Sport_Pilot

Quote:

All the pages of the garage thread include legal challenges to no avail, just because my city code dept said there are no laws preventing it doesn't mean it will sway you guys any, there are safety and privacy and decency issues abound.

Of course you still chose to ignore the states trespasing laws.

brandon429

Remember we were kinda making fun at how what you linked had nothing to do with Rc? Maybe we should have been more direct. Aerial Rc is not trespassing where I live. Find a valid link, and link it. Your link said enter into an airplane, not by one, big difference.

Trespass involved real property not air. At any rate I need to see a link of alts that allow cessnas to fly over without trespassing. It isn't no 1000 ft you posted they are lower than that over my house all the time

Sport_Pilot

No what does this paragraph say?

Quote:

§ 30.05. CRIMINAL TRESPASS. (a) A person commits an offense if he enters or remains on or in property, including an aircraft or other vehicle, of another without effective consent or he enters or remains in a building of another without effective consent and he:

Are you claiming that RC is not an airplane? Well the FAA says they are and I am sure a judge will admit that in court. Even so it includes other vehicle.

You also never bothered to read Wikipedia about air rights as I suggested earlier. Between the two of them there is no doubt you are commiting the crime of Criminal Trespas in the state of Texas.

brandon429

Thanks for linking that again, my point is made. Someone help him interpret.

Sport_Pilot

I am not the one committing trespassing, therefore I do not need to know the details of the law. You are. You are the one who needs to know this, so you can instruct your lawyer! BTW did you ever consider that some posting to you may be lawyers. Suggest you ask them to sind you a PM.

That is why I suggested you read the Wiki on air rights. Apparently you are too stubborn to do so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_rights

init4fun

In the particular passage quoted , it is plainly obvious that they are talking about being in someone's plane , car , or building without permission . That passage speaks not of the issue at hand here .


BUT !

The fact that , at this point , a full 87% of your fellow RCers are against what your doing , should be enough to get ya to stop putting the risk on to the rest of us for what your doing . You know darned right well that in the (admittedly small) chance of an incident , that the entire hobby WILL bear the brunt of the sanctions invoked . God forbid , it does hit the windshield and distract a driver to a crash resulting in death , you will be charged with "reckless endangerment" which is the catch all for when someone does something stupid that there ain't yet a written statute to address . Then , the politicians , who love "smoke and mirror" issues to distract from their real failings , will rail on about how this "menace in the skies" has gotta get banned , and so it goes . Another community gets RC restrictions caused by the selfish act of one person who wouldn't follow his hobby's accepted norms . Is that really what you want here ?

PS , Eastern Massachusetts' second largest city (Boston being first) , which is named Quincy , has a total ban on ALL rc flying in city parks . Yep , you guessed it , some dolt flew one into someone's windshield causing a crash , and that's why I use the above example . No one died , but it's just another case of someone not following good common sense ruining things for everyone else .

Sad , , common sense shouldn't need to be mandated and regulated , but people who step out of their hobby's accepted safety norms cause it to happen all the time .

My piece has been said here . Over , and most certainly , out ........

Sport_Pilot

Read the law and court rulings and you will find that is not the case. You trespass when you hit a baseball or golfball into someones property. You do not have to be in it.

http://corporate.findlaw.com/litigat...ll-hazard.html

But if you chose to ignore those who seem to know about this. You do so at your own risk, not ours!

flyinwalenda

My Feedback: (5)

Splitting hairs here trying to look at this from all angles. The answer is so simple as stated here by many and summed up quite well by init4fun. You cause an accident  resulting in damage , injury, or death as a result of pilot error, plane/component malfunction, you will  cause hardship to someone else, you will be in trouble, and you will put an unnecessary spotlight on the hobby that could result in bans, and more restrictions we don't need.  It may never happen but the odds are against you as it only takes one time so stop doing it and stop trying to justify it as it will not work.

brandon429

Sport-you make extensions off the things you post. Post TX laws on Rc flight.

Regarding the constant worst case safety proposals, people fly and wreck park flyers all the time, Texas is just not as restrictive on rights like the east coast, be it gun rights/castle doctrine etc. I don't play fear hyping, remember lead pencils cause harm and aren't under ban, but I need to continue reading states law you never know about all the other states I'm not flying in
I'm sure there are cities in TX with a restriction too, just not my city.
Use Texas law links pls.

brandon429

Sport, you were in a thread here in '10 called how high up do your property rights extend, post up that link my phone won't cut and paste.

