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

FAA fine against drone photographer dismissed.

Reply
Old 06-24-2014, 05:02 AM
  #1351
Sport_Pilot
 
Sport_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 16,902
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Arrr!! "The code is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules."

Quote from Captain Barbossa from Prirates of the CarribBean: The Curse of Black Pearl.
Sport_Pilot is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2014, 05:12 AM
  #1352
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 DocYates View Post
From the published guidelines, it would appear as long as you are following the AMA guidelines, do not exceed 400', remain line of sight, fly in Type G airspace outside of an airport, they plan to leave us alone. Aircraft are limited to 55#, unless certified thru an agency (AMA is the only one I know of that currently has a program in the US). The next paragragraph after that basically creates whisteblower program that allows those who feel you are going outside those rules to notify the local FAA office for investigation. Sounds to me like they followed the AMA guidelines pretty closely, and are very adamant about recognizing commercial vs. non-commercial intentions. From my comprehension of this, there is more to come, and if you plan on doing anything for compensation you will require a license from some entity. It is not explained yet.
Yup! Pretty succinct translation. Sail planes tend to go for a much higher altitude and have always been allowed so that probably won't change much.
JohnShe is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2014, 05:17 AM
  #1353
DocYates
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Killen, AL
Posts: 3,331
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Nothing in this section shall
be construed to limit the authority of the Administrator to pursue
enforcement action against persons operating model aircraft who
endanger the safety of the national airspace system.

SP, you might want to read tht again.



DocYates is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2014, 05:31 AM
  #1354
Sport_Pilot
 
Sport_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 16,902
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

The fact that it does not limit the authority does not mean that it adds to the authority. They had guidelines before and the Judge threw out the case. However, the interpretation does put us and others on notice. I think the sUAV croud will have alot of comments. For models all they can do is publish guidelines as the example in the article I was refering to, becasue they cannot regulate model aircraft.

Last edited by Sport_Pilot; 06-24-2014 at 05:50 AM.
Sport_Pilot is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2014, 11:22 AM
  #1355
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 fact that it does not limit the authority does not mean that it adds to the authority. They had guidelines before and the Judge threw out the case. However, the interpretation does put us and others on notice. I think the sUAV croud will have alot of comments. For models all they can do is publish guidelines as the example in the article I was refering to, becasue they cannot regulate model aircraft.
Actually, the judge threw out the case because the events took place before law was even signed.

The FAA can regulate any aircraft that violates the rules in the FAR and that is where this special rule is going. I advise you to download it and read it carefully.
JohnShe is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2014, 11:28 AM
  #1356
DocYates
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Killen, AL
Posts: 3,331
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

SP don't confuse the issues. If you are classified as a "hobbyist" they will not prosecute. Take money or act otherwise and they will do so. It might be an extremely costly endeavor to pursue.
G
ENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law

relating to the incorporation of unmanned aircraft systems into

Federal Aviation Administration plans and policies, including this

subtitle, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration

may not promulgate any rule or regulation regarding a model
aircraft, or an aircraft being developed as a model aircraft, if

(1) the aircraft is flown strictly for hobby or recreational
use;

(2) the aircraft is operated in accordance with a communitybased
set of safety guidelines and within the programming
of a nationwide community-based organization;

(3) the aircraft is limited to not more than 55 pounds

unless otherwise certified through a design, construction,

inspection, flight test, and operational safety program administered

by a community-based organization;

(4) the aircraft is operated in a manner that does not
interfere with and gives way to any manned aircraft
DocYates is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2014, 11:47 AM
  #1357
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 DocYates View Post
SP don't confuse the issues. If you are classified as a "hobbyist" they will not prosecute. Take money or act otherwise and they will do so. It might be an extremely costly endeavor to pursue.
G
ENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law

relating to the incorporation of unmanned aircraft systems into

Federal Aviation Administration plans and policies, including this

subtitle, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration

may not promulgate any rule or regulation regarding a model
aircraft, or an aircraft being developed as a model aircraft, if

(1) the aircraft is flown strictly for hobby or recreational
use;

(2) the aircraft is operated in accordance with a communitybased
set of safety guidelines and within the programming
of a nationwide community-based organization;

(3) the aircraft is limited to not more than 55 pounds

unless otherwise certified through a design, construction,

inspection, flight test, and operational safety program administered

by a community-based organization;

(4) the aircraft is operated in a manner that does not
interfere with and gives way to any manned aircraft
If you fail to follow the CBO rules you may be in trouble. The FAA can and will prosecute if you create a hazard or cause damage or injury.
JohnShe is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2014, 12:04 PM
  #1358
Sport_Pilot
 
