daemn42 | FAA claims all FPV piloting is threat to NAS @daemn42 | Uploaded July 2014 | Updated October 2024, 8 hours ago.
Please comment by September 25, 2014. (deadline extended 60 days)
regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2014-0396
Full explanation below.
Congress and the president passed the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012.
gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CRPT-112hrpt381/pdf/CRPT-112hrpt381.pdf
It tasked the FAA with creating new regulations to safely integrate commercial and public sector small unmanned aerial vehicles (sUAS, aka "drones") into the National Airspace System (NAS).
Section 336 of the FMRA was specifically added to limit the damage that the FAA could do to amateur model aviation in all of its existing forms, via these future sUAS regulations. The intent of section 336 was very clear that model aviation would be managed by community based organizations, most likely the AMA which has a 75 year proven safety record.
Instead of actually doing their job creating new regulations to address the enormous pent up commercial/public sector demand via the formal NPRM process, while also respecting the will of congress with regard to model aviation, the FAA has gone on a negative publicity campaign and recently issued a new "interpretation" of the modelling exception, which turns the intent of Section 336 completely upside down.
faa.gov/about/initiatives/uas/media/model_aircraft_spec_rule.pdf
The FAA claims that a provision meant to limit their power, now gives them new statutory authority to apply regs meant for full scale aircraft, to *all* model aviation operators, both amateur, commercial and public sector in the name of protecting the safety of the NAS.
They also chose to arbitrarily interpret the "within line of sight" provision in a way that was not intended by those who crafted the bill (had they intended it differently, the plain language would have simply stated that aircraft must be controlled visually by the operator at all times), and the net effect is to exclude *all* FPV video piloting from model aviation entirely. This leaves it in the same legal limbo, as all other non-recreational sUAS operations. FAA claims that without specific regulations allowing these operations, it is by default, dis-allowed. In other words, they've outlawed all FPV operations, just as they'd previously claimed all commercial operations are illegal. Instead of fixing the problem they were tasked by congress to fix, they've created a new one.
Their reasoning for the re-interpretation of the "within line-of-sight" language is that they believe that if you cannot see your own aircraft, then you cannot also see its position relative to full scale aircraft in order to de-conflict the NAS. In other words, if you can't see other aircraft through the camera, you can't get out of the way.
This video (and most of my previous ones) illustrates how absurd that assertion is. Video piloting allows one to fly extremely low, even at significant distances, and behind trees and other structures. The simple and obvious way to de-conflict the airspace is to fly at a very low altitude, which is where I already spend 99% of my time while FPV piloting. It does not require that I have eyes on my aircraft, or eyes on full scale aircraft, because they simply cannot fly where I do.
The FAA claims their new interpretation is already in effect, but has called for comments from the public.
If you care about this issue at all, or if you've simply enjoyed one of my many FPV videos over the years, *please* go to
regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2014-0396
and provide your comments. Note that this does not just negatively affect FPV piloting. It negatively affects many other aspects of model aviation, but my specific focus is on what it has done to FPV.
Also note that this is not about whether it is *possible* to use this technology inappropriately. Every technology has that possibility and there are plenty of idiots. New rules won't prevent idiots from doing idiotic things. It will however turn otherwise conscientious pilots into outlaws . This is about the FAA's assertion that it is *impossible* to do what I and many others do, without endangering the NAS. Their assertion is provably false.
Links to more discussion and responses below.
rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2192501
rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2193252
rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2194086
fpvlab.com/forums/showthread.php?31095-FAA-Guidance-June-23-2014
fpvlab.com/forums/showthread.php?31203-ReadyMadeRC-opposition-to-FAA-Notice-Protecting-our-Hobby!
fpvlab.com/forums/showthread.php?8539-AMA-Responds-to-FPV-Petition
Apologies for re-using the same music in two consecutive MXP-230 vids.
It fit the action in this vid better.
