AMA Discussions Discuss AMA policies, decisions & any other AMA related topics here.

View Poll Results: A poll
Yes, our self-policing efforts (i.e. AMA Safety Codes) aren''t working.
4.81%
Yes, the world has changed considerably since 9/11.
15.96%
I''m not sure.
5.58%
No, the FAA has no business regulating "hobby" airplanes.
34.62%
No, we are fully capable of policing ourselves.
12.69%
No, the perceived threat to society doesn't exist!
13.85%
I hate polls like this!
12.50%
Voters: 520. You may not vote on this poll

Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?

Reply
Old 01-24-2012, 08:46 AM
  #201
Airplanes400
 
Airplanes400's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Florida
Posts: 1,631
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?


Quote:
ORIGINAL: H5487

Quote:
ORIGINAL: BobbyMcGee

Oh, come on people! The FAA needs to start doing something different. Those poor people are totally bored out of their minds with real aircraft. They want something new to do. Besides, this hobby will satisify their morbid desire to see planes crash. If you let the FAA get into the hobby they can call the NTSB every time one of your planes crash. Think of it! No more guessing why your plane crashed! A team of trained government investigators from the NTSB will analize your plane to find the real reason it crashed. No more guessing! I think that's great!
Uhhhh... Thanks for your valuable contribution to this discussion. [sm=75_75.gif]

Harvey
I think this guy is brilliant. He has a valid point. How many of us want the crash king at our field taken away? You know, the guy who flys over the pits, ground loops, crashes his plane in the pits, builds planes like crap, crashes immediately after takeoff. With the FAA involved in our hobby, they can ground that type of guy, and maybe take his AMA membership away until he goes to ground school. The rest of us can fly safely for the rest of the day rather than pack up and go home when MasterCrasher shows up at the field.

And the big plus is having an authority that can call in the NTSB to find the real reason why your plane crashed. They could verify that the Chinese manufacturer built your jet like garbage. Then you can go back to the manufacturer you bought your $4000 jet from and blame them for your loss. You have the experience of the NTSB in writing that your jet was not built to be airworthy! That is gold!

The benefits of having the FAA invloved in this hobby are being overlooked by everyone.
Airplanes400 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2012, 08:54 AM
  #202
Silent-AV8R
 
Silent-AV8R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 5,308
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?


Quote:
ORIGINAL: Airplanes400

I think this guy is brilliant. He has a valid point. How many of us want the crash king at our field taken away? You know, the guy who flys over the pits, ground loops, crashes his plane in the pits, builds planes like crap, crashes immediately after takeoff. With the FAA involved in our hobby, they can ground that type of guy, and maybe take his AMA membership away until he goes to ground school. The rest of us can fly safely for the rest of the day rather than pack up and go home when MasterCrasher shows up at the field.

And the big plus is having an authority that can call in the NTSB to find the real reason why your plane crashed. They could verify that the Chinese manufacturer built your jet like garbage. Then you can go back to the manufacturer you bought your $4000 jet from and blame them for your loss. You have the experience of the NTSB in writing that your jet was not built to be airworthy! That is gold!

The benefits of having the FAA invloved in this hobby are being overlooked by everyone.

I doubt either scenario you envision is very likely to happen. However, the new Rule does give the FAA the ability to more effectively deal with the folks who like to fly FPV BLOS (like say, in NYC), fly around ballons, aircraft, etc., fly in the traffic pattern at major airports (McCarran for example), fly with a complete disregard for safety, etc.
Silent-AV8R is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2012, 08:57 AM
  #203
H5487
Thread Starter
 
H5487's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 1,074
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?

Quote:
ORIGINAL: HoundDog
As a liscenced pilot one must show their ID to any leagle law inforcment officer, including city, state, or federal law inforcment. Just fly too low over a housing aera and see who shows up to talk to you after you land at your local airport.
H-Dog,

While the "cops" can enforce a civil ordinance such as "Creating a public nuisance" or "Creating an undue hazard" (either of which low flying could certainly fall under), only the FAA can bring charges against a pilot for violating FAR 91.13 (Careless or reckless operation) FAR 91.119 (minimum altitudes).

And yes, FAR 61.3(i)(3) states that a pilot must present his/her airman's certificate ("pilot's license") at the request of a law enforcement officer. However, that officer has no authority to cite a pilot for an FAR violation. Enforcement of the FARs is solely the jurisdiction of the FAA. A law enforcement officer can only serve as a complaintant or witness for an FAA enforcement action. (Which they are most-assuredly willing to do most of the time.)

