RCGroups.

coms Reply
to FAA Memo
Interpretation of the Special Rule for Model Aircraft

July17,2014

RCGroups.com,acommunitybasedorganizationrepresentingover500,000registered
membersandover1.7millionuniquevisitorseachmonth,hasreadtherecent17pagememo
andnowrespondstodocket#FAA20140396.Sincethereleaseofthisinterpretation,our
membershavecommentedenergeticallyontheirconcerns,andthisletterseekstoconvey
someofthosethoughtstotheFAA.

Brieflysummarizedourcommentsare:
Thedefinitionoflineofsightdoesnotfollowfromthestatuteandcriminalizesbehaviors
consistentwithresponsible,safeoperationofmodelaircraft.
TheFAAsinterpretationbetraysCongresscleardirectiontoexempttheR/Cmodeling
hobbyfromaviationregulations.

Line of Sight
WebelievetheFAAmisunderstandstheintentofthewordslineofsightandthatthethreepart
definitionprovidediscontrarytothepublicsafety.

Bydefinition,amodelaircraftmustbeflownwithinvisuallineofsightofthe
personoperatingtheaircraft.P.L.11295,section336(c)(2).Basedontheplain
languageofthestatute,theFAAinterpretsthisrequirementtomeanthat:(1)theaircraft
mustbevisibleatalltimestotheoperator(2)thattheoperatormustusehisorherown
naturalvision(whichincludesvisioncorrectedbystandardeyeglassesorcontactlenses)
toobservetheaircraftand(3)peopleotherthantheoperatormaynotbeusedinlieuof
theoperatorformaintainingvisuallineofsight.

WebelievethattheintentofLineofSightincludesonlyitem#1intheabove.Items#2and#3
areadditionalinterpretivestepsbytheFAAthatarenotfounded.Also,thepotentialbenefitsof
multipleoperatorsweredismissedcapriciously.

Item#1iscorrectprovidedweunderstandthewordvisibletomeanwhatthestatuteimplies:all
thevisibleareasurroundingthepilot(i.e.theskynotobstructedbytrees,buildingsandpeople).
Theremainingitemsproceedfromanincorrectsubstitutionofwithinvisuallineofsighttoa
meaningmorelikehavingcurrentvisualfocus.

Item#2prohibitstheuseofsafetydeviceswhichcouldmaketrackingadistantaircrafteasier.
Suchdevicescouldevenassisttheoperatorwithfindinganaircraftwhichhasbeenvisuallylost.
Pilotsdomakemistakes!Thereisnobasisforincludingthisasanimplicationoflineofsight.

Item#3apparentlyallowsfortheuseofanFPVspotterbutprohibitsallowingthatusertoalso
operatethemodelaircraft,whichisnonsensical.Modelscanandoftendohavemorethanone
operator.ThereisnoreasontodisallowoneoftheoperatorsfromusinganFPVperspective.A
secondoperatorflyingusingafirstpersonviewhasthepotentialtodramaticallyincreasethe
safetyofmodelaircraftflight.

Clearlythereisaconcernabouttheuseoffirstpersonvideosystemstopilotmodelaircraft.
Thisconcernisunfounded.Aircraftflownfromthefirstpersonperspectivearemuchmore
easilycontrolledthanaircraftflownfromadistantvantage.UsersofR/Ctrainingsimulators
typicallybeginwithafirstpersonviewthenprogresstothemuchhardertaskofcontrollingthe
aircraftfromagroundbasedvantagepoint.

Toensurethattheoperatorhasthebestviewoftheaircraft,thestatutoryrequirement
wouldprecludetheuseofvisionenhancingdevices,suchasbinoculars,nightvision
goggles,poweredvisionmagnifyingdevices,andgogglesdesignedtoprovidea
firstpersonviewfromthemodel.Suchdeviceswouldlimittheoperatorsfieldofview
therebyreducinghisorherabilitytoseeandavoidotheraircraftinthearea.

ContrarytotheopinionoftheFAA,itisonlythroughtheuseofFPVviewpointsthatR/Cpilots
caneffectivelymanagetoseeandavoidanotherairborneobject.Parallaxerrormakesitvery
difficulttodeterminetherelativedepthoftwoobjectsinthesky.Thisiseasilyreproducible.

Maintaininglineofsightthroughtheuseofbinocularsisrare,buthasprecedent.Seethebelow
photoofworldmodelaviationrecordsetter,MaynardHill.


MaynardHillsettingamodelaircraftaltituderecordviabinocularlineofsight.
PhotocourtesytheAcademyofModelAeronautics.

