Martin Tyner
Wildlife Educator • Speaker • Author

Help Save Martin's Hobby

Summary & Links

Information Links

Need to Act Now

Comment deadline is March 2, please visit FAA site now!

Click here to comment at FAA site

The FAA has introduced new laws that will attempt to regulate all "Unmanned Aircraft Systems"(UAS).

Problem of Categorization

This new law lumps together all RC Aircrafts together under one heading of UAS. This means it treats traditional RC model aircrafts the same as drones.

This grouping is problematic for many reasons. Drones and traditional RC aircrafts are very different. They fly differently, have different needs and have very different ability and function.

By grouping them all under the same heading, it will destroy traditional RC model aircraft.

Problem of Identification

In order to control every single flying object in the US, it will require remote identification equipment. This technology does not exist and will take time and resources to develop. It will make older models illegal to fly.

Problem of FAA Approved Fly Areas

The new FAA law proposes that older crafts can be flown at approved areas, however, does not specify where they will be or how they will be chosen. Additionally, it mandates they are "club" related, but again does not define who is eligible though does state past clubs are not immediately approved.

The idea of limited approved spaces will severely hinder if not eliminate flight for traditional RC aircrafts.

On This Page

Martin's Letter

To Whom it May Concern,

My name is Martin Tyner and I have been involved in aviation in one form or another for over 50 years. As a young child I would save the money from my paper route and purchase rubber band powered free flight models made of balsa wood and Japanese tissue. I then moved to gas powered free flight gliders and u-line controlled model airplanes. In the mid to late 1970s when RC radio systems were less expensive and more available I converted my free flight gliders into radio control models.

This was an amazing advancement in technology. It made model aviation much safer. We were now able to control our model aircraft so they would not end up in trees, hitting powerlines or buildings. Of course the only damage that was ever done was to these very delicate, slow flying balsa wood gliders.

In the 1980s I graduated to manned aviation. I started flying hang gliders, paragliders and ultralights. December 17, 2003 was one of the most amazing days of my life. I passed my check ride and became a licensed private pilot 100 years to the day of the Wright brothers first powered flight. Since then I have flown primarily, fixed wing single engine aircraft and sailplanes.

In the past 50 years I have seen my share of pilot-error caused accidents. As I write this letter, on today's news, a private pilot flying solo in a small plane crashed into a residential building here in Utah in the small town of Roy. I have personally lost 3 friends to aviation. Unfortunately each one of them made bad decisions and paid the ultimate price along with their passengers.

I hope I've made it very obvious that I have a great love for aviation and that RC model aviation taught me the science of aerodynamics, problem solving and critical thinking skills. These are tools that I use every day in my life.

At this moment the FAA has taken on the responsibility of regulating unmanned aerial vehicles (drones). After reading more than 300 pages of proposed rules and regulations, it have become very obvious that the FAA is attempting to tighten a loose screw with a sledge hammer. In my 50 years of participation in aviation I have never been involved in an incident or accident between one of my traditional radio control models and a manned aircraft. Ive never witnessed an incident between traditional radio control model aircraft and a manned aircraft. To be honest, Ive never even heard of an incident between a traditional radio controlled aircraft and a manned aircraft. I feel very comfortable making this statement. I am not alone, I have complete confidence that there are hundreds of thousands, probably millions of both private pilots and commercial pilots that can make the same statement.

If the goal of the FAA is to make aviation safer we do not need 300 pages of regulations, we just need a couple of very simple statements.

Manned aircraft of any kind has right away over unmanned aircraft of any kind.

No unmanned aircraft may operate within 1000 feet of a manned aircraft while the manned aircraft is in flight.

These two simple rules printed in the owners manuals of every RC radio control system, traditional and non-traditional RC aircraft kits should be sufficient for 99% of all traditional RC aviation aircraft and recreational quad-copters (drones) flown in North America.

Commercial use:

Any unmanned aerial vehicle used for commercial purposes must be registered with the FAA.

Concerns over Terrorism:

Any unmanned aerial vehicle with a weight exceeding 50 lbs. or the capability of lifting a payload of more than 5 lbs. must be registered with the FAA.

