If in the US, have you read Sec 336?

[787steve]

I wonder how much time the average Mavic owners spent reading on line and watching videos about this cool machine before they purchased. I also wonder how much time the same people spent researching the laws that apply to us as hobbyist Mavic pilots. I am astounded by the number of posts where people claim there are guidelines, but no laws; Where people ask how the AMA can make rules, even federal laws, non members have to follow; Where people say the FAA cannot fine, or have any power over hobbyists; Where people ask why they can sell a drone that can fly miles away if you have to keep it in VLOS, etc, etc, etc.

The answers are easily found by a google search. All you have to do is search for Public Law 112-95. (NOT Public GUIDELINE 112-95). Open the pdf link and search for "Sec 336". That will take you to the portion titled "Special Rule for Model Aircraft". Then dig in and wade through it. A warning, it is almost one whole page long.

Thats it! One page. One lousy page! I learned to fly in 1972 in the Naval Training Command. I flew fighters for the USMC for 20 years. I flew as a captain for a major U.S. Airline. I was one of the first few dozen pilots to be rated on the B787 as an instructor for Boeing. I have a total of approximately 30,000 hours of flight time. I've flown to every continent except Antarctica. And I took the time to read the rules that apply to me and my Mavic. I think you should have the courtesy and feel the obligation to do the same.

It's ONE LOUSY PAGE.

If after that, you have questions, and you may well have some, ask, search, read. But if you haven't even made the effort to read one page, don't bother everyone else to do your homework for you.

It was an honor to serve,
Semper Fi

 

[Qoncussion]

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 adminis-
tered 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.

 

[CodgerMavic]

As stated by 787steve, here is section 336 for your reading pleasure:

SEC. 336. <<NOTE: 49 USC 40101 note.>> 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;

[[Page 126 STAT. 78]]

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

 

[tcope]

Some of the issue comes simply from people that are incorrect. For example, there is a certain person who put out a video (I won't mention names) and it was titled as to how you could fly higher then 400'. What this person did not say (in order to get views on the video) was that the video _only_ applied to non-hobby flight. As if the people who studied and tested would not already know all about this. As mentioned, the video was done in such a way just to get views and the information was really incorrect. There are also issues with Section 336 and the FAA. Section 336 is _not_ clear. It simply is not. The FAA also avoids putting out information, most likely in an effort to retain any possible power by leaving the door open for interpretation as needed. Lastly, drone manufactures are not doing all that they could. They could easily include something like a bright red flier with the drone (or a sticker that needs to be removed) informing people of section 336 (or the easy to read version) and even US registration. But most don't.

 

[CodgerMavic]

Good comments, I totally agree.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Some of the issue comes simply from people that are incorrect. For example, there is a certain person who put out a video (I won't mention names) and it was titled as to how you could fly higher then 400'. What this person did not say (in order to get views on the video) was that the video _only_ applied to non-hobby flight. As if the people who studied and tested would not already know all about this. As mentioned, the video was done in such a way just to get views and the information was really incorrect. There are also issues with Section 336 and the FAA. Section 336 is _not_ clear. It simply is not. The FAA also avoids putting out information, most likely in an effort to retain any possible power by leaving the door open for interpretation as needed. Lastly, drone manufactures are not doing all that they could. They could easily include something like a bright red flier with the drone (or a sticker that needs to be removed) informing people of section 336 (or the easy to read version) and even US registration. But most don't.

Remember, the FAA did not write 336, depending who you talk to it was shoved down their throat. The FAA IS responsible for FAR 101.41 and 101.43.

 

[sar104]

Remember, the FAA did not write 336, depending who you talk to it was shoved down their throat. The FAA IS responsible for FAR 101.41 and 101.43.

Except that 101.41 is, effectively, just Section 336 codified.

 

[tcope]

Remember, the FAA did not write 336, depending who you talk to it was shoved down their throat.

I don't see it as force no the FAA. Actually, it relieves them of a lot of work. I also have no doubt that Congress consulted with the FAA when writing Section 336.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I don't see it as force no the FAA. Actually, it relieves them of a lot of work. I also have no doubt that Congress consulted with the FAA when writing Section 336.

Depending who you talk to they did, just not with the right people as the end results show. The folks I deal with look at 336 as a double edged sword, yes, relieves them of a lot of work but at the same time ties their hands which results in different regions of the country interpreting and implementing regulation and policy differently.

Except that 101.41 is, effectively, just Section 336 codified.

Agree

 

[sar104]

Depending who you talk to they did, just not with the right people as the end results show. The folks I deal with look at 336 as a double edged sword, yes, relieves them of a lot of work but at the same time ties their hands which results in different regions of the country interpreting and implementing regulation and policy differently.

Agree

Something went wrong with your first quote above - that was from @tcope, not me. I have no idea how much consultation took place with the FAA but I doubt that the FAA liked anything about 336 - it's a nightmare from a regulatory perspective.

 

[flockshot]

For the guys who want to 'notify' LAX that they will be flying their toys around 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.

 

[tcope]

Something went wrong with your first quote above - that was from @tcope, not me. I have no idea how much consultation took place with the FAA but I doubt that the FAA liked anything about 336 - it's a nightmare from a regulatory perspective.

