Would this break any regulations?

[SKentBrown]

If they could have made it any clearer then I do not know how:

please continue to follow all current policies and guidance with respect to recreational use of drones​

​

Does underlining it help?

To clarify, the Special Rule was codified in 14 CFR Part 101, and that is the authority on this subject. Until 14 CFR is changed, the regulations are unchanged. That is what they are trying to tell you. Most of what has now been enacted has no mechanism to be implemented immediately, even if the FAA wanted to.

In FAA Speak "Policies and Guidance" is the 8900.1 (fsims.faa.gov) Vol 16 for UAV.

Re-read HR 303 - Section 380 provides for a transition. Rules in place prior to the date of the act, do apply until re-written. However, 349 adds additional conditions that may be more restrictive - such as Airspace and 400' AGL is now a hard altitude. Thus not only does 14 CFR 101.41 apply, but also the additional items in Section 339.

 

[sar104]

14 CFR 101.41 Reference PL 112 Section 336 - which has been repealed / replaced. I'm thinking Congress and the President over ride what the FAA Regs have.

If you want to follow out dated rules... be careful Airspace rule may be more restrictive than 5 miles.

Your understanding is incorrect. Current sUAS regulations are in 14 CFR, in my case Part 107. If you choose to attempt to interpret Public Law and fly under your own, made-up regulations, then it's not my place to convince you otherwise.

 

[sar104]

14 CFR 101.41 Reference PL 112 Section 336 - which has been repealed / replaced. I'm thinking Congress and the President over ride what the FAA Regs have.

If you want to follow out dated rules... be careful Airspace rule may be more restrictive than 5 miles.

14 CFR Part 101 has not been repealed - it's current FAA regulation. Public Law 112-95, Section 336 has been repealed, and will lead to 14 CFR being modified. Until then, the "current regulations" to which the FAA refer are 14 CFR Part 101.

 

[Dennynh]

Hum AMA's Safety Code does not state 5 Mile rule. that I have seen anyway. Rather says to abide by "applicable laws and regulations" then lists great safety steps that are very good to follow.

See page 4 under the heading of FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012. Further it says when within 3 miles of an airport you should stay below 400 feet. That does not work because often within 3miles of a class D airport the airspace is controlled down to the surface and you should not be within controlled airspace.

 

[SKentBrown]

See page 4 under the heading of FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012. Further it says when within 3 miles of an airport you should stay below 400 feet. That does not work because often within 3miles of a class D airport the airspace is controlled down to the surface and you should not be within controlled airspace.

Thanks

 

[Photo Booth]

All the disagreement on what is applicable law is skirting a simple look at HR 302 Section 349, which is now law and applies to recreational drone use. Specifically:

“(5) In Class B, Class C, or Class D airspace or within the lateral boundaries of the surface area of Class E airspace designated for an airport, the operator obtains prior authorization from the Administrator or designee before operating and complies with all airspace restrictions and prohibitions.

What everyone refers to as the 5-mile rule has basically been replaced with the above. If you are IN those airspace Classes you are required to contact the airport operator to get authorization to fly. Not just notification (per the previous "5-mile rule"), you must get PERMISSION.

Class D airspace goes all the way to the ground. Class D airspace isn't shaped like an inverted wedding cake. If you are 4.5 miles from a Class D airport then you are almost certainly INSIDE its Class D airspace. You MUST get PERMISSION to fly there.

Every recreational drone pilot needs to learn to read an FAA Sectional Map. I hope the forthcoming aeronautical knowledge test includes questions about Sectional Maps.

Mark

 

[sar104]

All the disagreement on what is applicable law is skirting a simple look at HR 302 Section 349, which is now law and applies to recreational drone use. Specifically:

“(5) In Class B, Class C, or Class D airspace or within the lateral boundaries of the surface area of Class E airspace designated for an airport, the operator obtains prior authorization from the Administrator or designee before operating and complies with all airspace restrictions and prohibitions.

What everyone refers to as the 5-mile rule has basically been replaced with the above. If you are IN those airspace Classes you are required to contact the airport operator to get authorization to fly. Not just notification (per the previous "5-mile rule"), you must get PERMISSION.

Class D airspace goes all the way to the ground. Class D airspace isn't shaped like an inverted wedding cake. If you are 4.5 miles from a Class D airport then you are almost certainly INSIDE its Class D airspace. You MUST get PERMISSION to fly there.

Every recreational drone pilot needs to learn to read an FAA Sectional Map. I hope the forthcoming aeronautical knowledge test includes questions about Sectional Maps.

Mark

It's not skirting anything. The new law requires the FAA to implement in regulation by changing 14 CFR. Until they do that then, as is clearly stated on the FAA website, the rules have not changed.

 

[Photo Booth]

It's not skirting anything. The new law requires the FAA to implement in regulation by changing 14 CFR. Until they do that then, as is clearly stated on the FAA website, the rules have not changed.

Yes, but when it was signed into law, didn't HR 302 specifically repeal Section 336 of the 2012 Bill? Isn't Section 336 toast already?

Mark

 

[sar104]

Yes, but when it was signed into law, didn't HR 302 specifically repeal Section 336 of the 2012 Bill? Isn't Section 336 toast already?

