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 7 of 10 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast
Results 151 to 175 of 230

  1. #151
    RacerPaul15's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Bellport, NY
    Posts
    37
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Model airplanes over NYC bad idea.

    Short write up and video from Airpigz.com    Superman, Iron Man And The Rocketeer All Fly Over New York?:    http://adf.ly/59FOw 

  2. #152

    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.

    Ahh, the hell with law and order. That's boring. I vote for anarchy, chaos, confusion, casual dating, free sex, and liquor!
    Sincerity ... Once you are able to fake that, there will be no stopping you.


  3. #153
    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

    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.Β* 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.Β*Β* How in 'ell do you rationalize that?Β*Β* I am concerned because AMA appears to apply similar rationalization that is nonsensical to me.Β*

    CJ

    Well you seem intent about making this thread about what an AC means and not about what operating authority the New York flying was done under. Not sure why you want to take the thread off topic, but I'll try to answer your questions.


    Please allow me to restate what I have said, since it is clear you have misunderstood me. What I have said many times is not that compliance with FAA rules is voluntary. I have said, just as the FAA says, that compliance with an AC is voluntary. I have never supported modelers ignoring anything. As far as your fixation on gliders over 400 feet, as long as it is done safely that is what matters.

    Here's an oddity. The FAA witnessed a model glider well in excess of 400 feet during a demo for them. Full size traffic transited the area and the model immediately descended. The FAA people were impressed and never said a word about being over 400 feet. Go figure. Had the glider caused a conflict then I suspect things would have gone differently.

    I have further not said anything about the subject of this thread other than they likely were not operating under any of the three FAA-defined authorities for sUAS operations in the NAS. Not sure where the snide "Mr. Law and Order" crap comes from. What is so difficult to understand? Which of the three operating authorizations were they operating under? Simple question.

    I thought the flight was cool and I do not think they compromised safety in the least. But their flight is a perfect illustration of why the FAA is writing far more stringently defined regulations for sUAS operations, including models.
    Team Futaba - RClipos.com

  4. #154

    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Rochester, MN
    Posts
    118
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Model airplanes over NYC bad idea.

    This is a publicity stunt for a movie about teenagers with special powers. I saw the clip on CNN and Moos as usual spins it to the populist audience. The link was "flying people over New York City" to get attention. The stunt works for the movie promotion, but it doesn't help us in the public eye. One wonders if the sUAS guys are are going to use this as ammo to further strengthen their case for FAA regulation of the hobby industry. I'm sure the commercial sUAS industry wants to distance themselves from any public perception of "toying around" as they mean business and don't want "toys" getting in the way.

  5. #155

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Aguanga, CA
    Posts
    960
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Model airplanes over NYC bad idea.


    ORIGINAL: Silent-AV8R


    Please allow me to restate what I have said, since it is clear you have misunderstood me. What I have said many times is not that compliance with FAA rules is voluntary. I have said, just as the FAA says, that compliance with an AC is voluntary. I have never supported modelers ignoring anything. As far as your fixation on gliders over 400 feet, as long as it is done safely that is what matters.
    http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10940794

    Compliance with an ACis not voluntary after it has been incorporated by reference into regulatory material. But then you knew that...........

  6. #156

    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Moreno Valley, CA
    Posts
    2,311
    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

    I can't see why you think the rc pilots should have know better, In fact if it was not for all the chatter here on RCU most folks would have no way of knowing
    that anybody thought anything negtive about the flight.

    1. The AMA as far as i'm aware has not contacted it's members and said the flight violated any AMA rules or laws.

    2. As a recreational flyer there is no law that says we have to know the laws that apply to non recreational rc flying.

    3. There is no law that says the flight was not allowed because the pilots and models were considered hobbist.

    4. I not heard that the FAA has contacted the pilots and made a threat to bring charges.
    Ira d

  7. #157
    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


    ORIGINAL: Silent-AV8R


    Please allow me to restate what I have said, since it is clear you have misunderstood me. What I have said many times is not that compliance with FAA rules is voluntary. I have said, just as the FAA says, that compliance with an AC is voluntary. I have never supported modelers ignoring anything. As far as your fixation on gliders over 400 feet, as long as it is done safely that is what matters.
    http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10940794

    Compliance with an ACΒ*is not voluntary after it has been incorporated by reference into regulatory material.Β*Β* But then you knew that...........

