Considering MRF blastmail system to address FAA regulatory process but need your help

[Bartman]

With a user base approaching 15,000 members I think it is time for a blastmail to address this issue. Maybe we can push the discussion in one direction or another.

What is the best point of attack though?

The REadyMadeRC petition? Maybe a simple form letter to the FAA that we can maybe generate a few thousand copies of from MRF members? Maybe a new petition using the website that the White House monitors (Change.org maybe, I forget what it's called). If we all signed it but then reached out to our customers and friends to sign it maybe we'd get enough hits to be noticed?

I can work on it today if it stays cloudy outside, it's not like I have anything else to do! :livid:

 

[Bartman]

also, considering overlap with full scale groups and clubs (EAA, AOPA, local aviation clubs and associations, professional email lists like ALPA and others) maybe we can get some traction?

it's all in what we say though so I'll have to make an extra pot of coffee and get started.

 

[dmetz]

With a user base approaching 15,000 members I think it is time for a blastmail to address this issue. Maybe we can push the discussion in one direction or another.

What is the best point of attack though? The REadyMadeRC petition? Maybe a simple form letter to the FAA that we can maybe generate a few thousand copies of from MRF members? Maybe a new petition using the website that the White House monitors (Change.org maybe, I forget what it's called). If we all signed it but then reached out to our customers and friends to sign it maybe we'd get enough hits to be noticed?

I can work on it today if it stays cloudy outside, it's not like I have anything else to do! :livid:

I think "YES" Bart. Any of that (or all of it) would make a point. Numbers in these public input periods can make a big difference. I think Tim's position paper from RMRC is very well crafted. That line of argument is likely the best shot at getting the FAA to broaden their interpretation of Public Law 112-95 Sec 336.

 

[Bartman]

let's hear from you guys....just drop whatever you can think of into the space below and i'll sort it out

important points to make it successful

FAA has the right to regulate US airspace
Manned aircraft must have priority in US airspace
Model aircraft can operate clear of conflicts with adequate but not onerous guidelines
Support of AMA as advocates for hobbyists
Adaptation of other countries' licensing guidelines for sUAS sooner rather than later


what else, let's get going on this!

 

[Bartman]

I think "YES" Bart. Any of that (or all of it) would make a point. Numbers in these public input periods can make a big difference. I think Tim's position paper from RMRC is very well crafted. That line of argument is likely the best shot at getting the FAA to broaden their interpretation of Public Law 112-95 Sec 336.

I'll read it again and see what i can glean from it

 

[JoeBob]

I'd keep it short and simple. Short things are read, simple things are understood.

Example of rules based on zones:

Within 2 miles of Major Airport - No RC flying
Between 2 miles and 4 miles - Under 200 feet, LOS only, no FPV
Between 4 miles and 12 miles - Under 400 feet, LOS, no FPV
Outside of 12 miles - Under 500 feet, LOS and FPV allowed.

Tweak the numbers, add distances for minor airports and towns, require an equipment certification for flying over crowds (a crowd is X number of people.), put it in poll format and have MRF vote.



Government bureaucracies live on regulations.
Complicated rules justify their jobs. IRS Tax Code 2013 = 73,954 pages.
The FAA is looking at a chance to increase it's workforce and budget. TSA = zero to 50,000 employees in 12 years.

 

[Bartman]

From the FAA's document, "The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the interpretation, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. " I'm reading it now to see where the best point will be to make a specific thrust using a petition or form letter mailing campaign.

 

[Bartman]

another option would be to file a lawsuit against the FAA to stop them from using an "interpretation" to supercede the decision rendered in the FAA vs. Pirker lawsuit. it doesn't make sense to me that the FAA would think that they could set aside the outcome of the lawsuit by rendering an interpretation. the outcome of the lawsuit was put on hold pending an appeal but it's quite bold that the FAA would move to use their regulatory process before the outcome of the appeal could be decided.

 

[dmetz]

let's hear from you guys....just drop whatever you can think of into the space below and i'll sort it out

important points to make it successful

FAA has the right to regulate US airspace
Manned aircraft must have priority in US airspace
Model aircraft can operate clear of conflicts with adequate but not onerous guidelines
Support of AMA as advocates for hobbyists
Adaptation of other countries' licensing guidelines for sUAS sooner rather than later


what else, let's get going on this!

I feel like our best approach would be a very tailored one. As I understand it, the FAA is seeking public input at this point only to their "interpretation" of Public Law 112-95 Sec 336.

I think we have a couple of opportunities here.

1. Comment specifically on the FAA interpretation and any points that we, as a community, feel are far reaching or which may constitute rule making for model aircraft when the law specifically prohibits the FAA from creating those rules.

