FAA Crack Down

[Piton]

Interesting turn of events. I've flown my paraglider to 16,000ft. We can legally fly to 18,000ft. My "AUW" of my paraglider and myself is 220 pounds, if I'm using a motor, it's closer to 260 pounds. We fly over residential areas all the time, and all over the mountains. But a 20 pound AP set up is nixed.

[MLaBoyteaux]

I understand what you're saying, but the difference is as a paraglider, you're a much easier target to see AND you've got two eyes on board and you're in direct control of your craft. You also know that if an aircraft is approaching head on, the pilot is trained to always divert to the right.

I hate being grounded as well, it's going to cost me revenue, but I think in the longrun it'll be a positive thing. Just like operating a motor vehicle, you need to demonstrate proficiency and be responsible enough to maintain liability insurance.

I'm just glad my business model is diversified enough to generate income without AP from a UAS until we can all get this sorted out.

[Cryofix]

This document is currently in affect?

This means all AP business is grounded until they come out with the certifications and licensing?

If that is the case who do we have to contact to get this ball rolling to limit downtime?

I am all for certifications especially government ones, nothing like advertising your are FAA certified and fully insured to make your customers feel good.

I would also like know where my skill set stands, I am definetly not a 1 gallon expert but my flight skills can always be sharpened.

Are these the people we need to chew their ear off?

Nick Sabitini
Associate Administrator for Aviation Safety
202-267-3131
FAA National Headquarters
800 Independence Ave., SW
Washington, DC 20591

Kenneth (Doug) Davis
Manager UAV Program office
202.385.4636

[R Hudson]

I think in the long run, this will turn out to be a good thing.

Yes, there are some "One Gallon Experts" out there that just boggle my mind.

I have been lurking and posting WITHOUT actually doing AP probably for longer than anyone else here or any other forum. Many of you have posted for a shorter time but are actually doing AP. I have posted, read, researched, offered advice, etc for quite a while. I've been working on trying to decide which way to go....heli?, Mast?, Plane?, I've owned many helis and a few planes and worked on some mount ideas and researched insurance, cameras, etc till the cows came home. This was the year I was going to make a go of it. I have a reliable platform, a solid mount idea, and potential clients.

Now this happens. I feel like I need to participate in this battle, however, as a "not yet" AP operator, I don't know how much what I say means to the powers that be.

I think I'm going to proceed with my plan, but shift to Mast work mostly.

This really is a shock. I mean, most of knew this day would come, but I know a lot of us thought it would sort of trickle into place. NOT!!

I really feel for you guys who are doing this FT, but I know that you are good enough businessmen that you'll figure out a workaround for the time being.

It couldn't have happened at a worse time for me, but in the same respect, I don't have thousands and thousands invested yet or a line of eager clients waiting for a product that can't be delivered.

This news saddens me but at the same time, I do feel that it will indeed weed-out the crackpots who would inevitably crash into some child or something like that.

I'm going to redirect my business plan, but I will throw my hat into the ring and fight the good fight because it's what I feel is right.

It's the American way.

I know, cliche, cliche, but it's the truth

Rod

[oscillator]

You can submit your feedback to the FAA by going to http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/...ineering/uapo/ and clicking the "Contact UAPO" link at the bottom of the page.

Below is the msg I jsut sent:
As a private pilot I applaud the FAA's efforts to regulate UAS's and am concerned about the safety of such craft.

HOWEVER - the FAA has shut down an important industry without recourse. Small model aircraft (primarily model helicopters) are used for areal photography and video applications by a wide range of industries from film making to real estate. These aircraft operate well below 400' AGL and pose no threat to other aircraft.

Under the new rules, these model aircraft can not operate under AC 91-57 since their use is for hire (commercial). Nor can they obtain an experimental certificate for the same reason. The only other recourse is the COA - which does not apply since their operation is not governmental and there are no standards for applying an airworthiness certificate to a model aircraft.

So what are these operators to do? Is this entire industry expected to just stop and wait for the FAA to come up with new rules in 10 years? Please advise how this industry can comply. Failure to do so will not only effect hundreds of small business operators, but the movies you see, or the next house you buy.

[fast]

Originally Posted by Cryofix

This document is currently in affect?

This means all AP business is grounded until they come out with the certifications and licensing?

If that is the case who do we have to contact to get this ball rolling to limit downtime?

I am all for certifications especially government ones, nothing like advertising your are FAA certified and fully insured to make your customers feel good.

I would also like know where my skill set stands, I am definetly not a 1 gallon expert but my flight skills can always be sharpened.

