RCU Forums

RCU Forums (http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/)
-   AMA Discussions (http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/ama-discussions-74/)
-   -   FAA fine against drone photographer dismissed. (http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/ama-discussions-74/11595811-faa-fine-against-drone-photographer-dismissed.html)

NorfolkSouthern 03-06-2014 10:51 PM

FAA fine against drone photographer dismissed.
 
Yes, this has to do with the AMA and modeling. It simply opens up more freedoms to those who wish to purchase, and enjoy a quad copter to make some practical use out of, rather than circle flying with a quarter-scale at the local club:

http://www.nbcnews.com/tech/innovati...smissed-n46506

Now, let's wait and see what the FAA does. If our friend with the drone prevails, then I say we're good to go, and those big huge hunks of metal you see at the airport will, for the most part, soon become obsolete!

littlecrankshaf 03-07-2014 05:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NorfolkSouthern (Post 11753507)
Yes, this has to do with the AMA and modeling. It simply opens up more freedoms to those who wish to purchase, and enjoy a quad copter to make some practical use out of, rather than circle flying with a quarter-scale at the local club:

http://www.nbcnews.com/tech/innovati...smissed-n46506

Very good news. I was really hoping sanity would prevail for once.

Thanks for posting that NFS...needed something good to help my spirits.

[TABLE="class: tborder, width: 100%, align: center"]
[TR]
[TD="class: alt1, bgcolor: #F5F5FF"]For the moment that is really good news... that the charges were dropped... but be fore warned, the FAA will be as any women scorned and resulting long term ramifications will be with a fervent vengeance.

A small battle has been won but the ever greater erosion of personal freedoms continues. Freedom is a continuous fight, every single day... and "freedom fighters" are losing more ground every single day to those that can't understand the concept of true personal responsibility and real accountability.

The precepts of the "need more laws" complacent ignorant zealot type, that is killing our freedoms now, is that more laws, rules, and regulations are always the answer...as their position can easily and effectively rationalized from the standpoint of safety...and once the "safety card" has been played any contrary argument is easily deemed impotent...even at the expense to freedom...and they know it... and the "droids" couldn't care less how it impacts freedom as long as they can maintain their errant perception that "authoritative oversight" will cause them less work or worry. They just want their happy meal at any cost...they really don't want to be bothered by all the work that true freedom presents...just much easier to be led like the sheeple they are.
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

JW0311 03-07-2014 08:47 PM

My Fire Department is considering using a quad copter equipped with a Go Pro camera for use during wildland fires and rescue operations. Having a birds eye view for the purpose of making tactical decisions is something we think may be helpful. The images would be used for real time operational decisions and for training. Would this be considered commercial use? Would the firefighter using the copter need to be an AMA member? Would we need permission from the land owner if we were operating on private property? This would be in a special fire district. Would we be considered a government agency and would that make any difference? Got to fly it the other day during some testing. Kind of fun. Definitely a different type of flying. We are aware that this is a hot topic but the real time images, we believe, could be life saving. Should we be expecting a visit from the FAA? I'm not sure that comparing what we want to do and what this gentleman did are the same but i have to wonder none the less. I noted while reading that the FAA is asking government and police agencies to advise them (ask permission) before testing. Does our use differ in their eyes? The images gathered would not be use for any purpose other than training and tactical decisions during any fire-ground operations.

James

NorfolkSouthern 03-07-2014 09:46 PM

It is unfortunate, but the FAA is going for an appeal, and there is nothing the AMA will do, because it's tied in with the government agency. It is too bad that drones aren't protected by the constitution, like our important Second Amendment protects the rights of gun owners. This may end up going to the Supreme Court. And if it does, I really hope the AMA and FAA both lose the deal. The AMA does not amount to a hill of beans, in my opinion, since it decided to become a government body wannabe. An insurance underwriter (which is all the AMA is, essentially) has no business sticking its nose into people's personal affairs.

ira d 03-07-2014 09:49 PM

The 10k fine was way to excessive especaily if this was a first offense, The FAA needs to stop delaying the proposed rules and put something in effect
before they try to get to involved in model planes and or small uas aircraft.