Mark

Yes - it repealed 336, which is public law. It did not change 14 CFR, which is the applicable code of regulations. That will now need to be changed to reflect public law, but obviously cannot happen overnight, as noted by the FAA.

 

[DanMan32]

Just be sensible folks.
I agree what was 'give notification' can at least be implied as 'get permission'. FAA was previously prohibited from granting or denying permission through their agents (airport/ATC). Now they have that right.
If you are near a major or regional airport, then you might have more airspace restrictions than you had before, but contacting the airport/ATC would clarify any question.
In my area, airmap says I have no altitude to fly at my house and I am in class D due to a regional airport just under 5 miles away and under a flight path. But since trees and cell towers are rather tall, anyone within reason would know flying under 100 or even 120 shouldn't pose any Hazard.

 

[Photo Booth]

Yes - it repealed 336, which is public law. It did not change 14 CFR, which is the applicable code of regulations. That will now need to be changed to reflect public law, but obviously cannot happen overnight, as noted by the FAA.

So hobbyist/recreational drone pilots are in a legal limbo of sorts. Section 336 has been repealed but the new regulations that will take its place haven't been published yet.

Yep, that sounds like how U.S. lawmakers do business.

Mark

 

[sar104]

So hobbyist/recreational drone pilots are in a legal limbo of sorts. Section 336 has been repealed but the new regulations that will take its place haven't been published yet.

Yep, that sounds like how U.S. lawmakers do business.

Mark

I think this is how it's supposed to work. Laws are passed and then it is up to the appropriate regulatory agency to implement them. So there is no limbo and no ambiguity; aeronautical law is codified in 14 CFR, and that's what we follow. It will be changed to reflect the new act, and then we will follow the new rules.

 

[Photo Booth]

I think this is how it's supposed to work. Laws are passed and then it is up to the appropriate regulatory agency to implement them. So there is no limbo and no ambiguity; aeronautical law is codified in 14 CFR, and that's what we follow. It will be changed to reflect the new act, and then we will follow the new rules.

I think you might be missing the specifics of my point. Section 336 was never "codified in 14 CFR" because there was never a thorough law or regulation regarding hobbyist/recreational drone use. Now HR 302 has come along, repealed Section 336, and required the FAA to codify regulations into 14 CFR. But the codifying hasn't been done yet.

So, a legal limbo at the moment. That is, unless the language in HR 302 says Section 336 sticks around until 14 CFR has been amended. I don't think that's the case.

Mark

 

[sar104]

I think you might be missing the specifics of my point. Section 336 was never "codified in 14 CFR" because there was never a thorough law or regulation regarding hobbyist/recreational drone use. Now HR 302 has come along, repealed Section 336, and required the FAA to codify regulations into 14 CFR. But the codifying hasn't been done yet.

So, a legal limbo at the moment. That is, unless the language in HR 302 says Section 336 sticks around until 14 CFR has been amended. I don't think that's the case.

Mark

No - you are incorrect. Section 336 was codified in 14 CFR Part 101.

 

[SKentBrown]

No - you are incorrect. Section 336 was codified in 14 CFR Part 101.

This is going to be long...

In my opinion, here is the flaw of hang your hat on 14 CFR 101: .41 states what condition, the applicability, of the rule(s) to follow. i.e. "No person may operate model aircraft so as to endanger the safety of the national airspace system." Meaning .41 describes what a model aircraft activity looks like. HR 302 Section 349 changes the look.

The world is complicated. Cannot just look to a single source, we need to gather all available information and share what we find with each other. Then let folks decided, but always do what is safe and not cause harm to others.

In the June 26, 2016 Federal Register, the FAA published 14 CFR 107 AND added 14 CFR 101.41 and .43 stating the purpose of 101.43 as ... (if you think I am long winded...)

"Because of the statutory prohibition on FAA rulemaking regarding model aircraft that meet the above criteria, the NPRM proposed that model aircraft meeting these criteria would not be subject to the provisions of part 107. However, although section 336(a) exempts certain model aircraft from FAA rulemaking, section 336(b) explicitly states that the exemption in section 336(a) does not limit the FAA's authority to pursue enforcement action against those model aircraft that “endanger the safety of the national airspace system.” The FAA proposed to codify this authority in part 101 by prohibiting a person operating a model aircraft from endangering the safety of the NAS."

and later

"Section 336 of Public Law 112-95 specifically prohibits the FAA from issuing any new rules with regard to model aircraft that satisfy the statutory criteria specified in that section. Accordingly, the FAA cannot impose additional regulations on model aircraft that meet the criteria of section 336 nor can the FAA make those aircraft subject to the provisions of part 107."

Thus, again in my opinion, as long as a model aircraft is operated foloowing the "If's" of the current law (which is now HR 302 section 349) only 14 CFR 101.43 applies.

HR 302 Section 349 is different than 336, it states:

"a person may operate a small unmanned aircraft without specific certification or operating authority from the Federal Aviation Administration if..." then lists the conditions.

