States, and we fly in that airspace. The people
in the FAA seem to want to ensure we
integrate into that airspace without creating a
safety problem for its other users. I don’t
think anyone would disagree with that need.
When I was asked about high altitude
operations by model airplanes, I didn’t know
what they were getting at. I was unaware of
any recent record attempts in this area, which
would require a waiver from FAA. I knew
we often flew slightly above the 400 feet
specified in the FAA Advisory Circular (AC)
which addresses aeromodeling.
I assumed that might be the issue but I
was surprised when the FAA personnel
explained that they were not talking about
those incidents but referring to models flying
at 10,000 feet and above! They specified
three individuals who were purportedly
flying at altitudes of as much as 25,000 feet.
These individuals were bragging about
it—complete with pictures on various
Internet sites. One was boasting that he was
“flying up there with the big boys,” and that
“the FAA doesn’t have a clue.”
After I saw one of the Internet sites, I had
to do some fast thinking. How could I explain
this? Fortunately, the FAA was reasonable in
its approach to this and didn’t condemn all
aeromodelers for the unreasonable acts of a
few. The FAA representatives asked for our
help in putting a stop to this type of activity.
While they didn’t say it outright, it was
obvious that they would step in to act if we
do not.
Please, if you know of anyone involved
in these extremely high-altitude flights, do
whatever you can to put a stop to this type of
activity. If we fail to act responsibly, we
could lose the right to self-regulate
aeromodeling. We have an exceptionally
good relationship with the FAA and a fine
track record of safety in terms of full-scale
aircraft, but we could quickly blow that if we
do not act responsibly.
I WENT TO Washington DC, so this
column will be full of abbreviations which
the government is so fond of using. I’ll try to
define each as it is used, but I will begin by
making sure you know that AMA is “us,”
FAA is the Federal Aviation Administration,
and FCC is the Federal Communications
Commission.
My trip began with two days of meetings
at the National Aeronautic Association
(NAA) where the various air-sports
organizations discussed those subjects we
have in common and some which we will
have in common. Among those subjects were
access to airspace for our activities,
membership, insurance, site access, and
myriad other issues which we share.
I had an appointment with the FAA and
need to impart what I learned during that
meeting. If you have ever been to most
government offices in Washington DC, you
know the security drill you go through and
how someone “escorts” you to the meeting
place. While riding the elevator, my escort
(who was the person with whom I had the
appointment) told me that there were a
number of people who heard I was coming
and were waiting to see me!
This wasn’t what I expected and I wasn’t
sure why this was happening. What had I
done to draw that kind of attention? As it
turned out, a number of AMA members work
at the FAA and wanted to meet the AMA
president. Needless to say, I was relieved to
hear that we were not in that much trouble.
The meeting was to discuss the issue of
FAA’s future regulation of Unmanned Aerial
Vehicles (UAVs)—formerly referred to as
Remotely Piloted Vehicles (RPVs)—and its
impact on model aviation. One of the first
things I learned was that there is a new
designation for these vehicles, the importance
of which was not lost on me. The new
abbreviation and term are UA—Unmanned
Aircraft.
The reason for this change, or at least the
effect of it, became obvious later in the
meeting. This change makes it very clear that
the FAA has jurisdiction over UAs and that
they can be subjected to certification and
licensing requirements, just as with any other
aircraft.
This may not seem significant, but it
could become so. The FAA doesn’t give the
impression that it wants to regulate model
airplanes, but it does have responsibility for
all of the navigable airspace in the United
Dave Brown AMA president
President’s Perspective
August 2004 5
If we fail to act
responsibly, we could lose
the right to self-regulate
aeromodeling.
The next subject was “commercial” uses
of model aircraft. This brought about some
interesting perspectives. In full-scale aircraft
and model aircraft, the FAA is much more
critical of commercial operations than it is of
recreational operations. While it is willing to
let the recreational aeromodeling community
regulate itself through AMA, it is not willing
to allow any commercial operations under
that arrangement. This is significant and bears
some explanation of FAA’s view of what
constitutes “commercial” flying.
AMA has used the idea of “payment for
that specific flight” as its guideline for
determining what is commercial, but our
principal reason for needing to establish these
guidelines is for insurance purposes. “Casual”
flight instruction—for pay—is allowed by
AMA under the insurance program. Those
“sponsored” aeromodelers who compete are
not defined as being paid for “that specific
flight” so they do not constitute a problem to
AMA.
FAA has a different view of what
constitutes commercial. I can’t relate specifics
because I don’t know them, but I can relate
the concepts as I understand them based on
our meeting. The FAA is concerned with
operations such as aerial photography, air
sampling, air patrols (pipelines, power lines,
and security), advertising (banner towing or
aerial billboards), traffic reporting, etc. This
includes any operations involved in the
development of aircraft intended for these
uses and flight training for pilots of this type
of operation.
Ironically, test flying a model which is
under development for sale as a recreational
model airplane wouldn’t trigger the FAA’s
concern, but test flying one intended for
commercial operations would. It’s a fine line
and one which I can’t define more clearly.
What do you do if you want to develop
such a commercial model aircraft or become
involved in commercial model aircraft (UA)
operations? Contact the FAA and it will work
with you to grant whatever waiver or process
necessary to allow those operations.
I’d contact the Washington DC, office and
ask for the people involved in “Unmanned
Aircraft,” rather than going to the local FAA
people who might be prone to
misinterpretations or simply having no
knowledge of these situations.
According to the people charged with
dealing with UAs at the FAA home office,
there is no “magic size or weight” where
such an aircraft becomes a recreational
model and not subject to FAA’s regulation if
it is to be used commercially. I realize this
isn’t a very clear definition, but I think you
get the idea. I believe the clarity will
improve as the FAA gains experience in
dealing with UAs. Whether that is a good
thing or not is yet to be seen, but it will be
Continued on page 148
Since 1936
08sig1.QXD 5/24/04 10:18 am Page 5
Edition: Model Aviation - 2004/08
Page Numbers: 5