BV's letters to AMA and FAA
08-12-2014, 06:08 AM
#376
unsafe the fact that money may or may not have changed hands has nothing to do with anything.
08-12-2014, 06:10 AM
#377
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Canisteo,
NY
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The police were well within their job description to stop the flying in the park, written rules or not. They are tasked with safety, and when in doubt, shut it down. They witnessed him flying, and there have been too many incidents lately involving similar activity reported in the media. They made a reasonable assement of the situation, and shut it down. Agin, peferectly within their rights and there is no court in the land that would fault them for it. Most of the FPV guys are living under the pretense that is it better to ask for "forgiveness rather than for permission", and then when they are confronted they want to use the old "you work for me" adage to the police, which goes over about like a rat in the cereal box. This only goes to make things worse. Instead of packing up his toys and going to seek permission to fly the thing in the park he had rather argue with the cop and ask for written laws to be pointed out. He was never going to win that battle, show me any video evidence where someone caught like this, after such a confrontation, was allowed to go back immediately and start to fly again. Goobs like this are ruining it for everyone. I have seen it occur in the turbine community, and will be the same with the FPV crowd. Unfortuanely they have caught the eye of the media and the FAA at the same time with thie shenanigans and I think before it is all said and done we will all be the worse for it.
And Mike, yes, there are plenty of "dumb" people out there who think it is more prudent to question authority than accept it. I have lived long enough, and am intelligent enough to know, those type of battles are never won in a situation like that. If you want to, however, win the war, do it the right way, cover your bases and have written permission before engaging in that activity. You will get a lot further.
And Mike, yes, there are plenty of "dumb" people out there who think it is more prudent to question authority than accept it. I have lived long enough, and am intelligent enough to know, those type of battles are never won in a situation like that. If you want to, however, win the war, do it the right way, cover your bases and have written permission before engaging in that activity. You will get a lot further.
08-12-2014, 07:25 AM
#378
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 540
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wow, I never expected to see this kind of response to posting that video link. But now, for better or worse, FPV is going to court:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kV0HEzQM_Uw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kV0HEzQM_Uw
The group who's going to take the brunt of this issue are the morons who fly their drone off their 20th story balcony in down town and think they can FPV over and around the city. I doubt LOS r/c enthusiasts who have current AMA & r/c club membership and fly at the designated r/c fields will be effected. Getting the FPV equipment may also be a little different than how it is now. But all in all, I don't think traditional LOS r/c guys are going to be affected by all this.
Last edited by SushiHunter; 08-12-2014 at 07:28 AM.
08-12-2014, 07:33 AM
#379
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 540
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Simply someone called it in and/or there is a protocol in place at that park where he was flying in regards to dealing with r/c in the park. Police have to at least show up when called. Now what they do when they get there depends on park policies, procedures and protocol in regards to r/c. I'm also aware that r/c flying in designated state parks and wildlife refuges is not permitted.
Last edited by SushiHunter; 08-12-2014 at 07:44 AM.
08-12-2014, 07:55 AM
#381
My Feedback: (102)
Because "your" idea of him flying responsibly is a subjective ideom. If the park officers feel that this activity could represent a danger to someone (and who is to not think this in the current media frenzy we live in) then he or she has the right to shut it down. While you may think he is flying reasonably, most people who are familair with these things know the likely scenario that things can and will go wrong with these expensive toys. They are built by the cheapest bidder in a Chinese factory using off the shelf electronics, and they are prone to interference and failure. If the "drone" had malfunctioned and hit a child or even his friend whom he was filming, the park could be held accountable. The friend might not think so, but his insurance would have went after everyone, including the park officer who saw it and allowed it. The first thing of course the officer would be asked on the stand would be for him or her to determine what they believe "flying responsibly" to be. Ironically, numbskulls like this don't think about things like that. For people like me who have seen it first hand it makes perfect sense.
