What FARs cover R/C drones?

The following news item has the FAA on the Los Angeles' sheriff's case
about the sheriff's use of R/C planes. I've searched the FARs in the past
to see if I could find what regs covered radio controlled (or more
interestingly, autonomous) aircraft and came up with nothing. I think the
Sheriff has a valid question in asking why they need a "certificate of
authorization" but Joe citizen does not. Here's a link to the story and
relevant quoted portions:

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercu...a/14875403.htm

"Federal authorities have temporarily grounded Sheriff Lee Baca's plans to
fight crime using unmanned surveillance drones.

Baca hopes to use the small, remote-controlled planes to monitor events
such as standoffs and hostage situations, and search for fleeing suspects.
Last week, sheriff's officials demonstrated one of the 3-foot-long planes
in an abandoned field, showing it take off, beam video images 250 feet to
deputies below, and land.

The test, however, irked officials from the Federal Aviation
Administration, who said they had told the Sheriff's Department that it
needed a certificate of authorization from the FAA before flying the
planes."
....
""A private citizen can go to the store and buy one of those model
airplanes and fly them around. But because we're doing it as a public
service, we have to deal with the FAA?" said Sheriff's Cmdr. Sid Heal."

So what are FARs cover R/C aircraft (is there a weight or size threshold)?
Also, what FARs would cover autonomous (robot controlled) aircraft?

According to this morning's paper, the FAA has shot down the LA Sherrif's
proposal. Never mind.

Bob Gardner

"Jim Logajan" wrote in message
.. .
The following news item has the FAA on the Los Angeles' sheriff's case
about the sheriff's use of R/C planes. I've searched the FARs in the past
to see if I could find what regs covered radio controlled (or more
interestingly, autonomous) aircraft and came up with nothing. I think the
Sheriff has a valid question in asking why they need a "certificate of
authorization" but Joe citizen does not. Here's a link to the story and
relevant quoted portions:

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercu...a/14875403.htm

"Federal authorities have temporarily grounded Sheriff Lee Baca's plans to
fight crime using unmanned surveillance drones.

Baca hopes to use the small, remote-controlled planes to monitor events
such as standoffs and hostage situations, and search for fleeing suspects.
Last week, sheriff's officials demonstrated one of the 3-foot-long planes
in an abandoned field, showing it take off, beam video images 250 feet to
deputies below, and land.

The test, however, irked officials from the Federal Aviation
Administration, who said they had told the Sheriff's Department that it
needed a certificate of authorization from the FAA before flying the
planes."
...
""A private citizen can go to the store and buy one of those model
airplanes and fly them around. But because we're doing it as a public
service, we have to deal with the FAA?" said Sheriff's Cmdr. Sid Heal."

So what are FARs cover R/C aircraft (is there a weight or size threshold)?
Also, what FARs would cover autonomous (robot controlled) aircraft?

On Thu, 22 Jun 2006 09:31:41 -0700, "Bob Gardner"
wrote in ::

According to this morning's paper, the FAA has shot down the LA Sherrif's
proposal. Never mind.

This is not going to go away. Better to get off on the right foot
from the start.

"Bob Gardner" wrote in message
. ..
According to this morning's paper, the FAA has shot down the LA Sherrif's
proposal. Never mind.


http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercu...a/14875403.htm

If the sheriff has any balls, he will tell the FAA to pound salt. As long
as the RC plane is flown in view of the pilot, and can see the plane, or any
possible conflict to full scale planes, there is nothing wrong with him
flying his "toy airplane."

Put the burden of proof back on the FAA, to prove the problem. By the time
the FAA investigates, the airplane will be considered obsolete.
--
Jim in NC

On Sun, 25 Jun 2006 09:02:33 -0400, "Morgans"
wrote in ::


http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercu...a/14875403.htm

If the sheriff has any balls, he will tell the FAA to pound salt.

Perhaps this quote from the article has sheriff Baca exercising
prudence and restraint:

The FAA won't authorize the county to use drones until it
investigates the incident to determine whether the sheriff's
Department should face disciplinary action, Brown said.

It begs the question, what sort of disciplinary action is the FAA
authorized to apply in this case? I seriously doubt the FAA can
suspend the airmans certificate of the officer who controlled the
drone.

As long as the RC plane is flown in view of the pilot, and can see the plane, or any
possible conflict to full scale planes, there is nothing wrong with him
flying his "toy airplane."

First, I seriously doubt the sheriff assigned an airman to operate the
drone, so it is unlikely there was any real pilot involved its
operation.

