Sport_Pilot

But that is basically what they did in the Pirker case. No he did not have a ticket to pull, but they did fine him. Sure what he did was dangerous to people around him, but it did not endanger a full scale aircraft so what business was that to the FAA?

There is also an inherent danger to fellow modelers doing rolls 5 feet off the ground. The wings could hit the ground and break off, or the engine could come flying off or a prop blade break. These parts could hit someone and hurt them. The FAA said they could apply Part 91 at will so they could apply the part about doing aerobatics close to people. What was that distance? 500 feet I believe.

eddieC

My Feedback: (2)

I've always said, we have the best justice system money can buy.

My concern are all the new laws and regulations the Feds and state, local and muni authorities are enacting. Once they're in place, they'll be very difficult, nigh impossible, to retract. That's why we need to have our voices heard at every level, and keep the authorities in place. They are OUR servants, and are trying to make it just the opposite.

eddieC

My Feedback: (2)

You'd best keep away from the XFC, E-Fest, and ETOC then.

cj_rumley

AMA final comments on the FAA interpretation if it matters to anyone participating in this discussion thread.

As for OP's question, of course it is fear mongering, something that is basic to AMA's bread and butter and so they are good at it. You don't sell insurance without fostering and exploiting fear, and AMA could not sustain itself without selling insurance. This instance is a little different as to the fear du jour they are selling but the bottom line, literally, is the same objective.

Hossfly

JohnShe, you do bring in (1)some good, (2)some funny, and (3) some items rather less than knowledgeable of the real world that we live and work in. One of these items (3) is IMO, the FAA Air Carrier Inspector . There are all kinds of personalities working for and with FAA. I have survived all kinds. Most are very much as you state in post #50.
On the other hand there are some that are looking to make a name for themselves. Like where I live in the country, there are a fair supply of copperhead snakes. I am outside frequently, I have to clip trees, burn brush, etc. and keep the snakes off the porch areas and away from my big barn where they try to get into. Some folks that come by are afraid of the 9 shot .22 revolver hanging on my belt. You would probably call me paranoid. However none of my kids and grand-kids or such or company ever gets bothered with my ways, None have been bitten or even close to a snake. Several have seen me clip a head at 50 feet away, when the head pops out of tall grass or bushes.
So, MR JohnShe, watching all kinds of persons around you, and your staying aware of their actions can make for a happier tomorrow. Keep your airplanes flying, and not in someone else's car as "evidence". Maybe rub some of that paranoia on yourself.

JohnShe

That is a perfectly valid point. Local law enforcement should have acted, but they didn't. I should have been there to dial 911, but I am not ubiquitous. The FAA tried to make a federal case out of it and the poor results just demonstrated their limitations.

JohnShe

Fortunately, paranoia is not contagious. There is nothing to fear but fear itself, blind unreasoning fear. Respect your copperhead snakes, don't fear them.

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

So do you respect all the never ending sociopaths you incessantly refer to??? LOL

That's a good one...worth writing down.

JohnShe

Of course I do. They have to be understood to be defeated.

I doubt that you could remember it any other way.

phlpsfrnk

Whether you agree with their statement or not does not matter, that is their stated policy.

http://www.faa.gov/uas/

Frank

Sport_Pilot

The FAA was given a mandate to regulate navigable airspace, and has no authority on the ground. The AC was an advisory and the FAA cannot enforce it except to use it as evidence of reckless flying.

MajorTomski

Aww come on Sport, put it in a little common sense format. Why do you think home-built airplanes have a 50-hour fly off period out over remote areas? Why is the minim altitude over populated areas higher than over un-populated areas? Why are there restricted airspace around a nuclear facilities? Why can't a part 103 ultralight fly over congested areas? All designed to protect people on the ground. It's got nothing to do with 'authority on the ground', it has to do with keeping the death toll down.

Sport_Pilot

I have no issue with what you wrote. I have issue with the FAA regulating models and other sUAV flying under FAA minimum altitudes (IE non navigable airspace). They are staking claims on airspace that they were never given a mandate to regulate.

