From the FAA

[Dave_Trible]

I wanted to share this.  In the last week those who registered with the FAA as 'drone' pilots, and others, were sent a lengthy email describing the FAA's new plans since they were given the FAA reauthorization act is regards to model aircraft and drones.  They created a new acronym Low Altitude Authorization and Notification Capability or LAANC.  This is a system of rules and controls for models and drones.  Some of the things therein include:

Fliers must take and pass a test
All models must be registered
You must obtain a flight clearance to fly -good for twelve hours each time
Applies to models and drones (UAS) 55 pounds and under
Flight ceiling is 400 feet in controlled airspace
Flying sites must be registered and approved

AMA has scheduled a webinar for the SIGs (special interest groups) which will take place next week which we will take part in.

In order to test the system I send in a request to get my own flying field approved.  The following are those emails;

My email to the FAA

"Sirs I would like to get my flying field approved.  It is actually a piece of city park property given for this purpose.  I DO NOT fly drones,  Fly CONTROL LINE model airplanes (on 70' steel wires).  The site is at

39.0109 x -94.8846

5100 Frisbie Rd.
Shawnee, Kansas 66226

David Trible
AMA 20934
FA3ATY4T94

And the reply:

From www.gov:9-AJT-UAS-Integration@faa.gov

Mr. Trible,

The fact that you are a controlled line flyer there is no requirement for an agreement at this time

Regards

UAS Integration
Air Traffic Operations, AJT-3120
Federal Aviation Administration
U.S. Department of Transportation





Dave

[mike londke]

That's encouraging for CL. Thanks for sharing.

[Mike Griffin]

Dave are they saying that if you fly RC Fixed wing models you have to take the Part 107 FAA test? 

Thank you
Mike

[Dave_Trible]

Yes Mike that's the jest of it.  Also if your airplanes exceeds 100 mph you have to get extra waivers.  I'm hoping this will mostly clear control line.  If not you'd have to get a clearance from the FAA to take your combat ship or rat racer up.  We've been hearing many different interpretations since the latest rendition began from the FAA in October.  This time I got this straight form the horse's mouth, so to speak.  I'm taking this that we may not have to have anything to do with this rubbish. I'm registered and still think this is wise.  If nothing else you get sent info on what is going on.  Once in a while I might fly a little free flight or put an RC assist FF old timer in the air.  Unless I follow through the RC stuff may not fly again.   I talked to Chad Budreau at AMA today and he said this was good news and that they had been trying to work out the issues with FAA on CL and FF-maybe successfully it seems.  RC is in a heap of it though.  They will get the full measure from FAA.  It seems pretty clear to me that this wasn't as much to do with airport/aviation safety as  it is about clearing airspace for business and delivery drone operators.  This new 'DroneZone' email and rules explanation seem to say just that.   Monied interests win again.......AMA really never had a chance no matter what they did.  The other side of this played it masterfully.  If you fly CL on a shared RC field you might get caught up in it if your can't produce a registration.

[Dan McEntee]

   Thanks for the info Dave. I still find it amazing that they just don't cut their losses and go for the real problem and that is the forward point of view cameras and GPS guidance systems. Take those away and what have you got? Not any where near the same as some one flying their vintage Kaos pattern ship!
   Type at you later,
    Dan McEntee

[Ken Culbertson]

   Thanks for the info Dave. I still find it amazing that they just don't cut their losses and go for the real problem and that is the forward point of view cameras and GPS guidance systems. Take those away and what have you got? Not any where near the same as some one flying their vintage Kaos pattern ship!
   Type at you later,
    Dan McEntee

Sailplanes are going to be hurt the worst.  I kept flying them for a couple of years when I stopped stunt in '82 because the field was less than a mile from my house.  A lot of the guys I flew with had some stunt flying in their resume.  Expect some of them back.  City hall has won this one.  I think registering is a wise thing to do and I truly hope the FAA puts something in writing that will be distributed to local offices.  First I have heard of the 100mph rule.  What is the point of that anyway?   Did some FAA type get hit by a dolly when he was a kid?

Ken

[Tom Vieira]

HOLY CRAP!!!!!

The one thing we really NEEDED was given to you!  Print out this email, laminated it, and keep it in a bomb proof box!

Myself and a few others have been SCREAMING to get the FAA to put in writing a sort of special exemption for control line, given our hemisphere of operation.

Writing direct from the FAA since theirs is the opinion that really counts, and the AMA's is useless in court.  The regs were written so vaguely, it had to be intentional.

I'd still love to know how NAR has steered clear of all of this...

[Ken Culbertson]

HOLY CRAP!!!!!

