Jump to content


Photo

New FAA Regulations for UAVs/RC


  • Please log in to reply
11 replies to this topic

#1 jtprouty

jtprouty

    RC-Cam'er

  • Members+
  • PipPip
  • 59 posts
  • Location:Maize, KS, USA
  • Interests:Autonomous flight

Posted 15 February 2007 - 11:47 AM

Hi All,

I just received word that the FAA has released its ruling on RC and UAVs. (See: http://a257.g.akamai...07/E7-2402.htm) Pretty much reiterates the previous position on RC flight but severly effects flying beyond line-of-site and commercial use. Basically you'll have to license ANY aicraft used for commercial purposes under experimental class (big $$$ and time consuming, I'm sure.)

Take a look at the link or a google search for FAA-2006-25714; Notice No. 07-01 will bring it up if the link doesn't work.

Happy flying,

Jimmy
www.jtmodels.com

Edited by jtprouty, 15 February 2007 - 02:53 PM.


#2 cyber-flyer

cyber-flyer

    RC-Cam Mentor

  • FPV Experimenter
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 415 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Boston, MA
  • Interests:FPV (First Person View) flight of model airplanes and helicopters

Posted 15 February 2007 - 01:29 PM

The ruling is not too bad for the hobby. It's actually saying that AC 91-57 of 1981 continues to apply to modelers without change. They stress 400 ft limit, this may force AMA to revise a loophole in AMA safety code, which was 400 ft limit within 3 miles of the airport. Otherwise it seems like a status quo as far as models go.
The transponder requirement for altitudes higher than 400 ft is troublesome because I don't know of any lightweight transponders. This rules out flying small models above 400 ft.

Now, how FAA is going to enforce 400 ft altitude limit? Was there a single court case since 1981 when FAA charged a modeler with flying above 400 ft?

#3 jtprouty

jtprouty

    RC-Cam'er

  • Members+
  • PipPip
  • 59 posts
  • Location:Maize, KS, USA
  • Interests:Autonomous flight

Posted 15 February 2007 - 02:53 PM

I sincerely doubt there will be any active policing of the 400' policy unless there was a high profile incident that would bring un-needed attention to the hobby. I enjoy flying sailplanes and we usually come off the launch at more than 400' on a good day! Let's all keep our fingers crossed.

Jimmy

#4 Mark Harris

Mark Harris

    Intelligent Flight

  • Members+
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 427 posts
  • Location:Perth, W. Australia

Posted 16 February 2007 - 03:33 PM

I should really check what the aussie laws are heh.. we reguarly fly at around 4000ft in the middle of a light aircraft route.

#5 Mach62

Mach62

    RC-Cam'er

  • Members+
  • PipPip
  • 34 posts

Posted 17 February 2007 - 04:55 PM

I just don't see how they are going to enforce this at the hobby level. What are they going to do, have federal agents go to all fields to look for a guy with a pair of video goggles on and a transmitter in his hands? :blink:

#6 TheBros.Grimm

TheBros.Grimm

    RC-Cam Visitor

  • Members+
  • Pip
  • 3 posts

Posted 18 February 2007 - 11:55 AM

Your right. It's rediculous. Glad I own a big parcel of land. I'll be darned if I don't own the sky above it. It's a toy plane for christs sakes.

And what about the hobby rocket community? It's all getting so assinine. No wonder Bin laden hasn't been caught. Policing resources are being diverted to the war on drugs,on immigrants, and on terror and now this?

They can't even get Katrina relief right. I mean what's next......rules on flying a kite? :lol:

Edited by TheBros.Grimm, 18 February 2007 - 11:57 AM.


#7 Mark Harris

Mark Harris

    Intelligent Flight

  • Members+
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 427 posts
  • Location:Perth, W. Australia

Posted 18 February 2007 - 02:12 PM

I mean what's next......rules on flying a kite?

I'd say there probably already are...

#8 Terry

Terry

    RC-Cam Mentor

  • FPV Experimenter
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,130 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bridgwater,UK
  • Interests:Aerial Photography

Posted 19 February 2007 - 01:20 AM

KITE FLYING LEGISLATION
Civil Aviation legislation applicable to kite flying is contained in the Air Navigation Order 2000 (Statutory Instrument No 2000/1562) and the Rules of the Air Regulations 1996 (Statutory Instrument No 1996/1393). For the purposes of these documents kites are classified as aircraft.

The relevant parts of the above in relation to kites are:-

Article 86(2) () (iv)
A kite shall not be flown at a height of more than 30 metres above ground level within the aerodrome traffic zone of a notified aerodrome during the notified operating hours of that aerodrome. [Although it is generally accepted that for safety reasons you should not fly within 5km of any aerodrome].

Article 86(2) () (v)
A kite shall not be flown at a height of more than 60 metres above ground level.

The foregoing provisions may not take place without the permission in writing of the Authority and in accordance with any conditions subject to which that permission may have been granted. The application to be made NOT LESS than 28 days prior to the event

Article 63
Of the Order requires that a person shall not recklessly or negligently act in a manner likely to endanger an aircraft, or any person therein.