littlecrankshaf 03-08-2014 06:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JW0311 (Post 11754296)
My Fire Department is considering using a quad copter equipped with a Go Pro camera for use during wildland fires and rescue operations. Having a birds eye view for the purpose of making tactical decisions is something we think may be helpful. The images would be used for real time operational decisions and for training. Would this be considered commercial use? Would the firefighter using the copter need to be an AMA member? Would we need permission from the land owner if we were operating on private property? This would be in a special fire district. Would we be considered a government agency and would that make any difference? Got to fly it the other day during some testing. Kind of fun. Definitely a different type of flying. We are aware that this is a hot topic but the real time images, we believe, could be life saving. Should we be expecting a visit from the FAA? I'm not sure that comparing what we want to do and what this gentleman did are the same but i have to wonder none the less. I noted while reading that the FAA is asking government and police agencies to advise them (ask permission) before testing. Does our use differ in their eyes? The images gathered would not be use for any purpose other than training and tactical decisions during any fire-ground operations.

James

Your post is exemplary of our future going forward. We've become to expect un-ending impacts to our freedom...up to the point we really aren't sure what we are allowed to...even if for the best of causes...

littlecrankshaf 03-08-2014 06:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NorfolkSouthern (Post 11754332)
It is unfortunate, but the FAA is going for an appeal, and there is nothing the AMA will do, because it's tied in with the government agency. .

I think AMA will continue to side with the Romans...as the fellow was being horse whipped while dragging his cross, AMA threw a rock or two and spat at him to show allegiance...and most of the crowd cheered with great acceptance.

Top_Gunn 03-08-2014 09:17 AM

On the off chance that anyone cares what this case actually held, it doesn't say the FAA can't regulate unmanned aircraft. It just says they need to issue regulations to do that. If they get serious, they could issue emergency regulations next week, though they probably won't. This is not an important case, and it doesn't involve any supposed constitutional right to fly anything without the FAA's permission. We've all known that regulations are coming. This case has nothing at all to do with what those regulations will or can provide.

cj_rumley 03-08-2014 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JW0311 (Post 11754296)
My Fire Department is considering using a quad copter equipped with a Go Pro camera for use during wildland fires and rescue operations. Having a birds eye view for the purpose of making tactical decisions is something we think may be helpful. The images would be used for real time operational decisions and for training. Would this be considered commercial use? Would the firefighter using the copter need to be an AMA member? Would we need permission from the land owner if we were operating on private property? This would be in a special fire district. Would we be considered a government agency and would that make any difference? Got to fly it the other day during some testing. Kind of fun. Definitely a different type of flying. We are aware that this is a hot topic but the real time images, we believe, could be life saving. Should we be expecting a visit from the FAA? I'm not sure that comparing what we want to do and what this gentleman did are the same but i have to wonder none the less. I noted while reading that the FAA is asking government and police agencies to advise them (ask permission) before testing. Does our use differ in their eyes? The images gathered would not be use for any purpose other than training and tactical decisions during any fire-ground operations.

James

What you are considering is a "public" use, rather than commercial, ("civil" in topical FAA releases). I don't think your FD differs from other "public" users of unmanned aircraft you have read about as to being required to ask and be granted permission from FAA. Not easy, but doable, given that hundreds of public service agencies have obtained the necessary certification to use them on an experimental basis, while only 2 commercial users have.
Your application of the technology is a natural, but FAA has lagged badly on getting the regulatory provisions in order that will allow it......they have spent years "getting ready to get ready," and only recently came out with a 'roadmap' for getting the job done.
I don't know what costs are involved in pursuit of getting FAA permission to operate, but expect that it may be a significant burden on your FD budget. Vendors of such systems of course have a vested interest in equipping you, and so are a probably your best source of advice on navigating the regulatory process.

Bozarth 03-08-2014 09:59 PM

[QUOTE=NorfolkSouthern;... An insurance underwriter (which is all the AMA is, essentially) has no business sticking its nose into people's personal affairs.[/QUOTE]

Right on!!! NorfolkSouthern is right on! (Never mind that I was born in Norfolk). I agree with everything you wrote.