Crap maybe but it is not Holly yet.  It is not until the final regulations are published and distributed to the field WITH an exemption in writhing that we can rest.  I got a similar response several months ago and I have a copy in my flight box.  Also, that response only covers one small part of the new regulations - "there is no requirement for an agreement at this time."

ken

[Tom Vieira]

Ken,

You're absolutely right pointing out "at this time".  However, at least it appears they know the difference, and hopefully that sticks around....

[Fredvon4]

I keep harping That any response from some underling at AMA, DOT, FAA does not change the WRITTEN AND CODIFIED DOT/FAA RULING....a bit of illegitimate legislation that has the power of constitutional law at the FEDERAL level.  So far...the written Rules on craft in the /national airspace ONLY exempt any craft under a very light weight....period. all other flying craft are subject to all rules (federal law) as written

You will never get to court to defend yourself with any of these worthless letters....your own expensive lawyer will advise you to be contrite and plead for forgiveness to the FAA

If some law official cites you with non compliance and the local FAA field office is bored and wants to look like they earn their keep.... they may or may not choose to prosecute...in court....

BUT still you will be required to sit for a hearing with the local FAA.  When you waive your right to a trial they will offer you to plead guilty and pay a fine. YOU ARE NOW a FEDERAL Felon and have just lost your voting and gun owner rights in USA----forever.

Do not doubt me on this the FCC and FAA cite and prosecute citizens all the time to prove to congress they are doing their chartered job.....

Above was a observation that all the drone hubbub was about clearing airspace for commercial drone ops...well duh....of the 4700+/- respondents in 2012 to the FAA proposed Rulemaking...MOST were corporate lawyers representing 40 or 50 companies who have vested interests in being legitimately licensed and many had their insurance companies asking for THE RULES so they could effectively write risk mitigation into the policies

the FAA was only ever tangentially concerned with low cost hobby drones... and then only because the news had several incidents where they did interfere with emergency operations or airport flight ops....

A commercial Drone for Surveillance , overhead photography, Animal / game managment, remote area search for missing humans, and dozens of other legitimate uses ...those drones are NOT cheap...$16,000~ $35,000 typically and the trained operator who need licensing.....   To the door delivery is just a novel idea of Google, Dominoes and Amazon...and it has or will happen in very small areas....but the major companies ...all of them that are or will use drones commercially--- need liability insurance and Legal authorization to operate....

[john e. holliday]

Dave, I hope you give a copy of this to the park department and the Shawnee Police.   Wonder if the KCRC Club will ask us if we are registered with the FAA when they hold the annual fun fly if they hold one.

[BillP]

I keep harping That any response from some underling at AMA, DOT, FAA does not change the WRITTEN AND CODIFIED DOT/FAA RULING....a bit of illegitimate legislation that has the power of constitutional law at the FEDERAL level.  So far...the written Rules on craft in the /national airspace ONLY exempt any craft under a very light weight....period. all other flying craft are subject to all rules (federal law) as written

You will never get to court to defend yourself with any of these worthless letters....your own expensive lawyer will advise you to be contrite and plead for forgiveness to the FAA

If some law official cites you with non compliance and the local FAA field office is bored and wants to look like they earn their keep.... they may or may not choose to prosecute...in court....

BUT still you will be required to sit for a hearing with the local FAA.  When you waive your right to a trial they will offer you to plead guilty and pay a fine. YOU ARE NOW a FEDERAL Felon and have just lost your voting and gun owner rights in USA----forever.

Do not doubt me on this the FCC and FAA cite and prosecute citizens all the time to prove to congress they are doing their chartered job.....

Above was a observation that all the drone hubbub was about clearing airspace for commercial drone ops...well duh....of the 4700+/- respondents in 2012 to the FAA proposed Rulemaking...MOST were corporate lawyers representing 40 or 50 companies who have vested interests in being legitimately licensed and many had their insurance companies asking for THE RULES so they could effectively write risk mitigation into the policies

the FAA was only ever tangentially concerned with low cost hobby drones... and then only because the news had several incidents where they did interfere with emergency operations or airport flight ops....

A commercial Drone for Surveillance , overhead photography, Animal / game managment, remote area search for missing humans, and dozens of other legitimate uses ...those drones are NOT cheap...$16,000~ $35,000 typically and the trained operator who need licensing.....   To the door delivery is just a novel idea of Google, Dominoes and Amazon...and it has or will happen in very small areas....but the major companies ...all of them that are or will use drones commercially--- need liability insurance and Legal authorization to operate....

+1 on that.