The AMA has a blog for this as well. They reference the same article about parrot ar drones that I linked in my thread, says its allowed until further testing.

A huge thread on it here: over flying private property without permission

Sport_Pilot

Obviously you haven't been reading my links. For unregulated (does not come under the FAA or NASA) objects, it theoritically goes up forever. But to be practical, if you can hear itor see it andit isover your property it is trespasing.

Trespasing is normally under state and common law. Common law is basically all of those judgments handed down by the judges. Or if no prior judgement, then commonly held laws mostly handed down from the old pre colonial British government.

brandon429

That's your interpretation. As I'm reading that big ten page thread I'm seeing lots who disagree with you, one is a fs pilot. Looks like this topic isn't new to rcu

Id never searched to see all the clone threads on this topic.

One repeating statement was'you are going to ruin it for everyone'and that was in 2010

FAA just convened again, said we'll have something by '15

They didn't buy into the hype either I guess or they would have ruled?

brandon429

Still though, this poll wasn't about legal interpretations that's why its better discussed other places. Anything but a yes/no is off topic.

mr_matt

My Feedback: (10)

When you bring up legality, privacy, trespassing you are throwing gas on his fire. With all respect, you guys are glossing over the central theme to this guy’s argument.

Here is his basic argument:

Since I am doing the same things as (AMA) park flying, you guys must either condemn park flying or sanction flying FPV over houses at night.

This is an example of the �straw man� fallacy. Here is his straw man laid out:

1,) AMA Park Flying is OK to the majority of you (hypocritical) 87% of modelers
2.) FPV at night over houses is the same as AMA Park Flying
3.) Therefore FPV at night over houses should be OK to the majority of you (hypocritical) modelers

The converse argument uses the same straw man:

1.) You condemn FPV at night over houses
2.) FPV at night over houses is the same as Park Flying
3.) Therefore you must condemn AMA Park Flying

If you take away the “at night� and FPV (they are really irrelevant) the_pure_straw man is:

“Park Flying is the same as flying over a house�.

This is really the point the guy should be arguing.

Sport_Pilot

Quote:

“Park Flying is the same as flying over a house”.

This is really the point the guy should be arguing.

Hardly, not even close.

brandon429

Good summary Matt. I believe the two have the same risk. Id asked earlier if AMA has ever paid a claim from a slow stick crash, have they?

mr_matt

My Feedback: (10)

Where is this documented?

mr_matt

My Feedback: (10)

double post sorry

Hemikiller

My Feedback: (125)

They've paid plenty of claims over the years, I believe you can research on their site...


You keep focusing on Slow Stik - the type of model is irrelevant and it doesn't even have to hit someone to cause injury.


Let's play out this scenario:

Slow stick loses radio contact, starts slow descent toward a road. Person sees lights coming at their windshield and veers to avoid, loses control, crashes and/or crashes into (insert anything you want here - car, person, tree, building).

Now begins the cascade of events that your "harmless" Stik just caused - it starts with the claim for the property damage and whatever the local authorities decide to charge you with. AMA won't cover you, mainly because you don't have it IIRC. Even if you did, they'd disallow the claim on grounds of violation of the Safey Code. Now - that all comes from your homeowner's insurance. You get to deal with the hassle of that mess, your rates go up, your town will probably ban RC flying within the city limits, etc. One can never see where this will go.....

Now wait, it gets better - the person in the car was injured....

This is what they get to deal with:

Hospital
surgery
Physical therapy
lost time from work
out of pocket co-pays
insurance claims
temporary disability
physical pain
mental duress
and on
and on
and on....

You can bet your arse that their third or fourth phone call will be to an injury lawyer and rightly so. If you have some small liability coverage, they won't stop with the insurance company, they'll come after you personally and if the lawyer is good, he'll destroy you financially.


You made a statement that you're "self insured" - trust me Brandon, your pockets aren't deep enough for this type of risk....

brandon429

Check the link I provided in the garage thread to the uas legal thread at rcg
All the uas integration mandates are in there. It can be googled too, but that place had a concise list and even better, completely accurate interpretation of them!

