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

[Falcon1az]

This was from the registration site at the FAA and the statements they had as guideance.

 

[Falcon1az]

The AMA "guideline" is 400 feet within 3 miles of an airport... Not 400 feet within the entire United States.. read what you just posted..

Yep, I read it. WHERE did I STATE 400 feet within THE UNITED STATES? I missed it. Thats not the point either.

Clear it up for me. What are the rules... guidelines... FARs... you name it, what do you follow when you fly your Mavic?

 

[geardaddys]

The AMA page you referenced has been around for years... it states 400 feet above the ground, within 3 miles of an airport.. I'm out.. I deal with the FAA and a million of their rules that I have to abide by daily at work.. I disagree with your view of these "guidelines" and that's that.. I'll call my bud at the loca FSDO this week and get his opinion on it..

 

[Falcon1az]

No, no... wait. What are your "guidelines" when you fly? Do you have any?

 

[tcope]

Falcon... please reference in the above "Public Law" where it states a hobbyist is restricted to line of site, or 400 feet.. It's not in there.. the current guidance from the FAA, as it relates to hobbyists is a "recommendation".. go to the FAA website and look it up.. then look up the definition of "guidelines".. not to sound disagreeable but the difference between hobbyists
Operating rules and "for hire" rules are pretty stark.. it's a suggestion, and perhaps one with merit, but let's not call this something it isn't, which is a limitation.

Section 336c, it's the definition of a UAV under hobby use"

(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; H. R. 658—68 (2) flown within visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft; and (3) flown for hobby or recreational purposes.

But this topic has been BEAT TO DEATH hundreds of times in the past. As I say, each and every time people come along and post it again as if it's not been discussed to death.

 

[Falcon1az]

Section 336c, it's the definition of a UAV under hobby use"

(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; H. R. 658—68 (2) flown within visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft; and (3) flown for hobby or recreational purposes.

But this topic has been BEAT TO DEATH hundreds of times in the past. As I say, each and every time people come along and post it again as if it's not been discussed to death.

Bottomline... I can't figure out why you reply. If this subject burdens you so why read and respond? Not once but twice! Fascinating. But I think I'm clearer on the guidelines. It sounds like there are no laws being broke if you fly beyond line of sight.

 

[wayy510]

Section 336c, it's the definition of a UAV under hobby use"

(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; H. R. 658—68 (2) flown within visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft; and (3) flown for hobby or recreational purposes.

But this topic has been BEAT TO DEATH hundreds of times in the past. As I say, each and every time people come along and post it again as if it's not been discussed to death.

Then don't participate. Pretty simple.

 

[tcope]

Bottomline... I can't figure out why you reply. If this subject burdens you so why read and respond? Not once but twice! Fascinating. But I think I'm clearer on the guidelines. It sounds like there are no laws being broke if you fly beyond line of sight.

Because, as usual, people who have not read the mountains of prior threads post incorrect information. My main interest is that people have correct information. This is why I'm against starting up this same thread time and time again.

 

[Robert Mitchell]

In reading the FAA material as closely as I'm able... It appears to me that most of the "regulations" are actually "recommendations" for hobbyists.. If you're flying for $$, then it's a whole different ballgame.. It says "we'd appreciate if you would.." not "you must"...

Safety Guidelines

• Fly at or below 400 feet
• Keep your UAS within sight
• Never fly near other aircraft, especially near airports
• Never fly over groups of people
• Never fly over stadiums or sports events
• Never fly near emergency response efforts such as fires
• Never fly under the influence
• Be aware of airspace requirements

Best I can tell, the two here which are actual "statutes" directly designed for recreational model aircraft, are the LOS requirement, as they (FAA) clearly state in 336 that their interpretation allows for this, and the 5 mile notification requirement by congress, also stated in 336 and then codified in p.107.

Until 107 was passed, only the 5 mile rule was law as defined by congress's 2012 reauthorization definition of model aircraft. Until then 336 was only the FAA interpretation, and other than congress's definition of model aircraft, was not actual law. This was the reason that the registration requirement was thrown out.

