JohnShe

What harassment? They just took him to court.

cj_rumley

A buddy of mine taught at a mid-western law school and authored a book 'The Process Is The Punishment.' I think the title alone makes it self-evident that it echos the sentiment expressed by LCS.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

The title of the book is true enough. Had Pirker not received his defense pro bono, one wonders how long it would have taken to resolve the matter. The cost of a defense in almost any serious civil or criminal matters would bankrupt many.

JohnShe

Do you mean: "The Process Is the Punishment: Handling Cases in a Lower Criminal Court Paperback – April, 1992 by Malcolm M. Feeley (Author)"

Interesting review. By D. Walker on May 26, 2008



"The qualitative analysis of the lower court system, offered in "The Proccess [SIC]" is a worthwhile and very relevant read for anyone seeking to understand the inner workings of criminal courts. The author does an excellent job providing an explanation for how courts work and why they produce so few trials. I found myself recalling countless experiences from working in the family court system that directly applied to the analysis presented in this text. This book should be read by anyone interested in researching court outcomes. It really puts a different spin on outcomes and processes that are often hidden from the general public."


I suppose that the criminal court process is a PITA, but Pirker wasn't taken to criminal court. I don't think he got what he deserved, but the whole thing proves that the FAA now has the upper hand in the courts.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

Less than 1% of cases get to trial, at least in the civil case world. I'd bet the criminal stats aren't that much different. There is significant risk and cost associated with trials. It's never 100% clear who will prevail, no matter how it looks at the start. Juries are the most bizarre things to see, absolutely no rhyme or reason to their decisions sometimes. The same can be said for judges. In US courts both parties typically bear the cost of litigation, win or lose. In some instances the loser has to pay some of the winners fees/costs. Under the English rule, the loser has to pay all of the winners fees. That would be interesting to see how that would work in US courts. There would be downsides to that I'm sure.

At the end of the day the wealthy can afford it, and the big corps can afford it. The average Joe, not so much.

cj_rumley

Yes, that's the one.

HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

Originally Posted by HoundDog
What if the FAA requires ADS-B in Models (drones) that fly in Controlled air space.

By now, you’ve probably heard of Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) and the requirement for many airplanes to add an ADS-B Out transponder to the panel. But you may be confused about what exactly ADS-B is, why you should care and what you should do.

That’s where we come in. Count on Cincinnati Avionics to guide you through the process from start to finish. We’ll explain what ADS-B is all about and what it offers for pilots, so you can make a confident decision about your airplane’s avionics. We also offer a full complement of ADS-B avionics to suit almost any aircraft, from names you trust: Garmin, Aspen, Avidyne, Bendix/King and more.

https://us-mg205.mail.yahoo.com/neo/...iaoqrvq8g#mail


Johnny my man this is for 99.9% of aircraft that fly in the USA not just commercial. Europe already requires ADS-B in many places.
If we post an ADS-B Beacon at the field and fake it to say it at 1500'agl it might keep full scale aircraft away from the field.

JohnShe

You may have misunderstood me. I was thinking that you were speculating that commercial dromes would be required to use one. I don't think we have to be concerned because it does not apply to us as we are covered by section 336.

HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

336 has nothing to do with any thing. Read this again PLZ
If we post an ADS-B Beacon at the field and fake it to say it at 1500'agl it might keep full scale aircraft away from the field.

JohnShe

That has no meaning to me. Perhaps your proposed action may even violate FAA regulations. Certainly such things, whatever they may be are unnecessary at my flying field.

Gadgeter

Ken, I'm so glad you stepped in on this one. What the heck is JOHNSHE thinking chastising a post like that? We are not writing novels here for a publisher for crying out loud. I sometimes just abbreviate or type too fast and typo something. NO BIG DEAL JERK! What else in life bothers you so? And why are you advertising on such a terrible thread?