Currently the FAA does not regulate civilian uav's
Whether or not they, or other self governing bodies like the AMA will, is coming by '15. Rc groups, video piloting, huge thread up top about rule making.


http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=911761

This stuff is hard to read and interpret, you get what we have here today in this thread/ if my interpretation is wrong, pls point that out. Not the opinionated stuff, the facts, like trespassing that is very interesting to delve into and Ive tried my best for years to make sure Im ok. let me know if you guys find out anything factual and we'll be in business.
Hemi, that's the fear mongering part we were talking about, not buying it. Maybe if I was a first time flyer, but ten years into slow sticking, nope, things don't go down like that. Any park flyer is taking the same risks as matt summarized. Fiftieth time I'll say it, this poll thread is not the place for these discussions, polls are yes/no.


Use the site uasnews.com as well, when laws change Patrick keegan/ Gary will be the first to report it.

fly24-7

This is an absurd statement. Simply because no one has been injured by a given activity doesn't mean that it lacks risk. There is a simple truth to the statement that there is greater danger when people are flown over than if you have a boundary line that separate people from the aircraft. The presence of a group of people that lack the perception of risk doesn't mean there's no risk.

Your club has had a good track record. That's good and appreciate what you have. Eventually that day may come to an end.

fly24-7

This issue can be boiled down to that of liability. Irregardless of FAA rules, AMA rules, local ordinances, etc..., If you are in control of a model aircraft and your aircraft strikes another person or someone's property, you will be held responsible for the damages caused. The issue will be compounded if it can be shown that you knowingly were doing something that you shouldn't have been. All that needs to be shown is that you received information from any type of venue that explains the risks associated with the activity. If you then disagree with or disregard the information, and the information is found to have been prudent and reasonable, you've got big problems.

Groups like the AMA provide the following advantage. If you practice the activity within the framework outlined by the organization, the insurance provided by the organization will cover you. You're still responsible for the action, you're just protected by the insurance.

If someone was flying a POV model above a house and hit the house or a person, they wouldn't stand a chance legally. I'd be willing to bet that the manual that comes with that model, like those that come with all models, has the AMA safety code included. The code in part basically says, don't fly over people. The operator was warned and disregarded the warning. Game, set and match. To pour salt in the wound, I'd also bet that a creative prosecutor could find some way to attach a criminal battery charge since the individual was notified that their actions represented a risk to the safety of bystanders.

brandon429

if any of that actually happened vs being fervently predicted since like 2006, again we might have something. I am not arguing with you guys prudency of flying, Im saying what I do is not dangerous, and if I need to go down to a 5 oz model to lessen the risk further I will, equivalent to what air hogs weigh. then that sends us off on another tangent...repeat etc.
So no payouts in the history of ama for slow sticks? How come you guys leave out the positive data (someone is furiously checking links now)

I don't buy anyones fear scenario at 5 oz, 30oz is debatable, 5oz isnt, but you will

Lets discuss qualification statements in a more appropriate place/ie any other thread. someone start a thread titled "stuff that doesn't belong in the poll thread" and we'll run it there. It will wind up looking exactly like the garage launch thread, my prediction.

matt isn't all the death from above scenarios a strawman too or not.

topspin

That guy is in his own little world of denial. Now he's talking about some 5 ounce baloney but hey, what happened to the Slow Stick? Doesn't make any difference because the poll numbers support the majority view. The vast majority agree that flying an FPV controlled model over a neighborhood day or night rain or shine is just plain stupid and irresponsible. The numbers speak for themselves.

brandon429

The votes that showed up pro were unexpected that's for sure.

Hopefully you aren't still offended, I've read the perspectives of those who write soundly

Id like to focus on miniaturization to gain safety, we can meet an uneasy middle ground there.

As long as we are granted the airspace to cruise 1st pt of view conveniently I disagree in not using it.
Some compromise will have to be reached because the nas is pretty much wide open for civilians, for the time being, its quite a window for innovation we just see things differently.
There is a weight limit where the practice would garner even more than the current number of yes votes.

the poll shows non support by the majority... most would not be swayed by a drastic reduction in thin foam mass, but some will.