porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

Starting another urban legend (the most generous description), or have any real evidence of this? What do you base this info on, other than your opinion?

JohnShe

Good point, but it doesn't mean they are right, just that they may be unwilling to compromise.

N410DC

$84 is really not all that much, if it covers commercial activity. As a rule, insurance for commercial activity is much more expensive. I am pretty sure Homeowners insurance and the AMA's insurance would not cover any incident that arose from a commercial endeavor.

For what it's worth, the FAA has no upper age limit for any full-scale pilots, aside from airline captains flying under Part 121 regulations, who cannot fly past age 65. I have heard of a 90 years man with a prior heart transplant who qualified for a 3rd class medical certificate.

The idea of a lower age limit is a bit more troubling. That said, the lower age limit for a Private Pilot's license is 17, which would cover the vast majority of modelers. Its also legal to fly a full scale aircraft at any age, as long someone is on board who is licensed and qualified as a Pilot in Command (and who is willing to assume responsibility for the safety of the flight.) I think the worst case scenario is that a child would have to have an adult with him or her in order to fly a radio controlled airplane. I hope it does not come to that, though.

As others have said, we are paying a great deal for his prosecution. Given the man hours spent be the FAA and the federal prescuters on this case, I am sure the cost has skyrocketed well beyond $10,000.

Very good point. I passed a practice test without studying. I am sure any high school student who has taken a basic electronics course could do so as well. If I can do it, many others can!

The failsafe features that are built into most radio systems nowadays should drastically reduce the chance of a flyaway, if if they are not 100% reliable. My $150 quad will land itself if I simply turn off the transmitter.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

That fault for that falls squarely at the feet of the govt who failed time and time again to have clear enforceable, common sense rules and regs, presented in a timely manner, as previously promised. We have some of the most heavily utilized airspace in the world, and it's a complicated issues, but why have other countries been able to deal with this and not us?

phlpsfrnk

Well that is the definition of “Pro Bono” isn’t it? If you wish to believe that nobody is footing the bill for those costs then have it your way. Somebody is putting in the time and as they say “time is money”.

Yes I am very serious. Lets not forget the INS. I have worked overseas in different countries and believe me foreign countries and the USA do not take kindly to people that work in their country without prior approval or the correct passport visa. There is a big difference between what one can do with a work visa and a tourist visa. I very much doubt Trappy had a work visa.

Frank

phlpsfrnk

Lets not blame all of this on the government. First we have an organization that spent X amount of dollar’s lobbying Congress for an exemption to a segment or UAVs from regulation. The 112[SUP]th[/SUP] Congress in one of its few accomplishments and great wisdom by law granted that exception. This forced the FAA to define by interpretation what that law meant and how they intended to enforce it which by the way is one of the things they get paid to do. Now we have the same organization, along with several others crying foul and suing the FAA over their interpretation. Don't think that those things don't have an impact on their schedule and getting the job done.

Other countries? Do any of these other countries have an exemption by law for certain segments of UAVs? I haven’t seen many UAV videos from North Korea or Cuba have you? What sort or UAV regs do you suppose they have?

Frank

franklin_m

Sure seems like an excellent example of the old adage: "Be careful what you wish for, as you just may get it." I think AMA is in way over it's head on this one. Their latest ideas: sue FAA and hire a new PR firm. The wisdom of the former? Seems to be a case of closing the barn door after the animals have already escaped. The latter? One only has to look at the number of negative stories about "drones" hitting the major media each month; compare that with the last time you saw an AMA sponsored positive story make the major media. I doubt that hiring a new PR firm will impact that...the organization has lost too much ground.

phlpsfrnk

I’m with you 100% on this one commander. I think the money would be better spent on educating the membership and the general hobbyist public on the airspace requirements and the dangers involved in careless and reckless activity with UAVs. I think we were better off before the exemption and the resulting interpretation.

Frank (USN Ret (E-8))

Sport_Pilot

The AMA may be over their heads on this, but clearly not nearly as much as the FAA.

