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.

Page 6 of 10 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 126 to 150 of 230

  1. #126
    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: Model airplanes over NYC bad idea.


    ORIGINAL: ira d

    There are laws on the books that cover compensation for private pilot in full scale but not a hobby pilot. That being said there is no law
    that I'm aware of that would stop the passenger from paying forΒ*filling up the tank on the aircraft that he received a ride in.
    Some fun info about that:

    http://home.pcisys.net/~aghorash/SharingExpenses2.pdf

    So the passenger cannot pay for the gas, the pilot must share Β½ of all costs.
    Team Futaba - RClipos.com

  2. #127

    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Moreno Valley, CA
    Posts
    2,297
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Model airplanes over NYC bad idea.


    ORIGINAL: Silent-AV8R


    ORIGINAL: ira d

    There are laws on the books that cover compensation for private pilot in full scale but not a hobby pilot. That being said there is no law
    that I'm aware of that would stop the passenger from paying forfilling up the tank on the aircraft that he received a ride in.
    Some fun info about that:

    http://home.pcisys.net/~aghorash/SharingExpenses2.pdf

    So the passenger cannot pay for the gas, the pilot must share ½ of all costs.

    I stand corrected.
    Ira d

  3. #128

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Aguanga, CA
    Posts
    957
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Model airplanes over NYC bad idea.


    ORIGINAL: ira d


    There are laws on the books that cover compensation for private pilot in full scale but not a hobby pilot. That being said there is no law
    that I'm aware of that would stop the passenger from paying forfilling up the tank on the aircraft that he received a ride in.
    You are correct, ira. Some folks seem to think AMArules are FARs. They aren't, and (hopefully) never will be. There are AMA rules that ban some commercial ops. AMA's interpretation of Guidance 08 is that since AC 91-57, which is referenced as authorization for operation of MA is just advisory, so compliance is voluntary.
    BTW, how many AMAsanctioned sailplane and pattern events do you know of that have been cancelled because of FAA rules?

    CJ


  4. #129
    H5487's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    905
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Model airplanes over NYC bad idea.

    ORIGINAL: AugerDawger


    Code of Federal Regulations


    Part 61 CERTIFICATION: PILOTS, FLIGHT INSTRUCTORS, AND GROUND INSTRUCTORS
    Subpart EPrivate Pilots

    Sec. 61.113


    (b) A private pilot may, for compensation or hire, act as pilot in command of an aircraft in connection with any business or employment if:
    (1) The flight is only incidental to that business or employment; and
    (2) The aircraft does not carry passengers or property for compensation or hire.
    Auger, the FAA defines this as the ability to collect pay while in travel status for your employer. For example, if your employer asks you to drive to visit a remote customer, you would be paid for the time that you're on the road. And if you take your airplane instead, then the FAA allows you to still be paid while you're travelling. Note that you're not being paid to fly the plane - You're being paid to travel.

    Harvey
    Weather Geek

  5. #130

    RE: Model airplanes over NYC bad idea.

    or they can hire you and you can fly for them however you want provided it is incidental to the employment and your not taking passengers or property for hire

  6. #131

    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Madison, AL
    Posts
    165
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Model airplanes over NYC bad idea.

    Oh Get over it! they are only electric. looks cool to me.

  7. #132
    H5487's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    905
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Model airplanes over NYC bad idea.


    ORIGINAL: cj_rumley
    AMA's interpretation of Guidance 08 is that since AC 91-57, which is referenced as authorization for operation of MA is just advisory, so compliance is voluntary.
    Why do people continue to say that compliance with an AC is optional? Advisory Circulars are written into Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14CFR). While the AC lacks the legal clout of a regulation, it is often cited as supporting documentation for a charge against a pilot. Call your local FSDO and ask one of the inspectors if ACs are optional.

    Harvey

    Weather Geek

  8. #133

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    wauconda, IL
    Posts
    184
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Model airplanes over NYC bad idea.

    Original poster is a wet blanket No harm was done so what the heck is the beef?

  9. #134
    H5487's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    905
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Model airplanes over NYC bad idea.