Sport_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 16,902
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Quote:
Actually, the judge threw out the case because the events took place before law was even signed.
The time the law was signeed doesn't matter. The issue is tha there was no regulation. A notification explaining their interpretation is not a regulation. Necessary step before writing a regulation perhaps.
Sport_Pilot is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2014, 12:07 PM
  #1359
Sport_Pilot
 
Sport_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 16,902
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Quote:
Actually, the judge threw out the case because the events took place before law was even signed.
The time the law was signeed doesn't matter. The issue is tha there was no regulation. A notification explaining their interpretation is not a regulation. Necessary step before writing a regulation perhaps.

You are confusing the issue. My pirate joke is about the guide lines they issued. You are discussing the congressional law they are interpreting. But anyway the CBO rules are not laws. The FAA can only step in when you fly in front or near full scale aircraft. Well my interpretation anyway.
Sport_Pilot is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2014, 02:15 PM
  #1360
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 time the law was signeed doesn't matter. The issue is tha there was no regulation. A notification explaining their interpretation is not a regulation. Necessary step before writing a regulation perhaps.

You are confusing the issue. My pirate joke is about the guide lines they issued. You are discussing the congressional law they are interpreting. But anyway the CBO rules are not laws. The FAA can only step in when you fly in front or near full scale aircraft. Well my interpretation anyway.
That is correct. FAA covers aviation hazards, damage or injury. Local law enforcement will take care of local damage and injury.

As long as you fly according to CBO rules you are safe. Any accident will be just that and covered by insurance either your own home owners or the clubs insurance.

If you read the special rule, you will see that it is going into the FAR and will be enforceable. As I have told others it is now time for public responses to the FAA. You have 30 days.
JohnShe is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2014, 02:38 PM
  #1361
JW0311
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Whitewater, CO
Posts: 150
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Don't see anything that seems unreasonable to me. Maybe I'm missing something but it looks pretty straight forward.

James
JW0311 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2014, 02:53 PM
  #1362
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
Don't see anything that seems unreasonable to me. Maybe I'm missing something but it looks pretty straight forward.

James
It is pretty reasonable. The only flaw that I have noted is that the LOS requirement will kill recreational FPV operations. They don't have an exception for the use of a buddy box. Cest la Vie!
JohnShe is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2014, 03:19 PM
  #1363
bradpaul
 
bradpaul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Apopka, FL
Posts: 1,367
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JW0311 View Post
Don't see anything that seems unreasonable to me. Maybe I'm missing something but it looks pretty straight forward.

James
Well depends if you fly FPV, are a sponsored pilot or fly in competitions...................................... ....... this is from Brendan Schulman the lawyer that defended Trappy in the FAA case.

https://www.facebook.com/dronelawyer?fref=nf



FAA's "interpretation" asserts for 1st time ever that model aircraft contests & sponsored pilots are prohibited http://t.co/EfwYbiR6Et

Last edited by bradpaul; 06-24-2014 at 03:24 PM.
bradpaul is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2014, 05:56 PM
  #1364
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 bradpaul View Post
Well depends if you fly FPV, are a sponsored pilot or fly in competitions...................................... ....... this is from Brendan Schulman the lawyer that defended Trappy in the FAA case.

https://www.facebook.com/dronelawyer?fref=nf



FAA's "interpretation" asserts for 1st time ever that model aircraft contests & sponsored pilots are prohibited http://t.co/EfwYbiR6Et
Fascinating, that might call for a comment, asking for clarification, to the FAA.
JohnShe is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2014, 04:16 PM
  #1365
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 804 View Post
Boy, I guess so.
The way you and Branaum have been going on here,
I would have expected a decapitation, amputation,
or at least a lopped off nose or ear out of this.

Well, I guess you won't mind if I hope you get the chance to experience a similar incident when with friends and family. Apparently according to your take (and that of others here), it should be safe enough - right?

I wonder how long it will be before the operator presses charges for the destruction of his/her property. Any bets?
Jim Branaum is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2014, 04:49 AM
  #1366
bradpaul
 
bradpaul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Apopka, FL
Posts: 1,367
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Just what we did not need and the FAA wanted .................................................. ........

Quote from article: "The Pirates say once confronted, the man flying the drone admitted to doing it, saying he thought it would be fun."

http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2014/06/27/man-flies-drone-over-pnc-park-during-game/

How STUPID do you have to be to fly a FPV multirotor at a major league baseball park over 36,000 spectators?

