Date: 201409
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: MSP.Airport, MN
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Operator: Personal
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Climb; Cruise
Airspace: Class B MSP
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Observer
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Observer
When detected: In-flight
Result: General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: OVERVIEW: I was made aware that my flight with a small multi-rotor model aircraft in late September may have been in violation of entry with an 'aircraft' into Class B airspace near the MSP airport.Before; during; and after the flight; it was (and still is) my understanding that I was in no way violating any established FAA rules or regulations specific to the operation of model aircraft. This belief was largely based upon current case law: 'A recent NTSB decisional order states that 'model aircraft' operations are not bound by FAA oversight; as they do not currently meet the definition of an 'aircraft.' This precedent made it my understanding that no existing FAA law or regulation was violated during the operation of my 'model aircraft' equipment in late September (in fact; no official FAA law; rule; or regulation currently exists for model aircraft operation; as no such policies have been submitted to and approved by Congress).  FLIGHT SAFETY:My first priority was and always is; flight safety. After scouting the location; I carefully considered whether this flight would in any way cause harm or pose a safety risk to people and/or property both on the ground and in the air. I concluded that the flight could proceed as planned at the specified location; because it could be performed with zero risk to safety. In addition to commonly known safety practices for model aircraft; I implemented the following procedures to ensure a safe flight operation: Safe Location: The site includes a 4-story condo building located roughly a mile from the MSP airport; set on the edge of a wildlife refuge at an estimated 80 - 100 feet below airport grade elevation. Located nearby; in between the site location and the airport; are tall; 10-story office buildings directly to the north and west. Non-Navigable Airspace: The adjacent tall buildings and lower-lying site location create an area of non-navigable airspace by traditional aircraft. Additionally; the location in focus is not aligned with any runway arrival paths. Low Flight Altitude/Position: The flight was limited to the immediate 4-story condo building area at altitudes from the surface to no more than roof-height of any buildings. The majority of flight time was spent over the trees toward the river valley at altitudes around 50 feet high. Monitored MSP Traffic Flow: The flight was planned to take place at a time when air traffic at MSP was limited to arrivals and departures from runways 12 L/R; plus departures-only from runway 17. At all times; I maintained a listening watch of the south tower (123.675) for active departures off Runway 17. When an aircraft was instructed to line up and wait for departure; I would immediately land; and wait for traffic to take off and completely clear to the southeast before proceeding. Maximum time to react; land; and disarm the vehicle from any given point in flight is less than 10 seconds. Fail Safe: Flight position and direct line-of-sight was maintained at all times; and a home location was set and verified prior to take off. Horizontal flight range was limited to non-navigable airspace and go-home altitude was set to 60-feet; thus ensuring that the vehicle would never enter active; controlled; navigable airspace.SUMMARY: Considering the absence of any enforceable FAA regulation for this type of operation; I did not at the time of flight; and still do not believe that I was in violation of any laws; rules; or regulation.I consider myself a foremost expert in the new and emerging field of model aircraft operation. I take pride in the fact that I have maintained a flawless safety and reliability record. Additionally; I consistently apply professional aviation knowledge; experience; and skill during every model aircraft flight. Although I flew in a completely safe manner; with proper precautions and contingencies; I do regret my decision to fly within close proximity to the MSP airport. I realize now that this action may have been cause for great concern. I wholeheartedly and sincerely apologize for operating near the MSP airport. Moving forward; I will cease any and all flights within Class B airspace; or within close proximity to an airport.


Second narrative: A small; fixed wing unmanned aircraft was launched somewhere near Loeb Lake/Marydale Park in Saint Paul and ascended to the east for about 20 minutes. I regularly see manned aircraft on approach to STP flying over the lake using it and Lake Como as a reference/reporting point for STP Runway 14 or the helicopter visual approach into Regions hospital. It is not possible to see the approach of a manned aircraft from the vantage point where these amateur UAS pilots are operating and; in many cases; impossible to see or hear from which direction the manned aircraft is approaching from this area. Somehow I doubt the amateur UAS pilot was in contact with air traffic control.


Synopsis: A multi-rotor UAS operator reported he does not believe he violated an FAA rules or regulations when he flew his UAS in MSP Class B about 1 mile south of MSP up to about 60 FT. A Private Pilot observer reported the small UAS aircraft operating at about 400 FT within three miles of STP and in the VFR approach to Regions Hospital.