AMA thinks real pilots should avoid RC airplane's

[1600vw]

RCGroups.com’s Reply
to FAA Memo
“Interpretation of the Special Rule for Model Aircraft”
July 17, 2014
RCGroups.com, a communitybased
organization representing over 500,000 registered
members and over 1.7 million unique visitors each month, has read the recent 17 page memo
and now responds to docket #FAA20140396.
Since the release of this interpretation, our
members have commented energetically on their concerns, and this letter seeks to convey
some of those thoughts to the FAA.
Briefly summarized our comments are:
● The definition of “line of sight” does not follow from the statute and criminalizes behaviors
consistent with responsible, safe operation of model aircraft.
● The FAA’s interpretation betrays Congress’ clear direction to exempt the R/C modeling
hobby from aviation regulations.
Line of Sight
We believe the FAA misunderstands the intent of the words “line of sight” and that the three part
definition provided is contrary to the public safety.
By definition, a model aircraft must be “flown within visual line of sight of the
person operating the aircraft.” P.L. 11295,
section 336(c)(2). Based on the plain
language of the statute, the FAA interprets this requirement to mean that: (1) the aircraft
must be visible at all times to the operator; (2) that the operator must use his or her own
natural vision (which includes vision corrected by standard eyeglasses or contact lenses)
to observe the aircraft; and (3) people other than the operator may not be used in lieu of
the operator for maintaining visual line of sight.
We believe that the intent of “Line of Sight” includes only item #1 in the above. Items #2 and #3
are additional interpretive steps by the FAA that are not founded. Also, the potential benefits of
multiple operators were dismissed capriciously.
Item #1 is correct provided we understand the word “visible” to mean what the statute implies: all
the visible area surrounding the pilot (i.e. the sky not obstructed by trees, buildings and people).
The remaining items proceed from an incorrect substitution of “within visual line of sight” to a
meaning more like “having current visual focus.”
Item #2 prohibits the use of safety devices which could make tracking a distant aircraft easier.
Such devices could even assist the operator with finding an aircraft which has been visually lost.
Pilots do make mistakes! There is no basis for including this as an implication of “line of sight”.
Item #3 apparently allows for the use of an FPV spotter but prohibits allowing that user to also
operate the model aircraft, which is nonsensical. Models can and often do have more than one
operator. There is no reason to disallow one of the operators from using an FPV perspective. A
second operator flying using a first person view has the potential to dramatically increase the
safety of model aircraft flight.
Clearly there is a concern about the use of first person video systems to pilot model aircraft.
This concern is unfounded. Aircraft flown from the first person perspective are much more
easily controlled than aircraft flown from a distant vantage. Users of R/C training simulators
typically begin with a first person view then progress to the much harder task of controlling the
aircraft from a groundbased
vantage point.
To ensure that the operator has the best view of the aircraft, the statutory requirement
would preclude the use of visionenhancing
devices, such as binoculars, night vision
goggles, powered vision magnifying devices, and goggles designed to provide a
“firstperson
view” from the model. Such devices would limit the operator’s field of view
thereby reducing his or her ability to seeandavoid
other aircraft in the area.
Contrary to the opinion of the FAA, it is only through the use of FPV viewpoints that R/C pilots
can effectively manage to seeandavoid
another airborne object. Parallax error makes it very
difficult to determine the relative depth of two objects in the sky. This is easily reproducible.
Maintaining line of sight through the use of binoculars is rare, but has precedent. See the below
photo of world model aviation record setter, Maynard Hill.
Maynard Hill setting a model aircraft altitude record via binocular line of sight.
Photo courtesy the Academy of Model Aeronautics.
While we certainly agree with the importance of ensuring the safety of aircraft occupants, we
must digress to point out that pilots of mancarrying
aircraft are required to stay 500 feet away
from people (FAR 91.119). Pilots of model aircraft would be very hard pressed to intentionally hit
a moving aircraft from their ground reference. In a collision between a model aircraft and a real
aircraft, the assignment of blame should begin by determining whether the pilot of the real
aircraft was recklessly operating within 500 feet of the model aircraft operator. Only after that
could it be determined who was better able to avoid the accident. In most cases this could not
be the operator of the model aircraft.
It is paradoxical to deny model aircraft operators the use of FPV equipment on the basis that it
will allow them to harass pilots of real planes, then assert that they must maintain seeandavoid
without the use of the equipment best able to assist them in seeing if they are on a collision
course.
We believe the statute uses “Line of Sight” to describe the area “within” which the aircraft can be
flown, not the status of the operator’s eyeballs. This area is all the places visible from the pilot’s
vantage point. The statute implies that model aircraft should be flown such that they are not
behind other objects, such as people, trees, and buildings, relative to the pilot. The statute did
not imply that pilots could not augment their vision for safety (e.g. by using binoculars or video
equipment). The FAA has no reason to prohibit operators from flying FPV flights within their own
line of sight, in particular with a safety pilot operating as either primary or secondary pilot through
a “buddy box” type system.
The FAA Interpretation vs the intent of Congress
This section of the memo regarding “commercial” operation weirdly and defensively detours into
areas that have nothing to do with the topic at hand of professional drone flights to address the
nonissue
of commercial model aircraft flights in general, including “receiving money for
demonstrating aerobatics with a model aircraft.” Rather than clarify it confounds.
The FAA errs in too broadly applying the following from P.L. 11295,
section 336(c)
(1) the aircraft is flown strictly for hobby or recreational use
It is our contention that “hobby or recreational use” was meant to include exactly the activity the
FAA believes it excludes. Congress expressly sought to prevent the FAA from regulating the toy
and hobby industry, and that includes those who work within it. Congress allowed for the FAA to
regulate commercial operations because it saw the future of autonomous crop dusting, hobby
atmospheric research vehicles, and autonomously piloted remote sensing vehicles in general.
Such vehicles need regulation to operate such that they do not interfere with mancarrying
aircraft, or each other. A proper clarification would tackle the difficult job of separating these
activities from model aircraft, not lump everything that flies into one group based on the
movement of money after it is flown. The FAA seems determined to jump in where it doesn’t
belong, despite Congress’ direction.
In order for hobby products to be made they must be tested. In order for an R/C training
simulator to be created people must go out and fly the real model to compare it to the simulation.
For reviews to be written people must fly the models under review. These people must be paid.
The FAA’s interpretation makes them the regulatory authority over the design, testing,
production, marketing, and sales of all model aircraft, giving them the power to shut down a
hobby they were expressly forbidden to regulate.
If the goal was to clarify the memo failed. New questions are raised about the future. Will hobby
industry magazines be able to compensate product reviewers who do not have a commercial
pilot license? Will they have to undergo a medical certification process? Urinalysis? Biennial
training? Is a reimbursement of a pilot’s actual expenses considered an act of commerce? Will
there be a waiver process to get around these restrictions?
Thankfully, the FAA stops short of insisting Part 91 fully apply to commercial pilots of model
aircraft. Perhaps a future memo will take us there, years from now after the current cadre of
bureaucrats are long retired, when a future generation is left to “plainly” interpret what was left for
them. Perhaps by then we’ll have applied all the FARs and operators of model aircraft will have
their timely lessons in how to use VOR and DME systems under their belts before receiving their
licenses to operate in the national airspace, which now extends to the air indoors and any
pockets found underground as well for good measure! Perhaps we will learn then that the FAA
has always been so tasked.
The FAA’s misguided attempt to shoehorn model aircraft into regulations obviously intended for
mancarrying
devices is the headwater for the recent veritable torrent of the “What does this
mean?” inquiries the agency is receiving. Clearly it is ludicrous to imagine that Part 91 would be
expanded to cover the sorts of activities mentioned above, yet the memo alludes to Part 91 for
potential actions that could be taken. The FAA missed its opportunity to reassure modelers that
it has no intention of doing something so absurd as applying Part 91 to the professional reviewer
of a hobby product.
Yet we arrive here quite logically, given the pellmell
exegesis the FAA is willing to go through to
gain every authority the loopholes allow.

