Though it’s clear commercial use of UAS in the national airspace is for the most part and for now banned by the FAA, the private/personal use of UAS is very much a grey area. As long as the UAS is not used for business purposes, almost any type of private use can be construed to be recreational and as such authorized under the guidance provided in AC 91-57.
We tend to think of aeromodeling when we think of recreational UAS, and more often than not that’s still the case. However, let’s say I would like to get a bird’s eye view and take 1080p HD video of my grandson’s little league game. Provided there are no city ordinances or park rules prohibiting it, I could easily hover my quadcopter over the ballpark and capture the action. Let’s say I’m a bird lover and would like to get a closer look at a flock of birds nesting in the tree tops, suppose I’m an avid rock hound and would like to survey the geology of a given area to find the best site to explore, or better yet a backcountry enthusiast wanting to check the trail conditions ahead. The use of UAS technology would certainly allow me to do so. It’s definitely recreation related, but is it model aviation? Probably not, at least not in the traditional sense.
When AC 91-57 was published in 1981 it was neither intended nor envisioned for this type of use? The advisory circular established general ”Model Aircraft Operating Standards” and was intended to be used by modelers. In the clarification of AC 91-57 published in the Federal Register in 2007, the FAA made it clear that the circular addresses the recreational use of model aircraft and was intended for use by modelers, and it specifically excluded its use by “persons or companies for business purposes”. It left unclear, however, what constitutes a “modeler” or a ”model aircraft”.
The advancements in UAS technology have flattened the learning curve and virtually eliminated any skills needed to operate the device. This has opened the door to thousands of individuals interested more in the technology and the abilities of the device than their personal ability to operate and maneuver the aircraft. They are no longer learning to fly but rather exploring the technology and ultimately using the device for a functional purpose or to accomplish a given task. Clearly this is beyond and apart from the traditional view of model aviation.
Click the link below to read an article on the Petaluma Argus-Courier website (Petaluma360.com) that highlights the increased interest in UAS experienced at a local HobbyTown USA.
Private drone use is taking off
Rich Hanson
AMA Government and Regulatory Affairs
With all due respect to Rich, perhaps your personal definition of what it means to be a “modeler” is simply too narrow. The reality is that model aviation (using the broad definition of all recreational use of unmanned aircraft) now encompasses far more than the AMA’s limited vision of flying in circles around a small club field. The development of miniature cameras and new types of aircraft like multicopters has changed everything. Why in this age of rapid technological advancement and limitless possibilities would people be content to fly traditional models which haven\\\’t changed much in the last 40 years in 500 foot circles around themselves, when instead they can be capturing stunning aerial videos of their home town or skimming down mountain sides miles away? All such uses are fully within the pioneering, DIY spirit of model aviation and should be wholly embraced as such. I applaud the AMA for its recent moves to become more friendly toward novel uses of model aircraft, but it still has a long way to go.
Patrick,
Point well taken, and I agree… The emergence of UAS technologies over the past 10 to 20 years and most notably in the past 5 to 6 years has moved the use of recreational unmanned aircraft into a new and exciting arena. It’s far and apart from what was ever envisioned when AC 91-57 was published in 1981, and the exponential growth in technology has even moved beyond what was foreseen six years ago when FAA clarified the advisory circular. The rapid growth and expansion of UAS technology has created a true paradigm shift from what is traditionally viewed as model aviation (MA) and it has left the AMA, the FAA and our local communities scrambling to keep up. And unfortunately, this dramatic shift has also created some uncertainty and controversy, not the least of which are the concerns regarding safety and privacy.
I’m not sure I would agree with your view that AMA’s vision is limited to “flying in circles around a small club field”. Over the past five years AMA has fought long and hard to ensure MA activity is not limit to designated flying sites and to preserve the modeler’s ability to select a safe and suitable location for his/her intended MA operation. Many communities actually have ordinances prohibiting model aircraft activity within the city limits and AMA has endeavored to reintroduce MA into our communities through its “Park Pilot” program.
The MA paradigm shift created by the rapid growth in UAS technology poses a few questions. Does the private functional use of UAS as described within the blog truly fall within model aviation under a broader definition of the recreational use of unmanned aircraft as you suggest? On the one hand there is a growing DIY community aligned more closely to the ‘drone’ aspect of UAS than model aviation, while on the other hand there are hundreds if not thousands of traditional modelers who have an interest in and are intrigued by this new technology. Should this activity be encompassed within the aeromodeling community? Personally, I believe it should and AMA is carefully moving in this direction. Nevertheless, significant challenges lay ahead and as you said, AMA still has a long way to go.
Rich Hanson
AMA Government and Regulatory Affairs
Two weeks ago, you put up a post stating that aerial photography was allowable under certain limits:
amablog.modelaircraft.org/amagov/2012/10/21/can-i-use-my-model-aircraft-to-do-aerial-photography/
Your post above now seems to argue that it’s not really allowable unless you can relate its use somehow to “model aeronautics”, with nothing else permitted. Given that RC aircraft were flow well before the modern age of aerial photography and videography, it’s not clear to me that you can argue that these are an essential part of the hobby. Is it any wonder that people are confused?