    Nope, missed it by that much....

    All the Guidance does is make it clear that AC 91-57 is the operating authority for models. It does not turn it into a mandatory compliance issue. Hard to follow I know when your mind is already made up, but an AC is an AC. All the FAA has done is spell out that for models, and models alone, AC 91-57 is the authority under which they operate.
    Team Futaba - RClipos.com

  8. #158

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Aguanga, CA
    Posts
    960
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Model airplanes over NYC bad idea.


    ORIGINAL: Silent-AV8R

    ORIGINAL: cj_rumley


    ORIGINAL: Silent-AV8R


    Please allow me to restate what I have said, since it is clear you have misunderstood me. What I have said many times is not that compliance with FAA rules is voluntary. I have said, just as the FAA says, that compliance with an AC is voluntary. I have never supported modelers ignoring anything. As far as your fixation on gliders over 400 feet, as long as it is done safely that is what matters.
    http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10940794

    Compliance with an ACis not voluntary after it has been incorporated by reference into regulatory material. But then you knew that...........

    Nope, missed it by that much....

    All the Guidance does is make it clear that AC 91-57 is the operating authority for models. It does not turn it into a mandatory compliance issue. Hard to follow I know when your mind is already made up, but an AC is an AC. All the FAA has done is spell out that for models, and models alone, AC 91-57 is the authority under which they operate.

    From http://www.faa.gov/library/manuals/a...83-30_Ch12.pdf

    "Other FAA Documents
    Advisory Circulars (ACs)
    The FAA issues advisory circulars to inform the
    aviation public in a systematic way of non-regulatory
    material. Unless incorporated into a regulation by
    reference, the contents of an advisory circular are not
    binding on the public
    . Advisory circulars are issued
    in a numbered-subject system corresponding to the
    subject areas of the Federal Aviation Regulations
    (Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Chapter
    I, Federal Aviation Administration) and Chapter III,
    Commercial Space Transportation, Federal Aviation
    Administration, Department of Transportation, Parts
    400–450. An AC is issued to provide guidance and
    information in a designated subject area or to show a
    method acceptable to the Administrator for complying
    with a related federal aviation regulation."


  9. #159
    Sport_Pilot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Acworth, GA
    Posts
    13,392
    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

    They use them in conjunction with the reckless flying clause in the FAR. That might be true if you have a pilot license. If you are not a pilot the FAA cannot take your license away. There are fines of course, but hard to use this when the recless clause does not apply to RC aircraft.
    Glow Head Brotherhood #15

  10. #160
    Sport_Pilot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Acworth, GA
    Posts
    13,392
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Model airplanes over NYC bad idea.


    ORIGINAL: Silent-AV8R

    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.
    Your contention is that any payment to fly an RC plane is commercial. People continue to show that payment does not automatically make a flight a commercial flight. Your refusal to read and understand this appears to serve no useful purpose.

    The fact is that this is apparently decided now on a case by case basis. FAA officials have said that getting paid for RC training and flight testing will not be commercial. This will all be very clear soon.
    Glow Head Brotherhood #15

  11. #161
    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: Sport_Pilot


    Your contention is that any payment to fly an RC plane is commercial.Β*
    I've said no such thing. As a matter of fact I have been saying that the term "commercial" has no relevance to the operating authority that must be used. You are either a recreational/sport/hobby (model), a civil, or public use sUAS. Right now the only Special Airworthiness certificates that are considered are defined as follows:

    An SAC-EC is the only certification means available to civil operators for UAS and optionallypiloted aircraft (OPA). Due to regulatory requirements, this approval precludes carrying persons or property for compensation or hire, but does allow operations for research and development, market survey, and crew training.
    http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives...FACT_Sheet.pdf
    The FAA also has stated this:

    The FAA has issued five experimental certificates for unmanned aircraft systems for the purposes of research and development, marketing surveys, or crew training. UAS issued experimental certificates may not be used for compensation or hire.
    http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives...notice_uas.pdf
    You are the one obsessed with what is, and is not, commercial use. I simply want to know which of the three possible types of authorization people think these fellows were operating under.



