of AC 91-57. AC 91-57 only applies to modelers, and thus specifically excludes Its use by pecions or companies for business purposes."
You need to be a member of diydrones to add comments!
Comments
Canada is further ahead than the USA ;-)
I'm not implying anything that I did not explicitly address (above).
There are a couple of concerns that I have as a hobbyist in America:
1. The FAA seems to want to declare the entire hobby of RC flying as a subset of full-sized aircraft, destroying the line between hobby and national airspace/travel.
2. AMA fliers, as a subset of hobby fliers, hold to very specific safety guidelines that are well proven to not cause problems with full sized aircraft. The FAA does not seem to recognize this voluntary adherence to strict safety standards, and seems to categorize our fields along with all the crazy and dangerous stunts pulled by any RC flier.
3. There is a language problem, dealing with the topic of small airframes. Big engineering companies identify Global Hawk or a Predator with Hellfire missiles as typical "UAVs", while Hobby King sells foamy gliders with a video camera and calls them "UAVs". The big defense contractors have shown little interest in the class of airframes that AMA members in America typically fly, and very few engineers from the local defense industry fly at our local club. But the big engineering companies think that they own "UAV" technology (it is dangerous to let amateur hobbyists use this hardware...), and this is how they posture to the FAA. The FAA hears the language of libertarian hobbyists (who do not hold to any strict safety standards) who claim that they have the right to fly whatever "UAV" technology they want, wherever they want, and frankly, can't draw a clear line between useful and benign technology safely flown, and dangerous proto-terrorist tools. I would rather that the hobbyist/commercial fliers used language that reflected size, range, and capability of what they flew, and voluntarily attach themselves to a strong and written code of ethics (I would include in this, the use of carefully delimited language).
4. Government bureaucrats are behind in RC technology. They tend to be paranoid about what they don't understand, and tend to identify safe technology and use as what is strictly under (massive and bureaucratic) legislation. This tendency is at odds with hobbyists having access to all sorts of technology to build creative machines. The hardware and software to build really dangerous stuff is ubiquitous. The greatest freedom for hobbyists to continue to build very creative machines, is to voluntarily adopt self-governing guidelines for technology use, and prove the safety of these guidelines. This distinguishes safe and benign applications in a very graphic way, and would tend to remove these applications from prohibitive legislation.
(I gather from the foreign comments that Australia is rather ahead of the USA in the area of trying to integrate small airframes into a standard classification system. Foreign readers may think that comments from the US side of the fence are a little weird....)
No, I mean AMA rules. You can call them restrictions if you want, but they are rules, just like any other private organization has for any hobby or activity. And like any other, you are welcome to not bother with the if you don't want to. Just fly somewhere else.
The AMA does not prohibit FPV. They have rules for how FPV must be conducted. Rules which you must follow at AMA fields and events. And rules which you can choose to follow elsewhere in life (like your backyard), if you want to, and if you want their insurance coverage to apply to you.
The insurance you get from the AMA does actually apply outside of AMA sponsored locations, including your backyard. The insurance covers you anywhere as long as your flying is within the AMA rules. If you are flying in your backyard, following the AMA rules, and you crash, the AMA insurance will cover you. If you are flying in your backyard (or an AMA field for that matter) doing something that violates the rules, they will not cover you. This is the only instance where AMA rules have application outside an AMA field or event.
Of course, public act 112 seems to be written in such a way as to require you to join the AMA in order to fly model aircraft for hobby purposes once regulations are made. Not that you need to be at an AMA location. Just be part of their programming. So when the FAA finally makes regulations, expect the scenario to change.
They should not apply to both unless you want traditional modelling restricted. The AMA thought they had pulled a blinder with HR658 but as we now know, not so much. First BVLOS committee meeting is on Friday with the FAA and Patrick from sUAS News will be there.
You're right that the AMA and the broader hobby and FAA airspace are different topics. But the FAA is looking seriously at the AMA and its clubs' safety regulations, and my comments from the standpoint of an AMA member are relevant.
If you look at safety rules for AMA sponsored clubs, flying over people or inhabited structures is forbidden. The AMA has formally suggested to all its clubs that FPV flying be strictly line of sight, with a separate observer by the pilot. And AMA clubs lay down rules for flying at the club field -- they do not sanction flying anywhere else, such as someone's back yard.
These comments are relevant for DIY Drones, not because the AMA is required membership for drone pilots (it obviously is not), but because we fly exactly the same equipment. And it is important for AMA members to underline the distinctions between the overwhelming uniformity of safety rules at AMA clubs, and those who fly the same equipment with no connection to the AMA.
The FAA is showing interest in passing regulations that apply for both groups.
The AMA would be the wrong people to administrate commercial flight. Lets look at two countries with regs, Australian and the UK neither countries model aircraft association has anything to do with RPAS.
I think your understanding of the law and the AMA's role is a little off. The AMA doesn't sanction anything except the field at AMA HQ. They sponsor local clubs, and have rules that must be followed in order to maintain that sponsorship and insurance protection.
You are not required to be a member of the AMA or use an AMA field to fly a model aircraft for hobby purposes. The AMA is an organization for the model aircraft hobby. Membership is not required to participate in the hobby. Furthermore, nobody is required to follow the AMA's rules or guidelines outside AMA events and club fields. The AMA has no authority over my back yard.
You clearly have no understanding at all of how the national airspace system or how full size aviation works.
That something is somone's hobby, does not make it legal. And there are other complications. In Arizona, my hobby may be barbecuing, but I can't do that at the AMA club because of serious wild fire dangers. So the government does have the right to legislate safety rules, even if it impinges on a hobby. Here in Arizona, if commercial drones become legal, I expect the government to legislate that they cannot use LiPo battery packs, because of the danger of wild fire in case of a crash. The government should be able to legislate self-sealing fuel tanks, for "drones" using liquid fuel.
On the other hand, if the EPA wants to start regulating exhaust from AMA aircraft engines, fair is fair, I would like to see opacity rules laid down for backyard barbecues! Wouldn't that piss of Texans!
In America, the AMA sanctions flying at accredited AMA flying fields, within line of sight. Flying anything outside these guidelines should not be confused with AMA model flying. Commercial "drone" pilots often disregard AMA safety rules by flying over people, and inhabited structures (including cars), and by flying in FAA controlled airspace.
Those who fly "drones" in FAA airspace should be subject to FAA rules, and legal penalties.
Because the AMA has a well tested structure of safety rules, I would like to see commercial "drone" pilots who are AMA members, and have an aircraft that meets all AMA safety standards, to be allowed to fly at sanctioned AMA flying clubs (within AMA flight patterns and rules). There should be no federal or state licensing of AMA aircraft that fly at AMA fields.
By the way, I think that Amazon (or UPS) is being horrendously irresponsible by stating that they are planning for drone deliveries. This will mean small, unmanned aircraft flying over inhabited structures (houses, and cars) and invading the privacy of a homeowner. I consider the issues are danger to humans, privacy, a waste of resources, and simple sky pollution.
If "drone highways" are established, these could degrade property prices. I also see serious problems in controlling a dense highway of drones. Drones do not have the speed to get out of the way of a full-sized aircraft, just as AMA fliers at the AMA club do not have the speed to avoid a full-sized helicopter that is flying without any situational awareness across the AMA field. There will be full-sized aircraft that fly through "drone highways".
-
1
-
2
of 2 Next