Kurt

NorfolkSouthern 03-09-2014 10:37 AM

I have been putting a little more thought into this. The ability to see, and observe, is a basic human right. If a doc writes a prescription for eyeglasses, then you have the right to have the prescription filled, to aid in vision. A drone, when equipped for FPV, aids in vision. It allows the operator to "see and observe" his or her environment. As long as the privacy of individuals is protected (no flying over people's back yards, or around someone's home with the purpose of snooping, harassment, or taking photos/videos, etc, for example) then perhaps, owning an enjoying a drone should be a fundamental right. An amendment to the Constitution, adding drones to parts that guarantee the right to pursue liberty and happiness, including having an aid of vision available to view landmarks, could be added, perhaps.

Then, mandate FPV as a required safety feature, along with a transmitter/receiver that allows full control of the drone even if it goes beyond line of site, along with a "return to home" fail safe. I would be all for it. Green and red navigation lights and little white blinkers are fine with me. People can purchase a nicely manufactured and safety tested drone at retail, and enjoy it freely, without having to resort to an improvised device made from a multitude of parts. We can all be FREE from having to spend BIG money for a pilot and Cessna just to take pictures of a friend's horse stable.

From all the videos I've watched of multi-rotors, along with videos of demos when flown indoors, I have reached the conclusion that drones with FPV are actually SAFER than a standard model plane, when set up properly. They are just more controllable, and predictable, with far better safety options. I say, run roughshod over the FAA and AMA with a Constitutional amendment. Neither of them will do a dang thing to allow technology to take its course, and improve our lives.

JohnShe 03-09-2014 06:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NorfolkSouthern (Post 11755466)
I have been putting a little more thought into this. The ability to see, and observe, is a basic human right. If a doc writes a prescription for eyeglasses, then you have the right to have the prescription filled, to aid in vision. A drone, when equipped for FPV, aids in vision. It allows the operator to "see and observe" his or her environment. As long as the privacy of individuals is protected (no flying over people's back yards, or around someone's home with the purpose of snooping, harassment, or taking photos/videos, etc, for example) then perhaps, owning an enjoying a drone should be a fundamental right. An amendment to the Constitution, adding drones to parts that guarantee the right to pursue liberty and happiness, including having an aid of vision available to view landmarks, could be added, perhaps.

Then, mandate FPV as a required safety feature, along with a transmitter/receiver that allows full control of the drone even if it goes beyond line of site, along with a "return to home" fail safe. I would be all for it. Green and red navigation lights and little white blinkers are fine with me. People can purchase a nicely manufactured and safety tested drone at retail, and enjoy it freely, without having to resort to an improvised device made from a multitude of parts. We can all be FREE from having to spend BIG money for a pilot and Cessna just to take pictures of a friend's horse stable.

From all the videos I've watched of multi-rotors, along with videos of demos when flown indoors, I have reached the conclusion that drones with FPV are actually SAFER than a standard model plane, when set up properly. They are just more controllable, and predictable, with far better safety options. I say, run roughshod over the FAA and AMA with a Constitutional amendment. Neither of them will do a dang thing to allow technology to take its course, and improve our lives.

So you think that any moron, with no training or practice, can take a camera equipped toy multirotor and fly it wherever he wants for any reason.

Should he be allowed to fly it over people or automobile traffic, or homes or buildings?
Should he fly it as far as he wants? What about range limitations?
What about wind conditions?
What about the reliability of the toy multirotor?
Tell me, from your vast store of knowledge, does the camera provide the full range of vsion that humans have?
How far around his toy can he peer?
How high up can he see?
What about seeing below or behind the toy?
Do you comprehend that a real reliable and safe commercial drone has never been built or certified?
Do you comprehend, that when such systems are available, they will cost thousands of dollars or more?
Do you understand that the necessary training to operate the drones successfully and safely will cost thousands of dollars and take hundreds of hours both in classroom and in the air?

