radfordc

My Feedback: (14)

The mind set of the stereotypical "FAA man" is that they are the unquestioned authority, not to be disputed...no matter how flakey or mis-informed they may really be. It's not hard for me to believe that the guy who sent the original "cease and desist" email though that it was much more than a suggestion. Only after the matter reached a judge did someone in the FAA take a step back and "weasel word" there response.

Sport_Pilot

The FAA lost the court case and the press release was a complete fabrication.

N410DC

I do not see how any notice sent by email (or most other electronic means) can be legally binding. Many e-mail messages never get to the intended recipient for a variety of reasons, and anyone with a minimal amount of knowledge can easily forge an official-looking email. The FAA's admission is sound. If they want to send a cease and desist notice, they need to serve the recipient via. a means that can be proven and backed up in Court. Even if a defendant did receive and read a notice, he/she can simply delete the message and claim he/she never saw it. It would be very difficult, perhaps impossible, for the plaintiff to prove that the defendant actually received the notice.

Bob Pastorello

My Feedback: (198)

Sadly,I can attest from professional experience that delivery of, and viewing, an email or other electronic document CAN be established to satisfy rules of evidence, and therefore CAN be used in legal proceedings. All that is required are search and seizure warrants based on probable cause. But that's not the issue in question; just thought I'd clarify a misconception about technical forensics.

N410DC

I have certainly heard of some instances where an e-mail message has been used after being found on a defendant's computer (or perhaps on an e-mail server.) However, if the e-mail was deleted in an unrecoverable manner, there would be no way to prove that it was received; there would be nothing to "search" for, or to "seize." A plaintiff could prove that the message was sent, but I think they would have a hard time proving that it was received and read. This was the point I was trying to make, and this was the point to FAA made in their acknowledgement.

mongo

My Feedback: (15)

n410,
just an fyi,
the email server that sends an email on the final leg of it's travels, and all the others from origin on, do record when and where the email went from them.
now, it "might"be hard to prove someone in particular, at the terminal stop, read any specific email. but easy to prove which computer downloaded it from the final server.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

Agree that in most cases proof of delivery would need to be established. I don't think that was the central issue here though as both sides agree the document came from the FAA, and was received by the other party.

Bob Pastorello

My Feedback: (198)

Well, boys and girls, tomorrow is the deadline for comments. As of this morning over 25,000 on the FAA site. Yikes.
Show of hands - who among us "believe" that the FAA is going to READ every one of them?
Second question - who among us "believes" that the FAA has any (or has ever had) real intent to solicit suggestions for changes and intends to make changes??
Final question - I've not been able to find it anywhere - is there a "due date" for the revision/change of the existing Interpretive Rule? and
What do the words of the Interpretive Rule "become"? (some new statute in FARs?, amendments to CURRENT FARs?, something else?)

[Honestly I don't have any ideas about answers to these questions - does anyone out there know?]

geoardsog5

My Feedback: (31)

Trust me RCers. After 34 years in full scale aviation, I can tell you that the NPRM comment process can work, when it comes to stopping regulatory stupidity.Time is running out - go to www. regulations.gov, comment on Docket#FAA-2014-0396.The site works great, it's easy to do.If enough people comment, FAA will have to listen. Deadline is tomorrow at 11:59 PM E.D.T.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

I can't find it now, but I do recall seeing a comment from someone at the FAA noting that there really were no changes planned, that the comment period is there as a matter of process. They had already reviewed the matter extensively and it was doubtful anything would change. As someone with far more experience than I has indicated above, it's a possibility they will listen. I hope there is room to carve out some waivers/exceptions. I guess we'll see eventually.

DocYates

My Feedback: (102)

Looks like the FAA is putting out the word to the control towers to be watchful of RC / drone activity. They intend to seriously pursue this matter or else theyare looking for ammunition for the fight that looms.

http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/m..._(7_14_14).pdf

JohnShe

I believe tha the FAA is required, by law, to read every comment and respond to them. However, any impact on the inwerpretation will only result from the FAA's commitment to produce an enforceable interpretation of the law. As to when that may happen, I don't know either.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

Wow. It's one thing to have a local cop or park ranger roll up on ya...it's a whole different story when the DOMESTIC EVENTS NETWORK (DEN) is involved. Don't know what it is, but I know I don't want to find out. Sounds expensive!

