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

FAA fine against drone photographer dismissed.

Reply
Old 03-31-2014, 05:17 AM
  #476
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 bogbeagle View Post
Do I understand you correctly? You appointed yourself as some sort of Safety Guardian, with a mind to intercede and "bring down the forces of Law and Order upon the head of the malefactor".

And yet ... strangely ... the pilot was invited to fly there; and the "people concerned" apparently weren't concerned. (I'm assuming that the building workers weren't rushing about, screaming at the horror of it all.)
Yup!
JohnShe is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-31-2014, 05:22 AM
  #477
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
That was only part of it, the other part was that this was, according to the judge, a model airplane not interfering with full scale operations.
The complaint had nothing in it about full scale interference. Full scale interference was never an issue.
JohnShe is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-31-2014, 05:29 AM
  #478
Sport_Pilot
 
Sport_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 16,889
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Quote:
Have you read the decision? The judge let the guy off because there were no regulations covering the situation. The guy walked on a technicality that had nothing to do with your 400' misconception.
That was only part of it, the other part was that this was, according to the judge, a model airplane not interfering with full scale operations.

Per the Judge,: “The extension of that conclusion would then result in the risible argument that a flight in the air of… a paper aircraft, or a toy balsa wood glider, could subject the ‘operator’ to the regulatory provisions of FAA [regulations].”.
Sport_Pilot is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-31-2014, 05:31 AM
  #479
Sport_Pilot
 
Sport_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 16,889
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnShe View Post
The complaint had nothing in it about full scale interference. Full scale interference was never an issue.
That's the point. If it had he would not have ruled as he did.
Sport_Pilot is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-31-2014, 05:56 AM
  #480
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
That's the point. If it had he would not have ruled as he did.

Well, that is sort of a backassward viewpoint. The decision said that there were no drone regulations therefore the FAA could not punish the offender.
JohnShe is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-31-2014, 06:10 AM
  #481
Sport_Pilot
 
Sport_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 16,889
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Quote:
The decision said that there were no drone regulations therefore the FAA could not punish the offender.
The judge didn't just say there were no regulations, he said it was a model airplane and found in favor of the defendant. The model airplane definition was based on its size and the fact it was flying less than 400 feet of altitude. It's in the defendants motion to dismiss.
Sport_Pilot is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-31-2014, 06:15 AM
  #482
Jim Branaum
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Fair Oaks Ranch, TX
Posts: 2,603
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bogbeagle View Post
OK, then.

So, do you maintain that it's OK for a commercial outfit to fly over people? .... provided that the outfit has met with your approval in respect of equipment and personnel?

BTW, in my experience, being directly under a flying model is quite a safe place.

I have not changed my position, if properly rated (personnel and equipment) commercial operations can be a good thing. The same sort of standards of quality and skills required for the commercial airlines people ride on.

LCS, I don't think BradPaul was referring to you but to the British guy and others like him. But I could be wrong.

As for Trappy's permission, it was clearly granted by some PhD who had no clue of the unintended consequences of the flight and I do not mean the FAA fight but the risk presented to the general (uninformed) public who was involved in the escapade. Sometimes those ivory towers block the view of reality...
Jim Branaum is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-31-2014, 06:23 AM
  #483
Sport_Pilot
 
Sport_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 16,889
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Quote:
As for Trappy's permission, it was clearly granted by some PhD who had no clue of the unintended consequences of the flight and I do not mean the FAA fight but the risk presented to the general (uninformed) public who was involved in the escapade. Sometimes those ivory towers block the view of reality...
According to the Judge that really doesn't matter. To him it was a model airplane despite AMA's and FAA's declaration that its not a model airplane if its commercial.
Sport_Pilot is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-31-2014, 07:37 AM
  #484
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 littlecrankshaf View Post
what you need yo get through your ever denser head is that this is the AMA forum...and conflating totally seperate isuues such as private FPV opeations, commercial or otherwise not within the national airspace, drones within national airspace and what AMA constrains it's members is just a bunch of malarkey (man. I like that word LOL)!
LOL!

You don't have a clue. Are you unable to comprehend the subtle distinctions?
JohnShe is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-31-2014, 10:54 AM
  #485
RCKen
RCU Forum Manager/Admin
 
RCKen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Lawton, OK
Posts: 26,772
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Ok gentlemen, we need to stop the name calling in here and it needs to stop right now. If the members of this forum can not discuss this matter in a mature and civil manner then they will be dealt with by me. There is no reason for name calling and insulting each other in here and if you can't discuss this issue without resorting to doing that then maybe you should simply stay out of the discussion, period.

