Government Regulation of RC Airplanes, Drones .... and US????

[boatgeek]

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.

From a loopholery standpoint, most rockets are not capable of sustained flight, and are therefore not covered by this regulation. Even boosted RC gliders would be arguable, since they don't have power to sustain flight.

From a broader perspective, rockets are already regulated via HPR regulations. As long as we don't have people crashing rockets into skyscrapers, landing on the White House or Capitol lawn, or interfering with commercial/firefighting flights, we don't have an issue. Unfortunately, the multicopter users showed exactly why they can't have nice things without regulation. Contrary to popular belief, the government doesn't go out to regulate something until someone gives them a very good reason to go through the hassle of creating regulation. Any new federal regulation goes through a minimum year-long process that has to go through the White House. It's a pain in the butt that needs a justification other than "Hey, look at these things over there! That looks sketch!" The saying I heard a while back (and I think is largely true) is that every regulation in the book is there because somebody died.

 

[Flyfalcons]

Then drone folks are a different breed altogether. They do not drive to a field where you have to be an AMA member to fly. They do what they want when they want with little concerns or regard for others or concern if something goes wrong.

Unquestionably. That didn't stop the FAA from including all RC activity in their regulation.

 

[KidRockET]

We will have to...

Pass the law...

To find out...

What's in it...

 

[rstaff3]

From a loopholery standpoint, most rockets are not capable of sustained flight, and are therefore not covered by this regulation. Even boosted RC gliders would be arguable, since they don't have power to sustain flight.

From a broader perspective, rockets are already regulated via HPR regulations. As long as we don't have people crashing rockets into skyscrapers, landing on the White House or Capitol lawn, or interfering with commercial/firefighting flights, we don't have an issue. Unfortunately, the multicopter users showed exactly why they can't have nice things without regulation. Contrary to popular belief, the government doesn't go out to regulate something until someone gives them a very good reason to go through the hassle of creating regulation. Any new federal regulation goes through a minimum year-long process that has to go through the White House. It's a pain in the butt that needs a justification other than "Hey, look at these things over there! That looks sketch!" The saying I heard a while back (and I think is largely true) is that every regulation in the book is there because somebody died.

+1....and I have to tuck 'loopholery' into my vocabulary.

 

[les]

I think there is another fundamental difference. Most RC planes require developing a level of skill to fly properly.
As previously stated, the drones have now become so "smart" that anyone can pick one up and start flying it out of the box using their cell phone as the controller.

With the RC planes you often worked with a mentor to learn to fly and get the skill
Not so with the drones

The AMA can work with its members and clubs to train people for RC planes, but obviously can't do this for any one buying a drone from any where.

Now to correlate this to our hobby, yes - any one can buy a small, LPR starter kit and do a whoosh/pop. The flight is for a few seconds and there was effort to set up the launch pad, prep the rocket etc. Some drones can fly for long periods of time and are heavy enough to cause issues.

The drone is out of the box and can launch from anywhere with no prep.
And for the most part the LPR rockets are "harmless". Even if they go astray, they are light and fragile enough to prevent significant damage or injuries.

If you start moving up to MPR and LPR (our bugger & heavier toys), we self-regulate and attempt to restrict selling motors to people who have not proven themselves (L1, L2, L3). And the bigger rockets require even more prep and facilities (deployment setup, the rails and stands are bigger than what is required for an LPR).
But for the drone you can buy a big one that flies out of the box.

So I believe our self-regulation helps keep rockets out of this discussion, but the proliferation of big drones with no controls (and the people that use them improperly) has forced the new regulation.

And while I may empathize with the AMA members, really - how does one differentiate between a flying object controlled by a radio link (an RC plane) and a flying object controlled by a radio link (drone)??? Since there are RC helicopters, gliders, prop planes, jet planes, etc - how would you differentiate between these and a drone???

 

[jadebox]

So, while the Special Rule prohibits regulation specific to hobby aircraft, it may not preempt FAA authority for general registration of aircraft.

Congress's intent was clearly that the FAA not impose new regulations on hobbyists. The AMA has filed a brief challenging the FAA's bizarre interpretation of the rule. In the mean time, the interpretation that "model aircraft" are aircraft has opened a can of worms for the FAA. For example, they recommend that we limit our maximum altitude to 400 feet, but generally aircraft are required to fly no lower than 500 feet.

- Roger

 

[Screaminhelo]

This quote from the FAA UAS FAQ page is telling:

Q: A pilot cannot read a number on a drone so how will registering protect traditional aircraft?