Thats it, I think were done!


Martin Tyner, Founder & CEO
Southwest Wildlife Foundation, Inc.
P.O. Box 1907
Cedar City, UT, 84721

I feel it would be very appropriate that local municipalities regulate for their cities where RC aircraft and UAVs can be operated. This would help to address nuisance ordnances such as noise and privacy issues.


Excerpts of proposed law

Purpose of the Regulatory Action

The FAA is integrating unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) operations into the airspace of the United States through a phased, incremental, and risk-based approach.

This proposal envisions that within three years of the effective date of this rule, all UAS operating in the airspace of the United States will be compliant with the remote identification requirements. No UAS could be produced for operation in the United States after two years and no UAS could be operated after three years except in accordance with the requirements of this proposal. Details on the requirements and their applicability are in the sections that follow.


Complete dismissal of existing Exception

The FAA does not agree with the recommendation that model aircraft, referred to throughout this proposal as limited recreational operations for consistency with 49 U.S.C. 44809, should be excluded from the remote identification requirements. Unmanned aircraft used in limited recreational operations required to register under part 47 or part 48 would be subject to the proposed remote identification requirement. The agency is, however, proposing a means for such aircraft to operate without remote identification equipment. Under the proposed rule, UAS would be permitted to operate without remote identification equipment if they are operated within visual line of sight and within an FAA-recognized identification area.

Current Exception: Exception for limited recreational operations of unmanned aircraft

§44809. Exception for limited recreational operations of unmanned aircraft

(a) In General.—Except as provided in subsection (e), and notwithstanding chapter 447 of title 49, United States Code, a person may operate a small unmanned aircraft without specific certification or operating authority from the Federal Aviation Administration if the operation adheres to all of the following limitations:

(1) The aircraft is flown strictly for recreational purposes.

(2) The aircraft is operated in accordance with or within the programming of a community-based organization's set of safety guidelines that are developed in coordination with the Federal Aviation Administration.

(3) The aircraft is flown within the visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft or a visual observer co-located and in direct communication with the operator.

(4) The aircraft is operated in a manner that does not interfere with and gives way to any manned aircraft.

(5) In Class B, Class C, or Class D airspace or within the lateral boundaries of the surface area of Class E airspace designated for an airport, the operator obtains prior authorization from the Administrator or designee before operating and complies with all airspace restrictions and prohibitions.

(6) In Class G airspace, the aircraft is flown from the surface to not more than 400 feet above ground level and complies with all airspace restrictions and prohibitions.

(7) The operator has passed an aeronautical knowledge and safety test described in subsection (g) and maintains proof of test passage to be made available to the Administrator or law enforcement upon request.

(8) The aircraft is registered and marked in accordance with chapter 441 of this title and proof of registration is made available to the Administrator or a designee of the Administrator or law enforcement upon request.

(b) Other Operations.—Unmanned aircraft operations that do not conform to the limitations in subsection (a) must comply with all statutes and regulations generally applicable to unmanned aircraft and unmanned aircraft systems.

(c) Operations at Fixed Sites.—

(1) Operating procedure required.—Persons operating unmanned aircraft under subsection (a) from a fixed site within Class B, Class C, or Class D airspace or within the lateral boundaries of the surface area of Class E airspace designated for an airport, or a community-based organization conducting a sanctioned event within such airspace, shall make the location of the fixed site known to the Administrator and shall establish a mutually agreed upon operating procedure with the air traffic control facility.

(2) Unmanned aircraft weighing more than 55 pounds.—A person may operate an unmanned aircraft weighing more than 55 pounds, including the weight of anything attached to or carried by the aircraft, under subsection (a) if—

(A) the unmanned aircraft complies with standards and limitations developed by a community-based organization and approved by the Administrator; and

(B) the aircraft is operated from a fixed site as described in paragraph (1).

(d) Updates.—

(1) In general.—The Administrator, in consultation with government, stakeholders, and community-based organizations, shall initiate a process to periodically update the operational parameters under subsection (a), as appropriate.