The key here is that the FARs are federal laws and can only be enforced by federal courts.

Harvey
H5487 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2012, 08:59 AM
  #204
Airplanes400
 
Airplanes400's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Florida
Posts: 1,631
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?

Actually, I was kidding with what I wrote. I was going off on a tangent. Althought it would be great if al that could be accomplished if the FAA did get involved.
By the way, It seems the other guy was joking around too. It's called scarcasm!
Airplanes400 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2012, 09:03 AM
  #205
Airplanes400
 
Airplanes400's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Florida
Posts: 1,631
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?

Quote:
ORIGINAL: H5487

Quote:
ORIGINAL: HoundDog
As a liscenced pilot one must show their ID to any leagle law inforcment officer, including city, state, or federal law inforcment. Just fly too low over a housing aera and see who shows up to talk to you after you land at your local airport.
H-Dog,

While the ''cops'' can enforce a civil ordinance such as ''Creating a public nuisance'' or ''Creating an undue hazard'' (either of which low flying could certainly fall under), only the FAA can bring charges against a pilot for violating FAR 91.13 (Careless or reckless operation) FAR 91.119 (minimum altitudes).

And yes, FAR 61.3(i)(3) states that a pilot must present his/her airman's certificate (''pilot's license'') at the request of a law enforcement officer. However, that officer has no authority to cite a pilot for an FAR violation. Enforcement of the FARs is solely the jurisdiction of the FAA. A law enforcement officer can only serve as a complaintant or witness for an FAA enforcement action. (Which they are most-assuredly willing to do most of the time.)

The key here is that the FARs are federal laws and can only be enforced by federal courts.

Harvey
Actually, despite the rule cited, the pilot is not under any obligation to surrender his license upon the request of an FAA Inspector. The pilot can show it to the Inspector if he wishes, but he can refuse that too.

Regardless, the Inspector will suspend or revoke the license internally. They do not need to physically take the license away. Having a cop present does not change any of this. The cop will just attest to the fact (put it in his report, if he even files a report) that the pilot denied the Inspectors' request.

I happen to know all this because a good friend of mine is an FAA Inspector. Years ago we discussed this very topic.
Airplanes400 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2012, 09:38 AM
  #206
H5487
Thread Starter
 
H5487's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 1,074
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?

Quote:
ORIGINAL: Airplanes400

Quote:
ORIGINAL: H5487

Quote:
ORIGINAL: HoundDog
As a liscenced pilot one must show their ID to any leagle law inforcment officer, including city, state, or federal law inforcment. Just fly too low over a housing aera and see who shows up to talk to you after you land at your local airport.
H-Dog,

While the ''cops'' can enforce a civil ordinance such as ''Creating a public nuisance'' or ''Creating an undue hazard'' (either of which low flying could certainly fall under), only the FAA can bring charges against a pilot for violating FAR 91.13 (Careless or reckless operation) FAR 91.119 (minimum altitudes).

And yes, FAR 61.3(i)(3) states that a pilot must present his/her airman's certificate (''pilot's license'') at the request of a law enforcement officer. However, that officer has no authority to cite a pilot for an FAR violation. Enforcement of the FARs is solely the jurisdiction of the FAA. A law enforcement officer can only serve as a complaintant or witness for an FAA enforcement action. (Which they are most-assuredly willing to do most of the time.)

The key here is that the FARs are federal laws and can only be enforced by federal courts.

Harvey
Actually, despite the rule cited, the pilot is not under any obligation to surrender his license upon the request of an FAA Inspector. The pilot can show it to the Inspector if he wishes, but he can refuse that too.

Regardless, the Inspector will suspend or revoke the license internally. They do not need to physically take the license away. Having a cop present does not change any of this. The cop will just attest to the fact (put it in his report, if he even files a report) that the pilot denied the Inspectors' request.

I happen to know all this because a good friend of mine is an FAA Inspector. Years ago we discussed this very topic.
A-400,

Please note that I didn't say that the pilot must surrender his certificate to an inspector or law enforcement officer. I agree that neither has the authority to confiscate or keep the pilot's certificate.