A: A registration requirement encourages a culture of accountability and responsibility. Much like registering a motor vehicle, registering a drone ties a specific person to a specific aircraft. Greater accountability will help protect innovation, which is in danger of being undermined by reckless behavior. This requirement mirrors the requirement for manned operations and commercial UAS operations.

Q: Someone intent on harm will not register a drone, so doesn't this requirement just penalize responsible people who are excited about UAS?

A: Although no system or requirement is 100 percent effective against people intent on doing harm, registration heightens public awareness about what safe UAS operations look like. In addition, registration establishes a shared understanding that operating this type of aircraft for business or pleasure comes with certain responsibilities and expectations and that the public will be watching for and reporting bad actors, just as they do today for other safety and security-related concerns. Registration also enables us to educate UAS owners on safe operations.


The irony of it all is that the ones whom are most likely to register are also the folks that are already flying responsibly.

 

[rstaff3]

Other than the general idea of government over-regulation, yadda yadda yadda, this rule seems to be blown a bit out of proportion. Five bucks is a pretty small investment to fly R/C and bigger drones and, if you're not up to anything nefarious, shouldn't be much of an issue. What it may do is remind people that they should investigate the regs in place before you start flying. Like anyone in the DC area shouldn't have known that flying around the White House will get you busted. However, some people didn't.

My little drone is an order of magnitude lighter than the reg states so I can put by fiver back in my wallet.

 

[Flyfalcons]

Other than the general idea of government over-regulation, yadda yadda yadda, this rule seems to be blown a bit out of proportion. Five bucks is a pretty small investment to fly R/C and bigger drones and, if you're not up to anything nefarious, shouldn't be much of an issue. What it may do is remind people that they should investigate the regs in place before you start flying. Like anyone in the DC area shouldn't have known that flying around the White House will get you busted. However, some people didn't.

My little drone is an order of magnitude lighter than the reg states so I can put by fiver back in my wallet.

It can be free and still be overreach of the FAA. The issue is not the money.

 

[Screaminhelo]

Congress's intent was clearly that the FAA not impose new regulations on hobbyists. The AMA has filed a brief challenging the FAA's bizarre interpretation of the rule. In the mean time, the interpretation that "model aircraft" are aircraft has opened a can of worms for the FAA. For example, they recommend that we limit our maximum altitude to 400 feet, but generally aircraft are required to fly no lower than 500 feet.

- Roger

The 100 foot separation is to provide some measure of deconfliction between the model and air traffic. Generally speaking, the FAA requires a minimum of 500' separation for civil air traffic. Since they are fitting this into their airspace environment, the altitude separation is not surprising.

 

[astrowolf67]

Our self regulation is much easier than the drone market. Rocketry is such a smaller hobby, with much less vendors, and very few motor manufacturers. This alone makes our self regulation much easier to control within our selves. The drone market has exploded in the last few years, with hundreds of manufacturers, and thousands of vendors. Throw in the fact that 90-95 percent (if not higher, just a guess) are imported, and, self regulation within the AMA becomes virtually impossible. Now, add in the fact, that for some reason, many (not all) drone owners think they can fly where, when, and, video what ever they want, and it has become a runaway situation.

Yes, I have a small quad, that, with the addition of a keychain cam, puts it above the .55 lb weight limit. I also have many planes that will fall within the new regulations. Personally, five bucks isn't that much. Aggrivating, yes, and, it will probably increase in cost over time. But, I also fly responsibly, and, only where I have permission to do so. Having a registered FAA number will protect me if I am in compliance with the regulations should an incident occur involving being shot down/or simply reported, by a renegade vigilante acting on his fear of drones driven by the media. Laugh all you want at that, but, there is a local gentleman who paraglides from a neighbors field, and, he has been shot at while flying around.

 

[rstaff3]

It can be free and still be overreach of the FAA. The issue is not the money.

I get that but since it is a done deal, the best RC fliers can do is bend over and be happy that it isn't a big burden. IMO, no amount of push back would have changed things. We only won the APCP stuff based on science, or lack thereof.

 

[astrowolf67]

I get that but since it is a done deal, the best RC fliers can do is bend over and be happy that it isn't a big burden. IMO, no amount of push back would have changed things. We only won the APCP stuff based on science, or lack thereof.

Our APCP lawsuit didn't have the media backing the ATF practically everyday on the 6 o'clock news either, lol.

