This one that was posted byDDSFlyer, Fred: http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/...for_UAS_Reporting_4-7-3-1_(v_5)_(7_14_14).pdf
FAA banning FPV Goggles
- Thread starter jdawson
- Start date
Here's my comment if anyone wants to read or help me proof it. I am still proofing but am planning to submit tomorrow. Please help us.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5qq1otr8Z7BX1BzT25oNjd0ZGc/edit?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5qq1otr8Z7BX1BzT25oNjd0ZGc/edit?usp=sharing
Tactical Ex
Senior Member
I didn't get to check the entire thing for grammatical errors or spelling issues but the content is solid. I wouldn't wait any longer, the earlier you submit it the more likely it will get serious attention.
FAA Comment
Here is what I posted today in comment to FAA's "mis-interpretation" of Congress' directive...
***************
I am writing to register my disagreement with the proposed rule interpretations as listed in Doc FAA-2014-0396-001. These interpretations clearly violate the “Spirit” of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012.
It is not in the spirit of the exemption by Congress, for the FAA to expand its rule making authority by re-defining the traditional use terms and activities commonly understood in the “model aircraft” community. We are sensitive to the proliferation of unmanned aerial vehicles and their potential impact upon our communities and airspace. However, “model aircraft” do not create similar issues and Congress clearly instructed the FAA to stop regulating the traditional use of “Model Aircraft.” The FAA’s proposed rules circumvent this instruction by redefining terms and activities to permit regulation of clearly exempted “model aircraft” equipment and use.
The FAA’s redefinition of the term, “flown within visual line of site of the person operating the aircraft”, violates the common usage in the industry and the spirit of Congess’ mandate. The common usage of “Line of Sight” by the Remote Control (or wireless) community is the straight path between the transmitting antenna and the receiving antenna when unobstructed by the horizon. A Model Aircraft can be flown within “Line of Sight” without a person maintaining visual contact.
The interpretation of the use of the words hobby and recreation, need to include some of the integral activities that are associated with hobbies and recreation. The first to consider are the businesses that manufacture the goods that are used in the hobby or recreation. The products must be tested (and therefore in this case flown) for design and safety purposes. Any rule that would restrict this would force the manufacture of untested and unproven design that would severely hinder the current safety level of the hobby. I believe that the testing of products that are intended for use for recreation and hobby purposes are also included in this exemption.
Hobbyists can also be paid under certain circumstances. Though the income is not their primary support, it can be used to further their enjoyment of the hobby or to supplement their normal commercial endeavors. This would include the payment of instructors for training in the hobby, payment for product testing, payment for building services and even payment for pictures or videos derived from the hobbyist’s equipment. Just because the activity may be a primary commercial interest to one party, it may only derive “hobby income” for the party being paid. A current example is the use of Model Aircraft Hobbyists to fly Dirigibles and other “Blimp-Like” aircraft at sporting event and receiving a small fee or getting equipment to enable that activity. It also includes amateur sponsorships that allow pilots to represent a company at events even though their main profession is not in the hobby. Many experts in a field come through the hobbyist side and are enthusiasts and not necessarily the professionals. These experts provide a passion and knowledge that enhances the hobby and should not be penalized. The IRS defines income in these circumstances as a hobby, if the income is not for profit. You must also not depend on this income and not make a profit over a particular number of years. (see www.irs.gov for details)
Congress intended that Model Aircraft be operated under the safety guidelines of a “membership based association that represents the aeromodeling community within the Unites States”. So, it would follow that if a Model Aircraft is operated under the rules of an organization such as this, for example the AMA (Academy of Model Aeronautics) then it would be deemed to have operated safely in the NAS. Therefore, would not fall under the purview of the FAA’s enforcement.
The broad interpretation, as presented by the FAA is over-reaching and infringes on the privileges expressly granted by Congress to the AeroModeling community. These proposed interpretations must be modified to comply with the letter and spirit of Congress’ directive to the FAA.
***********************
I hope someone listens....Krzy4RC
Here is what I posted today in comment to FAA's "mis-interpretation" of Congress' directive...
***************
I am writing to register my disagreement with the proposed rule interpretations as listed in Doc FAA-2014-0396-001. These interpretations clearly violate the “Spirit” of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012.
