Fear mongering? AMA members with airman certificates?
09-25-2014, 06:45 AM
#76
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Round Hill, VA
Posts: 1,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually, that is only the case when someone is injured or their property damaged and the file a claim. What about reckless behavior? Pirker was lucky, he caused no damage, but the potential for disaster was very real. There are no laws against that, only federal regulations. In fact, local law enforcement did not act because there was no damage or injury and nobody filed a claim.
09-25-2014, 08:31 AM
#77
There are no laws against that, only federal regulations.
The case was thrown out because there was no regulation covering this. As for as the law, I am ok with only the civil law covering that. Model airplanes, especially when less than 10 pounds cannot cause enough damage or injury to make it a federal case .
09-25-2014, 08:48 AM
#78
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Round Hill, VA
Posts: 1,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
.
There are now!
A two pound park flyer could easily cause an auto accident with fatalities. there need to be clear restrictions on when and where people can play with their toys. if local laws don't cover it then it's time to make a federal case of it.
Oklahoma City has the right idea, but not every community or state has a clear no-nonsense law on the books like that.
A two pound park flyer could easily cause an auto accident with fatalities. there need to be clear restrictions on when and where people can play with their toys. if local laws don't cover it then it's time to make a federal case of it.
Oklahoma City has the right idea, but not every community or state has a clear no-nonsense law on the books like that.
09-25-2014, 11:02 AM
#79
A two pound park flyer could easily cause an auto accident with fatalities.
09-25-2014, 11:10 AM
#80
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Round Hill, VA
Posts: 1,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A fatality caused by an aircraft is part of the FAA's responsibility. Irresponsible behavior is now considered domestic terrorism.
09-25-2014, 12:03 PM
#81
Yes it is possible for a model to hit someone and cause a fatality, but it is also possible for an airliner to crash and nobody be hurt.
But come on! The most likely senario for an airliner crash is hundreds of people on the plane and ground to be killed, and for the model airplane for one person to need some stitch's.
And don't forget that per the NTSB judge the FAA has no authority over model airplanes, at least not till they write some regulations.
Last edited by Sport_Pilot; 09-25-2014 at 12:07 PM.
09-25-2014, 12:16 PM
#82
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Round Hill, VA
Posts: 1,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We are not talking mulitple deaths from airliner accidents. We are talking about a few stitch's from a model airplane.
Yes it is possible for a model to hit someone and cause a fatality, but it is also possible for an airliner to crash and nobody be hurt.
But come on! The most likely senario for an airliner crash is hundreds of people on the plane and ground to be killed, and for the model airplane for one person to need some stitch's.
And don't forget that per the NTSB judge the FAA has no authority over model airplanes, at least not till they write some regulations.
Yes it is possible for a model to hit someone and cause a fatality, but it is also possible for an airliner to crash and nobody be hurt.
But come on! The most likely senario for an airliner crash is hundreds of people on the plane and ground to be killed, and for the model airplane for one person to need some stitch's.
And don't forget that per the NTSB judge the FAA has no authority over model airplanes, at least not till they write some regulations.
09-25-2014, 02:05 PM
#84
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: sheridan,
IN
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This looks like a fun game, and I'd like to play.
So,
a licensed private pilot is playing with his RC buggy on the ground, jumping it off a ramp, on his own property.
A bee stings him, and he loses control, sending the buggy careening into the pimply-faced teen-aged nerd filming the action with his GoPro equipped quad copter.
The quad goes out of control and shoots up 498 feet and clips a Robinson R-22 heli being flown by a student pilot and his instructor. The instructor has
repeatedly warned the student to keep above 500 feet, but lets it slide since 498 is only 2 from 500.
The tail-rotor is sheared off by the quad, and the R-22 pirouettes out of control and falls onto the top of a car being driven 5 mph over the speed limit by a
nun and her 6 year old nephew, who is distracting the nun by wetting his finger and sticking in his nun-aunt's ear.
Luckily, no one is killed, but there is extensive property damage.
Now, who is at fault:
The RC car driving pilot;
the pimply faced nerdl;
the R-22 student pilot;
the R-22 instructor pilot;
the nun;
the 6 yr. old, or,
the bee?
And who loses which licenses?
So,
a licensed private pilot is playing with his RC buggy on the ground, jumping it off a ramp, on his own property.
A bee stings him, and he loses control, sending the buggy careening into the pimply-faced teen-aged nerd filming the action with his GoPro equipped quad copter.
The quad goes out of control and shoots up 498 feet and clips a Robinson R-22 heli being flown by a student pilot and his instructor. The instructor has
repeatedly warned the student to keep above 500 feet, but lets it slide since 498 is only 2 from 500.