 

[rstaff3]

Our APCP lawsuit didn't have the media backing the ATF practically everyday on the 6 o'clock news either, lol.

Get ready to register you laser pointers next. Afterall, you are sending photos through the FAA's airspace.

 

[10fttall]

The AMA guys really did get the shaft. I'm surprised the FAA didn't throw them some kind of bone, considering that only the law abiding fliers will register in the first place. It seems to me that the comprehensive nature of this will only increase the chances some airplane guys with deep pockets will take it to court.

 

[Banzai88]

Get ready to register you laser pointers next. Afterall, you are sending photos through the FAA's airspace.

You laugh about this, but there are already news items out there that the new laser Christmas lawn lights are causing issues with commercial aircraft.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/holiday-laser-displays-raising-safety-concerns-for-pilots/


As to the fact that this new regulation is in place: Have you EVER seen a registration fee NOT go up every year? What happens when they simply change the regulation to mandate a transponder, possibly one that's registered per aircraft and/or larger and/or more expensive than the average toy heli/airplane? After all, "Aircraft" have them, don't they? All it'll take is requiring that all existing ones get retrofitted, and NO new ones can be sold without one built in and registered by the seller to the buyer on a federal form, and any not retrofitted get a grace period and then eliminated past a certain date.

Remember, once in place, regulations change all the time with little opportunity for public comment. For sure they change with every flunky that gets appointed head of some agency each administration, and the knee always jerks after every incident, no matter how inconsequential. Just look at some of the stuff the FCC and the EPA have been doing!

Won't take but a stroke of a pen of some nameless faceless bureaucrat to eliminate the hobby altogether. Wouldn't be without backlash and lawsuits, but most industries have learned that there is no fighting city hall once it's set it's mind to eliminate...er....REGULATE something, especially if they think that they have society on their social justice side.

I think that the AMA got in bed with the devil on several issues (pulling in drones, helping the regulators, et al), and got burned. Unfortunately, it's all of us who fly these toys that'll foot the bill.

 

[jadebox]

The 100 foot separation is to provide some measure of deconfliction between the model and air traffic. Generally speaking, the FAA requires a minimum of 500' separation for civil air traffic. Since they are fitting this into their airspace environment, the altitude separation is not surprising.

You missed the point. The FAA has justified requiring registration by claiming that model aircraft are aircraft. If so, you cannot legally fly under 500 feet in most cases.

-- Roger

 

[georgegassaway]

FWIW - two posts made by NAR President Ted Cochran on the NAR Facebook page:

‪Ted Cochran‬ Rockets are not considered part of a UAS under the definition, and are not required to be registered. That's the best information we have, and it in part is covered in the FAQ on the FAA page.

‪Ted Cochran‬ Also: The FAA isn't requiring a license, just registration, to fly drones. The NAR and TRA do not have an agreement with the FAA on how rockets get regulated. And, it often takes a couple of iterations for a rule to be written such that it does what the writers intend without adverse side effects. This is an Interim Final Rule; there is a window to offer comments and then the FAA will issue a Final Rule.

For the first month, getting a registration number is free. There's no harm in getting one (it applies to all of the vehicles that a hobby flyer owns), although I acknowledge that some folks won't want to on principle.

I think the only rocket type models that might be included by this are R/C Rocket Boosted Gliders which weigh over 250 grams. Even my own S8E (E R/C R/G) models weigh less than that. Though some other E6 powered models do weigh more, the old Estes R/C R/G kits (OOP) weighed over 250 (500-600) and the Aerotech Phoenix (which used F or G power) was around 800-1000 grams.

But most R/C RBG fliers also fly R/C aircraft, anyway.

For those fliers whose models fall under this, I will note that for the first 30 days, there won't be a $5 fee, and it's good for 3 years. And this is not per-model, its per person, so 1 model or 100 models, doesn't matter.

- George Gassaway

 

[dr wogz]

I remember a similar discussion about "park flyers" that came out a few years ago. Them little foamy planes that you can buy for a 'c' note.. the discussion was all about the validity, the risk, and the 'bad name' R/C would get when little Timmy and his little foamy Cub chewed up someone's leg.. Being a 'park flyer' with no assembly, anyone could fly these anywhere.. And the arguments would start: "This is a toy, bought at a toy store. That is a plane, bought at a hobby shop and built by a pilot, and flown by a pilot". Despite the size, many failed to see the similarities & the risks.. Now drones..