[1600vw]

The FAA starts with the definition of “aircraft” from 49 USC 40102, which says:
(6) “aircraft” means any contrivance invented, used, or designed to navigate, or fly in, the
air.
It then says that since it regulates aircraft, it also regulates model aircraft.
Let’s apply the FAA’s exact same logic to cars. 49 US Code 32901 says:
“automobile” means a 4wheeled
vehicle that is propelled by fuel, or by alternative fuel,
manufactured primarily for use on public streets, roads, and highways and rated at less
than 10,000 pounds gross vehicle weight, …
R/C cars are 4wheeled
vehicles propelled by fuel or alternative fuel. They are manufactured
primarily for use on public streets, roads, and highways (they are also for use on R/C car tracks,
but that is less common). They are rated at less than 10,000 pounds gross vehicle weight.
From this we conclude the Federal Highway Administration is responsible for regulating R/C
cars. Furthermore, we can apply safety standards to R/C cars such as airbags and interior
trunk release mechanisms. We stop short of further illustration for fear we will give the FAA new
ideas.
To consistently apply the FAA’s selective definition of “aircraft” would include things such as
footballs, smoke rings, juggling pins, paper planes, etc. Ridiculous? Yes! But this is not an
argument reductio ad absurdum. The point is that the FAA is not legitimately clarifying. It
disingenuously builds a case that it has always been the one in charge and retcons definitions
willy nilly to prove it. “Aircraft” are all the flying things the FAA wants to control and all flying
things the FAA wants to control are “aircraft.” The definitions are convenient, nothing more.
If Sense Prevailed
We see that the government is under pressure to do something and we accept that of all the
federal agencies the FAA is currently in the best position to act. We stand by the FAA in their
efforts to protect mancarrying
aircraft from the few troubled souls who fly recklessly. We
support the idea of educating the public as to the dangers of flying model aircraft within the
national airspace. We accept the need for regulation to protect the general public from, well,
idiots.
However, the FAA appears overeager
to establish its authority over areas where they are simply
not chartered.
While congress might have allowed for regulation of FPV flight, that does not mean it is in the
interest of public safety to do so. In fact, we believe the FAA’s actions are contrary to public
safety.
Likewise, it is not in the interest of public safety to regulate professionals in the R/C hobby
industry. The FAA already has broad public support, founded in common sense, to regulate
anything that could harm occupants of an aircraft. It does not need to torture definitions to gain
authority over hobby activities as well. There is no actual history of R/C models causing
problems with real aircraft, whether flown professionally or not, provided the operators follow the
already wellestablished
guidelines. In the rare occasion that an operator acts with intent to
harm there is no regulatory void to fill.
We ask that the FAA further clarify the word “commercial” so that it applies to remote sensing
tasks performed by remotely piloted aircraft in such a way that it does not confuse them with
aircraft flown for the enjoyment of the R/C hobby.