Back to the thread.... I posted a similar one on wattflyer. There are a few good comments there. http://www.wattflyer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=75204

Rob2160

Interesting outcome, I think the battle was won but the war is far from over.

I wonder what will transpire over the next few years.

HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

no comment

Propworn

My Feedback: (3)

Sorry I took so long to get back to you Jim I have been out of town looking at lasers for a possible future purchase.

In the US some how flying toy airplanes seem to have taken on an amendment right involving congress???? Two levels of government in disagreement on managing recreational toys???? In Canada one entity Transport Canada on which we have a member sitting to look out for our interests oversees the access to airspace.

As to model airplanes their definition and how they are to be flown is no different than ours then why is there 23 pages of silly posts with almost as many interpretations of what is actually going on in your country. Can't you guys get an exact definition from the powers to be that should settle all of this.

Of course I fly quite a bit in the US from Michigan to Florida and as far west as Fort Worth Texas and your right nothing seems to have changed as far as the fields I have had the pleasure of flying from. I haven't met more than one or two who even express a passing interest in the silly stuff posted on these threads. If you look back through the threads its the same dozen or so that engage in who knows the most or has the biggest swartz. Hardly representative of the thousands of modelers and flyers that are actively out there building and flying instead of sitting for hours in front of their keyboard arguing some obscure point.

Propworn

My Feedback: (3)

Is there any difference in the definition of a model for recreational purposes? I don't see any major ones. I came across this article in a Montreal News Service that thankfully seems to put out an article on where we stand with drones that is more realistic than sensationalized for public consumption.

[h=2]The vast and relatively quiet airspace above Canada has become fertile ground for the burgeoning drone industry.[/h]Drones can be a barrier-breaking tool for businesses, and have become hugely popular among consumers, who can buy one for as little as $119 at a large electronics store — or for even less online. But amid the excitement about technological innovation, serious concerns are being voiced about the safety of our skies. Some pilots, for example, say a lack of oversight is a disaster waiting to happen. Others warn drones could be used in terrorism attacks or to invade an individual’s privacy.

Drones are known more formally as unmanned systems, or unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). Unmanned but not pilotless, people in the industry repeat like a mantra; drones must be directed by remote control during flight.

Excluding military applications, Canada and Australia are at the forefront of the drones industry, largely because they both have a vast and underused airspace, said Robert Kendall, executive director of Unmanned Systems Canada (USC), which represents the industry. Drones could not be more of an anomaly in aviation, perhaps the world’s most regulated industry for safety and security reasons. Their use here is largely guided by recommendations and general principles rather than punitive laws. The situation reflects the difficulty of regulating a booming industry where an affordable machine can weigh less than a kilogram and be flown with little or no training.

Speaking at the 2014 Unmanned Systems Canada Conference in Montreal in early November, Kendall said drone makers, users and suppliers are working with Transport Canada to establish new regulations for the unmanned systems. USC chairman Stewart Baillie said at the conference that drones are “almost at the point where manned aviation was right after World War One. We don’t have barnstormers, but we’re not sure how to work (unmanned systems) into the civilian context. There’s been a lot of thrashing about.”
But the industry will find its place in due course, he added.

A French army Special Force soldier holds a drone during a training exercise on May 20, 2014 in Lanester, western France. Could terrorists fly an unmanned aerial vehicle into a stadium during a football game and sprinkle a lethal chemical? Could a peeping Tom send a camera-equipped quad-copter to take a video of you in your pool or your apartment and post it on the web? Can a criminal gang use a UAV to find a potential victim? Can a terrorist — or just an inept fool — crash a drone into an aircraft engine? The theoretical answer to all of the above, and to many other scenarios, is yes. Some even say a major drone incident is inevitable.

On Nov. 27, Transport Canada adopted new regulations which, oddly enough, grant more exemptions to drone users than the previous set of rules, which the burgeoning UAV industry had found too onerous. Most importantly, commercial operators of drones weighing under 25 kilograms were exempted from obtaining a permit called a Special Flight Operation Certificate (SFOC). And the waiting times to obtain a certificate for larger UAVs is down from many weeks to 20 working days.

