JohnShe

Don't expect your liability insuarnce to kick in. As soon as the claims adjuster discovers that your behavior was malicious you are likely to wind up in jail.

Jim Branaum

My Feedback: (3)

True. But the implications are that you can endanger folks for $1100 if it is a private deal but it will cost you a lot more if it is commercial. At least taking the 804 approach...

Lets see, 30 stories is around 300 feet which puts it way under Sport Pilot's mythical 400 feet. https://answers.yahoo.com/question/i...2104312AAMklxg which means the FAA should have no authority according to him. How wonderful is that Sport?

804

My Feedback: (1)

Well, that's assuming I caused some bodily or property damage.
I'm too awesome of a model airplane builder and pilot for that to happen.

Thomas B

My Feedback: (4)

Was the quad flight in New York really malicious, or was it careless/reckless? I think the latter. Still should be an insurance problem as it was a dumb thing to do.

cj_rumley

Legitimate insurance companies (i.e., insurers that keep their licenses to be insurance companies) don't make problems for their clients because they have done dumb things. Not surprisingly, many accidents happen because somebody screwed up, most if you include only those instances where liability is assigned/apportioned to somebody and claimant gets an award for compensation for his injuries from a civil court (or the insurance company settles because it is deemed cheaper than fighting it in court).
Insurance companies aren't charities, they only pay when their insureds are deemed to have been negligent (aka dumb, but IANAL).

added - Here's a public statement from one liability insurance provider to consider: " A membership in the Academy of Model Aeronautics covers you for whatever you fly and wherever you fly. And it doesn't matter if you fly an airplane, helicopter, park flyer, multirotor, quadcopter, sUAS, FPV, DIY drone or even an aerial robot."

JohnShe

Simple story, boy gets toy, boy plays with toy, boy nearly kills someone with toy. Now it is time for boy to receive punishment.

ira d

Granted what he did was unsafe and stupid but what current law did he break and how did the FAA find out about what he did?

Jim Branaum

My Feedback: (3)

I am pretty sure the NYPD turned the video over to them, or at lest the results of their investigation. I will ask next month.

See if this helps with your legal question:

Title 49 of the USC relates to Transportation. Subtitle VII relates to “Aviation Programs” and Part A of Subtitle VII relates to “Commerce and Safety.” It is in this section wherein the FAA obtains its authority to regulate the NAS.49 USC §40103(b) states that “The Administrator shall prescribe air traffic regulations regarding the flight of aircraft for:
(A) Navigating, protecting, and identifying aircraft;
(B) Protecting individuals and property on the ground;
(C) Using the navigable airspace efficiently; and
(D) Preventing collision between aircraft, between aircraft and land or water vehicles, and between aircraft and airborne objects.”

Thomas B

My Feedback: (4)

No argument with that statement, but calling it malicious seems over the top. Stupid and careless, yes.

ira d

Seems to me they are talking about full scale aircraft, As I understand it the FAA is not yet regulating models nor have they published rules for them.

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

The line is getting more blurred everyday. What's so sad it is those that profess to be against us being dragged in to the abyss are very same ones that are facilitating it...

Hossfly

That statement as presented by Jim Branum which YOU copied, Title 49...statements (B) and (D) pretty well subs up anything that is not otherwise covered.
Simply stated, Tile 49, USC provides the authority for anything the FAA needs / wants, etc. to do.

Jim Branaum

My Feedback: (3)

Mr. Cain apparently I was under the misapprehension that my rights to quote that were provided for by the free speech assured me by US Constitution and I did not realize that I had to ask for your permission first. You may continue to chastise me for failing to bow down and worship you if that is what it will take to make you feel better sir..

Ira D. the quote came from this paper, which you should read in full including the comments about it: http://www.suasnews.com/2012/03/1339...rspace-system/

JohnShe

Who called it malicious?

JohnShe

Duh! He nearly killed somebody. The guy who turned in the camera memory card, and I hope that he filed a complaint, stepped out of the way in the nick of time.

JohnShe

You lifted my statement out of context and misinterpreted it either accidentally or maliciously

.

Thomas B

My Feedback: (4)

Then what were you talking about when you used the term malicious? The subject at hand here IS the drone incidents. Or were you talking about 804's planned infractions for scoring financial penaties?..

Trappy, I might agree, is malicious, as he is flaunting common sense. The quad crash in NY is simply stupidity in action, without malice.

JohnShe

Pirker is not malicious just arrogant.

In post #1072, 804 said "Maybe FAA will publish an ala carte list of infractions/fines for us so we will know how to plan our dangerous flights, based on what we can afford."

And I replied in post #1076 "Don't expect your liability insuarnce to kick in. As soon as the claims adjuster discovers that your behavior was malicious you are likely to wind up in jail." You will note that in #1076 I included his statement in context and replied to his last sentence.

From now on read the posts more carefully.

ira d

I quickly read through the paper maybe later I will take time to read it in more detail, But to me it still seems to be refering to full scale operations.
IMO I think the FAA needs to stop trying to fine modelers untill they release some clear concise rules for modelers to go by.

Jim Branaum

My Feedback: (3)

Great! I look forward to you publicly proving that in detail because it is clear the attorney who wrote the paper does not have a clue as to what the correct application of the law is.

You must be a superb lawyer.

JohnShe

perhaps you don't understand. We are not talking about recreational model airplane hobbyists. Pirker was attempting to operate a remote controlled aircraft for profit.; That has nothing to do with recreation. Zwhatshisname was playing with a toy rather foolishly and in the process endangered property and innocent bystanders. That is kind of recreational I suppose, but he was using public airspace without permission.

ira d

Not a lawyer and I dont feel I need to prove anything I am just making a common sense statement.

ira d

Didn't know the FAA had law that you need to have permission to use the airspace.

Jim Branaum

My Feedback: (3)

Most mere mortals would have noticed that the LAWYER who wrote that paper is practiced in aviation law so when you say he is wrong, it is assumed that you know more than any expert in that field. No proof is necessary to call specialists fools but most of the time they do know better than mere mortals and clearly you are the exception since you know it all.

Please go exercise some of those rights you have in the air over the center of your home town at, say at 1700 (that is 5 PM) and, say 90 feet, with a Phantom. Your common sense statement suggests that you will be just fine and the FAA will take a hike.

JohnShe

Wow! You are a day late and a dollar short on what's going on in the world.