    Team Futaba - RClipos.com

  12. #162

    RE: Model airplanes over NYC bad idea.

    ORIGINAL: Silent-AV8R

    As a matter of fact I have been saying that the term "commercial" has no relevance to the operating authority that must be used. You are either a recreational/sport/hobby (model), a civil, or public use sUAS. Right now the only Special Airworthiness certificates that are considered are defined as follows:

    This.

    The uSAS AC defines and distinguishes betweenmodel aircraft (a/k/a R/C) and sUAS.

  13. #163

    RE: Model airplanes over NYC bad idea.


    ORIGINAL: H5487

    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
    This is exactly like my other hobby where the "sanctioning body" is in bed with the governing authority to restrict use and ownership where it is otherwise safe, legal and not a problem. And even more like it the restriction is not due to theactualunsafe record or security threat of the hobby itself, but the possible criminal use by a third party.

    Watch AMA membership decline as well.


  14. #164
    bkdavy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    FrederickMD
    Posts
    2,113
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Model airplanes over NYC bad idea.

    http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/off...his-spring.cnn

    Apparently they did it right - practiced at a safe location, got permission from (well not sure who, but they had a permit), flew in safe locations (used camera tricks to make it look more dramatic, but I suspect they never even got close to major landmarks).

    My only concern is that someone less responsible may try it without these precautions. Perhaps we should be playing up the positive aspects of what they did right, rather than panicking and worrying about the scope of AC 91-57.

    Brad

  15. #165

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

    RE: Model airplanes over NYC bad idea.

    Wow, I did not know that I needed a law degree to FOLLOW the law. Sir, you need to change the color scheme because it is offensive to women and marginalizes their brains for their busts. The other reason you need to change is because it is plain ugly. If they are paying you to fly at airshows, that too is a commercial venture and disallowed by the current law. Should you fail to follow the law and someone is injured, it is willful disregard. You have already advertised here that you NOW know the rule. You would have been better off to shut up and pleaded ignorance later. Does your other shoe fit in your mouth too?

    ORIGINAL: BobbyMcGee
    ORIGINAL: on_your_six
    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.
    Holy crap! You mean I have to repaint my Hooter's plane because it falls under ''Commercial advertising''?
    Get a grip!Β* 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?Β*
    The way this is going, next you could all be discussing and debating neuro-surgery as if you knew all about it.

  16. #166

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

    RE: Model airplanes over NYC bad idea.

    All of this inane discussion is exactly why we need the FAA to establish exactly what is allowable and not allowable when flying RC airplanes.

    Every RC pilot should be forced to attend RC ground school and required to pass an exam on the appropriate FARs in order to fly. Then we will talk about flight testing and competency. The AMA guidelines are a bunch of maybe you should possibly think about doing this suggestions.

    As everyone here with a pilots license has tried to help you understand the MAJOR differences between private and commercial tickets, you either don't accept it or don't want to accept it. The rules are the rules. You want to fly GA aircraft, you follow the rules or you deal with license suspensions and fines. Of course, there are things that slip through and everybody knows someone who got away with something. The rule did not change, you just got lucky it was not enforced.

    The first time we have a GA aircraft legally transiting an RC field and is struck by an RC plane, the FAA will descend on our hobby. Private is private, commercial is commercial..

    Thanks to the guy who posted the shared expenses circular.

  17. #167
    Sport_Pilot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Acworth, GA
    Posts
    13,392
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Model airplanes over NYC bad idea.

    If they are paying you to fly at airshows, that too is a commercial venture and disallowed by the current law.
    Show me where it says so in the regulations, or even the policy letters. There is noting defining getting paid for our hobby as being commercial.
    Glow Head Brotherhood #15

  18. #168
    Sport_Pilot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Acworth, GA
    Posts
    13,392
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Model airplanes over NYC bad idea.

    All of this inane discussion is exactly why we need the FAA to establish exactly what is allowable and not allowable when flying RC airplanes.
    No this is all caused by their interferance. Before nobody cared if you got paid to fly your R/C plane. The FAA stepped into it when they said using R/C for activities requiring video or other data from an R/C plane. It did not even matter if you got paid for it. IMO that ruling is wrong as theygenerally fly in not navigable airspace. However they made this a policy, we will see it it gets better or worse when they submit their proposed rules.
    Glow Head Brotherhood #15

  19. #169
    littlecrankshaf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    here
    Posts
    4,715
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Model airplanes over NYC bad idea.

