/dist/images/branding/favicon

FAA Press Conference re: sUAS NPRM

Discussion in 'Announcements' started by Andy Johnson-Laird, Feb 15, 2015.

  1. Andy Johnson-Laird

    Andy Johnson-Laird Administrator
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2012
    Messages:
    10,383
    Likes Received:
    1,164
    I sat in on the press conference this morning (yeah, Sunday) at which U.S. Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx and FAA Administrator Michael Huerta spoke about the NPRM (which is not yet up on the FAA's web site or in the Federal Register).

    The highlights of the call are:
    1. Model aircraft are not addressed by the NPRM. Those continue to operate under current guidelines (which I presume are AC 91-57).
    2. Small UAS < 55 lbs, operating at less than 100 mph, < 500 feet, daylight only, staying clear of airports, strictly visual line of sight (no mention of FPV, but pilot must have direct eyeball contact with the aircraft).
    3. FAA seeking comments as to whether a microUAS class < 4.4 lbs should have separate regulations.
    4. Separate UAS pilot's license will be issued based on passing a knowledge test -- license will be good for two years and be renewed based on a "proficiency test." (Details tests not described.)
    5. Not clear whether the UAS pilot's license requires a flight test -- based on the words I heard, the answer is no. Just a ground school knowledge test which I infer will cover aeronautical, air space, safe operations, etc.
    6. No certificate of airworthiness required for small UAS (FAA concerned that the aircraft would be obsolete before the C of A would be issued).
    7. No medical required.
    8. Pilot's (probably going to be called "operators") will be required to do a preflight inspection of the aircraft.
    9. It was not made clear (and no questions addressed the subject) the question of commercial flight operations over people. I make the inference the flight envelope rule (item 2. above) excludes proximity to people and congested areas.
    10. No mention made of Visual Observers or other restrictions -- these may, of course, be in the NPRM.
    Let's see what the NPRM says when it appears on the Web.

    Andy.
     
  2. Steve Maller

    Steve Maller UAV Grief Counselor

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2012
    Messages:
    3,981
    Likes Received:
    807
    Kudos to everybody who participated in this process. Andy, I know you were working behind the scenes (as well as many others) and it appears everybody's input was considered, as this actually appears to be a logical, positive outcome.

    I have renewed faith that aspiring commercial operators in the USA may have a reasonable path to monetize our investments.

    THANK YOU!!
     
  3. Andy Johnson-Laird

    Andy Johnson-Laird Administrator
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2012
    Messages:
    10,383
    Likes Received:
    1,164
  4. Andy Johnson-Laird

    Andy Johnson-Laird Administrator
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2012
    Messages:
    10,383
    Likes Received:
    1,164
  5. Jim Gilley

    Jim Gilley New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2013
    Messages:
    7
    Likes Received:
    0
    To my shock and amazement, these rules seem remarkably reasonable and level-headed, something I am not accustomed to from our government. I will be filing comments, as I hope everyone else will as well. My biggest concern at this point is making sure federal law preempts state law, as many places are now (or have already) passed idiotic restrictions as a result of media-induced hysteria.
     
  6. Steve Maller

    Steve Maller UAV Grief Counselor

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2012
    Messages:
    3,981
    Likes Received:
    807
    I'm not sure that federal rules are going to automatically preempt state or local laws, unfortunately. But part of the reason state and local laws have been discussed (and even enacted in rare cases) is that there WAS no federal guidance. Hopefully that will eventually change as the FAA (and others) own this.
     
  7. Gary Haynes

    Gary Haynes Administrator
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2012
    Messages:
    5,211
    Likes Received:
    460
    There is ample precedent that the feds prevail on nearly anything that has to do with airspace regulation. So many of the enacted state/local statutes will be moot, perhaps not without some type of fight. There are ways for the state/local to 'regulate' just not when it comes to airspace.
     
  8. Jim Gilley

    Jim Gilley New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2013
    Messages:
    7
    Likes Received:
    0
    I appreciate your remarks, both Steve and Gary. I think that one might reasonably argue that the RIGHT place for regulation of sUAS is at the federal level, simply because each state, municipality, etc. lacks the resources to properly do this. Furthermore, it would be a nightmare for an operator if the rules and regs differed from place to place.

    I also forgot to add that I expect most (not all) here welcome these regs because they do not seem overly burdensome. However, I worry they may not go far enough. One might argue that the REAL problem are the morons with their Phantoms they got as a birthday present, flying them over crowded football games and at airports, etc. As the proposed regs do not apply to non-commercial hobbyists, one fails to see how these rules will ultimately solve that problem.
     
  9. Andy Johnson-Laird

    Andy Johnson-Laird Administrator
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2012
    Messages:
    10,383
    Likes Received:
    1,164
    Jim:
    The National Airspace System including all Class G airspace is Federal. So when, for example, a couple of years ago Sen. Prozanski of Oregon introduced a Senate Bill 71-4 for controlling "Oregon airspace" I think it was pointed out to him fairly swiftly that there was no such thing. Certainly the next draft and subsequent House Bill omitted that concept.

    I agree with you re: the Phantom "operators" (the FAA will not call them pilots according to the NPRM) -- however the NPRM does point out very clearly that "f]inally, the model-aircraft component of this rulemaking incorporates the statutory mandate in section 336(b) that preserves the FAA’s authority, under 49 U.S.C. 40103(b) and 44701(a)(5), to pursue enforcement “against persons operating model aircraft who endanger the safety of the national airspace system.” (See NPRM page 4, 12).

    Page 47 also states:

    The FAA also notes that it recently issued an interpretive rule explaining the provisions of section 336 and concluding that “Congress intended for the FAA to be able to rely on a range of our existing regulations to protect users of the airspace and people and property on the ground.” 38 In this interpretive rule, the FAA gave examples of existing regulations the violation of which could subject model aircraft to enforcement action. Those regulations include:​
     Prohibitions on careless or reckless operation and dropping objects so as to create a hazard to persons or property (14 CFR 91.13 and 91.15); ​
     Right-of-way rules for converging aircraft (14 CFR 91.113);​
     Rules governing operations in designated airspace (14 CFR part 73 and §§ 91.126 through 91.135); and​
     Rules relating to operations in areas covered by temporary flight restrictions and notices to airmen (NOTAMs) (14 CFR 91.137 through 91.145).39​
    The FAA notes that the above list is not intended to be an exhaustive list of all existing regulations that apply to model aircraft meeting the statutory criteria of Public Law 112-95, section 336. Rather, as explained in the interpretive rule, “[t]he FAA anticipates that the cited regulations are the ones that would most commonly apply to model aircraft operations.”​

    So, bottom line, if you are a hobbyist "operator" and you fly recklessly endangering the NAS, or people and property on the ground, the FAA still has jurisdiction. Whether they prosecute you is a different story.

    Andy.
     
  10. Paul conto

    Paul conto Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2013
    Messages:
    244
    Likes Received:
    19
    One way we can look at it with the regulations we won't ALL be hammered for the actions of a few. When someone does something stupid, flys into the WH lawn, shuts down an airport, smashes into buildings in New York City we can all point out they were operating outside the regulations set said for responsible operators. Hopefully it will help the hammer from falling down on ALL of us when screw ups happen.
    One way to help is when the regulations start up we all post as much as possible, not just here, about the positive side that the rules have allowed. Finally getting legally paid, people starting up businesses, safe flying pictures and videos. The more we push the positive side of things the better it will be in the long run.
     

Share This Page