The FAA vs. Model Airplanes

http://jonathanturley.org/2014/08/24/the-faa-vs-model-airplanes/

by luu • 12 years ago

91 30 12 years ago

I have mixed views on this. On the one hand, I completely support model aircraft hobbyists and I also support private drone operations (like real estate photography or search and rescue, or just recreational use).

However, there has to be a line where a remote control operation could interact with the national airspace system and the regulated operators therein. Not more than 500 feet and away from airports sounds like a good limit to me, adding on that the drone operator must maintain clearance from any aircraft that may exist in that area, such as helicopters.

I think the key change that is spooking the FAA is that drones may be operated (from a technical perspective) outside of direct view of the operator. "Traditional" model aircraft weren't generally taken far from the field they launched from; but a drone with a camera and transmitter can go much further.

Probably everyone has seen the video of the drone that was flown through a fireworks display. A very cool video indeed, but, also a good example of the FAA's concerns: if the drone is outside of view of the operator, and running at altitude, and not carrying a transponder, lights, or other equipment mandated to certified aircraft, then how is clearance from other aircraft ensured?

basseq• 12 years ago

Similarly, the line between "model aircraft" and "aircraft" is increasingly blurred. It's a spectrum between balsa-wood-and-rubber-band-kits and $4M-predator-drone (with a 48-foot wingspan and a 675-mile range). Somewhere in the middle are advanced RC helicopters and quadrocopters. On the upper end of the range are Amazon package drones.

I think it's perfectly reasonable for the FAA to have jurisdiction over the advanced end of that spectrum. The question is how do you draw the line? Height from ground and/or range from operator seem like reasonable metrics to me.

kenrikm4• 12 years ago

FAA is looking at the wrong group, the current rules say don't fly over 400 feet with a model aircraft. If a pilot of a real plane is flying under 400ft outside of the landing or takeoff pattern in Class B airspace there's an issue with that pilot or the plane. Model planes and real planes just don't operate in the same airspace very often so it has not been an issue over the last 50+ years.

Now the big issue that's spooking the FAA is that if you go to YouTube and search for FPV you'l find people flying their FPV planes at 2000, 3000 or even 5000ft where they become a risk to full size aircraft - even if they are only 2 or 3lbs of foam I could see them causing some damage to a jet engine. (Alt: but so do birds)

The small subset of idiots who bust the 400ft rule is making the FAA try to ban all FPV or outside line of sight operation which is a terrible idea as there are a lot of practical applications for model aircraft under 400ft (surveying, agriculture, logistics, Search and rescue etc) The FAA should only have jurisdiction over 500ft and in class B airspace as it has been for the past 80 years. They need to get a framework in place for licensed commercial operation under 400ft rather then just trying to ban it outright - people will do it regardless it's better if they are certified and follow some safety rules rather then the under the table hope you don't get caught stuff that's going on now.

twic• 12 years ago

There are two separable domains here.

Firstly, the traditional model aeroplane realm: below 400 feet altitude ("angels 0.4"?), and presumably not at all in the approaches to runways.

Secondly, the new realm of beyond-visual-range high-altitude model aeroplane flight, as explored in the firework video.

The first has long been legal. The second probably needs some new rules for safe use. But the problem is that the FAA has reacted to the emergence of the second by trying to annexe the first.

possibilistic• 12 years ago

I have a moderately informed opinion that might change as I learn more.

It seems that a few bad drone pilots are causing problems for all of the good actors in the system. Since there is so much potential for injury, and since it only takes one terrible incident to bring down stiff regulation on everyone, perhaps drone piloting should become a licensed activity or sport.

Establishing drone pilot licensing would theoretically ensure that legal, licensed pilots are aware of the risks and are willing to assume greater personal liability in the event of operator negligence. The hobby would gain legitimate legal grounding and become less "cowboy" more or less overnight. I can't imagine it would be remain crowded with careless risk takers.

If this is done early, before any major incident or bad press, the FAA won't have to step in and put more rules and regulations in place. If there are to be new rules, I imagine that they wouldn't be nearly as overbearing for a well-behaved professional hobby that doesn't needlessly put health and lives at risk.

I think professional hobbyist (not an oxymoron?) drone pilots should lobby lawmakers for something like this to take place as soon as possible, before the FAA starts making mandates. I can certainly see the FAA's concerns--there is legitimate risk and danger. Something will eventually happen that brings the entire house of cards down. If the drone pilots don't ask for this self-regulation themselves, I wouldn't necessarily be against the FAA moving ahead on its own.

