RE: This should help bill requiring warrant for drones.    Gallery
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as Guest



Users viewing this topic: none
    Search This Thread  
 
Printable Version

All Forums >> RC Airplanes >> AMA Discussions >> RE: This should help bill requiring warrant for drones.
Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]

Tower Hobbies Get Coupon Codes Brands  
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: This should help bill requiring warrant for drones. - 7/5/2012 3:51 AM   
TexasAirBoss



Posts: 2678
Score: 151
Joined: 10/9/2002
Last Login: 5/23/2013
From: Houston, TX, USA
Status: offline 		Would a private FPV model/drone also be considered a danger/threat for flying within 500' of people/structures ?

_____________________________

ME: "I need a good rate down to one three thousand". EXPRESS: "Roger, we''re coming down like a Bonanza full of doctors"

Hide Signatures

(in reply to KidEpoxy)
       Post #: 26

RE: This should help bill requiring warrant for drones. - 7/5/2012 4:54 AM   
KidEpoxy



Posts: 6681
Score: 431
Joined: 10/14/2004
Last Login: 11/18/2012
From: San Antonio, TX, USA
Status: offline 		T A B,
it would make it real interesting for AMA club pilots to hover over the runway
if we kinda admit most times the hovering is being done
within 500' of the cars in the parking lot or tailgating Pit row.

quote:

91.119(c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.

How do you stay 500' away from the gymnasium your lil elecitric 3d/4d foamie is flying inside?
lol



FAA minimum altitudes, and Causeby aerial private property,
have nothing to do with the current PRIVACY issue in the media and social whining networks,
as obviously seen by them applying to non-spying/peeking craft.

Hide Signatures

(in reply to TexasAirBoss)
       Post #: 27

RE: This should help bill requiring warrant for drones. - 7/5/2012 5:22 AM   
cfircav8r



Posts: 1156
Score: 218
Joined: 7/17/2004
Last Login: 5/24/2013
From: Hampton, IA, USA
Status: offline 		For many flyers i've seen even 500' is too close.

_____________________________

The three most useless things to a pilot, the sky above you, the runway behind you, and the fuel on the ground.

Hide Signatures

(in reply to KidEpoxy)
       Post #: 28

RE: This should help bill requiring warrant for drones. - 7/5/2012 5:45 AM   
TexasAirBoss



Posts: 2678
Score: 151
Joined: 10/9/2002
Last Login: 5/23/2013
From: Houston, TX, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: KidEpoxy

T A B,
it would make it real interesting for AMA club pilots to hover over the runway
if we kinda admit most times the hovering is being done
within 500' of the cars in the parking lot or tailgating Pit row.


Presumably, at the (AMA) club , you would have CBO exemption. But when you fly FPV elsewhere, you would not.

It seemed that you presented a case in which a court decided that hovering over a pot growers barn was a threat because the vehicle was too close, (closer than FAA guidlelines). Why wouldn't the same COURT keep me from hovering my FPV heli over the pot growers barn? IS too close for a manned vehicle the same as too close for an unmanned vehicle ? (not speaking about FAA's opinion of things or FAR's)

_____________________________

ME: "I need a good rate down to one three thousand". EXPRESS: "Roger, we''re coming down like a Bonanza full of doctors"

Hide Signatures

(in reply to KidEpoxy)
       Post #: 29

RE: This should help bill requiring warrant for drones. - 7/5/2012 6:41 AM   
Hossfly



Posts: 5629
Score: 443
Joined: 12/3/2001
Last Login: 5/23/2013
From: New Caney, TX, USA
Status: offline 		http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2012/06/25/drones-vulnerable-to-terrorist-hijacking-researchers-say/

A small surveillance drone flies over an Austin stadium, diligently following a series of GPS waypoints that have been programmed into its flight computer. By all appearances, the mission is routine.

Suddenly, the drone veers dramatically off course, careering eastward from its intended flight path. A few moments later, it is clear something is seriously wrong as the drone makes a hard right turn, streaking toward the south. Then, as if some phantom has given the drone a self-destruct order, it hurtles toward the ground. Just a few feet from certain catastrophe, a safety pilot with a radio control saves the drone from crashing into the field.

From the sidelines, there are smiles all around over this near-disaster. Professor Todd Humphreys and his team at
the University of Texas at Austin's Radionavigation Laboratory have just completed a successful experiment: illuminating a gaping hole in the government’s plan to open US airspace to thousands of drones.

They could be turned into weapons.

