FAA redefining aeromodelling

[Martyn K]

This document issued by the American FAA has potentially quite important ramifications if a similar approach is adopted by the CAA. It really is worth picking through the legalese.. it s a long document.

Read it and (potentially) weep. Note that paid display pilots are being hit by this.

Martyn

[Andy Meade]

Thankfully the CAA really don't tend to follow the FAA on things like this.

[Simon Chaddock]

Hmmm.

It could be argued that the statute passed by Congress could almost be considered 'FAA bashing' in that it denies the right of the FAA to any future rule making against model planes.

This does mean that in the USA the definition of a model plane is fixed by law and is thus secure requiring a change law to alter however it also means it is much clearer to prosecute any breaches.

Interesting that it includes "...operated in accordance with a set of community based safety guide lines....." suggesting a 'lone' park flyer could be breaking the law or at the least have a hard time proving that he wasn't!

In the UK my understanding is that all aspects of model plane flying are covered by exceptions to the statute. We are allowed to fly model planes but have no right to!

[Erfolg]

The link does not work for me.

Is it the same link that RC Groups have sent out?

If so it seems to limit FPV models, in that they must be visible to those flying one. I assume this is part of a policy which sees issues with both terrorist and the commercial use of drones, for package delivery.

If it is something else, can you point to the correct site?

[Chris Bott - Moderator]

The link is fine Erfolg, it points to a pdf document.

It is linked here on the FAA Site too. It's the link called Interpretation of the Special Rule for Model Aircraft (PDF)

[Peter Beeney]

If all else fails Erfolg, try giving this a little pasting…

http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/uas/media/model_aircraft_spec_rule.pdf

PB

[Erfolg]

Found the pdf files, I had several of them

In many respects i do not see it as particularly radical. Although I can see a few issues, the 400&500 foot rule. It seems to rule out gliding, to a large extent.

The other issue is the 5 mile aspect, which would cause issues in the UK and probably in the USA.

It does seem that model rocketry is ruled out and potentially Free Flight Models.

The 55 lb rule seems rather generous to me. I baulk at the idea that models over 5kg or about 10 lb, without some constraints on construction. The 7kg and 20 kg reflect a generous and sensible situation.

It would not surprise me that the FAA regs are driven by terrorist fears, with only a slight nod in the direction for safety.

Somehow, I also suspect that there is concern with how commercial use of drones will develop and providing the framework to ensure that these applications cannot be described as recreational.

[Martyn K]

Hi Erfolg

I think what you have just said is pretty radical. It also potentially affects professional aeromodellers and there is enough scope and ambiguity for other interpretations to be made.

It is also the thin edge of a potentially large wedge. It will be interesting to see how it develops

M

[Colin Leighfield]

I think we just have to accept that moving away from a basic line of sight control principle for radio controlled aircraft towards to FPV immediately makes possible their use as a highly potent and hard to spot in advance medium range aggressive weapon, and not just for carrying a viable load of explosives. It is in our own best interests that this is recognised and appropriate control measures identified as soon as possible.

Perhaps three years ago while at our site a couple of Asian chaps arrived with a model, one of the 40 sized trainers, radio and associated kit which was all brand new and asked us to show them how to fly it. They clearly did not have a clue as to what they'd got. We responded by being as helpful as we could, giving them details of how to apply for club membership etc. and why they couldn't just fly immediately because of insurance etc. One of them spoke no English and the other was translating, so we didn't know what they were saying to each other. Their manner was abrupt and not friendly in the way you would normally expect with model aeroplane types. When they realised that we were not in a position to give them instant lessons, they just packed the car and cleared off without saying anything.

Although it seemed odd we didn't instantly think of ulterior motives and never thought to note their car number. Afterwards it troubled me and I 'phoned the police. They were very interested and asked me many questions, later I had a call back from an officer investigating terrorist threats. Sadly there was not enough information to trace them. The club never received any enquiry for membership from them and we haven't seen them since. I think there is a possibility that something dodgy was going on then, it certainly must be a possibility.

Obviously, that didn't involve FPV. However, there probably needs to be something built into FPV systems which limits their range, otherwise there's a risk of a precautionary total ban. We are already seeing clear evidence on social media sites of breaches of the ANO by some FPV pilots and there is a risk that those who use it sensibly will lose out if this carries on. If the situation develops here in the same way that it seems to be in the USA, BMFA will have a big job on its' hands. I can't see it not developing further.

This is only my personal opinion, I don't want to spoil anyone's fun, but it worries me.

[GONZO]

Since when has any rules/regulations or laws stoped or even detered any criminals/terorrists. They only make life difficult/impossible for the law abiding people.

[Erfolg]

I am not convinced it is necessarily radical.I can see cause for concern with respect to the 5 mile and 400 foot rule in the UK. Probably not such an issue in the USA, with a lot less people per mile square and generally far less densely populated areas compared to the UK, or more specifically England. Here much of the South East, with a band around Birmingham and a wide corridor running from pretty much Liverpool across to Leeds in the north of England, is the home of where many millions of people are concentrated.

I wonder what the AMA role in the formulation of the regulations were. From what I have read, the AMA are more concerned at the change from the community based regulation, which I take to men the AMA, to one which is regulated by Federal Authorities than the rules as implemented. From a UK perspective, that is how things are anyway.

I imagine that the BMA are in discussion with our own various authorities, with respect to the perceived and envisaged threats to UK safety from aerial vehicles.

I do think that most of us modellers recognise that those who wish to do us harm, are not likely to fit the profile of the typical RC or FF modeller. Any threat is likely to come from people with no interest in modelling.

I personally think it is the threat from terrorists which have caused the USA change, rather than an issue with the AMA. The authorities probably want to be able to act fast, if unacceptable risks are recognised or perceived.

[Colin Leighfield]

Gonzo's absolutely right, but history says that the law-abiding majority still get hammered in the attempt to control (often unsuccessfully) the lunatic fringe. Something's likely to happen.

[Erfolg]

One of the clubs I am a member of also had someone of Asian ancestry ,who started to learn to fly a model. In his case he did not join the club and also disappeared without any idea who he was or where he lived beyond a local district. I am not sure though that it indicated anything, as we have also had others who were almost certainly of UK birth, who also have flown with us, only to go away never to be seen again.

I personally do see a potential threat, as I think Colin possibly does. In my opinion, it is probably the semi or completely autonomous multi rotor craft that will be favoured. I for one do not know what can be done about them. You cannot reinvent them, you cannot ban them and expect them to disappear (just as medieval cross bows did not disappear after a Papal ban), they will continue to be sold else where in the world if banned. Easily imported or transported in kit form. There is no real need for further development, as viable very capable systems are available today and so much information on the Internet for any one who wants to build a very effective system.

As Gonzo has noted, wrong doers will not worry about regulations etc.

In some respects I do feel reassured that I feel that the authorities have prepared themselves to act, if necessary. Although the restrictions on flight with respect to height and proximity to airports seem out of place, for introduction in the UK, as the present restrictions work, nor would imposition of such rules increase safety from potential terrorists. From my experience, a major improvement with respect to full size aviation with models, would be an insistence that helicopters gain height immediately after take of, rather than skimming along at low level for some time after take off, also the practice seems potentially fraught with danger for the community as a whole.

[Simon Chaddock]

I you go through US based forums you will find modellers there are very concerned at the FAA interpretation of the Federal law in that it requires FPV (popular in the US) to be line of sight only.

If this criteria is a guard against terrorist threats in the US you could expect the CAA to harden its line as well.

[Codename-John]

Why is it only and immediately people of, quote, "Asian Ancestry" seen as a terrorist threat ?

Do you not remember the IRA and any other instance of terrorism not involving a muslim etc any more or has television and news media propagandised you so much anybody with slightly darker skin and maybe facial hair is an imminent threat, this is the 2nd thread in a week where straight as terrorism is mentioned its the Muslims we have to suspect.

I get numerous people interested when i`m out flying, of all sorts of origin, I don't jump to conclusions about any of them, look at the shows, How many different origins of people do you see in the crowds watching, Do you straight away think they`re here to see which models are best for fitting bombs to etc ?

Perhaps your attitudes towards the people that came to you for help are the very reason you didn't see them at your club again. Colin states above that nobody would let them fly immediately because of insurance, my club has a 3 visit rule that the BMFA insurance covers someone for 3 visits before they join when they`re assisted by a member, surely its not just my club the BMFA does this for, if it was a little kid with his mum that turned up with all the gear would you act the same, be suspicious and turn him away being so worried you had to call the police if you never saw him again too ?

[Erfolg]

John

When considering any threat, the context is always a factor. During WW2, it was not unreasonable to consider any one who had German ancestry as a potential source of concern. During the Cold War, any one with relatives in the Eastern Block were investigated with some interest, as I was and my family, when employed for some work. It was a reasonable and responsible thing to do. Was I insulted,did I feel discriminated against, of course not.

I must say, some one did suggest during a security briefing, that it would not be prudent that some people (with my back ground) would not be suitable for certain types of work. Again i did not feel discriminated against, nor insulted in any way, it was some one expressing their concerns.

[Codename-John]

Since when have been at war with Asia ?

[leccyflyer]

Thanks John - that needed saying.

[Erfolg]

John

Were we at war with Poland, East Germany, Estonia etc from the early 50s through to the collapse of the Eastern Block, in the physical sense. Yet it was sensible for our security forces, to be cautious in profiling persons and groups. OK I potentially fell into one of the groups, was I bothered or concerned that I was thoroughly investigated, I did not shout discrimination, or racists, as it was a sensible set of precautions against a potential threat to the UK and the undermining of freedoms that many fought and many died for.

It would be foolish not to recognise that there are some in the world at this time who wish less than the best for UK as it stands. It would be equally foolish for our Government and the citizens of the UK not to be vigilant.

[GONZO]

Depends how far back you go (the crusades?). Coastal areas of China and Hong Kong, Burma, Singapor, India (which includes Pakistan and Bangladesh), Afganistan, Turkey (the Otoman Empire) and most of the arab midle East, many African states/nations etc etc. In fact most of the world at some time or another before ,during and some after the British Empire.

[Colin Leighfield]

Excuse me, but before everyone accuses me of racism, I described an actual incident which seemed suspicious. I don't need any lectures about whether terrorism is confined to people of Asian origin, because it certainly isn't. My younger brother served three tours in North Ireland and we know something about terrorism.

Codename John, on the day this happened there were three of us on site and none of us were qualified instructors. We tried to help as much as we could, we weren't rude and ignorant, they were. So don't make ill-informed and snide unfounded accusations if you don't mind. I have good friends in the Asian community and I resent what you imply.

[Pete B]

If you have a browse of the US forums discussing this, there is virtually no mention of the terrorism aspect - those guys are concerned at having their hobby over-regulated by a body which is determined to use a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Their principle problem is with Trappy-like characters flying down shopping malls or encroaching upon full-size aircraft movements.

So far, the BMFA have been pretty successful in their dealings with the CAA and seem to have an established working relationship, so I think fears about having the same regulations applied in the UK are not necessarily well-founded.

Following on from this, once again I see a thread being permeated with suspicion about a particular section of the community - and I'm afraid that is something which has no place on this forum. If you can't keep your personal opinions and prejudices to yourself, please don't post them here.

Your co-operation is appreciated - otherwise this thread will go the way of the other........

Pete

[Martin Whybrow]

I think that effectively bans FPV; it doesn't just say line of sight, it also states the person flying must be able to see the aircraft without artificial aids (excluding eyeglasses).

[Erfolg]

When considering the USA, it is worth considering the general atmosphere of the USA. The states that comprise the USA set many of their own laws, raise local taxes etc. The Federal Government is generally less hands on than is usual in Europe, often passing regulation down to the community.

It does appear that it has been decided to enshrine some aspects of the definition and operation of model aircraft into law, where the overseeing body is a government department.

I would guess it is the removal of some aspects of the self regulation that jars with some of the sensibilities of the USA flying community.

Without the Government stating why this is being done, leaves some room for conjecture. Although the flying community seems less concerned with the "why", rather more concerned with what is happening, the loss of a freedom.

I personally see little wrong in what the regulations, they just seem to be a variation of what is in place in the UK, that is other than the values.

I fully accept and expect that the BMFA, is both aware of the USA situation and is also talking with our own regulatory bodies, both to reflect its members views, as well as making us aware of concerns of official bodies. Hence the advice for us as a group to be vigilant and report suspicious behaviour. As long as we are responsive to regulator concerns and endeavour to ally any concerns by positive behaviours, I am hopefull that we will see little change.

As for FPV flying outside the concept of line of sight, I have no wish to see it in the UK anyway.

[John F]

Posted by Simon Chaddock on 15/07/2014 16:38:21:

I you go through US based forums you will find modellers there are very concerned at the FAA interpretation of the Federal law in that it requires FPV (popular in the US) to be line of sight only.

If this criteria is a guard against terrorist threats in the US you could expect the CAA to harden its line as well.

No one has mentioned anything about terrorism, that was speculation from another forum, the document makes it perfectly clear that the FPV criteria is so that the pilot can see all around the aircraft, see any potential hazards and take necessary action.   The protection of others is paramount to safe flying.

Flying by FPV alone cannot do this.

Edited By John F on 15/07/2014 20:31:38