FAA attempts to ban FPV Goggles

[fj_montilla]

Man, the FAA really hates Trappy. The notice almost seems like a way to get back at TBS for the $10,000 fine they couldn't get from them. Now, we're all criminals for using FPV gear.
Makes the FAA seem a bunch of out of touch yahoos!

 

[Str8 Up]

This is the expected reaction to the exponentially increasing number of videos being posted by cowboys flying their MR's above the clouds into manned airspace as someone already pointed out. In most of these videos the pilot is not being admonished for being unsafe but rather are complimented for having big ones. Judgement day is here amigos.

 

[Ronan]

So when & where do we let our tax paying voices heard about this dictatorship coming from the FAA?

 

[Bartman]

This is the expected reaction to the exponentially increasing number of videos being posted by cowboys flying their MR's above the clouds into manned airspace as someone already pointed out. In most of these videos the pilot is not being admonished for being unsafe but rather are complimented for having big ones. Judgement day is here amigos.

here's a post i made a while back

http://www.multirotorforums.com/sho...rney-interview&p=129698&viewfull=1#post129698

and a reference to a great demonstration of what's wrong with the FPV community

http://fpvlab.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-1810.html?

FPVlab giveth and FPVlab taketh away

 

[Ronan]

here's a post i made a while back

http://www.multirotorforums.com/sho...rney-interview&p=129698&viewfull=1#post129698

and a reference to a great demonstration of what's wrong with the FPV community

http://fpvlab.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-1810.html?

FPVlab giveth and FPVlab taketh away

I'm more worried about someone telling me i can't run a business, even though i'm not doing anything illegal. I thought that's what America was all about.

 

[Old Man]

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.

I think you're pretty close to the mark. The thing to me reads like a brief to the court that will be used during an appeal process. If the court accepts the points contained in the brief as accepted points of law then the FAA wins the case on appeal and those points in the "advisory" instantly become enforceable law. It's called a precedent at that point. Yea, they want Trappy and they are going to get him and the other guy that got off.

Here's the real crappy part of that FAA posturing from my perspective. It completely locks modeling types of aircraft from anything commercial but leaves the door wide open for anything that meets certification standards. That brief just gave all of our profit potential airspace to giant corporate aerospace. People like that welcome complicated rules because they have the staff AND the revenue to afford working inside the rules. We might just as well figure those same corporate interests have been working hard with the FAA to assure they would be the ones making ALL the money while blocking others from doing the same through excessive regulations and processes. This was not unanticipated.

 

[jer]

I'm more worried about someone telling me i can't run a business, even though i'm not doing anything illegal. I thought that's what America was all about.

Welcome to the USA.... didn't you know you can't do that?

 

[Motopreserve]

Here's the real crappy part of that FAA posturing from my perspective. It completely locks modeling types of aircraft from anything commercial but leaves the door wide open for anything that meets certification standards. That brief just gave all of our profit potential airspace to giant corporate aerospace. People like that welcome complicated rules because they have the staff AND the revenue to afford working inside the rules. We might just as well figure those same corporate interests have been working hard with the FAA to assure they would be the ones making ALL the money while blocking others from doing the same through excessive regulations and processes. This was not unanticipated.

This may end up being the case - and agree it is not totally unanticipated.

Both pre/post this clarification statement, my main issue has been that it appears the FAA have decided that identical rigs, flying identical patterns, one doing it for a dollar and the other purely for the fun of it - are somehow different in their eyes. And I just don't understand their reasoning. Logically one would assume that if they deem a technology dangerous and worthy of strict compliance, that regardless of the intention or goal - all craft should be monitored and regulated the same.

I just don't understand their basic thinking on the distinction. Do they feel the commercial pilots will push the envelope more due to pressure from clients? Do they assert that all "hobby pilots" are responsible and airspace conscientious?

This smacks of an organization playing catch up with an issue they have just now discovered is important - long after the technological cat was out of the bag. So now overarching, non-logical restrictions are being thrown out there to give them more time, rather than taking the time they've already had to determine (and legislate) particular concerns about commercial use of the technology. Good grief! If someone strapped a gun to these things we would be able to legally fly them through restaurants in Texas!

for the record, I am not using these multi rotors as commercial vehicles. But I own a small business, and recognize the frustration that these types of rulings can mean to a fledgling start-up.

