In a recent email an AMA member asked if we had a ‘right’ to fly model aircraft… ?
It’s an interesting question… And in fact yes, we do have a right to fly!
Though we do not have a specific right to access the civil airspace as part of our constitutional rights, we do have the right to navigate the US National Airspace System (NAS) by Public Law.
49 U.S.C. § 40103 states, “A citizen of the United States has a public right of transit through the navigable airspace.”
The FAA has been tasked with developing “plans and policy for the use of the navigable airspace and assign by regulation or order the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace.” And the law does allow the FAA Administrator to “modify or revoke an assignment when required in the public interest.” However, the FAA cannot unilaterally exclude any specific aeronautical activity from the NAS unless it can first show that it is in the “public interest” to do so.
Of course with this right to fly comes personal responsibility. We all have the responsibility to follow the rules once legally established, to operate our model aircraft in a safe manner and to not endanger the life and property of others. Failure to do so risks revocation of our personal right to the NAS.
AMA is committed to protecting aeromodeling’s access to the national airspace and will continue to fight for your “Right to Fly”!
Rich Hanson
AMA Government and Regulatory Affairs
True enough that there is no specific right to fly model aircraft listed in the Bill
of Rights. But the framers of the constitution did allow for stuff they did not mention
by writing the 9th amendment.
Since when does the Constitution stand in the way of this administration?
Nothing would surprise me. Look what’s happening to our right to our 2nd ammendment.
Is the AMA going to post videos/analysis of the FAA forum at the AMA Expo this past weekend?
Patrick… Yes, AMA Hqs staff is working on compiling/formatting the video of the AMA/FAA forum as we speak. It should be posted to the AMA webpage shortly.
Rich Hanson
AMA Government and Regulatory Affairs
Interesting interpretation. Not a lawyer nor versed in legalese, but to me that reads that a citizen is allowed to transit navigable airspace, not a model.
The transit question is interesting in light of the recent supreme court ruling regarding Fane Lozman and his houseboat.
I would wager that a definition of a model does not always allow a citizen to transit airspace.
Maybe elsewhere in PL 112-207 does it mention a means of conveyance allowing one to transit, but in absence of such in the above quoted sentence, it looks like I could transit by any means, such as cannon launch, balloon jump, airplane, helicopter, hang glider, parachute, etc, through navigable airspace. But I do not see that applying to a model – unless I can miniaturize myself to fit in a model.
On another note, what is the definition of navigable airspace?
Curious,
MarkG
Mark… The law doesn’t differentiate between virtual flight and physical flight, nor does it distinguish between transiting horizontally through the airspace from vertically. And, yes, we do interpret the law to include the operation of model aircraft which have existed in the national airspace since before manned flight.
Our right to fly is further supported by PL 112-95 which specifically names model aircraft and provides MA with the authority to operate unfettered in the national airspace provided the aircraft are operated in accordance with the safety programming of a community-based organization (AMA), remain well clear and do not interfere with manned aircraft, remain within visual line of sight of the operator and do not endanger the safety of the National Airspace System (NAS).
There is some debate over what constitutes “navigable airspace”. Some argue that it is the airspace above 400-500’ AGL; however, the FAA will tell you that the navigable airspace within the NAS is the airspace within the international boundaries of the US and it territories beginning 1 inch above the ground, exclusive of any restricted airspace and/or military operating areas. Though the airspace within restricted areas and MOAs are technically navigable, they are not controlled by the FAA and are not considered part of the NAS.
Rich Hanson
AMA Government and Regulatory Affairs
Then there is the doctrine of “air rights”. Surface owners (private property owners) own the rights to use the airspace directly above and within the convines of their property to up the NAS.
In light of this article, what is the AMA doing to protect the rights of all modelers to fly, not just those of the narrow subset of modelers defined by the AMA-drafted public law passed last year? Specifically, does the AMA intend to advocate on behalf of the hundreds of American FPVers who have been flying safely beyond visual line of sight for years and who face the greatest risk of curtailment of our “right to fly?”
Patrick… AMA has spent and continues to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars in an effort to defend and protect all aspects of the hobby. Following the release of the Aviation Rulemaking Committee’s recommendations in 2009 and over the 2½ years in which AMA was engaged with the FAA in developing ‘standards’ for aeromodeling operations, AMA opposed any suggestion that we should first address and substantiate the larger more moderate MA activity (95%). AMA Executive Director Dave Mathewson, then president of the AMA, repeatedly asserted AMA’s position that we would uphold all of model aviation and leave “no modeler behind”.