From US Code 40103

Quote:

(b) Use of Airspace.
— (1) The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall develop plans and policy for the use of the navigable airspace and assign by regulation or order the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. The Administrator may modify or revoke an assignment when required in the public interest.

In otherwords they were never given the authority for airspace below FAA minimums. Also there is a considerable difference in a jetliner crashing likely killing hundreds of people and a model crashing likely killing only one, but more likely to cause injury requiring a few bandaids.

Dangerous activity is better handled by the local police in any event as the Pirker case proved.

JohnShe

First, your issue with altitude is ridiculous. We know that ATC controls fixed wing on the ground at airports, airfields and cow pasture runways. We know that that they control all aircraft both fixed and rotary wing from the moment they leave the ground (which usually is under 400 ft) up to any altitude that they are capable of flying.

Secondly, I am in agreement that almost all sUAS incidents involving people and property should be acted on by local law enforcement. The problem is, they don't always get involved. So I think the FAA has an obligation to make a federal case of it. And, to do that, they need regulations on the books as they have learned from the Pirker case.

TimJ

I love how the voices of reason are ignored in this thread.

Sport_Pilot

John you do not understand navigable airspace. It is not fixed with unbreakable boarders. The navigable airspace is definined by the minimum altitude limits of Part 91. Of that airplanes are allowed to take off and land on any property with permission of the property owner. When the airplane takes off and lands flying from or to its level flight minimum altitude picture a 500 foot radius bubble around the aircraft. The same is true when a helicopter flys below the minimum altitudes as allowed in part 91. Also the FAA has authority of any certified aircraft. Also the navigable airspace mandate I quoted above has nothing to do with FAA control. It has to do with their authority to regulate. To control an aircraft is to the direct the aircraft where to fly to provide seperation from other aircraft. For that they can use non navigable airspace in an emergency.

And I don't want the FAA to make federal cases out of mole hills! I don't care how much bad press the FAA gets, it's a waste of taxpayers money to fight losing battles and bluff its way through.

MajorTomski

Ahh and there's the rub. To what standard do you want the LEO's working to? How do you create an equitable local law for things that fly that are fairly uniform across the country?

The whole reason the CAA/FAA was created was s that there'd be a single standard of design safety for all airplanes across the US. Otherwise you'd have 48 state versions of what is or is not an airplane.

So we turn to the Federal government to standardize things but if they do it poorly we get what we're suffering with in these threads.

Did anyone else read the AMA's corporate responses to the FAA interpretive document. It actually made sense.

Sport_Pilot

We are not talking about airliners flying coast to coast here. We are talking about model airplanes flying from point A back to point A. You are talking about different communities with different notions about saftey and responsibility. So you don't want uniformity. That is why we are a nation of states and not one totalitarian federal government.

Why would you even consider letting the FAA tell us what is safe or not, except of course when it is interering with the flight path of a full scale aircraft?

JohnShe

So in some states it will be OK to hit people with your toy airplane? I sure wouldn't want to live there. What about causing traffic accidents, or disrupting construction activities?

MajorTomski

Sport Flyer, come to Oklahoma City where there's a pathetic little law on the city books prohibiting flying models of any kind in any city park at any time UNLESS it is in a city designated model airplane flying field. And there are TWO of them for a city of half a million.

A councils knee jerk reaction to renegade jerks who couldn't understand repeatedly flying combat on a soccer field in a crowed park was unsafe.

JohnShe

Well, you have 2 park flyer fields,that's a start. Why don't you get together with some friends and work with the city government to set up more? It is possible you know. I worked with a group to get our little town to let us use some unused town land for a community garden. With a good plan and some serious homework, you could easily find more locations for approvable flying fields.

Sport_Pilot

I really don't see anything wrong with that. And it has nothing to do with the subject as this would be allowed regardless. And how would this be better if the FAA were involved?

Sport_Pilot

Well presently that would be covered by either criminal or civil law in every state. So your supposition is completely invalid.

phlpsfrnk

Sacrilege! are you a heretick or something? This is an internet forum. Common sense or the voices of reason have no place in this or any other thread.

Frank

JohnShe

I agree with Frank, if we only used sound reasoning good sense, this thread and many others would not be any fun.