 

[genesc]

My two cents. This is all about money, a way to tax, regulate and grease the palms of elected political people. It is that simple. I hate to bring this into the post but I have been around long enough to recognize this all to familiar prerequisit of how our government sets things up.

Gene

 

[Bartman]

My two cents. This is all about money, a way to tax, regulate and grease the palms of elected political people. It is that simple. I hate to bring this into the post but I have been around long enough to recognize this all to familiar prerequisit of how our government sets things up.

Gene

well, the FAA is already trying to incorporate the needs of smaller operators by working with select industries that have probably lobbied on behalf of their own needs, the film industry being one and a frequent contributor here being in the group that is navigating the process.

The FAA has an immediate requirement to protect manned aircraft and they are understandably reluctant to incorporate unmanned aircraft without knowing exactly how separation between the two will be accomplished.

Before you flame me over that last statement, I agree that they are way behind in making the integration of manned and unmanned happen. Frankly, I don't think that the FAA took the needs of sUAS operators seriously. I think they probably underestimated the impact that sUAS would have since they're usually the world's leading regulating authority on big, heavy, and extremely complicated aircraft systems. sUAS was probably a joke to them in the beginning.

It doesn't help any of us that there are videos and chat rooms all over the place showing FPV flights going into and above the clouds. Clouds are a very sensitive concern for manned flights. Manned flights stay well clear of clouds unless they have a specific clearance to fly through them. Videos that show FPV flights in and around clouds worry me the most as a full-scale pilot and they probably concern the FAA even more as they are responsible for keeping all of this stuff under control. FPV pilots flying unregulated around clouds is a loss of regulatory control, it's bad ju-ju representing a real threat to manned flights. I doubt you'll hear the AMA protesting anything that regulates FPV flights given the way the community has failed to self-police itself. If the AMA wants to preserve hobby use of RC aircraft then they'll probably roll over on the FPV issue.

My personal belief is that there is room in the sky for everyone but that room has to be partitioned in order to keep the various operators out of each others' way. If you see someone posting that they flew anything more than 400 to 500 feet above the ground, point out that they're ruining it for everyone else. Tell them that if they want a better view to sell all of their gear and get a private pilot's license or pay for a ride from the local FBO.

There have to be limits and the FPV community has largely insisted that there are no limits. The FAA is wrong for failing to get sensible regulations in place but in the absence of regulations we can't have anarchy.

 

[genesc]

I understand what you are saying Bart, and especially how some abuse the hobby by going to far. I understand that there has to be rules and limitations for certain groups of flyers. But do not eliminate the fact that the FAA works as part of our government and with our governments past record, they do not always play fair. Like I said money talks and BS walks when it comes to them passing laws and regulations.

Gene

 

[Motopreserve]

Bart, your opinion (and those of other pilots) is very valuable in the discussion, especially for those of us who do not fly full-scale and have never had to deal with issues in a manned aircraft.

Im wondering if you have any insight into the FAA's distinction between commercial and non-commercial use of these craft - as long as they are adhering to the same rules (let's says AMA guidelines for arguments sake)?

The concern over people flying in/near clouds or too high is a matter of breaking the rules - and should be dealt with as such. I'm just not sure I understand the need to throw the reasonable rules out, which would/should be enforced, which may eliminate the possibility that some pilots may adhere to the rules and regs and operate in a completely responsible manner.

 

[SoCal Blur]

Bart, even flying R/C as high as 500 feet can be a concern to those of us who pilot helicopters. Most of the real work that is performed by helicopters is done at or around 500ft agl. The max ceiling of an R/C aircraft is supposed to be 450 agl and of course even lower once one approaches an airport.

Scott, someone else mentioned that the FAA and their decisions are highly motivated by lobbiests interested in their own monitary gain. Coorporations would like to control any potential profits in the industry and keep the independant, small business owners out. Look at what's happened to farming. The small farmer is all but extinct.

I recall working on a motor control for a lifting hook on a helicopter. It requred a replacement of a transistor. That transistor, if purchased from a local electronics store, was about $5. However, because it was going to be used on a helicopter, it had to be purchased from an FAA approved supplier. That same transitor, from the same manufacturer, same lot # was over $150 from that supplier. I don't believe for one second that the specs on that transistor was any better than the $5 version.

