FAA Seeks To Restrict Model Aircraft Flight

Jaybird180

Jaybird180

Final Approach
Joined
Dec 28, 2010
Messages
9,034
Location
Near DC
Display Name
Display name:
Jaybird180
Personal Note: As a childhood member of AMA, I have very fond memories of building and flying my own model airplanes. It would be a tragedy to see this hobby dissapear and that we would not be able to share this with other young people.

According to the AMA, the FAA created an Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC) in 2008 tasked with proposing recommendations for small unmanned aircraft systems (sUAS) that have been proliferating, particularly those in the commercial realm. The ARC’s charge was to draft recommended rules relative to establishing regulations for commercial sUAS and to define model aircraft – nothing more. AMA’s members are strictly hobbyists, sportsmen and educators. They are recreational users that do not participate in commercial activities. AMA was assured that the recreational modeler would be exempted from regulation.

Link to article: http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?contentBlockId=80760875-a5a3-451e-b415-7c5248645401
 
This sounds like they're seeking to regulate UAVs. I suspect if the slippery slope lands them in the modeler's realm, a few TV images of kids and toy airplanes will put such regulatory activity to a quick stop.
 
Isn't the point of class G that it's uncontrolled?

The FAA is pretty ridiculous sometimes....
 
elmetal said:
Isn't the point of class G that it's uncontrolled?

The FAA is pretty ridiculous sometimes....
Click to expand...

Yeah but - there are RC clubs operating in airspace other than G. It's hardly a problem as they never get much above a few hundred feet at the RC field. And if you think these things are just "toys" you haven't been to an RC field recently. There are guys out there flying aircraft that are 40% scale and some with jet engines going hundreds of MPH.

I think what they're addressing is a real proliferation of some pretty substantial UAVs that private individuals and companies are flying around on photo and surveillance ops. I know of at least two companies here in the DC area that are doing it and in one case, they consider the aircraft disposable and just want the video and data feed from it. I met a group of "hobbyist" one day at a country airport that had a huge RC plane equipped with multiple camera systems, GPS, and autopilot. They'd take off on RC, flip a switch that told the aircraft to fly a programmed course WAY out of sight of the airport, and return and circle over the airport. When it got back, they'd just flip the switch again and fly it down RC to the runway - and all of this was from a public GA airport.

And finally, a funny story. I was at an RC field which is smack in the middle of the Washington DC ADIZ (now SFRA) and asked my fellow RC'ers there why what we were doing wasn't in violation of the TFR which seemed to specifically prohibit it? I'm thinking, heck, I'm the only guy here with a certificate at risk and maybe I should know? One of the veterans there replied "I have no idea but that guy over there might. He works for the FAA." I turned around an there was an FAA guy I knew from his days at the FSDO who was now at the main DC office and he was unloading his big-ass RC birds from the back of his SUV - so I asked him. His reply: "The FAA has no knowledge of any RC flying going on inside the ADIZ." That was his story and he was stickin' to it :)
 
PittsDriver said:
Yeah but - there are RC clubs operating in airspace other than G. It's hardly a problem as they never get much above a few hundred feet at the RC field. And if you think these things are just "toys" you haven't been to an RC field recently. There are guys out there flying aircraft that are 40% scale and some with jet engines going hundreds of MPH.

I think what they're addressing is a real proliferation of some pretty substantial UAVs that private individuals and companies are flying around on photo and surveillance ops. I know of at least two companies here in the DC area that are doing it and in one case, they consider the aircraft disposable and just want the video and data feed from it. I met a group of "hobbyist" one day at a country airport that had a huge RC plane equipped with multiple camera systems, GPS, and autopilot. They'd take off on RC, flip a switch that told the aircraft to fly a programmed course WAY out of sight of the airport, and return and circle over the airport. When it got back, they'd just flip the switch again and fly it down RC to the runway - and all of this was from a public GA airport.

And finally, a funny story. I was at an RC field which is smack in the middle of the Washington DC ADIZ (now SFRA) and asked my fellow RC'ers there why what we were doing wasn't in violation of the TFR which seemed to specifically prohibit it? I'm thinking, heck, I'm the only guy here with a certificate at risk and maybe I should know? One of the veterans there replied "I have no idea but that guy over there might. He works for the FAA." I turned around an there was an FAA guy I knew from his days at the FSDO who was now at the main DC office and he was unloading his big-ass RC birds from the back of his SUV - so I asked him. His reply: "The FAA has no knowledge of any RC flying going on inside the ADIZ." That was his story and he was stickin' to it :)
Click to expand...

