JohnShe

Good point, that's how they took down Al Capone.

JohnShe

Well, my life isn't on the line here. As far as the hobby goes, we have trusted the FAA and the AMA for a great many years and they haven't let us down yet.

cj_rumley

Gonna differ with you on that, lcs. FAA's enforcement action and the widespread attention it is getting has a needed (IMHO) deterrent value. More worth to us in securing a future for our freedom to fly model airplanes than time and money spent (by FAA and AMA) trying to herd cats by making more regulations that cannot be enforced. AMA says, in a plea for donations, they have spent over a $$$million on this. $10K to give Pirker a good public spanking is far more cost effective.

bradpaul

https://www.yahoo.com/tech/drones-go...377021664.html

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

You have a point about the deterrent value for unenforceable/non-exsitant regs, sure...but I don't think FAA's thrust was about securing future freedoms of model aviation tho.

cj_rumley

As a pragmatist, my interest is more about the result than the intent of the players.

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

I hear you... but I must say, as yet another pragmatic type, my interest is more about the intent of the players and the unintended consequences... LOL

HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

Stupid Is as Stupid does... U know what U just can't fix STUPID. Stupid people are always
going to be stupid. Man there has to be a way to get them OUT of the GENE Pool. Drowned them, Maybe ???

JohnShe

Nah! You should spay or neuter them.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

Nobody is actually "paying" for his defense, the firm representing him is doing it, in essence, for free. That is their prerogative.]

Are you seriously wondering if yet another govt agency should get involved with this? The IRS.... really? Thanks, I'll pass on that. If there are complaints about how much money was sent prosecuting the flight, I can only imagine the complaints once the IRS got involved. Does anyone really think that would be worthwhile or cost effective? His actions got the ball rolling (for better or worse), but it was something that needed to be brought up anyway.

bradpaul

FREE..................... as if the law firm is not going to claim as a expense for taxes the cost of the "pro bono" services. So actually we all are paying for part of Trappys defense.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

We're not paying a penny for his defense, no matter how extreme an example is thrown out there.

Baron243

My Feedback: (50)

Hello all,

Maybe we're all looking at the solution to problem from the wrong prospective. Instead of FAA regulation, how about we get the FCC involved to regulate the output power of FPV transmitters which would in turn limit their range. This would apply to all FPV devices sold to the general public, much like the power output limitations on our 72MHZ RC transmitters has been regulated for years. Commercial FPV users could buy more powerful equipment only by obtaining the appropriate licensing similar to that required for HAM operators. Seems like a simpler solution which would make many of the problems associated with current FPV operations go away.

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

Ok...we are paying for his persecution then...

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

Much more accurate. Now, it is justified because of his type of flying, or his use of foam whilst flying? Both I would guess?

ira d

I'm not in favor of radio output limits as the power is already low, I think the way to go is to limit the video output power and also on higher priced units limit the distance
they can travel from the take off location via GPS.

Baron243

My Feedback: (50)

That is Precisely what I meant., although it never occurred to me that there was a need to make the distinction, I though it would be obvious. If the video transmission power is limited, FPV operators could still enjoy their hobby, but be limited to line of sight distances just like the rest of us are. Like many GPS enabled FPV vehicles on the market today they could be programmed to return to the origination point upon LOS (loss of signal), so as not to endanger people or property when signal is lost. Licensing higher powered FPV transmitters would also help insure that they are used in a responsible manner, with licenses being traceable back to the owner. (License keys could be imbedded in the video transmission.)

mongo

My Feedback: (15)

as someone with a ham license, do you have any idea how ridiculously easy it is to obtain one now days? not even required to know code anymore.

Baron243

My Feedback: (50)

Yes I know how easily it is to get a HAM license these days, but the real point is to create a legal paper trail for the ownership and use of the higher powered FPV equipment. It would then be up to the law makers to make rules of enforcement so that If the original owner were to sell the equipment without transferring the license, he could still face penalties. It's not perfect but it would help keep some of the abuse from happening, by outlining the consequences of failure to comply, and any end run such as a "straw" purchase would be illegal and prosecutable under current law. The whole idea here is to limit the availability, of the higher powered FPV equipment, to those responsible for "commercial" use, and to create a distinction between "commercial" use and Hobby use of FPV equipment. I cannot imagine any legitimate hobby use of FPV equipment that has to have a greater range than that of line of sight. Or, to put it another way, any FPV equipment that does have a range greater than line of sight, is not for hobby use and should be regulated. I think that this simple distinction would make a lot of the current problems with FPV use go away. ( remember this requires lower powered video transmitters to qualify for hobby use.)

Baron243

My Feedback: (50)

I would not want to make it any harder to obtain a FPV license that a HAM license, but I do think that if a user of higher powered video FPV transmitters were required to register (license) their equipment, it might give them pause before using it in an irresponsible manner that might endanger lives and property. This is the heart of the matter that we are discussing.



see post #363

HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

Other countries such as New Zealand for one have no problem with FPV out to 4 or 5 Kilometers.
They just keep all FPV flying below 400 feet. But all RC flyers must belong to their equivalent of our AMA
Also If U fly with in 5KILOMETERS of any airport U must have a special License. The whole problem ere in the
US is the Technology has gotten ahead of any regulation and the government has no Idea what to do.

Sport_Pilot

Just because they have not let you down does not mean they have not let others down!

Sport_Pilot

Drones are not the only flyaways. I have had two. One recovered and the other may have flown to China for all I know. And what about all of the free flight OOS flights? I don't recall one incedent from any of those, not even way back when many free flights had wingspans of maybe as much as ten feet.

Sport_Pilot

Not sure the law firm is doing pro bono work. I think one of the drone CBO's may be paying the fee.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

Right and expecting not only one but two groups to make decisions that will make everyone happy is delusional. People will complain about anything.