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

FAA fine against drone photographer dismissed.

Reply
Old 03-10-2014, 04:38 PM
  #26
NorfolkSouthern
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 1,568
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by brn2fly View Post
Are any of you commercial pilots that are for this? This UAV/UAS pilot (oh by the way he is not a US citizen) got lucky. The fine should have stuck. I hope the FAA's appeal goes thur and the fine sticks! He is careless and was compensated you this flight. Therefore the FAA should regulate it. Flying a drone/UAV/UAS/RC aircraft in a commercial operation should have standards above what us hobbyist have. IMHO there should be at a minimum some sort of training and licensing requirements for the pilot and inspections for the aircraft. Go ahead and flame me. But until you have been involved in a near miss between a full scale and drone/UAV/UAS/RC aircraft you really don't have a leg to stand on. I don't want any more regulations but you have a bunch of idiots pushing the limits with what they can get away with flying.
Since there is no law in existence that regulates who can fly model airplanes and where, any enforcement by the FAA against Trappy would be unconstitutional. What was being used, was essentially a frangible foam glider with a tiny, battery powered motor turning a pusher prop. If it hit somebody, that person could then grab the plane and smash it all to pieces. Then get treated for a minor cut and bruise. If it landed in a field of soybeans, the combine would have no problem with indigestion. The material the camera and electric motor are softer than the metal of a typical combine cylinder, so Trappy could rest easy there, knowing that he wouldn't have to pay $40,000.00 for a new combine cylinder ruined by his lost camera outfit. Now, someone with a quarter-scale Yak, out for a joyride? I think I'd be a little more worried about one of those. But even then, there is still no actual law that exists against flying one any place one wishes. There is no licensing requirement, because no law exists on the books!

I'm betting the FAA's case is going to get thrown out of court!
NorfolkSouthern is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2014, 04:41 PM
  #27
NorfolkSouthern
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 1,568
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Now I'm beginning to wonder if full-scale pilots aren't actually jack-booted thugs in suits!
NorfolkSouthern is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2014, 04:59 PM
  #28
brn2fly
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Hobe Sound, FL
Posts: 100
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NorfolkSouthern View Post
Now I'm beginning to wonder if full-scale pilots aren't actually jack-booted thugs in suits!
Really, how ignorant can you be! He was being compensated. Therefor it is no longer a hobby! People like you have no clue! Let's wait for the first fatality from pilots like this flying where ever they want to no matter what the consequence for other people are. Have you been involved in any accident, or near miss from one of these aircraft flying where they don't belong. I have! The fine should have stuck! I hope it sticks when the appeal happens! Folks like this and you are going to ruin our hobby.
brn2fly is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2014, 05:38 PM
  #29
NorfolkSouthern
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 1,568
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by brn2fly View Post
Really, how ignorant can you be! He was being compensated. Therefor it is no longer a hobby! People like you have no clue! Let's wait for the first fatality from pilots like this flying where ever they want to no matter what the consequence for other people are. Have you been involved in any accident, or near miss from one of these aircraft flying where they don't belong. I have! The fine should have stuck! I hope it sticks when the appeal happens! Folks like this and you are going to ruin our hobby.
Ruin your hobby??? How so? Is a park foamie with a camera an assault weapon? You think?
NorfolkSouthern is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2014, 05:52 AM
  #30
littlecrankshaf
 
littlecrankshaf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: here
Posts: 5,413
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by brn2fly View Post
Really, how ignorant can you be! He was being compensated. Therefor it is no longer a hobby! People like you have no clue! Let's wait for the first fatality from pilots like this flying where ever they want to no matter what the consequence for other people are. Have you been involved in any accident, or near miss from one of these aircraft flying where they don't belong. I have! The fine should have stuck! I hope it sticks when the appeal happens! Folks like this and you are going to ruin our hobby.
Your post suggests that you think it is just fine that government agencies, like the FAA, should be able to just conjure up charges... not based on any real law, then arbitrarily heavily fine or imprison people at their discretion.... and everything thing else done as a business venture needs the blessing of government...

Am I understanding you correctly?
littlecrankshaf is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2014, 06:11 AM
  #31
littlecrankshaf
 
littlecrankshaf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: here
Posts: 5,413
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cj_rumley View Post
Morons rule in our society.
Nothing truer ever spoke. The "system" is liberally fertilized by morons for morons...everyday we are getting further away from genuine personal responsibility...You see it in these threads/forums all the time. People are truly desirous and dependent on the government or some other authority to direct their life.
littlecrankshaf is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2014, 07:53 AM
  #32
GerKonig
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Levittown, PA
Posts: 1,964
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cj_rumley View Post
Well, that same instance is one that you condemned as glorifying idiots and sociopaths and scam artists with questionable flying skills that are a danger to us all. You saw a whole lot of malice in that video that I (and NorfolkSouthern) somehow missed.
I saw a video of an idiot crashing into the side of a high rise building, and then the "device" came crashing down onto the sidewalk. Fortunately no one was there.
I saw a video in the news of yet another idiot crashing into the public at a stadium.