It seems like the largest points of contention with the rule interpretation relates to how "hobbiest" who collect any money at all appear to negate their hobby standing and therefore the status of their model aircraft. Even the IRS recognizes a "hobby" category for reporting income. I understand that some RC operators have sponsors or are paid for demonstrations. One would need to argue that an model aircraft being flown "strictly for hobby or recreational use" does not preclude the operator from having some monetary benefit related to that activity. This might be hard to overcome with argument because the language doesn't appear to give any wiggle room. We really needed to be vocal when this law was passed in 2012.


The second area of contention appears to be the use of FPV and compliance with the specific language in PL 112-95 Sec336 which requires the pilot to operate within visual line of sight of the aircraft. Our position would be that when operating consistent with AMA Document 550, a pilot is in compliance with this provision. i.e., an appropriate spotter can insure that the model aircraft remains within the "visual line of sight" of the operator.


2. Not related to the public comment on this interpretation but of importance to many in the MRF is the issue of commercial operations for UAS.

I think we should keep these issues separate because THIS is the area where the FAA has been charged to create rules. As I read the law passed in 2012, this section appears to be of great interest to us.

126 STAT. 76 PUBLIC LAW 112–95—FEB. 14, 2012
(b) ASSESSMENT OF UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS.—In making
the determination under subsection (a), the Secretary shall determine,
at a minimum—
(1) which types of unmanned aircraft systems, if any, as
a result of their size, weight, speed, operational capability,
proximity to airports and populated areas, and operation within
visual line of sight do not create a hazard to users of the
national airspace system or the public or pose a threat to
national security; and
(2) whether a certificate of waiver, certificate of authorization,
or airworthiness certification under section 44704 of title
49, United States Code, is required for the operation of
unmanned aircraft systems identified under paragraph (1).
(c) REQUIREMENTS FOR SAFE OPERATION.—If the Secretary
determines under this section that certain unmanned aircraft systems
may operate safely in the national airspace system, the Secretary
shall establish requirements for the safe operation of such
aircraft systems in the national airspace system.

We may be too late, but we might communicate with the FAA to say that our "community" (MFR) has a specific interest in how this will be legislated and would "offer" to provide input and comment (as a community) during the development and legislative process.

 

[Bartman]

my plan would be to represent the commercial use of sUAS. hobbyists (myself included) are more than adequately represented by the AMA and the larger UAS industry has the UAVSI organization.

commercial sUAS are minimally represented and maybe the largest group (in terms of number of users) affected.

 

[dmetz]

my plan would be to represent the commercial use of sUAS. hobbyists (myself included) are more than adequately represented by the AMA and the larger UAS industry has the UAVSI organization.

commercial sUAS are minimally represented and maybe the largest group (in terms of number of users) affected.

Sounds good Bart. I will surely do what I can to be part of that coalition and will help in any way I can. As I understand it, this current FAA interpretation is directed only at Section 336 of PL 112-95. Since the whole point of that section is to separate out hobbiest and model aircraft, and to exclude them from FAA rule making, comments regarding commercial use will likely not be applicable.

I would definitely be interested in helping with a position paper directed at Section 333 of this Law. This is the area where we would no doubt fall as commercial operators of small unmanned aircraft (under 55 lbs - defined by the law)

I also do not think the FAA v. Pirker case has anything to do with the current FAA Interpretation of Section 336 since this section relates ONLY to hobby and recreational use. Picker was involved in commercial use of an UAS so Section 336 did not apply. In fact, as I understand it, no rule/law applied which is exactly why the FAA lost. Now...legislation that comes out of the mandate created by PL 112-95 will surely close that gap. Maybe there is still time to get involved?

I've attached Subtitle B - Unmanned Aircraft Systems from PL 112-95 for others who may wish to examine that law and the mandates to the FAA for developing a "Plan". Many, if not all, of the deadlines from that mandate have passed so I'm curious to investigate further to see what has come from it.

 

[Bartman]

ok, i'm just getting started in the reading, thanks for the explanations.

 

[Bartman]

it seems to me so far that the FAA is addressing what model aircraft (for hobby use) so as to also define what constitutes non-hobby use. still reading though.....

 

[Bartman]

after reading through the 17 pages of the interpretation, it seems that the major change is the FAA's assertion that flying by reference to an FPV feed is no longer going to be acceptable. the interpretation does seem to take a few jabs at commercial operations and if those references go unchallenged then it is another step in the direction of the FAA's position and a step away from ours.

We're awaiting to hear the decision in the FAA's appeal of the Pirker decision but this looks to me as an attempt to reign in FPV flying as it is an attempt to restrict commercial ops. It's as if they're trying to create a stir around FPV users so as to sneak some non-commercial useage language into the process without crafting actual regulations.