Last edited by DocYates; 08-12-2014 at 07:56 AM. Reason: spelling
08-12-2014, 08:13 AM
#382
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Canisteo,
NY
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Simply someone called it in and/or there is a protocol in place at that park where he was flying in regards to dealing with r/c in the park. Police have to at least show up when called. Now what they do when they get there depends on park policies, procedures and protocol in regards to r/c. I'm also aware that r/c flying in designated state parks and wildlife refuges is not permitted.
08-12-2014, 08:17 AM
#383
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Canisteo,
NY
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Because "your" idea of him flying responsibly is a subjective ideom. If the park officers feel that this activity could represent a danger to someone (and who is to not think this in the current media frenzy we live in) then he or she has the right to shut it down. While you may think he is flying reasonably, most people who are familair with these things know the likely scenario that things can and will go wrong with these expensive toys. They are built by the cheapest bidder in a Chinese factory using off the shelf electronics, and they are prone to interference and failure. If the "drone" had malfunctioned and hit a child or even his friend whom he was filming, the park could be held accountable. The friend might not think so, but his insurance would have went after everyone, including the park officer who saw it and allowed it. The first thing of course the officer would be asked on the stand would be for him or her to determine what they believe "flying responsibly" to be. Ironically, numbskulls like this don't think about things like that. For people like me who have seen it first hand it makes perfect sense.
08-12-2014, 08:21 AM
#384
My Feedback: (102)
You miss the point. Neither one of us has to agree. The officers were within their right, as seen by the law of the land. The flier, though he may think he is correct, was wrong to push the situation. He should have said "OK", apologize, left and then sought a solution thru the supervisor. Instead what he did now creates an impasse that will lilely never be bridged. On top of that he put it on social media, in an attempt to embarass the park officers and their department, another gaffe that will cause more division. you have to pick your battles in order to win the war, and this method which has been displayed here for the world to see is not the way to do it.
08-12-2014, 09:08 AM
#385
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Canisteo,
NY
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just watched the video again. The pilot had every right to ask the officers to provide proof that he was breaking a policy. None of them could. They asked to see his Id, they take a picture and they ask where he is parked. None of that has anything to do with the issue and I would go so far as to say the pilot was somewhat harassed. Again, for he 20th time, I don't think it is wise to fly in these areas nor would I.
08-12-2014, 09:38 AM
#386
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Beeton, Ontario, CANADA
Posts: 1,339
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes
on
4 Posts
Just watched the video again. The pilot had every right to ask the officers to provide proof that he was breaking a policy. None of them could. They asked to see his Id, they take a picture and they ask where he is parked. None of that has anything to do with the issue and I would go so far as to say the pilot was somewhat harassed. Again, for he 20th time, I don't think it is wise to fly in these areas nor would I.
You so adamantly defend only his point of view. Just because you end each post with I don't think it is wise to fly in these areas nor would well your not convincing any of us that you do not do the same on a regular basis. I believe you are trying hard to be a wolf in sheep's clothing.. But your Bark is a dead giveaway.
08-12-2014, 09:49 AM
#387
My Feedback: (102)
Just watched the video again. The pilot had every right to ask the officers to provide proof that he was breaking a policy. None of them could. They asked to see his Id, they take a picture and they ask where he is parked. None of that has anything to do with the issue and I would go so far as to say the pilot was somewhat harassed. Again, for he 20th time, I don't think it is wise to fly in these areas nor would I.
And yet after all of this posts, you still cannot see the forest for the trees. I guess harassment is in the eye of the beholder, but for me it did not appear he was harrassed nearly as much as he harassed the officers for doing what their supervisor had instructed them to do. If you read most of the rules regarding privatedly held, public places, such as parks, you will see that you give up certain rights when you enter them. They had no right to take his picture? yet you defend the practice of this guy flying his camera equipped quad in a public park capturing the images of people who have not given him permission to do so? Ironic.