DocYates

My Feedback: (102)

Well do not fear, according to Poltico there will be a forthcoming declaration from the WH in regards to privacy issues and drones...at least for the "commercial" operator.
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/0...03.html?hp=l21

r_adical

My Feedback: (19)

Its worth noting the document states unusual or suspicious model aircraft activity, If the ATC knows we are there regularly then us flying normally shouldn't be perceived as suspicious or unusual

Heres hoping cuz you never know with alphabet soup agencies

Bob Pastorello

My Feedback: (198)

"Do not fear" ????????
The Politico article claims intergovernment agency coordination, yet says the Exec. Order will be directed to the Department of COMMERCE?????????

Wow...this is getting crazier by the day. I'll bet ALL of us will be surprised by whatever comes our way...We can ALL rest assured that the FAA won't send FAA admins to visit us....THE goons in boots in black SUVs will come from Homeland Security or FBI....

But we needn't worry - if we follow the CBO guidelines, and FAA interpretive rules, r/c life will be good and just rock on....the 'outlaw rogues' who are free-lancing their operations from unknown locations will end up being fair game "rule violators" that will be ferretted out by our services that protect and serve.

DocYates

My Feedback: (102)

I should have said "Do Not Fear" using my sarcastic tone....haha

Thomas B

My Feedback: (4)

The AMA has reached an agreement with the FAA to extend the comment period 60 days. The new expiration date for comments is Sept 24, 2014.

Let's keep those comments coming and make good use of the extension period.

http://amablog.modelaircraft.org/ama...omment-period/

Bob Pastorello

My Feedback: (198)

Great post, and good news. Wow.

Thomas B

My Feedback: (4)

The AMA has reached an agreement with the FAA to extend the comment period 60 days. The new expiration date for comments is Sept 24, 2014.

Let's keep those comments coming and make good use of the extension period.

http://amablog.modelaircraft.org/ama...omment-period/

I agree with what you are saying, but it is not applicable here, as we are not commenting on an NPRM. The call for comments is for the FAA letter of interpretation.

Still important to comment on the letter now and when the long awaited NPRM comes out for sUAS, I predict we will all be making a lot of comments then, as well.

Thomas B

My Feedback: (4)

I agree with what you are saying, but it is not applicable here, as we are not commenting on an NPRM. The call for comments is for the FAA letter of interpretation.

Still important to comment on the letter now and when the long awaited NPRM comes out for sUAS, I predict we will all be making a lot of comments then, as well.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

+1

mkranitz

My Feedback: (60)

Hey Guys,

Just a huge thanks to the more than 1550 who signed the 4-page petition/comment I filed with the FAA several weeks ago. If you haven't signed on, you can read it here:

https://www.change.org/petitions/fed...model-aircraft

As is clearly evident from the lack of discussion in my petition about FPV, I believe it's critical to preserve the core hobby and let rational minds work through the FPV stuff (which straddles the hobby and other areas). I believe trying to defend every aspect of RC simply because it's RC leads to a total loss or at least a significant curtailment of what we do. Most people don't give a rat's behind about our hobby. So if we intend to protect it, we should do it with that in mind. Guys who rant about their right to fly RC need to check that at the door. FPV does present challenges and they need reasonable restrictions.

I strongly urge those making comments to read the petition above and think about what you write. NPR interviewed a law professor that works with the FCC and fielding comments, and the guy said that most comments are rants and are useless. They are IGNORED. If you are going to comment, make it CONSTRUCTIVE. I've read some downright stupid comments from guys in our hobby. The constitution doesn't guarantee your right to fly an Extra 300. By the same token, regulation needs to be smart and not an exercise in paranoid sweeping laws designed to make the FAA's life easier.

I think the BIGGEST weakness in the FAA's interpretation is the artificial distinction between hobby flying and sponsored/test flying when everything else is the same (e.g. line of sight, proper field, proper altitude, etc). That WILL NOT stand up in court. So let's avoid court by getting them to pull it off the table NOW.

I think they have a huge case for regulating FPV aircraft. We are not going to win rights by commenting on that. That puzzle needs engineers, studies, and technology so make the skies compatible for full scale and fpv/drone/amazon deliver quad aircraft.

In the meantime, I'm going to the field...

MK

Bob Pastorello

My Feedback: (198)

++11

Sport_Pilot

If they are going to arrest people for playing with their cool toys, I don't understand how we are protected. At least with what the FAA is saying.