FAA and our R/C friends and flight restrictions

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

JoeG

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2009
Messages
773
Reaction score
44
As some of you know I work in a hobby shop. We are heavy into R/C planes and rockets more than anything else because that's where my interests lie. I have been trying to retire for about four years now but am afraid the owners will close the shop if I leave so I work a couple of days a week. Not that I am irreplaceable but no one else really cares much about the hobby end of the business. It is a unique store that has many different departments.

The airplane guys are always coming in and asking about the rockets and asking “How are you allowed to fly those big things?” I tell them of the FAA waivers and safety codes, range setup minimum distances, and other things that we are required to do or voluntarily do that allow us to safely pursue our hobby. Many consider it a dangerous activity.

Yesterday a gentleman came in and asked if I was the manager of the R/C airplane sales. With that kind of question I figured he was a salesman and admitted to that role. He identified himself as being from the FAA. I laughed because I thought he was joking since the R/C community has been getting a lot of flak due to some questionable operation of small R/C drones equipped with cameras and FPV (first person view) equipment lately and has handed down some TFR's (temporary flight restrictions) that are actually more or less permanent concerning sporting events.

Completely unofficial plain English interpretation
The FAA prohibits flight at and below 3,000 feet above ground level within a 3 nautical mile radius of all sporting event stadiums having a seating capacity greater than 30,000 people. This temporary flight restriction includes all Major League Baseball stadiums, National Football League stadiums, NCAA division one football stadiums, NASCAR Sprint Cup races, and INDY Car races. The temporary flight restrictions begin one hour prior to the start of the sporting event and end one hour after the sporting event has concluded.
From: https://sportingeventtfrs.com/9_5151.html

There is also a permanent restriction concerning Disney Land and Disney World. But I digress...

Well, it turns out that this fellow actually was from the FAA and was handing out posters on the do's and don't's of model airplane and helicopter flying. Here is the poster he left. About two by three feet. He didn't require that i put it up but he did suggest it.

https://www.faa.gov/uas/publication...s/assets/media/model-aircraft-infographic.pdf

It seems that regulations that the rocketry community has been dealing with for many years are beginning to move into the R/C community more than we are used to. The Academy of Model Aeronautics is working with the FAA in this matter much the same as NAR and TRA has done in rocketry matters.

I'm just wondering how far this will go if a few modelers, I use the term loosely, continue to overstep reasonable boundaries of activity and how do you reel in the loose cannons.
 
Though we grumble a lot about the restrictions that do exists (mostly from ATF), I think we are much more autonomous and self regulating than it could be. After all, "We" (NAR/Tripoli) certify ourselves for HPR. "We" also certify the motors we use. "We" are given influence into NFPA code writing, and it appears to me, we have a descent relationship with the FAA and that is apparent in what I believe to be reasonable regulations.

I think you might see some serious growing pains in the RC world in the coming years though. In rockets, you have very little restrictions and no certifications for model rockets. So the newbie can fly easily and since the rockets are small and fragile, the risk of serious damages or issues are low. Once the rockets get big enough/powerful enough to be significantly dangerous, we have FAA, NFPA and NAR/Tripoli controls. But from my limited understanding, I don't think the same controls exist for RC. A non-certified guy can't walk in and buy a K motor. But can I, with no experience, legally buy a 4 engine, 6' wingspan RC bird? I think the government is starting to notice that, and will be making changes. I hope the RC world can find a balance with government that works well for you guys.
 
Rule 1: You may fly your camera equipped drone anyplace you please.

Rule 2: The person with the shotgun is fully within his/her rights to shoot it down.
 
Lucky-Gunner-Anti-Drone-screen-1.jpg

Just saying...
 
AFAIK the flight restrictions are for fireworks as well as danger. I know disney does fireworks 365 days/year, so they just blanketed the airspace until the parks shut down.

Same with baseball so far as I know, but it does also make sense for airplanes that could carry people and get hit/fall into a huge sporting event.