Secondly, if I'm not mistaken, the FAA would require a second person
whose sole duty it would be to observe the drone's operation to assure
there would be no conflict with full-size manned aircraft, as is
mentioned in this 25 year old Advisory Circular:

http://www.eoss.org/faa/ac91-57.pdf
ADVISORY CIRCULAR AC 91-57
MODEL AIRCRAFT OPERATING STANDARDS

The sheriff's department intends to operate their drones over
congested urban areas, not at a designated RC field as is usual for RC
model aircraft. If an engine out incident, loss of control, or
structural failure should occur in a densely populated area, citizens
could be injured by the drone.

That said, I wonder if the FAA will share culpability if they should
actually issue a certificate of authorization to the sheriff's
department.

It would also be interesting to know how big a role the firms below
are playing in this drama:

http://www.ga.com/
www.aerovironment.com
www.aurora.aero
www.auvsi.org
www.boeing.com/phantom
www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Research/Erast/erast.html
www.erast.com
www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/ERAST
www.jpdo.aero
www.lmaeronautics.com
www.is.northropgrumman.com
www.psl.nmsu.edu/uav
www.uav.com/home
www.uav-info.com
www.uavforum.com/
www.uavworld.com
www.ucare-network.org
www.unitealliance.com/
www.uvonline.com www.uvs-international.org

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message ...

Secondly, if I'm not mistaken, the FAA would require a second person
whose sole duty it would be to observe the drone's operation to assure
there would be no conflict with full-size manned aircraft, as is
mentioned in this 25 year old Advisory Circular:

http://www.eoss.org/faa/ac91-57.pdf
ADVISORY CIRCULAR AC 91-57
MODEL AIRCRAFT OPERATING STANDARDS

The sheriff's department intends to operate their drones over
congested urban areas, not at a designated RC field as is usual for RC
model aircraft. If an engine out incident, loss of control, or
structural failure should occur in a densely populated area, citizens
could be injured by the drone.



The FAA does not 'require' any observers or assistants.

There is also no requirement to fly at 'a designated rc field.'

On Mon, 26 Jun 2006 13:33:59 GMT, ".Blueskies."
wrote in
::


"Larry Dighera" wrote in message ...

Secondly, if I'm not mistaken, the FAA would require a second person
whose sole duty it would be to observe the drone's operation to assure
there would be no conflict with full-size manned aircraft, as is
mentioned in this 25 year old Advisory Circular:

http://www.eoss.org/faa/ac91-57.pdf
ADVISORY CIRCULAR AC 91-57
MODEL AIRCRAFT OPERATING STANDARDS

The sheriff's department intends to operate their drones over
congested urban areas, not at a designated RC field as is usual for RC
model aircraft. If an engine out incident, loss of control, or
structural failure should occur in a densely populated area, citizens
could be injured by the drone.



The FAA does not 'require' any observers or assistants.


While you are correct, there is no mandatory observer *requirement*
contained within AC 91-57, neither does it mention the county's
necessity to obtain FAA authorization to operate drones. Here's what
it does say about observers:

MODEL AIRCRAFT OPERATING STANDARDS

1. PURPOSE. This advisory circular outlines, and encourages
voluntary compliance with, safety standards for model aircraft
operators.

3 0 OPERATING STANDARDS.

d. Give right of way to, and avoid flying in the proximity of,
full-scale aircraft. Use observers to help if possible.

So, it would appear that the FAA is operating under different
authority in this case.

There is also no requirement to fly at 'a designated rc field.'


True.

However, have you ever operated a gasoline powered RC model over a
large crowed of people, or even over a congested area of urban
population? Of course not; you seek a safe location that poses less
hazard to the public.

Jim Logajan wrote:
[snipped]
So what are FARs cover R/C aircraft (is there a weight or size threshold)?
Also, what FARs would cover autonomous (robot controlled) aircraft?

A Google search, using "FAA radio-control aircraft" and "FAA UAV vs
model aircraft" as the criteria, came up with the following.... from
what I have read, the FAA has some legitimate concerns about UAV
operations, especially in busy airspace (which would be the most likely
places that the law enforcment folks would want to use them, I would
think.) -

"A private citizen can go to the store and buy one of those model
airplanes and fly them around. But because we're doing it as a public
service, we have to deal with the FAA?" said Sheriff's Cmdr. Sid Heal."
- The Sheriff's Cmdr. apparently doesn't understand the difference
between the RC Models and a UAV.

http://www.house.gov/transportation/...29-06memo.html

http://www.acq.osd.mil/uas/docs/airspace2.doc

http://www.politechbot.com/2006/03/2...llance-in-the/

http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/archi.../t-358461.html

Randy

"Randy Aldous" wrote in message
ups.com...
So what are FARs cover R/C aircraft (is there a weight or size
threshold)?
Also, what FARs would cover autonomous (robot controlled) aircraft?