It should not be an issue. The FAA is free to claim is means anything that they want. Truth is, they don't want/need it to be clear at this time as it then leaves the door open for them to do what they want when some action is needed. Basically 336 means that the FAA does not need to do anything with hobby fliers if they follow a few "simple" rules. The FAA can then devote their time to other, larger matters.

 

[Brojon]

I'm not sure why we have yet another preaching from high holy ground post.

 

[Qoncussion]

It should not be an issue. The FAA is free to claim is means anything that they want. Truth is, they don't want/need it to be clear at this time as it then leaves the door open for them to do what they want when some action is needed. Basically 336 means that the FAA does not need to do anything with hobby fliers if they follow a few "simple" rules. The FAA can then devote their time to other, larger matters.

I'm eagerly awaiting the first court case where the defendant's attorney gets to rip through 336, just to see the legal ramifications of how flimsy the wording is. We talk a lot here about this. Legal precedent is what we're missing, to put this all in context.

 

[Fourway]

While it is true that 336 has no precedent, so far, as an instrument rated pilot, I have seen the FAA in action, many, many times, at it has often come out badly for the person trying to fight them. In short, as far as they're concerned, the rules are what the FAA says they are, no matter how flimsy the wording in a given reg. A lot of their judgements are subjective, and while you can try to fight them in court, their defense, which usually wins, is "We are the FAA. What we say is what we say, and that's the law." A good example of this is a rather squishy concept called "pilot fitness to fly". Of course, a pilot must be able to pass a medical exam geared for pilots, have good eyesight, and not be colorblind, but there's more. The FAA can pull a pilot's license for even the most vague reasons. Older pilots deal with this a lot. A perfect example of this was a few decades ago. A very famous test pilot, and a close friend of Chuck Yeager, Bob Hoover, had a large red nose. It's a little known fact that pilots who flew in the early days of jets, before it was understood how damaging the sun's rays are at high altitudes, often developed serious skin damage, and permanently red noses from all the UV exposure. Bob was no exception. His piloting skills on a bad day were better than most pilots on a good day. The rumor started, by people who saw his nose, that he was a heavy drinker (he wasn't). This got back to the FAA. Though they had no empirical evidence, they grounded him permanently. They couldn't say, "We think Bob is a drunk," so they made some reference to short term memory loss, which Bob proved repeatedly he didn't have. No matter how many legal actions were started, no matter what was attempted, the FAA would not budge, and one of the best pilots in US history could fly no more without a licensed pilot with him. Considering the poor reputation drones and their pilots are getting due to the idiocy of a few, I would expect the FAA to come down hard on the drone pilot in any legal discussion, the vagueness of 335 not withstanding.

 

[golfpilot]

I don’t know how much I’m going to be flying my Mavic under the 336 rules. I’m familiar with how airspace works and the part 107 rules are much simpler. + I’ll be operating on a faa certificate, following the FAA rules, flying a drone with N numbers. So unless they are a fed, or I am standing somewhere/ launching where I shouldn’t. It will be a civil matter and they’ll need to get an attorney and serve me papers and make there argument in court, civil way. The hobby thing seems to be the aim of the local ordinances. Good luck trying to win a civil suit against a certificated airman flying a N registered drone, and not breaking any FARS.

 

[Cymruflyer]

While it is true that 336 has no precedent, so far, as an instrument rated pilot, I have seen the FAA in action, many, many times, at it has often come out badly for the person trying to fight them. In short, as far as they're concerned, the rules are what the FAA says they are, no matter how flimsy the wording in a given reg. A lot of their judgements are subjective, and while you can try to fight them in court, their defense, which usually wins, is "We are the FAA. What we say is what we say, and that's the law." A good example of this is a rather squishy concept called "pilot fitness to fly". Of course, a pilot must be able to pass a medical exam geared for pilots, have good eyesight, and not be colorblind, but there's more. The FAA can pull a pilot's license for even the most vague reasons. Older pilots deal with this a lot. A perfect example of this was a few decades ago. A very famous test pilot, and a close friend of Chuck Yeager, Bob Hoover, had a large red nose. It's a little known fact that pilots who flew in the early days of jets, before it was understood how damaging the sun's rays are at high altitudes, often developed serious skin damage, and permanently red noses from all the UV exposure. Bob was no exception. His piloting skills on a bad day were better than most pilots on a good day. The rumor started, by people who saw his nose, that he was a heavy drinker (he wasn't). This got back to the FAA. Though they had no empirical evidence, they grounded him permanently. They couldn't say, "We think Bob is a drunk," so they made some reference to short term memory loss, which Bob proved repeatedly he didn't have. No matter how many legal actions were started, no matter what was attempted, the FAA would not budge, and one of the best pilots in US history could fly no more without a licensed pilot with him. Considering the poor reputation drones and their pilots are getting due to the idiocy of a few, I would expect the FAA to come down hard on the drone pilot in any legal discussion, the vagueness of 335 not withstanding.

I believe Bob fought that and eventually got his license back, thankfully.

