What FARs cover R/C drones?

"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

On Thu, 22 Jun 2006 09:42:44 -0700, Randy Aldous wrote:

[snip]
- The Sheriff's Cmdr. apparently doesn't understand the difference
between the RC Models and a UAV.

Agreed. Plus, he's talking about flying these things in ANY area where
other aircraft are certain to be...such as during high visibility crimes
(bank robberies, hostages, etc...). For certain news will want to be in
the area...now suddenly, with no coordination with the FAA, he expects
helicopter crews to see and avoid tiny, 5-lbs craft. That Sheriff seems
pretty nutty to me.

Greg

There is a difference between "UAV" and "Remotely Piloted Vehicle".
The difference was drawn to avoid problems with the SALT II Treaty which
prohibits dropping bombs or launching missiles from UAVs.


Jim Logajan wrote:
"Randy Aldous" wrote:
The Sheriff's Cmdr. apparently doesn't understand the
difference between the RC Models and a UAV.

Hmmm. If you read some of the useful links your provide (airspace2.doc
seems to have a nice summary) I think you'll find that "UAV" has various
meanings, some of which include RC models, and some of which don't. Is
there a definition of UAV that the FAA uses that is regulatory? My
fundamental question is what FAR(s) would the FAA cite and convince a judge
that the Sheriff was in violation of?

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

Great links; thanks. They seems to confirm my suspicion that the FAA is
sending confusing signals.

"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.'

"Greg Copeland" wrote in message news
On Thu, 22 Jun 2006 09:42:44 -0700, Randy Aldous wrote:

[snip]
- The Sheriff's Cmdr. apparently doesn't understand the difference
between the RC Models and a UAV.

Agreed. Plus, he's talking about flying these things in ANY area where
other aircraft are certain to be...such as during high visibility crimes
(bank robberies, hostages, etc...). For certain news will want to be in
the area...now suddenly, with no coordination with the FAA, he expects
helicopter crews to see and avoid tiny, 5-lbs craft. That Sheriff seems
pretty nutty to me.

Greg


New 'copters are required to remain a certain altitude above any 'event', and these 'tiny' aircraft will most likely not
be over a couple hundred feet AGL. The cops would be talking to the cops 'copter if present for coordination purposes...

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.

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message ...
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.

Only reasonable people think this way, and if the AMA (Academy of Model Aeronautics) member wants to be insured, then
they will operate the aircraft per the AMA safety code. If insurance is available or liability is somehow limited, then
the operator would not need to be as concerned - congested area really doesn't mean anything. I was wondering why the
sheriff was requesting some sort of blessing from the FAA.

Does anyone remember when the wacko flew the RC plane into the (I think Goodyear) blimp?

On Mon, 26 Jun 2006 15:53:05 GMT, ".Blueskies."
wrote in
::

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.

Only reasonable people think this way, and if the AMA (Academy of Model
Aeronautics) member wants to be insured, then
they will operate the aircraft per the AMA safety code.

Are you implying that the AMA insures it's members' RC operations
provided they are in compliance with the AMA Safety Code?

If insurance is available or liability is somehow limited, then
the operator would not need to be as concerned

Such a liability-limited RC aircraft operator wouldn't need to be
concerned about operating over a crowed of people, unless s/he felt a
moral obligation to refrain from maiming his fellow citizens in the
event of loss of control.

- congested area really doesn't mean anything.

Doesn't operating an RC aircraft over people mean that the probability
of hitting someone with it is substantially increased over the
probability when operating over unpopulated land?

I was wondering why the sheriff was requesting some sort of blessing from the FAA.

I wasn't aware sheriff Baca was requesting anything from the FAA.
Where did you find that information?

Does anyone remember when the wacko flew the RC plane into the (I think Goodyear) blimp?

Why?

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message ...
On Mon, 26 Jun 2006 15:53:05 GMT, ".Blueskies."
wrote in
::

Are you implying that the AMA insures it's members' RC operations
provided they are in compliance with the AMA Safety Code?


Uh, yes, this is the primary reason many folks join the AMA...

If insurance is available or liability is somehow limited, then
the operator would not need to be as concerned

Such a liability-limited RC aircraft operator wouldn't need to be
concerned about operating over a crowed of people, unless s/he felt a
moral obligation to refrain from maiming his fellow citizens in the
event of loss of control.

- congested area really doesn't mean anything.

Doesn't operating an RC aircraft over people mean that the probability
of hitting someone with it is substantially increased over the
probability when operating over unpopulated land?


Yes, and that is the point, if the person is not concerned about the crowd, they can fly over it with no legal issues,
until something goes wrong or someone complains about 'noise'.

I was wondering why the sheriff was requesting some sort of blessing from the FAA.

I wasn't aware sheriff Baca was requesting anything from the FAA.
Where did you find that information?


They said the situation would be "cleared up' soon...
"Sheriff's officials described the controversy as a misunderstanding that soon will be cleared up."

Does anyone remember when the wacko flew the RC plane into the (I think Goodyear) blimp?

Why?

No regulations followed the incident - it was handled using currently existing laws and the 'wacko' was jailed.