Lost mavic...and found!!

[joet]

I am referring to the fact that there is no law. Recommendations and regulations. Good recommendations. Not laws. I won't discuss this beyond this post. But you'll never convince me there is a law because Congress said there can't be one. The FAA agrees but says they can intervene if NAS is at risk, but they haven't intervened. Hobbyists don't have laws on the books, beyond what defines a UAV. And I guess I'll never convince you of the difference between laws and recommendations. I probably should have asked you what your definition of LAW is.

This is because you are not reading the entire law, sir. You are most likely referring to this:

"Section 336 also prohibits the FAA from promulgating “any rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft, or an aircraft being developed as a model aircraft”

...But that is not the entire context.

The definition of a model aircraft is codified in 14 CFR 101.1:

"a model aircraft is an unmanned aircraft that is:

(i) Capable of sustained flight in the atmosphere;

(ii) Flown within visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft; and

(iii) Flown for hobby or recreational purposes."​

That is the exact definition in the LAW passed by Congress in Public LAW 112-95.

So yes, the FAA cannot add any rule or regulation after the effective date of PL 112-95 regarding model aircraft - but if you are not flying within line of sight, IT IS NOT LEGALLY CONSIDERED A MODEL AIRCRAFT, and you have no legal authority to fly it at all, since all unmanned aircraft flight is authorized in Part 101 and Part 107 - and both prohibit NLOS flight (absent a waiver for 107 pilots).

And if you somehow think that the FAA's regulations are not law, try flying a Cessna without a Part 91 pilot's license or disobeying the directions of the flight crew on your next commercial flight and see how that works out for you. Or, you could just read this: Administrative Procedure Act (United States) - Wikipedia

(Pro tip: The Administrative Procedure Act is a LAW).

 

[rydfree]

That's why I always cut my controller off a couple times after I take off . Not to be sure that RTH is working but so my flight log will show I had controller issues . "Sorry officer , I didn't mean to fly that far off , I just got a fly away back "

 

[Strafe1]

This is because you are not reading the entire law, sir. You are most likely referring to this:

"Section 336 also prohibits the FAA from promulgating “any rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft, or an aircraft being developed as a model aircraft”

...But that is not the entire context.

The definition of a model aircraft is codified in 14 CFR 101.1:

"a model aircraft is an unmanned aircraft that is:

(i) Capable of sustained flight in the atmosphere;

(ii) Flown within visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft; and

(iii) Flown for hobby or recreational purposes."​

That is the exact definition in the LAW passed by Congress in Public LAW 112-95.

So yes, the FAA cannot add any rule or regulation after the effective date of PL 112-95 regarding model aircraft - but if you are not flying within line of sight, IT IS NOT LEGALLY CONSIDERED A MODEL AIRCRAFT, and you have no legal authority to fly it at all, since all unmanned aircraft flight is authorized in Part 101 and Part 107 - and both prohibit NLOS flight (absent a waiver for 107 pilots).

And if you somehow think that the FAA's regulations are not law, try flying a Cessna without a Part 91 pilot's license or disobeying the directions of the flight crew on your next commercial flight and see how that works out for you. Or, you could just read this: Administrative Procedure Act (United States) - Wikipedia

(Pro tip: The Administrative Procedure Act is a LAW).

Looks like we will have to remain in disagreement. Ultimately, the NAS should not be endangered and the guidelines should always be on your mind when you fly.

 

[George-H]

That's not the FAA's interpretation.

https://www.faa.gov/uas/media/model_aircraft_spec_rule.pdf

By definition, a model aircraft must be “flown within visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft.” P.L. 112-95, section 336(c)(2).1 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. Under the criteria above, visual line of sight would mean that the operator has an unobstructed view of the model aircraft. 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.2 Such devices would limit the operator’s field of view thereby
reducing his or her ability to see-and-avoid other aircraft in the area. Additionally, some of these devices could dramatically increase the distance at which an operator could see the aircraft, rendering the statutory visual-line-of-sight requirements meaningless. Finally, based on the plain language of the statute, which says that aircraft must be “flown within the visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft,” an operator could not rely on another person to satisfy the visual line of sight requirement. See id. (emphasis added). While the statute would not preclude using an observer to augment the safety of the operation, the operator must be able to view the aircraft at all times.[/QUOTE
I guess we should all park our Mavic---When you look at your controller while the Mavic is in the air---You loose site of it and brake the FAA regulation. Also the original rule quoted on this form (107) was for non hobbyist. They need to update the rules for drones---most all rules were made for RC airplanes that we have now.

 

[joet]

It says "must be visible at all times", not "must be stared at continuously from takeoff to landing".

 

[George-H]

It says "must be visible at all times", not "must be stared at continuously from takeoff to landing".

How can it be visible if your not looking at it.??

