FAA Got Slapped Down - Cannot Regulate Model Aircraft

[Plawa]

LOL. How is "Visual Line of SIght" legally determined? If i have a pair of binoculars, my RPA that is 1 mile away is still within line of sight. How far can I fly if I have a telescope? LOL

You could always just read part 107... "LOL"

At all times the small unmanned aircraft must remain close enough to the remote pilot in command and the person manipulating the flight controls of the small UAS for those people to be capable of seeing the aircraft with vision unaided by any device other than corrective lenses.

 

[normr]

"The statute defines model aircraft as an unmanned aircraft that is capable of sustained flight in the atmosphere, flown within visual line of sight and flown for hobby or recreational purposes."

A model aircraft is flown within line of sight , that still screws most of you ,lol

But why would Part-107 matter also, it's still using a unmanned model aircraft right?

 

[GustheCat]

I tried to register my Mavic today, but could not. The page does not exist any longer.

 

[GustheCat]

But why would Part-107 matter also, it's still using a unmanned model aircraft right?

The exemption exists for hobbyist craft. The FAA can regulate any commercial aircraft, whether it is manned or not.

 

[Strafe1]

Well, this is quite interesting then, as I was led to believe this to be the case (by the FAA no less). That sounds for the documents. Is it possible that there are other AMA docs that do point toward altitude limits?

Until then, I stand corrected. I may have to join AMA just to learn more about them. I was a member in past years... before drones.

Thanks.

There are places on FAA websites and publications that do mention flight limits of 400'. They are general safety guidelines (not laws) that perhaps make it easier to convey basic information. And they can also confuse the casual observer. Because part 107 flyers have the 400' restriction (unless a waiver is received), and the AMA states a 400' limit only within 3 miles of a major airport, I suspect it is easier to just say that if you stay below 400' you're safe in practically all scenarios. The FAA wrote a clarifying letter stating its interpretation of the Public Law as well as its role in implementation of that law. The summary of that interpretation is that they acknowledge they cannot regulate hobby model aircraft flight or make any rules regarding model aircraft. But that doesn't mean there is nothing they can do. If anyone endangers the National Air Space, they can act. They can also act if a pilot flies beyond the rules designated by the Public Law for model aircraft. I will post that for you below. Regarding this thread, suffice it to say there is no 400' limit for hobby pilots.

 

[CyberNate]

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

This is my exact reaction to this news! Be careful for what you wish for. Now you'll have politicians making the rules, like in Canada.

 

[Ryder]

There are places on FAA websites and publications that do mention flight limits of 400'. They are general safety guidelines (not laws) that perhaps make it easier to convey basic information. And they can also confuse the casual observer. Because part 107 flyers have the 400' restriction (unless a waiver is received), and the AMA states a 400' limit only within 3 miles of a major airport, I suspect it is easier to just say that if you stay below 400' you're safe in practically all scenarios. The FAA wrote a clarifying letter stating its interpretation of the Public Law as well as its role in implementation of that law. The summary of that interpretation is that they acknowledge they cannot regulate hobby model aircraft flight or make any rules regarding model aircraft. But that doesn't mean there is nothing they can do. If anyone endangers the National Air Space, they can act. They can also act if a pilot flies beyond the rules designated by the Public Law for model aircraft. I will post that for you below. Regarding this thread, suffice it to say there is no 400' limit for hobby pilots.

The AMA 560 document you linked has a 400' limit within 5 miles of an airport.

So in this particular case, that 5mi radius rule of 400' AGL is the hobbyist limit. If that is violated, you're outside of the hobbyist realm of flight, and FAA then has jurisdiction. (Barring another community standard you may find).

Outside of 5mi... I see no obvious hobby limit in the document.

 

[DonLandis]

I suspect it is easier to just say that if you stay below 400' you're safe in practically all scenarios. The FAA wrote a clarifying letter stating its interpretation of the Public Law as well as its role in implementation of that law. The summary of that interpretation is that they acknowledge they cannot regulate hobby model aircraft flight or make any rules regarding model aircraft.

First, I understand the recent court ruling bans the FAA from requiring hobbyists from having to register. And, I understand that the AMA is a private organization with guidelines for it's members and has no legal authority to rule the hobby or overrule the FAA, right?

But in regard to the document you attached, it says nothing about assuming it is safe to fly as a hobbyist below 400' when within the 5 mile radius of an airport tower or other restricted air space. Some things are basic common sense. For example, I may wish to take off and land as a hobbyist 4.5 miles from an airport tower. I plan to fly well below surrounding treeline and other structures. According to the SEC. 336. SPECIAL RULE FOR MODEL AIRCRAFT.
(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)). I would still need to give prior notice and establish a mutually agreed operating procedure with both the airport management AND the ATC tower operator. Not only is this very difficult to get to these people, it is also silly from a practical common sense view. I'm sure the highly intelligent ATC operators would consider me calling them up every day for notification on each flight like a commercial pilot planning to do take off's and landings at the airport as harassment under the guidelines of the FAA rules.

