1600vw
Pattern Altitude
RC Group to FAA " Real " Pilots should be blamed for colision with RC airplanes.
RCGroups.com’s Reply
to FAA Memo
“Interpretation of the Special Rule for Model Aircraft”
July 17, 2014
RCGroups.com, a communitybased
organization representing over 500,000 registered
members and over 1.7 million unique visitors each month, has read the recent 17 page memo
and now responds to docket #FAA20140396.
Since the release of this interpretation, our
members have commented energetically on their concerns, and this letter seeks to convey
some of those thoughts to the FAA.
Briefly summarized our comments are:
● The definition of “line of sight” does not follow from the statute and criminalizes behaviors
consistent with responsible, safe operation of model aircraft.
● The FAA’s interpretation betrays Congress’ clear direction to exempt the R/C modeling
hobby from aviation regulations.
Line of Sight
We believe the FAA misunderstands the intent of the words “line of sight” and that the three part
definition provided is contrary to the public safety.
By definition, a model aircraft must be “flown within visual line of sight of the
person operating the aircraft.” P.L. 11295,
section 336(c)(2). 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.
We believe that the intent of “Line of Sight” includes only item #1 in the above. Items #2 and #3
are additional interpretive steps by the FAA that are not founded. Also, the potential benefits of
multiple operators were dismissed capriciously.
Item #1 is correct provided we understand the word “visible” to mean what the statute implies: all
the visible area surrounding the pilot (i.e. the sky not obstructed by trees, buildings and people).
The remaining items proceed from an incorrect substitution of “within visual line of sight” to a
meaning more like “having current visual focus.”
Item #2 prohibits the use of safety devices which could make tracking a distant aircraft easier.
Such devices could even assist the operator with finding an aircraft which has been visually lost.
Pilots do make mistakes! There is no basis for including this as an implication of “line of sight”.
Item #3 apparently allows for the use of an FPV spotter but prohibits allowing that user to also
operate the model aircraft, which is nonsensical. Models can and often do have more than one
operator. There is no reason to disallow one of the operators from using an FPV perspective. A
second operator flying using a first person view has the potential to dramatically increase the
safety of model aircraft flight.
Clearly there is a concern about the use of first person video systems to pilot model aircraft.
This concern is unfounded. Aircraft flown from the first person perspective are much more
easily controlled than aircraft flown from a distant vantage. Users of R/C training simulators
typically begin with a first person view then progress to the much harder task of controlling the
aircraft from a groundbased
vantage point.
To ensure that the operator has the best view of the aircraft, the statutory requirement
would preclude the use of visionenhancing
devices, such as binoculars, night vision
goggles, powered vision magnifying devices, and goggles designed to provide a
“firstperson
view” from the model. Such devices would limit the operator’s field of view
thereby reducing his or her ability to seeandavoid
other aircraft in the area.
Contrary to the opinion of the FAA, it is only through the use of FPV viewpoints that R/C pilots
can effectively manage to seeandavoid
another airborne object. Parallax error makes it very
difficult to determine the relative depth of two objects in the sky. This is easily reproducible.
Maintaining line of sight through the use of binoculars is rare, but has precedent. See the below
photo of world model aviation record setter, Maynard Hill.
Maynard Hill setting a model aircraft altitude record via binocular line of sight.
Photo courtesy the Academy of Model Aeronautics.
While we certainly agree with the importance of ensuring the safety of aircraft occupants, we
must digress to point out that pilots of mancarrying
aircraft are required to stay 500 feet away
from people (FAR 91.119). Pilots of model aircraft would be very hard pressed to intentionally hit
a moving aircraft from their ground reference. In a collision between a model aircraft and a real
aircraft, the assignment of blame should begin by determining whether the pilot of the real
aircraft was recklessly operating within 500 feet of the model aircraft operator. Only after that
could it be determined who was better able to avoid the accident. In most cases this could not
be the operator of the model aircraft.