08-12-2014, 11:16 AM
#388
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 540
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And, one more time, the police lower the boom on a quad operator
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_AWp4tQyNk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_AWp4tQyNk
08-12-2014, 11:31 AM
#389
Who says there has to be a written regulation, the police are their to "Protect and Serve". If they witness any dangerous activity they have the jurisdiction of confronting the individual (or groups of individuals) to come to a (hopefully) peaceful resolution. The guy in the video was obviously not in the mood to be reasonable and just let the officer do his job. Just like if they see someone driving down the road who they "think" may be drunk, they have the authority to pull said person over without that person really breaking any laws at the time, just like drunk driver check-points. No laws are broken, unless they find out your drunk.
Last edited by invertmast; 08-12-2014 at 11:34 AM.
08-12-2014, 12:38 PM
#390
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 540
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Obviously the guy is more interested in playing games with authorities than it was to just move somewhere else and film his friend on a bike. Unless of course, video taping someone on a bike was just an excuse and not what he was really wanting to video tape.
Last edited by SushiHunter; 08-12-2014 at 12:44 PM.
08-12-2014, 12:58 PM
#391
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Canisteo,
NY
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can see the forest perfectly through the trees Doc, I just have a different view and you don't like it. Too bad. Please show me where I said the officer had no right to take his picture. Asking for ID, asking where he parked and taking his picture where not necessary. More like a subtle form of intimidation because the slave did not immediately bow before his master. Obviously your right to privacy in a public place does not exist. You apparently don't believe in the right to question authority. That is sad.
Let's see, whose next, ah yes, sushihunter. So you think that guy should be arrested for asking the officers to show him a policy they are referencing as proof of such policy? Well, you are part of the reason America (assuming you live in America) has the most citizens in prison per capita then any other country in the world. That would be 25%. I don't think we need anyone else in jail for non-violent victimless crimes thank you very much.
And Invertedmast. The guy was very reasonable. He just wanted to see the policy. To bad one did not exist. Just like the drunk checkpoint, the cops just want to make sure. Well, this guy just wanted to make sure there was a real policy. I'm pretty sure if someone at a drunk checkpoint asked for the law against drunk driving it would be provided.
Lastly Vettster. I don't care what anyone on this board thinks about what kind of person I am. I know that I behave in a respectful and responsible way.
You can now all breathe a collective sigh of relief that the person with a differing opinion has left the building.
Let's see, whose next, ah yes, sushihunter. So you think that guy should be arrested for asking the officers to show him a policy they are referencing as proof of such policy? Well, you are part of the reason America (assuming you live in America) has the most citizens in prison per capita then any other country in the world. That would be 25%. I don't think we need anyone else in jail for non-violent victimless crimes thank you very much.
And Invertedmast. The guy was very reasonable. He just wanted to see the policy. To bad one did not exist. Just like the drunk checkpoint, the cops just want to make sure. Well, this guy just wanted to make sure there was a real policy. I'm pretty sure if someone at a drunk checkpoint asked for the law against drunk driving it would be provided.
Lastly Vettster. I don't care what anyone on this board thinks about what kind of person I am. I know that I behave in a respectful and responsible way.
You can now all breathe a collective sigh of relief that the person with a differing opinion has left the building.
08-12-2014, 01:11 PM
#392
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 540
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can see the forest perfectly through the trees Doc, I just have a different view and you don't like it. Too bad. Please show me where I said the officer had no right to take his picture. Asking for ID, asking where he parked and taking his picture where not necessary. More like a subtle form of intimidation because the slave did not immediately bow before his master. Obviously your right to privacy in a public place does not exist. You apparently don't believe in the right to question authority. That is sad.
Let's see, whose next, ah yes, sushihunter. So you think that guy should be arrested for asking the officers to show him a policy they are referencing as proof of such policy? Well, you are part of the reason America (assuming you live in America) has the most citizens in prison per capita then any other country in the world. That would be 25%. I don't think we need anyone else in jail for non-violent victimless crimes thank you very much.
