porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

Yup, it's an interesting read. I thought I had added that yesterday or the day before, but I think it was in another thread. Someone had posted it and attempted to indicate the FAA had somehow "lost" in that release. Far from it. And you're right, not one word about quads, mutlirotors, or "drones". Model aircraft is repeated. At the end of the day this is what they are concerned with:

The FAA may take enforcement action against anyone who operates a UAS in a way that endangers the safety of the national airspace system. This authority is designed to protect users of the airspace as well as people and property on the ground.

With that posture and approach, it's doubtful they will not continue to march forward as they want. I think the best hope is to get some waivers and more specific language, rather than the broad brush approach (ex: commercial use/demo pilots).

N410DC

I agree; we shoud all read this.


After reading it, however, I noticed that the FAA made the point (repeatedly) that they have unrestricted authority to take action against any aircraft (even model aircraft that are used for hobb/recreational purposes) if the aircraft poses a safety threat towards full scale aircraft or people on the ground. This claim is obviously under debate, but it begs the question: how did the FAA claim that the search and rescue operations conducted by Texas Equusearch constitute a safety risk? They preached about safety, but did not mention a specific alleged safety risk posed by Texas Equusearch. If these operations did not pose such risk, then the FAA's stance would be weakened, but the FAA'S own admission.


The FAA brags about granting some waivers for search and rescue "...within a matter of hours..." I am not impressed. When it comes to search and rescue, a few hours is plenty of time for people to die. Unless I am mistaken, The Civil Air Patrol does not have to wait for hours to get permission from the FAA to search for a downed aircraft (and its dying pilots/passengers), but the FAA expects organizations such as Texas Equusearch to sit on their thumbs while bureaucrats decide whether or not the company should be allowed to save someone's life.


The Pirker case was dismissed, even though the alleged actions in this case (e.g. flying in close proximity to people at very low altitudes) posed a greater risk of harm than the operations conducted by Texas Equusearch. The FAA therefore cannot be surprised that they lost the Texas Equusearch case as well. Indeed, the latter organization's mission is focused on saving lives, not harming people.

BarracudaHockey

My Feedback: (11)

Interesting.

I see there's no mention there of 400'

ira d

It kind of seems the FAA is unwilling to work with the AMA or local officials that have a valid use for drones or anyone that may want to use drones. IMO the
FAA should have set down first with all uas operators hobby or otherwise and came up with some rules that everyone could live with.

warningshot

I beleive they did just that a few years back. I also think that AMA was there.

ira d

I know the FAA has been talking to the AMA but the FAA did not IMO disclose what they really wanted nor was any agreement reached. I say this
because the AMA appears to have been blind sighted by the interpretation.

JohnShe

Isn't that what they are doing? The whole idea of posting their interpretation for comments is to sit down with the effected public and work out a reasonable deal.

ira d

Not the way I see it this should have been worked out before they posted their interpretation.

DocYates

My Feedback: (102)

N410DC sez "The FAA brags about granting some waivers for search and rescue "...within a matter of hours..." I am not impressed. When it comes to search and rescue, a few hours is plenty of time for people to die. Unless I am mistaken, The Civil Air Patrol does not have to wait for hours to get permission from the FAA to search for a downed aircraft (and its dying pilots/passengers), but the FAA expects organizations such as Texas Equusearch to sit on their thumbs while bureaucrats decide whether or not the company should be allowed to save someone's life."

