|
Originally Posted by Sport_Pilot
(Post 11757609)
And as I said there was no reason to bring the Constitution into this, Clearly it would be the wrong decision as they won the case on the fact they had no regulation. Wonder why?
|
Originally Posted by cj_rumley
(Post 11757593)
Section 336 of 112-95 was written by AMA and their lobbyist, and FAA has by no means recognized AMA as a CBO per the dreams of the AMA Executive Council and so given them carte blanc as the ultimate authority over operations of model aircraft in the NAS ("our rules are OK.").. It doesn't mention anything about " model aviation is set aside in it's own bound off area" either, nor does it address "irresponsible sociopaths" and how FAA will deal with them. Give a little 'spect to reality.
Drones, FPV, UAS, etc. are happening despite the lethargy and sidetracking (privacy paranoia) of FAA to produce regulatory guidance other than 'no fly' until they get around to it. Meanwhile what can (or with each passing day could have been) be a significant opportunity for American businesses to exploit a technology that is going to have significant impact in the global marketplace is impatiently aware of tempus fugit. Like it not, it is coming. As of now, the only certificated sUAS for civli (commercial) use in N America comes from Canada. How much head start in the marketplace do you think PRC needs to dominate this market? I have no problem with the commercial interests doing their thing to make a buck and creating jobs and such, and know they will have to deal with regulatory processes that will no doubt be burdensome. I hope they can deal with that successfully, but at the same time I don't want my hobby interests, affected by the developing technology, to be lumped in with their fortunes. That's why I get ticked off with your indiscriminate rants against the technology regardless of the purpose these unmanned aircraft are flown for. The only thing that makes sense and has been accepted by the regulatory authority in separating our hobby/recreational model aircraft from regulated aircraft is why they are being flown. You are not helping to preserve our freedom to fly model airplanes sans regulation by ranting against FPV as mode of flight without regard to why are being flown. AMA seems to be doing the same thing with their adventuring into involvement with the commercial use of sUAS similar to our models in the interest of new revenue generation, so though I think you are wrongheaded about this you may be consoled in that it seems you are in good company. cj First, the AMA and the FAA have signed a memorandum of understanding. In it, the FAA recognizes the AMA as an authority on model aviation as defined in section 336 if 112-95. To all practical extents and purposes, the CBO thing is a done deal. The boundary concept was a metaphor that you appear to have misunderstood. I don't know who is ranting against FPV, there have been no statements of such in this thread. I think we all agree that FPV is a cool technology that when used responsibly can be a lot of fun and a great benefit. I personally think that there are too many imbeciles and sociopaths out there using toys to do a man's job and they are taking entirely too many unacceptable risks. |
Originally Posted by JohnShe
(Post 11757822)
I personally think that there are too many imbeciles and sociopaths out there using toys to do a man's job and they are taking entirely too many unacceptable risks. As for as that memorandum of understanding thingy goes, It pretty much reaffirmed AMA as the FAA's lap puppy...well unless AMA wishes to terminate the agreement...and guess what? Not a chance...FAA hasn't given an inch...and guess what? they never will. |
Originally Posted by JohnShe
(Post 11757822)
Well, let's get a few things straight.
