New FAA rules on unmaned aerial vehicles, HR 302

[Myron Firmin]

Does anyone know if there are any new rules in this bill (passed in Sept 2018) will affect control line?

[Steve Helmick]

A search should show a thread or two on the effects of this law. Basically, the law empowered the FAA to make rules and regulations, but the FAA hasn't yet done that. Therefore, there is no effect on controline at this time.

Frankly, most of us don't give a damn what their regulations are or will be, we're flying as usual. Anything they do is going to be stupid, plus they don't have enough enforcement people to bother with us. What they will do (eventually, maybe & hopefully) is grab some of the knot-heads flying "drones" in the wrong places and prosecute them.    Steve

[john e. holliday]

If you keep worrying about the FAA and control line, you will not get any flights in.  I used to fly in the school field of the middle school even though the sign says use by permit only.  The local good guy would show up and watch me fly.  He would beep his siren and leave.   

[TDM]

We are in big trouble here. We have to fly under 400feet. How will we ever get to handle that and not be in trouble with FAA. 
RC glider pilots must be pissed. Altitude is life for them.

[john e. holliday]

If it is 400 feet above sea level most of us are in trouble

[TDM]

If it is 400 feet above sea level most of us are in trouble

Why wouldn't I be surprised if that is what FAA will do?

[Ken Culbertson]

If it is 400 feet above sea level most of us are in trouble

Since most of them live on the two left coasts, I doubt they know the difference.

Ken

[Jim Kraft]

If you go to u tube and type in FAA rules for model aircraft, you will get many who have gone through the rules and have a good grasp on what they will be. The 400 foot rule is absolute. When they did away with rule 336 which protected the hobby of model aviation, it gave the FAA full authority to write their own laws.

Within the 1200 pages of rules, only about a 100 pertain to us. But it sounds like we will have to be certified by a test and issued a card which shows we have passed the test. There will also be a fee of course. How this affects control line no one really knows. There is a lot of gray area. A Frisby is a drone.

All I know is pretty much here say, so I only know what those say that have read the rules. What is amazing to me is that the people who voted for this bill read the 1200 pages in four days. I have my doubts.

 We should know more after the first of the year. That is when the FAA is to have the details ironed out and put it all in force. They are giving all the rules to law enforcement to enforce what they have written.

[Dan McEntee]

 We should know more after the first of the year. That is when the FAA is to have the details ironed out and put it all in force. They are giving all the rules to law enforcement to enforce what they have written.
[/quote]


    Hi Jim;
  And I can see law enforcement telling the FAA that they don't have the time, manpower,  and money to patrol people p[laying with toy airplanes! Can you see the headlines after some one is murdered, robbed or whatever because the local beat cop was busy writing up a guy for flying a model airplane!!!??? Through a long, drawn out and expensive process of trial and error, I think things will go back to where they were before "drones" came on the market and muddied the waters. The FAA can't monitor full scale aviation in an efficient way, much less throwing model aviation into the mix.  trying to govern everything that can fly is just not feasible. No way to enforce it evenly everywhere. It's like when CB radios came into popularity. The FCC couldn't handle the crush of licenses, so they just eliminated them, and the revenue that they could have brought in. Any branch of government seems to be incapable of running itself in an efficient, sane and fair manor!  And I don't see the FAA being any different here, they just don't know what all is involved and the extent of what they will have to cover.
  Type at you later and
  HAPPY THANKSGIVING!
   Dan McEntee

[Dave_Trible]

I would expect sporadic, local enforcement from those with a gripe about noise or whatever.   You can expect they will selectively make a serious example out of somebody once in a while to make a point.  Wouldn’t want to be ‘that guy’.  I believe CL ( from what I read) will be legally OK,  but Barney Fife might not know or care about the distinction.  Hard times though for our RC and FF brethren.

Dave

[Steve Helmick]

One thing I've noticed in what I've read is the various classifications of airspace...but I haven't seen the definition of those. I suspect they have to do with population density, and/or airport, military or goobermint installations, but they maybe want to keep the details a secret. Anybody know about this?  Steve

[Chuck_Smith]

Airspace classifications are public knowledge and part of your test for an airman's certificate. A little Google time should help you, if not we can do it here. No problem, happy to help. 