“Spoofing a GPS receiver on a UAV is just another way of hijacking a plane,” Humphreys told Fox News.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2012/06/25/drones-vulnerable-to-terrorist-hijacking-researchers-say/#ixzz1zitVd8Eh
Go Git 'em, Boys

_____________________________

Horrace Cain AMA L-93

“Peace is the brief glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading." T. Jefferson

Hide Signatures

(in reply to TexasAirBoss)
       Post #: 30

RE: This should help bill requiring warrant for drones. - 7/5/2012 5:44 PM   
KidEpoxy



Posts: 6681
Score: 431
Joined: 10/14/2004
Last Login: 11/18/2012
From: San Antonio, TX, USA
Status: offline 		TAB
quote:

Presumably, at the (AMA) club , you would have CBO exemption. But when you fly FPV elsewhere, you would not.

It seemed that you presented a case in which a court decided that hovering over a pot growers barn was a threat because the vehicle was too close, (closer than FAA guidlelines). Why wouldn't the same COURT keep me from hovering my FPV heli over the pot growers barn? IS too close for a manned vehicle the same as too close for an unmanned vehicle ? (not speaking about FAA's opinion of things or FAR's)


what does this have to do with the title of the tread, Privacy advocates and warrants for searches?

I brought up that case's details
to debunk someone alluding to that case in this privacy thread:
That case was NOT ABOUT PRIVACY but about a violation of a Title14 US law... min alt for aircraft.

So, again, the court dismissed the notion that the heli search needed a warrant,
but held that the heli was prohibited from being there by federal law (14.91.119.c).

but I will answer your question anyway,
just to stop folks from accusing me of dodging it-


quote:

Presumably, at the (AMA) club , you would have CBO exemption. But when you fly FPV elsewhere, you would not.

you need a calendar,
check when NOW is,
and when Someday-CBOs-Might-Get-Exemption is.

14.91.119(c) is NOW.
Current US law.

period




so, without using crystal balls to look into the future,
regarding just what is happening NOW and for the paste few years,
years there have not been and is not now some alleged CBO Exemption On AMA Fields Only from 14.91.119(c)
I gotta wonder just what you are asking.
Cause as I said, you are running wot into the Models Exempt From All Law pretext
while faced with the inconvenience of reality being that such is not really the situation.
This is the 'secret mystery list of laws that apply'... since there is no actual list of which fed regs DO and DONT apply to MA.

So, do you want to read the carteblanc exemption Models have from law (virtually all law),
or read the cases where modeling DOES get folk in hot water,
or listen to the proud AMA'ers just make up laws (made up laws that dont apply to AMA of course),
or just speculate and prophetize about what the laws on models will change to be in the future



Hovering on the runnway, or buzzing the field, or low roll is a fun use of a hobby toy model,
but it is in no way to be confused with 'taking off or landing', nor excused by exemptions for TO&L,
so we are back to wondering why AMA members are so eager to apply existing FAA Min Alt laws on FPV hobby UAS(MA)
when we are so entrenched in kicking those laws to the curb our own operating of UAS(MA).

< Message edited by KidEpoxy -- 7/5/2012 6:28 PM >

Hide Signatures

(in reply to Hossfly)
       Post #: 31

RE: This should help bill requiring warrant for drones. - 7/5/2012 6:31 PM   
TexasAirBoss



Posts: 2678
Score: 151
Joined: 10/9/2002
Last Login: 5/23/2013
From: Houston, TX, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: KidEpoxy


you need a calendar,
check when NOW is,
and when Someday-CBOs-Might-Get-Exemption is.

14.91.119(c) is NOW.
Current US law.

period




My calender says that BOTH are law now, passed and signed. My calender says AMA limits FPV to LOS and flying beyond LOS then subjects you to 14.91.119(c) just as any other aircraft.

That is unless the AMA decides to allow beyond LOS FPV. And there seems to be discussion about expanding FPV.

Have you changed your mind about the AMA CBO exemption? You were mighty gung ho about it only a few weeks ago. There are pages and pages of you insisting that the exemption is here and now. What has changed?

_____________________________

ME: "I need a good rate down to one three thousand". EXPRESS: "Roger, we''re coming down like a Bonanza full of doctors"

Hide Signatures

(in reply to KidEpoxy)
       Post #: 32

RE: This should help bill requiring warrant for drones. - 7/5/2012 6:53 PM   
Sport_Pilot



Posts: 12484
Score: 233
Joined: 1/22/2002
Last Login: 5/24/2013
From: Acworth, GA, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: TexasAirBoss

Would a private FPV model/drone also be considered a danger/threat for flying within 500' of people/structures ?



