
The FAA vs. Model Airplanes - luu
http://jonathanturley.org/2014/08/24/the-faa-vs-model-airplanes/
======
blutack
As a counterpoint, in the UK:

\- Under 7kg you must be able to see it well enough to avoid collisions with
stuff

\- Between 7-20kg stick below 400ft

\- Above 20kg it's more complex; everything else applies to <20kg aircraft

\- If you're flying aircraft for money, you need to apply to the CAA for a
permit and demonstrate competency

\- You may be allowed to fly higher or further away as a commercial operator
if you can put together a safety case

\- There are procedures for blocking off sections of airspace for flying BVLOS
(Beyond Visual Line of Sight) with CAA permission

\- You are very unlikely to get permission to routinely fly outside visual
range pending the development of reliable sense and avoid systems

I personally think this makes a lot of sense; the majority of business
operators & hobbyists seem to get on with things without causing much risk to
manned aviation.

There were over 300 licensed small UAS operators at last count.

[http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/cap722.pdf](http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/cap722.pdf)

~~~
kenrikm
Wow, that's actually very reasonable. I never thought I would say it but the
FAA should take some pointers from the Brits :P.

~~~
megablast
There are lots of lessons the US could take from other countries, recently the
issue about phone + internet bills.

------
anigbrowl
I find the model aircraft comparisons a bit dsingenuous. Most people imagine a
hobby model aircraft that's 2-3 feet long, made out of balsa wood, styrofoam,
or very lightweight plastic, and can't go much higher than 100 feet.

But serious enthusiasts can buy RCs from companies like Skymaster for a couple
of thousand that are 8+ feet long, have turbofan engines, can reach 2000 feet,
and airspeeds of up to 150 mph. Here's an example:
[http://www.skymasterjet.com/f16L.htm](http://www.skymasterjet.com/f16L.htm)

Of course I don't want the FAA to be heavy handed - these things are super
cool and I would like to try one myself! - but the state of the art in model
aircraft is powerful enough to present a serious hazard to general aviation if
misused. I'd rather see a clearly defined framework in place than a set of
reactive rules after some avoidable tragedy.

~~~
blutack
When there is an incident, I don't think it'll be a $3000 turbine powered
aircraft. The people operating & flying these things are likely to know what
they are doing - and if they don't it'll be in bits far before it reaches an
altitude dangerous to manned aviation.

The DJI Phantom and friends are awesome, but someone can take them out of the
box and fly them up to a 1000ft or so with zero skill or knowledge of aviation
culture required. And it can still take out an engine or cockpit window.

~~~
anigbrowl
Sorry, I don't think the price differential is automatically going to mean
more sensible users. Here's an example from last year of an experienced RC
pilot decapitating himself with a $2000 helicopter:
[http://blogs.wsj.com/metropolis/2013/09/05/remote-control-
he...](http://blogs.wsj.com/metropolis/2013/09/05/remote-control-helicopter-
kills-man-in-brooklyn/)

Just yesterday there was a news story about a firearms instructor with years
of experience getting killed while 'teaching' a 9 year old girl how to fire an
Uzi submachine gun on full auto at a firing range. People who should know
better do stupid shit all the time - not because they lack competence, but
because they get overconfident.

------
digz
For what it's worth, I have a pilot's license and also fly a quadcopter.

A big part of the issue is the separation of powers and who exactly has the
right to regulate model aircraft. Congress explicitly and deliberately
precluded the FAA from regulating model aircraft. A separate question is
whether or not, given their proliferation, the new breed of model aircraft
should be regulated. Given existing laws, that's a job for congress to decide.

As an aside: People wanting to do dumb things, will do dumb things. You don't
need to create new sweeping regulation to punish people from doing dumb things
either. Most cities and states have laws preventing people from deliberately
invading others' privacy, or acting recklessly. Many of the concerns levied
against drones are either already addressed or are impossible to regulate
against. I'm often reminded of a news reporter on 9/11 that was asking the
aviation expert on air with her how the planes were able to get into
restricted airspace.

------
steven777400
I have mixed views on this. On the one hand, I completely support model
aircraft hobbyists and I also support private drone operations (like real
estate photography or search and rescue, or just recreational use).

However, there has to be a line where a remote control operation could
interact with the national airspace system and the regulated operators
therein. Not more than 500 feet and away from airports sounds like a good
limit to me, adding on that the drone operator must maintain clearance from
any aircraft that may exist in that area, such as helicopters.