(2) Considerations.—In updating an operational parameter under paragraph (1), the Administrator shall consider—

(A) appropriate operational limitations to mitigate risks to aviation safety and national security, including risk to the uninvolved public and critical infrastructure;

(B) operations outside the membership, guidelines, and programming of a community-based organization;

(C) physical characteristics, technical standards, and classes of aircraft operating under this section;

(D) trends in use, enforcement, or incidents involving unmanned aircraft systems;

(E) ensuring, to the greatest extent practicable, that updates to the operational parameters correspond to, and leverage, advances in technology; and

(F) equipage requirements that facilitate safe, efficient, and secure operations and further integrate all unmanned aircraft into the national airspace system.

(3) Savings clause.—Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as expanding the authority of the Administrator to require a person operating an unmanned aircraft under this section to seek permissive authority of the Administrator, beyond that required in subsection (a) of this section, prior to operation in the national airspace system.

(e) Statutory Construction.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the authority of the Administrator to pursue an enforcement action against a person operating any unmanned aircraft who endangers the safety of the national airspace system.

(f) Exceptions.—Nothing in this section prohibits the Administrator from promulgating rules generally applicable to unmanned aircraft, including those unmanned aircraft eligible for the exception set forth in this section, relating to—

(1) updates to the operational parameters for unmanned aircraft in subsection (a);

(2) the registration and marking of unmanned aircraft;

(3) the standards for remotely identifying owners and operators of unmanned aircraft systems and associated unmanned aircraft; and

(4) other standards consistent with maintaining the safety and security of the national airspace system.

(g) Aeronautical Knowledge and Safety Test.—

(1) In general.—Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this section, the Administrator, in consultation with manufacturers of unmanned aircraft systems, other industry stakeholders, and community-based organizations, shall develop an aeronautical knowledge and safety test, which can then be administered electronically by the Administrator, a community-based organization, or a person designated by the Administrator.

(2) Requirements.—The Administrator shall ensure the aeronautical knowledge and safety test is designed to adequately demonstrate an operator's—

(A) understanding of aeronautical safety knowledge; and

(B) knowledge of Federal Aviation Administration regulations and requirements pertaining to the operation of an unmanned aircraft system in the national airspace system.

(h) Community-based Organization Defined.—In this section, the term "community-based organization" means a membership-based association entity that—

(1) is described in section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986;

(2) is exempt from tax under section 501(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986;

(3) the mission of which is demonstrably the furtherance of model aviation;

(4) provides a comprehensive set of safety guidelines for all aspects of model aviation addressing the assembly and operation of model aircraft and that emphasize safe aeromodelling operations within the national airspace system and the protection and safety of individuals and property on the ground, and may provide a comprehensive set of safety rules and programming for the operation of unmanned aircraft that have the advanced flight capabilities enabling active, sustained, and controlled navigation of the aircraft beyond visual line of sight of the operator;

(5) provides programming and support for any local charter organizations, affiliates, or clubs; and

(6) provides assistance and support in the development and operation of locally designated model aircraft flying sites.

(i) Recognition of Community-based Organizations.—In collaboration with aeromodelling stakeholders, the Administrator shall publish an advisory circular within 180 days of the date of enactment of this section that identifies the criteria and process required for recognition of community-based organizations.

(Added Pub. L. 115–254, div. B, title III, §349(a), Oct. 5, 2018, 132 Stat. 3298.)


Introduction: FAA-recognized identification area for custom model aircraft

The remote identification of UAS is necessary to ensure public safety and the safety and efficiency of the airspace of the United States. The remote identification framework would provide UAS-specific data, which could be used in tandem with new technologies and infrastructure to facilitate future, more advanced operational capabilities (such as detect-and-avoid and aircraft-to-aircraft communications that support beyond visual line of sight operations) and to develop the necessary elements for comprehensive UAS traffic management (UTM). Furthermore, remote identification of UAS would provide airspace awareness to the FAA, national security agencies, and law enforcement entities. This information could be used to distinguish compliant airspace users from those potentially posing a safety or security risk.