That is a FAR part 91 rule and those rules only apply to aircraft piloted by a pilot that is aboard the aircraft.  Read the applicability portion of the FAR.

_____________________________

“I Saw Elvis at 1000 Feet” John Force

Hide Signatures

(in reply to TexasAirBoss)
       Post #: 33

RE: This should help bill requiring warrant for drones. - 7/5/2012 6:58 PM   
Sport_Pilot



Posts: 12484
Score: 233
Joined: 1/22/2002
Last Login: 5/24/2013
From: Acworth, GA, USA
Status: offline
quote:

My calender says that BOTH are law now, passed and signed. My calender says AMA limits FPV to LOS and flying beyond LOS then subjects you to 14.91.119(c) just as any other aircraft.


There is nothing in that law that says models or any type of RPV must comply with FAR part 81.  It says that the FAA must write regulations that incorporate the requirements of that law and implement them by September 2015.  Nothing in that law is required to be followed till that is done.

_____________________________

“I Saw Elvis at 1000 Feet” John Force

Hide Signatures

(in reply to TexasAirBoss)
       Post #: 34

RE: This should help bill requiring warrant for drones. - 7/5/2012 8:01 PM   
TexasAirBoss



Posts: 2678
Score: 151
Joined: 10/9/2002
Last Login: 5/23/2013
From: Houston, TX, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Sport_Pilot

quote:

My calender says that BOTH are law now, passed and signed. My calender says AMA limits FPV to LOS and flying beyond LOS then subjects you to 14.91.119(c) just as any other aircraft.


There is nothing in that law that says models or any type of RPV must comply with FAR part 81.  It says that the FAA must write regulations that incorporate the requirements of that law and implement them by September 2015.  Nothing in that law is required to be followed till that is done.



I would have to agree with you. But why was 14.91.119 introduced into the conversation (by KE) if it doesn't apply ?

Please explain how any of this topic is related to the AMA ?

_____________________________

ME: "I need a good rate down to one three thousand". EXPRESS: "Roger, we''re coming down like a Bonanza full of doctors"

Hide Signatures

(in reply to Sport_Pilot)
       Post #: 35

RE: This should help bill requiring warrant for drones. - 7/6/2012 2:36 PM   
Sport_Pilot



Posts: 12484
Score: 233
Joined: 1/22/2002
Last Login: 5/24/2013
From: Acworth, GA, USA
Status: offline
quote:

I would have to agree with you. But why was 14.91.119 introduced into the conversation (by KE) if it doesn't apply ?

KE was talking about a helicopter which does have to follow Part 91 and if not on a helicoper route OK'd by the FAA has to comply with the 500 foot or 1000 foot minimum altitude. 

Others were talking about models not violating the 500 foot rule.  Our models are only limited by the air rights that are common law and not written down except in prior court rullings.

 Even if we were required to we could not follow them.  We would be in violation as soon as our models were in the pattern.  We would have a huge problem because per Part 91 we cannof fly closer than 500 feet from ourselves and others around us and we would not be following the infamous AC.

From Part 91.

quote:

§ 91.1 Applicability.
 
(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section and §§ 91.701 and 91.703, this part prescribes rules governing the operation of aircraft (other than moored balloons, kites, unmanned rockets, and unmanned free balloons, which are governed by part 101 of this chapter, and ultralight vehicles operated in accordance with part 103 of this chapter) within the United States, including the waters within 3 nautical miles of the U.S. coast. Code of Federal Regulations / Title 14 - Aeronautics and Space / Vol. 2 / 2012-01-01699

(b) Each person operating an aircraft in the airspace overlying the waters between 3 and 12 nautical miles from the coast of the United States must comply with §§ 91.1 through 91.21; §§ 91.101 through 91.143; §§ 91.151 through 91.159; §§ 91.167 through 91.193; § 91.203; § 91.205; §§ 91.209 through 91.217; § 91.221, § 91.225; §§ 91.303 through 91.319; §§ 91.323 through 91.327; § 91.605; § 91.609; §§ 91.703 through 91.715; and § 91.903.
 
(c) This part applies to each person on board an aircraft being operated under this part, unless otherwise specified.

(d) This part also establishes requirements for operators to take actions to support the continued airworthiness of each airplane. [Doc. No. 18334, 54 FR 34292, Aug. 18, 1989, as amended by Amdt. 91-257, 64 FR 1079, Jan. 7, 1999; Amdt. 91-282, 69 FR 44880, July 27, 2004; Amdt. 91-297, 72 FR 63410, Nov. 8, 2007; Admt. 91-314, 75 FR 30193, May 28, 2010] 

Since we cannot be on board our mofels this part does not apply.