First, the AMA and the FAA have signed a memorandum of understanding. In it, the FAA recognizes the AMA as an authority on model aviation as defined in section 336 if 112-95. To all practical extents and purposes, the CBO thing is a done deal. The boundary concept was a metaphor that you appear to have misunderstood. I don't know who is ranting against FPV, there have been no statements of such in this thread. I think we all agree that FPV is a cool technology that when used responsibly can be a lot of fun and a great benefit. I personally think that there are too many imbeciles and sociopaths out there using toys to do a man's job and they are taking entirely too many unacceptable risks. As far as small drones that can't hurt anyone, this hobby started on control lines, then simple free flight, then radios, and the planes got bigger to now we have 1/4 scale cubs. Come on folks, are we THAT naive? Small foam is fine now but then what. The last thing I want is an unqualified pilot flying a 30lb drone over my head. Speaking of qualification, if you want to receive compensation for drone flying in the NAS, then you need to show competency. Period. There are some great pilots out there but we all have those guys that come out to the field, airplane WAY aft cg or the controls hooked up backwards. You get the picture. I'm not saying you can't, but you need to pass a check ride. I had to, so do you. By the way, $500 for a flight instructor? I made $13/ hr back in the day. Also, I read this board enough to see that we spend A LOT of time flaming Hobby King and FEJ and the like (never bought from them, just going on past thread history). Would you feel safe having a quad copter fly over your head while walking the campus with your son/daughter that is produced by the same company that didn't glue your firewall in on the last ARF you bought!? Do you know why hundreds of thousands of people fly millions of miles every year and done die? Qualified pilots, qualified mechanics using airplanes that are inspected daily. I'm not saying that we can't get there in this hobby but common sense HAS to prevail. i don't want the FAA involved in my life anymore than it already is but a definition is coming, we know that. What we do next as a hobby is what matters most. Do we act responsibly as most of us do or does it get to the point where someone uses their executive powers to negate your voice and rule accordingly. |
The point, as I see it, is that the only concern the government has with this issue is whether or not you are taking money for the flying. If you fly a drone for compensation, in their eyes, you are a commercial pilot. If it had been done for free, wihtout any form of compensation, they would not have an issue. You can bet that soon, very soon, the rules are going to spell this out. This primary fact will be what seperates the hobbyist from the "commercial ventures". As long as there is money chaning hands the feds (ie, FAA) will be planning to oversee this. The AMA is trying to distance themselves from that form of flying as well. Having been involved with general aviation for a few years it is obvious it is all about the benjamins.
Fly crazy all you want. Do it while getting paid, and they will find a way to drag your hiney to court. |
Originally Posted by littlecrankshaf
(Post 11757866)
True but making more laws and rules that the "imbeciles and sociopaths" will just ignore anyway only hinder the responsible minded modeler...
As for as that memorandum of understanding thingy goes, It pretty much reaffirmed AMA as the FAA's lap puppy...well unless AMA wishes to terminate the agreement...and guess what? Not a chance...FAA hasn't given an inch...and guess what? they never will. I don't understand what you mean by "Lap Puppy". I see it the other way around. With section 338, we have the FAA by the short ones. |
Originally Posted by JohnShe
(Post 11757904)
Yeah, but this doesn't apply to us model aviators, only the commercial types. We have our on part of the sandbox with a set of, I think, quite reasonable rules.
I don't understand what you mean by "Lap Puppy". I see it the other way around. With section 338, we have the FAA by the short ones. |
Originally Posted by JohnShe
(Post 11757904)
I don't understand what you mean by "Lap Puppy". I see it the other way around. With section 338, we have the FAA by the short ones. |
Originally Posted by littlecrankshaf
(Post 11757933)
That made me laugh and it would be a great thing if not so sad... as I know you seriously think AMA has the FAA "by the short ones"... All I can say is WOW!
|
Originally Posted by JohnShe
(Post 11757935)
More like a tiger by the tail, eh? Could be.
|
Well we will solve this problem a.s.a.p We can just ask mister O to sign another executive order. I'm sure he has a whole box full ready to go. We don't need any more govt regs we need more people to be responsible for themselves and stop whining for their momma everytime they don't get their way. Lots of people have a hobby that makes them a little extra cash and they don't need govt permission to do so. I don't need the AMA either and they don't control anything regarding model airplanes except who gets to fly at an event. I am free to fly anywhere I want as long as I am not trespassing or there are no local laws prohibiting such activity. Nice to see that for once a govt agency like the NTSB did something that made sense. THERE IS NO LAW PROHIBITING THE FLYING OF FPV FOR ANY PURPOSE only proposed regulations. No wonder Native Americans fought tooth and nail to keep the govt out out of their lives.:mad:
|
Originally Posted by JohnShe
(Post 11757814)
You are right, the FAA is a government bureaucracy and by nature is as slow as molasses in January. However, the FAA can still write cease & desist letters which can be used against the imbeciles and sociopaths in court when or if they cause damage or injury.