The FAA will have to hurry and come out with a way to regulate this or else I can see a problem. At our club we ask a minimum to sign off a member as a pilot. And even so, we were somewhat concerned when one of our members took of. He improved, and we are all OK. Do I trust every person that flies a drone? As a pilot? As a builder? Of course not.

Gerry

Last edited by GerKonig; 03-11-2014 at 07:54 AM. Reason: typo
GerKonig is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2014, 10:29 AM
  #33
eddieC
 
eddieC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Jackson, MI
Posts: 2,102
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Quote:
If our friend with the drone prevails, then I say we're good to go, and those big huge hunks of metal you see at the airport will, for the most part, soon become obsolete!
To what 'big huge hunks of metal' are you referring? If they carry people, I doubt a quad will suffice.

Quote:
This may end up going to the Supreme Court.
Uh, that's doubtful...
eddieC is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2014, 10:35 AM
  #34
Daniel-EL
 
Daniel-EL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Maumee, OH
Posts: 359
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Glad to see the "Tyranny by Bureaucracy" has been, at least temporarily, set back. The regulatory burden on all Americans is rapidly becoming unbearable.
Daniel-EL is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2014, 04:08 PM
  #35
Sport_Pilot
 
Sport_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 16,908
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

No reason to rewrite the Constitution or add an amendment. The Constitution only gives the Federal govenment the right to regulate commerce between the states, Years back the courts decided that the FAA should have authority to regulate all full scale aircraft because they could be used for interstate commerce and the airways needed to be protected for such. This was basically a model airplane not capable of interstate commerce, not flown as such, and flown in non navigable space (that is a full scale aircraft was not supposed to be flying that low. The lawyer had no need to go thewre as that would have complicated the case, But if the FAA keeps appealing then the lawyer may eventually need to bring that up. Interesting that the NTSB consered this a model airplane despite that it was an FPV.
Sport_Pilot is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2014, 04:36 PM
  #36
NorfolkSouthern
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 1,568
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sport_Pilot View Post
No reason to rewrite the Constitution or add an amendment. The Constitution only gives the Federal govenment the right to regulate commerce between the states, Years back the courts decided that the FAA should have authority to regulate all full scale aircraft because they could be used for interstate commerce and the airways needed to be protected for such. This was basically a model airplane not capable of interstate commerce, not flown as such, and flown in non navigable space (that is a full scale aircraft was not supposed to be flying that low. The lawyer had no need to go thewre as that would have complicated the case, But if the FAA keeps appealing then the lawyer may eventually need to bring that up. Interesting that the NTSB consered this a model airplane despite that it was an FPV.
Very good and valid points, Sport_Pilot. It is actually true, a drone qualifies as a model airplane, because it is controlled remotely. It has been this way since the days of the control-line. There is no way to distinguish a drone, from an RC model airplane. Both do the same thing, and both can be retrofitted with equipment and payloads. In fact, there are model planes that are very significant in size, as you know. A half-scale cub, for example, which will easily dwarf the size, weight, and speed of some military drones!

I really don't think the FAA has a case. Not with something that's almost as light as air, and too frangible to even scratch paint. In the end, if the FAA really wants to regulate civilian drone use, they may end up having to require a pilot's license and medical certificate like they do with full-scale (even light sport requires a medical certificate if you've ever been denied a medical). Obviously, that would NOT set well with the public, and Congress would likely frown on it.

The FAA and full-scale interests are harassing modelers and hobbyists This is probably so because they are afraid they'll lose money when someone buys an affordable small drone with a camera instead of paying $500.00 to some flight instructor or Class-II pilot with deep pockets.

Last edited by NorfolkSouthern; 03-11-2014 at 04:39 PM.
NorfolkSouthern is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2014, 04:58 PM
  #37
JohnShe
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Round Hill, VA
Posts: 1,359
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NorfolkSouthern View Post
Very good and valid points, Sport_Pilot. It is actually true, a drone qualifies as a model airplane, because it is controlled remotely. It has been this way since the days of the control-line. There is no way to distinguish a drone, from an RC model airplane. Both do the same thing, and both can be retrofitted with equipment and payloads. In fact, there are model planes that are very significant in size, as you know. A half-scale cub, for example, which will easily dwarf the size, weight, and speed of some military drones!