Whilewecertainlyagreewiththeimportanceofensuringthesafetyofaircraftoccupants,we
mustdigresstopointoutthatpilotsofmancarryingaircraftarerequiredtostay500feetaway
frompeople(FAR91.119).Pilotsofmodelaircraftwouldbeveryhardpressedtointentionallyhit
amovingaircraftfromtheirgroundreference.Inacollisionbetweenamodelaircraftandareal
aircraft,theassignmentofblameshouldbeginbydeterminingwhetherthepilotofthereal
aircraftwasrecklesslyoperatingwithin500feetofthemodelaircraftoperator.Onlyafterthat
coulditbedeterminedwhowasbetterabletoavoidtheaccident.Inmostcasesthiscouldnot
betheoperatorofthemodelaircraft.

ItisparadoxicaltodenymodelaircraftoperatorstheuseofFPVequipmentonthebasisthatit
willallowthemtoharasspilotsofrealplanes,thenassertthattheymustmaintainseeandavoid
withouttheuseoftheequipmentbestabletoassisttheminseeingiftheyareonacollision
course.

WebelievethestatuteusesLineofSighttodescribetheareawithinwhichtheaircraftcanbe
flown,notthestatusoftheoperatorseyeballs.Thisareaisalltheplacesvisiblefromthepilots
vantagepoint.Thestatuteimpliesthatmodelaircraftshouldbeflownsuchthattheyarenot
behindotherobjects,suchaspeople,trees,andbuildings,relativetothepilot.Thestatutedid
notimplythatpilotscouldnotaugmenttheirvisionforsafety(e.g.byusingbinocularsorvideo
equipment).TheFAAhasnoreasontoprohibitoperatorsfromflyingFPVflightswithintheirown
lineofsight,inparticularwithasafetypilotoperatingaseitherprimaryorsecondarypilotthrough
abuddyboxtypesystem.

The FAA Interpretation vs the intent of Congress

Thissectionofthememoregardingcommercialoperationweirdlyanddefensivelydetoursinto
areasthathavenothingtodowiththetopicathandofprofessionaldroneflightstoaddressthe
nonissueofcommercialmodelaircraftflightsingeneral,includingreceivingmoneyfor
demonstratingaerobaticswithamodelaircraft.Ratherthanclarifyitconfounds.

TheFAAerrsintoobroadlyapplyingthefollowingfromP.L.11295,section336(c)

(1)theaircraftisflownstrictlyforhobbyorrecreationaluse

Itisourcontentionthathobbyorrecreationalusewasmeanttoincludeexactlytheactivitythe
FAAbelievesitexcludes.CongressexpresslysoughttopreventtheFAAfromregulatingthetoy
andhobbyindustry,andthatincludesthosewhoworkwithinit.CongressallowedfortheFAAto
regulatecommercialoperationsbecauseitsawthefutureofautonomouscropdusting,hobby
atmosphericresearchvehicles,andautonomouslypilotedremotesensingvehiclesingeneral.
Suchvehiclesneedregulationtooperatesuchthattheydonotinterferewithmancarrying
aircraft,oreachother.Aproperclarificationwouldtacklethedifficultjobofseparatingthese
activitiesfrommodelaircraft,notlumpeverythingthatfliesintoonegroupbasedonthe
movementofmoneyafteritisflown.TheFAAseemsdeterminedtojumpinwhereitdoesnt
belong,despiteCongressdirection.

Inorderforhobbyproductstobemadetheymustbetested.InorderforanR/Ctraining
simulatortobecreatedpeoplemustgooutandflytherealmodeltocompareittothesimulation.
Forreviewstobewrittenpeoplemustflythemodelsunderreview.Thesepeoplemustbepaid.
TheFAAsinterpretationmakesthemtheregulatoryauthorityoverthedesign,testing,
production,marketing,andsalesofallmodelaircraft,givingthemthepowertoshutdowna
hobbytheywereexpresslyforbiddentoregulate.

Ifthegoalwastoclarifythememofailed.Newquestionsareraisedaboutthefuture.Willhobby
industrymagazinesbeabletocompensateproductreviewerswhodonothaveacommercial
pilotlicense?Willtheyhavetoundergoamedicalcertificationprocess?Urinalysis?Biennial
training?Isareimbursementofapilotsactualexpensesconsideredanactofcommerce?Will
therebeawaiverprocesstogetaroundtheserestrictions?

Thankfully,theFAAstopsshortofinsistingPart91fullyapplytocommercialpilotsofmodel
aircraft.Perhapsafuturememowilltakeusthere,yearsfromnowafterthecurrentcadreof
bureaucratsarelongretired,whenafuturegenerationislefttoplainlyinterpretwhatwasleftfor
them.PerhapsbythenwellhaveappliedalltheFARsandoperatorsofmodelaircraftwillhave
theirtimelylessonsinhowtouseVORandDMEsystemsundertheirbeltsbeforereceivingtheir
licensestooperateinthenationalairspace,whichnowextendstotheairindoorsandany
pocketsfoundundergroundaswellforgoodmeasure!PerhapswewilllearnthenthattheFAA
hasalwaysbeensotasked.

