FAA attempts to ban FPV Goggles

genesc

genesc

Member
At least this forum would not be a platform for those boasting their unsafe flying practices. Educationg new RC Flyers in safe flying would
be a good place to start. Most new RC pilots go to the net, youtube and watch how neat it is to fly over people and buildings but are not
learning anything about safety.
It is my opinion that a good RC forum should be the foundation of learning safe flying skills.
Gene

Old Man said:
Would that help? Those doing it would be obscured from view and exempted from the public ostracizing they deserve. If we can see the link we can go and make appropriate public comments more widely viewed than what is viewed here.
Click to expand...
 

C

cootertwo

Member
Oh how I long for the "good old" USA. In the good old days, I could turn a rotary mower upside down, weld some legs on it, jury-rig a prop somehow, and a few ropes and strings, and go flying !!! (NOT REALLY), and if/when I crashed into someones home, or God forbid, "killed" someone, I'd go to jail, and the Lawyers from Hell would sue me to oblivion.
"NOW" our good "new order" gubment, is looking out for the idiots, too dumb to call a lawyer.
Besides, I think China will put an end to this nonsense, as it will hurt their income greatly.
"I know I'm a nut, just sayin":tennis: BTW I flew with GOGGLES today (insert evil laugh here)
 


Bartman

Bartman

Welcome to MultiRotorForums.com!!
genesc said:
I would think that this forum would support removing any videos posts depicting unsafe flying.
Gene
Click to expand...


for the most part, this is what i've/we've done. i've/we've gone so far as to point out to offending members that their conduct would ruin it for the rest of us.
 


MombasaFlash

MombasaFlash

Heli's & Tele's bloke
Bartman said:
here's another example of what we're up against...
Click to expand...

The poxy damn Phantom/GoPro/Wankers combo again.

I have stated it here often enough and have never veered from the opinion that the commercial sector is the wrong sector to start regulating. It is the hobby sector that is the real danger. Any regulation of the commercial sector unfortunately now has to include the hobby sector. Perhaps not with the same set of regulations but it will have to be included eventually and this regulation will have to start at the manufacturer/retail level.

Model aviation has been perverted and become disfigured by the MR explosion, with a huge nod of responsibility to DJI in particular. Their shiny marketing methods appeal to the stupid and the ignorant who then go out and do this sort of thing. Singling out FPV goggles for attention can only be the thin end of the eventual regulatory wedge.
 

D

dmetz

Member
http://www.readymaderc.com/FAA/RMRC_FAA.pdf


Public Law 95-112

So the provision of the section of the law defining model aircraft (shown below) seems fairly straight forward:

"(2) flown within visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft"

I'm trying to better understand the current rules regarding model aircraft (Public Law 95-112 SEC 336), particularly in view of the current FAA rule interpretation.

Tim Stanfield at Ready Made RC, makes a compelling argument in his position paper RMRC_FAA.PDF (link above) for allowing a spotter in accordance with AMA Document 550. This kind of input will be critical if the FAA is to broaden its interpretation of this rule.

SEC. 336. SPECIAL RULE FOR MODEL AIRCRAFT.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law
relating to the incorporation of unmanned aircraft systems into
Federal Aviation Administration plans and policies, including this
subtitle, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration
may not promulgate any rule or regulation regarding a model
aircraft, or an aircraft being developed as a model aircraft, if—
(1) the aircraft is flown strictly for hobby or recreational
use;
(2) the aircraft is operated in accordance with a communitybased
set of safety guidelines and within the programming
of a nationwide community-based organization;
(3) the aircraft is limited to not more than 55 pounds
unless otherwise certified through a design, construction,
inspection, flight test, and operational safety program administered
by a community-based organization;
(4) the aircraft is operated in a manner that does not
interfere with and gives way to any manned aircraft; and
(5) when flown within 5 miles of an airport, the operator
of the aircraft provides the airport operator and the airport
air traffic control tower (when an air traffic facility is located
at the airport) with prior notice of the operation (model aircraft
operators flying from a permanent location within 5 miles of
an airport should establish a mutually-agreed upon operating
procedure with the airport operator and the airport air traffic
control tower (when an air traffic facility is located at the
airport)).
(b) STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section shall
be construed to limit the authority of the Administrator to pursue
enforcement action against persons operating model aircraft who
endanger the safety of the national airspace system.
(c) MODEL AIRCRAFT DEFINED.—In this section, the term ‘‘model
aircraft’’ means an unmanned aircraft that is—
(1) capable of sustained flight in the atmosphere;
49 USC 40101
note.
49 USC 40101
note.
Deadline.
VerDate Mar 15 2010 07:45 Mar 06, 2012 Jkt 019139 PO 00095 Frm 00067 Fmt 6580 Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL095.112 GPO1 PsN: PUBL095 dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with PUBLIC LAWS
126 STAT. 78 PUBLIC LAW 112–95—FEB. 14, 2012

(2) flown within visual line of sight of the person operating

the aircraft; and

(3) flown for hobby or recreational purposes.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

G

...guest...

Guest
Does this mean I can mount my flight cam in the rear as a chase cam that way I get a *third* person view? :livid:

Lawmakers, much less the FAA, will never learn.
 