I think the key change that is spooking the FAA is that drones may be operated
(from a technical perspective) outside of direct view of the operator.
"Traditional" model aircraft weren't generally taken far from the field they
launched from; but a drone with a camera and transmitter can go much further.

Probably everyone has seen the video of the drone that was flown through a
fireworks display. A very cool video indeed, but, also a good example of the
FAA's concerns: if the drone is outside of view of the operator, and running
at altitude, and not carrying a transponder, lights, or other equipment
mandated to certified aircraft, then how is clearance from other aircraft
ensured?

~~~
basseq
Similarly, the line between "model aircraft" and "aircraft" is increasingly
blurred. It's a spectrum between balsa-wood-and-rubber-band-kits and
$4M-predator-drone (with a 48-foot wingspan and a 675-mile range). Somewhere
in the middle are advanced RC helicopters and quadrocopters. On the upper end
of the range are Amazon package drones.

I think it's perfectly reasonable for the FAA to have jurisdiction over the
advanced end of that spectrum. The question is how do you draw the line?
Height from ground and/or range from operator seem like reasonable metrics to
me.

~~~
kenrikm
FAA is looking at the wrong group, the current rules say don't fly over 400
feet with a model aircraft. If a pilot of a real plane is flying under 400ft
outside of the landing or takeoff pattern in Class B airspace there's an issue
with that pilot or the plane. Model planes and real planes just don't operate
in the same airspace very often so it has not been an issue over the last 50+
years.

Now the big issue that's spooking the FAA is that if you go to YouTube and
search for FPV you'l find people flying their FPV planes at 2000, 3000 or even
5000ft where they become a risk to full size aircraft - even if they are only
2 or 3lbs of foam I could see them causing some damage to a jet engine. (Alt:
but so do birds)

The small subset of idiots who bust the 400ft rule is making the FAA try to
ban all FPV or outside line of sight operation which is a terrible idea as
there are a lot of practical applications for model aircraft under 400ft
(surveying, agriculture, logistics, Search and rescue etc) The FAA should only
have jurisdiction over 500ft and in class B airspace as it has been for the
past 80 years. They need to get a framework in place for licensed commercial
operation under 400ft rather then just trying to ban it outright - people will
do it regardless it's better if they are certified and follow some safety
rules rather then the under the table hope you don't get caught stuff that's
going on now.

~~~
hatandsocks
> If a pilot of a real plane is flying under 400ft outside of the landing or
> takeoff pattern in Class B airspace there's an issue with that pilot or the
> plane.

Well... not really. First, rotary wing aircraft don't have the same altitude
and horizontal separation limits as fixed wing aircraft. And, second, in Class
B specifically, most aircraft are relying on ATC to provide separation from
conflicting traffic.

> The FAA should only have jurisdiction over 500ft and in class B airspace as
> it has been for the past 80 years. They need to get a framework in place for
> licensed commercial operation under 400ft rather then just trying to ban it
> outright

This doesn't make any sense. I _suspect_ that you aren't aware of all the
different types of airspace because you're essentially saying that drone
operators should have free range to operate in the controlled airspace of
smaller airports. Chicago's Midway Airport and the Bay Area's San Jose are
just two examples of such "small airport" with scheduled commercial flights
out of class C. Class C and D, which extends to the ground within a 4 mile
radius of the airports, is absolutely within the jurisdiction of the FAA.

But even aside from that, there is plenty of VFR traffic in class G. You're
essentially saying that aircraft carrying humans bear the entire
responsibility for avoiding drones, as well as the (human) cost in the event
of such a collision.

~~~
kenrikm
"You're essentially saying that aircraft carrying humans bear the entire
responsibility for avoiding drones, as well as the (human) cost in the event
of such a collision."

Nope that could not be further from the case, I was under the (wrong)
impression that class B was five miles out from any normal airport thanks for
correcting me on that. You should not be operating in controlled airspace
unless you have contacted ATC at the airport, the FAAs rules state exactly
that which is very reasonable.

See: [https://www.mapbox.com/drone/no-
fly/#5/40.044/-98.130](https://www.mapbox.com/drone/no-fly/#5/40.044/-98.130)

However claiming regulatory ownership of ALL airspace down to ground level
when there is longstanding precedent that under 83ft belongs to the property
owner and between 83ft and 500ft (not around airports) is unregulated is a
bridge too far.

The FAA advises pilots not to fly under 500ft as it's not safe, 200ft may be
dangerous for a full size aircraft but it's perfectly reasonable for a model
aircraft (UAVs, MAVs, Drones, whatever you want to call them).