Fines for violations range from $3,000 to $25,000.

National regulations will eventually be superseded by international norms and standards that will be adopted by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). But it will take years for 191 countries that are ICAO members to agree on universal UAV standards and practices. ICAO spokesman Anthony Philbin said in an email that the United Nations agency “is well into the exhaustive process of reviewing every (ICAO aviation norms and standards) in order to discern how the introduction of (remotely piloted aircraft systems will fit) into the regulatory framework.”

Tony Tyler, director-general of Montreal-based International Air Transport Association, which represents most of the world’s airlines, told the Reuters news agency recently: “I’m not one who often calls for regulation. But this is a new industry and it will have to share airspace with an existing established industry. With safety issues that it raises, there is a need for regulators to grasp this one and run with it.” He’s not alone in calling for clear rules. In December, a cameraman from Terrebonne received a $1,000 fine for operating a drone without a federal permit. Julien Gramigna, co-founder of a drone-based video and photography company, received the fine after using two drones last June to take aerial video of a luxury residence for a real-estate company. He is fighting the fine, saying Transport Canada’s rules on flying unmanned aerial aircraft are unclear. “I’m not a pilot, I’m a cameraman,” Gramigna told the Montreal Gazette after being fined. “I never got any help from Transport Canada or an explanation of what I was and wasn’t allowed to do. When you buy a drone, it doesn’t say ‘Subject to the rules of Transport Canada’ on the box.”

Canada and Australia are relatively permissive in allowing the use of private and commercial drones. The U.S., with a more congested airspace and serious concerns about privacy, terrorism and litigation, is doing the opposite. In this Sept. 24, 2014 file photo, a U.S. Customs and Border Patrol drone aircraft is prepped for flight in Sierra Vista, Ariz.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is keeping a chokehold on commercial drones, provoking the ire of U.S. businesspeople eager to exploit UAVs’ commercial potential. Any no one expects a significant de-regulation of the industry in the short term. Some European countries, including France, have adopted so-called “out-of-sight” rules — that is, it allows some operators of remote-controlled drones to fly them even when the flight-path takes the aircraft out of the operator’s visual line of sight. Canada allows a UAV to be flown only when its remote pilot can see it.

Ram Jakhu, an associate professor specializing in space law at the faculty of law of McGill University, said “safety is perhaps the most important issue (surrounding drones), especially close to airports. “Terrorism is also important, they can pick up information on targets that is extremely precise.”
As for privacy, the law is ambiguous, he added. “What if I’m in the backyard with my wife or girlfriend and someone takes a picture and posts it on the web. If the law says you can’t do that, you can be prosecuted. But nothing is fail-safe. Stop signs are there for a reason. And how many people really stop?”