As long as a non-107 certificated pilot, or a 107 pilot that just wants to have fun, follows the if's, the FAA has no control over the activity. Yes I know, the written test, the FAA is given 180 days to develop the requirement, until then, cannot be required, right?

One down side of HR 302 is it does open the door for the FAA to regulate hobby use and requires the FAA to report to Congress incidents with model aircraft. Just cannot require certification of the pilots.

Be safe and careful out there.

 

[sar104]

This is going to be long...

In my opinion, here is the flaw of hang your hat on 14 CFR 101: .41 states what condition, the applicability, of the rule(s) to follow. i.e. "No person may operate model aircraft so as to endanger the safety of the national airspace system." Meaning .41 describes what a model aircraft activity looks like. HR 302 Section 349 changes the look.

The world is complicated. Cannot just look to a single source, we need to gather all available information and share what we find with each other. Then let folks decided, but always do what is safe and not cause harm to others.

In the June 26, 2016 Federal Register, the FAA published 14 CFR 107 AND added 14 CFR 101.41 and .43 stating the purpose of 101.43 as ... (if you think I am long winded...)

"Because of the statutory prohibition on FAA rulemaking regarding model aircraft that meet the above criteria, the NPRM proposed that model aircraft meeting these criteria would not be subject to the provisions of part 107. However, although section 336(a) exempts certain model aircraft from FAA rulemaking, section 336(b) explicitly states that the exemption in section 336(a) does not limit the FAA's authority to pursue enforcement action against those model aircraft that “endanger the safety of the national airspace system.” The FAA proposed to codify this authority in part 101 by prohibiting a person operating a model aircraft from endangering the safety of the NAS."

and later

"Section 336 of Public Law 112-95 specifically prohibits the FAA from issuing any new rules with regard to model aircraft that satisfy the statutory criteria specified in that section. Accordingly, the FAA cannot impose additional regulations on model aircraft that meet the criteria of section 336 nor can the FAA make those aircraft subject to the provisions of part 107."

Thus, again in my opinion, as long as a model aircraft is operated foloowing the "If's" of the current law (which is now HR 302 section 349) only 14 CFR 101.43 applies.

HR 302 Section 349 is different than 336, it states:

"a person may operate a small unmanned aircraft without specific certification or operating authority from the Federal Aviation Administration if..." then lists the conditions.

As long as a non-107 certificated pilot, or a 107 pilot that just wants to have fun, follows the if's, the FAA has no control over the activity. Yes I know, the written test, the FAA is given 180 days to develop the requirement, until then, cannot be required, right?

One down side of HR 302 is it does open the door for the FAA to regulate hobby use and requires the FAA to report to Congress incidents with model aircraft. Just cannot require certification of the pilots.

Be safe and careful out there.

I'm sorry, but this is getting ridiculous. How can you misunderstand, so badly, such a simple set of regulations?

101.41 (applicability) sets out the eligibility requirements for flying recreationally. If you fail to meet the eligibility requirements of 101.41 then you fall under 107 rules instead. 101.43 simply gives the FAA the broad latitude to go after pilots who meet the eligibility requirements but in some other way endanger the NAS.

Part 101 applies until 14 CFR is changed.

I'm not going to waste any further time arguing this.

 

[SKentBrown]

Part 101 applies until 14 CFR is changed.

I'm not going to waste any further time arguing this.

Following your logic - take a look at 14 CFR 91.1 - reading that, unmanned (hobby model) aircraft have to comply with part 91 - because 14 CFR 101 Part E is not excluded from having to comply. It says ALL aircraft.

All other parts of 101 are excluded AND 107, but not 101 Part E which is what you are referring to.

I am not suggesting hobby model aircraft flying has to comply with Part 91 - rather the point that one must not rely on just one source - take in the big picture.

 

[sar104]

Following your logic - take a look at 14 CFR 91.1 - reading that, unmanned (hobby model) aircraft have to comply with part 91 - because 14 CFR 101 Part E is not excluded from having to comply. It says ALL aircraft.

All other parts of 101 are excluded AND 107, but not 101 Part E which is what you are referring to.

I am not suggesting hobby model aircraft flying has to comply with Part 91 - rather the point that one must not rely on just one source - take in the big picture.

Feel free to keep deflecting and dissembling if that makes you feel better, but I'm not playing that game with you.

 

[theDRONEranger]

The controlling (ATC) tower grants permission, not the airport. (Please tell me if I am incorrect.) You contact the airport only to advise them you are in the area. FAA via the ATC tower grants permission.

Have you by any chance run across anything that may indicate the ball field as an NFZ. Many, many places keep their public school properties as NFZ.
Further review, shows I was NOT totally correct on statement. The schools are listed as advisory areas, not NFZs. Personally I would avoid school areas during session for obvious reasons.

 

[DanMan32]

The controlling (ATC) tower grants permission, not the airport. (Please tell me if I am incorrect.) You contact the airport only to advise them you are in the area. FAA via the ATC tower grants permission.

Have you by any chance run across anything that may indicate the ball field as an NFZ. Many, many places keep their public school properties as NFZ.

That wouldn't technically be an NFZ but a no takeoff/land zone (NT/LZ). The grounds can't regulate airspace.