[Jim Kraft]

Dave, It seems a little strange that Chad had to learn from you about control line being exempt. Are they not supposed to have all the straight dope from the FAA? And should this good news have been posted on the AMA website? Was Chad all excited to post this good news right away on the AMA website? I think they could care less to be right honest. Sad but true. We were only numbers to add to the whole. That did not work. Now they could care less what happens with us. We have already been used and they are done with us. Just the way I see it.

[Keith Miller]

Dave are they saying that if you fly RC Fixed wing models you have to take the Part 107 FAA test? 

Thank you
Mike

No, the Part 107 registration is still different than recreational drone pilot registration. The requirement for recreational drone pilots to take a test was in the 2018 legislation but deferred until the FAA could determine how to administer such a test.

[Dave_Trible]

No, the Part 107 registration is still different than recreational drone pilot registration. The requirement for recreational drone pilots to take a test was in the 2018 legislation but deferred until the FAA could determine how to administer such a test.

Thanks for the correction, I found that sentence.  It is so that for now you would not need to take the test but still have to follow most the other rules.  This is labeled as a temporary matter and could change. Again this is really a concern for RC.  Control line looks pretty safe for now.  There have been a couple suggestions made to AMA about getting a more clear CL exclusion written into the FAA rules in their talks with them, so the meaning is obvious to lay people, law enforcement and city government , with no room for debate..  Your city could still outlaw model flying if they wish but it couldn't be based upon FAA rules.

Dave

[Dave_Trible]

Dave, It seems a little strange that Chad had to learn from you about control line being exempt. Are they not supposed to have all the straight dope from the FAA? And should this good news have been posted on the AMA website? Was Chad all excited to post this good news right away on the AMA website? I think they could care less to be right honest. Sad but true. We were only numbers to add to the whole. That did not work. Now they could care less what happens with us. We have already been used and they are done with us. Just the way I see it.

Jim I can only say that the squeaky wheel gets greased.  Chad has been returning my emails within minutes and seems to have a genuine (newfound?) interest in control line and listening to us.  I can see they might be unsure about the future of growth in RC given all this and know they need to redirect a little attention towards CL and free flight which he also talked about.  Maybe our stock went up.

Dave

[Chuck_Smith]

OK, as a pilot for decades, I need to ask where some people get their information from that has them so hate the FAA they have to write in caps and tell people they'll be felons? (Not True BTW, usually not even a misdemeanor!)

I have - and again this is over a few decades - always found the FAA people I've interacted with to be professional, reasonable people who are often aeromodelers.

I've owned an experimental airplane, I've got a low-level acrobatic waiver. I've been, shall we say - on the wrong side of things with the FAA once and they were respectful and clearly looking out for everyone's best interests, including mine in the long run.

If anyone here has personally had a negative experience with the FAA I'd like to know about it. Not some "my friend's uncle's barber heard" story.

I've read on this forum tall tales of the FAA showing up and walking the ramp writing tickets for violations, and anybody who know the least bit about aviation knows it doesn't happen that way. You can let an airplane fall into disrepair, untie it, fire it up, taxi it past FAA examiners while flipping them off and even back-taxi the active and they don't care. As long as the wheels stay firmly on the ground you're fine.

The FAA guys and gals aren't the problem, it's the politician's giving them dumbass direction.

Chuck

[Will Hinton]

Chuck, I have to second you on that.  For the 5 years I operated under the umbrella of the Cleveland GADO I had nothing but cooperation and goodwill.  I even had an off-airport landing with my Pawnee once, and the guys did not even come out to inspect the damage until my insurance was done with the claim, then the guy didn't even require that I be there at the airport to interview with him.  He called me that evening and said he was happy there were no injuries, the plane didn't look too bad, and he hoped I would be back in the air soon.  Wrote it up as an incident and we were done.
I had several other dealings with them as an instructor and had the same friendly cooperation.

[Jim Kraft]

Dave, we can only hope. Chuck, I would agree with you except FAA has given the job to law enforcement. The FAA only makes the rules as far as modeling goes, but the local police do the work. It is how they see fit unless there are specific exemptions.

[Chuck_Smith]

Jim, I've never heard of an FAA rule being enforced by the police. They wouldn't even know the FAR's anyway. Given the society we live in today I'm pretty sure some old geezer like me flying an R/C airplane is the absolute last thing they're going to worry about, especially if any fines imposed are the property of the federal government and not going into the local coffers.

And BTW, hint, hint, our club's shows make money, some of which gets donated to the local first responders, so they pretty well side with us on matters. Money talks.