The local field to me is under the landing path for an airport so the max altitude is hard capped at 200', so it may take time, but regulations are a thing, and as long as they aren't overly restrictive the community will be able to adapt.
 
I'm just wondering how far this will go if a few modelers, I use the term loosely, continue to overstep reasonable boundaries of activity and how do you reel in the loose cannons.

You can't reign in the loose cannons and the FAA desk jockeys are smoking dope if they think more regulation will fix the problem. Most of the loose cannons are interested in multi-rotor and first person video (FPV). The FAA intends to totally prohibit ALL FPV flight in the US. The problem is the cat is already out of the bag. FPV capable aircraft are readily avaible on-line, directly from China from retailers like Hobby King. There is no way to stop people from buying these on-line. Also, with every incident I've read in the news, the operator was breaking multiple existing FAA rules. Do these bureaucrats really think people who break the existing rules will suddenly start obeying new rules? If they do, I have some primo South Florida real estate to sell them.
 
I see absolutely nothing unreasonable on the FAA poster. It's the same common sense procedures our hobby adopted more than 50 years ago.

Unfortunately some hobbyists just don't have common sense.

Bob
 
I see absolutely nothing unreasonable on the FAA poster. It's the same common sense procedures our hobby adopted more than 50 years ago.

Unfortunately some hobbyists just don't have common sense.

Bob

I've found that "common sense" has to be taught or learned...

I agree, nothing on that poster was heavy handed or unreasonable. I wonder if this might have something to do with the visit? See the link for a news story about a fellow piloting an RC model plane to take video for a documentary or some commercial or something:

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/11/govt-board-like-a-drone-your-rc-aircraft-is-regulated-by-law-so-pay-up/

It just seems to me that the FAA & NTSB want to make sure hobbyists aren't doing anything unsafe, and that if you are doing something for commercial purposes, it falls under some regulatory guidance.

My last thought...this is a really nice example of the government doing something pro-active, to alert people to a potential problem ahead of time, so people can take corrective steps. Unfortunately, as was pointed out, the people who will listen probably are already doing the right thing, and the people not doing things correctly are unlikely to learn from a soft approach such as this...
 
I respectfully disagree with those who think what the FAA is doing is reasonable. First off, I'm an RC modeller as well as a rocketeer. In general, I don't have a problem with the FAA exerting authority over commercial use of unmanned air systems, AKA drones. Howver, the FAA is going beyond what congress authorized in the 2012 FAA reauthorization act. A couple of months ago, the FAA was accepting comments on proposed rule making. IIRC, this was to be the replacement for circular 91-57. First the first unreasonable provision deals first person video flying. The Academy of Model Aeronautics' (AMA) safety code establishes reasonable guidelines for operating in FPV mode. The AMA safery code requires FPV operations to be conducted with a safety pilot on a "buddy box" and the aircraft remain within line-of-site of the safety pilot. The FAA is attempting to make FPV illegal anywhere whthin the US. The idiots we've been reading about in the news are not AMA members, they're what we call rogues. They don't fly at AMA sanctioned fields, don't carry AMA insurance, and they don't care about laws and regulations.

Another unreasonable provision is model aviators with full scale licenses are at risk uf losing their full scale licenses if they run afoul of the FAA with a "drone". The two are unrelated.

And, lastly, according to the AMA Technical Director Dave Matthewson, the FAA is probably going to impose an altitude limit on all RC aircraft operations. The rumor mill is the limit will be 400 feet. This limit would kill several types of flying: RC Pattern, where some of the vertical manuevers require 600 feet or more to safely execute (i.e. Humpty Bump with a four point roll on the down line), RC jets, and sailplanes, which come off the high start or winch at 400 to 500 feet.