It is not in the spirit of the exemption by Congress, for the FAA to expand its rule making authority by re-defining the traditional use terms and activities commonly understood in the “model aircraft” community. We are sensitive to the proliferation of unmanned aerial vehicles and their potential impact upon our communities and airspace. However, “model aircraft” do not create similar issues and Congress clearly instructed the FAA to stop regulating the traditional use of “Model Aircraft.” The FAA’s proposed rules circumvent this instruction by redefining terms and activities to permit regulation of clearly exempted “model aircraft” equipment and use.
The FAA’s redefinition of the term, “flown within visual line of site of the person operating the aircraft”, violates the common usage in the industry and the spirit of Congess’ mandate. The common usage of “Line of Sight” by the Remote Control (or wireless) community is the straight path between the transmitting antenna and the receiving antenna when unobstructed by the horizon. A Model Aircraft can be flown within “Line of Sight” without a person maintaining visual contact.
The interpretation of the use of the words hobby and recreation, need to include some of the integral activities that are associated with hobbies and recreation. The first to consider are the businesses that manufacture the goods that are used in the hobby or recreation. The products must be tested (and therefore in this case flown) for design and safety purposes. Any rule that would restrict this would force the manufacture of untested and unproven design that would severely hinder the current safety level of the hobby. I believe that the testing of products that are intended for use for recreation and hobby purposes are also included in this exemption.
Hobbyists can also be paid under certain circumstances. Though the income is not their primary support, it can be used to further their enjoyment of the hobby or to supplement their normal commercial endeavors. This would include the payment of instructors for training in the hobby, payment for product testing, payment for building services and even payment for pictures or videos derived from the hobbyist’s equipment. Just because the activity may be a primary commercial interest to one party, it may only derive “hobby income” for the party being paid. A current example is the use of Model Aircraft Hobbyists to fly Dirigibles and other “Blimp-Like” aircraft at sporting event and receiving a small fee or getting equipment to enable that activity. It also includes amateur sponsorships that allow pilots to represent a company at events even though their main profession is not in the hobby. Many experts in a field come through the hobbyist side and are enthusiasts and not necessarily the professionals. These experts provide a passion and knowledge that enhances the hobby and should not be penalized. The IRS defines income in these circumstances as a hobby, if the income is not for profit. You must also not depend on this income and not make a profit over a particular number of years. (see www.irs.gov for details)
Congress intended that Model Aircraft be operated under the safety guidelines of a “membership based association that represents the aeromodeling community within the Unites States”. So, it would follow that if a Model Aircraft is operated under the rules of an organization such as this, for example the AMA (Academy of Model Aeronautics) then it would be deemed to have operated safely in the NAS. Therefore, would not fall under the purview of the FAA’s enforcement.
The broad interpretation, as presented by the FAA is over-reaching and infringes on the privileges expressly granted by Congress to the AeroModeling community. These proposed interpretations must be modified to comply with the letter and spirit of Congress’ directive to the FAA.
***********************
I hope someone listens....Krzy4RC
Actually if you read what the FAA is claiming in a brief concerning the latest lawsuit in Texas about Search and Rescue operations via RC Aircraft then ALL children's toys that leave the hand and take flight will fall under FAA jurisdiction including but not limited to boomerangs, Frisbee flying disk, rubber band launched gliders, balsa rubber-band powered planes and yes paper airplanes. 
Since America's "War on Drugs" is apparently winding down as evidenced by Colorado, Washington State and Washington D.C., I guess that the "Authorities" need a new pursuit to keep the Law Enforcement Growth Industry alive and thriving.
Thurmond
Since America's "War on Drugs" is apparently winding down as evidenced by Colorado, Washington State and Washington D.C., I guess that the "Authorities" need a new pursuit to keep the Law Enforcement Growth Industry alive and thriving.
Thurmond
Last edited:
Longbaorder23
Senior Member
Do we know when the results of all this will be announced? I've yet to see anything about a conclusion on this, am I mistaken? The public debate over this on the regulations website has also ended, correct? When will we know our answers?