    ORIGINAL: AugerDawger

    or they can hire you and you can fly for them however you want provided it is incidental to the employment and your not taking passengers or property for hire
    Give me some examples.

    Harvey
    Weather Geek

  10. #135

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Aguanga, CA
    Posts
    957
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Model airplanes over NYC bad idea.


    ORIGINAL: H5487


    ORIGINAL: cj_rumley
    AMA's interpretation of Guidance 08 is that since AC 91-57, which is referenced as authorization for operation of MA is just advisory, so compliance is voluntary.
    Why do people continue to say that compliance with an AC is optional? Advisory Circulars are written into Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14CFR). While the AC lacks the legal clout of a regulation, it is often cited as supporting documentation for a charge against a pilot. Call your local FSDO and ask one of the inspectors if ACs are optional.

    Harvey

    I'll defer to Silent to answer that Q, Harvey. He has said it more often than anyone else.

    CJ


  11. #136
    H5487's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    905
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Model airplanes over NYC bad idea.


    ORIGINAL: takevin

    Original poster is a wet blanket No harm was done so what the heck is the beef?
    The beef is that three r/c pilots (AMA members who supposedly knew better) illegally used their models for commercial purposes during a time when the FAA has all radio controlled aircraft under their microscope. Those three pilots didn't do us any favors.

    Harvey
    Weather Geek

  12. #137

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Aguanga, CA
    Posts
    957
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Model airplanes over NYC bad idea.


    ORIGINAL: H5487


    ORIGINAL: takevin

    Original poster is a wet blanket No harm was done so what the heck is the beef?
    The beef is that three r/c pilots (AMA members who supposedly knew better) illegally used their models for commercial purposes during a time when the FAA has all radio controlled aircraft under their microscope. Those three pilots didn't do us any favors.

    Harvey
    Cite the part of FAAregulatory material that pertains to model airplane operation that says that it is illegal. Are modelers expected to read every word of FARs, ACs, policy statements, guidance documents, etc. to ferret out rules they must follow?


  13. #138
    H5487's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    905
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Model airplanes over NYC bad idea.

    ORIGINAL: cj_rumley
    Are modelers expected to read every word of FARs, ACs, policy statements, guidance documents, etc. to ferret out rules they must follow?
    No, of course not. One of the purposes of the AMA is to be the buffer between modelers and the FARs. As Silent has pointed out several times, the three pilots flew their models for commercial purposes during a time when the FAA has put a hold on all commercial UAV operations until the NPRM becomes law. While the FAA has said that some limited exceptions to the moritorium will be approved, some of us doubt that they had a waiver because the write-up for the YouTube video includes a few curious statements that have us wondering about the legality of their flights.

    While we're not against positive media exposure for model airplane use, we're not for it if the flying was done illegally; especially during a time when the FAA is watching us closely.

    Harvey
    Weather Geek

  14. #139
    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: Model airplanes over NYC bad idea.

    ORIGINAL: cj_rumley

    Cite the part of FAAΒ*regulatory material that pertains to model airplane operation that says that it is illegal.Β*

    I have already cited several FAA documents. Northrup-Grumman, Boeing, Lockheed, AeroVironment, and a whole host of other UAV companies and users, along with every police and public use agency (and all their lawyers) in the United States understands the regulatory nature of these documents and policies, but you, and several others refuse to do so.


    Everything you need to know is right here:

    http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/uas/reg/

    Pretending that it does not exist or refusing to believe it is real is to simply deny reality.

    Let me add this:

    Notes:
    β€’ This document and the processes prescribed do not apply to hobbyists and amateur model
    aircraft users when operating systems for sport and recreation. Those individuals should
    seek guidance under Advisory Circular (AC) 91-57, Model Aircraft Operating Standards,
    which is currently under revision.
    β€’ Civil UAS operations require a special airworthiness certificate and should follow the
    process as specified in this document.
    β€’ AC 91-57 shall not be used as a basis of approval for UAS operations and is applicable to
    recreational and hobbyists use only
    That came from this document: http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives...dance08-01.pdf

    Which starts off with this paragraph:

    Purpose
    Aviation Safety Unmanned Aircraft Program Office (UAPO) Interim Operational Approval
    Guidance, Unmanned Aircraft Systems Operations in the U. S. National Airspace System,
    provides guidance to be used to determine if unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) may be allowed
    to conduct flight operations in the U. S. national airspace system (NAS). UAPO and Air Traffic
    Organization (ATO) personnel will use this policy guidance when evaluating each application
    for a Certificate of Waiver or Authorization (COA) and special airworthiness certificates
    (normally issued in an experimental category). UAPO Interim Operational Approval Guidance
    provides additional information on a number of items in the COA processor application
    developed by the Air Traffic Organization. Used in conjunction with the CO
    Team Futaba - RClipos.com

  15. #140

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Aguanga, CA
    Posts
    957
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Model airplanes over NYC bad idea.

    You still have not shown they did anything illegal.  Cite the law that applies to model airplane operations.  I understand the law to be AC 91-57, because that is what FAA says. 
    FAA has told the civil UA operators they cannot masquerade their aircraft as model airplanes.  They are different from model airplanes because they fly over people and their things, and that is why FAA needs to control them.   The notion that FAA has safety concerns over the model flights being discussed here is just silly.   Seizing on words like 'commercial' to make this a safety incident, which is FAA concern, is nuts.  As for being a buffer between modelers and FAA, AMA is not buffering, it is screening for rules that meet their own purpose.   FAA rules that correspond to AMA rules like the commercial no-no (AMA doesn't allow it because it is seen as increasing their insurance risk) are a big deal, but mixing it up with the regulated aircraft in the same airspace, an actual safety issue, is something to be swept under the rug.   FAA is watching, but not for what you think.



  16. #141
    H5487's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    905
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Model airplanes over NYC bad idea.

    Silent, you've handed him what he asked for on a platter and he still refuses to acknowledge it. Give it up. Some people learned from Bill Clinton's example that regardless of being presented with overwhelming evidence, continue to deny it.

    Harvey
    Weather Geek

  17. #142

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Bluffton, SC
    Posts
    1
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Model airplanes over NYC bad idea.

    do my kids or i need permits, licences. security clearance, insurance, 911 on standby , a 1st aid kit in a back-pack , a note from mom, etc .... if they want to fly a kite in the local park and want to take a picture to send to granny ?

    all of the above discussions are really over the top...and being thrown out of a park by a guy with a power trip , a big badge and a bigger ego ......is just crazy...............

    YES there are considerations because of 9-11, and these are NOT being ignored or taken lightly....but surely common sense will prevail and people will (should) realize that "people" cannot fly through the air.....
    i am sure that most Americans are wise enough, savvy enough , to have figured out what was going on and whether or not there was a threat and would have simply enjoyed the spectacle or event.

    the message we need to get out is that its a good , clean , sport or hobby and can be enjoyed by fathers and sons....in fact anyone. We have to stop the panic and takng our hobby underground and to where its not seen or heard will be the death of it.

    i am sure that any reputable business or person would have ensured they complied with regulations

    perhaps the complainers should be the ones to apply for licences and permits to limit the noise and trouble they cause

  18. #143
    H5487's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    905
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Model airplanes over NYC bad idea.


    ORIGINAL: FlyboysSA
    YES there are considerations because of 9-11, and these are NOT being ignored or taken lightly....but surely common sense will prevail and people will (should) realize that ''people'' cannot fly through the air.....
    i am sure that most Americans are wise enough, savvy enough , to have figured out what was going on and whether or not there was a threat and would have simply enjoyed the spectacle or event.

    Hey look, a NEW GUY who doesn't have the foggiest idea of what this discussion is all about!

    Harvey
    Weather Geek

  19. #144
    lopflyers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Orlando, FL
    Posts
    1,472
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Model airplanes over NYC bad idea.

    Hey folks, enlight me. Last week I saw a documentary on Discovery Channel. This guy was flying a RC heli from a ship fliming whales!!
    It was on National TV.
    Dont tell me he wasnt paid. Dont tell me they are showing something ilegal on Discovery Channel
    Keep your wings level
    Club Saito Member #693

  20. #145

    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Palm Beach, FL
    Posts
    230
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Model airplanes over NYC bad idea.

