FAA rules - whats the difference in a RC model Plane and a Drone?

This is simply not accurate. Any law is of course open to being challenged in court. But it is presently illegal. I do not know what will convince you, if quotes directly from the FAA website do not. But you are welcome to your opinion.

The ambiguity that website (last updated in 2008!) refers to are the conflicting statements that came from the FAA and local FSDOs (Flight Standard District Offices) when several commercial operators tried to obtain special dispensations for commercial operation when the rules were first passed, and it initially looked like this would be possible. This ultimately did not happen, despite the FAA’s promises that everything would be cleared up Real Soon Now.

I have no doubt that the FAA will ultimately come up with a workable solution. But it is presently illegal.

Separately, regarding the need for regulation in general - while I am no fan of government regulation, I think the FAA made the right call in this case.

Hobbyists generally operate their airplanes in clear and open places, away from population. This is simply because it is more fun to fly your airplane / helicopter fast and freely in the open sky, rather than constantly worrying that you are going to collide with a lamp post, neighbor’s house, neighbor’s head, etc. The larger the model, the more true this is. Once you get above the small electric-powered foam models you can buy at a generic hobby store, pretty much everyone flies either on their own private property (if they have a lot of land), or an organized flying field.

In contrast, commercial use pretty much by definition involves operation in populated areas, or around people. Unless you’re using it for aerial landscape photography, you’re taking pictures of people’s houses, office buildings, theme parks, whatever. And by the time the FAA got around to enforcing their regulations, commercial operators were using pretty serious equipment. We’re not talking about a 12-oz little plastic helicopter you buy at the mall.

We’re talking about a big helicopter (larger helicopters have greater load-carrying capacity and better stability, and generally better endurance), powered by a gasoline or jet turbine engine (electric power doesn’t last long enough, and nitromethane used in hobbyist engines is rather expensive to boot), weighing many tens of pounds, with carbon fiber blades close to a meter long each.

This is essentially a big, flying lawnmower. If you lose control of it and it flies into someone’s neck, it will kill them. If it crashes into someone’s roof while you’re taking pictures of their neighbor’s house, it is likely to set the roof on fire. If you are operating it on a windy day in the summer in Colorado, and you crash it into an open field, you will probably start a wildfire. You can find countless videos on Youtube of fiery crashes of large model airplanes.

Hobbyists do not fly these things in uncontrolled areas like parks, because if you are running low on gas and someone brings their dog in without a leash, and the dog becomes interested in the loud spinny thing in the sky, you have to pretty much choose between crash-landing the helicopter a safe distance away, or taking the chance of severely injuring the dog.

Hobbyists do not fly on windy days. It’s not fun, and there’s a risk of crashing. But if you’re a commercial operator, and you have a contract to deliver the photos in 7 days, and you’re on day 6 and it’s still fucking windy, you’re probably going to take the chance.

Hobbyists can be largely self-regulating. The pressures of commercial operation would lead to unsafe operation without some form of regulation. Either requiring strict licensing standards, liability insurance, etc., or limiting the size and capabilities of the UAVs you can operate commercially without a license.

My guess is that the FAA will set some limits for unrestricted recreational and commercial use of unmanned aircraft, and require that you obtain special permits or licenses for anything exceeding those limits.

It’s not just my opinion, its the opinion of the commercial RC operators that are still openly in business. They operate small RC planes under 400 feet and under 55 pounds and always in line of the sight of the operator.

Their position is that these are not unmanned aircraft or drones and so they don’t fall under the FAA regulations that you have quoted.

Is there a man in them?

Very funny. A remote controlled plane under 55 pounds is not an unmanned aircraft since it doesn’t even have the remote (haha) possibility of being manned.

The FAA’s jurisdiction ends somewhere. Can they regulate commercial remote controlled flights that take place entirely inside a large warehouse? No? What about an RC flight that takes place entirely inside a stadium below the level of the highest walls? What about in a carpark on private property surrounded by walls and below the level of the highest walls?

Get the point?

You’re certainly correct!

There are also people whose opinion it is that they do not have to pay income taxes because their home is a sovereign nation and not subject to US jurisdiction. These people are operating under roughly the same legal footing as the “commercial RC operators” you refer to.

http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/uas/reg/media/frnotice_uas.pdf

This document is an explanation of current policy from the FAA. Quoted in pertinent part:

I cannot make this any clearer. “Opinion” is irrelevant. That is the current FAA policy. It does not mention altitude limits, size limits, anything. FAA policy is based on the Federal Aviation Regulations. Violating the Federal Aviation Regulations is effectively illegal (I think it is technically a civil penalty, which means they can’t throw you in jail, but they can fine the shit out of you and, if necessary, obtaining an injunction forcing you to stop).

Therefore, if you operate an unmanned aircraft for civil (i.e. commercial, as opposed to recreational, use) use without an airworthiness certificate, you are breaking the law. And the FAA is not issuing experimental airworthiness certificates for anything but R&D purposes for unmanned aircraft.

The guys in LA that were shut down were doing high level RC flights.

Show me a case where any commercial operator that stuck to under 400 feet and under 55 pounds has been fined or shut down.

There are hundreds of operators using tiny quadcopters and gopro cameras and offering commercial footage with flights under 400 feet. The FAA has shown no interest in doing anything about them as long as they stay under those restrictions.

Whether the FAA is interested in pursuing enforcement action against these small-time operators is an entirely different question, one that I have no interest in, and no particular point to make. I am not aware of any credible information that supports your claim that the FAA is using the criteria you list.

What he said.

Yeah, that’s exactly what I was referring to. I even know a guy who uses a quad copter inside homes to get photos for real estate web purposes. And his outside photography looks like less than 150 ft – too high, and you couldn’t see the home, so he has no need to go higher. He’s basically replacing a crane shot with a low aerial one. It’s hard to believe this must be regulated or that it interferes with piloted planes.

Whatever, for all practical intents and purposes the difference between a drone and an RC model plane is 55 pounds, line of sight and under 400 feet. Thats the law thats expected to pass and thats “de facto” what is tolerated in practice right now.

And with that - good night all.

Soon as the first kid gets killed - this will be all over. Seems pretty obvious to me why it would need to be regulated. Obviously this wouldn’t need to be done in all cases, but that is why there is regulations. I wonder why the limit of 55 pounds? Seems like an odd number. 25 kilos? I would think you could do some serious damage with 54 pounds at 99 mph.

Wrong again. The guy in the article believed the same misinformation you have just typed.

I play poker for small stakes every few weeks, doesn’t make it legal just because the cops are not busting down doors.

**whats the difference in a RC model Plane and a Drone? **

Hellfire Missiles

That was in restricted airspace. Different case.

Why doesn’t that seem reasonable? There are different rules for all other aircraft depending on whether they’re being flown for fun or profit, why should RC/UAV be different?

Once you add earning money into the equation the risks change. Profit motive leads to a different pattern of use, and a different acceptance of risk. In Post #22 Absolute outlines this pretty well.

The technical difference between an R/C model and a drone is that an R/C is a remotely piloted aircraft, while a drone flies autonomously; there is no human in the control loop for a drone.

Of course, to the non-technical press and most lay people, the distinction is splitting the finest of hairs. ‘No pilot onboard? It’s a drone…’

So the FAA DOES regulate flights of small remotely piloted vehicles at low altitudes and speeds, eh?