 

[Old Man]

I'm in whichever format is selected to pursue. I do have some thoughts on what we may need to do to obtain separation from hobbyists though, which I believe to be critical to our recognition/acceptance as a separate air space use body.

We'll need to define the differences between the professional MR or aerial RPV operator and the RC enthusiast, and provide some self generated rules of operation. I do not believe the FAA will even remotely consider any commercial operation that does not comply at some level with existing commercial regulations so I propose the following with the understanding that after a certain point we'll run into some onerous equipment requirements.

• Mandate that all RPV operations be conducted only during visual flight conditions as defined by the Federal Aviation regulations and the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).
• Establish that commercial operations be conducted only by individuals or firms that have passed at minimum a Private Pilot written test.
• Require commercial MR operators have obtained an FAA Class II or Class III medical certificate.
  • This requirement aligns with the standards already in use with larger sUAS operations and maintains a level of consistency with current domestic commercial sUAS operations. Class II is Commercial Pilot level, Class III is Private Pilot level.
• No flight operations above 250' AGL within 1 mile of a civil or military airport without approval of the airport management.
  • Require altitude reporting devices that can be continuously viewed by the operator on all commercially operated multirotor or miniature helicopter.
  • • Non-towered, uncontrolled and private airports generate some special issues since many full scale pilots ignore published FAA regulations at such locations.
    • Airport approach profiles utilize a 3 degree glide slope descent profile so 250' AGL at 1 mile provides adequate separation between full scale and MR type aircraft. At no time permit any RPV operated aircraft to fly at an altitude and location that intercepts an airport glide slope or precision/non precision instrument approach profile.
• Require all commercial MR operations to have in immediate possession a current Visual Flight Sectional Chart depicting airport locations and communications frequencies, including the contact information of the airport manager and Control Tower.
• Maintain line of sight with the MR/helicopter for all use below the altitude of 250' AGL.
• Establish a maximum permissible distance between flight operator and aircraft of 1 mile or less when operating commercially.
• Require dedicated "spotters' to scan for manned aircraft and assure clearance of persons/structures on the ground when operating in an FPV mode using goggles.
  • Mandate means of two way air frequency monitoring when operating above 250' AGL, using local tower or approach frequencies.
• For flights above 250' AGL require remotely piloted aircraft to possess a Mode C transponder that is fully functioning prior to the launch of the aircraft.
  • These are available and in current use but quite expensive in the sizes we would require. The technology we currently use will require upgrading to comply with "see and avoid" requirements and to enable TCAS activation aboard full scale aircraft.
• For flights above 250' AGL, maintain the ability to assure visual contact with the remotely piloted vehicle (RPV) using enhanced visual devices.
• For flight during the period spanning from 1/2 hour after official sunset to 1/2 hour before official sunrise require all RPV be equipped with lighted visual aids.
• For flights during the hours of darkness restrict all FPV flights to an altitude of 250' AGL or less.
• For commercial RPV operations develop a flight training curriculum for all FPV operators. Operators must obtain a passing grade of at least 80% to become qualified to operate commercially.
• Develop RPV aircraft equipment lists that demonstrate that all equipment in use has been tested as safe and reliable during use in VFR flight conditions.

That's a start, and I expect that others will want to add, subtract, or pick it apart. I'm all for that because the above provides some ideas that will hopefully trigger thoughts and input from others to better define what we need to do. The downside is we do not have much time. I do think we should use an entity already established, such as the AMA, to help us move forward. I do not believe we have the time to organize a brand new "national organization" to promote or needs. Presented correctly to the AMA they might recognize the benefits of being able to represent a revenue generating operational group and proceed accordingly.

 

[Bartman]

I'm thinking maybe a good approach would be to petition the FAA to better segregate hobby and commercial use in their "interpretation" and to move towards an immediate implementation of the UK operating/licensing standards. it's a long shot but what they're doing now is a clusterf**k.

 

[Old Man]

In essence that's what I was proposing in a longer format in my previous post. The FAA will not react positively to rants but will review responses that promote a specific activity agenda. The UK and canadian self regulatory concepts would be good examples. With the Canadians just north of us perhaps a system extremely similar to theirs would provide something the FAA would like simply because it would standardize and simplify operations in adjoining countries with rapidly adoptable regulations.

 

[Ronan]

In essence that's what I was proposing in a longer format in my previous post. The FAA will not react positively to rants but will review responses that promote a specific activity agenda. The UK and canadian self regulatory concepts would be good examples. With the Canadians just north of us perhaps a system extremely similar to theirs would provide something the FAA would like simply because it would standardize and simplify operations in adjoining countries with rapidly adoptable regulations.

Please no.