I never really thought those big models were all that popular... But to use an actual airport, I think is completely ridiculous... I'd have to be on the other side of the fence for this one, I know they want a realistic RC experience and all but we don't drive RC cars on the highway or any street that isn't in front of your house...
 
I just took the DC SFRA course recently. IIRC, model aircraft and UAS operations are prohibited within the FRZ but are allowed within the SFRA.

Good thing too, since the AMA field I fly RC at is within the SFRA... :)

PittsDriver said:
And finally, a funny story. I was at an RC field which is smack in the middle of the Washington DC ADIZ (now SFRA) and asked my fellow RC'ers there why what we were doing wasn't in violation of the TFR which seemed to specifically prohibit it?
Click to expand...
 
steingar said:
This sounds like they're seeking to regulate UAVs.
Click to expand...
More like the inverse -- they're seeking to establish a regulatory framework (other than the current case-by-case waiver system) within which UAV's can operate without endangering other aircraft or persons on the ground.
 
elmetal said:
Isn't the point of class G that it's uncontrolled?
Click to expand...
Uncontrolled isn't the same as unregulated. How would you feel if you were flying along in G-space and a UAV ran you over from behind? Or you were on an instrument approach in IMC below the 700 AGL E-space floor and ran into one? That's the sort of thing the FAA wants to make sure doesn't happen, and that's why they're working on this new set of regulations.

BTW, the AMA strongly supports adherence to the FAA's operating standards for r/c model airplane operations in AC 91-57.
 
Last edited:
One hopes the biplane had some sort of low altitude waiver, since low passes are verboten for piloted aircraft, and he didn't look at all like he was getting ready to land.
 
Ron Levy said:
That's the sort of thing the FAA wants to make sure doesn't happen, and that's why they're working on this new set of regulations.
Click to expand...
I'm 100% with you on that. I think if I ran into some big rc model and lived to tell about it, I would probably murder the pilot of the rc aircraft...

maybe murder is a strong word... He would know I was ****ed, that's for sure
 
steingar said:
One hopes the biplane had some sort of low altitude waiver, since low passes are verboten for piloted aircraft, and he didn't look at all like he was getting ready to land.
Click to expand...
He was going around... duh!


at least that'll be his excuse if it comes up
 
elmetal said:
He was going around... duh!


at least that'll be his excuse if it comes up
Click to expand...
Sometimes that "excuse" works, and sometimes it doesn't. There are cases both ways, and it comes down to witness statements and apparent intent, and the ALJ's determination of what is "more likely than not."
 
Didn't look much like the biplane pilot was setting up to land, especially not with his smoke going.
 
Ron Levy said:
Third-party video has a way of outweighing self-serving pilot statements before an ALJ.
Click to expand...

For some reason I'm glad you haven't been awarded that post...

:rolleyes2:

Anyway, the video shows an RC airplane operating on an active runway. If the runway was closed by NOTAM, the Bipe driver is guilty.

IF the runway was not closed, the Bipe driver can claim he did a last moment go-around -- not much forward vis straight ahead.
 
dmccormack said:
IF the runway was not closed, the Bipe driver can claim he did a last moment go-around -- not much forward vis straight ahead.
Click to expand...

The biplane pilot can claim lots of things. Whether anyone will buy it is another story.
 
steingar said:
The biplane pilot can claim lots of things. Whether anyone will buy it is another story.
Click to expand...

I've never heard of anyone flying an aerobatic airplane that was pinched for a low pass getting out of it with that story. Never works. That's something for the crowds that show up at fly-ins like Gaston's to be aware of. It's hard to argue it was an aborted landing if it's done at 150 kts... with the smoke on... in a full show slip down the runway at 10' AGL. We do it all the time over runways but for me, it's always with an active waiver and a NOTAM published.
 
i think we already had a ~30 page thread about the biplane and the RC plane.
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
So, how would one go about finding out what the result was? (I assume there are at least 6 more months to wait for that)
Click to expand...
Unless a case is appealed all the way to the NTSB, you probably don't. Those that go to an ALJ show up in Westlaw, but not many nonlawyers pay for that access. Those that don't get appealed are in the FAA records only, and I have no idea if or how those are accessible to non-FAA personnel.
 
