littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

I agree...there is no hope for me... But you can try the big letters and maybe??? Still would like to know what law the fellow violated...

JohnShe

I asked the AMA and have not received a reply. I could be wrong, I usually don't make mistakes. I thought I did once but I was mistaken.

According to 112–95 CBOs only apply to recreational activities. Commercial operations of any size belong to the FAA.

Either those FLYSAFE people don't know what they are doing, or they are a scam.

JohnShe

Actually, the FAA thought that he had violated 112-95, but the judge blew 'em off due to a slight paucity of enforcement regulations.

Sport_Pilot

They don't need authorization. The judge said so.

Sport_Pilot

Not according to the judge!

bradpaul

Looks like the North Koreans are getting into drones.................

http://news.yahoo.com/skorea-suspect...022738337.html

Well that's what happens when you buy your equipment from Hobby King....................

JohnShe

Didn't I tell ya?

JohnShe

The judge agreed that 112-95 applied but could not be enforced until the FAR had some regulations in it. Once the regulations are there, the FAA will own all commercial drone operations.

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

Not really all that hard to understand how the FAA could error by misinterpreting the law in this case and just "take at shot"...but we have to ask ourselves, is this acceptable from any government agency? Misfeasances as this should carry some serious penalty...but how do we punish the government?? We left out that very important mechanism when we laid our countries foundation... as it was anticipated by our fore fathers that our freedom would trump idiotic government tyranny. The MEN then were wrong...they never figured on how some people...also the the loudest people... are perfectly happy trading liberty and freedom for safety and security....

Propworn

My Feedback: (3)

Perhaps you could point out where I stated or insinuated he contravened any law. It might make your continual parroting of the sentence relative to what I have posted. It doesn't mater what you think your freedom’s are when a majority of the population determine you need to be regulated its going to happen regardless of all you’re whining about it. Guys who come from out of country to rub the noses of the local authorities do nothing to further the cause of keeping access regulations at bay. Like it or not the gate has been opened and in the near future I see more regulation than was necessary just to keep a few idiots in line. LIDDLE you’re great behind a keyboard but what have you done personally to help your cause or is it all hot air.

Dennis

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

That's really funny! How's things going in your country??? LOL

JohnShe

The government mistake was failure to write the necessary regulations to enforce the law. There was no misinterpretation or misfeasance involved. What Trappy did was wrong, but unenforcable for the moment, the judge admitted that.

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

So, just trumping up charges not based on any real law is OK??? Boy, are we screwed!

JohnShe

LCS, are you just trolling now? Your response is based on the exact opposite of what i wrote. You have it completely bassackwards. 112-95 puts the FAA is in charge of integrating UAS into the NAS. If, the FAA ever writes the regulations required by the law, they will be able to punish offenders like Trappy.

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

Your prediction of the future is just that...a prediction. I'll venture to say if FAA pursues taking the NAS all the way to the ground there will be a heap of fight...Well at least I hope so...

phlpsfrnk

FAA already has jurisdiction from the surface up, no prediction, has been that way for years.


http://www.faa.gov/news/updates/?newsId=76240

See Myth #1.

Regards
Frank

JohnShe

I am not predicting anything, merely reporting fact.

Why will there be a fight? It won't effect us modelers in any way. We have a CBO and a set of safety guidelines. We have it made. The commercial drone people may struggle a bit, but the FAA boa constrictor will swallow them eventually.

Sport_Pilot

The judge did not agree to that, I did not see that anyway.

Sport_Pilot

The 1958 FAA act said they have jurisdiction over all navigable airspace. Pirker argued that and though it was only a factor, the Judge threw the case out.

Sport_Pilot

Gee looks like even the FAA says that was myth #1! The FAA act specifically says that the FAA has authority over navigable airspace. Trappy (or rather his lawyer) said that this was the case in his arguments. The judge did not disagree with it and threw the case out.

Sport_Pilot

I don't think people want the FAA to regulate kites, footballs, baseballs, etc. Of course the real fight is going to come from sUAV manufacture's. I doubt Pirker could have afforded the legal bills without some help.

Top_Gunn

My Feedback: (6)

The case was dismissed only because the FAA had not yet written regulations prohibiting what the defendant did. It was not dismissed because the FAA lacked the authority to regulate aviation below some magic number of feet. Repeating this claim endlessly does not make it true.

JohnShe

Read item #5.

JohnShe

112-95 only speaks of regulating UAS in the NAS. Your sports equipment analogy is a logical fallacy called "the slippery slope"

Jim Branaum

My Feedback: (3)

Will you PLEASE stop the trolling about your navigable airspace story?

Read here:
http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives...notice_uas.pdf

That document put Trappy on the wrong side of things.