HunkaJunk

I don't think I can agree with your assessment, reading the text of the exemption in question, it seems to me that the intent was clearly to keep the FAAs dirty government fingers off them, FAA disagrees so they simply "interpret" words to mean something they do not. This is a classic example of a government bureaucracy at work. More simply put, the FAA "interpretation" clearly goes against the intent of the legislation.

phlpsfrnk

Don't just read the exemption. Read all the FAA UAV docs leading up to their interpretation starting with AC-91-57 of 1981. The AMA may win a few minor points in their suit against the FAA's interpretation but on the whole I think they will lose in the end. Read the exemption, plus foot notes, very carefully. The intent was to keep the FAA from writing regulation specifically for "Model Aircraft for recreation". It does not say current or future regulations for all aircraft/UAVs don't apply (example NOTAMS/TFRs).

Frank

bradpaul

Just "who" is the AMA other then it's 150,000+ members?

Let's say you go to the club field and you see another club member flying FPV using goggles without a spotter. Just the two of you are there, what do you do?'

Let's say you are driving past the local park and you see a pilot flying FPV unsafely over people. What do you do?

Just who is going to "educate" the ignorant? Somebody else? The AMA from Muncie, IN? The FAA from Washington, D.C.

I suspect there is a lot of big talk with no commitment to be personally part of the solution.................................

phlpsfrnk

Good point Paul.
I have, in the past as a club member and as officer of the club advised members about breaking Regs.

Have never had the occasion to witness anyone in a park but I would like to think I would advise them of the regs.

I would hope the AMA could educate its members which is one of its requirements as a not for profit organization. Anyone reading AMA docs would educate themselves whether a member or not. The FAA already has a program in place, its called passing the airman certificate written exam.

I can’t speak for anyone else but I have personally contacted the AMA on issues. Can’t say I’ve had much success though.

Frank

[email protected]

My Feedback: (1)

how do you know when you are flying 400 feet high?

phlpsfrnk

Allen,
Was that question directed at anyone in particular?

[email protected]

My Feedback: (1)

phlpsfrnk no juat wanted to know hope it dont upset anyone

phlpsfrnk

Not at all. There are several altitude reading devices that would give you an idea of what your aircraft looks like at 400 feet. For safeties sake I would suggest that if you know or suspect you will be flying above 400 ft AGL only do so with a spotter. I never fly my sailplanes without a spotter but I know it is at 400 ft plus when it comes off the hi-start. All my powered planes I keep within the pattern of the field.

Frank

N410DC

Agree. 100%.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

Well of course someone is "putting in the time", but actually it's undoubtedly a group of people doing this at the firm. Pro Bono in general means without cost, gratis. The firm decided to do that, and Pirker isn't paying. That seems to bug some folks, not sure why. The public isn't footing penny of the bill, nothwithstanding the leaps some will want us to take to believe otherwise. At the end of the day, it's a red herring argument anyway, irrelevant to the issue.

Let's not get the INS involved, that last thing needed is another bureaucracy getting involved. If anything the school should have been investigated for hiring someone who might not have had the correct paperwork, but then again I don't think anyone knows what his status was.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

Well of course someone is "putting in the time", but actually it's undoubtedly a group of people doing this at the firm. Pro Bono in general means without cost, gratis. The firm decided to do that, and Pirker isn't paying. That seems to bug some folks, not sure why. The public isn't footing penny of the bill, nothwithstanding the leaps some will want us to take to believe otherwise. At the end of the day, it's a red herring argument anyway, irrelevant to the issue.

Let's not get the INS involved, that last thing needed is another bureaucracy getting involved. If anything the school should have been investigated for hiring someone who might not have had the correct paperwork, but then again I don't think anyone knows what his status was.

franklin_m

It doesn't matter whether the FAA is or not, given that they have all the power, the best AMA can hope for at this point is to limit the losses.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

<iframe width=560 height=315 src=//www.youtube.com/embed/UFWUlObSgn0 frameborder=0 allowfullscreen></iframe> http://<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/UFWUlObSgn0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

Quads and out of site FPV have there place ... Like in non congested areas below 500' away from all buildings persons and objects ... Just like Full Scale GA light planes. At least a drone is less likely to have a bird strike than an airplane or a B-52 at 250+ Knots on a low level run.

HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

Just watched the National News and they had a 45 second news blurb about a guy in a lawn chair and 50 Helium balloons going up to 8000' and popping the balloons with a shot gun to get down .... Now that didn't cause any fears of colliding with airplanes ...
Good thing he didn't do it with 50 Quads.

JohnShe

Wow! Seems like deja vu all over again. Is this a rehash of very old news, an animated movie, or did some Darwin Award winner do it again?