Chuck

[Dave_Trible]

I think what is more likely is someone will complain about noise or have another gripe ( they were peeping in my windows with that Ringmaster) and will attempt to use these rules as a weapon.  They would call the cops who would google up the FAA rules...yada yada....the city attorney is hailed.....I'm sure the FAA doesn't plan to waste a dime in manpower to chase down every drone that makes it above the tree line.  This is exactly why I hope they get the wording in the rules plain as day.

Dave

[Fredvon4]

Chuck / Will you guys are a sample of two out of hundreds of FAA regional field and military liason offices

Your personal experience my well be the norm....but I take exception that you want citizens to risk being a Federal felon based on your very infrequent interaction....

I dare you to look up and post...(you asserted I am full of hooey so you do the search) FCC and FAA enforcement actions 2017 to present....BOTH do enforcement and on their respective sites post the violation, their efforts to contact the violator, proceedings, fines and jail times, or confiscation of equipment or property...it is public information....

I can say with certainty the DOT FAA has already prosecuted Drone operations for violating the 2012 set of rules...
I can say with certainty the FAA has supported Local enforcement prosecuting ignorant citizens who shot down Drones...that were operating legitimately in the airspace

I am KD5NCO with a General FCC license....there are FCC people who look for me to violate my license class and send me notice of violation if I do...Each and every year they strictly enforce and publish the penalties just so schmoes like me do not crank it up to the full 5 thousands watts my transmitter is capable of....

Do not tell me the DOT/FAA does not enforce..I do not believe you

https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/agc/practice_areas/enforcement/enforcement_actions/

[BillP]

I think the pause is to be aware anything not written in the official FAA regs should be taken with a grain of salt. Otherwise it may put you in an unfriendly situation with the FAA. Careless flying, busting regs and causing a passenger plane to crash would certainly be looked at differently than flying safely while busting technical regs.
 
I'm a several decades pilot and plane owner too...spent the better part of 2 yrs dealing with the FAA on a home built aw cert. They were always great to deal with. They are really a bunch of flyers like us and try to help when they can.  I've never been ramp checked but did have a couple FAA guys show up and ask questions about another plane at the airport. It had just violated Kennedy Space Center air space during a launch. They FAA was at the field within minutes of the violation (before the plane returned) and not showing happy faces. Lots of flyers violate air space and never even get a memo from the FAA, so whether a felony can happen is probably directly related to the offense.
 

[Brett Buck]

OK, as a pilot for decades, I need to ask where some people get their information from that has them so hate the FAA they have to write in caps and tell people they'll be felons? (Not True BTW, usually not even a misdemeanor!)

I have - and again this is over a few decades - always found the FAA people I've interacted with to be professional, reasonable people who are often aeromodelers.

    I haven't found anyone that actually flies model airplanes, but universally, they seem to be very professional and reasonable, and have never caused us a second's difficulty. The AMA seems to be the biggest obstruction, they have been the ones muddling the waters.

    As an aside, to Fred's point, in fact, the actual written FAA rules appear to exclude CL and FF from any regulation. The regulation applies to an "Umanned Aerial System" (UAS), which is then defined to include a flying component, and a "ground control system". This appears to exclude FF for sure, and almost certainly CL. It does include a "tethered drone" which is a typical quadcopter-like drone with a ground control system through a slack electrical tether replacing the radio link.

    The problem I have had with the AMA approach so far is that they have, until apparently, the last few weeks, to draw any distinction between "UAS" and "not a UAS", and have not pushed to make that explicit in the flowed-down information or instruction. And have negotiated with the FAA about processes to follow that also do not apply at all, presuming that all model aviation is RC, which definitely *is* a UAS. They aren't getting out of that.

     While I am glad the Budreau now appears to see it, the AMA and the AMA Government Relations Team, had been absurdly passive, first refusing to challenge the registration that violated the Special Rule for Model aircraft (which was challenged by a individual, who immediately won the case), and then not bothering to consider or distinguish between things that are a UAS and things that are not a UAS, leaving CL and FF out of their consideration completely. That the Special Rule for Model Aircraft was repealed/OBE was very predictable and inevitable step, because the fundamental truth is that *drones and anything like them will certainly be heavily regulated* and that was *always unavoidable*. The AMA took the tack that they were going to embrace drones and then dodge or negotiate the regulation away, which was *inconceivable* and could never have happened.

   Now, maybe, having been completely (and predictably) steamrolled by the drone industry, they get it. So far, all indications are that the FAA understands their own rules about UAS and otherwise, and the individual FAA centers seem to be getting up to speed, too. It's the AMA who needs to get up to speed, and I hope they do before they step on their own puds again.

    Brett

[Dave Hull]

"I've never heard of an FAA rule being enforced by the police."