I suspect controline will be excluded. I've dealt with the FAA most of my life and find them to be professional, rational, reasonable, and motivated by positive intent. Many are model flyers. There were a couple times when I was young when the FAA could have thrown the book at me if so inclined, but instead they just sat me down and "educated" me. I'm very grateful to them for that. They acted like professionals when I did not.

The intent of the law is most likely to protect the nation from those that would do harm ( either on purpose or by accident) or invade privacy. I'm pretty sure that if some kid buys a balsa glider they won't prosecute for unlicensed operation.

Technology has changed so rapidly that the rules probably did need looking at. Back in the 70's we didn't have the models we fly today.

Today we have 50 pound, turbine-powered models going two hundred miles an hour, 700 series helicopters which can chop down trees and 100cc 3D machines. And unfortunately, toy multirotors.

If so inclined, I could build a turbine powered, GPS guided, cruise missile in my basement. So can others. Given the current state of the world, I'm thinking that's not a good thing to be totally unregulated.

Regarding the altitude - the most likely scenario I see is the FAA approving waivers, which is a common, daily occurrence. Amateur rocketry guys routinely fly past Mach 1 to altitudes over 10,000 feet with craft that can weigh over 100 pounds. No big deal. You apply for the waiver, it goes in the NOTAMs and you're good. Some waivers are "standing" and can be activated via a phone call to ATC.(Or maybe even nowadays a text.)

I get the whole change is scary and gloom and doom, but my observations to date and first-hand experience with the FAA tells me this will be a whole lot of nothing - unless the AMA screws it up. Their position needs to be "How can we work together towards a common purpose?" rather than what I've seen to date.

The modern history of the FAA has been more about relaxing rules than anything else. They allow unlicensed operation of ultralights with a few very reasonable restrictions. They have "sport pilot" licenses now, understanding that not everyone needs to be trained and equipped to fly a Gulfstream into Teeterboro on Monday morning.

Nothing in my 40+ year career as aviator, experimental aircraft owner and aerospace engineer has led me to think that the FAA is an overbearing bureaucracy bent on stripping my world of my enjoyment. Nothing. Nada. Zip.

I also suspect that the biggest challenge to flying controline will remain the same as it has been for the last 50 years - finding a level spot with the grass short enough where the neighbors don't complain about the noise and kids don't ride bikes over your lines. I'm guessing that R/C fields will have something similar to aerobatic boxes, which will help, not hurt our operations by providing a safe airspace for us to operate in.

I'm willing to bet, however; that there will countless reductio ad absurdum arguments used to rail about the coming changes.

My two cents, and all opposing viewpoints are welcomed, respected and will be given thoughtful consideration.

Chuck

[Ken Culbertson]

.....b]unless the AMA screws it up[/b]. Their position needs to be "How can we work together towards a common purpose?" rather than what I've seen to date.

I would replace "unless" with "when".  AMA is protecting their revenue base which is the ARF RC and drone worlds.  Both of these are the prime "targets" of the FAA.  Their fetish with FPV has killed the sport and with it will come the AMA.  Free Flight is gone as is most of Soaring without some sanity in the 400' rule.  Nobody is going to buy his/her kid an RC trainer plane for Christmas if he/she has to be certified by the FAA before they can fly it.  The economics will kill what is left of the hobby shops that are not moving to cars and toys.  Only Control Line will survive but that is only because a lot of true enthusiasts will have no other option and probably already have flown some CL.  We have already made the transition to mail order so losing the Hobby Shops is not the crisis it will be to the RC crowd.  I doubt that the AMA can survive in it's present form if all of this comes to pass.

I am with you 100% on the large jets and FPV Drones.  In the wrong hands they do pose a threat to society and have to be regulated.  Someone with enough pull in the AMA has to be hit between the eyes with the baseball bat of reality and stop trying to protect that which cannot be protected and start protecting the hobby itself which IS NOT Drones and Giant Jets.

Here is hoping that it is just my fear that the AMA is actually on the wrong side of this issue and sanity will win out.

Ken

[Mike Griffin]

 We should know more after the first of the year. That is when the FAA is to have the details ironed out and put it all in force. They are giving all the rules to law enforcement to enforce what they have written.