Many of the others such as 400 ft. stem from AMA (CBO) guidelines (in certain situations under their guidance this can be exceeded) which congress stated you must operate under to be considered model aircraft. So if you do not comply, you are not model aircraft and are both operating illegally in the NAS, and endangering other aircraft in the NAS. So, they gotcha both ways.

And those such as stadium prohibitions and airspace requirements fall under general aviation endangerment, interference statutes, or TFRs and can get you burned whether or not you are recreational.

So, while not specifically "regulations" with regard to model aircraft, violating any of them could land you in deep do in the right circumstances.

Anything else are guidelines by default, since congress expressly forbade them to promulgate ANY regulation with regard to model aircraft, outside of that stated by congress and interpreted and codified by p.107 in 336.

Are the odds high you'd get busted? Probably not, but the cost could be very high indeed.

I'm not a lawyer and this is just my opinion from what I've gathered over the years.

Legal folks still debate this stuff, and that's the reason people remain confused and continue to open this subject.

 

[TheWolfen]

Regardless of if it's a rule or a guideline, one thing to keep in mind about VLOS is that it is subjective and different for each person. So there's pretty much no way anyone could be prosecuted for being outside of LOS. It would require a hard number to be truly enforceable, assuming it was a rule in the first place.

Obviously... If you are a mile out there is no chance it would still be VLOS for anyone but that would still be difficult to prove and very difficult to prosecute. Which is probably one of many reasons why no one has or likely will be.

 

[rydfree]

In reading the FAA material as closely as I'm able... It appears to me that most of the "regulations" are actually "recommendations" for hobbyists.. If you're flying for $$, then it's a whole different ballgame.. It says "we'd appreciate if you would.." not "you must"...

The word "Must" is quite visible on the FAA website .
Getting Started

 

[tcope]

Many of the others such as 400 ft. stem from AMA (CBO) guidelines (in certain situations under their guidance this can be exceeded) which congress stated you must operate under to be considered model aircraft. So if you do not comply, you are not model aircraft and are both operating illegally in the NAS, and endangering other aircraft in the NAS. So, they gotcha both ways.

That is incorrect. There is no 400' law and the FAA has stated as much. You can operate above 400' and still fall under hobby use as a model aircraft. Again, discussed to death.

 

[tcope]

It sounds like there are no laws being broke if you fly beyond line of sight.

It takes you out of the realm of hobby use. So if you are not legal under Part 107, you'd be in violation of the law.

 

[Robert Mitchell]

That is incorrect. There is no 400' law and the FAA has stated as much. You can operate above 400' and still fall under hobby use as a model aircraft. Again, discussed to death.

Discussing something to death doesn't mean it is settled.

I also believe you are incorrect.

Straight out of the AMA Model Aircraft safety code:
(c) Not fly higher than approximately 400 feet above ground level...

So, please explain to us how you can violate an explicitly written code but still be operating within the CBO?

And if you are not operating under the CBO, you are operating illegally, unless you are p107.

This was a question before p107 codified 336, but is now law, IMO.

 

[tcope]

Discussing something to death doesn't mean it is settled.

I also believe you are incorrect.

Straight out of the AMA Model Aircraft safety code:
(c) Not fly higher than approximately 400 feet above ground level...

So, please explain to us how you can violate an explicitly written code but still be operating within the CBO?

And if you are not operating under the CBO, you are operating illegally, unless you are p107.

This was a question before p107 codified 336, but is now law, IMO.

I mention it's been discussed to death as in those prior threads is all of the information.

The AMA liked to point out that the FAA called them a CBO because it support's building their membership. It means next to nothing.

I'm a CBO... you are a CBO.

This only means that local clubs, organizations, parties, etc. can set up rules that govern themselves. These are no laws and they only apply in limited situations. For example, lets say the AMA is going to have a racing drone competition. They can set rules for those that participate stating that they cannot fly faster then xx mph or fly higher then xxx'. Technically, this is regulating airspace, which only the FAA can do. The FAA allows CBO's to set these types of rules. It's not a law and it does not apply to non AMA members.