I really don't think the FAA has a case. Not with something that's almost as light as air, and too frangible to even scratch paint. In the end, if the FAA really wants to regulate civilian drone use, they may end up having to require a pilot's license and medical certificate like they do with full-scale (even light sport requires a medical certificate if you've ever been denied a medical). Obviously, that would NOT set well with the public, and Congress would likely frown on it.

The FAA and full-scale interests are harassing modelers and hobbyists This is probably so because they are afraid they'll lose money when someone buys an affordable small drone with a camera instead of paying $500.00 to some flight instructor or Class-II pilot with deep pockets.
According to the definition of a model airplane given to the FAA by congress, a model airplane is a model airplane as long as it is used solely for recreational purposes according to safety guidelines issued by a CBO. Step outside that boundary and the FAA owns you.

I do not care what happens to the sociopaths who insist on flying their drones anywhere the please. I just hope the penalty is harsh.
JohnShe is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2014, 05:18 PM
  #38
JW0311
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Whitewater, CO
Posts: 150
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Sounds like if congress is giving the definition of model airplanes to the FAA then they own all of us. Won't matter if i'm a sociopathic drone flyer or a recreational model airplane flyer. Not sure I understand the hate towards the fpv folks. Is it were they choose to fly? or the aircraft itself?

James
JW0311 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2014, 05:28 PM
  #39
Sport_Pilot
 
Sport_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 16,908
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Quote:
According to the definition of a model airplane given to the FAA by congress, a model airplane is a model airplane as long as it is used solely for recreational purposes according to safety guidelines issued by a CBO.
The court defined it as a model airplane, They know that Congress is not the only ones defining model airplanes, they may prefer Webster's or their own definition. They have as much say so as Congress,
Sport_Pilot is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2014, 05:57 PM
  #40
JohnShe
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Round Hill, VA
Posts: 1,359
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JW0311 View Post
Sounds like if congress is giving the definition of model airplanes to the FAA then they own all of us. Won't matter if i'm a sociopathic drone flyer or a recreational model airplane flyer. Not sure I understand the hate towards the fpv folks. Is it were they choose to fly? or the aircraft itself?

James
I don't hate FPV, I am sure that people can have fun flying FPV according to safety guidelines. I just don't like the sociopaths who fly down city streets and over peoples houses.
JohnShe is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2014, 06:01 PM
  #41
Sport_Pilot
 
Sport_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 16,908
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnShe View Post
I don't hate FPV, I am sure that people can have fun flying FPV according to safety guidelines. I just don't like the sociopaths who fly down city streets and over peoples houses.
In this case he flew over the University of Virginia with the university's permission. So maybe you thought this was another case?
Sport_Pilot is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2014, 06:22 PM
  #42
JohnShe
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Round Hill, VA
Posts: 1,359
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sport_Pilot View Post
The court defined it as a model airplane, They know that Congress is not the only ones defining model airplanes, they may prefer Webster's or their own definition. They have as much say so as Congress,
Actually, they did not reach a consensus on how to define what the jackass was doing. If you read the actual decision you will discover that the FAA lost because they have not completed the task set before them in PUBLIC LAW 112–95—FEB. 14, 2012. As a result, the NTSB ruled that without a regulation in the FAR, the FAA could not penalize the perpetrator.
JohnShe is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2014, 06:30 PM
  #43
JW0311
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Whitewater, CO
Posts: 150
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

I'm assuming that this same sentiment was prevalent when the park flyers came about? Did the AMA handle that in a manner that was acceptable to all? Can't deny the danger involved with flying model aircraft in the vicinity of people that may or may not be aware of there presence. I'm wondering if there is away to accommodate all parties involved. Never mind, that's not going to happen. Is there an answer that does not involve government regulation? I know personal responsibility is gone the way of the buffalo. Is this a matter of educating folks coming into the hobby or is it that these folks are truly sociopaths with no regards for safety?

James
JW0311 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2014, 06:45 PM
  #44
JohnShe
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Round Hill, VA
Posts: 1,359
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JW0311 View Post
I'm assuming that this same sentiment was prevalent when the park flyers came about? Did the AMA handle that in a manner that was acceptable to all? Can't deny the danger involved with flying model aircraft in the vicinity of people that may or may not be aware of there presence. I'm wondering if there is away to accommodate all parties involved. Never mind, that's not going to happen. Is there an answer that does not involve government regulation? I know personal responsibility is gone the way of the buffalo. Is this a matter of educating folks coming into the hobby or is it that these folks are truly sociopaths with no regards for safety?