Are these the people we need to chew their ear off?

Nick Sabitini
Associate Administrator for Aviation Safety
202-267-3131
FAA National Headquarters
800 Independence Ave., SW
Washington, DC 20591

Kenneth (Doug) Davis
Manager UAV Program office
202.385.4636

My recomendation to you is this. If you are doing AP with an RC aircraft for profit call your local FSDO. They are the ones that you will have to deal with. Explain your concerns and questions and get them to give you some kind of answer. It might take awhile for them to come up with something. If you are realistic with your expectations from them, eventually they will tell you something. They may just tell you that they don't care. They may tell you something else. Most likely, the concept of using a RC helicopter for the things you are using it for hasn't even crossed thier minds yet. Bottom line is that, its up to the local FSDO as to what you can get away with, at least for starters. In your case the contact information is:


Allentown Flight Standards District Office (FSDO)

961 Marcon Blvd.
Suite 111
Allentown, Pennsylvania 18109

Phone: (610) 264-2888, Fax: (610) 264-3179

Office Hours: 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday - Friday
Office visits by appointment only


You can look up other FSDOs at http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/field_offices/fsdo/

I am not a pilot but am involved in aviation activities. The local FSDO is the place to start. If you start trying to call people way up the chain you will 1. Piss off the local people and 2. Get ignored. If the local FSDO blows you off then work up the chain of command a bit. They may tell you they don't know anything about it (unlikely, but possible) in which case they will most likely give you someone else to contact.

For the record, I am not involved in AP (yet) but I have done some research into how things happen at the FAA. Admitly, my recomendation may be way off base because I haven't been following the AP / FAA topic a whole lot. I just know that for anything else FAA I have had to deal with, calling the FSDO is how it got started.

[fast]

The only thing to add to that is, if you call your FSDO and they tell you no, then you are that much more in trouble if you just ignore them and do it anyways. My guess is they will tell you that you can't do it, but its up to you wether or not you want to make noise.

[R Hudson]

Fast, where you at?

I see Wisconsin.

[spork]

Originally Posted by fast

The only thing to add to that is, if you call your FSDO and they tell you no, then you are that much more in trouble if you just ignore them and do it anyways. My guess is they will tell you that you can't do it, but its up to you wether or not you want to make noise.

You can ask for permission or you can ask for forgiveness. :mrgreen:

[oscillator]

there is a big difference between making comments to the FAA on rules and requesting authorization or clarification directly from the FAA. Fast is correct, requests should be made first with the local FSDO. However, inputs and comments on FAA regulations should be made directly to the FAA either in writing or through the web site.

The AOPA (Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association) routinely requests its members to comment directly to the FAA on proposed rulings.

And fast is correct again - if you plan on doing as you please regardless of what the FAA says, then don't contact your local FSDO.

But please, provide comment to the FAA! If you read my comments to the FAA you will note I did not say I was or was not operating an AP business, but simply pointed out the undesirable consequences of this ruling.

[AZ ChopperCam]

this bites...

I hope we are just misinterpreting the document

[R Hudson]

DJ,

Hopefully that is indeed the case.

Perhaps many of us are taking the doomsday approach.

Time will tell.

I'll re-read and perhaps check with the local FSDO

Rod

[RCAV8R1]

Originally Posted by spork

I'm betting and hoping not. Even manned ultralights and hang gliders are specifically ignored by the FAA (as long as they remain within the legal weight, power, and airspace limitations). We've had FAA arrive at the site of a fatal accident, take one peek at the body and wreckage, say "it's not an airplane" and walk away.

In the case of UAV's I imagine there will also be weight, power, and airspace restrictions. Stay within those and be ignored. Outside of those, and the FAA will come knocking. I think there may very well be different guidelines for remote piloted vs. robotic as well.

As of Jan 2007 they no longer ignore ultra-lite over 250lbs! You even need a license now to fly an ultra-lite or a powered parachute over the Part 103 regulation. SO the FAA is placing their arms out and pulling in a lot of aircraft that they have been somewhat ignoring. It just a matter of political time before model aircraft RC or programmed model aircraft for private use gets gobbled up in the bureaucracy of post 9/11.

[TooLy]

Simply stated, an unmanned aircraft is a device that is used, or is intended to be
used, for flight in the air with no onboard pilot. These devices may be as simple as a
remotely controlled model aircraft used for recreational purposes or as complex as
surveillance aircraft flying over hostile areas in warfare. They may be controlled either
manually or through an autopilot using a data link to connect the pilot to their aircraft.

