FAA attempts to ban FPV Goggles

[Rook33]

Could you share a link? I have been browsing their badly build website, and still haven't seen any comment sections for us to post...

Here's the Link http://www.regulations.gov/#!home

There's a section called "Newly Posted" click on today and its the 5th one down.

 

[Motopreserve]

FPV America is running a petition through Change.org

you can see it HERE.

 

[Old Man]

The AMA has sent an e-mail out to all their members covering the subject. Text of the e-mail is below.

<tbody> </tbody>

On Monday, June 23[SUP]rd[/SUP], the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) released an Interpretive Rule in which it presented FAA's interpretation of the "Special Rule for Model Aircraft" established by Congress in the FAA modernization and Reform Act of 2012. The Academy has reviewed the rule and is extremely disappointed and troubled by the approach the FAA has chosen to take in regards to this issue In its Press Release the FAA stated it was, "issuing the notice to provide clear guidance to model operators on the "do's and don'ts" of flying safely in accordance with the Act and to answer many of the questions it has received regarding the scope and application of the rules." It also stated, "(this) guidance comes after recent incidents involving the reckless use of unmanned model aircraft near airports and involving large crowds of people." It's important to note that very few of these cases have been factually documented and not a single incident was shown to involve a member of the AMA or to be connected in any way to modeling operations conducted under the auspices of the special rule. In AMA's response to the rule it was pointed out that, "The FAA interpretive rule effectively negates Congress' intentions, and is contrary to the law. Section 336(a) of the Public Law states that, 'the Federal Aviation Administration may not promulgate any rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft...', this interpretive rule specifically addresses model aircraft, effectively establishes rules that model aircraft were not previously subject to and is in direct violation of the congressional mandate in the 2012 FAA reauthorization bill." AMA has voiced its opposition to FAA's action and will pursue all available recourse to dissuade enactment of this rule. It's important that every AMA member becomes involved in the effort. The first step is to respond to the public comment period established in the notice. Look for a follow-up email from AMA with information on how to respond to the FAA notice. This is your opportunity to express your views and to comment on various aspects of the Interpretive Rule. It's important for the Administration to know that this rule significantly impacts the entire aeromodeling community and that this community is resolute and committed to protecting the hobby. In this case silence IS NOT golden. Please alert your friends, family members and fellow modelers regarding this issue. Thank you, AMA Government Relations <tbody id="yui_3_16_0_1_1403752158773_2262"> </tbody> <tbody id="yui_3_16_0_1_1403752158773_2266"> </tbody>

<tbody id="yui_3_16_0_1_1403752158773_2250">
</tbody>

 

[MombasaFlash]

How can anyone plead a case with little turds like this out there with their worthless crap GoPro videos?:

TBS Discovery Over Chicago

​

 

[Motopreserve]

How can anyone plead a case with little turds like this out there with their worthless crap GoPro videos?:

I would imagine the same way that people successfully lobby for guns after a school shooting. The key is going to be pointing out the use of this technology by responsible majority, not the irresponsible minority.

 

[PeteDee]

Correct, 32,000 people die from gun related deaths in the USA each year surely they can sort this out pretty easily by calling every drone a gun platform and let the gun lobby sort it out.

 

[MombasaFlash]

I wondered how long it would take for the offending video to be removed.

 

[R_Lefebvre]

Correct, 32,000 people die from gun related deaths in the USA each year surely they can sort this out pretty easily by calling every drone a gun platform and let the gun lobby sort it out.

That's a great point. I recently had to fly with on a commercial flight with all my equipment. While going over the logistics of that, I discovered that some UAV operators (and simple photographers, etc.) have learned that the only sane way to travel on commercial flights within the US is to pack a handgun in with your equipment. Apparently this grants you special protections against TSA baggage searches which often result in equipment being lost or damaged. Some people carry guns just for this reason, they aren't "gun people" at all. It's an insurance policy for their equipment.

We just need to figure out how/why to weaponize our drones, and then have the NRA do their thing.

 

[kloner]

i've hunted canada alot, waterfowl. The tsa has no problem going through a bag with a gun without you, but a padlock and a gun stops em clean. makes for alot of running around but they will search it with you there when you go unlock it for them. in 6 trips i've never had a flight the tsa search card didn't get into my gun case, it also gets the search card and i gotta go through extra trouble to make the rig broken down and secure enough to drop.... they have these tsa locks that they can open on there own, i use that on my equip,,,, makes ya fit in a little more than being the pita

 

[Old Man]

Not true. I've found that traveling with a firearm in checked baggage pretty much assures your stuff is going to get searched with a fine tooth comb. It will either happen in front of you or out of your sight, but it will be detail searched.