AMA does see FPV as an important, viable and growing aspect of the aeromodeling community, and the Academy is actively taking steps to ensure FPV continues to thrive and survive in the future. Shortly after taking office President Bob Brown asked District I VP Andy Argenio to chair a new committee entitled the “Advanced Flight Systems Committee”. He asked the committee to review the current safety guidelines in AMA documents 550 & 560 and determine if there are ways in which we can achieve greater latitude in the FPV and automated flight systems activity while maintaining an acceptable level of safety. This committee has worked tirelessly over the past year, has reached out to the FPV community and has presented several drafts to the AMA Executive Council for review and consideration. This occurred most recently at the January 14th EC meeting in Ontario, CA.
Though the committee has been able to suggest areas in which the safety guidelines can offer greater latitude and flexibility in the FPV activity, operations beyond visual line of sight (VLOS) remain the most difficult safety concern to mitigate. As I’m sure you’re aware, the FAA views remaining within visual line of sight as being key to the modeler’s ability to See & Avoid other aircraft and currently views UAS operations beyond VLOS to be an untenable risk to the safety of other aircraft in the national airspace and the general public on the ground. Though AMA will continue to seek the means of mitigating this risk and to build a safety case for FPV operations beyond VLOS, it’s not going to be a quick or easy fix.
AMA has an absolute fiduciary responsibility to its members and must consider the safeguards and needs of all aspects of model aviation. AMA’s leadership position in regards to FPV is probably best described in AMA Executive Vice President Gary Fitch’s article in the October 2012 issue of Model Aviation in which Gary states…
“We want our members to experience and enjoy new technologies, but they need to do so in a safe manner and one that doesn’t jeopardize the rest of model aviation or full- scale aviation. We can’t and we won’t allow that to happen!”
Rich Hanson
AMA Government and Regulatory Affairs
Do we have a right to fly model airplanes? No we do not. Does a GA pilot have the right to fly? NO, that right is granted by license from the Government. Do we have a right to drive? No, we do not. We have only those rights granted to us by license. Currently, the law is silent on the issue of model aircraft. We can expect those rights to be limited in the future no matter what the AMA would have you believe. It is a matter of public safety and security. What was once a benign “hobby” now has much more capability. The FAA will be issuing proposed rules, followed by a comment period before those rules and modifications become the law you must follow.
Bingo! you get it. Now if only more people would, especially those with our money.
This is incorrect wjk. you have the RIGHT not privilege to travel by any common conveyance of the time. yes this includes aircraft. YES the government grants licenses this is a safety issue and a sensible one. SO LONG AS that license is SHALL ISSUE so long as you prove capable of operating the aircraft safely and it can not be REVOKED for any reason AT ALL except you proving you can NOT operate safely then that license is valid lawfully under the constitution. this is why drivers licenses are unconstitutional Driving is a RIGHT not a privilege. they can be revoked for reasons which have nothing to do with your ability to operate a vehicle safely.
the 9th amendment makes it clear your rights are not enumerated. any POWER not granted to the government by the constitution (federal or state) is by definition a right of the people. SO YES you have a RIGHT to operate your RC aircraft NOT a mere privilege.
Uh, I can fly an LSA or even a powered parasail (for two examples) with no government-issued pilot’s license. So the idea the flying in the NSA is, by default, a licensed endeavor is not true from my POV.
Actually, as mentioned in the original blog post, we truly do have the “public right to transit through the navigable airspace” as provided in 49 U.S.C. § 40103. However, I would agree with you in that in order to exercise this right we must follow the rules and regulations governing this activity to include licensure and certification where required.
Rich Hanson
AMA Government and Regulatory Affairs
This might have an analogy of the US Army Corps of Engineers having jurisdictoion over the “Navigable Waters of the US” Citizens of the US have a right to pass. And this doesn’t just mean in a boat with people in it, it means conveyences such as barges and other vessels. Who is to say that an unmanned airplane is less important
than an unmanned boat? 2cents worth
I always find it interesting how people think that a law or regulation on top of another is better. For instance If I hit a ball with a bat and the ball hits my neighbor\’s car I am responsible for the damage. Would it not the same be true of an FPV model damaging some or property? Of course it is, I am responsible for damages caused by my actions. I really need another regulation to confirm this for me?
If I take my Nikon and zoom in on my neighbors window and take pictures, it\’s invasion of privacy. Is it different if I use an FPV Quad or my own personal manned helicopter? Of course not, there are already laws on the books for this.
As for where you can and can\’t fly, what, how fast and high and low, the FAA already has these defined (class A-E), no need for more. Now perhaps it\’s there, but I do not remember seeing that these only pertains to manned aircraft.
According to the legislation I have read it only addresses unmanned aircraft, so I guess it\’s OK for me to get in a plane or heli and film my cross country although I do not have all the land owners permission. Not to mention, how am I suppose to get all those landowners permission in advance?
I can understand safety guidelines published by the AMA, especially when it comes to insurance coverage they provide for members at parks and flying fields. But I fail to see the need for more regulations just because the aircraft is different.