And Invertedmast. The guy was very reasonable. He just wanted to see the policy. To bad one did not exist. Just like the drunk checkpoint, the cops just want to make sure. Well, this guy just wanted to make sure there was a real policy. I'm pretty sure if someone at a drunk checkpoint asked for the law against drunk driving it would be provided.
Lastly Vettster. I don't care what anyone on this board thinks about what kind of person I am. I know that I behave in a respectful and responsible way.
You can now all breathe a collective sigh of relief that the person with a differing opinion has left the building.
Let's see, whose next, ah yes, sushihunter. So you think that guy should be arrested for asking the officers to show him a policy they are referencing as proof of such policy? Well, you are part of the reason America (assuming you live in America) has the most citizens in prison per capita then any other country in the world. That would be 25%. I don't think we need anyone else in jail for non-violent victimless crimes thank you very much.
And Invertedmast. The guy was very reasonable. He just wanted to see the policy. To bad one did not exist. Just like the drunk checkpoint, the cops just want to make sure. Well, this guy just wanted to make sure there was a real policy. I'm pretty sure if someone at a drunk checkpoint asked for the law against drunk driving it would be provided.
Lastly Vettster. I don't care what anyone on this board thinks about what kind of person I am. I know that I behave in a respectful and responsible way.
You can now all breathe a collective sigh of relief that the person with a differing opinion has left the building.
Last edited by SushiHunter; 08-12-2014 at 01:29 PM.
08-12-2014, 02:03 PM
#393
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Beeton, Ontario, CANADA
Posts: 1,339
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes
on
4 Posts
I know that I behave in a respectful and responsible way.
Off to fly your FPV over some crowded beach are you
Ahhoooo.. you can hear the wolf's cry now lol
Off to fly your FPV over some crowded beach are you
Ahhoooo.. you can hear the wolf's cry now lol
Last edited by Vettster; 08-12-2014 at 02:08 PM.
08-12-2014, 02:59 PM
#394
My Feedback: (102)
mike,
He asked about his car because obviously there is an entrance fee (as is stated in the video which I watched). The officer was trying to determine if he was there illegally (without paying the fee). As to my right to privacy in public, I am no more afraid of the police asking me for my ID than I am of some guy flying a quadcopter with a camera over me while I am out in public. The shoe fits both ways.
He asked about his car because obviously there is an entrance fee (as is stated in the video which I watched). The officer was trying to determine if he was there illegally (without paying the fee). As to my right to privacy in public, I am no more afraid of the police asking me for my ID than I am of some guy flying a quadcopter with a camera over me while I am out in public. The shoe fits both ways.
08-12-2014, 03:40 PM
#395
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Canisteo,
NY
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The problem with your statement is that I don't fly FPV. I am not even that interested in FPV. If I were to fly FPV, it would not be over a crowded anything. It would be on 100 acres of private land I have access to or at our club field. I would never go to a national or state park and fly anything RC. Not sure why you think I would do that? Ok, now I am done. Well maybe not.
As far as the entrance fee goes, hopefully they were walking around asking all of the park patrons for their ID's and where they parked and if they paid. Who said anything about being afraid to be asked for ID?
In case you guys can't figure it out, I think the guy was stupid for flying in that area. I also think all the videos of people flying around other people and property, FPV or not is stupid.
Not sure what we are arguing about at this point, but I guess it is getting entertaining. LMAO!!!
08-12-2014, 06:58 PM
#396
My Feedback: (59)
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Colorado Springs,
CO
Posts: 153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just watched the video again. The pilot had every right to ask the officers to provide proof that he was breaking a policy. None of them could. They asked to see his Id, they take a picture and they ask where he is parked. None of that has anything to do with the issue and I would go so far as to say the pilot was somewhat harassed. Again, for he 20th time, I don't think it is wise to fly in these areas nor would I.