As a person that believes every citizen of the U.S. is entitles to ALL of the rights assured them under the Constitution and Bill of Rights, perhaps we can get back to the issue at hand, which is a massive restriction of radio controlled MR and video use within U.S. airspace, not firearms. Loonies are everywhere, be they killers or drunks. One could put up an argument over the dangers of alcohol and all it kills and maims every year, along with the cost of lost productivity on the job, but that's not relevant to this discussion. The real issue for them is how to control the offenders, not everyone else.

The FAA and all governments want only three things; power, money, and control. This new advisory provides them all three. The hobby industry in and of itself has little wealth compared to the aerospace mega corporations. Unless the hobby industry can team up with the news media, Hollywood, and small business America we don't stand much of a chance. One thing is certain, our response cannot be one that is fragmented or uncoordinated.

 

[R_Lefebvre]

I'm not an American, and don't travel with guns, but what other people are saying is that if you have a gun in your checked luggage, you must declare it. Then once declared, the TSA is not allowed to open your baggage without you being there. I guess you declare it, and then they'll do the search right in front of you. So no chance of anything getting "lost", and if something needs to be re-packed, I guess you can do it then, before it goes in back to get loaded. But once out of your sight, they are not allowed to open it anymore.

 

[kloner]

OK, yea your right... after checking in they make you take it to a external scanner and wait till it's looked at. When i've traveled with a skyjib, they make me do the same thing with the same scanner, probably cause it's so big and when they ask and i say aerial film equipment they give me the stink eye..... what you talkin about willis

 

[R_Lefebvre]

Yeah, last year was a nightmare travelling, they wouldn't let me bring my LiPos outbound. So I was screwed. Then I just about got two US Customs officers acting like jerks. I was told they're trying to shake you up, see if you're legit or not. I dunno. Then CATSA Xrayed my stuff while I was there, no search. On the way back TSA searched my crate while I wasn't there, and messed up my packing, luckily didn't damage the heli.

This year, I got the batteries on the plane with little problem. They swabbed them, all good. But then US Customs took me over for their own Xray of my equipment. Then they asked a bunch of dumb questions. When I told them I was going for an RC Heli competition, yeah, same deal I got the "Whachu talkin bout Willis" looks, but eventually they let me go. Then again CATSA Xrayed my equipment right in front of me, which was good, they didn't bother opening it.

On the way back from Denver, TSA let me board with a ton of LiPos, they barely looked at them, didn't swab them, nothing. I actually didn't like that. They should at least be swabbing these things.

I learned a few things:

You really need a proper case, like a Pelican, with cutout foam. You can't rely on somebody careful packing the equipment. TSA needs to be able to open it, look, and close it. They won't take care to replace all your packing material properly.

But also don't be too conspicuous. Last year, my Lipos were taped up, put in fire-proof bags, then in a Pelican. They took them. This year, my lipos were loose, and I just stuck them in a lunch box cooler bag. Nobody looked at them twice.

 

[jer]

You declare the firearm, sign that it is not loaded, they check with you present then its locked and you retain the key/combo. Not all TSA follow the key part as they think TSA agents are above federal law. Also the firearm isn't apart of your checked luggage... It goes in its own lockable luggage by its self nothing else at least the guidelines ask to be done. In California you can't have a loose handgun in the car. Lockable container, unloaded but ammo can be near.

Its really funny when I talk to a few pro 2A people they dont like UAV/Drones etc because they think big brother right off the bat but I do find some 2A people a bit crazy? With the prepping, hording etc. Ill be at the range this weekend which I do plan on bring my quad, few of the members said if I fly anywhere near them they would shoot it down. meh

I personally feel the gov shouldn't have to intervene on both ends, takes some common sense which some do not have.

 

[Old Man]

I'm not an American, and don't travel with guns, but what other people are saying is that if you have a gun in your checked luggage, you must declare it. Then once declared, the TSA is not allowed to open your baggage without you being there. I guess you declare it, and then they'll do the search right in front of you. So no chance of anything getting "lost", and if sometfhing needs to be re-packed, I guess you can do it then, before it goes in back to get loaded. But once out of your sight, they are not allowed to open it anymore.

Not true, the TSA can open any bag, at any time, with or without reason, with or without firearms. However, since the firearm is supposed to be in a locked case, such may or may not be a separate item inside checked luggage. That luggage is also subject to inspection at any time, with or without you present. The TSA has zero restrictions and even fewer means of being penalized. Most TSA locations will make someone transporting a firearm open the case for inspection to view the firearm. They may or may not require the fiream to be taken from the case. Each TSA location establishes their own practices, they are not standardized. I've learned this first hand. Essentially you have no assurance of security with checked luggage.

