FAA Notice of Proposed Rulemaking regarding Small UAS

[Lupus]

Ok, here it is. The FAA has issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.

That can be found here: https://www.faa.gov/uas/nprm/

For All Those who Fly RC you should read this rule. IT WILL IMPACT YOUR HOBBY!

For All those who fly FPV you really need to read this rule. IT WILL HAVE A HUGE IMPACT ON YOUR HOBBY!

Whether we like it or not, big brother is stepping in. We MUST take this opportunity to comment on the proposed rules so that our voice can be heard.

I know that reading pages on end of legal jargon is not a lot of fun, but we need to take informed action and make informed comments. Please, as someone who is brand new to this hobby, I BEG you, PLEASE take the time to actually read and make informed comments on the rule. Lawsuits to sort this out after the fact will take years. Our best bet right now is to comment. We must comment before April 24, 2015

Here is what the actual notice says:

Small UAS Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)

The Department of Transportation's Federal Aviation Administration has proposed a framework of regulations that would allow routine use of certain small unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) in today's aviation system, while maintaining flexibility to accommodate future technological innovations. The FAA proposal offers safety rules for small UAS (under 55 pounds) conducting non-recreational operations. The rule would limit flights to daylight and visual-line-of-sight operations. It also addresses height restrictions, operator certification, optional use of a visual observer, aircraft registration and marking, and operational limits.

The new rules would not apply to model aircraft. However, model aircraft operators must continue to satisfy all of the criteria specified in Sec. 336 of Public Law 112-95, including the stipulation that they be operated only for hobby or recreational purposes.

The public will be able to comment on the Small UAS Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for 60 days from the date of publication on the Federal Register. The proposed regulation was published on the Federal Register for public comment on February 23, 2015. Send comments on or before April 24, 2015.

Read an overview of the Small UAS NPRM (PDF).

Read the complete Small UAS NPRM (PDF).

Read the FAA press release issued February 15, 2015.

Comment on the Small UAS NPRM

 

[airhawk]

this is unfair we should make a law on regulating the faa

 

[makattack]

Uhm... you guys realize this is only for commercial use... technically, it doesn't apply to the hobby...

 

[PHugger]

I think the important bit is -

The new rules would not apply to model aircraft. However, model aircraft operators must continue to satisfy all of the criteria specified in Sec. 336 of Public Law 112-95, including the stipulation that they be operated only for hobby or recreational purposes.

So the hobby "shoe" hasn't dropped yet, but overall it's pretty heinous.
Almost everything our government gets involved in get screwed up.



Best regards,
PCH

 

[Lupus]

Actually they do. According to the NPRM, the FAA takes the right to enforce code and levy fines.

If your "Model" doesn't meet ALL of the Statutory requirements listed in Section 336 then you fall under THEIR rule making. Nowhere does it specify commercial operation only, as I have read so far. In fact, it specifically says if you do not meet all the Statutory requirements of Section 336 then their rule applies.

Section 336 says:

SEC. 336. SPECIAL RULE FOR MODEL AIRCRAFT.
(a) INGENERAL.—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;
(2) flown within visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft; and
(3) flown for hobby or recreational purposes.

 

[Barron.Barnett]

I think the important bit is -



So the hobby "shoe" hasn't dropped yet, but overall it's pretty heinous.
Almost everything our government gets involved in get screwed up.



Best regards,
PCH

This!!!

Encroachment always happens incrementally and this is the second time within 30 days I'm writing a government agency doing something like this.

There are always things that while normally would be covered under the hobby that could quickly land you "commercial". Tell me, if you make money from video ads from video shot during a quadcopter race or while flying some place scenic it could be claimed you're no longer doing it for "recreation".

Never mind the fact that any person would love to subsidize the cost of their hobby, but when you start making money they're more than happy to claim otherwise.

Given my activity in other communities, I can tell you the time to fight is early, not at the end when they finally are dropping the shoe on you.

 

[Lupus]

The code itself states as it relates to model aircraft:

The proposed rule would codify the FAA’s enforcement authority in part 101 by prohibiting model aircraft operators from endangering the safety of the NAS

 

[dflash]

The FAA proposal offers safety rules for small UAS (under 55 pounds) conducting non-recreational operations

I believe that should be read as.. commercial use.

 

[Lupus]

The FAA proposal offers safety rules for small UAS (under 55 pounds) conducting non-recreational operations

I believe that should be read as.. commercial use.

No, there is a big difference between Commercial use and Non-Recreational use.

Want to volunteer your time to help perform search and rescue operations? Sorry, that's non-recreational use. Better have a UAS license issued by the FAA.

Want to volunteer your time to help deliver supplies during a national emergency? perhaps dropping clean food and water in a flood zone to people that need it? Sorry, better have a UAS, that's non-recreational operations.

Was either example commercial use? I don't think so.

In fact, Search and Rescue is one of the examples the FAA states in their full rule. Please take the time to read all 195 pages. I know it sucks. I know it's not fun. But the FAA won't care if you didn't read it when they fine you for violating it or for not understanding it.

 

[airhawk]

I think the important bit is -



So the hobby "shoe" hasn't dropped yet, but overall it's pretty heinous.
Almost everything our government gets involved in get screwed up.