The point is (IMO) that the first priority of the FAA is Safety. The second is to protect big business. As time goes by, it appears that the ranking of those priorities are becoming more and more blurred.

 

[Motopreserve]

While extremely disappointing, that all makes sense. I guess I hoped that because the technology was being advanced in large part due to a growing hobbyist community, we might get out ahead of the curve on this one.

Im not shocked, but admittedly frustrated by the lack of vision that is being shown here. For me, there could exist several levels of rules and regulations - allowing the big cats to ensure only they fly over pipelines, electrical towers etc. (big money is all theirs) while the smaller companies could cover Hollywood and real estate, and certainly farming, where a drone may head out over 1000 acres of congestion free land.

Like the speed limits being dictated by population (75mph through the Barron desert makes sense, not through northeastern cities) - it's not tough to envision various levels of restriction and procedures, with the base rules for safety adhered to be all....

 

[MombasaFlash]

I am not sure why it has taken the FAA so long to start getting a handle on this whole issue. They are way behind many European countries in this respect. And now they are wading in with all guns blazing, trying to catch up.

It is absolutely no surprise that these measures are being announced with the unregulated irresponsible, self-centered, glory seeking element of the FPV crowd looking for Facebook/YouTube 'likes'. They have always pi$$ed me off and I have been surprised to not have had indignant reactions to all my posts in the past about the FPV bunch.

This is not to suggest that the FPV technique is not a valid tool in the hands of the responsible operator but, as has been well pointed out, it is a few ignorant poo-for-brains dildos that spoil it for thousands.

 

[kloner]

i think they were called out so hard during this last congressional hearing about how far behind we are is spurring this "rule making process"

fpv isn't invited in any conversation with the faa..... the ama is going to be the fpv lobbyist and that's not good

 

[Rook33]

I just went to the site and you are able to post a comment now. I sent in my comment and it gives you a tracking number to see the progress of your comment, if any.

 

[SoCal Blur]

Here is the AMA's response to the "Clarification of Rules":

On Monday, June 23[SUP]rd[/SUP], the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) released an Interpretive Rule in which it presented FAA's interpretation of the "Special Rule for Model Aircraft" established by Congress in the FAA modernization and Reform Act of 2012. The Academy has reviewed the rule and is extremely disappointed and troubled by the approach the FAA has chosen to take in regards to this issue

In its Press Release the FAA stated it was, "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." It also stated, "(this) guidance comes after recent incidents involving the reckless use of unmanned model aircraft near airports and involving large crowds of people." It's important to note that very few of these cases have been factually documented and not a single incident was shown to involve a member of the AMA or to be connected in any way to modeling operations conducted under the auspices of the special rule.

In AMA's response to the rule it was pointed out that, "The FAA interpretive rule effectively negates Congress' intentions, and is contrary to the law. Section 336(a) of the Public Law states that, 'the Federal Aviation Administration may not promulgate any rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft...', this interpretive rule specifically addresses model aircraft, effectively establishes rules that model aircraft were not previously subject to and is in direct violation of the congressional mandate in the 2012 FAA reauthorization bill."
AMA has voiced its opposition to FAA's action and will pursue all available recourse to dissuade enactment of this rule. It's important that every AMA member becomes involved in the effort.

The first step is to respond to the public comment period established in the notice. Look for a follow-up email from AMA with information on how to respond to the FAA notice. This is your opportunity to express your views and to comment on various aspects of the Interpretive Rule. It's important for the Administration to know that this rule significantly impacts the entire aeromodeling community and that this community is resolute and committed to protecting the hobby. In this case silence IS NOT golden.

Please alert your friends, family members and fellow modelers regarding this issue.

Thank you,


AMA Government Relations

 

[Ronan]

I just went to the site and you are able to post a comment now. I sent in my comment and it gives you a tracking number to see the progress of your comment, if any.

Could you share a link? I have been browsing their badly build website, and still haven't seen any comment sections for us to post...

 

[Motopreserve]

Could you share a link? I have been browsing their badly build website, and still haven't seen any comment sections for us to post...

http://www.modelaircraft.org/files/FAAInterpretiveRule.pdf

http://www.modelaircraft.org/aboutama/gov.aspx