Here's a way to do it.
Use the Foam Drone!

https://www.flickr.com/photos/lrmyers/15287579308/

From my friend Lance's recent barnstorming tour.

What altitude can that sucker achieve? Wreck images are mighty cool. Glad to see the 2-10-4 is capped.

Drones and the regulations they fall under are messy and frequently there's a lot of disagreement on how to interpret them.

However, the general consensus is that they fall under r/c planes, so the FAA ADVISES that they not be flown higher than 400 feet. That is an advisory, not a regulation.

There are also other restrictions like not flying near airports and/or calling the tower when you're in certain areas (good luck with that... "Hi, this is Joe and I'm flying my toy helicopter...")

https://gigaom.com/2013/12/08/so-you-wa ... -law-says/

If you choose to ignore the advisories, and possibly violate other FAA regs, I have seen videos where they are flying over 2,000 feet above ground level. Basically, your limit in any direction is a hemisphere based on how far the control signal will go, which in turn depends on whether you're using wifi or radio, obstructions, weather, and lots of other factors.

Actually, a Federal Register notice was published this past June. It clearly states the FAA interpretation of the rules for model aircraft in the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012. They now make a clear distinction between commericial operations and private, non-commericial use. Commercial operators must obtain a Special Airworthyness Certificate (SAC).

http://www.faa.gov/uas/

The thing is that as of now, the FAA has not chosen to take enforcement action against operators of UAVs. The regs also permit the FAA to take enforcement action against "model aircraft operators who operate their aircraft in a manner that endangers the safety of the national airspace system." Therefore, there are a number of scenarios that could fall under that broad interpretation. With the proliferation of UAVs, I expect that we will very soon see additional rules and enforcement actions being taken.

As for the steam locomotive photo, as long as the operator uses the photo for personal purposes and does not sell or trade the image, his flight was legal. If he then uses the photo for any commercial purpose, the flight is then illegal if he does not possess a SAC.

None of his work is commercial. It's for his and our enjoyment only.

What the diesel behind it?

Neither. It is a Notice of Interpretation with Request for Comment. However, they are in the process of implementing Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, "Special Rules for Certain Unmanned Aircraft Systems". Therefore it is likely that there will be additional proposed rules published in the future.

Gotta love the federal government...



Right, and for recreational use, it references the Advisory http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/medi ... /91-57.pdf which states "This advisory circular outlines, and encourages voluntary compliance with, safety standards for model aircraft operators." One of those is the under 400 feet I mentioned earlier. The next question is can you take any action if an unlicensed operator flies his unlicensed toy helicopter at 500 feet? Who knows? Typically, when they do an enforcement, they dodge the issue and go for "endangering public safety" or something along those lines. It's a lot easier to argue buzzing a crowd is a danger than to try and say "He was 100 feet higher than we recommend..."

These things have totally caught the FAA off guard, and if you think it's bad that you can get two different answers from two FRA inspectors, you can probably get 4 different answers from two FAA officials.

True. Of course, any flight in B airspace or over developed populated areas at low altitude is prohibited. In other words, operating UAVs outside of facilities spefically designed for their operation could be considered illegal operation. Of course, enforcement is up to Flight Standards District Offices and their answers do generally tend to concur.

Good lord, you guys do know how to take the fun out of something.

OT-The circular is very dated and will undoubtedly be replaced with a more definitive rule. After all, the FAA no longer operates any flight service stations-they have all been either shut down or transferred to Lockheed Martin for operation under contract.

Bottom line is that the Notice of Interpretation was basically issued to inform operators how the rules will be interpreted going forward. UAV proliferation has gotten to the point that there is a real concern amongst the aviation interests about the risk of a collision between a UAV and manned aircraft. There is real pressure for the FAA to finalize what rules they can and start enforcement.

On top of the FAA issues, then you have the other legal concerns around privacy.