|
Originally Posted by DocYates
(Post 11757891)
The point, as I see it, is that the only concern the government has with this issue is whether or not you are taking money for the flying. If you fly a drone for compensation, in their eyes, you are a commercial pilot. If it had been done for free, wihtout any form of compensation, they would not have an issue. You can bet that soon, very soon, the rules are going to spell this out. This primary fact will be what seperates the hobbyist from the "commercial ventures". As long as there is money chaning hands the feds (ie, FAA) will be planning to oversee this. The AMA is trying to distance themselves from that form of flying as well. Having been involved with general aviation for a few years it is obvious it is all about the benjamins.
Fly crazy all you want. Do it while getting paid, and they will find a way to drag your hiney to court. I agree fully with your point, however the judge in the case that is the subject of this discussion unfortunately did not. In his decision dismissing the FAA's case against Pirker the judge ruled that the FAA "has not issued an enforceable Federal Acquisition Regulation regulatory rule governing model aircraft operation; has historically exempted model aircraft from the statutory FAR definitions of 'aircraft' by relegating model aircraft operations to voluntary compliance expressed in [the 2007 policy notice], Respondent's model aircraft was not subject to FAR regulation and enforcement ." Pirker's lawyer sold the argument that his client was flying a model aircraft, and FAA's lawyers were unable (if they even tried) to make the case that it was not a model aircraft by their own publicly released position on this (and yours, mine and AMA's). I do hope FAA can make that fact stand in their appeal, else the thin gray line that separates our models from regulated aircraft has been erased by this court. |
Originally Posted by cj_rumley
(Post 11758148)
Doc,
I agree fully with your point, however the judge in the case that is the subject of this discussion unfortunately did not. In his decision dismissing the FAA's case against Pirker the judge ruled that the FAA "has not issued an enforceable Federal Acquisition Regulation regulatory rule governing model aircraft operation; has historically exempted model aircraft from the statutory FAR definitions of 'aircraft' by relegating model aircraft operations to voluntary compliance expressed in [the 2007 policy notice], Respondent's model aircraft was not subject to FAR regulation and enforcement ." Pirker's lawyer sold the argument that his client was flying a model aircraft, and FAA's lawyers were unable (if they even tried) to make the case that it was not a model aircraft by their own publicly released position on this (and yours, mine and AMA's). I do hope FAA can make that fact stand in their appeal, else the thin gray line that separates our models from regulated aircraft has been erased by this court. |
Is that a sane comparison? Forgive my ignorance but can we really make the distinction between a commercial drone pilot and a recreational pilot simply based on the exchange of money? I can understand a commercial pilot who fly's a couple of hundred people from place to place being held to a strict and ridged standard; however, I can't see this standard being used in a drone situation. Specifically the court case in question. It seems that the FAA would have had no problem with this guy if he had not taken money for his flying. I'm sure I'm missing something because that seems insane. Is it the FAA's intent to use current regulation with regards to private vs.commercial pilots and simply transfer it over for use in the drone community? I don't get it.
James |
Originally Posted by NorfolkSouthern
(Post 11758163)
I hope the FAA appeal does NOT stand. Why? Because ANY regulation of model airplanes will result in a grass roots effort to get any new law overturned. Why should I have to drive 30 miles to a field, just to fly a 6 pound .40 sized toy, when I can find a vacant lot some place with enough space to do my takeoffs and landings? These days, with who we have for a president, and who we have in congress (the screaming liberals and greenie weenies), people are getting sick and tired of their rights and freedoms being stripped. There will very likely be a grass roots effort to take our rights back, and it won't be much different from the NRA. I, for one, would be very happy to see some people get voted out of office on this next election.
