FAA attempts to ban FPV Goggles


FlyGirl

Member
The FAA issued a new set of rules today for "hobbyist" model aircraft operators. Among other things, they are banning FPV goggles, or at least are trying to.

Thoughts?

http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/uas/media/model_aircraft_spec_rule.pdf

I'm a little confused Terry... Are they saying this is a new rule or is this a preliminary set where they are inviting comment on a proposed set of rules? As for the use of goggles vs line of sight, I've had no crashes when using FPV goggles and plenty of crashes when trying gauge distances and keep orientation using visual line of sight flying.
 

{}{steve}{}

Member
This is an "interpretation" of their definition of model aircraft in their already existing regulations. So it takes effect immediately and gives them something to use to go after model aircraft pilots that are operating in a way they disagree with. This announcement also prohibits all commercial use of model aircraft. Not good at all.
 

{}{steve}{}

Member
FAA Prohibits Commercial Use & FPV Goggles

This is not good...

"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."

"These uses are consistent with the FAA’s 2007 policy on model aircraft in which the Agency stated model aircraft operating guidelines did not apply to “persons or companies for business purposes.” See 72 FR at 6690.4
Any operation not conducted strictly for hobby or recreation purposes could not be operated under the special rule for model aircraft. Clearly, commercial operations would not be hobby or recreation flights."

http://amablog.modelaircraft.org/am...ation-of-the-special-rule-for-model-aircraft/
 


OneStopRC

Dirty Little Hucker
And so it begins, the FAAs new ruling on our hobby

http://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsId=16474&cid=TW223

[h=1]Press Release – FAA Offers Guidance to Model Aircraft Operators[/h]
[h=2]For Immediate Release[/h] 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’s Aviation 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

So no commercial usage? or does this just mean our hobby is not to be used for commercial use? Kinda grey in that area!

LOS only? no FPV?
 

genesc

Member
If only people had used a little common sense when flying their crafts. This might not have been an issue.

Gene
 

tstrike

pendejo grande
When they use words like "guidance" instead of "law" and statements like "what's expected of them" instead of "what's required from them" they kind of come across like a paper tiger don't they?
 

SoCal Blur

Member
I guess I'll wait to see how this turns out before I invest in an FPV system...although it doesn't seem to prohibit the use of FPV monitors - just goggles.

Once again the sins of the few result in the punishment of the many...we live in a sad time. :sorrow:
 


Kilby

Active Member
The tricky thing here is that they state this is effective immediately, which of course we know from Trappy's case that you can't pass law without the public comment timeline. That being said, they are allowing public comment on this for a 30 day period starting yesterday (6/23/14) and I would have to assume that it will become official law sometime soon there after.

Honestly, this is really overreaching in a lot of ways. According to the document sponsored RC pilots are now operating illegally, as are any type of school or training facility that may be trying to educate the public about this technology. I run a summer camp every year that teaches middle and high school kids how to fly, design and build their own quads. Technically according to this, even that is now (or will be soon) illegal.
 

bfretless

Member
Has anyone tried to comment on the rules following the instructions in the PDF? When I search for the docket number on regulations.gov, I get 0 search results.
 

cootertwo

Member
Ahhhh, our wonderful gubment at work. That's our tax dollars working for us! Ban everything you smucks, I ain't changing my ways. Make me an outlaw, and you'll be sorry. Fair warning. I know, I'll probably wake up tomorrow at Guantanamo. I was just thinking, being born in Miami, and having lived in SW Florida all my life, I remember how we bitched at Castro for clearing out his prisions in the 80's, and sending all the riff raff over here on the boat lift. And look at what we send to Guantanamo on a regular basis. I'm a veteran, so I am entitled to say it. This country sucks a big one! There! Now to brush up on my Spanish, and practice holding my breath for the water board exercise.
[h=2]Guantanamo[/h]
 

{}{steve}{}

Member
Has anyone tried to comment on the rules following the instructions in the PDF? When I search for the docket number on regulations.gov, I get 0 search results.
I tried, and I can't find ANYTHING related to this even when I search for everything the FAA submitted over the last 30 days.
 


{}{steve}{}

Member
Last look it is still pending publication, comments open after publication.
Yup! I just received this from the FAA's attorney. I have to say that I'm shocked he responded so quickly...he must be getting slammed right now!

"The interpretation will publish in the Federal Register tomorrow, at that time it will be available in the docket for comment. The document that publishes tomorrow will be identical to the document that was put on public display yesterday. So tomorrow you will be able to go to regulations.gov, search for the docket number, find the document and comment. In the meantime you can access the interpretation here: https://www.federalregister.<wbr>gov/public-inspection"
 

OneStopRC

Dirty Little Hucker
The FAA have a number of times, taken the law into their own hands. Without authorization I may add... This could just be another one of them "Official" "Unofficial" pieces of work.
 

OneStopRC

Dirty Little Hucker
A ban on goggle, of which I have just bought and paid a lot of money for? Regulate what you need, but for me now, being able to see what I am flying towards helps me out. LOS is no better than FPV, in fact you can't see anything when LOS, no battery warning, no altitude or speed.

I am beginning to believe the FAA and Hitler have something in common.
 


Motopreserve

Drone Enthusiast
Am I misreading this or does this just claim to be a clarification (and expanded view) of a "notice" that they issued years ago? I don't think there is any claim to it being a law (and I didn't see mention of it being debated and/or legislated) - just the assertion that the FAA is tasked with the job of protecting the airspace, and citizens below the airspace from dangerous things falling from the airspace - and these new guidelines should be read as what they seem appropriate behavior in the airspace.

This is appears to me to be the FAA simply clearing up any vague, disparate statements they've made in the past. I would assume this is covering their backsides for the future debate that will surely happen. This way they can claim to have made us all aware of their position, even if closer inspection shows that it took them years to recognize they hadn't been clear to begin with, about something seemingly so important at this point in time.

In other words: they've been caught with their pants down and sleeping on the job.
 

Top