FAA intentionaly hyping up Drone News. AMA needs to go to WAR!
#101
One last item...
"I'm not sure how anyone can argue that something that cannot be seen by the naked eye is within the boundaries of line of sight."
I agree. I am not saying that it cannot be seen. i am saying that it doesn't necessarily have to be seen by the Pilot. You can use a spotter. If it is being operated in a boundary that could be seen by the naked eye, then it is within the boundary of Visual Line of Sight. Then someone could put on goggles and view from the airplane and fly within that boundary and be within the boundaries of Line of Sight.
"I'm not sure how anyone can argue that something that cannot be seen by the naked eye is within the boundaries of line of sight."
I agree. I am not saying that it cannot be seen. i am saying that it doesn't necessarily have to be seen by the Pilot. You can use a spotter. If it is being operated in a boundary that could be seen by the naked eye, then it is within the boundary of Visual Line of Sight. Then someone could put on goggles and view from the airplane and fly within that boundary and be within the boundaries of Line of Sight.
#102
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Spring Hill, FL
Posts: 893
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"(2) flown within visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft" is the key.
I contend there are two terms relevant here. Line of Sight and Visual Contact.
Line of Sight is the unobstructed boundary. This does not infer visual contact. You can use the "person operating the aircraft" if you choose. It doesn't change the fact that it is a boundary, not necessarily maintaining visual contact. I chose the transmitter, because of an industry accepted definition, that is the Radio and Wireless Transmission industry which is what we rely on.
Visual Contact is to keep looking at the object (airplane in this case).
This become important because some can use a spotter to keep visual contact and the plane can be flown within the Line of Sight. The AMA has specific rules stating this.
The bottom line is that Congress Dictated to the FAA that Model Aircraft following the rules of an organization such as the AMA (not naming the AMA) is exempt from FAA rules because they are deemed as being operated in a safe manner in the NAS, by definition. The FAA violates Congress' directive with this interpretation.
I do agree with one point of yours..."It is not possible to write in such a way that cannot be misinterpreted by a reader determined to do so."
I contend there are two terms relevant here. Line of Sight and Visual Contact.
Line of Sight is the unobstructed boundary. This does not infer visual contact. You can use the "person operating the aircraft" if you choose. It doesn't change the fact that it is a boundary, not necessarily maintaining visual contact. I chose the transmitter, because of an industry accepted definition, that is the Radio and Wireless Transmission industry which is what we rely on.
Visual Contact is to keep looking at the object (airplane in this case).
This become important because some can use a spotter to keep visual contact and the plane can be flown within the Line of Sight. The AMA has specific rules stating this.
The bottom line is that Congress Dictated to the FAA that Model Aircraft following the rules of an organization such as the AMA (not naming the AMA) is exempt from FAA rules because they are deemed as being operated in a safe manner in the NAS, by definition. The FAA violates Congress' directive with this interpretation.
I do agree with one point of yours..."It is not possible to write in such a way that cannot be misinterpreted by a reader determined to do so."
(2) flown within visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft
- of vision: relating to vision or sight
- visible: able or intended to be seen by the eyes, especially as opposed to being registered by one of the other senses or by a machine
My guess is that you also have your own separate definition for “visual”. Yes this discussion certainly proves the point of my signature line.
Frank
#103
Actually Merriam-Webster says:
1 : a line from an observer's eye to a distant point
2 : the line between two points; specifically : the straight path between a transmitting antenna (as for radio or television signals) and a receiving antenna when unobstructed by the horizon
I am just saying that the eye does not have to be directly looking at that distant point to be within the line of sight.
1 : a line from an observer's eye to a distant point
2 : the line between two points; specifically : the straight path between a transmitting antenna (as for radio or television signals) and a receiving antenna when unobstructed by the horizon
I am just saying that the eye does not have to be directly looking at that distant point to be within the line of sight.
#104
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Spring Hill, FL
Posts: 893
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually Merriam-Webster says:
1 : a line from an observer's eye to a distant point
2 : the line between two points; specifically : the straight path between a transmitting antenna (as for radio or television signals) and a receiving antenna when unobstructed by the horizon
I am just saying that the eye does not have to be directly looking at that distant point to be within the line of sight.
1 : a line from an observer's eye to a distant point
2 : the line between two points; specifically : the straight path between a transmitting antenna (as for radio or television signals) and a receiving antenna when unobstructed by the horizon
I am just saying that the eye does not have to be directly looking at that distant point to be within the line of sight.
line of sight
noun
- Also called line of sighting. an imaginary straight line running through the aligned sights of a firearm, surveying equipment, etc.
- Astronomy . an imaginary line from an observer to a celestial body, coincident with the path traveled by light rays received from the body.
- Radio. a straight line connecting two points sufficiently high and near one another so that the line is entirely above the surface of the earth.
- Ophthalmology , line of vision.
- sightline.
Only one of those uses the word “visual”
line of vision
noun Ophthalmology .
a straight line that connects the fovea centralis of an eye with the point on which the eye focuses.