In Canada you can't have a commercial sUAV usage due to the new idiotic rule that EVERY SINGLE commercial flight with a sUAV has to be filed independently a month in advance. It makes most of the work impossible. So for a commercial point of view, it's dead. Earlier you just had to fill a form and you were good for a year... heh.

 

[Old Man]

I was not aware of that. It sounds like another rule imposed to appear like a regulation but in truth one than ends most flight operations of type. So we'll dispense with the Canadian idea.

 

[dmetz]

I'm in whichever format is selected to pursue. I do have some thoughts on what we may need to do to obtain separation from hobbyists though, which I believe to be critical to our recognition/acceptance as a separate air space use body.

We'll need to define the differences between the professional MR or aerial RPV operator and the RC enthusiast, and provide some self generated rules of operation. I do not believe the FAA will even remotely consider any commercial operation that does not comply at some level with existing commercial regulations so I propose the following with the understanding that after a certain point we'll run into some onerous equipment requirements.

• Mandate that all RPV operations be conducted only during visual flight conditions as defined by the Federal Aviation regulations and the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).
• Establish that commercial operations be conducted only by individuals or firms that have passed at minimum a Private Pilot written test.
• Require commercial MR operators have obtained an FAA Class II or Class III medical certificate.
  • This requirement aligns with the standards already in use with larger sUAS operations and maintains a level of consistency with current domestic commercial sUAS operations. Class II is Commercial Pilot level, Class III is Private Pilot level.
• No flight operations above 250' AGL within 1 mile of a civil or military airport without approval of the airport management.
  • Require altitude reporting devices that can be continuously viewed by the operator on all commercially operated multirotor or miniature helicopter.
  • • Non-towered, uncontrolled and private airports generate some special issues since many full scale pilots ignore published FAA regulations at such locations.
    • Airport approach profiles utilize a 3 degree glide slope descent profile so 250' AGL at 1 mile provides adequate separation between full scale and MR type aircraft. At no time permit any RPV operated aircraft to fly at an altitude and location that intercepts an airport glide slope or precision/non precision instrument approach profile.
• Require all commercial MR operations to have in immediate possession a current Visual Flight Sectional Chart depicting airport locations and communications frequencies, including the contact information of the airport manager and Control Tower.
• Maintain line of sight with the MR/helicopter for all use below the altitude of 250' AGL.
• Establish a maximum permissible distance between flight operator and aircraft of 1 mile or less when operating commercially.
• Require dedicated "spotters' to scan for manned aircraft and assure clearance of persons/structures on the ground when operating in an FPV mode using goggles.
  • Mandate means of two way air frequency monitoring when operating above 250' AGL, using local tower or approach frequencies.
• For flights above 250' AGL require remotely piloted aircraft to possess a Mode C transponder that is fully functioning prior to the launch of the aircraft.
  • These are available and in current use but quite expensive in the sizes we would require. The technology we currently use will require upgrading to comply with "see and avoid" requirements and to enable TCAS activation aboard full scale aircraft.
• For flights above 250' AGL, maintain the ability to assure visual contact with the remotely piloted vehicle (RPV) using enhanced visual devices.
• For flight during the period spanning from 1/2 hour after official sunset to 1/2 hour before official sunrise require all RPV be equipped with lighted visual aids.
• For flights during the hours of darkness restrict all FPV flights to an altitude of 250' AGL or less.
• For commercial RPV operations develop a flight training curriculum for all FPV operators. Operators must obtain a passing grade of at least 80% to become qualified to operate commercially.
• Develop RPV aircraft equipment lists that demonstrate that all equipment in use has been tested as safe and reliable during use in VFR flight conditions.

That's a start, and I expect that others will want to add, subtract, or pick it apart. I'm all for that because the above provides some ideas that will hopefully trigger thoughts and input from others to better define what we need to do. The downside is we do not have much time. I do think we should use an entity already established, such as the AMA, to help us move forward. I do not believe we have the time to organize a brand new "national organization" to promote or needs. Presented correctly to the AMA they might recognize the benefits of being able to represent a revenue generating operational group and proceed accordingly.

Many great ideas in this post old man. I'm not sure how different these proposed standards are from the UK commercial standards. I'd like to locate and study those. Perhaps we can draft and subsequently circulate some of these proposals in the form of a position paper that other, potentially larger groups, would endorse.

Before we do too much in the way of proposing workable qualifications and parameters for commercial MR use in the US, we probably ought to find out where the FAA is with this already. Per Public Law 112-95, they should have already proposed a "plan" to address these issue. I think "that" may be in part why they have come out with this position paper. It looks like they are attempting to definitely clarify the concept of model aircraft and what constitutes a model aircraft activity so that they can squarely claim that anything else falls into their regulatory purview. As one reads the Interpretation, that is exactly what they have done, probably reaching a bit too broadly in some of that clarification.