JohnShe

So far, the only fines that I am aware of are for "crazy stupid" so the groups would be self defeating if they helped them.

Sport_Pilot

Was the reporter fined for doing the drone video of tornado damage? Or was that a cease and desist order?

Jim Branaum

My Feedback: (3)

If the basis for the fight is valid (and altitude restrictions or compensation issues are not) there may be parties willing to throw money down a black hole, but that would be a heck of a gamble. Please let us know how it works for you.

The entire point that has permeated this thread is the COMPENSATION issue. Almost all authorities at all levels take significantly different views of hobbyists and commercial operations. As has been said countless times in this thread, the general requirements for commercial operations that put people at risk are much more stringent than those for the hobbyist. However what may not have been said and is contributing to your . . confusion is that many times regulations and their enforcement at the commercial level are frequently funded by those in the regulated pool. Before you launch into another one of your rants about commercial interests controlling your ability to start a small business, consider the implications of industry driven regulations with regard to safety.

I expect the FAA to take action and issue strongly enforced regulations for the commercial operator and possibly your state boys do the same for toys. Wouldn't that be neat? Something for everyone!

Before you go off on your name calling rocket again please do some research as there is significant evidence that action of that final nature is on the table for discussion at several state houses under the heading of 'PRIVACY ISSUES'.

Just think, all brought to you in the name of the Constitution!

JohnShe

Good question, the articles that I have found all seem to say that the FAA wants to fine them but has not taken official action. The question remains, was his storm damage drone footage legitimate or "crazy stupid". It is hard to say from the footage whether anyone or anything was endangered. He was flying a toy though, and that creates a problem in itself. Toys are not reliable and pose a danger if used irresponsibly.


There are better ways to overfly the area safely and legitimately. However mass media budget cutting trends are forcing news outlet to take unnecessary chances and avoid safer methods due to costs.

Sport_Pilot

I have never ever said that commercial operation of drones should be left alone because of commercial operations or that they should operate on the same rules as the hobbiest. As always my beat has been that the Federal government has no authority for operations outside of navigable airspace. In fact in many posts I have said that there should be some rules and restrictions. But the Federal government has no authority and is a poor choice for something that is flown over a very small area and only seen locally. State and local governemts are much better equiped to handle this. As we see now the Federal Government only issues warnings or fines to those who happen to post the video on the Web or TV. So they will never catch other unsafe operations. Except of course the ones John rat on.

JohnShe

The navigable airspace oxymoron is clouding your argument. All airspace is either navigable or non-navigable depending on flight restrictions. Therefore, there will exist navigable airspace for drones,once the restrictions are established. The FAR will reflect that fact eventually.

BTW: I am not the only rat out there.

Speaking of, you might like this little piece from the Smithsonian Mag.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/scienc...951433/?no-ist

Bob Pastorello

My Feedback: (198)

Food for thought (maybe) - the FARs have rules and exceptions/waivers for various flight operations, for example "Aerial Spraying" that extends the definition of "navigable airspace". I'm pretty certain that if I flew any of my RC aircraft, whether drone, FPV, or normal heli/aircraft operation within close proximity of that crop duster crowd here, *THEY* would take exception to it, and I imagine the FAA wouldn't like it much, either. And by their operational waivers and exemptions from "normal" FARs, the full-scale operational area is actually defining what "navigable airspace" is.

I'm not inclined to test whether or not my theories are correct, but being a FS pilot also, I'm pretty sure I would have FAA support to any complaint I lodged if I felt my "navigable airspace" was violated by any toys.

Playing semantics for weeks/months in this thread is entertaining, but fruitless.
Rational thinking persons of average intelligence will figure it our darned quick, even if the FAA does *NOT* pass some specific guidelines. Interfere with FS operations that are within THEIR FARs, and you've interfered with "navigable airspace" which is by definition within the regulatory purview and authority of the FAA. They don't need a judge to rule on that point....

Sport_Pilot

I agree with you, but sUAV's or even models flying in navigable air isn't the issue,. This thread is about the operation of sUAV flying outside of navigable airspace and the judges ruling that there are no regulations for such.

Sport_Pilot

ot

The fact that they can fly though non navigable airspace does not make it navigable. The definition only applies to full scale aircraft.

hook57

My Feedback: (21)

"Food for thought (maybe) - "
Sport, you must really get off on your "navigable airspace" argument which you have postured for how long now? You know that I know that you know it has no merit within the context that you posit it.
Sorry guys, been ignoring it (S.P.) for sometime but his recent rants/banters/quibbles are like, you know, a dang bug bite that you just have to scratch at.
By the way Bob P., been flying a Dream 110, which I believe is your design, and it performs just like its name, thanks!
hook (a navigable/non navigable airspace user!)

JohnShe

The airspace used by the drone pilot was never in question. The complaint never mentions navigable airspace at all. Instead, it focuses entirely on the reckless manner in which he operate the drone (or in this case toy foamy).

JohnShe

SP, do you realize that FAA is required to rewrite the airspace definitions because a whole new class of aircraft, UAS, are about the enter our airspace?