Best regards,
PCH

they mean los there trying to ban fpv

 

[Lupus]

they mean los there trying to ban fpv

Precisely. They are trying to limit FPV to require that the operator can maintain line of sight on the craft at all times.

 

[makattack]

they mean los there trying to ban fpv

I'm not even sure that's the case, because that full PDF has this clause:

First-person view camera cannot satisfy “see-and avoid” requirement but can be used as long as requirement is satisfied in other ways.

Which basically, I read to say that AMA FPV guidelines are suitable:

https://www.modelaircraft.org/files/550.pdf

 

[FAI-F1D]

Which basically, I read to say that AMA FPV guidelines are suitable:

https://www.modelaircraft.org/files/550.pdf

yes, but consider that the FAA's "rules" for "recreational model aircraft" completely ban the use of FPV.

This whole set of proposed "rules" is garbage. It's the FAA trying to impose on use the same crap it imposes on full scale flying in the name of "safety". Sorry, but those licensure processes and sundry other rules do not enhance safety.

I've said and I'll say again that commercial licensure has done nothing to improve aviation safety. Been there, done that...

 

[makattack]

yes, but consider that the FAA's "rules" for "recreational model aircraft" completely ban the use of FPV.

This whole set of proposed "rules" is garbage. It's the FAA trying to impose on use the same crap it imposes on full scale flying in the name of "safety". Sorry, but those licensure processes and sundry other rules do not enhance safety.

I've said and I'll say again that commercial licensure has done nothing to improve aviation safety. Been there, done that...

Ah! I didn't realize the rule for recreational model aircraft they have bans the use of FPV. That's terrible, and I do hope the AMA and other organizations and individuals will fight against that and advocate for a change.

That said, I also agree that commercial (or any other) licencing won't improve aviation safety -- just as it hasn't improved ground based transport safety. It's just too complicated interaction between multiple systems to leave to a bunch of words on paper.

 

[Lupus]

Ah! I didn't realize the rule for recreational model aircraft they have bans the use of FPV. That's terrible, and I do hope the AMA and other organizations and individuals will fight against that and advocate for a change.

That said, I also agree that commercial (or any other) licencing won't improve aviation safety -- just as it hasn't improved ground based transport safety. It's just too complicated interaction between multiple systems to leave to a bunch of words on paper.

It does not completely ban FPV, but it does require the use of a spotter that has line of sight and their rules seem to suggest that the goggles method of FPV is not allowed, but the use of a monitor is. Again, I HIGHLY recommend taking the time to read the 195page rules notification. That is the only way we can make informed comments on the rule.

I am hoping we can suggest that with head tracking and field of view that see and avoid requirements can be satisfactorily met with fpv goggles so that we might get some allowance for FPV beyond the range of line of sight "for experimental and educational purposes."

After all, limiting FPV to ling of sight, will severely limit the use of 'drones' in search and rescue operations.

 

[abieex]

Mak, it does not ban FPV but mandates a spotter. Are we concerned about search and rescue/disaster relief or are we simply pissed off about the line of sight rule? The field of vision is just too small to completely turn these things loose. I have many mixed emotions about these things but feel that someone should play devils advocate. Lets not embelish the proposed rule by exageration in any areas.

 

[abieex]

Lupus, your suggestion concerning head tracking and a system that deals with see and avoid make a great deal of sense.

 

[Christopher14]

Maximum airspeed of 100 mph (87 knots).

Is this a maximum 'lawful' speed for all RC aircraft?

 

[Lupus]

Is this a maximum 'lawful' speed for all RC aircraft?

I would assume that it would only apply to those UAS covered by part 107. That those Small UAS that are covered by Section 336 of Public Law 112-95 would fall under whatever national community organization safety standards your following in accordance with Section 336 of Public Law 112-95 "the aircraft is operated in accordance with a community-
based set of safety guidelines and within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization".

The organization must be a nationwide organization so I am assuming the AMA is about the only one that qualifies.

 

[Lupus]

Ok, so I just posted this to the comment on the rule for Part 107.

I would suggest that the FAA consider the following addendum for small UAS operating under Part 107 for experimental and educational purposes:

Given the current state of Head Tracking within FPV goggles, On Screen Display information availability as it relates to the status of the aircraft, specifically regarding direction, ground speed, altitude AGL, power used (so remaining power can be calculated and thus flight time) and location (specifically as it relates to the operators current position), and the current Field of View that is available, that under part 107 small UAS should be able to fly with a reasonable amount of safety while flown strictly from FPV provided that range tests have been performed for the current FPV radio setups and that practical range is limited to 80% of determined maximum range and that altitude is limited to no more than 500' AGL. The On Screen Display would provide similar information as required by instruments for instrument flight (where vision is not used), with the added advantage of some visual cues relating to navigation.

I would further suggest that by instituting light rules similar to AIM 4-3-23 and using similar green, red, and white lights (or perhaps a different color combination so that small UAS are easily distinguished from manned aircraft) that you should be able to mitigate to a reasonable level and degree of risk associated with night flying. In fact, given that you can equip camera's with low light operation so that they remain an effective way for the operator to see I would propose that it could in fact be made safer than the current standards for night flying by manned aircraft.

The FAA likes a 15% reserve for fuel in manned aircraft, hence the 80% rule I came up with. What do you think?