Setups New FFA rules

WyDiablo

Member
Here is the printout of the FAA ruling
FAA banning use of goggles for modeling
Saw this on another site. Just simply copying and pasting his post. I can't get the link he's posted to work. But looks like the FAA is banning goggles. Says the operator must maintain visual line of site at all times.

Now FAA PROHIBITS use of FPV goggles in the United States!
Sorry fellow hobbyists, here's a glimpse of things headed our way by the FAA! Let's hope this doesn't hurt FatShark sales too much. While I'll keep my new Dominator V2, after waiting since mid-February for the HD I "purchased," this unfortunate situation led me to cancel my pending order and wait for the dust to settle...

Page Not Found

1[4910-13]
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 91
[Docket No. FAA
2014-0396]
Interpretation of the Special Rule for Model Aircraft

Excerpt from page 8:

Although the FAA believes the statutory definition of a model aircraft is clear, the FAA provides the following explanation of the meanings of “visual line of sight” and “hobby or recreational purpose,” terms used in the definition of model aircraft, because the FAA has received a number of questions in this area.

By definition, a model aircraft must be “flown within visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft.” P.L. 112-95, section 336(c)(2).

Based on the plain language of the statute, the FAA interprets this requirement to mean that:
(1) the aircraft must be visible at all times to the operator;
(2) that the operator must use his or her own natural vision (which includes vision corrected by standard eyeglasses or contact lenses) to observe the aircraft; and
(3) people other than the operator may not be used in lieu of the operator for maintaining visual line of sight.

Under the criteria above , visual line of sight would mean that the operator has an unobstructed view of the model aircraft.

To ensure that the operator has the best view of the aircraft, the statutory requirement would preclude the use of vision-enhancing devices, such as binoculars, night vision goggles, powered vision magnifying devices, and goggles designed to provide a “first-person view” from the model.
Footnote 2: The FAA is aware that at least one community-based organization permits “first person view” (FPV) operations during which the hobbyist controls the aircraft while wearing goggles that display images transmitted from a camera mounted in the front of the model aircraft. While the intent of FPV is to provide a simulation of what a pilot would see from the flight deck of a manned aircraft, the goggles may obstruct an operator’s vision, thereby preventing the operator from keeping the model aircraft within his or her visual line of sight at all times. (end of footnote)

Such devices would limit the operator’s field of view thereby reducing his or her ability to see-and-avoid other aircraft in the area. Additionally, some of these devices could dramatically increase the distance at which an operator could see the aircraft, rendering the statutory visual-line-of-sight requirements meaningless. Finally, based on the plain language of the statute, which says that aircraft must be “flown within the visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft,” an operator could not rely on another person to satisfy the visual line of sight requirement. See id. (emphasis added). While the statute would not preclude using an observer to augment the safety of the operation, the operator must be able to view the aircraft at all times.
 

murankar

Staff member
Does it say anything about others using goggles while you fly? You could always allow others to watch your flight.

Even if you do end up flying with goggles on how will they know. I mean yeah you have youtube to rat you out. Beyond that whats the likely hood of getting popped by them.

This rule or law is going to fall by the way side till another trappy comes along and does something . Obviously if you do something stupid then you deserve the fines. I see this as a farse, going to be hard to monitor all the fpvers out there.

Question: has this been through rfc process yet? If not then is it really a rule yet or is this a proposal of a law?

Sent from my LG-E980 using Forum Runner
 
Last edited:

WyDiablo

Member
Yea it will be very hard to police this rule. Even you tube can't rat you out unless you get yourself into the actual video. Because you could be flying "LOS" and still getting video. And as of today I'm sure there are thousands of FPVers beating the airways and the FAA does not have the man power to police everywhere. It like other rules and laws that are on paper but can't be in forced.
 

murankar

Staff member
There is one way to get busted. Look at that kick butt video of Niagara falls. He takes his quad almost to the border and over the falls.

Sent from my LG-E980 using Forum Runner
 

pvolcko

Well-Known Member
Here they go again, creating new "rules" out of whole cloth. "Interpret" my butt.

And now, because AMA is a recognized "community based organization" working in cahoots with the FAA they will get massive pressure put on them to revise the AMA rules to match up, or else face losing status and getting AMA insurance backing yanked.

I frikin hate this stuff. It is so utterly predictable, and yet the AMA leadership, fancying themsevles as some kind of spokespeople for the entirety of the hobby and a bunch of psuedo-pilots that, in their estimation, should be either *the* regulatory body for the hobby or directing the FAA as they establish a new regime... This will end badly.
 

Stambo

Well-Known Member
How to kill a growing industry with one written page.
You guys need to get as many people as possible to sign your petition over there.
Perhaps get some information to a news agency on how this technology can save lives.
Search and rescue and fire over watch are the first ones that spring to mind.
Especially due to how quickly they can be deployed and how cheap they are to run compared to heli or fixed wing full size aircraft..