[1600vw]

Youtube is full of video's that blow everything the AMA is saying out of the water. To say RC pilots only fly in the line of site is wrong. I have seen video's from my own airfield where some RC pilot flew to 2500' then went out over the lake. A friend called him and told him to remove the video or altitude info for he was flying that RC in class C airspace.

After landing one evening I had a Helicopter pilot walk up and say to me. If those guys chased me around like they where you, I would land and beat me some RC pilots. I told him I did not see any RC airplanes chasing me. He said I was lucky for a couple came real close to hitting me.

[1600vw]

These people also believe no one flies Rc airplanes like this...

[1600vw]

This shows an altitude of over 4000'

[WLIU]

A few bad examples do not invalidate the logical reasoning in the AMA statement. The examples in the last couple of posts simply show that there are folks who can be violated under the current policy as well as under the proposed new policy. Those folks are "noise" to the rule making process.

The actual problem that the FAA has is that there is little expertise, and no budget to follow up with individuals that operate outside the current or the proposed rules. And you have to understand that the rule-making folks are different folks than the safety and enforcement folks. Separate empires. So whatever policy is adopted, enforcement will be spotty in the future just like it is today.

For the purpose of the rule-making process, I suggest supporting the AMA position. Then if you want to stir up some dust today, package up a video of the local problem children with a log of names, addresses, dates and times, and send it off to your local FSDO and see what happens. But do not expect a pat on the back.

Best of luck,

Wes
N78PS

[1600vw]

Wes I agree. But with the wording they are acting like no one ever breaks the AMA rules of 400', and these are not just a few examples there are hundreds. I found these two examples in less then 1 min. If I posted every example that I could find, I could fill pages.

Tony

[1600vw]

I support what the AMA is trying to do. I just don't support the way they think. These FPV units are being abused by Joe Public. Its just a matter of time before an airplane is taken out by one.

To say its on the pilot to remain 400' from an rc is wrong. Some of these RC airplane fly 100 mph. I fly along at 58-65. So if one of these take me out and I am at 500' its on me for not remaining 400' separation from this RC. I don't think so. Its on the RC to stay away from me. But not in how this letter is written.

Unless I am reading this wrong. They need to understand people are not flying these units at 400'. Joe Public knows squat about Far's and rules. they are buying these and launching them from their back yards into the wild blue.

I have a friend who purchased one of these. He does just like I say. I had to give him some instructions on the rules. He would just go up to around 1500' and hover this thing around taking video. I had to explain he was in controlled airspace that was controlled from the ground to 4600' for he is within the inner ring of class C airspace. He knew nothing about what I was speaking. he would go to the park and do this, 3 miles from the airport, not even understanding he is 3 miles from the airport.

Hundreds are doing just like my buddy.

[1600vw]

With what RC have come to today. One should have to take a class before they can walk out the door with an rc that goes into the air. These are not your grandfathers toys. We need training to drive a car, shoot a gun and do many many things all in the name of safety. Why not RC airplanes?

Tony

[1600vw]

It use to be that one needed to get training in order to fly one of these Rc airplanes. With the invention of the quad copter one does not need this. People are buying these, taking them home and flying them right out of the box with no training from an AMA Club or instructor.

Its a training thing I believe. We should not allow some 13 year old to buy a quad copter and fly it not without training. But its happening everyday and youtube is full of the video's of just this thing. Grown men doing it too, like my buddy.

Tony