Let's skip the generic statements and cut right to it.  At Apollo XI field we have had field enforcement (and closures) by the local police. When they park a police cruiser on the runway, and shut down operations, I'd call that enforcement. When a "NO FLYING" sign citing the code is posted and the police start to patrol the park, that's enforcement.

When the tower contacts the Sheriffs department to have a police chopper fly down your runway, and then around the control line circles, using the bullhorn to announce flight altitudes--new ones that were less than the posted ones--that's enforcement.

Was anyone arrested? No. Not yet. But what if one of the officers had just cruised thru, and then someone went up, and they had to come back. Would they impound your equipment? Would one of your members strenuously object? Would they haul him away? Thankfully, we don't know that yet.

When the FAA came out, en masse, to view the Valley Flyer's jet rally, the California Highway Patrol even showed up. Uhhh, they weren't there for potential future enforcement. They wanted to learn how to fly models. Yeah, right....

Dave Hull
Valley Circle Burners

[Chuck_Smith]

Fredvon 4,

With all due respect, my experiences are not based on one out of many, but as several decades of a large community of pilots. I've flown everywhere, and have thousands upon thousands of interactions with the FAA, ATC, NTSB, NOAA, FCC, etc. So have all my fellow pilots. It is from that pool of knowledge and experience I draw my conclusions. 

And if I may point out - it appears from your posts you have no similar first-hand experience, so I'm having an issue understanding the foundation of your arguments.

I promise I will be willing to change my point of view if presented with factual, not hypothetical data.

I'm a member of a club that had the cops shut down our flying due to noise complaints back in the 70's and the FAA had ZERO to do with it. We then purchased property, worked with the local government to get a "Special Use Permit" and we've now been there a long time and are basically, protected by the local gov. We make donations and they love us.

We didn't accomplish this by whining, complaining, or playing the victim card. We did it by using our brains, our backs and our resources.

Also, traditional R/C flying is a dying pastime anyway. My local club has transitioned from a group of modelers to a bunch of geezers flying electric foamie toys with stabilization. We'll always have the few hardcore 3D/Turbine/Helo crowd but let's face it, that's big money stuff. The days of the average guy with an Ugly Stick and a .60 are long gone, so what's the big whoop anyway?

 
Chuck

 

[Dave_Trible]

Another round may come as the Department of Justice is concerned about cyber security and wants to have a say about ‘drones’ that can carry a camera.......

Dave

[Fredvon4]

Chuck, sir also with all due respect

I indeed have experience with a Federal bureaucracy and their enforcement actions...I have first hand experience with the FCC....my opinions are a belief and fact based set of assumptions. 

I say IF you are ever cited under any FAA regulation/ rule you will have to defend yourself with an expensive lawyer. 

I say the written rules are what will be adjudicated...not what some AMA or FAA minion opines...

I say that if, like most citizens, you waive a trial and agree to pay a fine...in the eyes of federal GUN laws you are now a prohibited person

I say that the FAA does do ENFORCEMENT EVERY DAY.....

https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/agc/practice_areas/enforcement/reports/

I am also a very devoted second amendment advocate and follow constitutional law very closely as relates to gun rights.

some one above said something about small stuff was a simple misdemeanor...not true!

There is no such thing in FEDERAL LAW--- all violations, no matter how small are felony convictions unless you went to court and were adjudicated NOT GUILTY...

I know that under federal law waiving trial and agree to the fine or loss of property makes that person a PROHIBITED PERSON as relates to gun ownership...Just the same as a felony conviction for DWI does at the state level.

do a little study...read a few links I provided

laugh a little at how in 2017 most FAA enforcements were fines for drugs...none yet for violating drone or UAS regs...

note most enforcements are citing companies not so much individual citizens

I am not saying the FAA is going to deliberately screw with model airplane guys

But I am saying that no person at AMA or DOT/FAA can write you a note opining on what they THINK  the regulation means or should mean.....

edited in....and BTW civil fines by DOT- FAA -FCC -HUD or whoever go to US Treasury in that agencies account....
So not only are they unelected minions with great power--- they have a vested interest in ENFORCEMENT....Thunk ON THAT A TAD..kind sirs....


ok you got no clue what the above means.....go read my link on enforcement reports and look at the pages and pages of fines....seems to me everybody has to "pay to play" in the FAAs world

[Terrence Durrill]