Article 64
Of the Order requires that a person shall not recklessly or negligently cause or permit an aircraft to endanger any person or property.

Rule 14 The Rules of the Air
A kite while flying at night at a height exceeding 60 metres above the surface shall display lights as follows:

(a) a group of two steady lights consisting of a white light placed 4 metres above a red light, both being of at least five candela and showing in all directions, the white light being placed not less than 5 metres or more than 10 metres below the lowest part of the kite;
() on the mooring cable, at intervals of not more than 300 metres measured from the group of lights referred to in sub-paragraph (a), groups of two lights of the colour and power and in the relative positions specified in that sub-paragraph, and, if the lowest group of lights is obscured by cloud, an additional group below the cloudbase; and
on the surface, a group of three flashing lights arranged in a horizontal plane at the apexes of a triangle, approximately equilateral, each side of which measures at least 25 metres; one side of the triangle shall be approximately at right angles to the horizontal projection of the cable and shall be delimited by two red lights; the third light shall be a green light so placed that the triangle encloses the object on the surface to which the kite is moored.
A kite while flying by day at a height exceeding 60 metres above the surface

shall have attached to it's mooring cable at intervals of not more than 200 metres measured from the lowest part of the kite, tubular streamers not less than 40 centimetres in diameter and 2 metres in length, and marked with alternate bands of red and white 50 centimetres wide, or at intervals of not more than 100 metres measured from the lowest part of the kite, streamers not less than 80 centimetres long and 30 centimetres wide at their widest point and marked with alternate bands of red and white 10 centimetres wide. :)

Terry

Edited by Terry, 19 February 2007 - 01:23 AM.


#9 Mark Harris

Mark Harris

    Intelligent Flight

  • Members+
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 427 posts
  • Location:Perth, W. Australia

Posted 19 February 2007 - 04:36 AM

See, told you :)

What about kites with onboard video?

#10 Mach62

Mach62

    RC-Cam'er

  • Members+
  • PipPip
  • 34 posts

Posted 19 February 2007 - 07:46 AM

It is my understanding that the Air Force has a secret squadron to patrol the skies for kites with cameras. When noted, they take a photo of the kite flyer and put it in a database for further assessment. This is funded by the "Black Opps" budget and is rumoured to cost 7.8 billion per annum. A small price to pay to keep the land safe from these evil kite flyers I say! :lol:

#11 lvsupertech

lvsupertech

    RC-Cam'er

  • Trusted Member
  • PipPip
  • 55 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Las Vegas Nevada USA O'ahu Island Hawaii
  • Interests:Flying model aircraft, Flying with onboard video, using video goggles. Boating

Posted 09 March 2008 - 07:59 PM

The ruling is not too bad for the hobby. It's actually saying that AC 91-57 of 1981 continues to apply to modelers without change. They stress 400 ft limit, this may force AMA to revise a loophole in AMA safety code, which was 400 ft limit within 3 miles of the airport. Otherwise it seems like a status quo as far as models go.
The transponder requirement for altitudes higher than 400 ft is troublesome because I don't know of any lightweight transponders. This rules out flying small models above 400 ft.

Now, how FAA is going to enforce 400 ft altitude limit? Was there a single court case since 1981 when FAA charged a modeler with flying above 400 ft?

Cheez; what about model rockets that soar well over the 400 feet. Also at our Ama field the turbine jets get unlimited vertical and out of sight! Why could there be a waiver on FPV flying at an AMA santioned field for us FPV'ers?



#12 W3FJW-Ron

W3FJW-Ron

    RC-Cam Mentor

  • Trusted Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 383 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tacoma WA USA
  • Interests:R/C in general, Amateur Radio, N ga Trains, RVing and fishing...

Posted 09 March 2008 - 08:13 PM

I just don't see how they are going to enforce this at the hobby level. What are they going to do, have federal agents go to all fields to look for a guy with a pair of video goggles on and a transmitter in his hands? :blink:


Hey! They gave up on trying to police the citizens band back in the 60s. Why not the aeronuts...er...nauts nowadays.......

Unfortunatly, here in the states there seems to be a good case of big brotherism going on since 9/11 and will probably get worse in the coming years unless we get someone with a little sense in the higher offices. I feel it's conceivable that anyone flying say, in an industrial or large commercial enterprise or in proximity to larger airfields or military bases, may be looked upon with suspision. It's really hard to imagine what may happen.
But then again, the majority of flights are around or below 400, 500 feet anyway especially for those of us that can't see as well as we did years ago.
Outside of FPVers, most flights are within those limits horizontally as well. As someone else in this thread said, as long as there are no incidents that are considered newsworthy or harm any passers by, I don't think there will be a problem. I can visualize though, that at sometime in the future, FPVers may have to build in some sort of redundancy into their airborne systems to help alleviate any problems (if any) that might occur.

Edited by W3FJW-Ron, 09 March 2008 - 08:39 PM.

73
Ron