Public Law 112-95, Section 336 – Special Rule for Model Aircraft

[Robert Mitchell]

It's very interesting I was thinking about this point relating to CBO. I agree with you in that I could be a CBO you could be a CBO or anyone could be a CBO. It's a very loose definition of a regulating or regulatory type agency to be sure.

Yep, it's something I believe they (FAA) will be addressing in seeking future rulemaking authority, similar to the registration requirement, they are trying to obtain with this current 2017 reauthorization.

They don't usually let sleeping dogs lay.

 

[Cryhavoc38]

The FAA's interpretation of the Special rules for Model aircraft were struck down a month ago.
There are no LAWS. The FAA was shown to have overstepped its mandate.

There is no Federal law that states a recreational user must maintain VLOS

 

[MavicCF]

The FAA's interpretation of the Special rules for Model aircraft were struck down a month ago.
There are no LAWS. The FAA was shown to have overstepped its mandate.

There is no Federal law that states a recreational user must maintain VLOS

I think the 400' was only a suggestion and LOS was a law but like Cryhavoc38 said, a recent Federal court ruling stated that the FAA couldn't regulate non-commercial UAVs. I love how you are looking to do what's right though! You have my respect sir! -CF

 

[tcope]

The FAA's interpretation of the Special rules for Model aircraft were struck down a month ago.
There are no LAWS. The FAA was shown to have overstepped its mandate.

There is no Federal law that states a recreational user must maintain VLOS

Could not be more incorrect.

What was rejected was the UAV _registration_. Section 333-336 in no way was rejected and all of that is still 100% enforce (including VLOS).

 

[tcope]

I think the 400' was only a suggestion and LOS was a law but like Cryhavoc38 said, a recent Federal court ruling stated that the FAA couldn't regulate non-commercial UAVs. I love how you are looking to do what's right though! You have my respect sir! -CF

Nope. That is incorrect (the 400' recommendation is correct, everything else is incorrect).

 

[MavicCF]

I'm pretty sure the FAA rules are not relevant to non-commercial UAV pilots anymore, here is a link.

 

[tcope]

I'm pretty sure the FAA rules are not relevant to non-commercial UAV pilots anymore, here is a link.

Read the title of the article. You don't even need to read anything else. The REGISTRATION of UAVs was struck down, not Section 333-336. Registration was not, and could not be, a part of Section 336.

 

[geigy]

I take safety very, very seriously and I will keep to the spirit of the rules as best I am able. Video is an important component of safe flight, and the fact that the rules do not incorporate this fact makes the rules outmoded and dangerous.

When cars first came out, one town came out with a requirement that a man with a lantern or cowbell or some such walk in front of the car at all times while it was driving. To me, the LOS "rule" is in this category - outdated to the point of being silly and even dangerous.

Flying without clear video, even when you can see your drone as a dot in the sky, is taking an unnecessary risk. So the "rule", originally intended for safety, is actually promoting risky behavior by marginalizing the importance of the video feed.

It's important to know exactly where your drone is, and where it is headed, and any nearby hazards or risks to others at all times. Relying on instruments, including a distance, height, speed and direction, plus a high resolution video feed, to accomplish this is a safe way to fly your drone.

It gives me the willies when inexperienced people fly any distance away without it, or with the sun on their screen so that they miss obvious hazards and put others in danger - not to mention crashing their drones. At any kind of distance relying on LOS alone is more risky than using a good video feed.

The rules must and will be changed to reflect the new reality, hopefully sooner rather than later.

 

[WIMMPYIII]

VLOS is a suggestion not a law. Its that simple until the court decides different.

 

[tcope]

VLOS is a suggestion not a law. Its that simple until the court decides different.

It _IS_ part of the law (I quoted it above). Been discussed many times.

If you want to fly under hobby laws you are required to fly VLOS. So you are either in violation of hobby flight laws or you are now required to have a Part 107 exemption and fall under those laws.

 

[Falcon1az]

It _IS_ part of the law (I quoted it above). Been discussed many times.

