This was posted today. It would provide guidance and lead to enforcement regarding UAS model aircraft. Specifically called out is the use of FPV equipment in any context. There is a comment period and I would encourage you to provide your input. http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2014-0396-0001 This is a bit of the information on FPV. By definition, a model aircraft must be “flown within visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft.” Public Law 112-95, section 336(c)(2). (1) 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.(2) 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.
Curious if a device like the Epson Moverio falls under this statute? "...enjoy content in private while still experiencing the real world"
I can't say that I'm completely against what the FAA have said here. After watching many of the "cloud surfing" FPV videos of airplanes (and even some copters) operating at thousands of feet AGL and miles downrange, I'm increasingly concerned that there's going to be a collision with a piloted aircraft. Even with sense and avoid technologies, I doubt (for example) that a TBS Discovery could get out of the way of a commercial aircraft bearing down on it. IMHO until long-range FPV airplanes can be equipped (at least) with transponders and the pilots certified, maybe even with proper pilots' licenses, I don't feel good about their continued operation over populated areas and/or in air travel lanes.
They would need to be altitude and position reporting transponders as the aircraft are, I suspect, too small to show up on radar. Also carbon fiber is pretty stealthy. Andy.
Note: in order to comment you need to go to the Federal Register site. Here's the link -- note "Submit comment" button at the top right hand corner: https://www.federalregister.gov/art...tation-of-the-special-rule-for-model-aircraft EDIT: I clicked on the link above and it appears to be broken. Try this link: https://www.federalregister.gov/art...tation-of-the-special-rule-for-model-aircraft Andy.
...and EPP foam is probably even more invisible. To radar that is. To a jet engine or an aircraft windscreen, it's likely very visible.
Does this mean you are not allowed to have it on your copter or not allowed to use it? I always fly line of site but have the monitor as backup. ON my radio I have both the FPV camera and the camera operator feed so I can help them frame up if they have any questions. Would this be not allowed to even have as a backup?
As is typically the case with the FAA, they've left more questions unanswered than answered. It's really anybody's guess. None of this is "law" yet, anyway.
My interpretation is that you can use FPV on the copter, but you cannot do anything that prevents you from keeping the copter in visual line of sight, e.g. Fatsharks. The "visual line of sight" is the requirement -- having FPV data on a monitor does not prevent you from keeping the copter in visual line of sight -- although depending on your age, you will "waste" anywhere from 0.6 seconds to 0.8 seconds each time you look down at the monitor and back up at the copter as your eyes need to re-adapt their focus. There is an argument to be made that if you are using Cinemizers in such a way that you can comply with the visual line of sight requirement (e.g. by looking over the top of the Cinemizers at the copter) then all is well. If you focus the Cinemizers at infinity, then you will not "waste" any time at all transitioning from FPV to visual line of sight as your eye do not need to re-focus. However, what does a regulation mean to an 800 lb gorilla? Anything it wants. Clearly the FAA is not an 800 lb gorilla, nor are the folks that work for it, but, I suspect the same line of reasoning may apply. Andy
Thanks guys. I would think that FPV would be a good safety backup in case you lost orientation by the copter not responding correctly. It might help you prevent a flyaway or a crash if you could have FPV. I understand and agree with the underlining princiiple of the rule though.
Steve actually the FAA says that this IS the law under the reauthorization act. When they pass new regs there are always these types of questions about the 'meaning'. This type of document is to stake out their interpretation of what is in the law or regulation. The FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (Pub. L. 112-95, Section 336) was passed as a 'public law' by congress and section 336 pertains to UAS and model aircraft. So the next debate might be what is an obstructed view. Looking over the top of Cinemizers or through Google Glass would be an interesting discussion with the FAA. Having a Monitor on your TX or in front of you likely wouldn't be an obstruction. But if you were to be asked by a curious FAA inspector and answer in Dave's reply that "I am using the monitor as a safety back in case of lost orientation" the FAA inspector might throw a yellow penalty flag and say "Well sir if you were operating line of sight using only your MKI eyeballs how would you lose orientation if you were operating safely" Penalty flag, FAR violation, 91.13 Careless and Reckless operation, go stand over there with Mr Pirker. The howling has started over at MRF. I don't go to FPVLABS anymore but an MRF post paraphrased said 'what fpvlabs sowed let them reap (or weep)'. I read this as step 1 of the final rules. The FAA has done what they have done in the past for the aviation community. They are signaling their interpretation of the public law, telling us their view of how they might approach enforcement and only time and the court process will tell us if their interpretation is correct. Folks everyday are arguing their position in from of ALJ's and the NTSB. If you follow general aviation most of the time FAA position is affirmed. The heavy weight of government and the siding with safety when in doubt seem to rule.
"asked by a curious FAA inspector" Hmm do they wear yellow vests or something? I'm sure there are dozens of such folk combing the countryside, right?