    Hi Jim;
  And I can see law enforcement telling the FAA that they don't have the time, manpower,  and money to patrol people p[laying with toy airplanes! Can you see the headlines after some one is murdered, robbed or whatever because the local beat cop was busy writing up a guy for flying a model airplane!!!??? Through a long, drawn out and expensive process of trial and error, I think things will go back to where they were before "drones" came on the market and muddied the waters. The FAA can't monitor full scale aviation in an efficient way, much less throwing model aviation into the mix.  trying to govern everything that can fly is just not feasible. No way to enforce it evenly everywhere. It's like when CB radios came into popularity. The FCC couldn't handle the crush of licenses, so they just eliminated them, and the revenue that they could have brought in. Any branch of government seems to be incapable of running itself in an efficient, sane and fair manor!  And I don't see the FAA being any different here, they just don't know what all is involved and the extent of what they will have to cover.
  Type at you later and
  HAPPY THANKSGIVING!
   Dan McEntee

You nailed it Dan. 


Mike

[Chuck_Smith]

Regarding the AMA - my unsolicited advice to them is this:

Get some of the many professional pilots who are AMA members to advocate for us and negotiate with the FAA. Do not try to "Lobby" your way past this because that approach will not work.

Drop. Drones. NOW. You cannot win that fight, it's already been litigated in the court of public opinion and the AMA could lose everything in the process of, as Ken describes, defending the indefensible.

[Dan McEntee]

   Regarding the "impossible to enforce" concept, the multi-rotor craft are for sale EVERYWHERE! It's coming up on Christmas time and they are quite literally available EVERYWHERE! All shapes, sizes and prices.  You can buy them at stores ranging from gas stations to camera shops, Sears, Penny's, and who knows how many on line vendors through Amazon. How many do you think are in the hands of irresponsible operators right now and how many more after Christmas? And how do you find them?  On my last trip to Oshkosh a few years ago, they had started to allow R/C flying in the evening out at the Pioneer Airport area. Mostly all electric foamy stuff, but many rotor craft, and MANY of them clearly violating the then current 400 foot rule, and flying out of bounds at the area designated for this while flying on an active airport runway. I complained to the on site AMA rep, who seemed very dis-interested in what I had to say at the time. This may very well pan out as a "follow the money" issue, and in most cases people are going to do what they want to do. Stay tuned for further developments!
  Type at you later,
   Dan McEntee

[Ken Culbertson]

Regarding the AMA - my unsolicited advice to them is this:

Get some of the many professional pilots who are AMA members to advocate for us and negotiate with the FAA. Do not try to "Lobby" your way past this because that approach will not work.

Drop. Drones. NOW. You cannot win that fight, it's already been litigated in the court of public opinion and the AMA could lose everything in the process of, as Ken describes, defending the indefensible.

Excellent Idea!

Ken

[john e. holliday]

So far the local police have not said any thing negative about my control line flying.  But years ago when my pilot and I went to a high school parking lot to put up some test flights we were stopped by the local KCK man in blue because our control line plane was interfering with his super size TV.   The officer was nice and we showed him the only thing electronic was the starting battery on my arm.  He agreed it couldn't be us so he was going to go talk to the person who complained.   But then he also told us that no model flying of any sort was allowed on school property and then the noise.  He admitted his fellow officers talked to him about his super modified race car he was just testing for a few laps on the parking lot.  By the way there used to be a row of houses across the street from the parking lot.   We all looked over and it seemed every one was on their porches watching us.  Miss the good old days when some people were glad we would entertain the kids at the local school play ground and some times get several on the trainer handle.

Oh by the way they do stop by our circle when driving back into the park on a complaint of gun fire.   Need to get back to the field as I have not been down there since they found a murder/suicide back in the park.  Our park is pretty isolated and a little hard to get to.

[JoeJust]

"Drop the Dones now"  Check out  the decal with your 2019 membership card.  The decal shows two aircraft (planes) a Copter and guess what an image that at first glance looks like a frog but turns out to be...(Wait for it)...A DRONE!
Joe

[Jim Kraft]

Over on RC Groups under vintage models, there is a guy from Australia that says they have the 400 foot rule in place. They have had to cancel all SAM events as they have tried many times for months to get a waver, but to no avail. And how can modelers practice without a waver that maybe last 2 days.

