FAA Got Slapped Down - Cannot Regulate Model Aircraft

[Gary cato]

I think that what the FAA said before this court case happened should still be viewed as common sense, Don't fly stupidly close to airports, stuff like that. Now more than ever people need to use common sense. But i'm pretty sure that you won't get a fine if you fly above 400 feet and certainly not out of line of sight.

So what does DJI do now with all their NFZ and Geo fencing they have a bit of a dilemma here me thinks. Do they drop the NFZ's now? That would sure make a lot of people happy.

I don't think they will, I think that these laws may become looser but only as the developers bring in more stringent software to regulate us themselves.

 

[Kestrel]

You need to quote the rest of Section 336 before people celebrate that they're free to do whatever they want.

I'm sure people aren't free to do what they want. Who would think they were free to fly inside a military base? Common sense, but i'm sure people aren't going to get in trouble for flying out of the line of sight.

 

[AyeYo]

I'm sure people aren't free to do what they want. Who would think they were free to fly inside a military base? Common sense, but i'm sure people aren't going to get in trouble for flying out of the line of sight.

Seeing as how Section 336 specifically says you cannot fly outside of line of sight, you very well might, especially if the FAA is in the mood to retaliate and make a examples out of people. As for people not thinking they can do whatever they want... just look at almost every reply to this thread.

 

[Gary cato]

Seeing as how Section 336 specifically says you cannot fly outside of line of sight, you very well might, especially if the FAA is in the mood to retaliate and make a examples out of people. As for people not thinking they can do whatever they want... just look at almost every reply to this thread.

I have to agree here i would hate to see anyone see this and run off into the yonder and believe they do not have anything stopping them flying where they want.

I don't think we can start opening the beers just yet.

 

[Robbyg]

I may be a lone wolf on this but I think this turn of events is a bad thing!

At least with the public perception of the FAA having some level of control we are were fairly safe from any kind of knee jerk reaction created by the drone fearing public. Now with the ball squarely in the hands of politicians we are at the mercy of those who respond to whatever gets them the most votes.

Rob

 

[AyeYo]

I have to agree here i would hate to see anyone see this and run off into the yonder and believe they do not have anything stopping them flying where they want.

I don't think we can start opening the beers just yet.

I think the post title needs to be changed because it's misleading. While it's true the FAA can't regulate model aircraft, Section 336 then goes on to describe what qualifies as a model aircraft (and it isn't "I bought it at a hobby store")... and people seem to be intentionally overlooking that part.

 

[AyeYo]

I may be a lone wolf on this but I think this turn of events is a bad thing!

At least with the public perception of the FAA having some level of control we are were fairly safe from any kind of knee jerk reaction created by the drone fearing public. Now with the ball squarely in the hands of politicians we are at the mercy of those who respond to whatever gets them the most votes.

Rob

Bingo

 

[Qoncussion]

Now with the ball squarely in the hands of politicians we are at the mercy of those who respond to whatever gets them the most votes.

This has always been true... No matter what is decided in the courts, politicians be trippin'.

 

[rent]

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 community- based 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;
(2) flown within visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft; and
(3) flown for hobby or recreational purposes.

 

[2nckayakers]

I may be a lone wolf on this but I think this turn of events is a bad thing!

At least with the public perception of the FAA having some level of control we are were fairly safe from any kind of knee jerk reaction created by the drone fearing public. Now with the ball squarely in the hands of politicians we are at the mercy of those who respond to whatever gets them the most votes.

Rob

I don't always agree with some things Rob says, but on this I completely agree. My neighbor has come over and asked me about my Mavic and she had all kinds of concerns but as soon as I explained to her that we had rules to follow and that I was registered with the FAA she didn't have any problems anymore because she felt there was some regulation and I could get in trouble if I didn't follow the rules.

Think about this one too guys, when you are registered with the FAA you are an aircraft. SO now you don't have to register so officially you aren't an "aircraft" so what if John Boy Bob across the street decides to shoot you down with his ole double barrel goose gun. Are you still protected? Has he shot down an Aircraft and can be prosecuted to the fullest extend of the law just as if he had shot and hit a manned aircraft? Or now, did he just shoot down a pesky "toy" that was annoying him and flying over his house without his permission.

 

[Kestrel]

I may be a lone wolf on this but I think this turn of events is a bad thing!

At least with the public perception of the FAA having some level of control we are were fairly safe from any kind of knee jerk reaction created by the drone fearing public. Now with the ball squarely in the hands of politicians we are at the mercy of those who respond to whatever gets them the most votes.

Rob

I don't think it's a bad thing, I've always been the kind of guy that hates government regulation.

 

[Kestrel]

I don't always agree with some things Rob says, but on this I completely agree. My neighbor has come over and asked me about my Mavic and she had all kinds of concerns but as soon as I explained to her that we had rules to follow and that I was registered with the FAA she didn't have any problems anymore because she felt there was some regulation and I could get in trouble if I didn't follow the rules.

Think about this one too guys, when you are registered with the FAA you are an aircraft. SO now you don't have to register so officially you aren't an "aircraft" so what if John Boy Bob across the street decides to shoot you down with his ole double barrel goose gun. Are you still protected? Has he shot down an Aircraft and can be prosecuted to the fullest extend of the law just as if he had shot and hit a manned aircraft? Or now, did he just shoot down a pesky "toy" that was annoying him and flying over his house without his permission.

Well people shot down drones before and didn't receive any jail time or fines. And as far as the rest of the so called rules. Before this case has anyone ever been prosecuted for flying out of the line of sight or going above 400 feet. This forum alone has probably hundreds of out of line of sight videos. So those that say try it and see, well lots of people have already..

