FAA fine against drone photographer dismissed.
#26
Thread Starter
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.
I'm betting the FAA's case is going to get thrown out of court!
#28
My Feedback: (190)
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Hobe Sound, FL
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
#29
Thread Starter
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.
#30
My Feedback: (58)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: here
Posts: 5,413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Am I understanding you correctly?
#31
My Feedback: (58)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: here
Posts: 5,413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
#32
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
#33
Senior Member
My Feedback: (2)
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Jackson, MI
Posts: 2,102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
This may end up going to the Supreme Court.
#35
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.
#36
Thread Starter
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.
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.
#37
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Round Hill, VA
Posts: 1,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
#38
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Whitewater,
CO
Posts: 152
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
James
#39
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.
#40
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Round Hill, VA
Posts: 1,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
James
#41
In this case he flew over the University of Virginia with the university's permission. So maybe you thought this was another case?
#42
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Round Hill, VA
Posts: 1,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
#43
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Whitewater,
CO
Posts: 152
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
James
#44
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Round Hill, VA
Posts: 1,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
James
#45
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Round Hill, VA
Posts: 1,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
#46
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.
not by the FAA IMO for a small hobby type craft.
#47
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga,
CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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
#48
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.
#49
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,
#50
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Round Hill, VA
Posts: 1,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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,