A Google search, using "FAA radio-control aircraft" and "FAA UAV vs
model aircraft" as the criteria, came up with the following.... from
what I have read, the FAA has some legitimate concerns about UAV
operations, especially in busy airspace

IMHO, the FAA has a legitimate concern regarding UAV use *anywhere* within
the US, busy airspace or not. They have indicated as much in imposing TFRs
for the purpose of operating UAVs along the southern border (even if that is
a less-than-satisfactory solution).

[...]
"A private citizen can go to the store and buy one of those model
airplanes and fly them around. But because we're doing it as a public
service, we have to deal with the FAA?" said Sheriff's Cmdr. Sid Heal."
- The Sheriff's Cmdr. apparently doesn't understand the difference
between the RC Models and a UAV.

Well, to be fair, even looking at the links you offered, it seems he's not
alone. I'm a bit surprised that there doesn't appear to be anything in the
FARs that at least provides an exception from the FARs for the operation of
radio-controlled models, but perhaps that's implied by some broader
exception I didn't notice.

That said, it does seem to me that there's an obvious difference between
what is considered a UAV (as used by law enforcement, for example) and a
radio-controlled model. Even ignoring the usual difference in size and
flight altitude (which we may as well, since those are not absolutes even
for model airplanes), the primary difference is that radio-controlled models
are always flown in direct sight, under direct control of the operator. And
if they weren't, I would say that would put them squarely into the UAV
category, and subject to the same FAA oversight.

I do find it interesting that the rcgroups.com thread seems to be focusing
somewhat on the commercial vs recreational aspects:

http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/archi.../t-358461.html

While I wouldn't be completely surprised if the FAA chose that route to
differentiation, I think it would make more sense to focus on the size of
the aircraft and degree of operator involvement. Of most concern is an
operator who is not in the immediate area, looking directly at the aircraft
and the airspace around it.

In this respect, Cmdr. Sid Heal does seem to miss the point in thinking that
his law enforcement craft are somehow equivalent to radio-controlled model
airplanes. But it would be nice if the written law were a bit more clear on
the matter, so that people who don't see these obvious differences can be
referred to a document that gives them something to consider.

Pete

On Thu, 22 Jun 2006 10:18:47 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
wrote in :

... I'm a bit surprised that there doesn't appear to be anything in the
FARs that at least provides an exception from the FARs for the operation of
radio-controlled models, but perhaps that's implied by some broader
exception I didn't notice.

I think the decision has been made administratively rather than
legislatively.

Here are the three links, in chronological order, from the longer post
I just made in this thread:

1981: http://www.eoss.org/faa/ac91-57.pdf

2003: http://www.ihsaviation.com/faa/N8700.25.pdf

2005: http://www.eoss.org/faa/AFS_400_UAS_POLICY_05_01.pdf

In other words, you won't find the exception spelled out in the FARS.

That said, it does seem to me that there's an obvious difference between
what is considered a UAV (as used by law enforcement, for example) and a
radio-controlled model. Even ignoring the usual difference in size and
flight altitude (which we may as well, since those are not absolutes even
for model airplanes), the primary difference is that radio-controlled models
are always flown in direct sight, under direct control of the operator.

Not always. An FAI record was set by Maynard Hill by an aircraft
that was piloted by RC for takeoff, then flown under internal
guidance across the Atlantic, and landed under RC control
in Ireland.

http://tam.plannet21.com/

The plane AND fuel weighed 5 kg (11 pounds) at takeoff.

It was designed, built, and tuned for the flight by Hill, who was
77 years old and legally blind at the time of the flight in
2003.

The flight last 38 hours, 52 minutes, 19 seconds.

It covered 1881.6 miles.

The engine was 10 cc (~0.61 ci), highly modified by
Hill.

In this respect, Cmdr. Sid Heal does seem to miss the point in thinking that
his law enforcement craft are somehow equivalent to radio-controlled model
airplanes.

Recreational aircraft should not be operated over a heavily-populated
area. To make a police UAV safe would require far more redundancy
than is ordinarily found in recreational RC models.

Marty