See:
[http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/aim/aim07...](http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/aim/aim0705.html)

a. General. Many structures exist that could significantly affect the safety
of your flight when operating below 500 feet AGL, and particularly below 200
feet AGL. While 14 CFR Part 91.119 allows flight below 500 AGL when over
sparsely populated areas or open water, such operations are very dangerous. At
and below 200 feet AGL there are numerous power lines, antenna towers, etc.,
that are not marked and lighted as obstructions and; therefore, may not be
seen in time to avoid a collision. Notices to Airmen (NOTAMs) are issued on
those lighted structures experiencing temporary light outages. However, some
time may pass before the FAA is notified of these outages, and the NOTAM
issued, thus pilot vigilance is imperative.

------
robomartin
I've been building and flying model airplanes, sailplanes, powered and
helicopters for many decades. Flying model aircraft required time, knowledge
and dedication. Before the Internet we used to connect over USENET. It wasn't
uncommmon to engage in deep discussions of aerodynamics, design, composite
fabrication, motor design, etc. I made many good friends in the aerospace
industry during those days, including people like the chief engineer of the
F-14 and members of the team who designed the F-117 Stealth Fighter. I provide
this background as a backdrop for what, ultimately, is my opinion of what is
going on right now in the multicopter world:

A bunch of FUCKING MORONS are going to ruin it for those of us who fell in
love with this hobby as a conduit for science and learning. A passtime that
used to be handed down from parents to children is in jeopardy of being
regulated out of our lives because of a bunch of idiots with money and no
brains and an apparent total lack of common sense, consideration, respect and
care for the health and safety of others. No true model aircraft enthusiast of
my generation would even consider doing some of the crap these morons are
doing every day.

It's sad.

~~~
sounds
Yes. Thank you.

The Eternal September seems to crop up in every close-knit community that
grows exponentially. I am not aware of a solution to it.

------
th0ma5
Federally subsidized transponders and autopilots. It'd be great if I could
make a model plane and add a < $100 device to allay concerns.

~~~
kenrikm
Indeed I'm aware that 3DRobotics was working on being able to feed ADS-B into
the system for drones without using a ADS-B transponder.

------
ibisum
We're going through a bit of a 'long September' period in the RC/Model world,
as more and more newcomers to the hobby get things like the DJI Phantom, and
then proceed to break all sorts of rules that have been a 'given' in the RC
world previously. The sooner these users learn some manners, the better.

------
danboarder
Note that the FAA interpretive rule is open for public comment until September
23. See the link below for analysis and comment suggestions from the AMA, and
speak up!

[http://www.modelaircraft.org/aboutama/AMAInterpretiveRuleRes...](http://www.modelaircraft.org/aboutama/AMAInterpretiveRuleResponse.aspx)

------
tsmith
If you have a pilot license, and call into the ATC to get clearance, can you
operate a drone for commercial purposes (e.g. taking photos for real estate
listings)?

~~~
lutusp
No, under present rules, drones are regulated without consideration of the
operator's qualifications in other aircraft types. And for the moment, no
commercial use of drones is being permitted, which means the use to which the
drone is put is the issue, not who is operating it.

But this is going to change relatively soon -- there's too much public
pressure to allow drones wider operational latitude.

------
karcass
Banning RC planes inside class B airspace is does not seem like that big of a
hardship. There are only 50 or so of them total in the United States, and they
are very very busy most of the time.

------
weddpros
A 30 lbs / 15 ft glider can probably cause very serious injury when landed on
a highway.

Any propeller plane / fast glider can cause death in a crowd.

Maybe a model airplane can cause a real plane to crash.

A firearm can probably do some serious damage to a flying plane too.

But... is it likely? does it happen? often?

When so-called risks are not measured, they're often mentioned to justify
blind repression.

In the startup world, it's commonsense to measure things before taking action.
It should inspire politics.

BTW, I recently saw a video titled "a drone almost crashed into an airplane"
(or another catchy headline). Judging by the video, the distance between the
two was at least 100 to 300 yards...

~~~
ceejayoz
That's not a catchy headline, that's accurate per the FAA:

> A near midair collision is defined as an incident associated with the
> operation of an aircraft in which a possibility of collision occurs as a
> result of proximity of less than 500 feet to another aircraft, or a report
> is received from a pilot or a flight crew member stating that a collision
> hazard existed between two or more aircraft.

[https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/aim/aim0...](https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/aim/aim0706.html)

At 200 mph, a distance of 100 yards is closed in about a second.

~~~
VLM
The direction of the velocity vectors matter a bit. You mean the min impact
time is about a second. Obviously impact time is infinite if the paths don't
converge.

