I think in this new interpretation of the rules, the FAA is only trying to carve away the use of FPV Goggles.
The FAA isn't trying to destroy the whole RC industry.
It might not be their intention, but if the industry was to follow the interpretation as it stands now, it would destroy the industry. You seem to try to defend it by claiming that the FAA was careless...
But in framing this document, the FAA was careless in a number of areas
In a couple of snippets the FAA specifically cited that:
"Demonstrating aerobatics for money" is not legal.
"Making money" from flying RC is not legal.
I don't know if careless is the word I'd use. By the amount of focus they put into this one letter, it seemed a lot of care was taken.
FAA said:
and further noted that to qualify as a model aircraft, the aircraft would need to be operated purely for recreational or hobby purposes
FAA said:
The policy statement also clarified that AC 91-57applied only to modelers and “specifically excludes its use by persons or companies forbusiness purposes.”
FAA said:
The statute requires model aircraft to be flown strictly for hobby or recreationalpurposes.
FAA said:
Adefinition of “hobby” is a “pursuit outside one's regular occupation engaged in especiallyfor relaxation.” Merriam-Webster Dictionary, available at www.merriam-webster.com(last accessed June 9, 2014). A definition of recreation is “refreshment of strength andspirits after work; a means of refreshment or diversion.” Id. These uses are consistentwith the FAA’s 2007 policy on model aircraft in which the Agency stated model aircraft operating guidelines did not apply to “persons or companies for business purposes.” See 72 FR at 6690.4
FAA said:
Any operation not conducted strictly for hobby or recreation purposes could notbe operated under the special rule for model aircraft. Clearly, commercial operationswould not be hobby or recreation flights.5 Likewise, flights that are in furtherance of abusiness, or incidental to a person’s business, would not be a hobby or recreation flight.
FAA said:
Although they are not commercialoperations conducted for compensation or hire, such operations do not qualify as a hobbyor recreation flight because of the nexus between the operator’s business and theoperation of the aircraft.
FAA said:
To provide guidance, the following are examples of flights that could beconducted as hobby or recreation flights and other types of flights that would not behobby or recreation.
I think it's pretty clear, they are VERY adamant about not being able to use RC aircraft in any way that is associated with a business. Yes, by this interpretation, it would kill the RC industry as we know it.
Of course everyone took these "generalized" statements and came up with all these nightmare scenarios that ultimately leads to the death of the organized RC industry as pertains to selling fully assembled planes.
No more complete RC planes could be sold, because at some point the plane must have "test flights", and employees are getting paid for doing these "test flights".
And these "test flights" are being done as part of a commercial business (selling RC Planes)...and not a hobby.
Go back and re-read the list. Nothing generalized about it. The FAA gets very specific about what they deem as model aviation, and what is not. Anything that is "not" wouldn't be protected by Part 91, and thus subject to action by the FAA.
Now, all of that being said, do I think commercial flights of RC aircraft should be covered under the hobbyist exemption of model aviation? No. But, the FAA has refused to work with the public in developing any sort of guidelines for the commercial use of small, lightweight model aircraft. I've been following the requests for nearly a decade. We've begged for some fair operational guidelines, meetings have been conducted, businesses have been put on hold. The FAA has shown no real interest in working with the public, that they're supposed to be working for.
So I guess the ultimate end state would be that:
The RC hobbyist can buy the pieces and parts of a plane that have never been tested as a whole...assemble them...and hope for the best.
Or he can start from scratch with raw foam or balsa...design, build, test, and fly his own creations.
Hey, maybe not so bad an end state…lol.
What you seem to be saying here, is that we should be happy to go back to the state of the hobby as it was in the 1930's? "Here's some sticks, and a rough drawing, good luck." And it better not be a design that you've successfully flown before...
Of course this whole scenario is ridiculous.
The AMA knows that the FAA is only to attempting to carve away the FPV goggles.
But it's concerned that if this goes through...then there's nothing stopping the FAA from taking more and more bites out of AMA's authority over model aviation.
So the AMA is in no hurry to tamp down the illogical hysteria.
Actually, the FAA's comments on goggles is fairly minor in this letter. In fact, it's at the end of a list of devices that they say do not count as "line of sight". Almost as if the goggles were an afterthought.
Even if that was the case, why "carve away FPV goggles"? How are the use of goggles inherently dangerous to the public, or the NAS? If I fly via goggles through a section of the woods, below the tree height, how am I presenting a threat to life or property? Or flying a closed course at an RC flying field? Or inside an empty parking garage at night?
FAA said:
the FAA interprets this requirement to mean that: (1) the aircraftmust be visible at all times to the operator; (2) that the operator must use his or her ownnatural vision (which includes vision corrected by standard eyeglasses or contact lenses)to observe the aircraft; and (3) people other than the operator may not be used in lieu ofthe operator for maintaining visual line of sight. Under the criteria above, visual line ofsight would mean that the operator has an unobstructed view of the model aircraft. Toensure that the operator has the best view of the aircraft, the statutory requirement wouldpreclude the use of vision-enhancing devices, such as binoculars, night vision goggles,powered vision magnifying devices, and goggles designed to provide a “first-personview” from the model.
I guess the AMA is even adding to the fear if it now contends that under the new rule "demonstrating aerobatics at airshows for pay is illegal".
That's just an AMA defensive move by using the FAA's sloppy crafting of the document.
See again…
If push comes to shove on this issue of flying at airshows, then the "vendor demonstration flights" now become "vendor test flights...an important component of the vendors ongoing quality control program across the entire product line."
After all, vendors are allowed to do test flights as part of bringing to market their complete airplanes and insuring ongoing quality control...aren't they?
Of course the test flights at the airshow have to include lots of fun to watch extreme aerobatics to fully test the structure...lol.
It's all a matter of wordsmithing...
Here's where this "argument" falls apart…
FAA said:
These operating standards included restricting operations over populated areas, limiting use of the devices around spectators until after the devices had been flight tested and proven airworthy
The FAA will not be too keen on anyone claiming to do test flights, in front of an audience at an event. If this is "all about public safety" then the last thing they'll be allowing is "test flights" at air shows.
The actual FAA notice of interpretation.
http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/uas/media/model_aircraft_spec_rule.pdf
An excellent presentation of what's at stake…