 

[Old Man]

AMA Response to the FAA
6/27/2014

<tbody> </tbody>

Dear Patrick, AMA's Areas of Concern Regarding the FAA Interpretive Rule for Model Aircraft On Tuesday, June 24th AMA issued a member alert expressing concern over some provisions in the FAA's interpretation of the Special Rule for Model Aircraft established by Congress in the FAA modernization and Reform Act of 2012. In that alert, we let members know that we would be following up with today's alert that explains AMA's concerns in greater detail. We need you to take action now and respond by July 25, 2014 to the FAA Interpretation of the Special Rule for Model Aircraft that was released June 23, 2014. The Academy has reviewed the rule and is extremely disappointed and troubled be the approach the FAA has chosen to take in regards to this issue. FAA's Interpretive Rule To help you respond to the FAA, we have outlined AMA's major concerns in the bullets below. A more in-depth explanation of our concerns can be found at AMA's Concerns Throughout the rule the FAA takes great latitude in determining Congress' intentions and in placing tightly worded restrictions through its "plain-language" interpretation of the text. The FAA uses the plain language doctrine to create a regulatory prohibition of the use of a specific type of technology. FAA's overreaching interpretation of the language in the Public Law is evident in the rule's interpretation of the requirement that model aircraft be "flown strictly for hobby or recreational use." Although the FAA acknowledges that manned aviation flights that are incidental to a business are not considered commercial under the regulations, the rule states that model aircraft flights flown incidental to a business are not hobby or recreation related. The rule overlooks the law's clear intention to encompass the supporting aeromodeling industry under the provision of the Special Rule, "aircraft being developed as a model aircraft." The rule's strict interpretation of hobby versus business puts in question the activities of the principals and employees of the billion dollar industry that supplies and supports the hobby. The Public Law states that when model aircraft are, "flown within 5 miles of an airport, the operator of the aircraft (must) provide(s) 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. However the rule indicates that approval of the airport operator is required. Although it is understood that making notification to the airport and/or ATC will open a dialog as to whether the planned activity is safe to proceed, there is no intent in the law that this be a request for permission on the part of the model aircraft pilot. The Interpretive Rule establishes new restrictions and prohibitions to which model aircraft have never been subject. This is counter to the Public Law which reads, "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 established criteria are met. The Interpretive Rule attempts to negate the entire Public Law by stating, "Other rules in part 91, or other parts of the regulations, may apply to model aircraft operations, depending on the particular circumstances of the operation. This in and of itself makes model aircraft enthusiasts accountable to the entire litany of regulations found in Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, something that was never intended by Congress and until now never required by the FAA. How to Respond to the FAA. All AMA members, family and friends need to take action now to let the FAA know that this rule significantly impacts the entire aeromodeling community and that this community is resolute and committed to protecting the hobby. There are four methods to submit a comment. Emailing your comment is the fastest and most convenient method. All comments must include the docket number FAA-2014-0396. Tips for submitting your comments. Email: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for sending your comments electronically. Mail: Send Comments to Docket Operations, M-30; US Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001. Hand Delivery: Take comments to Docket Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Fax: (202) 493-2251. DEADLINE TO COMMENT: On or before July 25, 2014 <tbody id="yui_3_16_0_1_1403914482629_2355"> </tbody> <tbody id="yui_3_16_0_1_1403914482629_2359"> </tbody>

<tbody id="yui_3_16_0_1_1403914482629_2363">
</tbody>

 

[dmetz]

well, the FAA is already trying to incorporate the needs of smaller operators by working with select industries that have probably lobbied on behalf of their own needs, the film industry being one and a frequent contributor here being in the group that is navigating the process.

The FAA has an immediate requirement to protect manned aircraft and they are understandably reluctant to incorporate unmanned aircraft without knowing exactly how separation between the two will be accomplished.

Before you flame me over that last statement, I agree that they are way behind in making the integration of manned and unmanned happen. Frankly, I don't think that the FAA took the needs of sUAS operators seriously. I think they probably underestimated the impact that sUAS would have since they're usually the world's leading regulating authority on big, heavy, and extremely complicated aircraft systems. sUAS was probably a joke to them in the beginning.