R

Ronan

Member

D

dmetz

Member
Ronan said:
You guys are going to spin after reading the latest FAA lies:


http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2014/06/27/man-flies-drone-over-pnc-park-during-game/

Again, which law say's i can't use my 'drones' for commercial purposes?
Click to expand...

By default, the law that defines recreational use of a model aircraft. That is why the FAA was so meticulous with their recent "Interpretation". They are very specific to say that if it doesn't meet the requirement of a model aircraft for recreational purposes then it falls squarely into their regulatory purview.

Now...that didn't work so well recently in their recent failed court case BUT....the forthcoming legislation will clearly spell it out and that is right around the corner. In the mean time, this "Interpretation" may give them more leverage for enforcement. Its just a matter of time.
 

R

Ronan

Member
dmetz said:
By default, the law that defines recreational use of a model aircraft. That is why the FAA was so meticulous with their recent "Interpretation". They are very specific to say that if it doesn't meet the requirement of a model aircraft for recreational purposes then it falls squarely into their regulatory purview.

Now...that didn't work so well recently in their recent failed court case BUT....the forthcoming legislation will clearly spell it out and that is right around the corner. In the mean time, this "Interpretation" may give them more leverage for enforcement. Its just a matter of time.
Click to expand...

So the FAA actually doesn't have any backing to ban commercial usage of sUAV's. They are just full of it by trying to twist words, and even after being told to regulate (i.e: how can we make money from it), their answer is to completely ban them (or attempt) because in their eyes a 5 pound drone is the same as a 50 pound military grade drone? I'm all up to pay for a certificate/license if used as a commercial tool, but they really need to get their act together (weren't they told in 2007 to get it done?).

This is just insane and getting out of hand, they better have an army of lawyers for the can of worms they are about to spill all over themselves! I wonder if they realise their are thousands of businesses, including giant corporations utilizing sUAV's already...
 

D

dmetz

Member
Ronan said:
So the FAA actually doesn't have any backing to ban commercial usage of sUAV's. They are just full of it by trying to twist words, and even after being told to regulate (i.e: how can we make money from it), their answer is to completely ban them (or attempt) because in their eyes a 5 pound drone is the same as a 50 pound military grade drone? I'm all up to pay for a certificate/license if used as a commercial tool, but they really need to get their act together (weren't they told in 2007 to get it done?).

This is just insane and getting out of hand, they better have an army of lawyers for the can of worms they are about to spill all over themselves! I wonder if they realise their are thousands of businesses, including giant corporations utilizing sUAV's already...
Click to expand...

Agreed Ronan. I think the FAA would prefer to have this legislation in place already and we can only guess how pragmatic the rule will actually be. They are clearly playing catch-up.

To your last point....yes, I think they do and they are going to be sure they put the regulatory infrastructure in place to provide for all the control they feel they might need to protect their interests.
 

R

Ronan

Member
dmetz said:
Agreed Ronan. I think the FAA would prefer to have this legislation in place already and we can only guess how pragmatic the rule will actually be. They are clearly playing catch-up.

To your last point....yes, I think they do and they are going to be sure they put the regulatory infrastructure in place to provide for all the control they feel they might need to protect their interests.
Click to expand...

I'm not allowed to say much, but i have first hand experience with big (big as in multi-billion dollars industrial companies) that are using sUAV's since they are cheaper than helicopters, safer than having humans do the work and quicker than humans. They already have quite a large amount of money invested in those sUAV's and the moment the FAA will try to tell them 'no you can't do that in America', those companies aren't going to be happy and won't take the FAA's bs sitting down!

The FAA REALLY needs to STOP and do a SELF-CHECK of what they are about to do!!!
 

D

dmetz

Member
Ronan said:
I'm not allowed to say much, but i have first hand experience with big (big as in multi-billion dollars industrial companies) that are using sUAV's since they are cheaper than helicopters, safer than having humans do the work and quicker than humans. They already have quite a large amount of money invested in those sUAV's and the moment the FAA will try to tell them 'no you can't do that in America', those companies aren't going to be happy and won't take the FAA's bs sitting down!

The FAA REALLY needs to STOP and do a SELF-CHECK of what they are about to do!!!
Click to expand...

Money most always can do some talking!!!

I think the reasons you cite are precisely why the FAA perceives a need to get a handle, in one way or another, on the commercial application of sUAV's and the potential proliferation that goes with those opportunities. One would hope they will be fair and reasonable as the field evolves.
 

R

Ronan

Member
dmetz said:
Money most always can do some talking!!!

I think the reasons you cite are precisely why the FAA perceives a need to get a handle, in one way or another, on the commercial application of sUAV's and the potential proliferation that goes with those opportunities. One would hope they will be fair and reasonable as the field evolves.
Click to expand...

Absolutely, i have zero issues with a special tax/permit/certificate/license as long people can work with no drama/crap from the FAA.
 




Old Man

Old Man

Active Member
I've never had any kind of exchange with the FAA that didn't somehow end up costing me money. But they are there to help, right?;)
 

You must log in or register to reply here.
Top