Frank
Last edited by phlpsfrnk; 07-24-2014 at 06:55 AM. Reason: Add attachment
#105
Thread Starter
Not hair splitting, the dfinition of LOS has nothing to do with sight.
http://www.answers.com/topic/line-of-sight
http://www.answers.com/topic/line-of-sight
#107
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
Sure looks like it has something to do with vision....but hey, looks like the issue has been remedied with a Websters Dictionary definition and an answer.com website comment. Someone alert the FAA, we can resolve the issue. Always get a chuckle out of Webster definitions and wiki pages being used as "proof". Good stuff.
n., pl., lines of sight.
n., pl., lines of sight.
- An imaginary line from the eye to a perceived object.
- An unobstructed path between sending and receiving antennas.
#108
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Spring Hill, FL
Posts: 893
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sure looks like it has something to do with vision....but hey, looks like the issue has been remedied with a Websters Dictionary definition and an answer.com website comment. Someone alert the FAA, we can resolve the issue. Always get a chuckle out of Webster definitions and wiki pages being used as "proof". Good stuff.
n., pl., lines of sight.
n., pl., lines of sight.
- An imaginary line from the eye to a perceived object.
- An unobstructed path between sending and receiving antennas.
Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/about/discla...#ixzz38P8IUMsj
Frank
#109
Thread Starter
EXACTLY: "Answers does not endorse, approve, or certify such information, nor does it guarantee the accuracy, completeness, efficacy, timeliness, or correct sequencing of such information. Information in the Services may or may not be current as of the date of your access, and Answers has no duty to update and maintain the information, reports, or statements on the Services. Additionally, the information in the Services may be changed periodically without prior notice. All content in the Services is provided "as is." Use of such information is voluntary, and reliance on it should only be undertaken after an independent review of its accuracy, completeness, efficacy, and timeliness. Additionally, please note that WikiAnswers is a community-based question-and-answer service using the "wiki" approach of developing answers that the community constantly improves. Answers allows ANYONE at any time to write and edit content in this service."
Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/about/discla...#ixzz38P8IUMsj
Frank
Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/about/discla...#ixzz38P8IUMsj
Frank
Why does that matter? Answers agrees with Websters, Wikipedia, and the Dictionary of Engineering.. http://www.dictionaryofengineering.c...-of-sight.html
#110
Senior Member
My Feedback: (2)
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Jackson, MI
Posts: 2,102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can't believe this has gone on for 5 pages!
I'm with phlpsfrnk on this, the OP's thread is based on a bogus premise. Go to WAR, really?
The emperor has no clothes...
TimJ put it well:
The Feds are trying to intimidate an activity it has no regulation against.
Also, there is NO 400-foot 'rule', except within 3 miles of an airport, and THEN you 'should' contact the airport authority and ADVISE them. You can still fly above 400 feet, folks.
And there are no 'chartered' fields...
Originally Posted by Sport_Pilot Did you not read the article? Or are you talking about the New York incident? I have no idea on that one. Did the quadcopter get to close? Or did the helicopter chase the quadcopter?
I wonder if you did? The title of your post states the FAA is intentionally doing something and your first post states the article provides "proof". The article itself was aimed at sensationalized drone news stories often not being very accurate; a concept that should surprise no one. The author’s summary at the end states just the opposite of what you are trying to imply.
I'm with phlpsfrnk on this, the OP's thread is based on a bogus premise. Go to WAR, really?
The emperor has no clothes...
TimJ put it well:
here is the proof you need to show that the FAA is bending the truth. http://www.faa.gov/news/press_releas...6674&cid=TW234
In that article the FAA is claiming a victory, when in fact that is NOT the truth. IN FACT THIS IS THE TRUTH! http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the...ls-court-rules
In that article the FAA is claiming a victory, when in fact that is NOT the truth. IN FACT THIS IS THE TRUTH! http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the...ls-court-rules
Also, there is NO 400-foot 'rule', except within 3 miles of an airport, and THEN you 'should' contact the airport authority and ADVISE them. You can still fly above 400 feet, folks.
And there are no 'chartered' fields...
#111
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Canisteo,
NY
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Laws, laws, laws and more laws. I will say it again. It does not matter how much we argue or what the FAA rules or laws are. The only people that will be effected are the honest people who actually follow the laws and more than likely would not fly like this anyway. The people that still want to fly FPV will continue to fly rogue. The only way the FAA could try to curb these activites would be an all out ban on the sale of FPV equipment, and even then I am not sure they could stop it. Once again, you will NEVER be able to legislate common sense, morality and safety. It is to bad our brain dead human race cannot get a grasp on this simple fact.
"And there are no 'chartered' fields... "
What is an AMA Chartered Field or are you talking about something else?
"And there are no 'chartered' fields... "
What is an AMA Chartered Field or are you talking about something else?
