I've been a lurker for a while on these forums because I haven't been into RC flight for all that long (1.5 years maybe) and typically my expertise isn't all that valuable to the amazing wealth of knowledge you all provide (for free!). (Un)fortunately, however, I do have some experience in this field due to my work professionally in a heavily regulated industry (not aerospace) and, specifically, almost daily interactions with regulators.
What regulators don't care about:
· Emotional responses
· Anecdotal evidence
· How much fun the hobby is to you or your kids/how wholesome it is
· Bonding with your kids
· Blanket statements or requests such as "stop taking our liberties"
· Statements asserting they don't know what they're talking about (they do)
What regulators do care about:
· Strict and rigid implementation of laws enacted by Congress
· Public safety
· Historical precedence and observation
FAA mission statement: The mission of the FAA is to provide the safest, most efficient aerospace system in the world.
Among other things, regulators are tasked with creating rules and guidelines that effectively implement what Congress enacts as Public Law. They take this very seriously and in my experience, rather blindly. If there's a conflict, they will always err on the side of a super strict interpretation of directives given them by Congress. In other words, they fully rely on the lawmakers to ensure there is no difference between the "letter of the law" and the "spirit of the law". Because if there is, they will always follow the letter.
In the specific case of the FAA's recent interpretation affecting Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS), it seems to me that their interpretation relative to FPV hinges on a few key words and the meaning the FAA has decided to ascribe to them - namely, "Line of Sight", and "Operator".
Section 336 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (FMRA) deals with a special exemption for model aircraft. Specifically, it states "...the Federal Aviation Administration may not promulgate any rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft, or an aircraft being developed as a model aircraft". I have to imagine this enrages the FAA because it attempts to limit their power through law and, frankly, regulators don't like that! However, they certainly understand that they can't just ignore or grossly misinterpret public law and keep their jobs, so they'll try to get around it another way. That is, they'll get persnickety about the "letter" and ignore the "spirit". In my estimation, the spirit of the law was clearly to limit the FAA's involvement in model aircraft flight/development, as long as those UAS's are operated as model aircraft and follow safety protocols established by the "community-based organization", which is generally understood to be the AMA.
In section 336(c) of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (FMRA), the law attempts to define what "model aircraft" is. The key defining parameter of model aircraft that the FAA is latching on to is this (336(c)(2)): "flown within visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft". They realize their assertions depend greatly on the meaning of the terms "visual line of sight" and "operator", thus, in the footnotes of the interpretation they define "operator" as the following: "For purposes of the visual line of sight requirement, “operator” means the person manipulating the model aircraft's controls."
Alternate definitions of "operator" that have established precedence elsewhere refer to the ability of a person to assert control (like a pilot/co-pilot situation), or primary and secondary operators working as a team. Clearly this is how the AMA interprets this in their FPV rules established in Document 550, but the FAA is designating this interpretation as unlawful and inconsistent with the Public Law that defines model aircraft. Frankly, I think they're both rationale and valid interpretations, but the FAA interpretation ignores the "spirit" of the law.
Additionally, the FAA has asserted "visual line of sight" to mean that the model has to be directly viewed at all times. Other interpretations of "visual line of sight" define it as a measure of distance or a maintained ability to view (unobstructed) the model in flight. Again, both of these seem like reasonable interpretations but unfortunately have very different implications for FPV.
This has gotten plenty long...but on a side note, I really don't think these rules will be enforced for responsible, recreational FPV use (responsible means away from people and following AMA safety guidelines). At most, law enforcement may request you to stop, but I honestly can't see it going further than that as long as you're not flying around people or being obnoxious. My biggest beef with this whole thing is the light they've brought to the recreational vs. commercial uses. They haven't really re-interpreted anything here, they've just provided a bit more specificity and reminded us of truly how restricting these laws are. What I find ironic is on their page located here:
http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/uas/model_aircraft_operators/
It says "Do take lessons and learn to fly safely", but then a couple lines down says "Don't fly model aircraft for payment or commercial purposes". Well...how do they expect people to take lessons if nobody can teach them with actual flight experience? The super broad definition of commercial use (especially their example of a "furtherance of business") worries me the most and poises the U.S. to be a huge laggard in UAS development which we all know will be a huge contributor to quality of life in the near future (think search and rescue, transportation of critical medical supplies, etc...).