Today the FAA "reps" are "suggesting" hobby shops display a poster. In a few years, it will become mandatory, as well as FAA "reps" inspecting activities at AMA sanctioned and insured fields. The problem isn't the modelers that fly at club fields and belong to the AMA, the problem is the rogues who fly recklessly wherever they feel like. And the FAA will have a real problem tracking them down.

BTW, the AMA is suing the FAA for overreach. Hopefully, it will turn out as well as the NAR/Tripoli lawsuit against BATF.

Rob Campbell
AMA 120825
 
Rob

Our company makes the best nano-drone available at any price so we don't like over regulation even more than any of the hobbyists do, but we are working with the FAA to resolve the many issues that we see a blatantly unfair, not by fighting with them and assaulting them in the press. like many hobbyists do.

As you correctly stated the problem is not the AMA members who follow the AMA rules. It's the yahoos who could care less if their UAV flies into an aircraft in controlled airspace because they are ignorant about airspace use and can't see what's around them while flying FPV out of line of sight by themselves without an observer.

Unless I'm misinformed, I believe the top 4 don'ts on the poster are what the AMA requires its members to do when they are operating their aircraft, so I don't see any controversy there. The 5th Don't is the subject of court challenge which from my point of view unfairly discriminates against a professional using what otherwise would be a perfectly legal use of a RC aircraft, and it will be a while before the courts ultimately resolve the issue if the FAA does not adopt a reasonable set of rules.

The FAA's current commercial use prohibition arise from ~50 year old regulations written long before RC aircraft and miniaturized electronics existed. According to the existing regulations, the FAA can not distinguish a 1 pound quadrotor from a 747: a pilot needs a commercial multi-engine pilots license to operate either one.......which is blatantly absurd. The FAA knows there's an issue here, but they have to follow the current laws until new ones can be adopted. Unfortunately Congress mandated that the FAA revise their rules however they neglected to fund the effort, so it's moving at a snails pace.

I have not researched the FPV arguments but I can guess what they are. A pilot operating under VFR is continually scanning the sky to look for other aircraft. If it is not possible for a pilot to perform this function then he/she must rely on their instruments and fly under IFR. If you are objective about FPV, you might compare it to flying under the hood, which is the term used for instrument flight practice where your outside vision is restricted and you are operating the aircraft by instruments. If you are objective you then might see why the FAA objects to the practice since the UAV FPV pilot is not instrument rated. The AMA should counter argue that a student pilot can fly on instruments under VFR conditions as long as their is another licensed pilot in the aircraft, and similarly a RC pilot should be able to fly FPV provided he/she has an observer to watch the aircraft provided they maintain a line-of-sight to it, which is the current AMA policy.

I also do not think it is unreasonable for the FAA to require an RC pilot to notify the FAA or an airport if they are planning to fly in controlled air space. Rocket folk do it all the time but we are required to get a waiver first so a notification is on step down from what we have to do routinely. It is within the right of the FAA to issue TFRs and a very few PFRs but in general airspace is shared space so there should be a lot of give on their end if the hobbyists are willing to notify the FAA when they are planning to do certain types of flights, or operate in certain controlled airspace, and it shouldn't be anymore difficult than filing an IRF plan.

The AMA is many times larger than NAR/TRA combined, and probably large enough to have some political clout. If direct interactions fail, then fastest way to address the problem would be for the AMA to do some congressional lobbying and submit some legislation that contained RC operational rules that they can live with. If the AMA can get legislation passed exempting RC aircraft for certain restrictions, then the FAA is mandated to develop new regulations that comply with the law.

On the other hand, the AMA need to come down hard on yahoos who operate RC aircraft in a dangerous manner that puts private and commercial manned aircraft in danger, and those who violate TFRs and PFRs.

Bob
 
It's great that the FAA is sooo worried about RC Planes.
Meanwhile, here in little ol' Washington Vermont, My Neighbors buzz the Town all Summer long in Ultra-Lights and Prop Planes(a Bi-Plane and a WWII Artillery Spotter) from their Private Airstrip and not a one of their Aircraft has a "Call Sign" or Numbers on them.
I don't mind it at all, and it's great fun to see them all the time, but I think that something like Real Aircraft would be keeping the FAA busy.
Shame they have to worry about Hobbyists.
 