Contests are one thing, but just flying for practice or fun is out of the question. Unless of course you stay below the 400 feet. I imagine the glider pilots will have the same problem along with free flight.
I have no idea how they are regulating over there, and who is the enforcer of the rules, but apparently it is sufficient to shut down all events that normally go above 400 feet. I would think AMA would have to cancel all events the same way as they could not be held accountable otherwise. No way could they endorse an event that is illegal.

[Steve Helmick]

AMA doesn't "endorse", but "sanction". If the rules of the FAA are broken, the hammer falls on the CD who failed to enforce, and the entrant that broke the 400' altitude limit. The CD would get chastised by AMA to placate the FAA, and the entrant will probably get some sort of reprimand or fine. You know the old expression about "stuff runs downhill"? That be it!

Having flown F1A almost exclusively for 15 years, I would say it's very easy to get meaningful practice without violating the 400' limit. Maybe Chris or Tom would comment about R/C glider practice, but I am pretty sure it'd be very do-able. The real question would be how would you (or they) be able to say whether you're below or above 400'. I sure wouldn't volunteer to put an altimeter in my glider, although the technology is available. I just don't want the FFAA (sic) to know it is available, have them require it, or demand that I show my data if I was to have it.   

After reading what Chuck Smith said about the FAA, I recalled what my brother (the airport rat) said about what happens at the Muni he spends time at. An SUV with government plates (and blacked out windows) drives onto the property and the phones start ringing, followed by doors closing/locking and lights being turned off. Nobody will talk to the FAA. They go around inspecting airplanes tied down on the ramp and nit-picking BS stuff and writing up tickets that demand CS stuff be fixed or improved. Nobody cares what the FAA says, because they're just suits from LA up for the day, squandering their time on the government dime, trying to justify their jobs.  Steve

[Jim Kraft]

Guess I used the wrong terminology. Sanction is right. Most of the SAM events are limited by time or fuel allotment. Not altitude. I suppose they could change the rules to limit altitude along with time and fuel allotment. But that kind of defeats the purpose. I do agree to there is no way to say for sure that a drone has passed the 400 foot altitude limit unless it goes way above.

Having said that, there is also talk of having transponders in all drones. It would not be to far off to add altimiters. The things is, we do not know what they are going to require yet. Will certification be rquired to fly in competition? Will the certification card be necessary to fly? Guess we will find out shortly as the FAA brings out the final rules.

If all the manufacturers of ready to fly models have to pass FAA specifications, how will home builts be judged? Lots of grey area. The thing is, they can require what ever they deem necessary. They are not accountable to anyone. They are not elected.         

[Paul Smith]

Since the man is attached by wires and maybe even a wrist strap, our models are NOT "unmanned".

[jfv]

I've had to move the venue of our annual stunt contest for the last 2 years because we cannot get a letter from the FAA exempting control line from the TFR's.  The park where we want to hold the event requires confirmation from the FAA that control line planes are exempt.  Despite the AMA's alleged agreement with the FAA, the FAA is reportedly, unwilling to provide such a letter.

[Dave Hull]

Guys,

You need to start thinking about drones differently. There are basically two capability levels, as far as I am concerned. One is really no issue in terms of the FAA and the other is a big issue.  I tried to explain this before in another thread, but people have gotten a monatomic view of things--which does not let them see the easy path to proper regulation.

The crux of the issue is the coupling of GPS with autopilot stabilization. Without this, you are essentially line of sight limited, whether you have a FPV camera or not. The camera is not the key discriminator, the linked electronics and software for programmed flight plans is.

Chuck’s point about not knowing the altitude on the category of concern is not correct. The 7 lb camera platforms that have coupled electronics already have this function. In fact, if you look at the published details of the Blackhawk helicopter collision--the FBI recovered the telemetry from the flight controller that the owner took home. His drone went into the ocean, except for the pieces that got sucked into the helicopter intake system, but the flight data records were on the ground control equipment. He exceeded the 400 ft limit at least once. He was also operating in an active TFR, which compounds the violation.

The clear path forward is that any drone with coupled autopilot and GPS should require a special FAA certification. As far as I am concerned, it should be the equivalent of at least a Private Pilot knowledge level and include drone specifics. If you are going to use the drone commercially, then include certain types of knowledge currently required for a Commercial certificate. Next, there must be a requirement for the seller to obtain proof of certification prior to the sale, and FAA paperwork filed to record the transaction.