#113
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Spring Hill, FL
Posts: 893
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe that is a reference to FAA AC 91-57 dated June 9, 1981 which states in part;
c. Do not fly model aircraft higher than 400 feet above the surface. When flying aircraft within 3 miles of an airport, notify the airport operator or..."
http://www.modelaircraft.org/files/540-c.pdf
Please note the difference in punctuation which changes the meaning of the statements between the FAA document and the AMA safety code. Whenever there is an issue with models, FPV or otherwise the FAA points to AC 91-57 not the AMA safety code. The AC 91-57 is clearly mentioned in the Background discusion of the interpretation and was the basis for the wording in the interpretation of the special rule for model aircraft in section 336 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012.
Frank
#114
Thread Starter
Eddie,
I believe that is a reference to FAA AC 91-57 dated June 9, 1981 which states in part;
c. Do not fly model aircraft higher than 400 feet above the surface. When flying aircraft within 3 miles of an airport, notify the airport operator or..."
http://www.modelaircraft.org/files/540-c.pdf
Please note the difference in punctuation which changes the meaning of the statements between the FAA document and the AMA safety code. Whenever there is an issue with models, FPV or otherwise the FAA points to AC 91-57 not the AMA safety code. The AC 91-57 is clearly mentioned in the Background discusion of the interpretation and was the basis for the wording in the interpretation of the special rule for model aircraft in section 336 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012.
Frank
I believe that is a reference to FAA AC 91-57 dated June 9, 1981 which states in part;
c. Do not fly model aircraft higher than 400 feet above the surface. When flying aircraft within 3 miles of an airport, notify the airport operator or..."
http://www.modelaircraft.org/files/540-c.pdf
Please note the difference in punctuation which changes the meaning of the statements between the FAA document and the AMA safety code. Whenever there is an issue with models, FPV or otherwise the FAA points to AC 91-57 not the AMA safety code. The AC 91-57 is clearly mentioned in the Background discusion of the interpretation and was the basis for the wording in the interpretation of the special rule for model aircraft in section 336 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012.
Frank
#115
Idiots keep feeding the hysteria
[h=1]Amazon Employee Allegedly Flies Drone Into Space Needle[/h]
http://seattle.cbslocal.com/2014/07/...-space-needle/
http://seattle.cbslocal.com/2014/07/...-space-needle/
#117
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
And now let's get ready for the "see the media is hyping this stuff" comments too. They report the news, and that sounds like news...just not good news. No multi-rotor flying recklessly...no story. The only part of the story that feels completely irrelevant is who the guy works for. I see the tie in because his employer was one of the first to suggest using these for business use, but he was not there working, he was there as a tourist. Interesting to note some people swore it crashed, and the video proved that wrong. And, interesting as well is how fast the cops got there and then to the hotel to find that specific room. Must be more to the story.
#118
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Spring Hill, FL
Posts: 893
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Frank
#119
IMHO, this is why it is so important that we make sure the Congressional directive stating that Model Aircraft should follow the rules of a Community/Membership Based Organization. Once it is determined that anyone flying a Model Aircraft under the AMA rules is by definition flying safely in the National Airspace, it takes the FAA out of the equation.
Which is what I believe Congress was directing in the first place.
Which is what I believe Congress was directing in the first place.
#121
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Spring Hill, FL
Posts: 893
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not sure how you came to that conclusion? What is moot, AC 91-57 as a whole or some specific parts? 336 certainly validates and expands notify the airport operator part. Except for the change from three to five miles there is nothing new in that interpretation.
Frank
Frank
#122
Senior Member
My Feedback: (2)
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Jackson, MI
Posts: 2,102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Advisory Circulars, although not regulatory, are nonetheless used by the FAA to go after folks for 'unsafe practices'. What about AMA'ers who know not of AC 91-57, but use the AMA Safety Code?
http://www.modelaircraft.org/files/105.pdf
Plus the FAA wants to use '5 miles' in their latest revision of a non-reg? Let the lawyers duke it out I guess...
One last thing, the FAA may be slow in implementing all this due to ICAO rules/proposals, implementation of ADS-B (google it), and the fact that some countries don't have a 'spotter' requirement for FPV.
http://www.modelaircraft.org/files/105.pdf
(c) Not fly higher than approximately 400 feet above ground level within three (3) miles of an airport without notifying the airport operator.
One last thing, the FAA may be slow in implementing all this due to ICAO rules/proposals, implementation of ADS-B (google it), and the fact that some countries don't have a 'spotter' requirement for FPV.
Last edited by eddieC; 07-25-2014 at 10:20 AM.
#123
Thread Starter
Section 336 has no 400 foot requirement outside of 5 miles from and airport. The FAA interpretation does not mention any other requirement. So unless the FAA changes their mind from their interpretation the matter is moot.
#124
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Spring Hill, FL
Posts: 893
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Frank
#125
Senior Member
My Feedback: (11)
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: saint joseph,
MO
Posts: 1,253
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How can you say the FAA is hyping things when you have idiots like this making the news?
http://news.msn.com/us/toy-drone-dis...ornia-wildfire
http://news.msn.com/us/toy-drone-dis...ornia-wildfire