However, I disagree that a pilot can refuse a legal request to present it because FAR 61.3(i)(3) includes the wording of "...must present it for inspection upon request...". The word "must" is used by the FAA to indicate a required action. (Using the word "may" would have specified it as optional.) Of course, the pilot can still exercise his desire to refuse such a request; however, he will then find himself in a legal predicament similar to a driver who refuses a breathalyzer test; sudden and total revocation of his priviledges pending further investigation.

Harvey
H5487 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2012, 09:50 AM
  #207
Sport_Pilot
 
Sport_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 16,888
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?

Quote:
"...private airports not open to the public." That would be Restricted airports (useable only by prior permission or for a bonafide emergency) but they would still have to abide by the FARs.
No they don't read the applicability section of the airport FAR's. If its your property and you are not doing any comercial activity or inviting general flyingpublic you don't have to comply with those FARS. You can take off from your front lawn for example.

Quote:
Sport, we are likely talking about two different things here. When you said that "Private airports are not required to follow the rules", that left too much open for debate. The FAA has jurisdiction over privately-owned airports served by Part 121 air carrier ops. However, it can only advise other airports. (Please note that many airports served by Part 121 ops are actually "privately" owned. By definition, "privately owned" includes those airports owned by corporations, as opposed to being owned by the governing body in which they're located.)
Yes that is why I corrected my statement, any private airport doing commercial business is and should be regulated. A private airport for just the owners use, and invited guests is not regulated.
Sport_Pilot is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2012, 09:58 AM
  #208
Bruno Stachel
 
Bruno Stachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Edgewood, KY
Posts: 1,223
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?


Quote:
ORIGINAL: Silent-AV8R


Quote:
ORIGINAL: bradpaul

BTW....... you all realise that the AMA Headquarters and International Flying Center borders on Reese Airport in Muncie,IN........

http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msa=0&msid=200717360595310567090.000463afe4cb50b745530&hl=en&ie=UTF8&vpsrc=0&ll=40.167723,-85.322742&spn=0.022038,0.023517&source=embed

Brad


Now wouldn't that be a twist!! Hopefully any restrictions will only be around busy airports with at least an active control tower.
If not, I'm sure there will be waivers.
Bruno Stachel is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2012, 09:59 AM
  #209
Sport_Pilot
 
Sport_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 16,888
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?

The full scale pilot ofthe biplane that crashed into theR/C model appeared before a Judge last November. I understand that he was fighting the FAA from pulling his ticket for flying too low and fast over that runway.
Sport_Pilot is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2012, 10:07 AM
  #210
H5487
Thread Starter
 
H5487's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 1,074
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?


Quote:
ORIGINAL: Sport_Pilot

Quote:
''...private airports not open to the public.'' That would be Restricted airports (useable only by prior permission or for a bonafide emergency) but they would still have to abide by the FARs.
No they don't read the applicability section of the airport FAR's. If its your property and you are not doing any comercial activity or inviting general flying public you don't have to comply with those FARS. You can take off from your front lawn for example.

Quote:
Sport, we are likely talking about two different things here. When you said that ''Private airports are not required to follow the rules'', that left too much open for debate. The FAA has jurisdiction over privately-owned airports served by Part 121 air carrier ops. However, it can only advise other airports. (Please note that many airports served by Part 121 ops are actually ''privately'' owned. By definition, ''privately owned'' includes those airports owned by corporations, as opposed to being owned by the governing body in which they're located.)
Yes that is why I corrected my statement, any private airport doing commercial business is and should be regulated. A private airport for just the owners use, and invited guests is not regulated.
Sport,

"Private" refers to privately-owned and does not dictate who can and cannot use it. "Restricted" does that.

Also, taking off from your front lawn doesn't define your lawn as an airport.

While you or other readers of this forum may think I'm ridiculously nit-picking over verbage, please note that the FARs are very carefully written by legions of FAA attorneys and the exact wording is critical in the interpretation and enforcement of an FAR.

Harvey
H5487 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2012, 10:11 AM
  #211
H5487
Thread Starter
 
H5487's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 1,074
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?

(Eliminated a double post.)
H5487 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2012, 10:27 AM
  #212
on_your_six
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Maryland, MD
Posts: 1,350
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?

In all of this, you have to ask what current enforcement tools are available?

The only real tool that I know of is revocation of the right to fly at a particular field. The RC pilot could then join a neighboring club and fly there.

Am I wrong? While a member, I have never seen any enforcement actions on a member. Stern talking is about it.

If I am right, then it would be nice to have some stronger rules with teeth...