The end product of this analysis may be a new flight
authorization instrument similar to AC 91-57, but focused on operations which do not
qualify as sport and recreation, but also may not require a certificate of airworthiness. They
will, however, require compliance with applicable FAA regulations and guidance developed
for this category.

That about wraps it up.

[MLaBoyteaux]

Originally Posted by N74DV

ok... after reading and re-reading and a phone call today, honestly I think many are misinterpreting the FAA's statement.

As I and my local FSDO interpret it they are cracking down larger commercial UAV companies who are trying to make the model airplane AC fit their purposes and not the folks like us.

read it over and see what you think

Hi DJ,

I've re-read the document several times. Although it is intended to clarify the FAA's policy that AC 91-57 only applies to modelers, and excludes its use by persons or companies for business purposes, there still is no FAR that says a model aircraft has to have an airworthiness certificate.

However, the policy statement says no person may operate a UAS in the National Airspace system without specific authority. Since all model aircraft are designated UAS's under the FAA's definition (and this includes ANY AND ALL remotely controlled vehicles, recreational or not), they all need authority.

For recreational modelers, it appears the FAA is saying AC91-57 gives them this authority, even though an AC is not regulatory in nature, and AC 91-57 doesn't contain any language that grants this authority. It's nothing more than an advisory setting forth some general guidelines.

But now we have this policy which says AC91-57 grants the authority for modelers to operate their UAV's in the NAS, but it doesn't grant authority if you're using the model for business purposes.

The next level is a UAS operating as a civil aircraft and it requires a special airworthiness certificate. Obviously, I'm not operating my model as a civil aircraft. So, where do we fit in? I don't think I'll be able to obtain a special airworthiness certificate, although I'd like to try.

What is your local FSDO's opinion?

[MLaBoyteaux]

Here is a link to the actual policy as published in the Federal Register:
http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/pdf100/452254_web.pdf

[MLaBoyteaux]

Have a look at this document on the FAA website, specifically section 6.13

http://www.faa.gov/ats/ata/uas/AFS_P...ept16_2005.pdf

This document is the FAA AFS-400 UAS Policy 05-01. Section 6.13 states that "operations that comply with the guidance in AC91-57 are considered model aircraft and are not evaluated by the UA criteria in this policy".

The purpose of AFS-400 UAS Policy 05-01 is to provide guidance to be used to determine if unmanned aircraft systems may be allowed to conduct flight operations in the U.S. NAS.

So if my "Operation" complies with AC91-57, then aren't I a modeler?

For reference, here is a link to AC 91-57 http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory...AC/ac91-57.pdf

[Xcellgasman101]

So if my "Operation" complies with AC91-57, then aren't I a modeler?

Well from what I unerstand from the FAA, is that if you are useing it to make money,, That changes from a model to bussiness, and the ONLY WAY to legally take Aerial Photo's is to be a Commerical Pilot. That is what the man told me himself,, We can all do a play on words, but I want someone to shoot it to me straight, not mix words, or hide the truth, I'm kinda of simple that way,,, I really hope that something comes from this quickly, and will let us get on with our lives, and bussiness,,,, XGM/VGM

[oscillator]

This document is the FAA AFS-400 UAS Policy 05-01. Section 6.13 states that "operations that comply with the guidance in AC91-57 are considered model aircraft and are not evaluated by the UA criteria in THIS policy".

Ah, but THIS is not the policy in question. We are discussing FAA 14 CFR Part 91 Docket FAA-2006-25714 which was published Feb 13, 2007 and thus supercedes older publications. In this Docket the FAA states:

AC 91-57 only applies to modelers, and thus specifically excludes its use by persons or companies for business purposes.

So, if you are a business (i.e. selling your "model" heli services) then AC 91-57 does not grant you authority to operate in the National Airspace System (NAS). The only other options spelled out in the docket are a COA or and experimental type cert - which as discussed previously, you won't get either.

I think the best approach is to call your FSDO and get their take. Hopefully others will agree with the response DJ got - that the FAA is ignoring us for now.

[AZ ChopperCam]

well I just spoke with the head of the UAV office at the FAA in D.C.

He stated CLEARLY that our aircraft ARE included and that we ARE grounded.
So things are clearer but still shady.

He says he is working as fast as he can to get new rules in place for us. I asked him what brought this on and what the current problems were.

His response

"go to Google and search for rc aerial videos, you see guys flying at 20,000ft. and we have a VERY STRONG problem with that"