I don't think you realize that military drones are being operated right at the ragged edge of our technological capability. There are hundreds of problems being overcome constantly. They are incredibly difficult to build, maintain and operate. They crash far more often that you realize. they completely miss their targets. They are costing us millions perhaps billion of dollars to develop,. maintain and operate. And, they are not toys.

littlecrankshaf 03-10-2014 05:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnShe (Post 11755828)
So you think that any moron, with no training or practice, can take a camera equipped toy multirotor and fly it wherever he wants for any reason.

You're right...we should only use slow sticks...or maybe those inexpensive RTF foam FVP planes...those multi-rotor flying machines are just plane evil, I tell you...

We need to get busy with tons of new laws and restrictions instead of simply holding people responsible for their actions.

JohnShe 03-10-2014 08:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by littlecrankshaf (Post 11756106)
You're right...we should only use slow sticks...or maybe those inexpensive RTF foam FVP planes...those multi-rotor flying machines are just plane evil, I tell you...

We need to get busy with tons of new laws and restrictions instead of simply holding people responsible for their actions.

Yup, just about any of those toys carries about the same amount risk when flown irresponsibly.

cj_rumley 03-10-2014 09:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by littlecrankshaf (Post 11756106)
You're right...we should only use slow sticks...or maybe those inexpensive RTF foam FVP planes...those multi-rotor flying machines are just plane evil, I tell you...

We need to get busy with tons of new laws and restrictions instead of simply holding people responsible for their actions.

Oh, they've been very busy making rules for accommodation of morons at all levels of governance, including our private organization and many of its associated clubs. Morons rule in our society. People responsible for their own actions have become a shunned fringe group, usually living out in the boondocks.

JohnShe 03-10-2014 10:29 AM

Here is afloowup story related to NS's original post;

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/201...s-flying-high/

I find the reporting to be substandard. It attempts to equate model aviation with commercial drones. It doesn't differentiate between irresponsible behavior and responsible behavior. It seems to glorify these idiots and sociopaths.

These scam artist are operating machines of unknown reliability using questionable flying skills, if any all. They are a danger to us all.

NorfolkSouthern 03-10-2014 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnShe (Post 11756347)
Here is afloowup story related to NS's original post;

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/201...s-flying-high/

I find the reporting to be substandard. It attempts to equate model aviation with commercial drones. It doesn't differentiate between irresponsible behavior and responsible behavior. It seems to glorify these idiots and sociopaths.

These scam artist are operating machines of unknown reliability using questionable flying skills, if any all. They are a danger to us all.

I truly don't see how the commercial operator was doing anything wrong. I watched the video, and he was far, FAR away from any populated area. He was in the middle of a field of sunflowers. The FAA wants to make criminals out of people who are merely making a living, doing their work in places that a HUGE hunk of full-scale metal can't reach anyway. Was he chasing an airliner with his 48 ounce quad copter? I think not. Would you like the AMA to join up with Moms Demand Action and MAIG? Seems like there are some Fuds who would like that.

JohnShe 03-10-2014 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NorfolkSouthern (Post 11756355)
I truly don't see how the commercial operator was doing anything wrong. I watched the video, and he was far, FAR away from any populated area. He was in the middle of a field of sunflowers. The FAA wants to make criminals out of people who are merely making a living, doing their work in places that a HUGE hunk of full-scale metal can't reach anyway. Was he chasing an airliner with his 48 ounce quad copter? I think not. Would you like the AMA to join up with Moms Demand Action and MAIG? Seems like there are some Fuds who would like that.

Good one, you pick out one instance that suits your argument and fail to acknowledge the existence of the guys flying their toys over your house, your school, your workplace your streets and roads. Yeah, toy flying is safe anywhere. And pigs can fly them.

smeckert 03-10-2014 02:41 PM

http://detroit.cbslocal.com/2014/03/10/592573/



Clear to make drone deliveries by a federal judge .
Your move FAA .

JohnShe 03-10-2014 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smeckert (Post 11756561)
http://detroit.cbslocal.com/2014/03/10/592573/



Clear to make drone deliveries by a federal judge .
Your move FAA .