After XX crashes per year, pilot required to retrain on buddy box until instructor gives them a go ahead to fly solo again. (I don't know what the XX number should be)
on_your_six is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2012, 10:27 AM
  #213
Airplanes400
 
Airplanes400's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Florida
Posts: 1,631
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?

Quote:
ORIGINAL: H5487

Quote:
ORIGINAL: Airplanes400

Quote:
ORIGINAL: H5487

Quote:
ORIGINAL: HoundDog
As a liscenced pilot one must show their ID to any leagle law inforcment officer, including city, state, or federal law inforcment. Just fly too low over a housing aera and see who shows up to talk to you after you land at your local airport.
H-Dog,

While the ''cops'' can enforce a civil ordinance such as ''Creating a public nuisance'' or ''Creating an undue hazard'' (either of which low flying could certainly fall under), only the FAA can bring charges against a pilot for violating FAR 91.13 (Careless or reckless operation) FAR 91.119 (minimum altitudes).

And yes, FAR 61.3(i)(3) states that a pilot must present his/her airman's certificate (''pilot's license'') at the request of a law enforcement officer. However, that officer has no authority to cite a pilot for an FAR violation. Enforcement of the FARs is solely the jurisdiction of the FAA. A law enforcement officer can only serve as a complaintant or witness for an FAA enforcement action. (Which they are most-assuredly willing to do most of the time.)

The key here is that the FARs are federal laws and can only be enforced by federal courts.

Harvey
Actually, despite the rule cited, the pilot is not under any obligation to surrender his license upon the request of an FAA Inspector. The pilot can show it to the Inspector if he wishes, but he can refuse that too.

Regardless, the Inspector will suspend or revoke the license internally. They do not need to physically take the license away. Having a cop present does not change any of this. The cop will just attest to the fact (put it in his report, if he even files a report) that the pilot denied the Inspectors' request.

I happen to know all this because a good friend of mine is an FAA Inspector. Years ago we discussed this very topic.
A-400,

Please note that I didn't say that the pilot must surrender his certificate to an inspector or law enforcement officer. I agree that neither has the authority to confiscate or keep the pilot's certificate.

However, I disagree that a pilot can refuse a legal request to present it because FAR 61.3(i)(3) includes the wording of ''...must present it for inspection upon request...''. The word ''must'' is used by the FAA to indicate a required action. (Using the word ''may'' would have specified it as optional.) Of course, the pilot can still exercise his desire to refuse such a request; however, he will then find himself in a legal predicament similar to a driver who refuses a blood-alcohol test; sudden and total revocation of his priviledges pending further investigation.

Harvey
While you are correct in the wording as the rule is written, it is the little nuances that an FAA Inspector will know that the typical pilot does not. All those little "legalities" or differences that the general public /pilot doesn't know. It is also intended that way (to keep the pilot form knowing everything). And also, the pilot will not be in any legal predicament for refusing to surrender his license. He is actually within his right. Internally, the FAA can make it more difficult for the pilot by dragging their feet or suspending a license for a longer period of time for the 'just because' option, but that is kept "out of the picture" ... so to speak.


Unless a fatality is involved, or the suspect is unconscious and requires life-saving medical help (operation), a driver can refuse to take a blood-alcohol test. And if he knows he is drunk, it is better for him not to take the test. I don't agree with this, but it is a fact/option for a drunk driver. Yes, it will be an immediate revocation of a license for six months. But for the driver, it is better than a DUI arrest.

Now, back to our regularly scheduled program ...
Airplanes400 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2012, 10:42 AM
  #214
Airplanes400
 
Airplanes400's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Florida
Posts: 1,631
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?


Quote:
ORIGINAL: on_your_six

In all of this, you have to ask what current enforcement tools are available?

The only real tool that I know of is revocation of the right to fly at a particular field. The RC pilot could then join a neighboring club and fly there.

Am I wrong? While a member, I have never seen any enforcement actions on a member. Stern talking is about it.

If I am right, then it would be nice to have some stronger rules with teeth...
This is the way I see it at the fields I fly, and have flown at. Some flyers who constantly crash, yet hardly anyone talks to them. Yes, the field rules do say that someone can be refused the right to fly at the field. Despite all the broken rules and wild-ass crashes I've seen, no one is refused the right to fly.
Airplanes400 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2012, 10:48 AM
  #215
H5487
Thread Starter
 
H5487's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 1,074
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?