James
Don't know nothin' 'bout no park fliers, but... The way 112-95 is written, model aviation is set aside in it's own bound off area and we are allowed to make our own rules as long as the FAA approves. Since the AMA and the FAA have agreed that our rules are OK, we are in the clear. It is only the irresponsible sociopaths that the FAA will l be dealing with.
JohnShe is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2014, 07:13 PM
  #45
JohnShe
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Round Hill, VA
Posts: 1,359
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sport_Pilot View Post
In this case he flew over the University of Virginia with the university's permission. So maybe you thought this was another case?
Actually, this has little to do with whether or not UVA gave permission. It is about the way he flew his 4 Lbs powered glider. If you have read the FAA complaint you should be horrified.
JohnShe is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2014, 08:13 PM
  #46
ira d
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Moreno Valley, CA
Posts: 3,049
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Any aircraft not conflicting with Full scale operations or under a certain size should be left alone by the FAA. As far as overflying people or property in a unsafe manner that needs to be dealt with but
not by the FAA IMO for a small hobby type craft.
ira d is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2014, 08:14 PM
  #47
cj_rumley
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga, CA
Posts: 1,768
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnShe View Post
Don't know nothin' 'bout no park fliers, but... The way 112-95 is written, model aviation is set aside in it's own bound off area and we are allowed to make our own rules as long as the FAA approves. Since the AMA and the FAA have agreed that our rules are OK, we are in the clear. It is only the irresponsible sociopaths that the FAA will l be dealing with.
Section 336 of 112-95 was written by AMA and their lobbyist, and FAA has by no means recognized AMA as a CBO per the dreams of the AMA Executive Council and so given them carte blanc as the ultimate authority over operations of model aircraft in the NAS ("our rules are OK.").. It doesn't mention anything about " model aviation is set aside in it's own bound off area" either, nor does it address "irresponsible sociopaths" and how FAA will deal with them. Give a little 'spect to reality.

Drones, FPV, UAS, etc. are happening despite the lethargy and sidetracking (privacy paranoia) of FAA to produce regulatory guidance other than 'no fly' until they get around to it. Meanwhile what can (or with each passing day could have been) be a significant opportunity for American businesses to exploit a technology that is going to have significant impact in the global marketplace is impatiently aware of tempus fugit. Like it not, it is coming. As of now, the only certificated sUAS for civli (commercial) use in N America comes from Canada. How much head start in the marketplace do you think PRC needs to dominate this market?

I have no problem with the commercial interests doing their thing to make a buck and creating jobs and such, and know they will have to deal with regulatory processes that will no doubt be burdensome. I hope they can deal with that successfully, but at the same time I don't want my hobby interests, affected by the developing technology, to be lumped in with their fortunes. That's why I get ticked off with your indiscriminate rants against the technology regardless of the purpose these unmanned aircraft are flown for. The only thing that makes sense and has been accepted by the regulatory authority in separating our hobby/recreational model aircraft from regulated aircraft is why they are being flown. You are not helping to preserve our freedom to fly model airplanes sans regulation by ranting against FPV as mode of flight without regard to why are being flown. AMA seems to be doing the same thing with their adventuring into involvement with the commercial use of sUAS similar to our models in the interest of new revenue generation, so though I think you are wrongheaded about this you may be consoled in that it seems you are in good company.

cj
cj_rumley is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2014, 08:49 PM
  #48
Sport_Pilot
 
Sport_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 16,908
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnShe View Post
Actually, they did not reach a consensus on how to define what the jackass was doing. If you read the actual decision you will discover that the FAA lost because they have not completed the task set before them in PUBLIC LAW 112–95—FEB. 14, 2012. As a result, the NTSB ruled that without a regulation in the FAR, the FAA could not penalize the perpetrator.
And as I said there was no reason to bring the Constitution into this, Clearly it would be the wrong decision as they won the case on the fact they had no regulation. Wonder why?
Sport_Pilot is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2014, 08:53 PM
  #49
Sport_Pilot
 
Sport_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 16,908
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnShe View Post
Actually, this has little to do with whether or not UVA gave permission. It is about the way he flew his 4 Lbs powered glider. If you have read the FAA complaint you should be horrified.
The judge said the FAA has no authority so what the FAA thinks doesn't matter, The property owner gave permission and I don't think you can do anything dangerous with such a small craft. No federal laws broken and no local laws broken so it really doesn't matter what anyone thinks,
Sport_Pilot is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2014, 05:40 AM
  #50
JohnShe
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Round Hill, VA
Posts: 1,359
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sport_Pilot View Post
The judge said the FAA has no authority so what the FAA thinks doesn't matter, The property owner gave permission and I don't think you can do anything dangerous with such a small craft. No federal laws broken and no local laws broken so it really doesn't matter what anyone thinks,
wow! What kind of fantasy world do you live in? Thiat aircraft was a 4 Lb foamy with a 56 inch wingspan. It could break windows and knock people down.
JohnShe is offline  
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Display Modes

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

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



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:13 PM.