Aardvark Daily

Please visit the sponsor!

USA bans video-piloted recreational drones

I'm sorry to keep droning on about unmanned aerial vehicles but something very interesting has just taken place in the USA.

The hobby of flying radio controlled models using what amounts to a virtual reality setup called "first person view" (FPV) has taken off in a big way in recent years.

By mounting a small standard definition live-video camera on the model (fixed wing or multi-rotor) and wearing a set of video glasses, FPV pilots fly their craft as if they were actually sitting in the model itself.

To date, the rules of such flying have required that the craft remains within visual line of site of the operator or their assistant (known as a spotter). This is simple commonsense and is a safety measure designed to ensure that they can be aware of any dangers (such as a full-sized aircraft) that may appear near the model being flown.

Well in the USA, the FAA has now effectively outlawed this activity.

In this document published today, the FAA has created a very narrow definition of what constitutes a "model aircraft" and the phrase "flown within visual line of sight of the person ope rating the aircraft" effectively removes all craft piloted via FPV from the "model aircraft" definition.

Although the FAA has no rules or regulations to cover the operation of *model* aircraft, they can and do have regulatory authority over all other types of flying craft. As a result, by virtue of this redefinition, they now have full control over FPV-piloted craft of any size, weight or configuration.

When the FAA was queried as to the implications of this, the response was:

1. If you are flying a model with goggles on you are endangering the NAS (national airspace), and therefore can be prosecuted under part 91
2. This interpretation is effective today.
3. his interpretation is from the statute from congress, not the advisory circular.
4. here is NO CERTIFICATION method currently to allow this flying a model airplane with goggles.

Now while I'm sure that many reading this column are wondering "Who cares? That's the USA and the FPV community is just a very small group."

However, regulators from all over the world are carefully watching the USA as it works to deal with the issue of "drones" -- and recreational drones in particular. There's a very good chance that countries such as NZ, Australia, the UK and others will look to the USA for leadership in this area and that means that the little Parrot drone you fly with your iPhone using an inbuilt camera may also soon be illegal right here in NZ.

What's more, given the effort being put in to the TPPA, who's to say that we won't align our "drone" regulations to those of the USA as part of the bargaining process?

The utility of any "drone" is severely compromised if it is only allowed to be flown by "line of sight" from the ground. In the case of search and rescue operations for instance, it would be far more difficult to spot a missing person and the range of a search would be reduced from several Km to just a few hundred metres.

I'm sure there will be many within the ranks of "the great unwashed" who will welcome the moves made by the FAA. These folk have been duped by the media into believing that each and every recreational "drone" exists only to hover outside their bedroom window and catch high-definition video for upload to some porn site.

What the FAA fails to understand is that making FPV illegal won't make it go away. Indeed, it will simply drive it underground -- as has happened with some forms of FPV flying right here in NZ. Indeed, there is even an informal group called "The Underground FPV" movement which flies "under CAA's radar".

Exactly why the FAA (and other airspace administrators) are so opposed to the use of FPV RC craft is somewhat difficult to nail down. The big claim is "safety" -- yet strangely enough, so long as these craft remain below 400 feet and keep away from airports, they pose no risk to any *legally* operated full-sized aircraft.

It's far more likely that the incumbent commercial aviation industry is working hard (by pulling influential strings) to protect its turf -- and the easiest way to do that is to simply make it illegal for would-be new-entrants with drones to undercut them.

The more I see of the way airspace administrators work, the less I am impressed.

Of course an effective SAA system would completely blow the FAA (and other airspace administrators') safety arguments out of the water and I know for a fact that there would be a massive demand for this technology from within the ranks of the FPV community as a result.

Perhaps this further explains CAA's decision to stand in the way of this technology.

Please visit the sponsor!

Have your say in the Aardvark Forums.

PERMALINK to this column

Rank This Aardvark Page

Change Font