The tail-rotor is sheared off by the quad, and the R-22 pirouettes out of control and falls onto the top of a car being driven 5 mph over the speed limit by a
nun and her 6 year old nephew, who is distracting the nun by wetting his finger and sticking in his nun-aunt's ear.
Luckily, no one is killed, but there is extensive property damage.
Now, who is at fault:
The RC car driving pilot;
the pimply faced nerdl;
the R-22 student pilot;
the R-22 instructor pilot;
the nun;
the 6 yr. old, or,
the bee?
And who loses which licenses?
09-25-2014, 02:54 PM
#85
This looks like a fun game, and I'd like to play.
So,
a licensed private pilot is playing with his RC buggy on the ground, jumping it off a ramp, on his own property.
A bee stings him, and he loses control, sending the buggy careening into the pimply-faced teen-aged nerd filming the action with his GoPro equipped quad copter.
The quad goes out of control and shoots up 498 feet and clips a Robinson R-22 heli being flown by a student pilot and his instructor. The instructor has
repeatedly warned the student to keep above 500 feet, but lets it slide since 498 is only 2 from 500.
The tail-rotor is sheared off by the quad, and the R-22 pirouettes out of control and falls onto the top of a car being driven 5 mph over the speed limit by a
nun and her 6 year old nephew, who is distracting the nun by wetting his finger and sticking in his nun-aunt's ear.
Luckily, no one is killed, but there is extensive property damage.
Now, who is at fault:
The RC car driving pilot;
the pimply faced nerdl;
the R-22 student pilot;
the R-22 instructor pilot;
the nun;
the 6 yr. old, or,
the bee?
And who loses which licenses?
So,
a licensed private pilot is playing with his RC buggy on the ground, jumping it off a ramp, on his own property.
A bee stings him, and he loses control, sending the buggy careening into the pimply-faced teen-aged nerd filming the action with his GoPro equipped quad copter.
The quad goes out of control and shoots up 498 feet and clips a Robinson R-22 heli being flown by a student pilot and his instructor. The instructor has
repeatedly warned the student to keep above 500 feet, but lets it slide since 498 is only 2 from 500.
The tail-rotor is sheared off by the quad, and the R-22 pirouettes out of control and falls onto the top of a car being driven 5 mph over the speed limit by a
nun and her 6 year old nephew, who is distracting the nun by wetting his finger and sticking in his nun-aunt's ear.
Luckily, no one is killed, but there is extensive property damage.
Now, who is at fault:
The RC car driving pilot;
the pimply faced nerdl;
the R-22 student pilot;
the R-22 instructor pilot;
the nun;
the 6 yr. old, or,
the bee?
And who loses which licenses?
The way the law is today , everyone is at fault , everyone gets sued by everyone else , and the one with the most money looses and ends up paying everyone . Plus court costs /
09-25-2014, 04:14 PM
#88
I think some here are trying to move this thread in a roundabout way to the FAA and FPVs . Both i could give a rats ars about and hope they get banned for good .lol . BTW after seeing some accidents and deaths personly on the rivers here by drunk people i would do more than take their DL away,to many people dying on our waterways now that drunks cant drive on our streets anymore . joe
09-25-2014, 07:20 PM
#89
And a toy airplane, just like a bird, can bring an airliner down. Birds may not be terrorists, but irresponsible people can be.
09-26-2014, 01:35 AM
#90
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Spring Hill, FL
Posts: 893
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Did you read anything in the PL 112-95 SEC 336 or the FAA's interpretation that could be perceived as a threat to an individual’s airman certificate like the AMA is implying? Please don't repeat the FAA's enforcement authority that was there all along. Do you feel any of your certificates are threatened by the FAA for flying models in a safe and sensible way?
Frank
09-26-2014, 05:35 AM
#91
NO THAT IS NOT THE SUBJECT. I don't know what your agenda is but that is not the subject of this thread.
Did you read anything in the PL 112-95 SEC 336 or the FAA's interpretation that could be perceived as a threat to an individual’s airman certificate like the AMA is implying? Please don't repeat the FAA's enforcement authority that was there all along. Do you feel any of your certificates are threatened by the FAA for flying models in a safe and sensible way?
Frank
Did you read anything in the PL 112-95 SEC 336 or the FAA's interpretation that could be perceived as a threat to an individual’s airman certificate like the AMA is implying? Please don't repeat the FAA's enforcement authority that was there all along. Do you feel any of your certificates are threatened by the FAA for flying models in a safe and sensible way?
Frank
So there you are with your pilot certificate in your back pocket, flying your 100-150cc whatever (with a spotter), doing rollers 5 ft off the ground having a great time, when an FAA guy drives up and says you are acting with "reckless endangerment"...hmmm...