Yes Mike that's the jest of it.  Also if your airplanes exceeds 100 mph you have to get extra waivers.  I'm hoping this will mostly clear control line.  If not you'd have to get a clearance from the FAA to take your combat ship or rat racer up.  We've been hearing many different interpretations since the latest rendition began from the FAA in October.  This time I got this straight form the horse's mouth, so to speak.  I'm taking this that we may not have to have anything to do with this rubbish. I'm registered and still think this is wise.  If nothing else you get sent info on what is going on.  Once in a while I might fly a little free flight or put an RC assist FF old timer in the air.  Unless I follow through the RC stuff may not fly again.   I talked to Chad Budreau at AMA today and he said this was good news and that they had been trying to work out the issues with FAA on CL and FF-maybe successfully it seems.  RC is in a heap of it though.  They will get the full measure from FAA.  It seems pretty clear to me that this wasn't as much to do with airport/aviation safety as  it is about clearing airspace for business and delivery drone operators.  This new 'DroneZone' email and rules explanation seem to say just that.   Monied interests win again.......AMA really never had a chance no matter what they did.  The other side of this played it masterfully.  If you fly CL on a shared RC field you might get caught up in it if your can't produce a registration.

       I thought this was AMERICA.  My attitude on this "rubbish" is "come and take it" !      Vote solid red on November 03, 2020.                    

[Brett Buck]

Chuck, sir also with all due respect

I indeed have experience with a Federal bureaucracy and their enforcement actions...I have first hand experience with the FCC....my opinions are a belief and fact based set of assumptions. 

I say IF you are ever cited under any FAA regulation/ rule you will have to defend yourself with an expensive lawyer. 

I say the written rules are what will be adjudicated...not what some AMA or FAA minion opines...

    I agree with you on the topic of the AMA.  But, who, exactly, would be of sufficient authority at the FAA to make their opinion matter? If you ask the lead of the local ATC facility (in whose airspace your flying field falls), and they say "we understand, no problem, do as you wish", is that sufficient?  If not, what would be sufficient?

     Brett

[Fredvon4]

The exact wording of any Federal Regulation, or sub part, as written--- will be what the Lawyers and Judges adhere to.   IF YOU ARE CITED.

I would assume that the local ATC or Airfield administrator telling a individual or group...have at it have fun would tend to indicate no enforcement actions will happen....IOW minimal risk

Then there is the Johnny Law ( who I do respect generally) who's office got the FAA pamphlet back in late 2012 or early 2013 about the new DOT/FAA USA airspace rules .....and combined with the lil old lady who hates seeing men and kids have fun.........most LEOs are not really lawyers and have limited training in any FEDERAL rule, regulation or Law...but the DOT FAA sent the pamphlet describing the growing problem of DRONES and how they need first responders to help police the problem...

There is no appointed or hired member of any government agency that can say or interpret the actual written FAR to mean other that what it means in English language and legal precedent.

You could have a recorded conversation with the current head of the FAA*, Mr. Elwell,telling you that you can do XYZ and later you do that XYZ and get cited....

While the Head poobaa's actual voice telling you "whatever"  is interesting , and may afford some mitigation of the penalty...

His opinion still does not grant you immunity from breaking a FEDERAL LAW as written.

*Aug 27, 2019 - Mr. Elwell was sworn in to office on June 26, 2017 following his appointment by President Trump. He also served as Acting FAA Administrator


All I have ever done on this forum,and this subject, is to lay our potential RISKS when dealing with the UNELECTED FEDERAL BUREAUCRACIES....

anyone see the Face Book video of a police office (body cam) telling a teen ager he could not ride his bicycle on a sidewalk. The Teen asked when did the law change...The LEO sez it has always been against the law...the Teen semi respectfully tells the officer to go Google city ordinance XXXX that states XXXX and my riding is legal here in this public space...the LEO is of course pist off at being schooled by a kid and gets very disrespectful....and butt hurt....

In my rural area-- I do not fly anymore ---but when I did ----I had 4 "Authorities to beware of" since the 2012 USA ruling:

Sheriff
Town PD
County Constable
Park Police

I have lived here about 28 years now...most of these guys are good rational guys and ladies... BUT we do have one or two arrogant, knows everything, butt head you can not and should not argue with....

[Tony Drago]

 I've seen this video. That kid was 100% correct and put that police officer in his place. But now he has an officer that will be looking for any excuse to bust him one way or another.

[Brett Buck]

The exact wording of any Federal Regulation, or sub part, as written--- will be what the Lawyers and Judges adhere to.   IF YOU ARE CITED.

   So, when the exact wording excludes CL and FF (they do not use a "ground control station", and therefore are not a UAS, and therefore not subject to regulation - which has been the case since day one), and the local FAA representatives who are in charge of your airspace say, you are not subject to regulation and are free to go about your business, is that enough?   

   At some point you have to be willing to take "yes" for an answer.