Ron Levy said:
Unless a case is appealed all the way to the NTSB, you probably don't. Those that go to an ALJ show up in Westlaw, but not many nonlawyers pay for that access. Those that don't get appealed are in the FAA records only, and I have no idea if or how those are accessible to non-FAA personnel.
Click to expand...

So we can speculate 'til the cows come home, but never find out if we were close.

Ok. Thanks.
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
So, how would one go about finding out what the result was? (I assume there are at least 6 more months to wait for that)
Click to expand...

I thought there was a write up in a paper or something - pilot not at fault according to the investigation. I could be remembering the wrong report, so don't take that as absolute truth.
 
Rotor&Wing said:
They're not accessible outside the Agency.
Click to expand...
I'm no lawyer - but I would think you'd be able to obtain something under the Freedom of Information Act. I certainly doesn't see any exemption that would stop the request.
 
jesse said:
I'm no lawyer - but I would think you'd be able to obtain something under the Freedom of Information Act. I certainly doesn't see any exemption that would stop the request.
Click to expand...
the FIA allows them to look at you but not you to look at them.

DUH! Donchaknow how big government works?
 
jesse said:
I'm no lawyer - but I would think you'd be able to obtain something under the Freedom of Information Act. I certainly doesn't see any exemption that would stop the request.
Click to expand...

I can't see why not either. I wasn't aware of anyone in the government immune to it sans agencies with classified information.
 
jesse said:
I'm no lawyer - but I would think you'd be able to obtain something under the Freedom of Information Act. I certainly doesn't see any exemption that would stop the request.
Click to expand...

True, under FOIA you can request files. However the Agency can redacte certain information, and if it's an ongoing investigation they can restrict access.

But it's definitely not out in the public domain and accessible.

BTW, for anyone interested here is the FAA FOIA http://www.faa.gov/foia/
 
Last edited:
steingar said:
This sounds like they're seeking to regulate UAVs. I suspect if the slippery slope lands them in the modeler's realm, a few TV images of kids and toy airplanes will put such regulatory activity to a quick stop.
Click to expand...
I could see the FAA limiting the altitude for R/C modelers to a few hundred feet AGL and perhaps generating some rules for anyone who want's to fly one higher but I can't see much point in the FAA getting involved with the typical R/C operation at all. You might recall that I had a personal bad experience with what was most likely an R/C airplane flying a lot higher:

www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showthread.php?t=30482
 
It doesn't look like that much concerned with RC modelers. It's the guys operating aircraft with anywhere from 4 to 10 foot wingspans that have GPS coupled autopilot guidance that spend their time operating way out of sight of the dude that launched it. These things are getting pretty darn cheap and, as I posted above, look upon as somewhat disposable by the folks that use them for commercial purposes. It's only a matter of time before you can buy something at the hobby store that comes pretty close to the aircraft we used to call cruise missiles sans military payload. You can already build one using off the shelf parts for less than the price of just a few of your avionics components in your airplane. These GPSs and autopilots don't have to be certified so they're pretty cheap.
 
Ron Levy said:
More like the inverse -- they're seeking to establish a regulatory framework (other than the current case-by-case waiver system) within which UAV's can operate without endangering other aircraft or persons on the ground.
Click to expand...

Read the AMA rules and the FAA guidelines. A hobbyist can fly RC within the AMA guidelines. But a company developing a RC/UAS aircraft is operating outside the guidelines of the AMA and FAA.

The business UAS must have an airworthiness certificate and redundant controls and destruct mechanisms.

The AMA keeps hobbyists below 400 ft and at least 3 miles from airports. They can fly closer with the airport managers approval. Normally a ground safety RC pilot will call out live traffic to have the RC avoid conflicts. When you have "Full Scale" aircraft that cannot turn in the traffic pattern at 1000 ft AGL because a hobbyist is on your wing and inside your turn, you have problems.

When you have an unknowing airport manager that allows a business to "perform taxi tests" at an uncontrolled airport, and then it flies, without an airworthiness certificate or N number with full scale aircraft and human pilots, then you have a problem.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top