Ken
RCKen is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-31-2014, 11:04 AM
  #486
cj_rumley
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga, CA
Posts: 1,758
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RCKen View Post
Ok gentlemen, we need to stop the name calling in here and it needs to stop right now. If the members of this forum can not discuss this matter in a mature and civil manner then they will be dealt with by me. There is no reason for name calling and insulting each other in here and if you can't discuss this issue without resorting to doing that then maybe you should simply stay out of the discussion, period.

Ken
Amen. You read my mind........
cj_rumley is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-31-2014, 11:25 AM
  #487
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
According to the Judge that really doesn't matter. To him it was a model airplane despite AMA's and FAA's declaration that its not a model airplane if its commercial.
You are quite correct, the Judge's problem was that there were no regulations in the FAR to define model aviation and commercial drones. That created a conundrum that could not be resolved. Since there were no regulations to act on, our friendly neighborhood drone operator could not be punished for his blatantly unsafe operations.
JohnShe is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-31-2014, 11:42 AM
  #488
Sport_Pilot
 
Sport_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 16,889
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Quote:
You are quite correct, the Judge's problem was that there were no regulations in the FAR to define model aviation and commercial drones. That created a conundrum that could not be resolved. Since there were no regulations to act on, our friendly neighborhood drone operator could not be punished for his blatantly unsafe operations.
There was no conundrum. The defendant said that this was a model airplane and there was never any regulations and that being commericial did not matter. The judge agreed and compared it to legislating paper airplanes. So this was resolved!
Sport_Pilot is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-31-2014, 12:30 PM
  #489
cj_rumley
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga, CA
Posts: 1,758
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sport_Pilot View Post
There was no conundrum. The defendant said that this was a model airplane and there was never any regulations and that being commericial did not matter. The judge agreed and compared it to legislating paper airplanes. So this was resolved!
It hasn't been resolved by any means, it just puts the issue in limbo until FAA makes their next move, and they do have options. Example 1: Be better prepared on appeal than they were in the case that is topical; Example 2: get off their butts and comply with the direction they got from congress and make the missing regulation happen. Example 3: pick another test case with charges that would tried in the mainstream court(s). The decision of the judge in this case, a member of an NTSB panel, as I understand it does not create a binding precedent. IANAL....there are probably many other options open to FAA and I am quite sure they will prevail.

It will happen one way or another, but for the present it remains in limbo. Not a good thing for the industry or the potential market they will supply, and that's unfortunate. Worse IMO biased by selfish interest is for our modeling organization to take any stake in that public/civil sUAS arena that could risk our falling into the same limbo with them.
cj_rumley is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-31-2014, 12:35 PM
  #490
Propworn
 
Propworn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,379
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

As posted in the other thread!


Itís pretty simple as I see it there are two categories. One is a model then there is everything else.

At present the accepted definition of what is a hobby and a model is what is set out by the AMA in the USA and MAAC in Canada. Even if youíre not a member of either organization but fly within these relative guidelines of your country youíre considered a hobbyist flying a model.

Only those who insist on flying outside these guidelines will have to contend with running afoul of the aviation authorities.

Their problem is not my problem. I will continue to fly unhindered with the same rules I started out with. These guys will continue to bring attention to themselves until the aviation authorities place restrictions on them worse than the ones that we will continue to operate under.

A prime example is how the freedom as a kid growing up and flying my models in the parks and schoolyards has all but disappeared. Now there are very few urban areas that do not have some bylaw about flying powered models within the city/towns limits. Why is that you ask? Itís not because the majority of those using these facilities caused problems itís because of a few who insisted they could do what they want without restrictions or consideration for others. As always there are a few who will ruin it for everyone else. The frustrating part is these few will dump the activity because its grown to restrictive and move on to the next activity they can screw up, leaving the dedicated ones to try and salvage whatís left.

Dennis
Propworn is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-31-2014, 02:13 PM
  #491
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 Propworn View Post
As posted in the other thread!


It’s pretty simple as I see it there are two categories. One is a model then there is everything else.

At present the accepted definition of what is a hobby and a model is what is set out by the AMA in the USA and MAAC in Canada. Even if you’re not a member of either organization but fly within these relative guidelines of your country you’re considered a hobbyist flying a model.

Only those who insist on flying outside these guidelines will have to contend with running afoul of the aviation authorities.