Quote:
ORIGINAL: Airplanes400

Quote:
ORIGINAL: H5487

Quote:
ORIGINAL: Airplanes400

Quote:
ORIGINAL: H5487

Quote:
ORIGINAL: HoundDog
As a liscenced pilot one must show their ID to any leagle law inforcment officer, including city, state, or federal law inforcment. Just fly too low over a housing aera and see who shows up to talk to you after you land at your local airport.
H-Dog,

While the ''cops'' can enforce a civil ordinance such as ''Creating a public nuisance'' or ''Creating an undue hazard'' (either of which low flying could certainly fall under), only the FAA can bring charges against a pilot for violating FAR 91.13 (Careless or reckless operation) FAR 91.119 (minimum altitudes).

And yes, FAR 61.3(i)(3) states that a pilot must present his/her airman's certificate (''pilot's license'') at the request of a law enforcement officer. However, that officer has no authority to cite a pilot for an FAR violation. Enforcement of the FARs is solely the jurisdiction of the FAA. A law enforcement officer can only serve as a complaintant or witness for an FAA enforcement action. (Which they are most-assuredly willing to do most of the time.)

The key here is that the FARs are federal laws and can only be enforced by federal courts.

Harvey
Actually, despite the rule cited, the pilot is not under any obligation to surrender his license upon the request of an FAA Inspector. The pilot can show it to the Inspector if he wishes, but he can refuse that too.

Regardless, the Inspector will suspend or revoke the license internally. They do not need to physically take the license away. Having a cop present does not change any of this. The cop will just attest to the fact (put it in his report, if he even files a report) that the pilot denied the Inspectors' request.

I happen to know all this because a good friend of mine is an FAA Inspector. Years ago we discussed this very topic.
A-400,

Please note that I didn't say that the pilot must surrender his certificate to an inspector or law enforcement officer. I agree that neither has the authority to confiscate or keep the pilot's certificate.

However, I disagree that a pilot can refuse a legal request to present it because FAR 61.3(i)(3) includes the wording of ''...must present it for inspection upon request...''. The word ''must'' is used by the FAA to indicate a required action. (Using the word ''may'' would have specified it as optional.) Of course, the pilot can still exercise his desire to refuse such a request; however, he will then find himself in a legal predicament similar to a driver who refuses a blood-alcohol test; sudden and total revocation of his priviledges pending further investigation.

Harvey
While you are correct in the wording as the rule is written, it is the little nuances that an FAA Inspector will know that the typical pilot does not. All those little ''legalities'' or differences that the general public /pilot doesn't know. It is also intended that way (to keep the pilot form knowing everything). And also, the pilot will not be in any legal predicament for refusing to surrender his license. He is actually within his right. Internally, the FAA can make it more difficult for the pilot by dragging their feet or suspending a license for a longer period of time for the 'just because' option, but that is kept ''out of the picture'' ... so to speak.


A driver can refuse to take a blood-alcohol test. And if he knows he is drunk, it is better for him not to take the test. I don't agree with this, but it is a fact/option for a drunk driver. Yes, it will be an immediate revocation of a license for six months. But for the driver, it is better than a DUI arrest.
A-400,

It looks like we're pretty much in agreement on these issues but I would like to clarify some things. If a pilot refuses to make his/her certificate available for inspection at the request of a qualified authority, the pilot CAN be charged in federal court with being in violation of FAR 61.3(i)(3). Would it be senseless? Probably not in the eyes of the FAA if it wanted to make a point. (Or send a message to any others who might think they could casually blow off any similar requests.)

And the second point that I want to make is that Florida and Texas laws obviously differ in DUI enforcement. If a driver in Texas refuses a roadside breathalyzer test (I mistakenly called it a blood-alcohol test earlier), the cops can now get an immediate warrant from a judge allowing a FORCED testing of the drivers blood. The old "refusal of a test is better than a DUI conviction" doesn't work in Texas anymore. I've heard that other states have, or are considering, similar laws. Is this an illegal search and seizure? Is it in violation of the driver's protection under the 5th Amendment? Possibly. However the courts have overwhelmingly determined (along with the approval of most of the population) that such actions are acceptable in combatting America's out-of-control DUI problem. (To paraphrase Spock, "The protection of the many outweighs the rights of the few.")

Harvey
H5487 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2012, 11:17 AM
  #216
H5487
Thread Starter
 
H5487's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 1,074
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?