Because the FAA got behind the eight ball on this now we need to pull unregulated equipment back into any new system. I would propose that parts support for existing drones require the same paperwork as the same of new airframes. Until these are made obsolete by lack of support, there will continue to be an insufficiently controlled environment. It would seem possible to encourage the drone manufacturers to change designs such that existing equipment is rendered unflyable due to lack of support. Enforcement actions would be needed to discourage aftermarket parts support of unregistered drones.

The only other option is extremely vigorous enforcement of violations. Making examples of violators. It is preventative only to the extent that it alters people’s behavior. The FAA has so far shown what I would call a lot of restraint here. You can attribute this to different things, depending on how angry you are about this whole issue.

There is no reason to give up. We just need to manage the latest airspace issues. This has been coming a long time. It will take some effort and some pain to put the smoke back into the bottle, but there is no question that it can be done if we all got on the same page.

Dave Hull

[Steve Helmick]

If somebody out there can draw up a cartoon, please consider knocking one out showing two convicts locked in their cell. One says "I flew my controline model airplane at a park and the FAA arrested me. I'm in for 5 years without parole. What did you do?" "Manslaughter, 2 years, parole after one year."    Steve

[Jim Kraft]

Every body who has any interest at all should type in FAA 107 and read the rules for model aviation. Then go to the AMA site, and listen to what they have to say. Or vice versa. One thing that is confusing is the definition of a drone. It is any aircraft that is flow without intervention from within or on the aircraft. Control line is not controlled from within or on the aircraft. Does that make us come under the rules or not? According to the wording we do come under FAA law. But common sense would say no.

Anyway, everyone who does come under the rule of law will have to have taken a test and receive a certification card to show that we are certified by the FAA to fly model aircraft. There is also a clause that says not only is 400 feet the limit, but also a speed limit of 100 mph. The FAA has the right to inspect our planes at any time.

The AMA, according to their video, seems to believe they can work with the FAA and change some of the ruling. They say there are some good things in the law, but do not say what they are. They do realize the 400 foot rule will curtail many of our competition events and activities. That is the only one they talked about.


So go read it and decide for yourself. That is the only way we are going to know what we have to do to comply. But I have yet to understand if control line is exempt or not. I am sure it will come out at some point but I get no answers from FAA. They just give what they have and we are to decide whether we are or are not by what they have written. We are in that grey area that does or does not apply depending on how your read it.

So do not take here say and read it for yourself. That is the only way we are going to know what we have to do.

[TDM]

Glider pilots will be the most hurt by the FAA 400ft rule (which is above ground level not above sea level from what i understand). For them altitude is life and even hand launch gliders often are launched 230 ft and above and the winch launch is over 500ft and in thermals they are going up from there. So they are pretty much toast as far as they are concerned their hobby is over.
While i agree to the 500ft rule near airports anything more than 10miles away from airports should be fair game enjoy your hobby. Drones do not have battery endurance and capacity to go up there and gliders do not venture a whole lot over the 2000ft anywise. The generalized approach to limit flight to 400ft regardless where are you located is a infringement on our liberty to "pursue our happiness"  in what we like to do, and another example of overbearing government making stupid rules.

[john e. holliday]

Really, what is going to happen to all those people that don't do forums, AMA and only fly maybe once or twice a year at their local field.  I have several neighbors that could care less about competition let alone flying as a group.  They also have sport Free Flights planes that only get flown when the weather is almost dead calm.

By the way several stores that sell these so called drones know nothing about the FAA requirements.

[Ken Culbertson]

Now I am totally confused.  This is copied from the FAA's website FAQ section today:

________________________________________________________________

2) Do I need permission from the FAA to fly a UAS for recreation or as a hobby?
There are two ways for recreational or hobby UAS fliers to operate in the National Airspace System in accordance with the law and/or FAA regulations. Each of the two options has specific requirements that the UAS operator must follow. The decision as to which option to follow is up to the individual operator.