The police were well within their job description to stop the flying in the park, written rules or not. They are tasked with safety, and when in doubt, shut it down. They witnessed him flying, and there have been too many incidents lately involving similar activity reported in the media. They made a reasonable assement of the situation, and shut it down. Agin, peferectly within their rights and there is no court in the land that would fault them for it. Most of the FPV guys are living under the pretense that is it better to ask for "forgiveness rather than for permission", and then when they are confronted they want to use the old "you work for me" adage to the police, which goes over about like a rat in the cereal box. This only goes to make things worse. Instead of packing up his toys and going to seek permission to fly the thing in the park he had rather argue with the cop and ask for written laws to be pointed out. He was never going to win that battle, show me any video evidence where someone caught like this, after such a confrontation, was allowed to go back immediately and start to fly again. Goobs like this are ruining it for everyone. I have seen it occur in the turbine community, and will be the same with the FPV crowd. Unfortuanely they have caught the eye of the media and the FAA at the same time with thie shenanigans and I think before it is all said and done we will all be the worse for it.
And Mike, yes, there are plenty of "dumb" people out there who think it is more prudent to question authority than accept it. I have lived long enough, and am intelligent enough to know, those type of battles are never won in a situation like that. If you want to, however, win the war, do it the right way, cover your bases and have written permission before engaging in that activity. You will get a lot further.
And Mike, yes, there are plenty of "dumb" people out there who think it is more prudent to question authority than accept it. I have lived long enough, and am intelligent enough to know, those type of battles are never won in a situation like that. If you want to, however, win the war, do it the right way, cover your bases and have written permission before engaging in that activity. You will get a lot further.
You are bringing safety into it. What the cop should have said was here is the law where I am to keep this park safe. Your activity of flying will be deemed by my judgement as unsafe and you can't do it. Here is the number to the head of the fill in the blank. If they tell you it is ok then ok until then don't fly it here. That would have been the end of it.
08-12-2014, 09:11 PM
#397
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: , CA
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guys, not to change the subject but, if I'm not mistaken, I seem to remember that the new rules regarding all rc operations within 5 miles of an airport will now require permission from the airport operator. The old see and avoid rule required the airport operator only to be notified within 3 miles of rc operation. IMO it will be hard to get permission as it will probably have to be documented and, I think that would open up a can of worms regarding the airport's liability. IMO If I was The airport operator, I would be reluctant to give permission especially in writing Knowing if somthing bad happens in regards to full scale, the airport could be sued. I have three model airports in My area and two are less than three miles from active airports. If I'm correct, My guess is that the one that is'nt. is going to get suddenly very crowded. Think of how many RC clubs in this country fly within 5 miles of full scale airports. I will be very interested in factual viewpoints.
Last edited by F-16 viperman; 08-12-2014 at 09:26 PM.
08-13-2014, 12:25 AM
#398
Law enforcement officers don't have to sight laws or rules when they ask someone to do something. Try that crap around here and you are likely to get tossed in jail for a day or two with "bubba".
08-14-2014, 12:40 PM
#399
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Orange County CA
Posts: 1,170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guys, If you are talking about the gentleman that was flying near the U.S.S. Iowa, he in fact was breaking the law. If you guys are talking about that person/pilot, then I will explain further with facts about the subject and offer an opinion.
08-14-2014, 02:46 PM
#400
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Beeton, Ontario, CANADA
Posts: 1,339
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes
on
4 Posts
Guys, not to change the subject but, if I'm not mistaken, I seem to remember that the new rules regarding all rc operations within 5 miles of an airport will now require permission from the airport operator. The old see and avoid rule required the airport operator only to be notified within 3 miles of rc operation. IMO it will be hard to get permission as it will probably have to be documented and, I think that would open up a can of worms regarding the airport's liability. IMO If I was The airport operator, I would be reluctant to give permission especially in writing Knowing if somthing bad happens in regards to full scale, the airport could be sued. I have three model airports in My area and two are less than three miles from active airports. If I'm correct, My guess is that the one that is'nt. is going to get suddenly very crowded. Think of how many RC clubs in this country fly within 5 miles of full scale airports. I will be very interested in factual viewpoints.