The FAA is damned if they do, damned if they don't. No one wants additional regulations place on them but as soon as someone does something stupid, people are asking why the government allowed this to happen. There was a story I saw on TV about Para Sailing Safety (behind boats). Someone had a family member injured at a resort and they suggested the FAA regulate this activity..:facepalm: The rapid growth in technology and popularity of these drones kind if caught the FAA with its pants down so they are playing catch up. They are also fighting those who suggest they do not have the authority to regulate RC aircraft. As for the AMA, they are a great organization. But based on my experience, most of the Drone Joc's out there are not RC modelers. They are not members of the AMA and could care less about the organization or it's rules.
 
Unless the ultralights are being operated in an unsafe or illegal manner, there is nothing for the FAA to see here. Ultralights also do not require a registration number.

The problem is simple. Unlike the old days, where R/C equipment was big, heavy, usually gas powered and required specialized knowledge, all of which kept the numbers low and the barrier for entry high. It also meant that a person usually had to put in a significant amount of time into their hobby and so would be less likely to do something dumb.

But technology has advanced and now pretty much anyone with a bit of money can get and operate a quadcopter fairly successfully. The numbers have increased...which means the probability that someone is going to do something stupid has also increased...because it has already happened. The commerical restriction I think is a bit dumb...but it's a result of technology outrunning the law.

FC
 
The AMA is many times larger than NAR/TRA combined, and probably large enough to have some political clout. If direct interactions fail, then fastest way to address the problem would be for the AMA to do some congressional lobbying and submit some legislation that contained RC operational rules that they can live with. If the AMA can get legislation passed exempting RC aircraft for certain restrictions, then the FAA is mandated to develop new regulations that comply with the law.

On the other hand, the AMA need to come down hard on yahoos who operate RC aircraft in a dangerous manner that puts private and commercial manned aircraft in danger, and those who violate TFRs and PFRs.

Bob

Bob,

The AMA is trying, in good faith, to work with the FAA, but is having significant problems. One in particular is consistemcy with the FAA. According to Dave Matthewson, the FAA does not send the same people to the meetings with the FAA, so much of the time is wasted by the AMA back briefing the FAA attendees on what was agreed to at the last meeting. The appearane is the FAA doesn't take the AMA seriously.

The major sticking point is when Congress and the President signed the FAA Reauthorization Act into law, the law explicitly prohibited the FAA from regulating model aviation. However, the FAA is engaged in what the AMA believes is overreach, hence the pending lawsuit. In addition to what I stated above, the FAA is interpreting "commercial activity" as including demo pilots. All the manufacturers, distributors, and importers attend flying events and pay certain pilots (not a whole lot BTW) to, or the owners themselves demonstrate their latest offerings. The FAA is classifying such activity as "commercial" and subject to FAA regulation , even though the demo pilots are fully insured AMA members, flying at chartered clubs' flying sites at sanctioned events, in accordance with the AMA safety code. Many of us are concerned that once the camel gets its nose under the tent, things will only get worse. Many local hobby shop owners are also RC pilots. Is it commercial activity when a hobby shop owner flies at his club's field? The answer may be yes if he or she ever flies a new offering and one or more club members order one.

As far as the AMA coming down hard on yahoos, as much as I would like to see that happen, that simply can't be. AMA, like NAR and Tripoli, has no law enforcement ability. The most severe action the AMA can take is to expel a member for misconduct, which can't be enforced on non-member rogues.

Sadly, I fear the next few years will be difficult for the RC community.