If you are not an AMA member you don't have to abide by _any_ AMA rules. Period. Think about it and it becomes obvious.... no one is required to know AMA rules (they are not laws/regulations). If I create a company, National UAV Fliers (NUF), it's a CBO. Do you now need to find out about me and abide by all of those rules? Same with the AMA.

No one is required to know about the AMA or follow their guidelines.

 

[Robert Mitchell]

I mention it's been discussed to death as in those prior threads is all of the information.

The AMA liked to point out that the FAA called them a CBO because it support's building their membership. It means next to nothing.

I'm a CBO... you are a CBO.

This only means that local clubs, organizations, parties, etc. can set up rules that govern themselves. These are no laws and they only apply in limited situations. For example, lets say the AMA is going to have a racing drone competition. They can set rules for those that participate stating that they cannot fly faster then xx mph or fly higher then xxx'. Technically, this is regulating airspace, which only the FAA can do. The FAA allows CBO's to set these types of rules. It's not a law and it does not apply to non AMA members.

If you are not an AMA member you don't have to abide by _any_ AMA rules. Period. Think about it and it becomes obvious.... no one is required to know AMA rules (they are not laws/regulations). If I create a company, National UAV Fliers (NUF), it's a CBO. Do you now need to find out about me and abide by all of those rules? Same with the AMA.

No one is required to know about the AMA or follow their guidelines.

Good points, and it does appear to be a loophole.

That said, I could still see them (FAA) coming after you for "careless and reckless", if an incident occurred.

They would probably loose, based on your well made points, but your life would be miserable fighting them.

 

[tcope]

Good points, and it does appear to be a loophole.

That said, I could still see them coming after you for "careless and reckless", if an incident occurred.

They would probably loose, based on your well made points, but your life would be miserable fighting them.

Yes and yes.

The FAA can always go the careless route and I'm sure they would if something happened. Fighting it would be no fun. My take on it, based on the past actions of the FAA, is that they are uninterested in go after someone for an infraction unless it creates an actual high safety issue (such as flying very close to an airplane, in a NFZ, or you are a commercial business in clear violation of Part 107. They want to spend their time on high profile situations... not someone who is only flying out of VLOS or does not call an helipad 2 miles away.

 

[Falcon1az]

Robert Mitchell... great discussion. Very well stated interpretation. Again I find myself changing position on this subject. I used to be under the impression these things I've been reading arr safety guidelines. I now am moving in the position of believing that these things, regarding line of sight and 400 ft ceiling, are matters to be taken quite seriously.

 

[Falcon1az]

I mention it's been discussed to death as in those prior threads is all of the information.

The AMA liked to point out that the FAA called them a CBO because it support's building their membership. It means next to nothing.

I'm a CBO... you are a CBO.

This only means that local clubs, organizations, parties, etc. can set up rules that govern themselves. These are no laws and they only apply in limited situations. For example, lets say the AMA is going to have a racing drone competition. They can set rules for those that participate stating that they cannot fly faster then xx mph or fly higher then xxx'. Technically, this is regulating airspace, which only the FAA can do. The FAA allows CBO's to set these types of rules. It's not a law and it does not apply to non AMA members.

If you are not an AMA member you don't have to abide by _any_ AMA rules. Period. Think about it and it becomes obvious.... no one is required to know AMA rules (they are not laws/regulations). If I create a company, National UAV Fliers (NUF), it's a CBO. Do you now need to find out about me and abide by all of those rules? Same with the AMA.

No one is required to know about the AMA or follow their guidelines.

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.

 

[tcope]

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.

Which, I think, is why a lot of cites, towns, etc. have thought that they can make local laws regulating public airspace (which they cannot). Many don't put any thought into their laws. Others appear to have at least read the FAA regulations and they think as long as they don't trump those regulations, that they can make up their own laws. The FAA has put out a letter cautioning people about this but not really done much more. I can understand why... it's really not in their interest to interfere with laws that make flying UAV's more restrictive unless it interferes with what their main job is.