Sport_Pilot

They cannot rewrite those definitions, that can only be done by Congress as that comes from the US Code not the FARS.

Sport_Pilot

Yes, that is my point. But the defense brought up the fact that the FAA had no authority for several reasons, including that this was not flown in navigable airspace.

Bob Pastorello

My Feedback: (198)

That "definition" issue was the reason behind my post. FAA does not need to rewrite anything. All they need do is write FARs that deal with the operational definition of "navigable airspace" near the earth in more detail (or more broadly, as they see appropriate) and the limits will then be under the domain of FAA.

The two significant issues of sUAS are still 1) see and avoid full-scale operations *wherever* those FS operations take place, and 2) "protect" the privacy and physical risk exposure of the general populace from intrusion/harm by the sUAS. Defining #1 probably will cover the "commercial" major players, as many of them already function safely and know what they are doing. Item 2, however, is idiot-land, where anyone can buy a toy that is capable of significant risk of harm/injury to people or property and breach privacy of people. I can certainly understand the complexity of trying to create legislative rules to attempt to create reason and logic for those morons that have neither.

As has been very well stated many of times - you cannot write in rules to prevent stupid. Only rules that deal with setting limits of operations so that violations can hopefully be prosecuted which create a deterrent effect.

JohnShe

Nope, if you read the 5 points that the judge made in his decision, you will find no reference to navigable airspace. The judge based his decision solely on the lack of regulations covering model aircraft. Simply put, because Pirker was playing with a toy, the FAA had no jurisdiction.

JohnShe

The FAA wrote the FAR, therefore they can rewrite them as needed.

Sport_Pilot

The judge isn't the defense! It was part of the defense argument, the judge did not discount it so still in play!

Sport_Pilot

They can rewrite the FAR to say you should give all your savings to the FAA but it won't mean squat because the US Code says other wise. So changing the definition of navigable airway won't mean squat because that definition I gave will still be in the US Code.

The FAA just doesn't rule everything despite what some pilots think.

Sport_Pilot

But the definition in the US Code will still be there and it overrules anything in the FAR. They can say all airplanes can fly 5 feet above the ground if that is what you mean, sure. But then we will have planes flying into buidlings and people and they will not do that.

At present some people think that helicopters can fly everywhere but the FAR even has restrictions on that.

Congress already has done the defining,

Jim Branaum

My Feedback: (3)

While that first assertion is wrong, the final sentence there does point out the clear need for FAA regulation of drones because they ARE flying in to buildings and people. See the wedding video and the Manhattan event for well publicized examples. Oh, by the way the wedding incident was under 400 feet so according to the place you have taken your stand there should be no regulation of it. Really? Or do you really think that endangering the public is a cool thing and should not be regulated as you indirectly implied about the emergency medical team in a helicopter refused safe landing by a drone operator? That seems to have been your direction for several months now.

The 'see and avoid' issue has been a serious problem in rider scale operations ever since aviation started, so it is a fantasy to believe that drones, quad copters, or things of that ilk have some magical way to stay away from those issues and not affect anything. The privacy issues are growing and will overwhelm the small stuff in fairly short order as more and more irresponsible folks who claim to be smarter than everyone else post the 'take' from their sensor packages to You Tube or other public media outlets.

The disgusting thing about people of your ilk is that you won't recognize the danger of a loaded gun laying on the floor until some spoiled brat picks it up and kills someone. That is what these sUAV's being flown in peoples faces amount to, as was shown in Australia where the victim got 'lucky' the drone was not 6 inches lower. I guess you think it was wonderful the victim got hurt instead of killed.

Sport_Pilot

Jim, do you really think the FAA regulations overule the US CODE? Do you know what the US Code is? I think not.

The FAA cannot control idiots from flying toys into buildings. So far they have only caught those who post video's on the web or TV,

No matter how hard they try (IMO they won't try hard) they will not be able to take the loaded gun away. The safer alternative is to let state and local government to handle this,

koastrc

Pilot, you have a wealth of knowledge. You also seem to have a lot of interest in this drone thing. You may be on to something about locals enforcing some of the rules regulating drones. These JEA are common between state and fed. I do think because of the emerging technology, This thing will be revisited over and over. It appears to me there is nothing to enforce right now because no one is sure what we have.

Bob Pastorello

My Feedback: (198)

Title 49, USC, Sec 40103 (b) 1 directs the administrator of the FAA to establish rules/regulations and provide guidance covering navigable airspace operations/management, and is very clear in directing that responsibility to the FAA. Therefore, the FAA writes the rules, under the direction of Title 49, USC.

JohnShe

Yes, I have been saying that all along, but I don't think SP gets it. The newest FAA funding law directs the FAA to integrate drones into the NAS. Therefore, the FAA will have to rewrite some of the rules to meet the intent of the law.

The need for regulations in the FAR, by the way, is what got the FAA into trouble. Because the FAA only wrote an Advisory Circular to guide hobbyists, instead of a regulation, Pirker was able to use that loophole to evade his well deserved punishment.