The FAA vs. Model Airplanes

As a counterpoint, in the UK:

- Under 7kg you must be able to see it well enough to avoid collisions with stuff

- Between 7-20kg stick below 400ft

- Above 20kg it's more complex; everything else applies to <20kg aircraft

- If you're flying aircraft for money, you need to apply to the CAA for a permit and demonstrate competency

- You may be allowed to fly higher or further away as a commercial operator if you can put together a safety case

- There are procedures for blocking off sections of airspace for flying BVLOS (Beyond Visual Line of Sight) with CAA permission

- You are very unlikely to get permission to routinely fly outside visual range pending the development of reliable sense and avoid systems

I personally think this makes a lot of sense; the majority of business operators & hobbyists seem to get on with things without causing much risk to manned aviation.

There were over 300 licensed small UAS operators at last count.

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/cap722.pdf

I find the model aircraft comparisons a bit dsingenuous. Most people imagine a hobby model aircraft that's 2-3 feet long, made out of balsa wood, styrofoam, or very lightweight plastic, and can't go much higher than 100 feet.

But serious enthusiasts can buy RCs from companies like Skymaster for a couple of thousand that are 8+ feet long, have turbofan engines, can reach 2000 feet, and airspeeds of up to 150 mph. Here's an example: http://www.skymasterjet.com/f16L.htm

Of course I don't want the FAA to be heavy handed - these things are super cool and I would like to try one myself! - but the state of the art in model aircraft is powerful enough to present a serious hazard to general aviation if misused. I'd rather see a clearly defined framework in place than a set of reactive rules after some avoidable tragedy.

For what it's worth, I have a pilot's license and also fly a quadcopter.

A big part of the issue is the separation of powers and who exactly has the right to regulate model aircraft. Congress explicitly and deliberately precluded the FAA from regulating model aircraft. A separate question is whether or not, given their proliferation, the new breed of model aircraft should be regulated. Given existing laws, that's a job for congress to decide.

As an aside: People wanting to do dumb things, will do dumb things. You don't need to create new sweeping regulation to punish people from doing dumb things either. Most cities and states have laws preventing people from deliberately invading others' privacy, or acting recklessly. Many of the concerns levied against drones are either already addressed or are impossible to regulate against. I'm often reminded of a news reporter on 9/11 that was asking the aviation expert on air with her how the planes were able to get into restricted airspace.

I have mixed views on this. On the one hand, I completely support model aircraft hobbyists and I also support private drone operations (like real estate photography or search and rescue, or just recreational use).

However, there has to be a line where a remote control operation could interact with the national airspace system and the regulated operators therein. Not more than 500 feet and away from airports sounds like a good limit to me, adding on that the drone operator must maintain clearance from any aircraft that may exist in that area, such as helicopters.

I think the key change that is spooking the FAA is that drones may be operated (from a technical perspective) outside of direct view of the operator. "Traditional" model aircraft weren't generally taken far from the field they launched from; but a drone with a camera and transmitter can go much further.

Probably everyone has seen the video of the drone that was flown through a fireworks display. A very cool video indeed, but, also a good example of the FAA's concerns: if the drone is outside of view of the operator, and running at altitude, and not carrying a transponder, lights, or other equipment mandated to certified aircraft, then how is clearance from other aircraft ensured?

I've been building and flying model airplanes, sailplanes, powered and helicopters for many decades. Flying model aircraft required time, knowledge and dedication. Before the Internet we used to connect over USENET. It wasn't uncommmon to engage in deep discussions of aerodynamics, design, composite fabrication, motor design, etc. I made many good friends in the aerospace industry during those days, including people like the chief engineer of the F-14 and members of the team who designed the F-117 Stealth Fighter. I provide this background as a backdrop for what, ultimately, is my opinion of what is going on right now in the multicopter world:

A bunch of FUCKING MORONS are going to ruin it for those of us who fell in love with this hobby as a conduit for science and learning. A passtime that used to be handed down from parents to children is in jeopardy of being regulated out of our lives because of a bunch of idiots with money and no brains and an apparent total lack of common sense, consideration, respect and care for the health and safety of others. No true model aircraft enthusiast of my generation would even consider doing some of the crap these morons are doing every day.

It's sad.

Federally subsidized transponders and autopilots. It'd be great if I could make a model plane and add a < $100 device to allay concerns.

We're going through a bit of a 'long September' period in the RC/Model world, as more and more newcomers to the hobby get things like the DJI Phantom, and then proceed to break all sorts of rules that have been a 'given' in the RC world previously. The sooner these users learn some manners, the better.

Note that the FAA interpretive rule is open for public comment until September 23. See the link below for analysis and comment suggestions from the AMA, and speak up!

http://www.modelaircraft.org/aboutama/AMAInterpretiveRuleRes...

If you have a pilot license, and call into the ATC to get clearance, can you operate a drone for commercial purposes (e.g. taking photos for real estate listings)?

Banning RC planes inside class B airspace is does not seem like that big of a hardship. There are only 50 or so of them total in the United States, and they are very very busy most of the time.

A 30 lbs / 15 ft glider can probably cause very serious injury when landed on a highway.

Any propeller plane / fast glider can cause death in a crowd.

Maybe a model airplane can cause a real plane to crash.

A firearm can probably do some serious damage to a flying plane too.

But... is it likely? does it happen? often?

When so-called risks are not measured, they're often mentioned to justify blind repression.

In the startup world, it's commonsense to measure things before taking action. It should inspire politics.

BTW, I recently saw a video titled "a drone almost crashed into an airplane" (or another catchy headline). Judging by the video, the distance between the two was at least 100 to 300 yards...