Register

If this is your first visit, please click the Sign Up now button to begin the process of creating your account so you can begin posting on our forums! The Sign Up process will only take up about a minute of two of your time.

View Poll Results: A poll

Voters
520. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, our self-policing efforts (i.e. AMA Safety Codes) aren''t working.

    25 4.81%
  • Yes, the world has changed considerably since 9/11.

    83 15.96%
  • I''m not sure.

    29 5.58%
  • No, the FAA has no business regulating "hobby" airplanes.

    180 34.62%
  • No, we are fully capable of policing ourselves.

    66 12.69%
  • No, the perceived threat to society doesn't exist!

    72 13.85%
  • I hate polls like this!

    65 12.50%
Page 9 of 21 FirstFirst ... 789101119 ... LastLast
Results 201 to 225 of 502

  1. #201
    Airplanes400's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,610
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

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


    ORIGINAL: H5487

    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!Β* 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.
    We in the Federal Government have no sense of humor that we are aware of.

  2. #202
    Silent-AV8R's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Orange County, CA
    Posts
    4,838
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

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


    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.
    Team Futaba - RClipos.com

  3. #203
    H5487's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    911
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

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

    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
    Weather Geek

  4. #204
    Airplanes400's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,610
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    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!
    We in the Federal Government have no sense of humor that we are aware of.

  5. #205
    Airplanes400's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,610
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

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

    ORIGINAL: H5487

    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.
    We in the Federal Government have no sense of humor that we are aware of.

  6. #206
    H5487's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    911
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

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

    ORIGINAL: Airplanes400

    ORIGINAL: H5487

    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
    Weather Geek

  7. #207
    Sport_Pilot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Acworth, GA
    Posts
    13,392
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

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

    "...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.

    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.
    Glow Head Brotherhood #15

  8. #208
    Bruno Stachel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Edgewood, KY
    Posts
    1,223
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

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


    ORIGINAL: Silent-AV8R


    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.

  9. #209
    Sport_Pilot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Acworth, GA
    Posts
    13,392
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    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.
    Glow Head Brotherhood #15

  10. #210
    H5487's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    911
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

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


    ORIGINAL: Sport_Pilot

    ''...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.Β* If its your property and you are not doing any comercial activity or inviting general flyingΒ*public you don't have to comply with those FARS.Β* You can take off from your front lawn for example.

    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.Β* 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
    Weather Geek

  11. #211
    H5487's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    911
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

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

    (Eliminated a double post.)
    Weather Geek

  12. #212

    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Maryland, MD
    Posts
    1,221
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    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)

  13. #213
    Airplanes400's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,610
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

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

    ORIGINAL: H5487

    ORIGINAL: Airplanes400

    ORIGINAL: H5487

    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 ...
    We in the Federal Government have no sense of humor that we are aware of.

  14. #214
    Airplanes400's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,610
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

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


    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.
    We in the Federal Government have no sense of humor that we are aware of.

  15. #215
    H5487's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    911
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

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

    ORIGINAL: Airplanes400

    ORIGINAL: H5487

    ORIGINAL: Airplanes400

    ORIGINAL: H5487

    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
    Weather Geek

  16. #216
    H5487's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    911
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

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

    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
    Weather Geek

  17. #217
    H5487's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    911
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

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

    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
    Weather Geek

  18. #218
    Sport_Pilot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Acworth, GA
    Posts
    13,392
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

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

    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.
    Glow Head Brotherhood #15

  19. #219
    H5487's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    911
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

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

    ORIGINAL: Sport_Pilot

    Many of the regulations are actually AC's which do not have to be complied with.Β*
    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
    Weather Geek

  20. #220
    Sport_Pilot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Acworth, GA
    Posts
    13,392
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

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

    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.
    Glow Head Brotherhood #15

  21. #221

    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Picayune, MS
    Posts
    190
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

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


    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.

  22. #222

    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Maryland, MD
    Posts
    1,221
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    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]

  23. #223
    HoundDog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Oconomowoc, WI
    Posts
    1,261
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

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


    ORIGINAL: Sport_Pilot

    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 ......

    Remember ... Every one of these Things we fly Comes with a Number, When the R/C Gods call that Number, it's going in a Garbage Bag, No Sniveling Allowed.
    P-47 Thunderbolt Brotherhood #24 & #43

  24. #224
    HoundDog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Oconomowoc, WI
    Posts
    1,261
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

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


    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.
    Remember ... Every one of these Things we fly Comes with a Number, When the R/C Gods call that Number, it's going in a Garbage Bag, No Sniveling Allowed.
    P-47 Thunderbolt Brotherhood #24 & #43

  25. #225
    H5487's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    911
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

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

    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
    Weather Geek


Page 9 of 21 FirstFirst ... 789101119 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:28 PM.

SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1 ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.