     Brett

[Howard Rush]

Looks like CL is OK here, then, but the wind in the valley can be tricky.

[Dave_Trible]

The Park and Forest Service own drones are grounded for now.  They were mostly made in China and the Justice Dept. is concerned they contain spying software and could provide data and secrets unwittingly..................

Dave

[RC Storick]

[Fredvon4]

sparky ...like the video....kinda makes my point....DOT/FAA minions and appointed rule makers are mindless DRONES...not a pun

[Tom Vieira]

The control tower at the airport across the street from our circles called the cops on us at a contest this summer.  luckily the responding officer did this as a kid, so just sat there for a few hours watching the PAMPA events!  The Airport Manager also helped smooth things over, but he runs the terminal and works for the city.  the guys in the tower report to Washington...

lucky officer.... he was in air conditioning....

[Ken Culbertson]

Although we are clearly exempt to anyone with half a brain, we still need it stated clearly in what the FAA distributes to the field offices/towers, etc.  Are we not technically a "ground control station" ourselves?  It is not the 99.99% of FAA employees that are good logical folks, it is that .01% that can ruin your day.

Ken

[Fredvon4]

Brett...Try as I might I can only find Small UAS definitions that DO NOT EXCLUDE any type aircraft or Ground Control

This is from the footnotes of a recent April 2019 request for public comment :

Footnotes
(1)  A small UAS is defined as a small unmanned aircraft and its associated elements (including communication links and the components that control the small unmanned aircraft) that are required for the safe and efficient operation of the small unmanned aircraft in the national airspace system (NAS). A small unmanned aircraft is defined as an unmanned aircraft weighing less than 55 pounds on takeoff, including everything that is on board or otherwise attached to the aircraft. 14 CFR 107.3.

Here is the current FAA definition:

§107.3   Definitions.
The following definitions apply to this part. If there is a conflict between the definitions of this part and definitions specified in §1.1 of this chapter, the definitions in this part control for purposes of this part:

Control station means an interface used by the remote pilot to control the flight path of the small unmanned aircraft.

Corrective lenses means spectacles or contact lenses.

Small unmanned aircraft means an unmanned aircraft weighing less than 55 pounds on takeoff, including everything that is on board or otherwise attached to the aircraft.

Small unmanned aircraft system (small UAS) means a small unmanned aircraft and its associated elements (including communication links and the components that control the small unmanned aircraft) that are required for the safe and efficient operation of the small unmanned aircraft in the national airspace system.

Unmanned aircraft means an aircraft operated without the possibility of direct human intervention from within or on the aircraft.

Visual observer means a person who is designated by the remote pilot in command to assist the remote pilot in command and the person manipulating the flight controls of the small UAS to see and avoid other air traffic or objects aloft or on the ground.

Here is a short dissertation by me on a gun Forum where similar arguments are being made....  The real point is how the law is written and any precedents as relates to enforcement....or congressional intent....hint

Beware there are entities both elected and non elected that seek to silence a segment of our citizenry...not paranoid if it is demonstrably true

If you do not want to follow  further into Fredvoon4 politics please move on

First, understand what ATF (and any government agency) is required to do:
Congress passes a law, President signs it.
-The government agency that has regulatory authority writes regulations to implement that law.
- the regulation is usually far more detailed than the law, but must be guided by the law. (example: The law may say "firearm", but gives the regulatory agency the authority to further define "firearm")
- the regulation is supposed to reflect the original intent of Congress.
-To implement a new regulation or change an existing one, the agency must publish the change and allow a public comment period before implementation.
-Since humans are involved, opinions as to Congressional intent, court rulings, new laws.......all have an effect on regulations.

So yes, "rules" CAN change.

What kind of "rules":
-Regulations. While not the law, they carry the weight of law.
-Rulings. When the law is unclear or needs clarification, the agency can issue a ruling on a definition, a regulation or how a procedure may have changed.
-Opinion & Determination Letters. "Is this a gun?" You ask, ATF may answer. The opinion IS NOT LAW, but merely opinion. While technically the letter only applies to that question or that item only, often it is looked on as a change to regulations........and they aren't. Opinion or Determination Letters are not law, but merely the opinion of a staff attorney as to the applicability of the law AT THAT TIME.

[944_Jim]

What scares me is how easily two (or three) control lines (cables) could be interpreted as "communications links." The FAA hasn't exactly defined "communications links" as electronic/radio/hands-off signalling devices, with no physical connection between pilot and plane, nor have they defined electronically pre-programmed/autonomous aircraft  capable of flying a route without human control (which sounds more like a solid definition of drone to me) as UAS.