Their problem is not my problem. I will continue to fly unhindered with the same rules I started out with. These guys will continue to bring attention to themselves until the aviation authorities place restrictions on them worse than the ones that we will continue to operate under.

A prime example is how the freedom as a kid growing up and flying my models in the parks and schoolyards has all but disappeared. Now there are very few urban areas that do not have some bylaw about flying powered models within the city/towns limits. Why is that you ask? It’s not because the majority of those using these facilities caused problems it’s because of a few who insisted they could do what they want without restrictions or consideration for others. As always there are a few who will ruin it for everyone else. The frustrating part is these few will dump the activity because its grown to restrictive and move on to the next activity they can screw up, leaving the dedicated ones to try and salvage what’s left.

Dennis

Yup, that has been the theme of this thread all along. We as responsible modelers follow the rules and have fun, while a few screw ups give us a bad image.
JohnShe is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-31-2014, 07:21 PM
  #492
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 JohnShe View Post
Yup, that has been the theme of this thread all along. We as responsible modelers follow the rules and have fun, while a few screw ups give us a bad image.
In the case we are discussing, as I see it, Trappy (whatever the guys name is) was following the rules/laws as they exist now... The push by many are for more rules...
littlecrankshaf is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-31-2014, 08:12 PM
  #493
JW0311
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Whitewater, CO
Posts: 150
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sport_Pilot View Post
JW, I don't think they are paying attention.

Guess not.

James
JW0311 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-31-2014, 09:42 PM
  #494
bogbeagle
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: York, UNITED KINGDOM
Posts: 1,296
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnShe View Post

our friendly neighborhood drone operator could not be punished f
Have we moved from "safety" to "punishment", now?

Revealing.
bogbeagle is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-31-2014, 09:46 PM
  #495
bogbeagle
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: York, UNITED KINGDOM
Posts: 1,296
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Propworn View Post


. As always there are a few who will ruin it for everyone else.


Dennis

No, the bad guys didn't ruin it.

YOU ruined it.

You ruined it when you accepted the principle that "Justice is served by punishing the many for the indiscretions of the individual."


You accepted the principle that it's right to punish the people who "didn't do it".

In other words, you "ruined it" by seeking to create more laws.

Last edited by bogbeagle; 03-31-2014 at 11:18 PM.
bogbeagle is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2014, 03:20 AM
  #496
Sport_Pilot
 
Sport_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 16,889
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

The Tea Party has never taken up arms. Now the Boston Tea Party, that is a historical event.
Sport_Pilot is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2014, 04:47 AM
  #497
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 littlecrankshaf View Post
In the case we are discussing, as I see it, Trappy (whatever the guys name is) was following the rules/laws as they exist now... The push by many are for more rules...
What rules/laws? most communities, states and governments have laws against reckless endangerment, don't you think they might have applied? He certainly wasn't following the AMA safety code.

The fact is, he was flying in a grey area and got away with it.
JohnShe is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2014, 05:21 AM
  #498
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 JohnShe View Post
What rules/laws? most communities, states and governments have laws against reckless endangerment, don't you think they might have applied? He certainly wasn't following the AMA safety code.

The fact is, he was flying in a grey area and got away with it.
Now you seem to be moving the authority away from FAA some and more towards the community...I know, a little side dish in your response but even after all the salad mixing it seems you may be getting the point now. As far as the AMA safety code goes, I wasn't aware the guy was an AMA member.
littlecrankshaf is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2014, 05:32 AM
  #499
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 bogbeagle View Post
I've had nearly sixty years to "see how it is" in England.... where the dominant ethos is, "I don't like it; and I'll make sure that you can't do it."

If you chaps should ever decide to come and live here, you'll find that you fit right in.




The Tea Party ... don't make me laugh. Those guys took up arms over a tiny little tax..... look at you now!

I don't think you can claim to share in their honour.
Awesome observation! Yep, we wimped out...and that continues on every front now. We're not in a much different place than where we started out from...sad but true.
littlecrankshaf is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2014, 06:18 AM
  #500
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 littlecrankshaf View Post
Now you seem to be moving the authority away from FAA some and more towards the community...I know, a little side dish in your response but even after all the salad mixing it seems you may be getting the point now. As far as the AMA safety code goes, I wasn't aware the guy was an AMA member.
You don't have to be a member of a CBO to follow their safety code.

And, at least for the time being, in the absence of FAA regulations community laws are all that we have. I don't understand why the community around the University campus has not acted on his apparent violations of reasonable safety codes.
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 01:12 PM.