It doesn't help any of us that there are videos and chat rooms all over the place showing FPV flights going into and above the clouds. Clouds are a very sensitive concern for manned flights. Manned flights stay well clear of clouds unless they have a specific clearance to fly through them. Videos that show FPV flights in and around clouds worry me the most as a full-scale pilot and they probably concern the FAA even more as they are responsible for keeping all of this stuff under control. FPV pilots flying unregulated around clouds is a loss of regulatory control, it's bad ju-ju representing a real threat to manned flights. I doubt you'll hear the AMA protesting anything that regulates FPV flights given the way the community has failed to self-police itself. If the AMA wants to preserve hobby use of RC aircraft then they'll probably roll over on the FPV issue.

My personal belief is that there is room in the sky for everyone but that room has to be partitioned in order to keep the various operators out of each others' way. If you see someone posting that they flew anything more than 400 to 500 feet above the ground, point out that they're ruining it for everyone else. Tell them that if they want a better view to sell all of their gear and get a private pilot's license or pay for a ride from the local FBO.

There have to be limits and the FPV community has largely insisted that there are no limits. The FAA is wrong for failing to get sensible regulations in place but in the absence of regulations we can't have anarchy.

What an insightful post Bart. While I'm new to the hobby of MR, I obtained my private pilot license in 1985 and my commercial and flight instructor licenses in 1988. Its pretty clear that the FAA will take a position geared at protecting the National Airspace Systems and negating risks to manned flights. I'm fairy confident we'll not see the FAA promote any non-commercial operations where the operator can lose Line Of Sight control of the aircraft. Such a scenario, even commercially, will likely be accomplished only with certified and regularly inspected systems that provide redundancy and of course that entails, licenses and equipment airworthiness certifications.

Today's technology for UAS has simply outpaced the FAA. They are definitely in reactionary mode and my guess is they are going to be ultra-conservative as they move forward. Those documented flights into the clouds...ridiculous and irresponsible and now, the FAA has great material to substantiate their concerns when rule-making.

I'd like to think there are ways to allow expanded operations and FPV under certain circumstances. If, for instance, keeping an aircraft within LOS for safety was an established benchmark, why not allow a "dedicated spotter" at the same location and in verbal contact to work with an operator using FPV to control the UAS? In the event of a goggle or camera failure, and with the help of a spotter, the operator could switch more quickly to LOS operation. I can imagine also that the FAA may be concerned with an operator's ability to see and access site hazards when flying using only FPV. A spotter could help with this.

These may be ridiculous or unworkable suggestions but if comments to proposed rule/regulation do not overcome the public risk assessment of the FAA, they are not likely to get much traction.

 

[Motopreserve]

The AMA. Already requires a spotter in their rules and guidelines. Although this might hamper some that are flying FPV, it's far less drastic than an outright, blanket ban...

 

[kloner]

commercial uas flight is already doing alot of beyond line of sight,, all that alaska stuff, all the border patrol, nasa, defense companies. it's all in the system

 

[Old Man]

As another that is Commercial ASMEL, instrument, instructor I have to completely agree with Bart. The FAA has always been tasked with maintaining air safety and promoting commerce using the sky as a transport medium. The commercial sUAS industry, in which field I'm employed, has obtained COA's in which to operate their aircraft. Some have gone so far as to obtain experimental type certificates, as is the case with one of the aircraft involved with the Alaska operations. So they are playing by a very involved and stringent set of rules that hobbyists and modelers want to be exempted from. Therein lies the problem.

When you combine a large group of people that insist they can do anything they want, any time they want, with hundreds of videos depicting the lack of regard they extend to anyone else and/or the law, be they in the air or on the ground, you have the stage set for a terrible event. It just hasn't happened yet. Yes, there has to be rules and limits, but those need to be fair, realistic, and enforceable. As it stands what the FAA has written does not have the strength of law, and it violates the tenants laid upon the FAA by Congress. One cannot break a law to make a law, especially at the federal level. The AMA spotter rule is not a law recognized by the FAA. AMA rules are in no way enforceable under the law. The AMA was trying to get the FAA to accept their form of rules to set the basis for the national organization concept, but we, meaning FPV and MR people, to a great extent, have ignored those operational guidelines. You have to hand it to DJI, their Phantom, and the people it was sold to have largely been the ones to create the issues were are now experiencing. Anyone can buy it, anyone can fly it, and nobody receives any advice on the right way to go about doing things. It's not just DJI really, it's the industry in general. Take the money and run. How many on line vendors provide any kind of operational advice in their sales documentation? Most of the MR forums provide the same amount but their hands are out for the advertising dollar.

This site is one of the few that views our activities in the long term instead of the short and took the steps necessary to be a good leader.