Regulate, yes. But only those who intend to follow the law, fly lawfully, respect the rules, & others personal space, etc.. will register.. So, it is kinda moot..

 

[rstaff3]

You laugh about this, but there are already news items out there that the new laser Christmas lawn lights are causing issues with commercial aircraft.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/holiday-laser-displays-raising-safety-concerns-for-pilots/

Yup, I saw that. But discrete lasers have been a big to-do for some time.

 

[Winston]

Fortunately, off the shelf systems don't exist that would allow our rockets to be used as remotely operated, visually guided weapons. With R/C aircraft FPV video systems, they do. That's why they came up with this:

https://securityaffairs.co/wordpress/41138/security/dronedefender-electromagnetic-gun.html

Strangely, any mention of that device has been removed from the Battelle site. All links to info about it there are dead. Plenty of media coverage about it elsewhere, though.

Of course, requiring the registration of every R/C pilot who flies any R/C aircraft, not just what most people think of as "drones," weighing over 250g, even if it's just in his back yard, into a federal database will be as ineffective in preventing the misuse of R/C aircraft as registering every gun owner in the U.S. would be in preventing gun crime, but it serves to shield their bureaucratic asses from a political beating if such a device is ever used to do very bad things.

Why the U.S. Government is Terrified of Hobbyist Drones

https://www.wired.com/2015/02/white-house-drone/

Domestic 'Drones' Are the Latest Object of Threat Inflation

https://www.forbes.com/sites/seanla...es-are-the-latest-object-of-threat-inflation/

The next attack: “An explosive-stuffed model airplane guided by GPS”

https://www.salon.com/2014/01/12/the_next_attack_an_explosive_stuffed_model_airplane_guided_by_gps/

EDIT: more on the real reason behind this move:

From the FAA a year ago:

https://www.faa.gov/uas/legislative...uthorizations/media/copelandred-llc-12103.pdf

"3. FPV shall only be used through a monitor. The use of FPV goggles is not authorized."

Hmmmm. WHY are video goggles specifically banned (and ONLY in the U.S., no other country has banned them... yet), even when a spotter assist to the pilot wearing them is used as the AMA requires? Simple, I think, because it is BY FAR the most accurate way to fly (aka GUIDE) an FPV aircraft.

From the FAA this month:

https://www.faa.gov/uas/registration/faqs/

"Q11. Do I have to register a paper airplane, or a toy balloon or Frisbee?

A. No. Even if these things could be considered "drones" or "unmanned aircraft" and met the minimum weight threshold of 250 gm/0.55 lb., the registration rules also require that they be a part of an "unmanned aircraft system." An "unmanned aircraft system" includes the communication links and components that control the small unmanned aircraft along with all of the other elements needed to safely operate the drone. Paper airplanes, toy balloons, Frisbees, and similar items are not connected to such control system."

This means that even POWERED free flight (unguided) hobby aircraft over 250g don't require the pilot to register himself. So, a 2000g powered free flight aircraft is somehow less dangerous to manned aircraft or the public than a 251g REMOTELY CONTROLLED aircraft? Once again, hmmmm... Why the focus exclusively on REMOTE CONTROL?

--------------

Here are the best rated and best price/performance "drones" right now that won't label you as a potential "turrist" as GWB would have called them and won't require you to register yourself with the feds. Too late to get them by Christmas though:

Syma X11 R/C Quadcopter (indoor/outdoor quad - good beginner craft) - $19.80 shipped

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00L4OLA7I/?tag=skimlinks_replacement-20

SJ X300-2 (outdoor quad - good beginner craft in beginner mode) - $35.31 shipped

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01825Y8ES/?tag=skimlinks_replacement-20

MJX X600 X-SERIES (outdoor hex) - $54.48 shipped

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01040LVLM/?tag=skimlinks_replacement-20

 

[jadebox]

As to the fact that this new regulation is in place: Have you EVER seen a registration fee NOT go up every year?

That, at least is probably not a concern. The aircraft registration fee has been $5 for some time.

It's not the direct cost of this that bothers me. It is the flaunting of the law and the whole boondoggle nature of doing something that doesn't have any chance of solving any problems.

I was impressed in the past by the way the FAA worked with us, to the point of even reducing regulation of rockets and how they have long supported the rights of hobbyists to use the airspace. Especially in light of our experiences with another government agency, the FAA really shined.

But, this all seems rushed and reactionary.