It's a brave new world. Now they aren't restricted to airports to do ramp checks. They can go anywhere they see a copter flying...
Mr King you have been found guilty of careless and reckless operation, I sentence you to 5 years of flying a Hubsan X4. LOL. Sorry for the lack of clarity. I meant losing orientation if the copter does something unexpected which causes you to lose orientation such as if the GPS wigs out which could cause the copter to go out of line of sight or moves to a point that partially obstructs your view. I'm only thinking of worst case scenarios where FPV could help reestablish orientation and allow the operator to safely land. I guess the argument could then be made that you need to keep your copter in line of sight in such a way that if something unexpected happens you leave yourself an extra level of safety. Case in point: Earlier this year I had a flight where I powered up my new alexmos gimbal before I set the ACC on the copter and I had one hell of a ride. (background: My alexmos gimbal yaws a little back and forth when powered up and doesn't settle completely until its off the ground. I always power up the MK first, set the ACC, then power up the gimbal). Setting the ACC while the copter is even slightly yawing is a definite no no as I soon found out. I had a few things fail on me all just about the same time. As I soon would find out, my orientation lights had an intermittant ground connection and went out as I was just getting up 50 feet in the air and about 20 meters away from me just as I was engaging the copter in PH. As soon as I engaged PH the copter freaked out and started yawing and moving away from me at a fast pace. The copter was now about 75-120 meters away and about 50 feet high and I had no orientation. As I have learned through experience, I knew something was going on with the GPS so I disengaged it quickly. This was a good thing and the copter stablilized but as you know these copters can get away from you pretty fast in manual mode if you don't have orientation. Luckily I was able to look down to my FPV feed to regain orientation and was able to safely land.
Dave your examples are good reason to have FPV. It is a safety feature. That's the thing about the gov't. You used common sense and logic. You anticipated outcomes that would be outside the flight envelope and prepared for them. At the end the FAA may still take a hard stance. Pirker didn't hit anything and fell into their grasp with the catchall 91.13 violation. When in doubt they hit the pilot with that one. Happens to general aviation pilots on a frequent basis. So you could be doing the logical, common sense thing and still get caught up in the bureaucracy. My experience with the folks that are at the FAA is that they are not going hunting. Ramp checks in the aviation world do happen and sometimes randomly. But the amount of paperwork that needs to be generated if they are going to actually do a 'ticket' is astounding. In most cases with our forum members the member has gotten a counseling call. GA pilots get the same type of calls. Take the counseling to heart and the file stays in the file cabinet. Don't pay attention, well that leads to other stuff. My opinion is that this is all good. They are trying to tell everyone their interpretation on the public law that was passed. The courts over time will sort out whether the FAA view is correct. Just as they have since the time of Wilbur and Orville. We are certainly in new uncharted waters.
That link didn't work for me. Here's a direct link to the "Submit Comment" page: http://www.regulations.gov/#!submitComment;D=FAA-2014-0396-0001
The AMA just released a response to this FAA position. Dear Mike, On Monday, June 23rd, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) released an Interpretive Rule in which it presented FAA's interpretation of the "Special Rule for Model Aircraft" established by Congress in the FAA modernization and Reform Act of 2012. The Academy has reviewed the rule and is extremely disappointed and troubled by the approach the FAA has chosen to take in regards to this issue In its Press Release the FAA stated it was, "issuing the notice to provide clear guidance to model operators on the "do's and don'ts" of flying safely in accordance with the Act and to answer many of the questions it has received regarding the scope and application of the rules." It also stated, "(this) guidance comes after recent incidents involving the reckless use of unmanned model aircraft near airports and involving large crowds of people." It's important to note that very few of these cases have been factually documented and not a single incident was shown to involve a member of the AMA or to be connected in any way to modeling operations conducted under the auspices of the special rule. In AMA's response to the rule it was pointed out that, "The FAA interpretive rule effectively negates Congress' intentions, and is contrary to the law. Section 336(a) of the Public Law states that, 'the Federal Aviation Administration may not promulgate any rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft...', this interpretive rule specifically addresses model aircraft, effectively establishes rules that model aircraft were not previously subject to and is in direct violation of the congressional mandate in the 2012 FAA reauthorization bill." AMA has voiced its opposition to FAA's action and will pursue all available recourse to dissuade enactment of this rule. It's important that every AMA member becomes involved in the effort. The first step is to respond to the public comment period established in the notice. Look for a follow-up email from AMA with information on how to respond to the FAA notice. This is your opportunity to express your views and to comment on various aspects of the Interpretive Rule. It's important for the Administration to know that this rule significantly impacts the entire aeromodeling community and that this community is resolute and committed to protecting the hobby. In this case silence IS NOT golden. Please alert your friends, family members and fellow modelers regarding this issue. Thank you, AMA Government Relations
Letter from the owner of Ready Made RC. http://www.readymaderc.com/store/index.php?main_page=page&id=16