It is paradoxical to deny model aircraft operators the use of FPV equipment on the basis that it
will allow them to harass pilots of real planes, then assert that they must maintain seeandavoid
without the use of the equipment best able to assist them in seeing if they are on a collision
course.
We believe the statute uses “Line of Sight” to describe the area “within” which the aircraft can be
flown, not the status of the operator’s eyeballs. This area is all the places visible from the pilot’s
vantage point. The statute implies that model aircraft should be flown such that they are not
behind other objects, such as people, trees, and buildings, relative to the pilot. The statute did
not imply that pilots could not augment their vision for safety (e.g. by using binoculars or video
equipment). The FAA has no reason to prohibit operators from flying FPV flights within their own
line of sight, in particular with a safety pilot operating as either primary or secondary pilot through
a “buddy box” type system.
The FAA Interpretation vs the intent of Congress
This section of the memo regarding “commercial” operation weirdly and defensively detours into
areas that have nothing to do with the topic at hand of professional drone flights to address the
nonissue
of commercial model aircraft flights in general, including “receiving money for
demonstrating aerobatics with a model aircraft.” Rather than clarify it confounds.
The FAA errs in too broadly applying the following from P.L. 11295,
section 336(c)
(1) the aircraft is flown strictly for hobby or recreational use
It is our contention that “hobby or recreational use” was meant to include exactly the activity the
FAA believes it excludes. Congress expressly sought to prevent the FAA from regulating the toy
and hobby industry, and that includes those who work within it. Congress allowed for the FAA to
regulate commercial operations because it saw the future of autonomous crop dusting, hobby
atmospheric research vehicles, and autonomously piloted remote sensing vehicles in general.
Such vehicles need regulation to operate such that they do not interfere with mancarrying
aircraft, or each other. A proper clarification would tackle the difficult job of separating these
activities from model aircraft, not lump everything that flies into one group based on the
movement of money after it is flown. The FAA seems determined to jump in where it doesn’t
belong, despite Congress’ direction.
In order for hobby products to be made they must be tested. In order for an R/C training
simulator to be created people must go out and fly the real model to compare it to the simulation.
For reviews to be written people must fly the models under review. These people must be paid.
The FAA’s interpretation makes them the regulatory authority over the design, testing,
production, marketing, and sales of all model aircraft, giving them the power to shut down a
hobby they were expressly forbidden to regulate.
If the goal was to clarify the memo failed. New questions are raised about the future. Will hobby
industry magazines be able to compensate product reviewers who do not have a commercial
pilot license? Will they have to undergo a medical certification process? Urinalysis? Biennial
training? Is a reimbursement of a pilot’s actual expenses considered an act of commerce? Will
there be a waiver process to get around these restrictions?
Thankfully, the FAA stops short of insisting Part 91 fully apply to commercial pilots of model
aircraft. Perhaps a future memo will take us there, years from now after the current cadre of
bureaucrats are long retired, when a future generation is left to “plainly” interpret what was left for
them. Perhaps by then we’ll have applied all the FARs and operators of model aircraft will have
their timely lessons in how to use VOR and DME systems under their belts before receiving their
licenses to operate in the national airspace, which now extends to the air indoors and any
pockets found underground as well for good measure! Perhaps we will learn then that the FAA
has always been so tasked.
The FAA’s misguided attempt to shoehorn model aircraft into regulations obviously intended for
mancarrying
devices is the headwater for the recent veritable torrent of the “What does this
mean?” inquiries the agency is receiving. Clearly it is ludicrous to imagine that Part 91 would be
expanded to cover the sorts of activities mentioned above, yet the memo alludes to Part 91 for
potential actions that could be taken. The FAA missed its opportunity to reassure modelers that
it has no intention of doing something so absurd as applying Part 91 to the professional reviewer
of a hobby product.
Yet we arrive here quite logically, given the pellmell
exegesis the FAA is willing to go through to
gain every authority the loopholes allow.