 

[rydfree]

They were "guidelines " for decades , now there's that dang word “Must” ‘lol


3. Do I need permission from the FAA to fly a UAS for recreation or as a hobby?
There are two ways for recreational or hobby UAS fliers to operate in the National Airspace System in accordance with the law and/or FAA regulations. Each of the two options has specific requirements that the UAS operator must follow. The decision as to which option to follow is up to the individual operator.

Option #1. Fly in accordance with the Special Rule for Model Aircraft (Public Law 112-95 Section 336). Under this rule, operators must:

a. Fly for hobby or recreational purposes only

b. Follow a community-based set of safety guidelines

c. Fly the UAS within visual line-of-sight

d. Give way to manned aircraft

e. Provide prior notification to the airport and air traffic control tower, if one is present, when flying within 5 miles of an airport

f. Fly UAS that weigh no more than 55 lbs. unless certified by a community-based organization

g. Register the aircraft (UAS over 0.55 lbs. and less than 55 lbs. can be registered online at registermyuas.faa.gov; UAS 55 lbs. or greater must be registered through the FAA's paper-based process)

 

[joet]

How can it be visible if your not looking at it.??

visible

adjective
1. that can be seen; perceptible to the eye

Just because you can see something doesn't mean that you are constantly viewing it. The intention here is that it remains visible - i.e. That you can see what is around the aircraft and where it is in relation to those things.

 

[Sisyphus]

I am referring to the fact that there is no law. Recommendations and regulations. Good recommendations. Not laws. I won't discuss this beyond this post. But you'll never convince me there is a law because Congress said there can't be one. The FAA agrees but says they can intervene if NAS is at risk, but they haven't intervened. Hobbyists don't have laws on the books, beyond what defines a UAV. And I guess I'll never convince you of the difference between laws and recommendations. I probably should have asked you what your definition of LAW is.

Regulations are legally binding. Federal or state laws (enacted by Congress or state legislatures) often require federal or state agencies to adopt regulations...and we do have to obey them or suffer the legal consequences if caught.

That said, there are a lot of ambiguities and logical inconsistencies in the regulatory environment for drones. For example, recreational fliers (which require no training) can fly in controlled airspace (with proper notification of nearby airports) while commercial (Part 107) pilots, (who have been tested) can't, in most cases.

The interesting thing about the Special Rule for Model Aircraft is that it's a regulation that defines what's not regulated. It defines model aircraft operation and exempts it - but only if it fits the definition. The definition, in turn, is essentially the FAA "guidelines" for model aircraft. In other words, if you follow the guidelines, then by definition you are engaging in model avaition and thus exempt. If you don't follow the guidelines, then you are engaging in flight that is not model aviation and thus is subject to FAA regulation. It's an odd form of de facto regulation.

It is in the best interest of our hobby not to call negative attention to ourselves when we fly. Just because Congress has historically prevented regulation of model aircraft, we should not assume that they will not reverse that position. We (drone geeks) actually have it a lot better here in the US than some other countries, but that could easily change.

 

[Strafe1]

Regulations are legally binding. Federal or state laws (enacted by Congress or state legislatures) often require federal or state agencies to adopt regulations...and we do have to obey them or suffer the legal consequences if caught.

That said, there are a lot of ambiguities and logical inconsistencies in the regulatory environment for drones. For example, recreational fliers (which require no training) can fly in controlled airspace (with proper notification of nearby airports) while commercial (Part 107) pilots, (who have been tested) can't, in most cases.

The interesting thing about the Special Rule for Model Aircraft is that it's a regulation that defines what's not regulated. It defines model aircraft operation and exempts it - but only if it fits the definition. The definition, in turn, is essentially the FAA "guidelines" for model aircraft. In other words, if you follow the guidelines, then by definition you are engaging in model avaition and thus exempt. If you don't follow the guidelines, then you are engaging in flight that is not model aviation and thus is subject to FAA regulation. It's an odd form of de facto regulation.

It is in the best interest of our hobby not to call negative attention to ourselves when we fly. Just because Congress has historically prevented regulation of model aircraft, we should not assume that they will not reverse that position. We (drone geeks) actually have it a lot better here in the US than some other countries, but that could easily change.

I agree with you.

 

[theecrewchief]

Hey guys. Here is the AC regarding it https://www.faa.gov/uas/media/AC_107-2_AFS-1_Signed.pdf .You will be in all kinds of trouble if you bust a TFR or class B airspace (pretty much every major city close to the airport). I am actually a certified pilot on top of being a drone pilot and have known the FAA to hunt down people who operate too close to the airports. I know the life flight helicopters here have had some issues with drones.