TheFAAsmisguidedattempttoshoehornmodelaircraftintoregulationsobviouslyintendedfor
mancarryingdevicesistheheadwaterfortherecentveritabletorrentoftheWhatdoesthis
mean?inquiriestheagencyisreceiving.ClearlyitisludicroustoimaginethatPart91wouldbe
expandedtocoverthesortsofactivitiesmentionedabove,yetthememoalludestoPart91for
potentialactionsthatcouldbetaken.TheFAAmisseditsopportunitytoreassuremodelersthat
ithasnointentionofdoingsomethingsoabsurdasapplyingPart91totheprofessionalreviewer
ofahobbyproduct.

Yetwearriveherequitelogically,giventhepellmellexegesistheFAAiswillingtogothroughto
gaineveryauthoritytheloopholesallow.

TheFAAstartswiththedefinitionofaircraftfrom49USC40102,whichsays:

(6)aircraftmeansanycontrivanceinvented,used,ordesignedtonavigate,orflyin,the
air.

Itthensaysthatsinceitregulatesaircraft,italsoregulatesmodelaircraft.

LetsapplytheFAAsexactsamelogictocars.49USCode32901says:

automobilemeansa4wheeledvehiclethatispropelledbyfuel,orbyalternativefuel,
manufacturedprimarilyforuseonpublicstreets,roads,andhighwaysandratedatless
than10,000poundsgrossvehicleweight,

R/Ccarsare4wheeledvehiclespropelledbyfueloralternativefuel.Theyaremanufactured
primarilyforuseonpublicstreets,roads,andhighways(theyarealsoforuseonR/Ccartracks,
butthatislesscommon).Theyareratedatlessthan10,000poundsgrossvehicleweight.

FromthisweconcludetheFederalHighwayAdministrationisresponsibleforregulatingR/C
cars.Furthermore,wecanapplysafetystandardstoR/Ccarssuchasairbagsandinterior
trunkreleasemechanisms.WestopshortoffurtherillustrationforfearwewillgivetheFAAnew
ideas.

ToconsistentlyapplytheFAAsselectivedefinitionofaircraftwouldincludethingssuchas
footballs,smokerings,jugglingpins,paperplanes,etc.Ridiculous?Yes!Butthisisnotan
argumentreductioadabsurdum.ThepointisthattheFAAisnotlegitimatelyclarifying.It
disingenuouslybuildsacasethatithasalwaysbeentheoneinchargeandretconsdefinitions
willynillytoproveit.AircraftarealltheflyingthingstheFAAwantstocontrolandallflying
thingstheFAAwantstocontrolareaircraft.Thedefinitionsareconvenient,nothingmore.

If Sense Prevailed
Weseethatthegovernmentisunderpressuretodosomethingandweacceptthatofallthe
federalagenciestheFAAiscurrentlyinthebestpositiontoact.WestandbytheFAAintheir
effortstoprotectmancarryingaircraftfromthefewtroubledsoulswhoflyrecklessly.We
supporttheideaofeducatingthepublicastothedangersofflyingmodelaircraftwithinthe
nationalairspace.Weaccepttheneedforregulationtoprotectthegeneralpublicfrom,well,
idiots.

However,theFAAappearsovereagertoestablishitsauthorityoverareaswheretheyaresimply
notchartered.

WhilecongressmighthaveallowedforregulationofFPVflight,thatdoesnotmeanitisinthe
interestofpublicsafetytodoso.Infact,webelievetheFAAsactionsarecontrarytopublic
safety.

Likewise,itisnotintheinterestofpublicsafetytoregulateprofessionalsintheR/Chobby
industry.TheFAAalreadyhasbroadpublicsupport,foundedincommonsense,toregulate
anythingthatcouldharmoccupantsofanaircraft.Itdoesnotneedtotorturedefinitionstogain
authorityoverhobbyactivitiesaswell.ThereisnoactualhistoryofR/Cmodelscausing
problemswithrealaircraft,whetherflownprofessionallyornot,providedtheoperatorsfollowthe
alreadywellestablishedguidelines.Intherareoccasionthatanoperatoractswithintentto
harmthereisnoregulatoryvoidtofill.

WeaskthattheFAAfurtherclarifythewordcommercialsothatitappliestoremotesensing
tasksperformedbyremotelypilotedaircraftinsuchawaythatitdoesnotconfusethemwith
aircraftflownfortheenjoymentoftheR/Chobby.