RCGroups.com’s Reply
to FAA Memo
“Interpretation of the Special Rule for Model Aircraft”
July 17, 2014
RCGroups.com, a communitybased
organization representing over 500,000 registered
members and over 1.7 million unique visitors each month, has read the recent 17 page memo
and now responds to docket #FAA20140396.
Since the release of this interpretation, our
members have commented energetically on their concerns, and this letter seeks to convey
some of those thoughts to the FAA.
Briefly summarized our comments are:
● The definition of “line of sight” does not follow from the statute and criminalizes behaviors
consistent with responsible, safe operation of model aircraft.
● The FAA’s interpretation betrays Congress’ clear direction to exempt the R/C modeling
hobby from aviation regulations.
Line of Sight
We believe the FAA misunderstands the intent of the words “line of sight” and that the three part
definition provided is contrary to the public safety.
By definition, a model aircraft must be “flown within visual line of sight of the
person operating the aircraft.” P.L. 11295,
section 336(c)(2). 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.
We believe that the intent of “Line of Sight” includes only item #1 in the above. Items #2 and #3
are additional interpretive steps by the FAA that are not founded. Also, the potential benefits of
multiple operators were dismissed capriciously.
Item #1 is correct provided we understand the word “visible” to mean what the statute implies: all
the visible area surrounding the pilot (i.e. the sky not obstructed by trees, buildings and people).
The remaining items proceed from an incorrect substitution of “within visual line of sight” to a
meaning more like “having current visual focus.”
Item #2 prohibits the use of safety devices which could make tracking a distant aircraft easier.
Such devices could even assist the operator with finding an aircraft which has been visually lost.
Pilots do make mistakes! There is no basis for including this as an implication of “line of sight”.
Item #3 apparently allows for the use of an FPV spotter but prohibits allowing that user to also
operate the model aircraft, which is nonsensical. Models can and often do have more than one
operator. There is no reason to disallow one of the operators from using an FPV perspective. A
second operator flying using a first person view has the potential to dramatically increase the
safety of model aircraft flight.
Clearly there is a concern about the use of first person video systems to pilot model aircraft.
This concern is unfounded. Aircraft flown from the first person perspective are much more
easily controlled than aircraft flown from a distant vantage. Users of R/C training simulators
typically begin with a first person view then progress to the much harder task of controlling the
aircraft from a groundbased
vantage point.
To ensure that the operator has the best view of the aircraft, the statutory requirement
would preclude the use of visionenhancing
devices, such as binoculars, night vision
goggles, powered vision magnifying devices, and goggles designed to provide a
“firstperson
view” from the model. Such devices would limit the operator’s field of view
thereby reducing his or her ability to seeandavoid
other aircraft in the area.
Contrary to the opinion of the FAA, it is only through the use of FPV viewpoints that R/C pilots
can effectively manage to seeandavoid
another airborne object. Parallax error makes it very
difficult to determine the relative depth of two objects in the sky. This is easily reproducible.
Maintaining line of sight through the use of binoculars is rare, but has precedent. See the below
photo of world model aviation record setter, Maynard Hill.
Maynard Hill setting a model aircraft altitude record via binocular line of sight.
Photo courtesy the Academy of Model Aeronautics.
While we certainly agree with the importance of ensuring the safety of aircraft occupants, we
must digress to point out that pilots of mancarrying
aircraft are required to stay 500 feet away
from people (FAR 91.119). Pilots of model aircraft would be very hard pressed to intentionally hit
a moving aircraft from their ground reference. In a collision between a model aircraft and a real
aircraft, the assignment of blame should begin by determining whether the pilot of the real
aircraft was recklessly operating within 500 feet of the model aircraft operator. Only after that
could it be determined who was better able to avoid the accident. In most cases this could not
be the operator of the model aircraft.