Quote:
ORIGINAL: H5487
(To paraphrase Spock, ''The protection of the many outweighs the rights of the few.'')

Harvey
Hopefully, this doesn't become FAA's mantra in writing their proposed NPRM with heavy restrictions on R/C.

Harvey
H5487 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2012, 11:42 AM
  #217
H5487
Thread Starter
 
H5487's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 1,074
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?

Quote:
ORIGINAL: on_your_six

In all of this, you have to ask what current enforcement tools are available?

The only real tool that I know of is revocation of the right to fly at a particular field. The RC pilot could then join a neighboring club and fly there.

Am I wrong? While a member, I have never seen any enforcement actions on a member. Stern talking is about it.

If I am right, then it would be nice to have some stronger rules with teeth...

After XX crashes per year, pilot required to retrain on buddy box until instructor gives them a go ahead to fly solo again. (I don't know what the XX number should be)
An excessive number of crashes might bring everyone's focus on a pilot but I would think that the club's course of action would best be determined by whether the crashes were due to the pilot's inexperience or willful disregard of the rules. Correcting such disrespect is rarely rectified by additional training. That requires an attitude change and is usually better corrected through counseling, probation/punishment, or outright banning the individual from the property. (Especially if his actions brought injury to others!)

Harvey
H5487 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2012, 12:16 PM
  #218
Sport_Pilot
 
Sport_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 16,888
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?

Quote:
While you or other readers of this forum may think I'm ridiculously nit-picking over verbage, please note that the FARs are very carefully written by legions of FAA attorneys and the exact wording is critical in the interpretation and enforcement of an FAR.
Yes, you are nitpicking,and your definitions come from a sectional, not the FARS. You get that posted on the sectionals by request to the FAA and there is little question about that. Private normally means privately owned and privately used. Public means open to the people. That is neither from sectionals or the FAR but common usage. Neither hold any sway with the FARs.

As you said only airports with air carrier operations come under the FAR. Many of the regulations are actually AC's which do not have to be complied with. However if the airport takes any federal funds it will have to agreetocomply with FARsand AC's.
Sport_Pilot is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2012, 12:34 PM
  #219
H5487
Thread Starter
 
H5487's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 1,074
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?

Quote:
ORIGINAL: Sport_Pilot

Many of the regulations are actually AC's which do not have to be complied with.
That's a common misconception. While it is true that the FAA's Advisory Circulars are not regulatory, they can be used in court to the FAA's advantage.

Harvey
H5487 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2012, 12:51 PM
  #220
Sport_Pilot
 
Sport_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 16,888
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?

Quote:
While it is true that ACs are not "binding", they can be used in court to the FAA's advantage.
Well typically if someone sues you for landing on your airport and crash's becausethey didn't undestandyourhomemade approach system you will win because they were not supposed to be there.And in such a casethe FAA would not care! Actually though it would be better to have a simple strip with no aids. I used to regularly drive by a house with a field in front of it and their were red balls on the power line. The field was right across from the house and the red balls were right in front of the house. It was obvious that the approach would require that the plane would fly very close to the house and road and did not comply with clearance regulations. The aircraft would often be parked in the driveway so he would have to taxi across a state highway. Not sure about the legality of the latter though I suppose it would be legal.
Sport_Pilot is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2012, 03:03 PM
  #221
pkoury
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Picayune, MS
Posts: 333
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?


Quote:
ORIGINAL: ira d


Any officer can enforce any laws be it local state federal dont believe it just rob a bank the local cops will pick you up but the feds will prosecute
same goes if you interfere with a flight crew on a airplane.
Not so, the law enforcement agency must have jurisdiction.
pkoury is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2012, 05:09 PM
  #222
on_your_six
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Maryland, MD
Posts: 1,350
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?

I agree, my point was that there is really only one penalty... kicking the flier out of the club. There are a lot of reasons for a crash, loosing an engine or an obvious mechanical failure might not be a reason to count the crash. At the same time, if a flier is consistently flying rags and they are crashing regularly... that might be a preventable crash and countable. The requirement for re-certification might end some willful reckless actions. The potential of monetary penalties might further reduce willful disregard of rules.

Nobody wants to be the "Fed" and enforce club rules is my experience. Some times it needs to be done and it is usually an ugly affair. Usually it pits guys that don't generally like each other to begin with. If one of the regular crashers puts a plane down on top of my vehicle, it is not going to be a pretty sight. Hopefully, rules will prevent a careless flier from continuing without additional training. If the additional training does not correct the problem... then the choice is obvious... kicking the flier out.