Gerry Gerry |
This thread has EVERYTHING to do with the AMA and modeling. This is not a political discussion, when it relates to people's right to the pursuit of happiness, guaranteed in the Constitution. And if part of that happiness is enjoying a hobby (RC drones that are miniaturized versions of full-scale airplanes) that has been essentially harmless over the last 75 years, then we all indeed need to speak up. OR, perhaps we can expect the AMA to one day require a medical certificate, background, and mental health check to buy an AirHog from Wal-Mart.
|
Perhaps some would believe that any government regulation is an affront to a persons' personal freedom....maybe yes, maybe no
But I can guarantee you that the first time that an innocent bystander is injured or killed by a FPV and the operator/paying customer is sued into oblivion by the person and or his family you'll see a whole lot of self regulation take place And this doesn't even take into account if a FPV 'interacts' with a full scale aircraft, and the potential death and destruction that occurs...............we'll see just how fast FPV's, and perhaps us plain-Jane regular RC flyers, are shut down |
Originally Posted by NorfolkSouthern
(Post 11758163)
I hope the FAA appeal does NOT stand. Why? Because ANY regulation of model airplanes will result in a grass roots effort to get any new law overturned. Why should I have to drive 30 miles to a field, just to fly a 6 pound .40 sized toy, when I can find a vacant lot some place with enough space to do my takeoffs and landings? These days, with who we have for a president, and who we have in congress (the screaming liberals and greenie weenies), people are getting sick and tired of their rights and freedoms being stripped. There will very likely be a grass roots effort to take our rights back, and it won't be much different from the NRA. I, for one, would be very happy to see some people get voted out of office on this next election.
A vacant lot? Between two buildings, near a street with cars passing and pedestrians passing by. You do know that that fits my definition of a sociopath? Just to be clear, as responsible model aviators we are regulating ourselves using the safety guidelines of the AMA as a source of guidance. We are not under the thumb of any bureaucracy. |
Originally Posted by JW0311
(Post 11758170)
Is that a sane comparison? Forgive my ignorance but can we really make the distinction between a commercial drone pilot and a recreational pilot simply based on the exchange of money? I can understand a commercial pilot who fly's a couple of hundred people from place to place being held to a strict and ridged standard; however, I can't see this standard being used in a drone situation. Specifically the court case in question. It seems that the FAA would have had no problem with this guy if he had not taken money for his flying. I'm sure I'm missing something because that seems insane. Is it the FAA's intent to use current regulation with regards to private vs.commercial pilots and simply transfer it over for use in the drone community? I don't get it.
James It is not the FAA's intent to do as you stated. They realize that it would place an unwieldy burden on operators of small 'drones' and in fact their intent is to pare down from current full scale regulation and tailor a minimal set of rules to allow them to operate without posing undue hazard to the citizenry. I don't fault them for their intent, but do find them lacking for their execution, which is far behind schedule and so has interminably denied availability of the technology to applications that could/should be benefiting from it, e.g., your Fire Dept. |
So does anybody know how the fpv pilot was paid for the flight?
Are they counting the youtube revenue as payment ? The Ama has no problem ignoring a manufacturer sponsored pilot's compensation , which would mean that Ama insurance would not cover them at events . The Ama will follow the money . Law enforcement will ban the filming of police officers while performing their work (thanks Rodney King). As for irresponsible Fpv pilots bringing the foot down on all of our necks , even if everyone flew them to your perfect standard ,everyone of us will pay the price one day. One fool with 20 minions make us all take off our shoes to get on an airplane today . Drones are here to stay , Pandora box has been opened , you can't close it. Now it's just a matter of who can play with them . |
Originally Posted by JohnShe
(Post 11757482)
I don't hate FPV, I am sure that people can have fun flying FPV according to safety guidelines. I just don't like the sociopaths who fly down city streets and over peoples houses.
|
Originally Posted by warningshot
(Post 11758245)
What safety guide lines are you talking about?
LOL, that was funny. This is an AMA discussion forum and thread. What safety guidelines do you think I meant. Not these of course? http://www.modelaircraft.org/documents.aspx#SMB |
else the thin gray line that separates our models from regulated aircraft has been erased by this court. |
Originally Posted by Sport_Pilot
(Post 11758269)
The judge knew that this was an FPV for hire and yet he accepted that this was a model airplane.
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:23 PM. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.