Option #1. Fly in accordance with the Special Rule for Model Aircraft (Public Law 112-95 Section 336). Under this rule, operators must:

    Register their UAS with the FAA
    Fly for hobby or recreational purposes only
    Follow a community-based set of safety guidelines
    Fly the UAS within visual line-of-sight
    Give way to manned aircraft
    Provide prior notification to the airport and air traffic control tower, if one is present, when flying within 5 miles of an airport
    Fly UAS that weigh no more than 55 lbs. unless certified by a community-based organization

Option #2. Fly under the FAA's Small UAS Rule (14 CFR part 107). Under this rule, operators must:

    Register their UAS with the FAA as a "non-modeler"
    Obtain an FAA Remote Pilot Certificate
    Follow the operational requirements (PDF) of Part 107

3) Does the new Small UAS Rule (part 107) apply to recreational UAS operations?
Part 107 does not apply to UAS flown strictly for fun (hobby or recreational purposes) as long as these unmanned aircraft are flown in accordance with the Special Rule for Model Aircraft (Section 336 of P.L. 112-95). Visit our "Fly for Fun" webpage for safety rules and guidelines that apply to recreational UAS operations. The small UAS rule codifies the provisions of section 336 in part 101 of the FAA's regulations, which will prohibit operating a UAS in manner that endangers the safety of the National Airspace System.
____________________________________________________________________

This implies that we are still under 336.  Don't you just love government.

Ken

[Jim Kraft]

That is the old one Ken. The latest one is 2018 November 23. 336 which protected us somewhat, was done away with and now we have only 107. The lawyers are already lining up to take cases of arrested flyers. They have adds showing a modeler in hand cuffs for flying his drone illegally.  Fun times ahead.

[Ken Culbertson]

That is the old one Ken. The latest one is 2018 November 23. 336 which protected us somewhat, was done away with and now we have only 107. The lawyers are already lining up to take cases of arrested flyers. They have adds showing a modeler in hand cuffs for flying his drone illegally.  Fun times ahead.

If that is the case, and since it is the official FAA Web site it is probably wrong,  then the definition of a Drone is basically anything, regardless of size that flies without a person sitting in it. I have asked the FAA how many of it's laws a 12 year old breaks for throwing a paper airplane.  I don't expect a real response because I don't think they even know what they are doing.  This is insane.  Time to find a conservative judge to issue a nationwide injunction.  If the liberals can do it why can't we?  If this is what effective representation from the AMA does for us then they have out served their usefulness.  Somewhere out there is a lawyer with a 14 year old sailplane flier who needs work.

Ken

[Steve Helmick]

My AMA licenses came in the mail today. The Safety Regulations and the sticker with the quadrotor on it went straight into the trash. They're responsible for screwing up Model Aviation...and I don't mean the magazine. Together with the FAA, they're both on my shitlist.  Steve

[Jim Kraft]

As long as the paper airplane is less than 8.5 ounces it is under the cut off point. 9 ounces and you have to be certified to fly it. Free flight is a drone because it is not controlled from in or on the plane. Over a 100 mph is illegal. Jets would not be allowed to fly like they do now. Speed is now speed limit.

In the AMA video they say there are some good things in this bill, but never mention what they are. I have found none for us. And who is going to get certified by FAA and join AMA. They have no reason to, except for insurance maybe. Just my opinion but I think AMA thought all of the drone flyers were going to sign up with them because that way the FAA would not need to regulate them. But I think they shot themselves in the foot. I believe they will end up with only competition flyers who have to.

The sad thing is they have screwed up the hobby for the modelers they are supposed to serve. Again, just my opinion. We all have one. LM Cox is probably turning over in his grave. "Here is your new Cox PT 19 trainer, and instructions in the box to show you what you must do to be certified to fly it". The way they are going they will probably outlaw Fox stunt engines for air pollution.

[Doug Burright]

The AMA was the lobbying organization to the government for creating and maintaining rules which modelers were subject to. They were on our side. The AMA was responsible for the exclusive radio frequencies used by the R/C bunch. There used to be only 8 frequencies, not counting the 27.** and the HAM bands of 53.** mhz. The irresponsible quadrotor flyers ruined model aviation in whole. Look at how much money, time and effort has been spent, and wasted on trying to fix the damage that the irresponsible quadrotor flyers have created! There are probably lots of other things that the AMA has been able to ensure for us regular modelers. Not to mention insurance, for one thing, even though it is secondary. What about flying site acquisitions? Now, it seems when people think about modelers, they lump us in with quadrotor flyers. And the first thing that they ask about are that devious things that people have done with quad rotor devices. Jim is correct: find judges who will work for the modelers, and not the money.