Actually the CAP cannot deploy without several steps being taken. The local authorities have to make a formal proposal thru the state Wing and this is forwarded to National Command. If the mission is approved then permission is granted for it and it is funded, and then the aircraft is released. It is not as simple as calling together the guys and going out to look, all assets are controlled and directed by national command. I too have found it frustrating but it is the probelms of government beauracracy. From reading this article published by the FAA I think this was a direct repsonse to "US", the modeling community, telling us that they do have the authority to make these rules and enforce them, and they extend from the commercial operator to the hobbyist. If you fly in a reckless or dangerous manner using poor judgement and are breaking a rule you can look forward to answering to someone. For years we never policed ourselves and the AMA had no authority either. A few morons have made national news and got their 15 minutes of fame and now we will all pay for it.
From the rules I have read it will not really detract from the type of flying I do now. I am also a full scale pilot and am aware of airspace restrictions and familar with the specifications of each. I think the FAA intends to go full speed ahead with these rules, with probably a few little tweaks. In the big scheme of things our voice is pretty small. For the rebels out there who want to fight them, be ready to empty your pocketbook because these legal battles will be lengthy and costly, and I seriously doubt the AMA is going to pony up the legal representation to assist you.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

The Pirker case is not finalized. Also, where did the FAA lose the Texas Equusearch case, are they back up flying? While not specifically stated in the document, I believe the FAAs position would be that the model aircraft would pose some type of safety hazard to people or property where it is flying. Yes, I realize an scale craft can do the same, but FAA is o/k with them obviously. There needs to be exceptions granted though, and they do say they can do this in a matter of ours. I have serious doubts about that claim though. A federal agency moving within hours?

JohnShe

But the way I see it, is that it is being worked out with the effected populace right now. perhaps you don't understand the negotiation process. The first step is to propose what is wanted by one side. Then the other side voices objections and proposes an alternative. That is exactly what is happening now. Our job is to voice objection and propose alternatives. Have you done your job? As of this morning, 25,708 (counting me) people have done their job, what about you?

ira d

Yes I have.

Bob Pastorello

My Feedback: (198)

DocYates - "...From reading this article published by the FAA I think this was a direct repsonse to "US", the modeling community, telling us that they do have the authority to make these rules and enforce them, and they extend from the commercial operator to the hobbyist. If you fly in a reckless or dangerous manner using poor judgement and are breaking a rule you can look forward to answering to someone. For years we never policed ourselves and the AMA had no authority either. A few morons have made national news and got their 15 minutes of fame and now we will all pay for it.
From the rules I have read it will not really detract from the type of flying I do now. I am also a full scale pilot and am aware of airspace restrictions and familar with the specifications of each. I think the FAA intends to go full speed ahead with these rules, with probably a few little tweaks. In the big scheme of things our voice is pretty small. For the rebels out there who want to fight them, be ready to empty your pocketbook because these legal battles will be lengthy and costly, and I seriously doubt the AMA is going to pony up the legal representation to assist you."

DocYates - you are RIGHT on target with your post here...others may disagree, but I certainly don't. The acts of a few moronic dickheads has put ALL of "us" on the FAA radar, and that is the ultimate "poking the Bear" in aviation. For all the AMA's well-intended members and leaders, the stupid few seem to have blown the whole game.

I hope it does not come to pass...

JohnShe

Glad to hear it, the more the merrier. Maybe we have a chance to get control of the hobby.

Bob Pastorello

My Feedback: (198)

Food for thought - "The illusion of control is the tendency for human beings to believe they can control or at least influence outcomes which they clearly cannot."

krzy4rc

My Feedback: (2)

I think one of the end-games to this should be some kind of agreement that if a Model Aircraft is flown within the guidelines set out by the AMA, then by definition it is deemed "safe operation" and is not under the purview of the FAA, as directed by Congress. This would include paid endeavors, such as training, testing, etc..

I think it should include FPV (goggles and all). If it is flow within the boundary of Line of Sight of the pilot, and with a spotter (as designated by AMA), then Visual Contact need not be kept by the pilot him/herself.

JohnShe

May the supreme being (if there is one)
grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
the courage to change the things that I can
and the wisdom to know the difference.

Don't give up, we haven't lost yet. Nor is it a lost cause.

Sport_Pilot

Equafax is flying, the judge said the same thing as in the Pirker case. No regulations, no restrictions. The FAA post was a complete lie.