< Message edited by Sport_Pilot -- 7/6/2012 3:05 PM >

_____________________________

“I Saw Elvis at 1000 Feet” John Force

Hide Signatures

(in reply to TexasAirBoss)
       Post #: 36

RE: This should help bill requiring warrant for drones. - 7/6/2012 3:04 PM   
KidEpoxy



Posts: 6681
Score: 431
Joined: 10/14/2004
Last Login: 11/18/2012
From: San Antonio, TX, USA
Status: offline
quote:

I would have to agree with you. But why was 14.91.119 introduced into the conversation (by KE) if it doesn't apply ?

Please explain how any of this topic is related to the AMA ?


oh, I can answer that.
I mean, I can answer that YET AGAIN-


post15:
quote:

Someone wanted to bring up the Causby deal,
ok, lets play the Causby game-

//snip//

So thats the deal with Causby,
folks cannot say at the same time that they are so obtrusive that property cant be enjoyed
while claiming they are so unnoticeable that folks cant tell if they are being spied on.




post18
quote:

I thought I was pretty clear
pointing out how my post was about the Causby situation that someone brought up in this thread.

Thank you Kbob for helping me shoot down their Causby concerns by pointing out
its NOT about the stuff Causby was about,
but that it is about PRIVACY from being spied on invading ones privacy



post25
quote:

Privacy? what privacy, aint no expectation of privacy from regular air traffic (aka within FARs and not violating min alt FAR distance in part c). The court saw a problem with the closness of the heli to the barn, not that they cant look inside when at Minimum FAR Alts





now, just who is it in post 26 that wants to open an examination of the extents of min FAR alts on models

quote:

post26, by T A B
Would a private FPV model/drone also be considered a danger/threat for flying within 500' of people/structures ?


post29 T A B
quote:

Presumably, at the (AMA) club , you would have CBO exemption. But when you fly FPV elsewhere, you would not.

It seemed that you presented a case in which a court decided that hovering over a pot growers barn was a threat because the vehicle was too close, (closer than FAA guidlelines). Why wouldn't the same COURT keep me from hovering my FPV heli over the pot growers barn? IS too close for a manned vehicle the same as too close for an unmanned vehicle ? (not speaking about FAA's opinion of things or FAR's)



..... aaand that how we got to where TAB
1) suddenly agreed that KE has been right in saying the thread is about warrants and privacy
2) yet TAB wants to steer the conversation to dwelling on the can of worms of MA being unregulated yet having (some mystery)regulation


YOU brought up a future cbo exemption to current MA regulation after I warned you its a can of worm folks dont want kicked.
And it seems now you agree with me there too: Youkicked the worm can and now find you didnt want to.
As for the member org AMA, and how the OP in post one considered it to be related to this thread on government warrants,
ask him, not me.
Its a bill to require the government to get a warrant for using unmanned craft,
nothing abnout NON-Gov craft... it only will regulate Public caft it completely ignores Civil and Hobby craft,
and nothing about it being about ByLOS vs FPV/Autonomous vs WithinLOS- it said autonomous or by remote pilot
(btw, we fly by remote control at AMA clubs but we aint gov 'Public' users)

Hide Signatures

(in reply to TexasAirBoss)
       Post #: 37

RE: This should help bill requiring warrant for drones. - 7/6/2012 3:16 PM   
KidEpoxy



Posts: 6681
Score: 431
Joined: 10/14/2004
Last Login: 11/18/2012
From: San Antonio, TX, USA
Status: offline 		Sport

Well the good news is that part91 is just one lil part of title14,
couldnt be much important stuff in just that one lil prt, right?


heh, for giggles: 91.17

Hide Signatures

(in reply to KidEpoxy)
       Post #: 38

Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2]
All Forums >> RC Airplanes >> AMA Discussions >> RE: This should help bill requiring warrant for drones.
Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]





Jump to:


 
Google 



Search | Marketplace | Event Calendar | Local Clubs | Magazine | Product Ratings | New Products | Discussion Forums

Photo Gallery | Instructor Search | Field|Track|Marina Search

Advertisers | Hobby Vendor Resources | Rate Manufacturers | Sign In/Sign Up

SITE MAP!   : :   FORUM RULES

RC Universe is a service of Internet Brands, Inc. Copyright © 2001-2013.

Charities we support that also need your help
Yorkie Rescue | Humane Society | ASPCA | Crohn's-Colitis America


0.781RCU1