[Ken Culbertson]

Got this back from the FAA today.  I teally hope it is true.

Ken

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for contacting the FAA's Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Support Center.

Control line, free flight, and indoor models have not fallen under UAS regulations in the past and are expected not to in the future. Recreational fliers can continue to operate under the "special rule for model airplanes" until we promulgate new regulations.
https://www.faa.gov/uas/getting_started/model_aircraft/

Sincerely,

Paul

PLH


Please follow up with any further inquiries at UASHelp@faa.gov.  Additional information is also available at https://www.faa.gov/uas/.

We appreciate your feedback.  Please select:  UAS Safety and Integration Division AUS-400. 

[Andre Ming]

According to the linked FAA site, in order to "Fly under the Special Rule for Model Aircraft", you still have to register according to point #2:

* Fly for hobby or recreation ONLY
* Register your model aircraft
* Fly within visual line-of-sight
* Follow community-based safety guidelines and fly within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization
* Fly a drone under 55 lbs. unless certified by a community-based organization
* Never fly near other aircraft
* Notify the airport and air traffic control tower prior to flying within 5 miles of an airport*
* Never fly near emergency response efforts

I thought discussions concerning C/L vs FAA was about NOT having to register? In regards to me, that's my only immediate concern about it, for I don't intend to register my C/L airplanes. I doubt I will ever re-enter the R/C side of it, so that aspect is moot.

Andre

[Gary Dowler]

Ken said   "Time to find a conservative judge to issue a nationwide injunction.  If the liberals can do it why can't we?  "


RIGHT ON!  why is this seemingly a one way street?  Why can (or do) only liberal judges throw injunctions on anything and everything that actually fixes anything, but conservative judges don't/cant?  I actually know the answer to this, just venting a bit.  Its about enough to make you want to chew your own foot off!

Gary

[Ken Culbertson]

According to the linked FAA site, in order to "Fly under the Special Rule for Model Aircraft", you still have to register according to point #2:

* Fly for hobby or recreation ONLY
* Register your model aircraft
* Fly within visual line-of-sight
* Follow community-based safety guidelines and fly within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization
* Fly a drone under 55 lbs. unless certified by a community-based organization
* Never fly near other aircraft
* Notify the airport and air traffic control tower prior to flying within 5 miles of an airport*
* Never fly near emergency response efforts

I thought discussions concerning C/L vs FAA was about NOT having to register? In regards to me, that's my only immediate concern about it, for I don't intend to register my C/L airplanes. I doubt I will ever re-enter the R/C side of it, so that aspect is moot.

Andre

I could be way off on this but I think the AMA membership and their identification requirements are recognized under the special rule.  For Stunt, that is your AMA number.  Anyway, this response from the FAA does give me some degree of hope that they are listening to us...or not.

Ken

[Fredvon4]

"If it is not broke, don't fix it"

Ken Brother.....It is broken....has been for a long while now...they screwed this up back in 2012

[john e. holliday]

Think the rep from FAA s ready for me to register each and every plane in my shop, even the ones in need of repair.

[Dave_Trible]

If you look at the bottom of my post you’ll find my registration number.  I did it the first day way back when.  You don’t register your airplane-just you- just like your AMA number. Then you are supposed to put the number on each plane somewhere,  even if written on a piece of paper tucked inside.  Since then I’m not sure if that’s still necessary but you don’t register each airplane.  Waste of time but totally painless.

Dave

[Ken Culbertson]

"If it is not broke, don't fix it"

Ken Brother.....It is broken....has been for a long while now...they screwed this up back in 2012

The reciprocal is "If it is broke, then fix it." And that is exactly why we should try and do.  The response I got back from the FAA hints that they may, just may, understand our concerns and as a result we should see at least a preliminary draft of the new rules before we go bat-@#$% crazy ballistic on them.
BUT, we should make preparations to do just that.

Ken

Really cool editor - I don't even have to change my true meaning anymore.  The forum does it for me!  Cool, I type @#$% and it turns it into @#$%