In detail: XV. FAA-Recognized Identification Areas

The FAA is proposing a means for UAS that do not meet the requirements of standard remote identification UAS under § 89.110 or limited remote identification UAS under § 89.115 to comply with the intent of this rule. In § 89.120, the FAA is proposing to allow UAS to operate without remote identification equipment if they do so within visual line of sight and within certain defined geographic areas approved by the FAA, called FAA-recognized identification areas. For UAS not equipped with Remote ID, the way to identify and comply with the intent of the remote identification rule is to operate within the FAA-recognized identification areas. The intent is to minimize the regulatory burden for operators of UAS that do not have remote identification equipment, while still meeting the intent of the rule. This proposal would not preclude UAS with remote identification from operating in or transiting the airspace over FAA-recognized identification areas; it would simply limit UAS with no remote identification equipment from operating anywhere else.

UAS with remote identification equipment that operate in or transit the airspace over FAA-recognized identification areas would be required to comply with the applicable remote identification requirements in § 89.105(a) for standard remote identification UAS or § 89.105(b) for limited remote identification UAS. Some UAS manufacturers may offer an option to modify a UAS originally manufactured without remote identification to become compliant with the requirements for a standard remote identification UAS or limited remote identification UAS. For example, a UAS manufacturer may offer a software update that would turn the UAS into a standard or limited remote identification UAS. A UAS that is modified to have remote identification capability must remotely identify throughout its operation, regardless of where it is operated. This means that the operator of a modified UAS would have to follow the requirements for remotely identifying everywhere, even when flying at FAA-recognized identification areas, including transmitting to a Remote ID USS. Operators of modified UAS would be required to subscribe to a Remote ID USS to operate anywhere where internet connectivity is available, including within an FAA-recognized identification area. The FAA seeks comments on this requirement.

The FAA recognizes that UAS flying sites exist today without a significant impact on aviation safety. As proposed in § 89.205, only a community based organization (CBO) recognized by the Administrator would be eligible to apply for the establishment of a flying site as an FAA-recognized identification area to enable operations of UAS without remote identification within those areas. For clarification purposes, the concept of FAA-recognized identification areas proposed in this rule is different and independent from the fixed-site concept in 49 U.S.C. 44809(c)(1) and a fixed site would not automatically be approved as an FAA-recognized identification area.

The FAA would maintain a list of FAA-recognized identification areas at The location of FAA-recognized identification areas would be made available to the public to: (1) Advise UAS operators of where operations of UAS without remote identification are permitted; (2) advise both manned and unmanned aircraft operators of where operations of UAS without remote identification are taking place; and (3) inform security and law enforcement agencies of where operations of UAS without remote identification are taking place. Operators of UAS with remote identification would be able to avoid these locations if they prefer to operate Start Printed Page 72486in areas where there are no UAS without remote identification. Law enforcement and security personnel would be able to identify if a suspect UAS has remote identification and, if not, determine if it is legally operating within an FAA-recognized identification area.

The FAA is proposing to accept applications for FAA-recognized identification areas within 12 calendar months of the effective date of a final rule. At the end of that 12-month period, no new applications for FAA-recognized identification areas would be accepted. After that date, the number of FAA-recognized identification areas could therefore only remain the same or decrease. Over time, the FAA anticipates that most UAS without remote identification will reach the end of their useful lives or be phased out. As these numbers dwindle, and as compliance with remote identification requirements becomes cheaper and easier, the number of UAS that need to operate only at FAA-recognized identification areas would likely drop significantly.

Operating within FAA-recognized identification areas would not provide relief from other applicable Federal, State, or local laws, ordinances, or regulations, nor would they provide any authorization to operate. Operators would remain obligated to comply with all relevant requirements. The FAA is not proposing any additional or specific operating rules for operations within the bounds of FAA-recognized identification areas.


Contact • Booking

Martin Tyner
P.O. Box 1907
Cedar City, UT 84721-1907
(435) 590-1618
email martin

No Follow Me

A phone call is the best way to contact Martin. His work keeps him frequently on the road, outside with the critters, and in the wild, so his computer time is very limited. You can, however, follow news of his foundation activities on the Southwest Wildlife Foundation sites:, Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, Instagram.

This site was built and is maintained for Martin by the Southwest Wildlife Foundation of Utah Volunteer Critter Webgeek.