Model airplanes over NYC bad idea.
Now I see what happens when paranoia runs rampant. I am glad I live in Canada!
AT present I would say that 99% of all rc flyers know nothing about any moratorium on uas flying nor are they required to know.
Someone said the city or port authority had approved these flights..."
Harvey
Now I see what happens when paranoia runs rampant. I am glad I live in Canada!
Now I see what happens when paranoia runs rampant. I am glad I live in Canada!
And by the way, what the FAA does in the states is often copied by your own government. Therefore, it behooves you to take seriously what's going on down here.
Harvey
http://www.break.com/index/swarm-of-...rotors-2295423
One thing that isn’t given enough thought...technology will continue to out pace the sloth like bureaucracy and that will only escalate.
(OMG, I agreed with him again!)
Harvey
If you try and start an arial photography business (or any other commercial RC flying) and advertise it.. don't be surprised at the stop order arriving from the FAA.
Silent,
Six,
Give it up. These guys are just playing with us. NOBODY can be THAT ignorant of the situation that they can continue to blindly argue against the facts that have been presented to them. Let them stick their hands over their ears while chanting ''La La La, I can't hear you''. When storm clouds roll in, all some people seem to see are clouds shaped like kittens and ponies.
Harvey
I've seen the video you're talking about but I seemed to miss the part where they fly over New York city.
See for yourself:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcDN409ZBv4
They appear to be flying from a wide open park over a river with the city buildings in the distant background. Even the footage showing the ground shows the public well within safety. They are well under 400 feet in altitude and had ground crew numbers large enough to serve as safety spotters. Did they do everything right? Did they get the proper permits and notify all the FBOs in the vicinity? I hope that they did.
The video is to me a welcome promotion for the RC hobby.
Now I see what happens when paranoia runs rampant. I am glad I live in Canada!
So, then, are you guys saying that it is okay with you that three fellow modelers (AMA members at that) broke the law in a very public way during a time when the FAA has small UAVs (including our model airplanes) under the microscope?
Are you saying that their thumbing their noses at the FAA is nothing for the rest of us to be upset about?
How can you not care?
Harvey
The proposed laws are not in effect yet so what law did they break by flying some models to be photographed? About the only thing we could say is their AMA
insurance may not have been in force during the filming.
The FAA has imposed a moratorium on all sUAS flying except under the three different specific authorities I have cited several times in this thread. If they were not operating in accordance with one of those then they were not legally operating. Why is that seemingly so difficult to understand?
So rather than having a dozen more pages of angst over this, why don't we wait until we actually have some facts.
flying they were not intended to apply to recreational rc activity. At present i'm not aware of any law that requires the recreational rc flyer to be
up on FAApolicy Also I dont belive the laws were ment to try and make many things recreational rc flyers do suddenly become non recreational.
So, then, are you guys saying that it is okay with you that three fellow modelers (AMA members at that) broke the law in a very public way during a time when the FAA has small UAVs (including our model airplanes) under the microscope?
Are you saying that their thumbing their noses at the FAA is nothing for the rest of us to be upset about?
How can you not care?
Harvey
The proposed laws are not in effect yet so what law did they break by flying some models to be photographed? About the only thing we could say is their AMA
insurance may not have been in force during the filming.
The FAA has imposed a moratorium on all sUAS flying except under the three different specific authorities I have cited several times in this thread. If they were not operating in accordance with one of those then they were not legally operating. Why is that seemingly so difficult to understand?
 
<dir><dir>5.0
Alternate Methods of ComplianceAll limitations and procedures presented in this guidance document are to be considered as general guidelines only. Each application is evaluated on its own technical merit based on its own set of operational parameters and proposed operational profiles, mitigations, and systems. As such, deviations and alternate methods of compliance may be approved and may differ from the information presented in this document. Therefore, if the applicant makes a safety case and presents sufficient data for an alternate means of compliance, then this data should be taken into consideration and evaluated for possible approval.
</dir></dir>One thing many seem to forget is the laws that many are trying to use prosecute theseguys were ment to apply exclusively to non recreational
flying they were not intended to apply to recreational rc activity. At present i'm not aware of any law that requires the recreational rc flyer to be
up on FAApolicy Also I dont belive the laws were ment to try and make many things recreational rc flyers do suddenly become non recreational.
To include getting paid for your hobby!
So, then, are you guys saying that it is okay with you that three fellow modelers (AMA members at that) broke the law in a very public way during a time when the FAA has small UAVs (including our model airplanes) under the microscope?
Are you saying that their thumbing their noses at the FAA is nothing for the rest of us to be upset about?
How can you not care?
Harvey
The proposed laws are not in effect yet so what law did they break by flying some models to be photographed? About the only thing we could say is their AMA
insurance may not have been in force during the filming.
The FAA has imposed a moratorium on all sUAS flying except under the three different specific authorities I have cited several times in this thread. If they were not operating in accordance with one of those then they were not legally operating. Why is that seemingly so difficult to understand?
So rather than having a dozen more pages of angst over this, why don't we wait until we actually have some facts.
Hmmm... how to end this debacle??? I’ll try.
Yes, there are laws for just about every single thing we do today.[:@]
In this case, the consensus is the law no greater than the enforcement. FAA contends with much greater issues daily... and most of those slip right on by as well.
Now, we can post on these forums trying to give this type of thing as much negative exposure as possible, that will ultimately cause some action by FAA, that undoubtedly will only continue the retardation model aviation...or we can just shut or say that’s pretty cool... and go on...
Look the bottom line...the restrictions we have so far stem from a bunch of whining...so keep it up and you’ll have more to whine about...self fulfilling proposition...
Talking about this topic is the most usless waste of time I can think of. Here's another two minutes of my life that I'll never get back.
You are correct... the only reason our private RC aircraft are still flying is because they are not commercial enterprises.
If you try and start an arial photography business (or any other commercial RC flying) and advertise it.. don't be surprised at the stop order arriving from the FAA.
Get a grip! Where is your law degree that supports your idea as to what commercial advertising is, or is not; how it is used; and how it relates to such FAA regulation?
The way this is going, next you could all be discussing and debating neuro-surgery as if you knew all about it.
Im not aware of any rc flyers that the FAA has contacted and told of a moratorium in fact Silent is the only one that I have heard
talking about a moratorium.
The average modeler is not affected since the FAA has basically said to keep doing what we have been, flying under the authorization of AC 91-57. I can assure you that the other two categories, civil use and public use, are acutely aware of the FAA policy and the fact that you can ONLY operate under a COA for public use sUAS or a SAC for civil sUAS. The FAA has made the information readily accessible and widely advertised. No, they do not call up each and every modeler in the US and tell them, so it is no surprise that nobody you know understands the situation. Again, ignorance is no defense.
Holy crap! You mean I have to repaint my Hooter's plane because it falls under ''Commercial advertising''?
Unless Hooters paid for the plane to be covered like that and they pay you to fly the plane around I think you have little to worry about.
And since you don't know what provisions/approvals were in place for this event, you (and many others in this thread) very well may be carrying on over nothing.
So rather than having a dozen more pages of angst over this, why don't we wait until we actually have some facts.