I hope this crap does not happen here. Our rules are being reviewed at the moment.
If it does I will make sure my FPV truck is visible in any videos the show me wearing goggles. :)
 

cn63bug

Member
This whole thing makes me feel that it is about the governing body having the technology and not allowing the private citizens from having the same technology (which it really isn't BTW). I haven't heard or have seen any laws that prohibit this, but of course there are the "statutes" (Seems like an abuse of power if you ask me). Congress even ordered the FAA to get it together and gave them a deadline in 2015 to get it done and sent to congress. The FAA admitted that they most likely will not be able to reach that deadline, but in the meantime, keep coming up with more statutes. I do remember that trappy was fined $10,000 by the FAA and the courts dismissed it. Last that I heard, the FAA was appealing the courts decision. I think that it comes down to the fact that what he was fined for, there were no laws broken, so the fine was bogus. Maybe I'm a little misinformed and if I am, could someone more knowledgeable let me know? Anyways...

- - - Updated - - -

I found this from the AMA in response to the FAA in case anyone else hasn't read it yet.
FAA Interpretive Rule
 
Last edited:

pvolcko

Well-Known Member
The FAA is doing two big things:
1) Continuing to try to establish a bright line of commercial vs recreational use of model aircraft and UAS. They have authority over non-model aircraft for all purposes, but they have far less over model aircraft (recreational or not) and so they are trying to establish their beachhead of authority by hanging "commercial" on it, as if the act of it being a commercial flight vs recreational somehow impacts the risk profile of the flight. I can fly my camera equiped models around my property without running afoul of any FAA rules, real or imagined, yet the second I fly over my neighbor's property and sell him the video for use in a real estate listing, the FAA thinks they have authority to regulate it in some way. Why? It obviously is not due to safety. Both flights had the same risk profile. The only reason is to extract revenue (tax, permits, licensing, insurance, etc.), protect the existing air based photo and film industry by locking down the market, and (and I think this is the big one) so they can maintain and expand their budget and establish a regulatory need for themselves in this brave new aerial photography world.

And this actually goes further than "obvious" potential commercial flights of UAS and model aircraft. The way they are framing this pilots receiving compensation for flying at an event, like at all the major fun flies and competitions, would also be outside the realm of recreational flying and thus under FAA regulatory authority. And they wouldn't have to be paid cash for flying at the event necessarily. They could be receiving discounts on parts as a form of compensation, or simply get expensed for their travel costs to the event. Got a hobby shop and you're attending the event and flying while also working the event, you're no longer making a recreational flight. IT gets stupid quick the way they've framed this "interpretation".

2) Putting the kibosh on use of goggles for FPV. And, actually, I think that even the use of an LCD for FPV... basically FPV anything with a model, recreational or not, is being said to be against the rules. They are hanging their hat for this claim on the language surrounding definition of model aircraft which includes reference to the aircraft being withing visual line of sight of the pilot. They are saying having a spotter assisting you is not good enough. IF you are not actively maintaining visual contact with your own two eyes (glasses and contacts allowed) then you are no longer flying a model aircraft and are thus under their regulatory regime and they do not allow it except by permit or special license. SOme have said they are only maybe saying no goggles. My reading of it is that it is much more broad. I think that it would virtually eliminate any FPV or other type of flight where the pilot is not actively maintaining eye contact with the craft in order to fly it. No autonomous flights, particularly if they go out of visual range. Flying a night, even with an illuminated model, may be against their "interpretation" since you can not maintain visual contact with the model, only the lights on it. Spotlight flying may be okay under their rules. Again, this stuff can get stupid quickly.

And keep in mind, this is the FAA "interpreting" what they consider to be rules and laws already on the books. They are not claiming to be making any new rules here. They are presenting all this as a "clarification" of what the current rules and regs are and what they say their authority to enforce already is.
 

Derek

Well-Known Member
I think you are right, Paul. About fpv flying, as a whole. It sounds to me that they are saying that the pilot must maintain constant eye sight with the model. Goggles/LCD screen would be a no no. Absolutely crazy.
 

WyDiablo

Member
Well speaking of gov. control they have not even scratched the surface so to speak until after July 1, 2014 comes. Here you can google or yahoo this "FATCA" and find out things that are to come to all American people and it really gets scary. The American dollar is about to go bottom up in other words its about to lose it's place as the worlds main currency. And when that happens a dollar will be worthless. Thank to Obama and his presidential powers and laws.
 

murankar

Staff member
Oops, starting to get political. Thats a no no. Anyhow the FAA is doing what any other business would do, ride the coat tails to gain some revenue. Its clearly a money thing for them. They want more it to fund their projects and what better way is there. Lets misinterpret our rules so we can get fat on the hog.

Sent from my LG-E980 using Forum Runner
 
Top Bottom