On a personally related note, I'm involved in hobbyist high-wattage laser projection for making video games and interactive displays. (I think there are videos linked from my HN profile). The entire lasing community cringes when there is news of some idiot shining a laser pointer at a plane or when someone is caught using a high-wattage laser for destructive purposes. It's a seemingly regular occurrence, and I'm pretty certain there will be regulation coming down the pipeline eventually. It seems there is no shortage of careless ignorance when it comes to dangerous hobbies.

RealityVoid• 12 years ago

I wholly agree with you, and yet, I don't see many people proposing a licensing framework. It would even benefit the hobbyists very much. A similar problem was encountered in the early days of radio amateurism. They had problems with assholes hogging some parts of the spectrum with noisy equipment. Licensing worked very well in their case.

Just so you know, in my country, they made illegal any drone with a video camera on it. That sounds insane to me, hindering progress in what could be a very innovative field.

th0ma5• 12 years ago

Federally subsidized transponders and autopilots. It'd be great if I could make a model plane and add a < $100 device to allay concerns.

kenrikm4• 12 years ago

Indeed I'm aware that 3DRobotics was working on being able to feed ADS-B into the system for drones without using a ADS-B transponder.

blutack3• 12 years ago

As a counterpoint, in the UK:

- Under 7kg you must be able to see it well enough to avoid collisions with stuff

- Between 7-20kg stick below 400ft

- Above 20kg it's more complex; everything else applies to <20kg aircraft

- If you're flying aircraft for money, you need to apply to the CAA for a permit and demonstrate competency

- You may be allowed to fly higher or further away as a commercial operator if you can put together a safety case

- There are procedures for blocking off sections of airspace for flying BVLOS (Beyond Visual Line of Sight) with CAA permission

- You are very unlikely to get permission to routinely fly outside visual range pending the development of reliable sense and avoid systems

I personally think this makes a lot of sense; the majority of business operators & hobbyists seem to get on with things without causing much risk to manned aviation.

There were over 300 licensed small UAS operators at last count.

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/cap722.pdf

kenrikm4• 12 years ago

Wow, that's actually very reasonable. I never thought I would say it but the FAA should take some pointers from the Brits :P.

blutack3• 12 years ago

Yep, the CAA (and the BMFA, a voluntary organisation who admin the <20kg stuff) are quite pleasant to deal with.

It'll probably get privatised and subbed out to the lowest bidder at some point.

megablast• 12 years ago

There are lots of lessons the US could take from other countries, recently the issue about phone + internet bills.

digz• 12 years ago

For what it's worth, I have a pilot's license and also fly a quadcopter.

A big part of the issue is the separation of powers and who exactly has the right to regulate model aircraft. Congress explicitly and deliberately precluded the FAA from regulating model aircraft. A separate question is whether or not, given their proliferation, the new breed of model aircraft should be regulated. Given existing laws, that's a job for congress to decide.

As an aside: People wanting to do dumb things, will do dumb things. You don't need to create new sweeping regulation to punish people from doing dumb things either. Most cities and states have laws preventing people from deliberately invading others' privacy, or acting recklessly. Many of the concerns levied against drones are either already addressed or are impossible to regulate against. I'm often reminded of a news reporter on 9/11 that was asking the aviation expert on air with her how the planes were able to get into restricted airspace.

weddpros• 12 years ago

A 30 lbs / 15 ft glider can probably cause very serious injury when landed on a highway.

Any propeller plane / fast glider can cause death in a crowd.

Maybe a model airplane can cause a real plane to crash.

A firearm can probably do some serious damage to a flying plane too.

But... is it likely? does it happen? often?

When so-called risks are not measured, they're often mentioned to justify blind repression.

In the startup world, it's commonsense to measure things before taking action. It should inspire politics.

BTW, I recently saw a video titled "a drone almost crashed into an airplane" (or another catchy headline). Judging by the video, the distance between the two was at least 100 to 300 yards...

ceejayoz• 12 years ago

That's not a catchy headline, that's accurate per the FAA:

A near midair collision is defined as an incident associated with the operation of an aircraft in which a possibility of collision occurs as a result of proximity of less than 500 feet to another aircraft, or a report is received from a pilot or a flight crew member stating that a collision hazard existed between two or more aircraft.

https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/aim/aim0...

At 200 mph, a distance of 100 yards is closed in about a second.