Not saying people should do anything I'm just saying that the chances of people getting fined for out of line of sight flying or going a foot over 400 are extremely rare.

 

[Gary cato]

Well people shot down drones before and didn't receive any jail time or fines. And as far as the rest of the so called rules. Before this case has anyone ever been prosecuted for flying out of the line of sight or going above 400 feet. This forum alone has probably hundreds of out of line of sight videos. So those that say try it and see, well lots of people have already..

Lots of people have including myself, and no one has been because if anyone does endanger something it will not be flying beyond VLOS that they will probably be charged with. (BTW i am from UK and no rule changes here).

Flying beyond VLOS will be the least of someones worries if they do suddenly think wow this is cool lets go fly it like we stole it.

I personally have no problems with anyone flying BVLOS,

I am though aware of the risks, especially with technology that is not yet running software,that has more bugs than the Amazon, with developers who use the customer as its testers.

I also have no problem with the laws being in place, but leeway allowed, as is the case here and in Thailand right now.

That way if there is a need to prosecute for something reckless at least it can be implemented. My impressions in the UK so far have been 95 percent of people seeing me fly are generally pretty good attitude wise and i have never had the police called by anyone yet.

Leeway is one thing, responsibility and accountability are another.

i would not mind registration here with the leeway kept, that way we can fly, but we are also accountable, being accountable does make you think more and try to plan harder.



.

 

[2nckayakers]

Yeah there have been people prosecuted over shooting down drones. I know there are some that have been dismissed, but there are others where they had to pay restitution to the owner and pay bail and fines. Google will yield several if you go and look.

As far as line of sight, I try to stay safe and for the most part follow rules but I admit I fly out of line of sight regularly. I fly over a couple of fields near the house and down the road leading to the house and it is not uncommon for me to sit on the front porch where I can see one field and then fly over the top of the house to the back field. Actually when I am below tree line I can't even see the Mavic sometimes because it blends into the background.

As for the 400 feet thing, I live within 5 miles of an airport and the approach to one of the runways goes right over the house. I feel very safe at 400 feet as Class E is at 700 feet over the house and having that 300 foot separation between me and manned aircraft is a good thing. I can't see anything above 700 feet that I can't see at 400 feet. It is very rare that I fly with the camera on level with the horizon. Usually I have it pointed down at 30 or 45 degrees or more because I am looking at what I am flying over. I can see much more detail at 400 feet than I could at a higher altitude.

For the most part if you stay below 400 feet and you are not within 5 miles of an airport you are in class G airspace in the US. There are exceptions so don't jump out and try to explain airspace or special use, or restricted and prohibited space to me. I know airspace. So when you get up to the 700 feet and above for a vast majority of the US you are in Class E controlled space. And I know class E starts at 1200 but if you look at pretty much any chart for populated areas around the US you will find that there are way more areas where class E drops down to 700.

I am not one to like a lot of regulation either, but if we don't have some regulation with some consequences for actions then you will find out one day that we won't have any rights to do anything at all.

 

[Stuart Wood]

No more section 107, or hobbist vs commercial uses?

Commercial still regulated.

 

[Ryder]

I think this could be a bad development. Registration made the bureaucrats feel OK about their efforts. All this will do is make them feel that there is a hole and they will try to get congress to legislate in the wake of this... and I don't trust congress in the least.

 

[Ray Dunakin]

Well people shot down drones before and didn't receive any jail time or fines. And as far as the rest of the so called rules. Before this case has anyone ever been prosecuted for flying out of the line of sight or going above 400 feet. This forum alone has probably hundreds of out of line of sight videos. So those that say try it and see, well lots of people have already..

Not saying people should do anything I'm just saying that the chances of people getting fined for out of line of sight flying or going a foot over 400 are extremely rare.

I tend to be opposed to government overreach and excessive regulation.

However, I think the thing with rules like these which are commonly broken and basically unenforceable, is that they provide a clear line that can be pointed to when someone does something incredibly stupid and causes an accident. It's easier to prove that the flight was reckless if there is a definitive line that was crossed.

That doesn't mean that the FAA is going to prosecute everyone who ever "bends the rules". What is does mean is you'd better be darn sure that you do it safely, because if you screw up you're not going to have a legal leg to stand on.

 

[Ryder]

I think that what the FAA said before this court case happened should still be viewed as common sense, Don't fly stupidly close to airports, stuff like that. Now more than ever people need to use common sense. But i'm pretty sure that you won't get a fine if you fly above 400 feet and certainly not out of line of sight.

None of that changes, my friend. Only registration.

If you operate outside of the guidelines of model aircraft, then you instantly become a UAV non-hobby pilot, under full jurisdiction of the FAA.

In over words, an "model aircraft" is not the machine. It's how the machine is used.

Stay below 400' and in line of sight unless you want to leave the realm of hobbyist.

 

[mamayda]

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 community- based 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;
(2) flown within visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft; and
(3) flown for hobby or recreational purposes.

Thank you! 336 must be considered in it entirety. Read all of it before jumping to conclusions...

 

[Ryder]

That's not what the link I posted said, if they can't make any rules regulating the model aircraft then they can't tell that person flying the model aircraft that it can't fly 400 feet above or below or anything like that because its a model aircraft.

Again, to be clear... a model aircraft is not just the machine... it's the way the machine is flown. If you fly it outside of the parameters of model aircraft, your Mav becomes a UAS, non-hobby... and you're under FAA jurisdiction at that point.