 

[Dr Dell]

Thanks to all for this illuminating post. I'm glad to be part of this interactive group.

 

[Dredsen]

Hey guys, new member , glad to be here. This is my second drone, (mavic air).

My first I did not have to register but am grateful to this site because it let me know I did need to register my new drone. Hadn't flown since last fall so I have been out of the loop.

The OP here confused me a bit so please let me know if I'm way off base here: I agree with basically his entire post , except one thing , that anyone can be a "hobbyist" Mavic pilot.

It seems to me a lot of people are confused (or I am) about what a hobbyist is. I'm sure all of us are colloquially "hobbyist" drone guys but afaik a Mavic pilot is not flying as an FAA hobbyist.

When I registered I had three choices
a. Part 107 flying commercially
b. Part 107 non commercial
c . Hobbyist flying model aircraft

It's sort of how the ATF considers An ar15 with a 16 barrel a rifle.
An ar15 with less than 16 inches an SBR which is regulated like a machine gun, unless it has no shoulder stock then it's a "pistol"

UNLESS it has a vertical fore grip , then it's an AOW and subject to regulation

U N L E S S its overall length is greater than 26 inches.

Then it's not a rifle , not a pistol , or Short Barrelled Rifle, or even an All Other Weapons..
Now what you have is called a "firearm" and non regulated under the National Firearm Act.

The purpose of this gun rant is to show my reasoning in believing the term "Hobbyist" may have a different connotation than the colloquial use its founded in if my experience learning the joys of NFA compliance have taught me anything about alphabet regulatory groups.

It doesn't have to make sense... it just had to be made... up... and followed.

With guns it's easy, since breaking the rules earns you a shiny pair of steel bracelets garunteed to last up to 10 years, the common practice is to write a letter via snail mail to the tech branch asking for clarification. There is much debate on wether that is poking the bear as it can have the consequence of the community not liking the clarification, or triggering a reversal on a popular allowance or ruling.

So thats pretty much it, I don't believe any of these type aircraft are considered "hobbyist" and certainly are not model aircraft, they are unmanned aircraft under part 107.

But like I said I'm new here and I'm here to learn, I l am just laying out my thinking and looking for criticism. Thanks for reading and your consideration.

 

[sar104]

Hey guys, new member , glad to be here. This is my second drone, (mavic air).

My first I did not have to register but am grateful to this site because it let me know I did need to register my new drone. Hadn't flown since last fall so I have been out of the loop.

The OP here confused me a bit so please let me know if I'm way off base here: I agree with basically his entire post , except one thing , that anyone can be a "hobbyist" Mavic pilot.

It seems to me a lot of people are confused (or I am) about what a hobbyist is. I'm sure all of us are colloquially "hobbyist" drone guys but afaik a Mavic pilot is not flying as an FAA hobbyist.

When I registered I had three choices
a. Part 107 flying commercially
b. Part 107 non commercial
c . Hobbyist flying model aircraft

It's sort of how the ATF considers An ar15 with a 16 barrel a rifle.
An ar15 with less than 16 inches an SBR which is regulated like a machine gun, unless it has no shoulder stock then it's a "pistol"

UNLESS it has a vertical fore grip , then it's an AOW and subject to regulation

U N L E S S its overall length is greater than 26 inches.

Then it's not a rifle , not a pistol , or Short Barrelled Rifle, or even an All Other Weapons..
Now what you have is called a "firearm" and non regulated under the National Firearm Act.

The purpose of this gun rant is to show my reasoning in believing the term "Hobbyist" may have a different connotation than the colloquial use its founded in if my experience learning the joys of NFA compliance have taught me anything about alphabet regulatory groups.

It doesn't have to make sense... it just had to be made... up... and followed.

With guns it's easy, since breaking the rules earns you a shiny pair of steel bracelets garunteed to last up to 10 years, the common practice is to write a letter via snail mail to the tech branch asking for clarification. There is much debate on wether that is poking the bear as it can have the consequence of the community not liking the clarification, or triggering a reversal on a popular allowance or ruling.

So thats pretty much it, I don't believe any of these type aircraft are considered "hobbyist" and certainly are not model aircraft, they are unmanned aircraft under part 107.

But like I said I'm new here and I'm here to learn, I l am just laying out my thinking and looking for criticism. Thanks for reading and your consideration.

All operations with unmanned aircraft under 55 lbs potentially fall under Part 107 unless they meet one of several exemption criteria:

§107.1 Applicability.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, this part applies to the registration, airman certification, and operation of civil small unmanned aircraft systems within the United States.

(b) This part does not apply to the following:

(1) Air carrier operations;

(2) Any aircraft subject to the provisions of part 101 of this chapter; or

(3) Any operation that a remote pilot in command elects to conduct pursuant to an exemption issued under section 333 of Public Law 112-95, unless otherwise specified in the exemption.​

The hobbyist exemption is (2) - operations subject to the provisions of Part 101, which codifies the "Special Rule for Model Aircraft". Any of these UAVs may be considered model aircraft under this rule if flown in compliance with the requirements of Part 101, and so may be exempt from Part 107 regulation. That's what the term "hobbyist" means in this context.