    ORIGINAL: on_your_six

    All of this inane discussion is exactly why we need the FAA to establish exactly what is allowable and not allowable when flying RC airplanes.
    This one sentence comprises everything that is wrong with our country today. We are screwed...
    It is very important to understand that Jesus not only died for our sins but died because of our sins...even harder to understand now, exactly what were those sins???

  20. #170

    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    City
    Posts
    63
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Model airplanes over NYC bad idea.


    ORIGINAL: littlecrankshaf


    ORIGINAL: on_your_six

    All of this inane discussion is exactly why we need the FAA to establish exactly what is allowable and not allowable when flying RC airplanes.
    This one sentence comprises everything that is wrong with out country today. We are screwed...

    See my post #118 in this thread. Our rationale is different (similar but different) but the conclusions are scary similar.

    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Sp45483.jpg 
Views:	5 
Size:	48.6 KB 
ID:	1722705  

  21. #171

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

    RE: Model airplanes over NYC bad idea.

    Quite the contrary, it is your type that cannot see a larger picture and the consequences of ones actions upon others. That narcissistic, egotistic attitude would have you believe that you alone can decide what is right and wrong for everyone else.

    ORIGINAL: littlecrankshaf
    ORIGINAL: on_your_six
    All of this inane discussion is exactly why we need the FAA to establish exactly what is allowable and not allowable when flying RC airplanes.
    This one sentence comprises everything that is wrong with out country today. We are screwed...

  22. #172
    littlecrankshaf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    here
    Posts
    4,715
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Model airplanes over NYC bad idea.


    ORIGINAL: CashD


    ORIGINAL: littlecrankshaf


    ORIGINAL: on_your_six

    All of this inane discussion is exactly why we need the FAA to establish exactly what is allowable and not allowable when flying RC airplanes.
    This one sentence comprises everything that is wrong with out country today. We are screwed...

    See my post #118 in this thread.Β* Our rationale is different (similar but different) but the conclusions are scary similar.

    I caught that and I agree!

    It is very important to understand that Jesus not only died for our sins but died because of our sins...even harder to understand now, exactly what were those sins???

  23. #173
    HoundDog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Oconomowoc, WI
    Posts
    1,261
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Model airplanes over NYC bad idea.

    How big can one make one of these things?



    http://news.cnet.com/8301-11386_3-57369480-76/see-nano-quadcopter-robots-swarm-video/

    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. #174
    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: AugerDawger

    ORIGINAL: Silent-AV8R

    As a matter of fact I have been saying that the term ''commercial'' has no relevance to the operating authority that must be used. You are either a recreational/sport/hobby (model), a civil, or public use sUAS. Right now the only Special Airworthiness certificates that are considered are defined as follows:

    This.
    Β*
    The uSAS AC defines and distinguishes betweenΒ*model aircraft (a/k/a R/C) and sUAS.

    The FAA Des not see models as separate from sUAS. RC hobby models are a type of sUAS. Not sure what "uSAS AC" means or what you are talking about.
    Team Futaba - RClipos.com

  25. #175
    H5487's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    911
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Model airplanes over NYC bad idea.

    ORIGINAL: Silent-AV8R


    ORIGINAL: AugerDawger

    ORIGINAL: Silent-AV8R

    As a matter of fact I have been saying that the term ''commercial'' has no relevance to the operating authority that must be used. You are either a recreational/sport/hobby (model), a civil, or public use sUAS. Right now the only Special Airworthiness certificates that are considered are defined as follows:

    This.
    Β*
    The uSAS AC defines and distinguishes betweenΒ*model aircraft (a/k/a R/C) and sUAS.

    The FAA Des not see models as separate from sUAS. RC hobby models are a type of sUAS. Not sure what ''uSAS AC'' means or what you are talking about.
    Silent, I think he was referring to the sUAS Advisory Circular. We all do typos occasionally.

    Harvey
    Weather Geek


Page 7 of 10 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... 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 09:46 PM.

SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1 ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.