Rob
 
Pending rulings on amateur FPV (RPAS - Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems) about to be made by countries which regulate on this issue using common sense (New Zealand, Netherlands, Canada for now) rather than hysteria. Start video at 4m 23s:

[video=youtube;Y7O14M1v3po]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7O14M1v3po&feature=youtu.be&t=4m23s[/video]

Also, the rules have already been changed so that one can fly within 4km of an airfield as long as the RC aircraft or RPV (such as a mulitrotor) doesn't rise above surrounding structures, trees, and terrain. COMMON SENSE!
 
Last edited:
I remember a few years back, we were concerned when these "park flyers" started to pop up at stores. "real" R/C planes are big & fast. so, not everyone is able to fly them at first go. And, they were typically 'built' from a kit, so you needed to have a certain love & commitment to the hobby. And with that, it usually meant a dedicated flying field, one with AMA or MAAC Sponsorship. It was a proper club dedicated to the hobby. And, to fly you needed to abide by their laws & regulations.

then, with the "ARF" crowd, and new, lighter, electrics & other technology, you can buy a plane that's pretty much built & ready to fly right out of the box, and just plugs into the wall for about an hour. No more needing to go join a club, just go fly at the local soccer field. That had us somewhat worried, and is obviously becoming a worry.

There are nut-jobs everywhere who take it upon themselves to ruin it for the rest of us 'doo-gooders'.
 
Bob,

The AMA is trying, in good faith, to work with the FAA, but is having significant problems. One in particular is consistemcy with the FAA. According to Dave Matthewson, the FAA does not send the same people to the meetings with the FAA, so much of the time is wasted by the AMA back briefing the FAA attendees on what was agreed to at the last meeting. The appearane is the FAA doesn't take the AMA seriously.

The major sticking point is when Congress and the President signed the FAA Reauthorization Act into law, the law explicitly prohibited the FAA from regulating model aviation. However, the FAA is engaged in what the AMA believes is overreach, hence the pending lawsuit. In addition to what I stated above, the FAA is interpreting "commercial activity" as including demo pilots. All the manufacturers, distributors, and importers attend flying events and pay certain pilots (not a whole lot BTW) to, or the owners themselves demonstrate their latest offerings. The FAA is classifying such activity as "commercial" and subject to FAA regulation , even though the demo pilots are fully insured AMA members, flying at chartered clubs' flying sites at sanctioned events, in accordance with the AMA safety code. Many of us are concerned that once the camel gets its nose under the tent, things will only get worse. Many local hobby shop owners are also RC pilots. Is it commercial activity when a hobby shop owner flies at his club's field? The answer may be yes if he or she ever flies a new offering and one or more club members order one.

As far as the AMA coming down hard on yahoos, as much as I would like to see that happen, that simply can't be. AMA, like NAR and Tripoli, has no law enforcement ability. The most severe action the AMA can take is to expel a member for misconduct, which can't be enforced on non-member rogues.

Sadly, I fear the next few years will be difficult for the RC community.


Rob
Rob

We've been there with this hobby, so we commiserate with you. The good thing is that you have 150,000 member and there are probably 50 times more flyers than there are AMA members. That's starting to get some political clout. You're not quite the NRA level of 8,000,000 members and 60,000,000 shooters, but you are 20x the 7,500 combined NAR/TRA membership so that's good. NRA can raise a Billion dollars in a weekend. You probably can raise $20,000,000 in a few weeks and that amount of change can get your message out in a pretty big way. Our battle took 10 years and cost $800,000. With your greater numbers and resources you should be about to go the congressional route and be successful as legislation is faster than the courts.

Bob
 
I see it headed in a very regulated direction. The government has to stick its nose in everything and use the instances of a few to bring about those regulations.
 
One of the reasons I cannot take the FAA seriously is the insane ban on flying drones for "commercial use" such as aerial photography.

There are no restrictions on manned aircraft doing aerial photography for commercial purposes. The FAA has never explained the hypocrisy.

The real issue is that the Genie is way out of the bottle. There are a LOT of shows, commercials, and even some movies, that were shot with R/C models.