All the FAA has to do is wait for someone to be injured, killed or some serious property damage and say "I told you so!" But the FAA has too much of a sense of responsibility for that. They will contest the decision, work faster to produce rules that will satisfy the judge and continue protecting our nations air space.

cj_rumley 03-10-2014 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnShe (Post 11756505)
Good one, you pick out one instance that suits your argument and fail to acknowledge the existence of the guys flying their toys over your house, your school, your workplace your streets and roads. Yeah, toy flying is safe anywhere. And pigs can fly them.

Well, that same instance is one that you condemned as glorifying idiots and sociopaths and scam artists with questionable flying skills that are a danger to us all. You saw a whole lot of malice in that video that I (and NorfolkSouthern) somehow missed.

JohnShe 03-10-2014 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cj_rumley (Post 11756593)
Well, that same instance is one that you condemned as glorifying idiots and sociopaths and scam artists with questionable flying skills that are a danger to us all. You saw a whole lot of malice in that video that I (and NorfolkSouthern) somehow missed.

Not malice, just incredible stupidity. These idiots are playing with matches and they either don't realize it or don't care.

jtotten 03-10-2014 03:59 PM

The faa posted their position on feb 26, and just revised it on March 7, presumably now reflecting their position after the ruling.


http://www.faa.gov/news/updates/?newsId=76240

brn2fly 03-10-2014 04:21 PM

Are any of you commercial pilots that are for this? This UAV/UAS pilot (oh by the way he is not a US citizen) got lucky. The fine should have stuck. I hope the FAA's appeal goes thur and the fine sticks! He is careless and was compensated for the video from this flight. Therefore the FAA should regulate it. Flying a drone/UAV/UAS/RC aircraft in a commercial operation should have standards above what us hobbyist have. IMHO there should be at a minimum some sort of training and licensing requirements for the pilot and inspections for the aircraft. Go ahead and flame me. But until you have been involved in a near miss between a full scale and drone/UAV/UAS/RC aircraft you really don't have a leg to stand on. I don't want any more regulations but you have a bunch of idiots pushing the limits with what they can get away with flying.

Silent-AV8R 03-10-2014 04:28 PM

http://www.faa.gov/news/press_releas...m?newsId=15894

NorfolkSouthern 03-10-2014 04:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brn2fly (Post 11756630)
Are any of you commercial pilots that are for this? This UAV/UAS pilot (oh by the way he is not a US citizen) got lucky. The fine should have stuck. I hope the FAA's appeal goes thur and the fine sticks! He is careless and was compensated you this flight. Therefore the FAA should regulate it. Flying a drone/UAV/UAS/RC aircraft in a commercial operation should have standards above what us hobbyist have. IMHO there should be at a minimum some sort of training and licensing requirements for the pilot and inspections for the aircraft. Go ahead and flame me. But until you have been involved in a near miss between a full scale and drone/UAV/UAS/RC aircraft you really don't have a leg to stand on. I don't want any more regulations but you have a bunch of idiots pushing the limits with what they can get away with flying.

Since there is no law in existence that regulates who can fly model airplanes and where, any enforcement by the FAA against Trappy would be unconstitutional. What was being used, was essentially a frangible foam glider with a tiny, battery powered motor turning a pusher prop. If it hit somebody, that person could then grab the plane and smash it all to pieces. Then get treated for a minor cut and bruise. If it landed in a field of soybeans, the combine would have no problem with indigestion. The material the camera and electric motor are softer than the metal of a typical combine cylinder, so Trappy could rest easy there, knowing that he wouldn't have to pay $40,000.00 for a new combine cylinder ruined by his lost camera outfit. Now, someone with a quarter-scale Yak, out for a joyride? I think I'd be a little more worried about one of those. But even then, there is still no actual law that exists against flying one any place one wishes. There is no licensing requirement, because no law exists on the books!

I'm betting the FAA's case is going to get thrown out of court!

NorfolkSouthern 03-10-2014 04:41 PM

Now I'm beginning to wonder if full-scale pilots aren't actually jack-booted thugs in suits!

brn2fly 03-10-2014 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NorfolkSouthern (Post 11756641)
Now I'm beginning to wonder if full-scale pilots aren't actually jack-booted thugs in suits!