While I agree the 400 ft rule you stated is good common sense it is not in the regulation referenced. Likely no enforcement would be done in my example as an accident with a commercial flying aircraft would be impossible. But, the regulation is there and if they wanted to play a game in court, they could pull that regulation out and use it against you. So if you fail to notify the two people at the airport you wish to do take offs and landings in the restricted airspace but well below structures and treeline, you are illegally flying. I'm not even sure 400 ft would be a problem 4.5 miles away, but a half mile away it surely would be.

I'm not a lawyer, as if that matters, and I'm new to the hobby, just trying to understand how to be safe, legal, and still enjoy the hobby. If it means being illegal but never being in a condition where I will harm anyone, I guess that's how we roll if being honest about it.

I appreciate any correction to what I stated as I'm just trying to make sense of all this. It was complicated before, now nobody seems to know what the rules are and how they apply to me as a hobbyist.

 

[RAW]

Wow, so I guess this means no more registrations.I'm ok with this, the likelihood of them actually recovering a registration from a drone that hit an aircraft would be next to none in my opinion anyway.

And the 400 foot rule is now gone and all other rules or recommendations. That being said, its still a good idea to follow them or at-least use common sense.

This covers registration only for hobbyist only.

 

[Blades]

This covers registration only for hobbyist only.

True but it also confirms that they have no right to regulate Hobby/recreational "toys".
I got a 15$ 1 lbs toy helicopter and so why do I need to spend five more dollars to register the toy and give my personal information and credit card numbers and it may be flown 10 times in its lifetime. It is a POWER GRAB by the FAA. My kid rides a bike and could do more damage to somebody and property then my one pound UVA. And I believe there's been more incidents with bicycles then toy UVAs. We don't need big brother controlling everything we do it's called responsibility for your actions! If you do anything that could hurt someone or damaged property you are responsible.
I don't need pre-emptive control. If I do something and hurt somebody or something I am responsible and will take responsibility. Thats how it works.
It's not like in the movie Minority Report with Tom Cruise but it maybe someday if we allow them to keep grabbing power for everything.

 

[Stuart Wood]

LOL. How is "Visual Line of SIght" legally determined? If i have a pair of binoculars, my RPA that is 1 mile away is still within line of sight. How far can I fly if I have a telescope? LOL

Defined In the AMA guidelines, posted somewhere earlier in the thread. Normal, unaided vision (except by prescription lens).

 

[msinger]

Defined In the AMA guidelines, posted somewhere earlier in the thread. Normal, unaided vision (except by prescription lens).

In other documents (like this one), the AMA says it's okay to use a spotter when flying with an FPV system. They seem to have contradicting rules.

 

[DSGDSG]

That being said, the first time a clown causes a problem with commercial or recreational air traffic we may very well see UAVs banned entirely.

Clowns have already interefered with air traffic on more than one occasion and it's been well documented. Yet we are still in he air. I just do not see what purpose all the "sky is falling" talk serves anyone.

 

[DSGDSG]

The people celebrating this as a victory do not understand US politics or policy. This is a temporary win that will cause a long-term loss.

.

That very well may be. However, since when should we be content with regulations forced upon us which were not legal because what was forced wasn't as bad as it could have been? For better or for worse, there's a process that needs to be followed so I will be happy whenever the government is forced to adhere to the rules and law that are in place.

This is not technology that is going to just disappear. There are huge companies with lots of money for lobbying that want to see drones and their usage expand and become more main stream. Surely we stand to benefit from that in some way.

 

[Robert Mitchell]

Clowns have already interefered with air traffic on more than one occasion and it's been well documented. Yet we are still in he air. I just do not see what purpose all the "sky is falling" talk serves anyone.

I'm with you on this.

Have we gotten to the point where, its all or nothing with new technology?

I dont believe, just because there is an incident, it means it's all taken away.
Although I do believe there are those nanny lawmakers who would try, "in the name of everyone's safety".

 

[Robert Mitchell]

That very well may be. However, since when should we be content with regulations forced upon us which were not legal because what was forced wasn't as bad as it could have been? For better or for worse, there's a process that needs to be followed so I will be happy whenever the government is forced to adhere to the rules and law that are in place.

This is not technology that is going to just disappear. There are huge companies with lots of money for lobbying that want to see drones and their usage expand and become more main stream. Surely we stand to benefit from that in some way.