Last winter, 60 Minutes had an episode doubt "drones" which was about 60% negative and 40% positive. Then the very next story on the same show, one about the company that makes Tabasco sauce. There were scenes shot that were clearly done with an R/C model, not a manned helicopter (one scene over a farm field, from a few feet up, rising higher, too high to be a crane boom and none of the rotor downwash on the people and crops below that would happen with a full sized manned helicopter).

But I'll jump to more recent examples. A few weeks ago I noticed an episode of "The Amazing Race" where parts had to be have been shot by a muticopter, indeed the shadow of it appeared at least once. Although, that episode was not in the US, I think Europe, possibly Italy. You know, one of them foreign countries that do not have the FREEDOMS we do……

But last I heard, Alaska is still a part of the US, right? "Gold Rush" has lots of scenes shot using multicopters.

Tonight, Discovery had this year's Punkin Chunkin special. Many scenes shot by a R/C multicopter, which they also have done in previous seasons.

And of course several of the old LDRS specials over the years also had scenes shot by R/C multicopters.

So it is the pick-and-choose random enforcement that bugs me.

When the FAA sends reps to Alaska to shut down all R/C activity on "Gold Rush", then they'll show they are serious, otherwise it's a stupid game.

And when the FAA sends reps to the corporate headquarters of all of the broadcast networks (and the 60 Minutes producers), and many other Cable networks (Like Discovery) , and dozens of movie studios with a "CEASE AND DESIST" order to stop using footage used by any R/C models, THEN they'll be serious. Otherwise it's a joke.

And BTW, I like Gold Rush, that's how I know they use R/C multicopters.

Oh, also, it is a joke because THERE IS NO SUCH LAW. A federal judge ruled against the FAA's $10,000 fine of a commercial Drone photography pilot because there was no actual law banning commercial use.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...zLeRqOp_eWEEg-IYVSOu6EA&bvm=bv.80642063,d.cWc

- George Gassaway
 
One of the reasons I cannot take the FAA seriously is the insane ban on flying drones for "commercial use" such as aerial photography.

There are no restrictions on manned aircraft doing aerial photography for commercial purposes. The FAA has never explained the hypocrisy.

No restrictions? How about the requirement for a Commercial Pilot Certificate and a Second Class Medical? The restrictions only start there. If it flies, makes a profit and has the possibility of damaging persons or property, it's going to be heavily regulated by the FAA.
 
Last edited:
Does anyone remember the 1977 disaster flick "Black Sunday"? It always seemed to me that this was a recipe for encouraging a terrorist attack...and might provoke others to imitate it. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0075765/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1

Why does the FAA not move to ban that movie, the way that they banned "Doomsday Flight" in the 1960s after a string of imitations and crank bomb threat calls that follow every showing of that film on Network TV?
I wonder if this poster is an effort to address this idea "at the source".
 
I fly RC as well as rockets and I think the FAA is overstepping it's authority but if we are counting on the AMA to fix things, the battle is already lost. The AMA is a "good ole boy network" unfortunately and they have alienated a sizable chunk of the aero-modeling community, including yours truly, over the years.
 
The movie was not banned....

Regarding the AMA....they are better than nothing.
 
Unfortunately the AMA is willing to "sell out" the average model airplane flier, for the sake of gaining more members and more power.

In other words, negotiating with the FAA so that ONLY AMA members can fly, everyone else can go take up stamp collecting or whatever.

Already seen it happen where AMA clubs have gotten exclusive use of government land and and therefore non-AMA members cannot fly on government land that should be available to ALL hobbyists.

BTW , I'm an AMA member. But mostly because of political hostage reasons I have to be or cannot fly FAI contests despite the fact AMA does nothing regarding FAI Space Modeling.

- George Gassaway
 
Last edited:
Step daughters fateher into planes, he says if too much
crap comes down he'll just go back to line control.

john
 
Back
Top