Unfortunately I think the FAA will ultimately regulate FPV out of business, or make it so expensive to comply with regulations that only a few can afford it.
This whole thing is a power grab by the Federal Government in general and the FAA in particular, shrouded by the well-worn phrase of \\\\\\\”security\\\\\\\”, and \\\\\\\”public safety\\\\\\\”. The most we can expect from the AMA is a slowing of the onslaught.
A phrase I see used in your position statement is “not endanger the life and property of others.” To that I would add “or invade the privacy (of others),” as I believe that the biggest concern the public may have regarding FPV and hobbyist ‘drones’, besides safety, is that RC hobbyists could engage in voyeurism, stalking, or similar activities. Such activities are generally covered by other laws, but legislators must, no doubt, be eager to ban FPV on that basis alone.
“Citizen”….how about legal US residents ? If they can allow me a real private pilots license then the right to navigate comes with it right?
We do have the right to fly and use the airspace. If we give up those rights that is up to us. Freedoms are lost evryday and we need to fight everyday. Rather than ask what AMA is doing for us, lets ask what are we doing to secure our freedoms for ourselves and live unencumbered. Let’s not forget how we came to be a country to have freedom of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Remember the Declaration of Independence- It holds true today this is what we stand for.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
Give up 1 right soon why not another. See declaration again.
“experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.”
The only way the AMA can regulate is to define what is and is not \\\”Model\\\” activity, for insurance purposes.
Certainly the AMA should adopt reasonable guidelines and withdraw insurance coverage for anything that goes beyond those guidelines. I think that any commercial type activity should not be covered, and any hobbyist activity required to stay within the guidelines.
Mr. Hansen, please check your sources. PL 112-207 is covered here: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-112publ207
The right of transit trough National Airspace is nowhere mentioned, the law deals with internet publications. In general, it is advisable these days to add the source to a quote these days. I agree with others posting here that the right to operate vehicles is granted by government agencies, not a birth right. I think you have your interpretation wrong.
Herb, I apologize if my reference was incorrect or misleading…
49 U.S.C. § 40103 states, “A citizen of the United States has a public right of transit through the navigable airspace.”
Rich Hanson
AMA Government and Regulatory Affairs
I would like to comment on \\\\\\\”do we have a right to fly\\\\\\\”. Since the Declaration of Independence guarantees us the basic right of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, we can say we have the right to fly model airplanes under the right to the Pursuit of Happiness. If you interfere with my happiness of building and flying radio controlled model airplanes, they you are now performing an illegal act upon me. At this web site (https://principlesofafreesociety.com/life-liberty-pursuit-of-happiness/)you will find interesting reading regarding our rights. I am quoting the copy and paste below from this web site for your reading.
\\\\\\\”What is the right to the pursuit of happiness?
The Right to the Pursuit of Happiness means man’s right to live for himself, to choose what constitutes his own private, personal, individual happiness and to work for its achievement, so long as he respects the same right in others. It means that Man cannot be forced to devote his life to the happiness of another man nor of any number of other men. It means that the collective cannot decide what is to be the purpose of a man’s existence nor prescribe his choice of happiness.
“Textbook of Americanism,” The Ayn Rand Column\\\\\\\”
No offense, Dale, but the ‘Pursuit of Happiness’ does not give use the right to BE happy, but only to chase it. Just because one pursues something does not mean they have a right to achive it.
I believe that UAS equipment should be for millatery use as a safegard for our troups in an hostile envirnment not government or privet snooping in other peoples buisness unles they are suspected to be causeing or contemplating a destructive activity like terroristic activities ,JMO .
George
All of us that fly models as AMA members (and non-AMA members) are soon going to discover how controlling a government can be when backed by an uninformed public; no matter how we think the law should be interpreted. We only need to look to the NRA to see how their members (and millions of non-members) are vilified in the press; and how a prime amendment can be attacked and eroded away bit by bit. Like the NRA or not, it is up to all of us in the AMA to fight in similar fashion this political battle tooth & nail for our right to fly; and not allow it to be compromised away a tiny piece at a time until it is entirely gone
I have just finished wathing a very good report from RC Model Review. The speaker I am familiar with is Brucce from Down Under. He gives a very good thought on the banning of drones. (RC Models) He makes some very heavy weight comments on the issue of what the media and misinformed public amd politicians are doing. It is the usual sensationalism thoughts of these people that are out to damage a great hobby. They seem scared of the unknown here. Have a look at the commentary and maybe it will give more thoughts in favor of RC modelors fighting this wave of regulations.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iz19DQ6-eGE&feature=em-subs_digest
Thanks to the AMA Committe representing all us lawbiding citizens that respect the hobby. You are the guys fighting for our cause. What would we do without AMA type organizations?