If you want to fly under hobby laws you are required to fly VLOS. So you are either in violation of hobby flight laws or you are now required to have a Part 107 exemption and fall under those laws.

I agree with you. Helpful to have the discussion. Served as an opportunity to get educated and better understand how this applies to me when I fly my Mavic. Very good information.

Big take away:
- Line-of-sight... applies to me (hobbyist).
- 400' ceiling... applies to me (hobbyist). Based on the AMA safety guidelines (the AMA as the CBO); I am an AMA member.

 

[MavicCF]

First, I am all for rules that keep this hobby safe and fun (I do disagree with the VLOS). However, the 2012 FAA modernization and reform act says that the "FAA may not promulgate any rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft," that's why this Federal court case happened, the FAA has no jurisdiction over UAVs. They can make suggestions, not rules. Whether that's a good thing or not is up for debate.-CF

 

[tcope]

First, I am all for rules that keep this hobby safe and fun (I do disagree with the VLOS). However, the 2012 FAA modernization and reform act says that the "FAA may not promulgate any rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft," that's why this Federal court case happened, the FAA has no jurisdiction over UAVs. They can make suggestions, not rules. Whether that's a good thing or not is up for debate.-CF

That is incorrect. I've actually quote above the regulations showing that VLOS is a law if you want to fly under hobby use. I can point you to the law, quote the law, explain why it applies and what it means... but it's on you to accept that information or not. The very law/act that you acknowledge... IS that law. The law was not made by the FAA... it was made by Congress.

And again, the Federal Court did not rule on this issue... it ruled against the registry and _only_ the registry. You can do a simple Google search and this information will jump right out at you for confirmation.

 

[WIMMPYIII]

That is incorrect. I've actually quote above the regulations showing that VLOS is a law if you want to fly under hobby use. I can point you to the law, quote the law, explain why it applies and what it means... but it's on you to accept that information or not. The very law/act that you acknowledge... IS that law. The law was not made by the FAA... it was made by Congress.

And again, the Federal Court did not rule on this issue... it ruled against the registry and _only_ the registry. You can do a simple Google search and this information will jump right out at you for confirmation.

FAA can’t make rules about model aircraft in class G airspace period end of story.

 

[Falcon1az]

I just tried to call the FAA for clarification. What a cluster... hung up after a couple attempts to speak to someone.

 

[tcope]

FAA can’t make rules about model aircraft in class G airspace period end of story.

Are we changing the topic to something that was not being discussed?

 

[tcope]

I just tried to call the FAA for clarification. What a cluster... hung up after a couple attempts to speak to someone.

Just that you attempted this, I'll give you a big thumbs up!

 

[Falcon1az]

First, I am all for rules that keep this hobby safe and fun (I do disagree with the VLOS). However, the 2012 FAA modernization and reform act says that the "FAA may not promulgate any rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft," that's why this Federal court case happened, the FAA has no jurisdiction over UAVs. They can make suggestions, not rules. Whether that's a good thing or not is up for debate.-CF

I don't think you can end the sentence without adding "...model aircraft, if-" and disregard the balance of the SEC.336. SPECIAL RULE FOR MOEDL AIRCRAFT. SEC.336. continues from the "IF-" with very specific criteria to be met to keep the adminstrator from making rules and regulations pertaining to model aircraft. I believe this is why you have the Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulation (14 CFR) Part 107. Those are laws that have to be adhered to be legal under Part 107.

I've attached the text and highlighted the part where the Administrator can pursue enforcement actions against persons operating model aircraft who endanger the safety of the national airspace system. I believe that includes flying beyond line-of-sight and over a 400' ceiling.

 

[MavicCF]

I guess I must be wrong tcope. I found the site that said that the Federal court took out the FAA rules/guidlines but it appears to be an unreliable source. However, I am curious, how can the FAA make rules like VLOS if they aren't supposed to make rules about model AC?

 

[vashon100]

Just curious, can one have LOS without it being VLOS? "Visual" seems redundant to me, not sure what distinction people try to make with it, rather than just typing LOS.