 

[kvn_roberts]

This afternoon while I was out flying my Mavic, I briefly lost visual los from the aircraft... within seconds an FAA enforcement eagle swooped in and swiftly dropped my Mavic out of the air. Before I had time to drop a curse word or two, I was surrounded by what I thought was the MIB... turns out it was just the FAA. I explained to them I only briefly lost sight of my Mavic which was 400 ft AGL @ approx. 3826 ft away. They then called Agent O, the on call FAA optometrist to perform an on the spot eye exam. Agent O notified me that my vision wasn't 20/20 and I required corrective lenses in order to properly fly my Mavic and maintain line of sight for distances greater than 1239 ft. By now a fairly large group of protestors gathered around chanting "No Trump, No KKK, No Fascist USA".... the FAA took notice and quickly began to pack up and retreat back to their HQ, but not before implanting a chip into my skull that basically scrambles the signal between my Mavic and the remote controller. On a side note, no animals were injured during the seizure of my Mavic. The eagle is out there, beware cowboys and cowgirls.


Sent from my iPhone using MavicPilots

 

[Sisyphus]

Hey guys. Here is the AC regarding it https://www.faa.gov/uas/media/AC_107-2_AFS-1_Signed.pdf .You will be in all kinds of trouble if you bust a TFR or class B airspace (pretty much every major city close to the airport). I am actually a certified pilot on top of being a drone pilot and have known the FAA to hunt down people who operate too close to the airports. I know the life flight helicopters here have had some issues with drones.

Theecrewchief, the advisory circular you linked is for Part 107 operations. I'm a Part 61 and Part 107 pilot, too (if that matters), and I'm aware of the prohibition of Part 107 operations in controlled airspace. However, the OP didn't say he was conducting Part 107 operations. From his description of his flight, he does not sound like a 107 Remote Pilot, and the flight does not sound like a 107 operation. "Model aircraft" flight is not prohibited in controlled airspace, although unsafe flight is prohibited anywhere. FAA has said that, if an airport operator or ATC objects to a model aircraft flight, FAA will deem that flight unsafe and may bust the pilot for it. Likewise, FAA could bust a pilot (recreational or 107) for flying out of VLOS either as an unsafe flight or because the flight no longer qualified as "model aircraft" operation.

All pilots are responsible for flying safely, but "model aircraft" can be safely and legally operated in Class B airspace under some circumstances. Part 107 operations can't fly in controlled airspace without a waiver or authorization. AFAIK, FAA has not issued any waivers or authorizations for 107 flight in Class B airspace yet. Heck, they've been sitting for 3+ months on my applications for very limited operations at the edge of some Class D/E airspace.

 

[theecrewchief]

I would rather not risk flying the class B airspace myself and have the FAA fine you or confiscate the drone. Spending a day pleading with the fisdo doesn't sound like much fun to me. On a side note do you have any insite into registering the drone with an actual N number and flying it as a legit aircraft? That's on my eventual to do list.

 

[Sisyphus]

I haven't flown my MP in Class B, and obviously can't make any Part 107 flights in B airspace. I would not worry about FAA enforcement actions for a Part 336 flight in B airspace if I made the required notifications, ATC had no objections (and of course complied with all other requirements). That may be a big "if," but I can imagine ATC might be OK with a flight 5 miles from an airport, not under a standard approach or departure route, not under an extended runway centerline, and under 200 feet. The only way to find out would be to make the notification and see what the response is.

I saw your post in another thread asking about registering your drone as an aircraft in the experimental category, but don't have any info on it. It sounds like an interesting idea, as it might be a better route to getting authorization for commercial flight in controlled airspace than applying for waiver or authorization under Part 107 (which currently seems to be stuck in neutral).

 

[dleasman]

I agree that there was a lack of common sense with this flight, as described by the original poster... And I am very aware of the FAA rules, and try my best to obey them. But for this individual, I can't judge him too harshly. YouTube is full of videos of guys doing range tests, implying that it's ok to fly your drone as far as signal allows. Even DJI boats that the Mavic and controller have a 4.3 mile range. All DJI includes with their drones is a small notice that says to check your local laws, but does not give a lot of information. Anyone can just go to BestBuy, buy a drone, and fly it that day, with no training, or common sense applied. This is exactly what is going to kill the drone community... I often wish the price of these drones was double what they are currently charging. If they cost $3000, people would very likely be more careful when flying. Instead, they are somewhat inexpensive, at $1000, and the perception is that they are so easy to fly, anyone can just buy one and fly it. So, in the end, I can't cast all the blame on the original poster. It's more a question of awareness, that should probably on the drone manufacturers... If necessary, disable the drone out of the box until it's registered online. Then, have a test that you must pass for your drone to be activated, unless you already posess a code from passing the test previously. Part of that process, for the US, could also include registering with the FAA. No activation of the drone without a valid FAA ID.

I would also like to see the FAA be a little more welcoming for people wanting to pass the Part 107. Information on how to study is pretty scarce, like they don't actually WANT anyone to become certified, where the goal should be to educate.

So, there's my 2 cents on the subject...