David Schneider from IEEE Spectrum tells us why “that toy” is now a drone.
According to my best reading of a notice the FAA announced on Monday, things like the US $154 Husban X4 quadcopter are no longer toys—they are true drone aircraft in the FAA’s eyes and cannot be flown without a certificate of authorization or special airworthiness certificate.
Huh?
Up to now, the FAA has been distinguishing model aircraft from small drones (or small unmanned aerial systems, to use the FAA’s preferred terminology) according to whether they are flown for recreation or for commercial purposes. If you want to fly a 20-kilogram, turbine-powered radio-controlled model airplane, go right ahead, so long as you only do it as a hobby. Fly a 2-kilogram electric foamy for compensation, and you’re breaking the rules against commercial drone use, though. That was the basic argument the FAA had made against Raphael Pirker, who was issued with a $10,000 fine for flying a model airplane for hire in 2011.
Pirker contested the fine and prevailed in court this past March. Administrative Law Judge Patrick G. Geraghty held in Pirker’s favor, pointing out that the logical extension of the FAA’s arguments about what defines a regulated aircraft would extend to something as small as a paper airplane or balsa-wood glider. The FAA has appealed that decision, which has yet to be taken up by the full National Transportation Safety Board.
In the meantime, the FAA’s small-drone-policing empire is striking back. This week’s FAA notice not only reiterates the FAA’s position that the definition of “model aircraft” requires that the flying be only for recreation, the agency now asserts that the operator must be looking directly at the model in flight, not piloting it with video goggles or other other high-tech vision aids. By logical extension, that must mean that flying video-camera-equipped model airplane or ‘copter using, say, an iPad screen or a video monitor of any type makes it no longer fit the FAA’s definition of a model aircraft.
I’m loudly crying “foul” here because the FAA’s latest announcement just torpedoed a hobby I took up in 2009: flying radio-controlled models in First-Person-View, or FPV, mode. Over the past five years, this angle on the hobby has grown in popularity, particularly with the proliferation of autopilot-equipped multicopters, which are now inexpensive and can be flown by just about anyone.
Welcome to drone day on the Adafruit blog. Every Monday we deliver the latest news, products and more from the Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV), quadcopter and drone communities. Drones can be used for video & photography (dronies), civil applications, policing, farming, firefighting, military and non-military security work, such as surveillance of pipelines. Previous posts can be found via the #drone tag and our drone / UAV categories.
No, FPV is not illegal as long as it is wih in the line of sight. That rule had always been there for years. It is resonable rule, for reason of safety. The court case is about flying for hire, which is also in the rule book for ages. There is nothing new in the case, the guy clearly break the rules.