Comments and Proposed Amendments to
INTERPRETATION OF THE SPECIAL RULE FOR MODEL AIRCRAFT
Promulgated by the Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 91

[FAA Docket No. 2014-0396]

 

SUMMARY OF RESPONSE & PROPOSED AMENDMENTS

On Wednesday, June 25, 2014, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) issued a notice of interpretation (“Notice of Interpretation”) with request for comment in connection with Section 336 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (Public Law 112-95), which provides a special exemption from FAA rule making for model aircraft that meet the statutory requirements.

The undersigned (and any additional signatories) believe that the Notice of Interpretation strays beyond the intent of Section 336 and places an undue burden on businesses that serve the model aviation community.  In particular, the FAA’s prohibition against otherwise permitted model aircraft flights simply because of the operator’s nexus to a business (e.g. a sponsored pilot at a model aircraft event) is at odds with the intent of Section 336 and does not advance the FAA’s interest in preserving the safety of our nation’s airspace.

We propose reasonable restrictions that preserve the intent of Section 336 while removing undue burdens on the businesses that operate within the model aircraft community.

 

DETAILED RESPONSE

Author’s Background. Kranitz Enterprises, Inc. (“KEI”, the author of this document) operates RCFlightDeck.com, the largest model aviation event management and promotion service in North America.  RCFlightDeck.com handles pilot and exhibitor registration for thousands of events that take place in the United States and Canada. KEI bears witness daily to the expense, participation and effect of model aviation events.  Most events cannot be held without support from the model aviation industry.  In particular, events often attract sponsors because sponsors will have the opportunity to demonstrate their aircraft products to large groups of hobbyists.  Michael Kranitz, owner of KEI, has been a model aviation hobbyist for more than 40 years.  KEI intends to post this response online and solicit signatures from businesses that operate within the model aviation community.

Basis of FAA’s Notice. In its Notice of Interpretation, the FAA goes to great lengths to articulate its source of authority to regulate model airplanes without running afoul of the clear exemption created by Section 336.  In particular, the FAA states that “FAA’s oversight of model aircraft has been guided by the risk that these operations present,” referring to the operation of model aircraft. The FAA goes on to site cases in which it has recognized that model aircraft “can at times pose a hazard to full-scale aircraft in flight and to persons and property on the surface.” Indeed, the FAA states that the purpose of its Notice of Interpretation is to “clarify how the FAA intends to apply its enforcement authority to model aircraft operations that endanger the safety of the National Airspace System (NAS)."

Exemption for Model Demonstrations & Testing. In its Notice of Interpretation, the FAA provides as an example of prohibited operation “receiving money for demonstrating aerobatics with a model aircraft.” It does not take a huge leap of the imagination to see that sponsored pilots attending a model aviation event will be included in the FAA’s net, even if the pilot does not receive direct remuneration for the demonstration flights. It does not take a huge leap to see that the FAA's interpretation would also prevent manufacturers and distributors of model aircraft from testing their own aircraft before releasing them for consumption by the public.  It is our view that the FAA's interpretation is too broad and without a rational basis.

Proposed Exemption. We propose a rational interpretation of Section 366 that contains language substantially similar to the following:

The FAA will construe Section 336(a)(1) to include model aircraft being flown for the non-recreational purposes of testing or demonstration, provided that such aircraft and the manner in which they are operated otherwise comply with the provisions of Section 336. 

We believe the proposed carve-out serves the underlying intent of Section 336 as well as the FAA’s over-arching need to regulate the safety of the NAS.

Status Does Not Affect Safety. If a hobbyist flies a 40-pound model airplane at a sanctioned model aircraft field during an event and does not exceed the FAA’s flight ceiling or otherwise endanger full-scale aircraft or persons on the ground, the FAA would have no rule-making power over that flight. The FAA does not contend otherwise. However, under the FAA’s new interpretation of Section 336, if that same pilot is sponsored by a business in the hobby, the identical flight is now illegal as being outside the congressionally-mandated exemption. In other words, the shirt worn by the pilot makes the activity unsafe. This makes no sense within the context of the statute or the FAA’s basis for authority.

In its attempt to cast a wide regulatory net and gain control over commercial uses of model aircraft outside traditional hobby-related uses, the FAA takes the language of Section 336 that defines a model aircraft as one “flown strictly for hobby or recreational use” to mean that an aircraft that is otherwise exempted from regulation suddenly becomes a risk to the NAS simply because the pilot is connected with a business.  This interpretation is a byproduct of the FAA’s attempt to rein in unfettered access to the skies by untrained or unsafe operators. Although well-intentioned, the FAA’s interpretation will substantially harm the businesses that serve the model aviation community while doing nothing to enhance the safety of the NAS. The FAA’s interpretation can be reasonably construed to prohibit model manufacturers from test flying their own models. This actually increases the safety risks the FAA seeks to mitigate with its interpretation. 

We assume the FAA would contend that in order to prevent businesses from using ordinary model aircraft for unrestricted operation that may pose an unacceptable safety risk, the FAA must draw a clear line of distinction between recreational and business usage of a model aircraft. We understand that distinction and although it prohibits the activity the FAA finds risky, it is not the correct distinction to make.  Business status does not always equate to undesirable behavior.  The FAA should be regulating undesirable conduct.  Although business status is helpful in forecasting whether a particular entity or individual might engage in undesirable conduct, it’s not determinative. If anything, manufacturers and distributors within the model aviation community are the LEAST likely to engage in improper conduct.  They are almost always the most knowlegeable and most skilled.

We propose a narrow exception that relieves the burden on commerce within the model aviation hobby while maintaining the FAA’s regulatory control over unsafe conduct. The clear intent of Section 336 is to preserve model aviation and keep it beyond the regulatory reach of the FAA unless it poses a safety risk.  Properly testing model aircraft and demonstrating them at model aviation events does not otherwise present a “risk to the NAS” and should not be subject to FAA rule making authority.  

Internal Statutory Conflict. The FAA’s interpretation of Section 336(a)(1) as prohibiting a company from testing its own model aircraft also creates a conflict within Section 336, which permits an aircraft to be “otherwise certified through a design, construction, inspection, flight test, and operational safety program administered by a community-based organization.”  Under the FAA’s interpretation of Section 336(a)(1), a company seeking to produce an aircraft for hobbyists could not safely test their product such that it could even be presented to “a community-based organization” like the Academy of Model Aeronautics.  The proposed exemption above would harmonize the two.

We respectfully request that the FAA revise its interpretation to make the narrow exemption described in paragraph 2(A), above.  This comment should not be construed as a waiver of any objections to future rules or regulations promulgated by the FAA, including ones that relate to Section 336.

 

DATED: JULY 8, 2014

 

Kranitz Enterprises, Inc.
d/b/a RC FlightDeck.com

/s/Michael S Kranitz, CEO