It is paradoxical to deny model aircraft operators the use of FPV equipment on the basis that it
will allow them to harass pilots of real planes, then assert that they must maintain seeandavoid
without the use of the equipment best able to assist them in seeing if they are on a collision
course.
We believe the statute uses “Line of Sight” to describe the area “within” which the aircraft can be
flown, not the status of the operator’s eyeballs. This area is all the places visible from the pilot’s
vantage point. The statute implies that model aircraft should be flown such that they are not
behind other objects, such as people, trees, and buildings, relative to the pilot. The statute did
not imply that pilots could not augment their vision for safety (e.g. by using binoculars or video
equipment). The FAA has no reason to prohibit operators from flying FPV flights within their own
line of sight, in particular with a safety pilot operating as either primary or secondary pilot through
a “buddy box” type system.
The FAA Interpretation vs the intent of Congress
This section of the memo regarding “commercial” operation weirdly and defensively detours into
areas that have nothing to do with the topic at hand of professional drone flights to address the
nonissue
of commercial model aircraft flights in general, including “receiving money for
demonstrating aerobatics with a model aircraft.” Rather than clarify it confounds.
The FAA errs in too broadly applying the following from P.L. 11295,
section 336(c)
(1) the aircraft is flown strictly for hobby or recreational use
It is our contention that “hobby or recreational use” was meant to include exactly the activity the
FAA believes it excludes. Congress expressly sought to prevent the FAA from regulating the toy
and hobby industry, and that includes those who work within it. Congress allowed for the FAA to
regulate commercial operations because it saw the future of autonomous crop dusting, hobby
atmospheric research vehicles, and autonomously piloted remote sensing vehicles in general.
Such vehicles need regulation to operate such that they do not interfere with mancarrying
aircraft, or each other. A proper clarification would tackle the difficult job of separating these
activities from model aircraft, not lump everything that flies into one group based on the
movement of money after it is flown. The FAA seems determined to jump in where it doesn’t
belong, despite Congress’ direction.
In order for hobby products to be made they must be tested. In order for an R/C training
simulator to be created people must go out and fly the real model to compare it to the simulation.
For reviews to be written people must fly the models under review. These people must be paid.
The FAA’s interpretation makes them the regulatory authority over the design, testing,
production, marketing, and sales of all model aircraft, giving them the power to shut down a
hobby they were expressly forbidden to regulate.
If the goal was to clarify the memo failed. New questions are raised about the future. Will hobby
industry magazines be able to compensate product reviewers who do not have a commercial
pilot license? Will they have to undergo a medical certification process? Urinalysis? Biennial
training? Is a reimbursement of a pilot’s actual expenses considered an act of commerce? Will
there be a waiver process to get around these restrictions?
Thankfully, the FAA stops short of insisting Part 91 fully apply to commercial pilots of model
aircraft. Perhaps a future memo will take us there, years from now after the current cadre of
bureaucrats are long retired, when a future generation is left to “plainly” interpret what was left for
them. Perhaps by then we’ll have applied all the FARs and operators of model aircraft will have
their timely lessons in how to use VOR and DME systems under their belts before receiving their
licenses to operate in the national airspace, which now extends to the air indoors and any
pockets found underground as well for good measure! Perhaps we will learn then that the FAA
has always been so tasked.
The FAA’s misguided attempt to shoehorn model aircraft into regulations obviously intended for
mancarrying
devices is the headwater for the recent veritable torrent of the “What does this
mean?” inquiries the agency is receiving. Clearly it is ludicrous to imagine that Part 91 would be
expanded to cover the sorts of activities mentioned above, yet the memo alludes to Part 91 for
potential actions that could be taken. The FAA missed its opportunity to reassure modelers that
it has no intention of doing something so absurd as applying Part 91 to the professional reviewer
of a hobby product.
Yet we arrive here quite logically, given the pellmell
exegesis the FAA is willing to go through to
gain every authority the loopholes allow.
Last edited:
