Slashdot Mirror

I guess don't trespass on my property. You can use the airspace 80 ft above my property all you like, as long as you stay in accordance to FAA rules. And ideally you should have joined the AMA and paying your dues towards liability coverage.

A few years ago my RC club had a plane's battery catch fire in a dry field, and luckily we were nearby to extinguish it. But if you're outside of a reasonable range because you're flying FPV illegally, I'm going to take your toy out of commission. I'll politely return the pieces to you. You can try taking me to court for the damages, but I'm confident it won't go well for you.

I think my car insurance covers only $25k of property damage. And the minimum coverage for property damage in my state(CA) is $5k. So you might be in some serious financial trouble if you are at fault for causing a wildfire with your car.

Yes, if you buy the legal minimum and it is a pittance, you may be in trouble if you cause damage to anything larger than a bicycle.

Drones may be difficult to cover.

No. Join AMA (not medical) and it lists $25,000 liability insurance as one of the benefits.

But as far as I know they've never paid out an insurance claim in the many decades they've been around.

Would they send you a registered letter telling you that they've paid any claims that you weren't personally involved in? Then how would you know? Why would what you know be any better information than what they advertise?

The rules for a hobbyist UAV pilot are actually quite different.

There is no requirement that they get a weather briefing. (They ought to know what the weather is like, but there's no requirement to check.)

They are required to follow relevant TFRs.

They are *not* limited to 400 feet AGL -- that limit is advisory, not mandatory.

Here's the rules they do have to follow, and I guess there's the re-enabled registration requirement, and you'll need to pick some CBO guidelines to operate under -- the AMA safety code is a fine choice but it's not the only one.

This guy broke a few of these rules, but there's no rule prohibiting going over 400' AGL for a hobbyist -- that's advisory, but not mandatory.

No, you can't. The Fine Regulation states that you can only fly according to AMA (Academy of Model Aircraft) rules. Anything else is subject to fines, jail time and the Spanish Inquisition.

Responding to trespassing tends to grant a fair bit of leeway on property damage and personal injury.

It's still not clear that the FAA is even allowed to consider a drone to be an aircraft, and therefor under their regulatory purview, as this contradicts other parts of the same regulation. AMA is playing it safe and telling all us hobby pilots to register our UAS, but the legality of what has happened is still contested. (perhaps mainly by armchair layers). I think without settling the matter in court and establishing a ruling, we won't really know for certain. If you haven't guessed, I'm in the camp that does not consider hobby RC UAS to be aircraft. (which is true)

Also, I have to point out that flying FPV is still legal. But as most people interpret the regulations it's limited to hobbyists, things get complicated if FPV were to become a competitive televised sport and people start having sponsors. (likely violates FAA at that point)

here is a good discussion:
http://amablog.modelaircraft.o...

Well if the RC hobby as a whole can be used as a guide, the AMA recieves about 35 claims per year. And the settlements range from nothing to hundreds of thousands. Small drones are probably no more dangerous than small electrics, but even those have resulted in property damage and serious injury (one relating to complications from blood loss).

But the flak around drones is also a bit silly, because more children are injuried on bicycles than on drones, even if you take into account the greater number of bicycles. Yet we don't have a big push here in California to license cyclists, even though the adult cyclists are frequently involved in traffic collisions.

It may be illegal http://amablog.modelaircraft.o...

The FAA's authority over UAS is not as cut-and-dried as all that.
I'm a model aircraft flier and a member of the Academy of Model Aeronautics, and the AMA is of the opinion that the FAA has overreached with its new registration rule. Specifically, they believe that Congress prevents the FAA from regulating model aircraft due to an exemption in the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012. The AMA's official blog has a recent article (link is below, just cut'n'paste it) which includes the following statement: "AMA has also argued that the new registration rule runs counter to Congress' intent in Section 336 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, otherwise known as the Special Rule for Model Aircraft." There is a court challenge in progress on this issue as well.

http://amablog.modelaircraft.o...

Now, this exemption won't cover commercial UAS, but the hobbyist model flier is very likely exempt (with the possible exception of some FPV models (controlled using onboard video downlinks rather than direct line-of-sight to the model). It should not need to be pointed out that essentially all of the "drone" troubles being encountered now are due to improper behavior that violates common sense, ordinary caution, the AMA code of conduct, and a variety of state and federal laws relating to full-scale aviation and public safety.

Moreover, the people doing these dumb things aren't likely to properly register their toys in any case, so all of these regulations are worthless in any practical sense to begin with. (I find it useful to think of this type of behavior as comparable to shining lasers at airliners: It's a stupid and potentially dangerous activity practiced by fools who won't behave themselves, and no amount of legislation will change that.)

Well at least they are taking a stand on it, well, kind of... http://amablog.modelaircraft.o...

http://www.modelaircraft.org/ Looks like model plane pilots don't need to register then.

I already got a letter from my flying club saying to hold off on registration. Here's the AMA website report: http://amablog.modelaircraft.o...

As a multirotor pilot I have have really had no qualms about this, right up until now. Now there is no way in hell I am going to sign up for this. I'll instead toss another 50 dollars to the AMA and hopefully THEY can inject some sanity into this mess.

It can be a fairly expensive hobby, I'm not surprised if doctors are lobbying...

AMA = academy of model aeronautics :) http://www.modelaircraft.org/

1) The FAA is violating the law pass by congress. FAA act of 2012 Sec 336 http://www.modelaircraft.org/f...
2)The Supreme Court says they can't regulated it. United_States v Causby ruling is still legally binding to the FAA. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

The law is not on the FAA side, this is going strait to court.

I guess slashdot eats even reasonably short URLs now for some reason?

Whatever. Just go to http://www.modelaircraft.org/ and click the find a club search thingy.

The FAA basically told the AMA eat shit.
Even though the federal law says that the FAA cannot regulated model aircraft under federal law. Utter BS the law says they cannot regulate a model aircraft under 54 LBS, that is flown under 400 AGL and operated with VLOS of the operator. The AMA self limits themselves to 15lbs.
Official response from the AMA. http://amablog.modelaircraft.o...

This will be DOA when a lawsuit gets filed by the AMA.
I crashed more than one 1k aircraft on landing, do you think I won't just throw money at lawsuit to be filed against the FAA? (2.4GHz frequency hop is godsend now, haven't had a wreck since)

No but federal law mandates that the FAA cannot regulate flying models under a certain weight. The FAA basically told the AMA to eat shit. http://amablog.modelaircraft.o...

The AMA doesn't agree with this decision. They invited the AMA to the conference but basically told the AMA to eat shit . http://amablog.modelaircraft.o... Yep I wouldn't be surprised if the AMA files a lawsuit.

Well, since the FAA has regulated RC aircraft and manned aircraft for years, and now congress wants them to regulate drones, perhaps someone gave a definition for drone.

https://rcflightline.com/drone...
http://www.informationweek.com...
http://boards.straightdope.com...

That last link has a quotation from an actual bill that congress passed
https://www.modelaircraft.org/...

I've been a member of the AMA since 1982, would that count? I once stuck a camera on a kite in the 6th grade. Back then, people would never have considered shooting it down.

So, you think that these rules were created without the FAA's input or consultation? You think that they haven't been revised over the years and the revision dates updated? I started flying model aircraft in 1984, and the basic set of AMA rules was out then, referenced in the instruction manual for the aircraft and your responsibility to look up, not the manufacturer's to publish. FYI, my referenced link was to today's rules as I was not able to find a copy of the rules from 1984.

The only "rules" I've ever heard of are the safety guidelines put in place by the Academy of Model Aeronautics: http://www.modelaircraft.org/f.... Better follow those guiidelines if you're a member, so you'll be covered by their liability insurance: http://www.modelaircraft.org/m.... Then it's "not your ass".

Even your referenced link points to "Section 336 of Public Law 112-95 (the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012)": https://www.faa.gov/uas/media/.... Did you catch the date on that? Unless you're ten, I would call three years a "very long time." The majority of points listed in your post are not contained within SEC. 336. The only one that is valid is flying a model aircraft within five miles of an airport... and even that can be done, when " the operator of the aircraft provides 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"

You're spreading incorrect information.

The only "rules" I've ever heard of are the safety guidelines put in place by the Academy of Model Aeronautics: http://www.modelaircraft.org/f.... Better follow those guiidelines if you're a member, so you'll be covered by their liability insurance: http://www.modelaircraft.org/m.... Then it's "not your ass".

Even your referenced link points to "Section 336 of Public Law 112-95 (the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012)": https://www.faa.gov/uas/media/.... Did you catch the date on that? Unless you're ten, I would call three years a "very long time." The majority of points listed in your post are not contained within SEC. 336. The only one that is valid is flying a model aircraft within five miles of an airport... and even that can be done, when " the operator of the aircraft provides 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"

You're spreading incorrect information.

So you used it as an unrelated example of their ability to to control the device, rather than complaining about the actual problem, people who can't control their devices.

Yes. My point is that people who just go out and buy a drone without any form of training have no clue about the aerodynamics of flight, and thus are not qualified to fly an aircraft. The only difference between someone remotely piloting an aircraft and someone behind the controls of an aircraft is that if the first one fucks up, he doesn't die, but someone else may.

That doesn't mean that I agree with the FAA's proposal to have people earn a real pilot's certificate. Some instruction like this would probably be sufficient. But at least something.

Just to put this silliness into perspective, the current distance and duration records for a model aircraft are held by The Spirit of Butts' Farm, built by legendary modeller Maynard Hill. The model took 38 hours, 52 minutes, 19 seconds to fly the 1,881.6 mi (3,028.1 km) from Cape Spear, near St. John's, Newfoundland, to Mannin Beach, near Clifden, Ireland.

This was their fifth attempt to complete the trip. The longer trip across the Pacific, against the wind one way (the proposal is a round trip!), would seem to be far outside the meager budget of the Kickstarter guys.

As I recall, for model aircraft the FAA rules reference (or incorporate verbatim?) the rules of the Academy of Model Aeronautics, the primary hobbyist association

Not true, though they are pretty similar in some respects.

Also note that the current FAA "rules" (FAA Advisory circular 91-57 - Model Aircraft Operating Standards) is *advisory* -- it's not mandatory. It's not a set of rules at all, just guidelines. It encourages "voluntary compliance".

The AMA bars flight over populated areas, encouraging people to find a cow pasture IR something.

The AMA rules (not binding, but they can refuse to pay insurance claims if you violate them) say that you will not fly RC planes "directly over unprotected people, vessels, vehicles or structures". Not quite the same as you put it -- flying in a populated area is fine, as long as you aren't flying directly over people and aren't flying in a careless or reckless manner.

It may seem odd that a private club has effectively been given authority to make law

Again, it has not. The AMA rules are even *less* restrictive than the FAA circular in one way -- the AMA rules say not to fly over 400 feet near an airport without notifying the airport, and the FAA suggestions say not to fly over 400 feet above the surface, period. And note that R/C pilots, especially those flying gliders, fly over 400 feet quite often.

any doctor violating these generally accepted standards is likely to lose any court case.

Now, that part rings true ... the AMA safety code is basically the industry standard and if you're sued for hurting somebody, not following those standards will hurt you in court.

And indeed, it seems that whatever new *mandatory* standards the FAA comes up with be largely influenced by the AMA safety code ... but we are not there yet.

For anyone who wants details, the AMA safety code is here:

http://www.modelaircraft.org/f...

They also have documents describing their agreements with the FAA:
http://www.modelaircraft.org/d...

For anyone who wants details, the AMA safety code is here:

http://www.modelaircraft.org/f...

They also have documents describing their agreements with the FAA:
http://www.modelaircraft.org/d...

Out of hundreds of such discussions that pop up on easy Google searches ...

http://www.modelaircraft.org/a...

FAA limits model aircraft to a height of 500 feet

No it doesn't.

The 400 (not 500) foot figure comes from FAA advisory circular 91-57 made back in 1981, and the key thing about this is that it's *advisory*, not mandatory.

The AMA safety code says "Not fly higher than approximately 400 feet above ground level within three (3) miles of an airport without notifying the airport operator." -- but those are just safety rules for AMA members (and a good idea for everybody) -- but they do not have the force of law behind them.

Now, the FAA may change the laws in the future, but so far ... this 400 foot ceiling people talk about does not exist. (Some places have restricted airspace ... that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about this blanket 400 foot height limit people keep bringing up that doesn't exist.

Wrong AMA, Academy of Model Aeronautics http://www.modelaircraft.org/ . Its in the article.

You missed one very important point. The aircraft that it almost hit was at 2300 ft above ground level. That is much further than the other end of the park and far out of line of site. The only way to fly that high in control would be with a remote camera. Therefore RC aircraft + beyond LOS + camers = drone.

Sounds to me like this guy was flying a standard old RC airplane and doing so too close to an airport, which is already illegal.

It is actually not illegal. You just need to inform the airport.

when flown within 5 miles of an airport, the operator of the aircraft provides 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 (model aircraft operators flying from a permanent location within 5 miles of an airport should establish a mutually-agreed upon operating procedure with the airport operator and the airport air traffic control tower (when an air traffic facility is located at the airport)).

The article also states that the aircraft was about 5 miles from the airport so he may have been just outside the 5 mile reporting requirement.

Actually, he was in violation of the law. Notification is only a part of it:

(4) the aircraft is operated in a manner that does not interfere with and gives way to any manned aircraft; and

(b) Statutory Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the authority of the Administrator to pursue enforcement action against persons operating model aircraft who endanger the safety of the national airspace system.

(c) Model Aircraft Defined.--In this section, the term ``model aircraft'' means an unmanned aircraft that is--

(1) capable of sustained flight in the atmosphere;

(2) flown within visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft; and (3) flown for hobby or recreational purposes.

Number 4 makes it clear you must avoid commercial planes since they certainly are manned; and

given the altitude I doubt he was in conformance with c.2 as well.

Given the statutory construction statement I think it's pretty clear he violated the law and is subject to enforcement actions.

Of course, that doesn't change the problem of a few idiots who do stupid things and contribute to more regulations and hurt the many more responsible hobbyists who take great pains to avoid causing a dangerous situation. Couple stupidity with the increasing ease which novices can get more sophisticated devices that make it easier for them to commit idoicy and I can see why the responsible hobbyists are getting worried that their hobby will be ruined by a few idiots.

Actually it's not..

(5) when flown within 5 miles of an airport, the operator of the aircraft provides 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 (model aircraft operators flying from a permanent location within 5 miles of an airport should establish a mutually-agreed upon operating procedure with the airport operator and the airport air traffic control tower (when an air traffic facility is located at the airport)).

You missed one very important point. The aircraft that it almost hit was at 2300 ft above ground level. That is much further than the other end of the park and far out of line of site. The only way to fly that high in control would be with a remote camera. Therefore RC aircraft + beyond LOS + camers = drone.

Sounds to me like this guy was flying a standard old RC airplane and doing so too close to an airport, which is already illegal.

It is actually not illegal. You just need to inform the airport.

when flown within 5 miles of an airport, the operator of the aircraft provides 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 (model aircraft operators flying from a permanent location within 5 miles of an airport should establish a mutually-agreed upon operating procedure with the airport operator and the airport air traffic control tower (when an air traffic facility is located at the airport)).

The article also states that the aircraft was about 5 miles from the airport so he may have been just outside the 5 mile reporting requirement.

From the AMA web site;

Ensure the aircraft is identified with the name and address or AMA number of the owner on the inside or affixed to the outside of the model aircraft. (This does not apply to model aircraft flown indoors.)

It is difficult to see the inside of a model aircraft. Useful to return a lost aircraft. Not so useful to identify violators. One also does not have to be an AMA member to fly a drone.

Those are AMA rules which are included by reference by the FAA.

400 ft AGL, line of sight, weight limits (which escape me at the moment), airport standoffs, traffic rules are all spelled out.

http://www.modelaircraft.org/

Most flying fields won't let you fly without membership (which comes with liability insurance). Rules are often printed or at least referenced in kit instructions etc.

400ft is pretty high for a model. Often barely visible.

A little information from us RC airplane pilot hobbyists: (I own and operate a home-built unmanned drone plane for fun) This sort of flying is called "FPV Flying", for First Person View. You can spend absolutely everything you want to know about it on the FPV boards over on www.rcgroups.com for anyone that's interested: http://www.rcgroups.com/video-piloting-fpv-rpv-469/ It has been debated legally for several years now, and the bottom line is per the FAA, as long as you are not interfering with actual manned airplanes, there isn't much you're not allowed to do, as long as you obey the controlled airspace laws. For example, you must stay below 400 feet when within 3 miles of an airport. Furthermore, most everyone that flies RC seriously at least knows, and is usually a member of, the Academy of Model Aeronautics (AMA). In the last few years, the AMA has been working closely with the FAA to try and put together safety guidelines for unmanned FPV planes and drones. Those guidelines can be found here: http://www.modelaircraft.org/files/550.pdf On a personal note about the article, I highly doubt these activists were following all the AMA guidelines for FPV flying.

One other fact nobody has mentioned is that by flying this over people, PETA is also violating several provisions of the code of conduct established b the Academy of Model Aeronautics (AMA) intended to help keep the public safe. Model helicopters in the $4K range are no-joke dangerous if they hit someone. This sort of activity (especially using a helicopter to harass people) puts at risk the rights of geeks everywhere to build and fly model aircraft, by encouraging legislators and bureaucrats to pass new laws and regulations.

AMA code

If any of the PETA people doing this are AMA members, I hope they have their memberships revoked...

AMA is the largest and most well established organization for radio controlled flight in the US. What SHARK did is legal by US code, but it would have been disallowed under AMA membership rules. Why should this be important? Because the AMA is not just a "club", they are an activist group that has been pushing to keep channels open for model aviation (and not for stuff like what SHARK did). And more importantly, they provide injury insurance. If that big helicopter hurt someone who would pay for the damages? The pilot would, he's taking a huge risk flying without insurance. Courts look poorly on people that don't have insurance because they were not willing to follow some simple rules. (The insurance is cheap)

I fly RC planes and am a member of the AMA (Academy of Model Aeronautics). Congress is working to implement new legislation to control "UAV's" (Unmanned Aerial Vehicles), which WILL legally control RC hobby airplanes. The AMA has been working with Congress and the FAA to help insure the viability and robustness of our wonderful sport, which prepares young folks for careers in avionics and space, as well as being a darned fun (and expensive :)) hobby. Here is a link to the AMA's government relations site: http://www.modelaircraft.org/aboutama/gov.aspx. This is an issue that is hot and current. Here is the current situation, which is coming to a head in the next few months, per the AMA's website: "Information received at the recent AUVSI conference indicates the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) for FAA’s proposed regulation for small Unmanned Aircraft Systems (sUAS) is on track for release in mid December 2011. It’s anticipated the new rule will address model aircraft operations and will provide a provision for community based organizations such as the AMA to submit their own set of standards. If adopted, these standards will provide the modeling community an alternative means of complying with the sUAS rule. At this point AMA is hard at work in developing a set of standards aimed at allowing the aeromodeling enthusiasts to continue enjoying the hobby in much the same way as they do today. ". Actions like this crazy physicist certainly don't help, but they point out the wisdom of a rational approach to a hobby that can be militarized. We'll see what happens.

General FYI.
http://www.modelaircraft.org/Comp/Competition.htm
Scroll down a little and on the right. (PDFs)

9. The operator of a radio-controlled model aircraft shall control it during the entire flight, maintaining visual contact without enhancement other than by corrective lenses that are prescribed for the pilot. No model aircraft shall be equipped with devices which allow it to be flown to a selected location which is beyond the visual range of the pilot.

9. The operator of a radio-controlled model aircraft shall control it during the entire flight, maintaining visual contact without enhancement other than by corrective lenses that are prescribed for the pilot. No model aircraft shall be equipped with devices which allow it to be flown to a selected location which is beyond the visual range of the pilot.

The http://www.modelaircraft.org/safetycom.asp/ Academy of Model Aeronautics has a pretty strong waring about improperly handling these battery types.
Specifically, the higher engery storage capability of LiPo has more potential than NiCad's for catastrofic failure.

some of the R/C battery manufactures are putting saftey circuits directly into the battery pack, but you still have an issue if you short circuit a LiPo pack - they will smoke.

Since a cell phone does not need a high rate discarge like R/C applications, pwerhaps a saftey fuse would be in order, built directly into the battery. That way when some keys get jammed into the base of the phone, it doesn't catch fire.

Those R/C planes would be flying a little erratic if BPL becomes widespread, BPL uses anywhere from 1-80 MHz. Those R/C planes (and cars and helicopters and older cordless phones) are in the middle of that range. The AMA is not thrilled anyway.

If you want to learn more.

-kyri

Turbojets for model airplanes have been around for quite a while, at least five years, I think. Their popularity has been held down by their price and the difficulty of finding a place to fly it. They need a long runway (for a model). There is also the insurance catch-22. IIRC, it is almost impossible to find a club field that would let you fly uninsured, and the AMA won't insure a jet without a ton of paperwork. It has been years since I have flown R/C, though, so things may have changed.