Latest FAA requirements for model aircraft

[GallopingGhostler]

I received a notice that my FAA registration for recreational drones will expire in December. I also noticed that there now seems to be additional requirements for me, which appears to include identifying all my R/C aircraft.

Although I have kept my FAA registration, I have not done any serious flying for the past 5 years.

The additional requirements, to pass a test, and I am trying to make heads or tails out of all the rest. Tonight I Emailed the R/C club president as to such new requirements, wanting to find more.

So far, it appears that C/L is exempt, however, the need for FAA registration may be required to comply with jurisdictions that require it for use of their grounds.

I went to the AMA website, but unfortunately, they don't have it in black and white where one can just read it, then know where they stand.

Do any of you know of a web page somewhere out in the Ethernet netherworld that someone has laid out things in simple, organized, easy to read English?

My gut level feeling at this point is that I should focus exclusively on C/L flight and R/C flight is pretty much so, condemned, especially with the requirement for model aircraft transponders.

Sorry for the rant, but if any of you can make heads or tails out of this confusion, please show the way.

[Rusty]

Can you expound on what "additional requirements" is?   RC aircraft must have the owner's name, address and AMA # in addition to the FAA number.  If you fly in a FRIA you don't need a transponder.   Spektrum sells a transponder if you fly outside the FRIA. 

[Dave Hull]

Ghostler,

You might look at this page on the AMA website:

https://amablog.modelaircraft.org/blog/remote-id-explained/

At the bottom it clearly says that--"Free Flight and Control Line models are exempt from the Remote ID requirement."

Note that there is now an extension, since no one could comply with the regulation by the initial deadline.

Finally, we should not allow people to take us down a rabbit hole wherein a property owner or site administrator wants control line "to have paperwork just like the rest."  It is a government requirement, and if the Feds say we don't need it, then the city's Parks and Rec department (or whoever else might be involved) shouldn't be trying to establish a requirement that doesn't exist.

For RC, if your field has been granted FRIA status, you don't need the transponder, period. The guys right now that are having problems are the clubs whose field is within 5 miles of a full-scale airport. I don't think any of these have been granted a FRIA yet. That info is a couple of weeks old though.

If you are using a drone for commercial flying, then you get the full package of regulations, as you should. It is a business and the FAA has decided to allow those flights to encroach in all kinds of places in the city. If a guy is going to fly up and down my street and over houses to take real estate pictures, I expect the FAA to ensure he's not just another yahoo that doesn't know the rules. We'll see how well that works over the long run.

Dave

[Ken Culbertson]

It is a government requirement, and if the Feds say we don't need it, then the city's Parks and Rec department (or whoever else might be involved) shouldn't be trying to establish a requirement that doesn't exist.

Our local "government" has taken the low road and simply banned "model airplanes" on all public land.  Simpler that way.

Ken

[GallopingGhostler]

You might look at this page on the AMA website: https://amablog.modelaircraft.org/blog/remote-id-explained/ At the bottom it clearly says that--"Free Flight and Control Line models are exempt from the Remote ID requirement."

That is what AMA says, but I have not heard FAA truly clarify this. One thing I noticed is that the FAA is continuing down their road to apparently have us all register every single model airplane, "all drones weighing more than 0.55 lbs." When one logs into their website under their registration, now these additional menu items appear.

Also, AMA has all these pretty web pages, and all these pretty videos, but I have yet to see something clear, direct and concise. I am tired of fluff and I want to see substance.

Note that there is now an extension, since no one could comply with the regulation by the initial deadline. Finally, we should not allow people to take us down a rabbit hole wherein a property owner or site administrator wants control line "to have paperwork just like the rest."  It is a government requirement, and if the Feds say we don't need it, then the city's Parks and Rec department (or whoever else might be involved) shouldn't be trying to establish a requirement that doesn't exist.

For RC, if your field has been granted FRIA status, you don't need the transponder, period. The guys right now that are having problems are the clubs whose field is within 5 miles of a full-scale airport. I don't think any of these have been granted a FRIA yet. That info is a couple of weeks old though.

My greatest gripe is the AMA website doesn't use a direct approach. I am not interested in indoctrination, I am interested in plain simple education.

Our local "government" has taken the low road and simply banned "model airplanes" on all public land.  Simpler that way.

Yup, this is what I am concerned about. National parks? Forget it. Used to be that one could go there, as long as he didn't bother anyone, had the freedom to fly. Not any more.

I don't like the direction things are apparently headed. As such, I'm thinking seriously of dumping all my R/C stuff and stick with C/L and F/F. Everything is going socialista.

[Brett Buck]

That is what AMA says, but I have not heard FAA truly clarify this. One thing I noticed is that the FAA is continuing down their road to apparently have us all register every single model airplane, "all drones weighing more than 0.55 lbs." When one logs into their website under their registration, now these additional menu items appear.