Crash_Expert
Aerial Photographer
This thread has been quiet, but my local paper has an article about academia being up in arms about it:
http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nat...heir-drones/8iNrbYGo5AGevXl6b3XGiL/story.html
http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nat...heir-drones/8iNrbYGo5AGevXl6b3XGiL/story.html
Everyone has been up in arms about the changes that effectively ban FPV goggles (me as well) but I was expecting it to effect Flite Test rather drastically and as far as I have seen they haven't made any changes in their use of FPV goggles. Are they not using them illegally now? Have the changes not been put into practice yet?
SnowRocker88
Amateur pilot and builder
They're rebels WITH a cause! Honestly I was wondering the same thing myself but didn't want to bring attention to it in case it is indeed illegal now.
It's not illegal yet, as far as I understand, because the comment period was extended until September:
http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2014-0396-0781
So they are good at least until then!
http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2014-0396-0781
So they are good at least until then!
Tactical Ex
Senior Member
From my understanding (Which I believe is backed by what Shulman said in a recent FT interview), that because the FAA released there new "interpretation" of the rules it means that no new rule was enacted, instead, existing rules were re-interpreted and that at the moment they released their notice about their "interpretation" it was actionable. While the commenting period is still ongoing, the rules are already being interpreted in the new way.
While they are being interpreted in the new way, from the time the re-interpretation first came out, the FAA seems to have taken a wait and see attitude. From what I understand the AMA has said that anyone that wants to fly FPV, that is under that AMA, should continue without worry for now, as long as they are following AMA's safety guidelines while doing it.
The other thing of note, and probably why FliteTest is continuing as normal until notified otherwise, is that there has not been a single ruling by a judge that has gone the way of the FAA when dealing with this. The "Trappy" case is still on appeal but the Equi-search case was not only thrown out by the judge and the FAA representatives with prejudice, meaning the the FAA cannot go after Equi-search for the same thing again.
I think that someone was trying to slide this "Commercial Ban" as well as the FPV-Goggle ban into the rules in an attempt to use it in the Pirker appeal to have it go their way on the appeal. Thing is the AMA jumped all over it because they saw it for what it was. An attempt to twist a previous law into something they can use to win a case. It also would in effect take all rule making power away from the AMA.
It will be interesting to see what happens after sept 25th. If they start mass mailing cease and desist orders, or just leave it alone till they can actually come up with their commercial drone regulations. The FPV ban is nearly unenforceable as you would not know if Goggles are in use unless the FAA is there physically or you are recorded while piloting with them.
Then end result is this. If you have not made a comment yet to the FAA then you only have yourself to blame if the BAN remains in place.
Sorry for the wordy reply I guess I had more to say on it then I thought. :black_eyed:
The other thing of note, and probably why FliteTest is continuing as normal until notified otherwise, is that there has not been a single ruling by a judge that has gone the way of the FAA when dealing with this. The "Trappy" case is still on appeal but the Equi-search case was not only thrown out by the judge and the FAA representatives with prejudice, meaning the the FAA cannot go after Equi-search for the same thing again.
I think that someone was trying to slide this "Commercial Ban" as well as the FPV-Goggle ban into the rules in an attempt to use it in the Pirker appeal to have it go their way on the appeal. Thing is the AMA jumped all over it because they saw it for what it was. An attempt to twist a previous law into something they can use to win a case. It also would in effect take all rule making power away from the AMA.
It will be interesting to see what happens after sept 25th. If they start mass mailing cease and desist orders, or just leave it alone till they can actually come up with their commercial drone regulations. The FPV ban is nearly unenforceable as you would not know if Goggles are in use unless the FAA is there physically or you are recorded while piloting with them.
Then end result is this. If you have not made a comment yet to the FAA then you only have yourself to blame if the BAN remains in place.
Sorry for the wordy reply I guess I had more to say on it then I thought. :black_eyed:
Cyberdactyl
Misfit Multirotor Monkey
I don't see the FAA patrolling parks and fields and neighborhoods to seek out violations of any law or regulation against FPV, unless it in close proximity to an airport or highly visible, problematic and unsafe to the public (i.e. TBS antics) where it would be "in their face". Otherwise, as FT said, it may revolve around uploaded video, primarily on Youtube and other highly visible media sources.