The thing that I like about the FAA rules is that when something serious does happen, there are rules and established penalties to resolve a problem.



[/quote]
An excessive number of crashes might bring everyone's focus on a pilot but I would think that the club's course of action would best be determined by whether the crashes were due to the pilot's inexperience or willful disregard of the rules. Correcting such disrespect is rarely rectified by additional training. That requires an attitude change and is usually better corrected through counselling(sp), probation/punishment, or outright banning the individual from the property. (Especially if his actions brought injury to others!)
Harvey
[/quote]
on_your_six is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2012, 05:23 PM
  #223
HoundDog
 
HoundDog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Apache Junction AZ. WI 0WI8
Posts: 4,450
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?


Quote:
ORIGINAL: Sport_Pilot

Quote:
While you or other readers of this forum may think I'm ridiculously nit-picking over verbage, please note that the FARs are very carefully written by legions of FAA attorneys and the exact wording is critical in the interpretation and enforcement of an FAR.
Yes, you are nitpicking,and your definitions come from a sectional, not the FARS. You get that posted on the sectionals by request to the FAA and there is little question about that. Private normally means privately owned and privately used. Public means open to the people. That is neither from sectionals or the FAR but common usage. Neither hold any sway with the FARs.

As you said only airports with air carrier operations come under the FAR. Many of the regulations are actually AC's which do not have to be complied with. However if the airport takes any federal funds it will have to agreetocomply with FARsand AC's.
WRONG ... Just like any airport FAR's must be followed at private restricted fields. Just bust VFR minumems at a private restricted airport and if some one turns you in, then see if the FAA can't pull your ticket to Ride ......

HoundDog is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2012, 05:37 PM
  #224
HoundDog
 
HoundDog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Apache Junction AZ. WI 0WI8
Posts: 4,450
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?


Quote:
ORIGINAL: on_your_six

I agree, my point was that there is really only one penalty... kicking the flier out of the club. There are a lot of reasons for a crash, loosing an engine or an obvious mechanical failure might not be a reason to count the crash. At the same time, if a flier is consistently flying rags and they are crashing regularly... that might be a preventable crash and countable. The requirement for re-certification might end some willful reckless actions. The potential of monetary penalties might further reduce willful disregard of rules.

Nobody wants to be the "Fed" and enforce club rules is my experience. Some times it needs to be done and it is usually an ugly affair. Usually it pits guys that don't generally like each other to begin with. If one of the regular crashers puts a plane down on top of my vehicle, it is not going to be a pretty sight. Hopefully, rules will prevent a careless flier from continuing without additional training. If the additional training does not correct the problem... then the choice is obvious... kicking the flier out.

The thing that I like about the FAA rules is that when something serious does happen, there are rules and established penalties to resolve a problem.


An excessive number of crashes might bring everyone's focus on a pilot but I would think that the club's course of action would best be determined by whether the crashes were due to the pilot's inexperience or willful disregard of the rules. Correcting such disrespect is rarely rectified by additional training. That requires an attitude change and is usually better corrected through counselling(sp), probation/punishment, or outright banning the individual from the property. (Especially if his actions brought injury to others!)
Harvey
[/quote]

[/quote]We've got a guy that we kid about that he has a reserved parking space at the local hobby shop ... He has at least 3 to 4 major crashes per month ... I've seen him do 3 planes in one day ... Everyone thinks it funny. The one guy I don't see as funny is the guy that takes off right along the safty fence and 2 out of 3 take offs end up going over the pilot stations and or the pits. The powers to be ie. the Club Offerices refuse to do any thing about it. I wanted to make it manditory to pass a series of things like stright take offs and landings loop roll laft and right turns to final ect. before a student or new member could fly solo. Hell they wanted to through me out because I was causeing discorde in the club. How many people do U have in your club that can't make right hand turns toward them selves.
HoundDog is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2012, 06:11 PM
  #225
H5487
Thread Starter
 
H5487's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 1,074
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?

Quote:
ORIGINAL: HoundDog
Just bust VFR minumems at a private restricted airport and if some one turns you in, then see if the FAA can't pull your ticket to Ride ......
Adhering to minimums are inflight rules and have nothing to do with whatever kinds of airports are below the planes.

Harvey
H5487 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:34 PM.