    The actual law concerns "Unmanned Aerial Systems" - UAS = "drone".  It also has a definition of a UAS - flies in the air and uses a "ground control station". For sure, RC (traditional LOS FPV, and more-or-less any quadcopterish device) us subject to this regulation, Free-flight for sure is not - no ground control station. CL was almost certainly not intended to be included because a it is not a free-flying device nor does it use a ground control station in the way they intended it.

   By the way, in any discussion with anyone, never, ever use the word "tethered". There are things called "tethered drones" that are quadcopterish things controlled by a trailing wire instead of a radio link, and work more-or-less like a regular drone. Those are certainly subject to regulation as they fly in the air and use a ground control station. You use the word "tethered", someone might remember that "tethered drones" are subject to regulation, and you are done.

   The phrase to repeat at every turn is "not a UAS", it is not a drone because it does not use a ground control station and is therefore not subject to regulation.

   The problem is as described above, the general public has *no idea* that there are model airplane other than RC, nor does most of the modeling industry. They see you flying your Twister in the park, they assume it is Radio-controlled and unless you explain that there are no electronics or other items, and demonstrate, they will walk away assuming it is RC.



     Brett

[Mike Griffin]

The FAA does not want anyone flying anything.  Period.

Mike

[944_Jim]

   The problem is as described above, the general public has *no idea* that there are model airplane other than RC, nor does most of the modeling industry. They see you flying your Twister in the park, they assume it is Radio-controlled and unless you explain that there are no electronics or other items, and demonstrate, they will walk away assuming it is RC.

Or worse...once they finally understand it is "two strings and just roundie roundie" they want to try to talk me into flying "real remote control planes." I gave up trying to describe the hobby (to include scratch-building, sport, stunt, combat, racing) and just shoot them a link to Shug's videos and invite them to try my "simple toy." None have taken me up on it...better, they've stopped trying to convince me my "toy" is simple.

[Brett Buck]

The FAA does not want anyone flying anything.  Period.

   They (and the general public, and big delivery companies) want something done about drones. I agree with them, irresponsible use of drones is a plague and a danger to navigation, and should be controlled in some way. When they went to define "drone" (UAS), there was no obvious way to exclude hobby LOS R/C from that definition.  I don't think they care anything about RC or do they have any real intent or motivation to control it - it just made it easier on them to not bother to distinguish them from the drones that they DO want to control and should be controlled.

       The AMA initially went along with them on that, they *didn't want to make the distinction* because they wanted to cash in on the drone boom ("cash in" being defined at the gatekeeper for legal/community-based organization for drone operation and thus get the associated ad revenue). Far too late, they realized the danger, and as a diving catch, came up with the idea of getting first in line for the FRIA sites.

       This has accomplished most of their goals - because so far, the lion's share of the  FRIAs are AMA-affiliated flying sites. If you want to fly without a transponder, they are the only game in town, and, the entire idea of an FRIA and that it allows you to fly without a transponder is definitely a positive for AMA members.  Just not as positive as it might have been had they disavowed drones, made clear distinctions between drones and hobby LOS R/C, so they could have legitimately defended the Special Rule for Model Aircraft.

    Of course, it is possible that the AMA would have gotten rolled over even if they had done everything sensibly, because *drones were always going to get regulated*, the AMA is a tiny bit player in the face of Amazon, UPS, Fedex, etc.


    Ultimately, all this is very unlikely to make any positive improvement in irresponsible done use, because the same people with the  irresponsible behavior causing this in the first place are also going to ignore the transponder and registration rules, and will only wind up with a transponder if it happens to come in the drone from the factory. Those intentionally causing harm are obviously not going to register either and will defeat the entire scheme. Already there are legions of youtube videos showing how to disable the transponders. So as with most attempts to modify behavior by the government, the entire thing will do nothing to accomplish the goal, while burdening the responsible users who were never a problem in the first place.

     Brett

[john e. holliday]

What are they going to do about all yhese quad coptors that are being sold every where for any body to fly.  My great grand kids are flying some now and doing better than I ever did with them.  Even Ebay is letting peopl;e sell them as well as inter net advertisers.

In reality I don't think the cities can stop us from using park land as long as no one doesn't complain.  But it was strange yhat one weekend many years my parttner and I were flying at a location where people were across the street watching us.  A patrolman pulss up as we were getting ready to leave to inform us that no model flying was allowed there.  I asked who complained as we have a large audience watching us..  He stated the guy complained the radio control was bothering his TV.  I looked at him and asked do you see any radio control devises here.  We showed him the planes and how they worked and he remembered back he was much younger trying to fly those.  He also stated he was going to visit the party that conplained as he lived about 3 miles away.  Said he must have seen us flying as he drove by.  Needless to say we did not entertain the people anymore. 

As far as I'm concerned it is another thing to put money in some ones pocket.