What regulators don't care about:
· Emotional responses
· Anecdotal evidence
· How much fun the hobby is to you or your kids/how wholesome it is
· Bonding with your kids
· Blanket statements or requests such as "stop taking our liberties"
· Statements asserting they don't know what they're talking about (they do)
What regulators do care about:
· Strict and rigid implementation of laws enacted by Congress
· Public safety
· Historical precedence and observation
FAA mission statement: The mission of the FAA is to provide the safest, most efficient aerospace system in the world.
Among other things, regulators are tasked with creating rules and guidelines that effectively implement what Congress enacts as Public Law. They take this very seriously and in my experience, rather blindly. If there's a conflict, they will always err on the side of a super strict interpretation of directives given them by Congress. In other words, they fully rely on the lawmakers to ensure there is no difference between the "letter of the law" and the "spirit of the law". Because if there is, they will always follow the letter.
In the specific case of the FAA's recent interpretation affecting Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS), it seems to me that their interpretation relative to FPV hinges on a few key words and the meaning the FAA has decided to ascribe to them - namely, "Line of Sight", and "Operator".
Section 336 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (FMRA) deals with a special exemption for model aircraft. Specifically, it states "...the Federal Aviation Administration may not promulgate any rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft, or an aircraft being developed as a model aircraft". I have to imagine this enrages the FAA because it attempts to limit their power through law and, frankly, regulators don't like that! However, they certainly understand that they can't just ignore or grossly misinterpret public law and keep their jobs, so they'll try to get around it another way. That is, they'll get persnickety about the "letter" and ignore the "spirit". In my estimation, the spirit of the law was clearly to limit the FAA's involvement in model aircraft flight/development, as long as those UAS's are operated as model aircraft and follow safety protocols established by the "community-based organization", which is generally understood to be the AMA.
In section 336(c) of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (FMRA), the law attempts to define what "model aircraft" is. The key defining parameter of model aircraft that the FAA is latching on to is this (336(c)(2)): "flown within visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft". They realize their assertions depend greatly on the meaning of the terms "visual line of sight" and "operator", thus, in the footnotes of the interpretation they define "operator" as the following: "For purposes of the visual line of sight requirement, “operator” means the person manipulating the model aircraft's controls."
Alternate definitions of "operator" that have established precedence elsewhere refer to the ability of a person to assert control (like a pilot/co-pilot situation), or primary and secondary operators working as a team. Clearly this is how the AMA interprets this in their FPV rules established in Document 550, but the FAA is designating this interpretation as unlawful and inconsistent with the Public Law that defines model aircraft. Frankly, I think they're both rationale and valid interpretations, but the FAA interpretation ignores the "spirit" of the law.
Additionally, the FAA has asserted "visual line of sight" to mean that the model has to be directly viewed at all times. Other interpretations of "visual line of sight" define it as a measure of distance or a maintained ability to view (unobstructed) the model in flight. Again, both of these seem like reasonable interpretations but unfortunately have very different implications for FPV.
This has gotten plenty long...but on a side note, I really don't think these rules will be enforced for responsible, recreational FPV use (responsible means away from people and following AMA safety guidelines). At most, law enforcement may request you to stop, but I honestly can't see it going further than that as long as you're not flying around people or being obnoxious. My biggest beef with this whole thing is the light they've brought to the recreational vs. commercial uses. They haven't really re-interpreted anything here, they've just provided a bit more specificity and reminded us of truly how restricting these laws are. What I find ironic is on their page located here:
http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/uas/model_aircraft_operators/
It says "Do take lessons and learn to fly safely", but then a couple lines down says "Don't fly model aircraft for payment or commercial purposes". Well...how do they expect people to take lessons if nobody can teach them with actual flight experience? The super broad definition of commercial use (especially their example of a "furtherance of business") worries me the most and poises the U.S. to be a huge laggard in UAS development which we all know will be a huge contributor to quality of life in the near future (think search and rescue, transportation of critical medical supplies, etc...).