But as the article went on to explain (see the video), he may not have broken any laws or regulations.

Probably a member of "The Black Sheep Squadron".
bradpaul is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2014, 10:44 AM
  #1367
cj_rumley
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga, CA
Posts: 1,768
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Deleted

Last edited by cj_rumley; 06-28-2014 at 11:55 AM. Reason: had factual errors
cj_rumley is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2014, 10:38 AM
  #1368
JohnShe
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Round Hill, VA
Posts: 1,359
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default



Couldn't resist. :-)
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	Drones.jpg
Views:	71
Size:	246.9 KB
ID:	2009806  
JohnShe is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2014, 09:09 AM
  #1369
jtotten
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: lisle, IL
Posts: 64
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Here's a interesting example - posted by a TV station, obviously FPV control, probably lower than 400 ft most of the time (but I dont know what height the firworks are usually set for). I doubt any manned aircraft could get the shots, and it is probably "art". https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...&v=a9KZ3jgbbmI
jtotten is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2014, 04:29 PM
  #1370
jonnyjetprop
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 287
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

This is is why regulation is needed. Sorry, but it needs to be said. There's a difference between flying RC planes at a model flying field and stuff like this. Did the pilot consider any risks to the public? The AMA wants to defend people like this.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jtotten View Post
Here's a interesting example - posted by a TV station, obviously FPV control, probably lower than 400 ft most of the time (but I dont know what height the firworks are usually set for). I doubt any manned aircraft could get the shots, and it is probably "art". https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...&v=a9KZ3jgbbmI

Last edited by jonnyjetprop; 07-05-2014 at 04:32 PM.
jonnyjetprop is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2014, 07:09 AM
  #1371
Thomas B
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Fort Worth, TX
Posts: 1,254
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bradpaul View Post
Well depends if you fly FPV, are a sponsored pilot or fly in competitions...................................... ....... this is from Brendan Schulman the lawyer that defended Trappy in the FAA case.

https://www.facebook.com/dronelawyer?fref=nf



FAA's "interpretation" asserts for 1st time ever that model aircraft contests & sponsored pilots are prohibited http://t.co/EfwYbiR6Et
i am not buying the lawyers take that competitions in general will break the FAA intent expressed in their letter. Even if cash prizes are awarded, there is ample precedent in current FAA policy that allows private pilots to compete for cash prizes: Air racing and precision competition flying (lot of college teams do the latter) come immediately to mind. A legal challenge to this FAA interpretation should be straightforward.

i see zero evidence that normal model competitions for trophies or awards is affected.

Full scale air racing private pilots are currently allowed to have equipment and cash sponsorships.

Another easy solution for current sponsored RC pilots is to assert that they are not getting free equipment that could be called reimbursement, but that they are in fact doing reviews, durability testing and in service testing of aircraft and equipment. An occasional report to the manufacturer should be easy enough. How could the FAA prove otherwise?

Last edited by Thomas B; 07-06-2014 at 07:12 AM.
Thomas B is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2014, 09:33 PM
  #1372
mongo
 
mongo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Midland, TX
Posts: 2,291
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

simple,
they read your suggestions in this forum.
some things really do need to be handled "back channel".
mongo is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-2014, 10:06 AM
  #1373
Thomas B
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Fort Worth, TX
Posts: 1,254
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mongo View Post
simple,
they read your suggestions in this forum.
some things really do need to be handled "back channel".
It does not matter if they read about it in here or not. It is a valid option that could be explored.

Given the extreme inconsitency of the FAA response when compared to other policies that the FAA has, I predict much of their position will not stand up in the enevitable legal proceedings.
Thomas B is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-2014, 10:58 AM
  #1374
NorfolkSouthern
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 1,568
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

I would say, that it doesn't matter if the competitor is given something for winning a match, or wins a free car wash. It's still likely to be considered by the FAA as a "demonstrating acrobatics on a model plane for pay" or something like that. I'll voice my opinion here: I think the AMA and that congressman should have stepped out of the rule making progress. Had it not been for 336, I'm sure the modelers would have far fewer restrictions. And who knows? Maybe Dominos could have been delivering pizzas without weaving through traffic by now.
NorfolkSouthern is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-2014, 11:25 AM
  #1375
Sport_Pilot
 
Sport_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 16,902
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Quote:
Had it not been for 336, I'm sure the modelers would have far fewer restrictions.
What restrictions? This is not yet a rule or regulation. AMA did the right thing. The FAA would have done the same and we would have less ammon in court.
Sport_Pilot 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 03:04 PM.