For that matter, on at least one occasion in the last decade, the FAA specifically allowed a “model-aircraft”-class vehicle to be flown for commercial purpose, explicitly stating that since it fell under circular AC 91-57, it was exempt from FAA regulation:
http://www.suasnews.com/2011/05/5638/did-the-faa-arbitrarily-change-its-own-uas-nas-policy-part-2/
As far as I’ve been able to find, the FAA has not defined what constitutes hobby/recreational use, apart from it not being “commercial”. AC 91-57 does not explicitly state what purposes model aircraft can be used for, and very reasonable reading of “model aircraft” is as a class of aircraft rather than a use. A search of the Electronic Code of Federal Regulations (www.ecfr.gov) under Title 14: Aeronautics and Space for any definition of what constitutes a “model aircraft” or what constitutes “hobby/recreational use” comes up empty. So even the limitations of AC 91-57 are not codified as a federal regulation, though I certainly wouldn’t fly any aircraft outside the limits of AC 91-57, or the stricter AMA Safety Code for that matter.
Ironically, there are regulations for balloons and kites. Under current Federal regulations I could tether my aircraft unpowered to a balloon and use it as a remote aerial photography platform up to 1000 ft. altitude for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial. That is, as long as the balloon is smaller than 6 ft. in diameter, the payload is less than 4 pounds, and you’re at least 5 miles from the nearest charted airport, limitations that place this balloon/payload outside of the limits of federal regulation.
Congress explicitly recognized that small RC aircraft did have potential uses beyond hobby/recreation (however you define it), and that the FAA should look into how to allow these uses as soon as possible. The FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 specifically mandates that:
“The Secretary must determine if certain types of drones (government and non-government) can operate in the national airspace before completion of the comprehensive plan, rulemakings, or guidance required elsewhere in P.L.112-95. The Secretary must base this determination on whether the drone can perform without hazard to the public or national security. The Secretary must develop rules to integrate these drones into the national airspace, though P.L.112-95 gives no deadline for these rules. Sec. 333(a)-(b).”
http://www.cdt.org/blogs/harley-geiger/2703drone-countdown
No mention of what these drones could (or could not) be used for, although privacy issues will be a factor and are being addressed separately. It’s difficult for me to come up with a rationale where a “hobbyist” can operate a vehicle under these limitations, but someone who wants to use information obtained using a vehicle flown under exactly the same regulations and restrictions can’t. The deadline for the above determination was 8/14/2012; oddly enough, the FAA missed this deadline, and as far as I can determine hasn’t issued any guidance on when it will meet this mandate. Given their recent re-scheduling of their mandated deadline for specifying six sites for UAV testing to “whenever”, I’m not holding my breath.
I understand that your role is act as an advocate for the recreational model aircraft users and industry. I fully support your right to fly your aircraft, certainly with your current safety code limitations (which I know are stricter than AC 91-57), and possibly even under relaxed limitations. But by trying to limit the use to your very limited definition of what constitutes “acceptable use”, you cut yourself off from a potentially very large, very influential and very persuasive community: those who would use such vehicles for scientific, research, non-profit and educational purposes. Including those types of model aircraft applications in your policy arguments, with the same regulations for privacy, security and airspace protection that the current RC hobby community follow, strengthens your case for keeping airspace open for small unmanned aircraft. Limiting yourself merely to your definition of what constitutes hobby/recreation use limits the size of your constituency, and removes a powerful argument for keeping the airspaces open for these kind of craft.
Leszek,
I apologize if this latest blog has caused some confusion. I still stand by what was stated in the blog on the use of model aircraft to take aerial photographs. From AMA’s standpoint and keeping in mind AMA’s guidance in regards to privacy… Provided the model aircraft is flown for non business purposes and operated in accordance with the AMA Safety Code, there is nothing wrong with taking photographs from a model aircraft.
To clarify, I am not by any means trying to say today’s UAS operations under AC 91-57 should be limited to traditional aeromodeling activities. I would agree and espouse that the language in the 2007 notice in the Federal Register allows for the operation of almost any UAS provided it is not operated for business purposes. However, based on my interaction with the FAA over the past five years, I’m not so sure that was the intent and it is yet to be seen what regulatory approach will be taken in regards to the private functional application of UAS.
Yes, prior to 2007 the FAA was allowing the commercial operation of UAS under AC 91-57, at least to a limited extent, and it was this activity that ultimately lead to the notice of clarification that appeared in the Federal Register.
As mentioned in my reply to a previous comment, I personally believe a broader definition of the recreational use of unmanned aircraft should be encompassed within the aeromodeling community, and AMA is carefully moving in this direction. But as you’ve pointed out, several unresolved issues exist and AMA still has a long ways to go.
Rich Hanson
AMA Government and Regulatory Affairs