[Brett Buck]

What are they going to do about all yhese quad coptors that are being sold every where for any body to fly.  My great grand kids are flying some now and doing better than I ever did with them.  Even Ebay is letting peopl;e sell them as well as inter net advertisers.

   They aren't going to do anything about it. If the manufacturer puts a transponder in it, it will have a (unregistered) Remote ID, which is just radar noise. Unless they crash it into Air Force 1, they don't have the time or resources to track it down. That's why it is largely a pointless exercise that only serves to punish the wrong people while leaving the problem completely unsolved.

      Brett

[Ken Culbertson]

They aren't going to do anything about it. If the manufacturer puts a transponder in it, it will have a (unregistered) Remote ID, which is just radar noise. Unless they crash it into Air Force 1, they don't have the time or resources to track it down. That's why it is largely a pointless exercise that only serves to punish the wrong people while leaving the problem completely unsolved.

Isn't that the primary function of government?

Ken

[Paul Smith]

From my experience in "real" flying, the FAA's airspace has a floor of 500 feet over open and land and 1,000 feet over cities.

Thus a model airplane flying under 400 feet, as is the RC'ers limit is none of the FAA's business.

Back is circa 1975, at our combined CL, FF, RC field an RC'er flying a big model over 1,200 feet had a near miss with a four-ship of F-105's at 1,000 feet.  Very soon, our field was visited by four carloads of angry F-105'ers looking for the RC pilot.  I gladly pointed him out.

A football field including the end zones is 360 feet long.  This is a good estimate of how high models can legally fly.

[Trostle]

a four-ship of F-105's at 1,000 feet. 

Not related to this thread, but --

My encounter with F105's at less that 1,000 feet:

I grew up on a farm in Kansas.  This "encounter" was in the late 60's or early 70's.  I was in a field, driving a tractor pulling a cultivator, minding my own business with nothing but a clear sky, an empty field of dirt and the noise of a tractor, an experience that was going on for hours.  That peace immediately exploded when a pair of F105's flew over my head from behind me.  I have no idea how high they were but could not have been more than 200 feet above my head (less than the length of a football field) and they were fast.  It was a real surprise and really left an impression.

Keith

[Brett Buck]

Back is circa 1975, at our combined CL, FF, RC field an RC'er flying a big model over 1,200 feet had a near miss with a four-ship of F-105's at 1,000 feet.  Very soon, our field was visited by four carloads of angry F-105'ers looking for the RC pilot.  I gladly pointed him out.

   There have been a number of those sorts of "close calls" over the years, but they are pikers compared to the drone idiots. Stuff like this never rose to the level of public concern that the drone people have, so, for the most part, you could claim that RC wasn't much of a problem or worthy of regulation. Which is more-or-less the way it was treated until drones came along.

A football field including the end zones is 360 feet long.  This is a good estimate of how high models can legally fly.

    But I am sure you realize that your average sport RCist is terrified when they get under 200 feet, meaning, 400 feet is a very severe restriction to what they do. And it cuts of entire areas of RC modeling - turbines, gliders,  and giant scale, for example. That has some serious implications for the RC industry and the otherwise innocent RCists that are now heavily restricted by this ruling.

    Brett

[Dave Hull]

Paul,

You have stated this several times before: "From my experience in "real" flying, the FAA's airspace has a floor of 500 feet over open and land and 1,000 feet over cities. Thus a model airplane flying under 400 feet, as is the RC'ers limit is none of the FAA's business."

In 1993 the US adopted essentially the ICAO "Lettered" airspace designations. Class G airspace goes from the surface to typically Class E airspace above it. All of it is FAA airspace. This so-called uncontrolled airspace only means that there is no active controller keeping track of things. That does not mean that the FAA has no jurisdiction or regulatory control over it. They do. They exclusively hold that jurisdiction and as they have proven in practice, modelers will have to comply or face the consequences.

As to how pilots of full-scale aircraft can operate in Class G airspace, there are lots of additional regulations, as you point out.

Dave

[Norm Faith Jr.]

   There have been a number of those sorts of "close calls" over the years, but they are pikers compared to the drone idiots. Stuff like this never rose to the level of public concern that the drone people have, so, for the most part, you could claim that RC wasn't much of a problem or worthy of regulation. Which is more-or-less the way it was treated until drones came along.



    But I am sure you realize that your average sport RCist is terrified when they get under 200 feet, meaning, 400 feet is a very severe restriction to what they do. And it cuts of entire areas of RC modeling - turbines, gliders,  and giant scale, for example. That has some serious implications for the RC industry and the otherwise innocent RCists that are now heavily restricted by this ruling.



    Brett

Brett, I agree with you about the drones, (as bad as cell phones) but the attention to "model airplanes" grew immensely, after Maynard Hill's "large" model airplane flew non-stop across the Atlantic Ocean in 2003...with 911 fresh in many people's minds, especially the government...words of wisdom started being put to paper.
Norm