Very well stated.

 

[Blades]

I feel the headway in places that we can fly them will diminish thanks to knee jerk reactions. I know prior to 107, drones were banned in most parks.

You can not take off or land in parks but they can not make laws about the air space above the ground. The FAA has guidelines for hobbyist but its not law. Just don't fly around international airports and fly responsibly just like everything you do in life. If you run full speed into a car or person and hurt or cause damage you will get in trouble! just use common sense and be responsible. Golf balls fly into more ppl and windows then quads and they have no reg # lol.

 

[DonLandis]

Golf balls fly into more ppl and windows then quads and they have no reg # lol.

I was going to mention that. My daughter lived next to a golf course and got their windows smashed about every other month. They finally moved away and said never again. Their's was just one of 50 homes that was getting hit that often. Kids were flying toy drones in the neighborhood too and never a problem.

 

[Strafe1]

First, I understand the recent court ruling bans the FAA from requiring hobbyists from having to register. And, I understand that the AMA is a private organization with guidelines for it's members and has no legal authority to rule the hobby or overrule the FAA, right?

But in regard to the document you attached, it says nothing about assuming it is safe to fly as a hobbyist below 400' when within the 5 mile radius of an airport tower or other restricted air space. Some things are basic common sense. For example, I may wish to take off and land as a hobbyist 4.5 miles from an airport tower. I plan to fly well below surrounding treeline and other structures. According to the SEC. 336. SPECIAL RULE FOR MODEL AIRCRAFT.
(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)). I would still need to give prior notice and establish a mutually agreed operating procedure with both the airport management AND the ATC tower operator. Not only is this very difficult to get to these people, it is also silly from a practical common sense view. I'm sure the highly intelligent ATC operators would consider me calling them up every day for notification on each flight like a commercial pilot planning to do take off's and landings at the airport as harassment under the guidelines of the FAA rules.

While I agree the 400 ft rule you stated is good common sense it is not in the regulation referenced. Likely no enforcement would be done in my example as an accident with a commercial flying aircraft would be impossible. But, the regulation is there and if they wanted to play a game in court, they could pull that regulation out and use it against you. So if you fail to notify the two people at the airport you wish to do take offs and landings in the restricted airspace but well below structures and treeline, you are illegally flying. I'm not even sure 400 ft would be a problem 4.5 miles away, but a half mile away it surely would be.

I'm not a lawyer, as if that matters, and I'm new to the hobby, just trying to understand how to be safe, legal, and still enjoy the hobby. If it means being illegal but never being in a condition where I will harm anyone, I guess that's how we roll if being honest about it.

I appreciate any correction to what I stated as I'm just trying to make sense of all this. It was complicated before, now nobody seems to know what the rules are and how they apply to me as a hobbyist.

Hello Don. My post was an ongoing dialog for Ryder, who wanted to know if a 400' limit was mentioned in any other documents, as he was under the impression that there was an actual rule preventing flight above that altitude at all times. I was just telling him that there are documents that used that wording in it. In a previous post, I posted the AMA documents that mention the 400' rule. The document you are referencing is the Public Law for model aircraft, which I also wanted to have Ryder see. And as you know, there is no 400' limit mentioned there.
The answer to your question about the AMA's legal authority to rule the hobby or overrule the FAA, isn't straight forward. They can't overrule the FAA, but Congress (and the FAA) may have referenced them in the Public Law, as they are a nation wide community based association, maybe the only one. As far as the 400' AGL around airports being an actual rule or not, it depends on whether or not you believe the AMA's rules are the "community based guidelines", which are part of the conditions to fly, as stated in the Public Law. If you believe that this is the case (I'm not sure I do, but most people do), then the 400' rule within 3 miles of an airport would exist.
It sounds like you are the kind of pilot that represents our hobby well.

 

[Strafe1]

The AMA 560 document you linked has a 400' limit within 5 miles of an airport.

So in this particular case, that 5mi radius rule of 400' AGL is the hobbyist limit. If that is violated, you're outside of the hobbyist realm of flight, and FAA then has jurisdiction. (Barring another community standard you may find).

Outside of 5mi... I see no obvious hobby limit in the document.

Yes Ryder, that is correct. That is what I have been trying to present. That the stated limit of 400' AGL is ONLY within the radius of the airport, no where else you fly. Oddly, the AMA has other documents that say it's a 3 mile radius, and another that says 5mi. I believe the 3 mi. is the more correct one as that same radius is used in so many more of their publications.

I hope I didn't misunderstand you earlier. I was replying to you with the impression that you thought the AMA and the FAA limited all hobby flight to 400' AGL. All my replies to you were to present documentation proof to the contrary. Sorry if i misunderstood!