    Oh boy!A bunch of "aviation non-lawyers" quoting and interpreting FAA Rules and Regulations!
    Doesn't anyone have something better to do than play aviation attorney on their keyboard?

    A couple of kids/guys flying their inventions at a park in Manhattan and some people here decide to call them UAV's and actually think this involves the FAA??? ANDwants to throw around the word, illegal?
    Doesn't anyone have something better to do than play aviation attorney on their keyboard?

    NRBP
    NBPR
    NBRP
    BURP
    FAA
    EFAER
    BOTOX
    NTSB
    NTBS
    NYPD
    NYFD
    TAXI
    FBI
    NYCTA
    EMS
    EEOC
    ACBD
    ACME
    PHAT
    PA
    PHD
    MD
    WTH
    NRW
    NOW
    BPF
    NATF
    NASA
    NSA
    ICE
    CBP
    AARP
    AA
    BUD
    NCIS
    ETA
    NTGH
    NFGABA
    AMA
    ABA
    ABC
    NBC
    CBS
    ALIBABA
    1-800 GRANDMA
    Sincerity ... Once you are able to fake that, there will be no stopping you.


  21. #146

    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Palm Beach, FL
    Posts
    230
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Model airplanes over NYC bad idea.

    I forgot this last one ...

    1-800 HOOTERS
    Sincerity ... Once you are able to fake that, there will be no stopping you.


  22. #147

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Lynden, WA
    Posts
    326
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Model airplanes over NYC bad idea.

    hmmmm 1-800-hooters sounds pretty good!
    as far as this thread goes..... what to say......., i know, JUST DROP IT nothin wrong with that vid! only problem is a bunch of old hens thinkin there is a problem. you know.... kinda like club meetings. If it aint a issue we sure as hell can make it one! type of mentality.

  23. #148

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Aguanga, CA
    Posts
    957
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Model airplanes over NYC bad idea.


    ORIGINAL: H5487

    Silent, you've handed him what he asked for on a platter and he still refuses to acknowledge it. Give it up. Some people learned from Bill Clinton's example that regardless of being presented with overwhelming evidence, continue to deny it.

    Harvey
    Hand me this a platter, Harvey (and Silent). You seem fervent in upholding law'n order when comes to applying one descriptor of civil UASthat separates them from model airplanes. How about answering this QIposted previously that actually has something to do with FAA's charter of safety in the NAS:

    How many AMAsanctioned sailplane and pattern events do you know of that have been cancelled because of FAA rules?

    Let's see how AMAis supporting compliance with FAArules that actually address issues of safety in the NAS. I don't think FAAwill ever enforce rules that have no safety implications; YMMV........and apparently does.



  24. #149
    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: Model airplanes over NYC bad idea.

    CJ/Abel. I've given you all the document references. Your refusal to read and understand them appears to serve no useful purpose other than to continue this argument. We are not talking about the AMA, how the AMA "enforces" FAA rules or anything of the like. My one and only focus in this thread has been to focus on the FAA's recognized operating authority for sUAS in the NAS. I simply am at a loss as to what else can be said or quoted.

    I am in no way trying to uphold law-n-order or whatever. I am simply stating facts. Facts you, and a few others, seem completely unwilling to accept. That is fine, it does not change the truthfulness of the facts.
    Team Futaba - RClipos.com

  25. #150

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Aguanga, CA
    Posts
    957
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Model airplanes over NYC bad idea.

    Silent-

    You have said many times that compliance with current FAA rules, in particular the 400' ceiling for MA operations, is voluntary and clearly support modelers ignoring it.  Yet when it comes to some instance like the subject of this thread that is completely innocuous and unlikely to be of any concern whatever to FAA, you're Mr Lawandorder.   How in 'ell do you rationalize that?   I am concerned because AMA appears to apply similar rationalization that is nonsensical to me. 

    CJ


Page 6 of 10 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... 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 09:32 AM.

SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1 ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.