To that end, I can see how a casual look at the center of the circle could be interpreted as a ground station. After all, we are stationed at the center of the circle, and on the ground.
While the above is a literal interpretation of the "rule," I want to look at another literal interpretation.

I take "Unmanned aircraft..operated without the possibility of direct human intervention from within or on the aircraft" as excluding CL because our models cannot fly to any significant extent without direct human intervention (FAA, watch how well it flies if I let these lines go). Also, we literally perform "direct intervention from within or on the aircraft" anytime we mechanically move the bellcrank within or on the aircraft. The statement does not literally state the pilot must be in the aircraft to perform said intervention. Yes, I'm looking for the wiggle-room.


Who am I?
No one the FAA would recognize...just a guy that wishes the FAA would clear this up by specifying that UAV/UAS control systems are electronics-based with no physical/direct connection to the aircraft during operation. That would cover RC, IR control, microwave link, or anything else excluding tensioned strings between operator/aircraft or a mechanical connection between pilot and aircraft.

Or if the FAA used words like "any aircraft operated by mechanical man-machine interface or fixed-in-place control surfaces are exempt" would go a long way towards giving us the relief we need to separate "us" (including Free-Flight) from "them."

If the FAA did only that, we could go back to slinging our toys around without fearing the FAA/LEO.

I have to wonder why the FAA can't (won't) define/exempt free-flight and CL. Yes, I am also a conspiracy theorist.

[JoeJust]

 

I have to wonder why the FAA can't (won't) define/exempt free-flight and CL. Yes, I am also a conspiracy theorist.

   Great Britain has done that in a quick easy to understand message. Gol to <Carrier Deck.com> for the message.
Joe

[Ken Culbertson]

I wonder how the 400' rule is applies to slope soaring?   Some of the slopes are more than that.  Launch point or valley floor.  Just one of those things that make you go ... humm.

Ken

[Matt Colan]

Today I went through recurrent training at work and one of the portions of the training was regarding UAS and the NAS. The basic premise of all of the registration and LAANC is to get the requests out of our ears because we have to direct air traffic, which is more important than somebody’s request to fly a drone to take pictures for a house or deliver amazon packages. It’s part of the integration of UAS into the NAS for the businesses that want to operate them. In my opinion,  there was nothing in the training videos that led me to think we are in any sort of danger from the FAA regarding CL aircraft being regulated. ATC is being left alone from all of the approvals the companies and other operators want to use, and being directed to go through LAANC.

[wwwarbird]

 What is LAANC?

[Ken Culbertson]

What is LAANC?

Low Altitude Authorization and Notification Capability

[Fredvon4]

Wayne....I sometimes Don't read original post(er) (OP) thoroughly

in this case THE OP   does a very good job of stating the issue and how it involves us

"I wanted to share this.  In the last week those who registered with the FAA as 'drone' pilots, and others, were sent a lengthy email describing the FAA's new plans since they were given the FAA reauthorization act is regards to model aircraft and drones.  They created a new acronym Low Altitude Authorization and Notification Capability or LAANC.  This is a system of rules and controls for models and drones.  Some of the things therein include:

Fliers must take and pass a test
All models must be registered
You must obtain a flight clearance to fly -good for twelve hours each time
Applies to models and drones (UAS) 55 pounds and under
Flight ceiling is 400 feet in controlled airspace
Flying sites must be registered and approved"

Unfortunately most of US think it is very obvious the FAA means to control DRONES IN THE NAS....the unfortunate part is ---THEY suck at describing what is a "Unmanned Aerial System" (UAS)  IS...
And we know from history what is IS, may have different connotations.......yes virginia I am making a political satirical observation.....grin

[Matt Colan]

They made it pretty clear to us in our training that a UAS involved a data link of some kind and ways to combat unauthorized drone usage was geofencing, jamming or shooting nets around them to get rid of the problem of drones flying in and around our airports

[Brett Buck]

They made it pretty clear to us in our training that a UAS involved a data link of some kind ...

   Exactly. At some point, we have to be willing to accept "yes" for an answer. The definition of a UAS doesn't include CL, the actual wording supports that, the local and regional FAA representatives say we are not regulated and we can go about our business, and your training says essentially the same thing. So at what point do we starting believing it?

   Brett

   

[Dave Hull]

At the point where the local enforcement crew let's us keep flying when the R/C guys get shut down for LOA violations. Here's hoping they stay within their clearance, and we don't have to put the system to the test.

Wasn't looking good a couple weeks ago:  knuckle-droner zoomed off beyond line of sight to get video of a trash fire just off the field--while a sheriff's department helo was in the area, circling the fire at low altitude.

Dave