Really, how ignorant can you be! He was being compensated. Therefor it is no longer a hobby! People like you have no clue! Let's wait for the first fatality from pilots like this flying where ever they want to no matter what the consequence for other people are. Have you been involved in any accident, or near miss from one of these aircraft flying where they don't belong. I have! The fine should have stuck! I hope it sticks when the appeal happens! Folks like this and you are going to ruin our hobby.

NorfolkSouthern 03-10-2014 05:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brn2fly (Post 11756657)
Really, how ignorant can you be! He was being compensated. Therefor it is no longer a hobby! People like you have no clue! Let's wait for the first fatality from pilots like this flying where ever they want to no matter what the consequence for other people are. Have you been involved in any accident, or near miss from one of these aircraft flying where they don't belong. I have! The fine should have stuck! I hope it sticks when the appeal happens! Folks like this and you are going to ruin our hobby.

Ruin your hobby??? How so? Is a park foamie with a camera an assault weapon? You think?

littlecrankshaf 03-11-2014 05:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brn2fly (Post 11756657)
Really, how ignorant can you be! He was being compensated. Therefor it is no longer a hobby! People like you have no clue! Let's wait for the first fatality from pilots like this flying where ever they want to no matter what the consequence for other people are. Have you been involved in any accident, or near miss from one of these aircraft flying where they don't belong. I have! The fine should have stuck! I hope it sticks when the appeal happens! Folks like this and you are going to ruin our hobby.

Your post suggests that you think it is just fine that government agencies, like the FAA, should be able to just conjure up charges... not based on any real law, then arbitrarily heavily fine or imprison people at their discretion.... and everything thing else done as a business venture needs the blessing of government...

Am I understanding you correctly?

littlecrankshaf 03-11-2014 06:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cj_rumley (Post 11756293)
Morons rule in our society.

Nothing truer ever spoke. The "system" is liberally fertilized by morons for morons...everyday we are getting further away from genuine personal responsibility...You see it in these threads/forums all the time. People are truly desirous and dependent on the government or some other authority to direct their life.

GerKonig 03-11-2014 07:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cj_rumley (Post 11756593)
Well, that same instance is one that you condemned as glorifying idiots and sociopaths and scam artists with questionable flying skills that are a danger to us all. You saw a whole lot of malice in that video that I (and NorfolkSouthern) somehow missed.

I saw a video of an idiot crashing into the side of a high rise building, and then the "device" came crashing down onto the sidewalk. Fortunately no one was there.
I saw a video in the news of yet another idiot crashing into the public at a stadium.

The FAA will have to hurry and come out with a way to regulate this or else I can see a problem. At our club we ask a minimum to sign off a member as a pilot. And even so, we were somewhat concerned when one of our members took of. He improved, and we are all OK. Do I trust every person that flies a drone? As a pilot? As a builder? Of course not.

Gerry

eddieC 03-11-2014 10:29 AM

Quote:

If our friend with the drone prevails, then I say we're good to go, and those big huge hunks of metal you see at the airport will, for the most part, soon become obsolete!
To what 'big huge hunks of metal' are you referring? If they carry people, I doubt a quad will suffice. :cool:

Quote:

This may end up going to the Supreme Court.
Uh, that's doubtful...

Daniel-EL 03-11-2014 10:35 AM

Glad to see the "Tyranny by Bureaucracy" has been, at least temporarily, set back. The regulatory burden on all Americans is rapidly becoming unbearable.

Sport_Pilot 03-11-2014 04:08 PM

No reason to rewrite the Constitution or add an amendment. The Constitution only gives the Federal govenment the right to regulate commerce between the states, Years back the courts decided that the FAA should have authority to regulate all full scale aircraft because they could be used for interstate commerce and the airways needed to be protected for such. This was basically a model airplane not capable of interstate commerce, not flown as such, and flown in non navigable space (that is a full scale aircraft was not supposed to be flying that low. The lawyer had no need to go thewre as that would have complicated the case, But if the FAA keeps appealing then the lawyer may eventually need to bring that up. Interesting that the NTSB consered this a model airplane despite that it was an FPV.