Music: Freddy's Menagerie
Artist: Kevin MacLeod
License: Creative Commons V3 (attribution)
Please comment by September 25, 2014. (deadline extended 60 days)
regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2014-0396
Full explanation below.
Congress and the president passed the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012.
gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CRPT-112hrpt381/pdf/CRPT-112hrpt381.pdf
It tasked the FAA with creating new regulations to safely integrate commercial and public sector small unmanned aerial vehicles (sUAS, aka "drones") into the National Airspace System (NAS).
Section 336 of the FMRA was specifically added to limit the damage that the FAA could do to amateur model aviation in all of its existing forms, via these future sUAS regulations. The intent of section 336 was very clear that model aviation would be managed by community based organizations, most likely the AMA which has a 75 year proven safety record.
Instead of actually doing their job creating new regulations to address the enormous pent up commercial/public sector demand via the formal NPRM process, while also respecting the will of congress with regard to model aviation, the FAA has gone on a negative publicity campaign and recently issued a new "interpretation" of the modelling exception, which turns the intent of Section 336 completely upside down.
faa.gov/about/initiatives/uas/media/model_aircraft_spec_rule.pdf
The FAA claims that a provision meant to limit their power, now gives them new statutory authority to apply regs meant for full scale aircraft, to *all* model aviation operators, both amateur, commercial and public sector in the name of protecting the safety of the NAS.
They also chose to arbitrarily interpret the "within line of sight" provision in a way that was not intended by those who crafted the bill (had they intended it differently, the plain language would have simply stated that aircraft must be controlled visually by the operator at all times), and the net effect is to exclude *all* FPV video piloting from model aviation entirely. This leaves it in the same legal limbo, as all other non-recreational sUAS operations. FAA claims that without specific regulations allowing these operations, it is by default, dis-allowed. In other words, they've outlawed all FPV operations, just as they'd previously claimed all commercial operations are illegal. Instead of fixing the problem they were tasked by congress to fix, they've created a new one.
Their reasoning for the re-interpretation of the "within line-of-sight" language is that they believe that if you cannot see your own aircraft, then you cannot also see its position relative to full scale aircraft in order to de-conflict the NAS. In other words, if you can't see other aircraft through the camera, you can't get out of the way.
This video (and most of my previous ones) illustrates how absurd that assertion is. Video piloting allows one to fly extremely low, even at significant distances, and behind trees and other structures. The simple and obvious way to de-conflict the airspace is to fly at a very low altitude, which is where I already spend 99% of my time while FPV piloting. It does not require that I have eyes on my aircraft, or eyes on full scale aircraft, because they simply cannot fly where I do.
The FAA claims their new interpretation is already in effect, but has called for comments from the public.
If you care about this issue at all, or if you've simply enjoyed one of my many FPV videos over the years, *please* go to
regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2014-0396
and provide your comments. Note that this does not just negatively affect FPV piloting. It negatively affects many other aspects of model aviation, but my specific focus is on what it has done to FPV.
Also note that this is not about whether it is *possible* to use this technology inappropriately. Every technology has that possibility and there are plenty of idiots. New rules won't prevent idiots from doing idiotic things. It will however turn otherwise conscientious pilots into outlaws . This is about the FAA's assertion that it is *impossible* to do what I and many others do, without endangering the NAS. Their assertion is provably false.
Links to more discussion and responses below.
rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2192501
rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2193252
rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2194086
fpvlab.com/forums/showthread.php?31095-FAA-Guidance-June-23-2014
fpvlab.com/forums/showthread.php?31203-ReadyMadeRC-opposition-to-FAA-Notice-Protecting-our-Hobby!
fpvlab.com/forums/showthread.php?8539-AMA-Responds-to-FPV-Petition
Apologies for re-using the same music in two consecutive MXP-230 vids.
It fit the action in this vid better.
Music: Freddy's Menagerie
Artist: Kevin MacLeod
License: Creative Commons V3 (attribution)