The technology itself is hardly new. Drones have existed for decades, but were previously confined largely to advanced military systems. Now, people in an array of industries are using micro-drones for profit. People like Dominic Fillion of Quebec City’s DFDesign. His company shoots corporate videos, tourism commercials and real estate ads.
“I’d say about 45 per cent of my business is now derived from drones (from zero about 18 months ago),” said Fillion. “In a year or at least the very short term that will go to 80 per cent, minimum.” Fillion charges clients about $4,200 a day, everything included. “I make a very good living with drones, no question,” he said.
Most small businesses can afford a drone mounted with cameras to snap a real estate ad, make a wedding video come alive, or keep track of a herd of cattle.
Amazon and Google want to blacken the skies with drones to deliver parcels. But that will not happen for a long time given restrictions in the U.S., said Phil Finnegan, director of corporate analysis for Teal Group, an aviation consulting firm in Fairfax, Va.
“It’s a safety issue and the FAA is a very conservative organization,” he said.
Getting books and CDs delivered by Amazon via micro-drones remains “a very long time off,” said Finnegan, if only because of the shaky business case.
“Even if it were allowed (in the U.S.), there’s still not going to be that autonomy required to actually make that commercially viable. You can’t have a pilot directing it the whole way (remotely) and still make it cheaper than it would be to put it in the post.”
Amazon would like to move forward with drone parcel delivery.
How popular are drones? In 2010, Transport Canada issued 66 Special Flight Operation Certificates across Canada. In 2013, that number was 949.
Marc Moffatt, director-general of the Unmanned Aerial System Centre of Excellence formed in Alma in 2011, said that drones became so popular so fast that one of his main tasks is to advise companies and individuals on how to operate them.
“It started with a pilot project on blueberries,” said Moffatt. “In Lac St-Jean, producers’ blueberries were freezing. So with a small drone, we can take a 3D representation of the ground and project where you can expect freezing issues.”
The organization later developed into an research-and-development association with Montreal-based CAE Inc., a global flight-simulation and pilot training company.
Chris Stellwag, spokesman for CAE’s defence and security business unit in Florida, said that although commercial drones are currently illegal in the U.S., “it’s already big business in defence. CAE has a $20-million (U.S.) contract with the U.S. air force to train 1,500 (remote) pilots and sensor operators annually.”
And when the FAA begins allowing the commercial use of drones, CAE will be well-positioned to grab a hefty market share, Stellwag said.
“It’s going to take time for all this to evolve in the U.S. But when it does, business opportunities will be significant.”
Martin Eley, Transport Canada’s director-general of civil aviation, said in a recent interview that the new rules will “take a look at things with a pretty critical eye.”
But streamlined recommendations will make it easier, not harder, to perform simple operations and to obtain certificates. Drones weighing under two kilograms, for instance, will be able to operate out of the sightline of the remote pilot. Much study has concluded that the danger to public safety is minimal at that weight, said Eley.
Stéphanie Lepage, spokesperson for Aéroports de Montréal, said that there have been no reports of drone incidents at Dorval’s Pierre Elliott Trudeau International Airport yet.
Meanwhile, Unmanned Systems Canada has teamed up with Industry Canada to determine how many companies are involved in the sector and how many people the industry employs. Baillie said the findings will be unveiled in March.
[email protected]

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

Yup...should be interesting. Lot's of plot twists and turns. Unlike some, I don't think it will be the end of the hobby, nor will we have any significant or harsh changes to the way we fly. When I say we I mean the average hobbiest who flies in parks or fields, AMA or not. For those that want to fly recklessly, I suspect things have changed for them. To what degree, we'll undoubtedly see.

For now, keep calm and quad on.

JohnShe

I was chastised and I accepted my chastisement graciously, what about you?

Gadgeter

I got nailed pretty good here one time. It was acknowledged and accepted thank you.

corch

My Feedback: (1)

Especially when you park one at the White House....ugh.

http://www.myfoxdc.com/story/2793775...at-white-house

My club and field have "embraced" the quads and welcome anyone who wants to fly them at our field, provided they follow the club rules/AMA guidelines etc.

Quads are the largest growing part of the hobby.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

Ya...just saw that this morning. Unreal.

N410DC

Yeah, this is bad.

Given the ramrodding that Pirker got, I can only imagine what will happen to this guy.

Good news: the FAA probably won't be able to do much, at least not until the Secret Service and Homeland Security are done with him.

HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

Turns out he's one of them Nothing is going to come of it .... False alarm, go home, nothing to see here, now disperse.

N410DC

Has the Secret Service / Federal Prosecutor already made a final decision as to whether or not the incident will be pursued?

So, the feds will let him off, stating that there was no problem, no risk, etc. Then. they will use the incident as a justification for legislation against UAVs. Government logic at its best!

HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

Sure looks like from the 10:00 pm news No danger to the white house and the guy was drinking and had no intent to cause any problem ...

Sport_Pilot

They could fine hime for flying in restricted airspace and flying an aircraft while intoxicated. No?