I see it much like using RC transmitters without a ham license, it will be a tool to shutdown the irresponsible. And if it is used in that manner, I have no problem with it.
I see it much like using RC transmitters without a ham license, it will be a tool to shutdown the irresponsible. And if it is used in that manner, I have no problem with it.
FAI-F1D
Free Flight Indoorist
I do have a problem with it because it makes us all criminals, and then prosecutes the "irresponsible criminals". Making something illegal so you can prosecute the ones who conduct criminal activity in an "irresponsible" way...seriously, does that make any moral sense at all? That's saying that it's legal to be a criminal, so long as you are a responsible criminal. That is flat out wrong. It is the height of evil, whether it regards toy airplanes or battleships.
What's worse, we already have laws regarding reckless endangerment which cover exactly these few isolated problems without making the rest of us a bunch of criminals.
YetAnotherDave
Junior Member
But what happened??? I've been reading all day to see what the ruling was and what was going on in the time I didn't know about any of this!
I learned FPV was a real thing last month and have been very excited. My boss wants to get one to do site surveys so we don't have to climb on roofs with the ice and snow. His wife wants me to get one and take an aerial shot of her property to help sell it.
1. Do we know what the final outcome is?
2. It seems I can be payed for things I do as a hobby but if I do the same thing on a daily basis for my boss, using as a tool at work, that I can't do?
3. Am I only able to fly at AMA events?
I have never been one to fallow politics. A lot of the phrasing is confusing to me. (As it is to everyone, as I understand it, that has not spent 8 years studying it) I'm very excited to get into FPV and would love to have a hobby that pays for itself. What I don't want is to spend all the money to get set up and find that all I can do is fly quads on simulators.
I learned FPV was a real thing last month and have been very excited. My boss wants to get one to do site surveys so we don't have to climb on roofs with the ice and snow. His wife wants me to get one and take an aerial shot of her property to help sell it.
1. Do we know what the final outcome is?
2. It seems I can be payed for things I do as a hobby but if I do the same thing on a daily basis for my boss, using as a tool at work, that I can't do?
3. Am I only able to fly at AMA events?
I have never been one to fallow politics. A lot of the phrasing is confusing to me. (As it is to everyone, as I understand it, that has not spent 8 years studying it) I'm very excited to get into FPV and would love to have a hobby that pays for itself. What I don't want is to spend all the money to get set up and find that all I can do is fly quads on simulators.
PHugger
Church Meal Expert
Basically the FAA punted and deferred any decision for several years (2017).
Read more here -
http://www.theverge.com/2014/12/10/...regulations-wont-be-ready-until-at-least-2017
Best regards,
PCH
Read more here -
http://www.theverge.com/2014/12/10/...regulations-wont-be-ready-until-at-least-2017
Best regards,
PCH
FAI-F1D
Free Flight Indoorist
Well, you can at least fly for real, and not have to do it only at AMA events (I fly in my front yard simply because I can). So long as you're not making a disturbance, you can fly pretty much where you want. Try to be sensible about it--meaning don't fly in places where it would be unsafe.
As for doing it for pay, well, it's technically illegal--we think. I don't think anybody knows what's legal and what's not, and honestly you're probably doing much more illegal things elsewhere in life without realizing it. Our legal system in the past few years has fully reached the point that we just have to try to make a living and not get caught. Nowhere is this more true than in the aviation industry. You mentioned studying 8 years to understand it--I've been doing it my entire life and still can't figure some of it out, and I'm a commercial pilot/flight instructor with a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering!
To go back to your original question, no, we don't know what the outcome is.
Your boss could apply for a COA (certificate of authorization) to fly model aircraft for commercial purposes. Disadvantages to this are that 1, you probably won't get it approved (less than 1% approval rate), and 2, now the FAA will know that you exist. All of the folks I know who do commercial UAV work are getting away with it by the FAA not knowing that they exist. That comes down to the level of risk you are willing to take and how convincing you are at playing dumb.
Just to muddy the waters, while what I advocate sound terribly immoral--you know, ignoring laws because you can't get caught, consider that the FAA regulations are themselves illegal. So the "law" is immoral too. Actually, it's very, very immoral because the FAA claims that it owns the air in your front yard.
Similar threads