NorfolkSouthern 03-11-2014 04:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sport_Pilot (Post 11757393)
No reason to rewrite the Constitution or add an amendment. The Constitution only gives the Federal govenment the right to regulate commerce between the states, Years back the courts decided that the FAA should have authority to regulate all full scale aircraft because they could be used for interstate commerce and the airways needed to be protected for such. This was basically a model airplane not capable of interstate commerce, not flown as such, and flown in non navigable space (that is a full scale aircraft was not supposed to be flying that low. The lawyer had no need to go thewre as that would have complicated the case, But if the FAA keeps appealing then the lawyer may eventually need to bring that up. Interesting that the NTSB consered this a model airplane despite that it was an FPV.

Very good and valid points, Sport_Pilot. It is actually true, a drone qualifies as a model airplane, because it is controlled remotely. It has been this way since the days of the control-line. There is no way to distinguish a drone, from an RC model airplane. Both do the same thing, and both can be retrofitted with equipment and payloads. In fact, there are model planes that are very significant in size, as you know. A half-scale cub, for example, which will easily dwarf the size, weight, and speed of some military drones!

I really don't think the FAA has a case. Not with something that's almost as light as air, and too frangible to even scratch paint. In the end, if the FAA really wants to regulate civilian drone use, they may end up having to require a pilot's license and medical certificate like they do with full-scale (even light sport requires a medical certificate if you've ever been denied a medical). Obviously, that would NOT set well with the public, and Congress would likely frown on it.

The FAA and full-scale interests are harassing modelers and hobbyists This is probably so because they are afraid they'll lose money when someone buys an affordable small drone with a camera instead of paying $500.00 to some flight instructor or Class-II pilot with deep pockets.

JohnShe 03-11-2014 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NorfolkSouthern (Post 11757411)
Very good and valid points, Sport_Pilot. It is actually true, a drone qualifies as a model airplane, because it is controlled remotely. It has been this way since the days of the control-line. There is no way to distinguish a drone, from an RC model airplane. Both do the same thing, and both can be retrofitted with equipment and payloads. In fact, there are model planes that are very significant in size, as you know. A half-scale cub, for example, which will easily dwarf the size, weight, and speed of some military drones!

I really don't think the FAA has a case. Not with something that's almost as light as air, and too frangible to even scratch paint. In the end, if the FAA really wants to regulate civilian drone use, they may end up having to require a pilot's license and medical certificate like they do with full-scale (even light sport requires a medical certificate if you've ever been denied a medical). Obviously, that would NOT set well with the public, and Congress would likely frown on it.

The FAA and full-scale interests are harassing modelers and hobbyists This is probably so because they are afraid they'll lose money when someone buys an affordable small drone with a camera instead of paying $500.00 to some flight instructor or Class-II pilot with deep pockets.

According to the definition of a model airplane given to the FAA by congress, a model airplane is a model airplane as long as it is used solely for recreational purposes according to safety guidelines issued by a CBO. Step outside that boundary and the FAA owns you.

I do not care what happens to the sociopaths who insist on flying their drones anywhere the please. I just hope the penalty is harsh.

JW0311 03-11-2014 05:18 PM

Sounds like if congress is giving the definition of model airplanes to the FAA then they own all of us. Won't matter if i'm a sociopathic drone flyer or a recreational model airplane flyer. Not sure I understand the hate towards the fpv folks. Is it were they choose to fly? or the aircraft itself?

James

Sport_Pilot 03-11-2014 05:28 PM

Quote:

According to the definition of a model airplane given to the FAA by congress, a model airplane is a model airplane as long as it is used solely for recreational purposes according to safety guidelines issued by a CBO.
The court defined it as a model airplane, They know that Congress is not the only ones defining model airplanes, they may prefer Webster's or their own definition. They have as much say so as Congress,

JohnShe 03-11-2014 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JW0311 (Post 11757444)
Sounds like if congress is giving the definition of model airplanes to the FAA then they own all of us. Won't matter if i'm a sociopathic drone flyer or a recreational model airplane flyer. Not sure I understand the hate towards the fpv folks. Is it were they choose to fly? or the aircraft itself?

James

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.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:49 PM.