-- Roger

 

[ksaves2]

Then drone folks are a different breed altogether. They do not drive to a field where you have to be an AMA member to fly. They do what they want when they want with little concerns or regard for others or concern if something goes wrong.

Sorta like the early snowboarder mentality!:lol: Kurt

 

[stickershock23]

I think this is RIDICULOUS im an avid RC flier. i have lots of planes helis etc.. at $5.00 thats gonna hurt. do they refund you when you crash them?? LOL heck I have several that are just PART of a plane do I have to regulate that??

anyways bottom line. i wish they would mind their own F^(%*ng business. just another way to try and take control

as for rockets.. well we already self regulate.. tell them to take a flying leap we dont need your help there either

 

[KenECoyote]

at $5.00 thats gonna hurt.

From what I read last night on the AMA site, you only need to pay $5 once to register yourself (good for 3 years I believe) and then you put that number on all your craft. Earlier reading sounded like each craft had to be registered, which would be a nightmare for people with a lot of RC planes or kits (I had a slight scare/tantrum over this earlier).

Site:https://amablog.modelaircraft.org/amagov/2015/12/14/ama-and-the-faa-registration-process/

Quote: "You will not be required to register every aircraft individually. You only need to register yourself and can affix one registration number to all your aircraft."

 

[jef955]

I think this is RIDICULOUS im an avid RC flier. i have lots of planes helis etc.. at $5.00 thats gonna hurt. do they refund you when you crash them?? LOL heck I have several that are just PART of a plane do I have to regulate that??

anyways bottom line. i wish they would mind their own F^(%*ng business. just another way to try and take control

as for rockets.. well we already self regulate.. tell them to take a flying leap we dont need your help there either

Amen !

Sorry, but I couldn't agree more with Mark...

 

[tmacklin]

Winston; Thanks for your informative post!

Mark: Decals. The FAA needs to be "congratulated" and you're just the man! :wink:

 

[Winston]

I think this is RIDICULOUS im an avid RC flier. i have lots of planes helis etc.. at $5.00 thats gonna hurt. do they refund you when you crash them?? LOL heck I have several that are just PART of a plane do I have to regulate that??

anyways bottom line. i wish they would mind their own F^(%*ng business. just another way to try and take control

as for rockets.. well we already self regulate.. tell them to take a flying leap we dont need your help there either

DO NOT rush to register. There is no published way to get off of this list once you're on it. It is expected that this will be (oh so rightfully) challenged in the courts.

You have 60 days from 21 Dec 2015 (19 Feb 2016) to register but you ONLY need to do so if you plan to fly outdoors anything over 250g starting on 21 Dec 2015 and later. The mere possession of planes over 250g simply parked and not flown do not require that you register yourself until you fly them (because that's what this is; it's R/C PILOT registration, not aircraft registration).

You must have your certificate with you when you fly and your number must be on anything you fly over 250g in mass. The FAA has said they will rely completely upon local law enforcement for detection of violations. If local law enforcement is provided a share of the fines, you can expect them to do that enthusiastically:

https://www.faa.gov/uas/registration/faqs/

Q3. What is the penalty for failing to register?
A. Failure to register an aircraft may result in regulatory and criminal sanctions. The FAA may assess civil penalties up to $27,500. Criminal penalties include fines of up to $250,000 and/or imprisonment for up to three years.

I look forward to the media attention when they fine an unregistered father flying an over 250g R/C aircraft with his son in his own back yard. They will probably avoid that to avoid the uproar, but technically they could.

EDIT: In the answer in that FAQ, I just noticed that they said "Failure to register an aircraft" which makes me think they may have just cut and pasted that penalty info from their regs on private and/or commercial aircraft failure to register penalties! Aircraft aren't registered in this case, their pilot is.

 

[jadebox]

The AMA guys really did get the shaft. I'm surprised the FAA didn't throw them some kind of bone, considering that only the law abiding fliers will register in the first place. It seems to me that the comprehensive nature of this will only increase the chances some airplane guys with deep pockets will take it to court.

The AMA is in discussions with the FAA to either exempt AMA members from registering or allowing us to use our AMA number which is already on our aircraft.

And the AMA had already filed a brief challenging the FAA's interpretation of the rule that the FAA claims allows them to subject model aircraft to new regulations like this.

-- Roger

 

[shreadvector]

See you at the AMA Expo in Ontario CA in a few weeks. There will be LOTS of discussion.

And free Make & Take Model Rocket building.

https://amaexpo.com/