New FAA Laws

[Doctors11]

So I just got an email from the FAA saying that there will be new laws imposed on Small UAVs. I'm trying to figure out what I need to do to fly my UAVs but I can't seem to figure it out.

Here is a link to the article.

Is the FAA asking for everyone to register with the FAA and to get a license? Any help figuring this out would be nice.

 

[TexMechsRobot]

This doesn't apply to model aircraft. Model aircraft are regulated by Section 336 of Public Law 112-95. I've copied and pasted that section here:

SEC. 336. SPECIAL RULE FOR MODEL AIRCRAFT.
(a) IN GENERAL.—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 communitybased
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.​

 

[Snarls]

From what I understand, these are new rules for commercial operation. For hobbyist operation do as you are already doing.

In the past for commercial operation you were supposed to get a Section 333 Exemption which was not too easy. You also had to be a licensed pilot to qualify to fly UAS (multirotors/planes) for commercial purposes. Now (effective late August ) you do not need the exemption or a pilots license to fly commercially. Instead you need to pass an aeronautical knowledge exam. Or if you are already a pilot you need a flight review and training course.

Good to bring up the new rules. I'm looking forward to what others think.

 

[pressalltheknobs]

This one is odd

"Small unmanned aircraft may not operate over any persons
not directly participating in the operation, not under a
covered structure, and not inside a covered stationary
vehicle."

No flying commercially in arenas then? What about pro drone racing.... Seems an overly restrictive rule. They are really struggling with this stuff.

 

[jellidawg]

This one is odd

"Small unmanned aircraft may not operate over any persons
not directly participating in the operation, not under a
covered structure, and not inside a covered stationary
vehicle."

No flying commercially in arenas then? What about pro drone racing.... Seems an overly restrictive rule. They are really struggling with this stuff.

I interpreted that to mean that the people you should not fly over people that are out in the open that do not have knowledge of you being there. I.E. they would be protected from your view by a covered structure.

 

[pressalltheknobs]

ah I think you are right. The people must be under the structure or in vehicle. It's just oddly written. It actually means...

"Small unmanned aircraft may not operate over any people
not directly participating in the operation unless the people are protected under a
covered structure or inside a covered stationary
vehicle."

 

[makattack]

ah I think you are right. The people must be under the structure or in vehicle. It's just oddly written. It actually means...

"Small unmanned aircraft may not operate over any people
not directly participating in the operation unless the people are protected under a
covered structure or inside a covered stationary
vehicle."

Heh heh, you're not used to reading technical Government/Military "language"

Generally, they use words separated by commas to further describe attributes of the original/primary subject. Hence you get things like:

Vehicle, tracked, armored = tank
Meals, ready to eat
Coat, Mens, Field

They way I read it was:

Don't fly over people who are not: operators of uav, under cover of structure, in stationary vehicles.

8 years of military service might affect the way I think...

 

[cranialrectosis]

LMAO Mac. I read it the same way.

 

[dwight]

Is the whole registration requirement for hobbyists' UAV's (specifically, fixed wing) out the window now that they are talking about extension of the 2012 legislation? Or does FAA still get to ignore Congress?

Dwight

 

[OkieDave]

Here's the kicker, though:

(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.

The FAA, as an administrative agency, has the authority to promulgate such rules as it sees fit to carry out its purpose; moreover, it gets to decide for itself how to interpret its authority, and its interpretation will be accepted by the court so long as it doesn't run specifically afoul of the enabling legislation. Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984) is the seminal case regarding administrative agency authority. In Chevron, the Court held:

First, always, is the question whether Congress has directly spoken to the precise question at issue. If the intent of Congress is clear, that is the end of the matter; for the court, as well as the agency, must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress. If, however, the court determines Congress has not directly addressed the precise question at issue, the court does not simply impose its own construction on the statute . . . Rather, if the statute is silent or ambiguous with respect to the specific issue, the question for the court is whether the agency's answer is based on a permissible construction of the statute.

Chevron at 842-43

The Court has hinted that Chevron may be due for reconsideration, but right now, the administrative agency gets to make its own rules, so long as those rules don't directly contravene Congress's duly-passed legislation. Moreover, the agency can change its interpretation later, with basically the same standard of review. If now, or sometime in the future, the FAA decides your two-pound foamie "endanger the safety of the national airspace system," it can come after you...using its own definition of "endangers."

 

[kevparang]

I heard they put law on FPV, does anyone know more about this law?

 

[bhursey]

I heard they put law on FPV, does anyone know more about this law?

Hobiest are per the 336 to follow community based guidelines. There are guidelines for FPV safty here. http://www.modelaircraft.org/documents.aspx

FPV operations. http://www.modelaircraft.org/files/550.pdf

All the new FAA rules are for comercial operations only. Luckly after much fighting by orginizations like AMA the FAA is now for hobbiest going back to agreeing with the 2012 336. However you still have to technicly register with the FAA acording to the AMA the FAA would not back down on that.

http://amablog.modelaircraft.org/am...-rule-for-model-aircraft-remains-federal-law/

 

[kevparang]

Okay, thanks.