VLM• 12 years ago

The direction of the velocity vectors matter a bit. You mean the min impact time is about a second. Obviously impact time is infinite if the paths don't converge.

zzzeek• 12 years ago

are you suggesting that shooting guns at planes should have been entirely legal until a "measurement study" were run that could confirm in fact that harm could be done? E.g. to prove that the bullet could in fact pierce the window of a plane 20 feet off the ground and kill a passenger, for example. Well we haven't tried yet, how can we know such harm is even possible? Or how likely is it that shooting a gun at a plane will actually kill one of the passengers in the plane, or blow out the engine and cause a crash, perhaps it's just so rare? Therefore it should be legal! Else repression!

seriously?

shkkmo• 12 years ago

Shooting a guns at a plane (even shooting a laser pointer at a plane) is illegal already.

The correct analogy would be: making firing a gun within 5 miles of an airport illegal because shooting a gun at a plane could cause harm.

karcass• 12 years ago

Banning RC planes inside class B airspace is does not seem like that big of a hardship. There are only 50 or so of them total in the United States, and they are very very busy most of the time.

danboarder• 12 years ago

Note that the FAA interpretive rule is open for public comment until September 23. See the link below for analysis and comment suggestions from the AMA, and speak up!

http://www.modelaircraft.org/aboutama/AMAInterpretiveRuleRes...

tsmith• 12 years ago

If you have a pilot license, and call into the ATC to get clearance, can you operate a drone for commercial purposes (e.g. taking photos for real estate listings)?

lutusp• 12 years ago

No, under present rules, drones are regulated without consideration of the operator's qualifications in other aircraft types. And for the moment, no commercial use of drones is being permitted, which means the use to which the drone is put is the issue, not who is operating it.

But this is going to change relatively soon -- there's too much public pressure to allow drones wider operational latitude.

anigbrowl2• 12 years ago

I find the model aircraft comparisons a bit dsingenuous. Most people imagine a hobby model aircraft that's 2-3 feet long, made out of balsa wood, styrofoam, or very lightweight plastic, and can't go much higher than 100 feet.

But serious enthusiasts can buy RCs from companies like Skymaster for a couple of thousand that are 8+ feet long, have turbofan engines, can reach 2000 feet, and airspeeds of up to 150 mph. Here's an example: http://www.skymasterjet.com/f16L.htm

Of course I don't want the FAA to be heavy handed - these things are super cool and I would like to try one myself! - but the state of the art in model aircraft is powerful enough to present a serious hazard to general aviation if misused. I'd rather see a clearly defined framework in place than a set of reactive rules after some avoidable tragedy.

blutack3• 12 years ago

When there is an incident, I don't think it'll be a $3000 turbine powered aircraft. The people operating & flying these things are likely to know what they are doing - and if they don't it'll be in bits far before it reaches an altitude dangerous to manned aviation.

The DJI Phantom and friends are awesome, but someone can take them out of the box and fly them up to a 1000ft or so with zero skill or knowledge of aviation culture required. And it can still take out an engine or cockpit window.

anigbrowl2• 12 years ago

Sorry, I don't think the price differential is automatically going to mean more sensible users. Here's an example from last year of an experienced RC pilot decapitating himself with a $2000 helicopter: http://blogs.wsj.com/metropolis/2013/09/05/remote-control-he...

Just yesterday there was a news story about a firearms instructor with years of experience getting killed while 'teaching' a 9 year old girl how to fire an Uzi submachine gun on full auto at a firing range. People who should know better do stupid shit all the time - not because they lack competence, but because they get overconfident.

robomartin• 12 years ago

I've been building and flying model airplanes, sailplanes, powered and helicopters for many decades. Flying model aircraft required time, knowledge and dedication. Before the Internet we used to connect over USENET. It wasn't uncommmon to engage in deep discussions of aerodynamics, design, composite fabrication, motor design, etc. I made many good friends in the aerospace industry during those days, including people like the chief engineer of the F-14 and members of the team who designed the F-117 Stealth Fighter. I provide this background as a backdrop for what, ultimately, is my opinion of what is going on right now in the multicopter world:

A bunch of FUCKING MORONS are going to ruin it for those of us who fell in love with this hobby as a conduit for science and learning. A passtime that used to be handed down from parents to children is in jeopardy of being regulated out of our lives because of a bunch of idiots with money and no brains and an apparent total lack of common sense, consideration, respect and care for the health and safety of others. No true model aircraft enthusiast of my generation would even consider doing some of the crap these morons are doing every day.

It's sad.

sounds• 12 years ago

Yes. Thank you.

The Eternal September seems to crop up in every close-knit community that grows exponentially. I am not aware of a solution to it.

ibisum• 12 years ago

We're going through a bit of a 'long September' period in the RC/Model world, as more and more newcomers to the hobby get things like the DJI Phantom, and then proceed to break all sorts of rules that have been a 'given' in the RC world previously. The sooner these users learn some manners, the better.

The FAA vs. Model Airplanes

Related Stories