JohnShe

Maybe Texas Equusearch is flying, but not for any search and rescue operation. They do not have a contract nor has any S&R operation asked the FAA for a permit to allow them to fly. These guys are just naive kids playing with toys. they have nothing of value to offer and will undoubtedly interfere with real S&R ops and maybe cause another accident.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

Trying to clarify, are you stating that a post about the FAA was a lie, or the press release that was issued by the FAA describing the outcome of the court case was a complete lie? If it's the FAA press release you're talking about, I'm not following that logic. They reported on the results of a court case that was decided in their favor. I get that we might disagree on the interpretation of the decision, but I don't understand the "complete lie" comment.

bradpaul

Well it depends on what is a "win". Taken from the FPVLab website:

Quote:

In this case, Brendan was actually arguing that the FAA's emails WERE legally a cease and desist order so that the court would have jurisdiction to overrule them. The FAA actually argued that its own emails were not legally binding and weren't actually cease and desist orders. The judge ruled against Brendan and granted the FAA's motion to dismiss, but only on the basis that the email actually was bogus and didn't have any legal effect.

Here is the actual court order, forget the PR releases............................. http://www.scribd.com/doc/234393603/...uusearch-order

So the FAA is 0-2 in being able to enforce their orders............................................ ......................... with FPV

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

Fair enough, PR releases are rarely unbiased and always put the best spin on things for the author. I don't think a govt agency would post or release a completely false statement knowingly, given how many different levels of scrutiny they go through before being "released".

It is truly bizarre to have witnessed the FAA argue that it's own papers (e-mails etc) were not really binding, just "suggestions". To any average person reading that e-mail/opinion, it sure looked like something that stated an official position. The devils in the small details, and hairsplitting and parsing of words is what lawyers do best. I think both sides will win some battles, but only one side is going to be the overall victor. I've enjoyed reading Brendan's work, even if I don't always agree with him. I've had a few back and forth discussions with him too, he's a smart dude. He is what every client hopes for, a reasoned and aggressive advocate working on behalf of his client.

onewasp

To all:

I quit posting some time ago and really do not wish to resume. However, after 53 years of very active RC flying I have one question/statement with obvious overtones:

I do not remember one single full scale/RC model conflict UNTIL we began to see the quad/multi copter and more to the point the FPV aspect.

Also, from local experience, many if not most of those flying these do not belong to AMA or to a club ------ therefore how could any stance
by the AMA have any real effect?

It seems to me that the AMA regulars are paying the price for actions by those paying heed only to their own satisfaction.
L-o-n-g life experience has shown me that these folks won't really change any personal behavior pattern unless forced to do so by some
higher authority which is NOT the AMA.!

Now that I've made my point I will crawl back to my favorite rock and read but not post.

Hoping for a better more logical tomorrow ----

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

not sure what you mean by "full scale conflict".... Can't recall a whole lot regarding FPV that I couldn't I give at least two that were conventional modeling incidents.

krzy4rc

My Feedback: (2)

I hope you post more!

Basically, the original directive by Congress all but spelled out the AMA with its wording "the aircraft is operated in accordance with a community-based set of safety guidelines and within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization.

That being said, I believe that Congress is telling the FAA to leave alone all modelers that follow the AMA rules. If the interpretation would just say that I would be happy.

I think we all agree the the thrust of this issue comes from the promulgation of the FPV crowd. But, don't say that like its a bad thing. Its progress. Its a new dimension of OUR hobby. We just have to come up with some safety rules, and blocking the use of goggles (I believe in the end monitors will be included also) and requiring Visual Contact at all time IS NOT THE ANSWER. If we follow the AMA Guidelines as they are now, we ought to be EXEMPT from FAA scrutiny, by the Congressional Directive.

I also believe (and the IRS does too) that a hobby can include the exchange of money. You just can't depend solely on that money and in the end, not make a profit over several years. (I would have to be paid a lot of money to make an overall profit.) It would be nice to have income to support my habit. Also, you have to consider product testing to keep airframes and equipment safe. You couldn't do that under this interpretation.

Its a bad thing to let stand. Hopefully some eyes up there are open. I think in the end, we will have to follow the AMA rules (if not be a member)