09-26-2014, 05:37 AM
#92
09-26-2014, 06:06 AM
#93
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Spring Hill, FL
Posts: 893
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually it is the subject of this thread from rremebert post #34
And my point is that the FAA cannot take your ticket away unless you fly in the way of full scale aircraft. The FAA had no regulations for model airplanes and per PL 112-95 Sec 336 they cannot regulate model airplanes. But they can regulate their interference with full scale aircraft. So if you are doing rolls 5 feet over the turf it is none of the FAA;s business. this is AMA business and if they deem it unsafe it will be dealt with in whatever manner the AMA deems!
And my point is that the FAA cannot take your ticket away unless you fly in the way of full scale aircraft. The FAA had no regulations for model airplanes and per PL 112-95 Sec 336 they cannot regulate model airplanes. But they can regulate their interference with full scale aircraft. So if you are doing rolls 5 feet over the turf it is none of the FAA;s business. this is AMA business and if they deem it unsafe it will be dealt with in whatever manner the AMA deems!
Frank
09-26-2014, 06:07 AM
#94
My Feedback: (58)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: here
Posts: 5,413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reading these threads of late have me convinced our country has already gone to hell. It was once the basic premise of our country that we all stood for each other, one and all as individuals united under god. Now its more about being apart of some special interest and obtaining enough numbers to have some superiority for and command over our desires.
We whimped out already! Didn't really take all that long either...
09-26-2014, 07:21 AM
#96
So as it stands right now that if someone who holds a pilots license violates one of the FAA regulations governing model aircraft then he can have his license revoked? I can see that happening. It's not that far off from the law that most states have that if you fail on your child support obligation that your DL be revoked.
Now I question I have. As modelers we are being told that regulations are coming about to keep us out of airspace that is/can/could be occupied by full scale aircraft. Obviously this is being done to avoid a collision. It seems to me that from all that I have seen and read is that the responsibility for such an accident is going to be placed upon the modeler. What is being done if anything on the other side?
Here is my meaning. Less then 1/2 mile from our model runway is a major US freeway. There is a pilot that is contracted by the CHP to patrol a strip of this freeway. He is not an officer, his function is to report accidents, stalls, grass fires, assist in police chases, report gross speeders. He has on numerous times flown directly over our flying site at 500'. At least once when a model broke past his 500' altitude he has called dispatch and had ground units respond. His MO as of recently is to come from behind the R/C pilots and a tree line at very low power. In a nut shell he is directly over us will little to no warning.
The way things seem to be written, as of right now should an accident occur he would have zero accountability. Would this be true? IMO this is much like antagonizing a dog and then cry when bitten. Granted a life is at stake and he will always have the priority but IMO his behavior needs correcting. So back to my question, is anything being done to inform full scale pilots about the risks of flying close to a known R/C airfield?
Now I question I have. As modelers we are being told that regulations are coming about to keep us out of airspace that is/can/could be occupied by full scale aircraft. Obviously this is being done to avoid a collision. It seems to me that from all that I have seen and read is that the responsibility for such an accident is going to be placed upon the modeler. What is being done if anything on the other side?
Here is my meaning. Less then 1/2 mile from our model runway is a major US freeway. There is a pilot that is contracted by the CHP to patrol a strip of this freeway. He is not an officer, his function is to report accidents, stalls, grass fires, assist in police chases, report gross speeders. He has on numerous times flown directly over our flying site at 500'. At least once when a model broke past his 500' altitude he has called dispatch and had ground units respond. His MO as of recently is to come from behind the R/C pilots and a tree line at very low power. In a nut shell he is directly over us will little to no warning.
The way things seem to be written, as of right now should an accident occur he would have zero accountability. Would this be true? IMO this is much like antagonizing a dog and then cry when bitten. Granted a life is at stake and he will always have the priority but IMO his behavior needs correcting. So back to my question, is anything being done to inform full scale pilots about the risks of flying close to a known R/C airfield?
09-26-2014, 08:11 AM
#97
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga,
CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe you are right that his behavior needs correcting. He should be at least 1000' away from you according to FAA. I'm surprised he had the gall to report one of the modelers flying above 500' while he was at that altitude. NOTAMS have been issued by many airports advising of model aircraft operations in their vicinity, so yes, something is being done.
09-26-2014, 08:34 AM
#98
09-26-2014, 08:37 AM
#99
All these hypothetical what ifs have nothing to do with the basic question of post #1
09-26-2014, 08:42 AM
#100
500 feet is correct if it is not a city. I do not believe a crowded freeway is considered an open air assembly. However, there is no regulation that says you need to be below 500 feet. Even if near an airport the AC is only an advisory. So what do you say to the people he dispatch's on the ground?