Model airplanes over NYC bad idea.
02-02-2012, 06:01 PM
#151
My Feedback: (40)
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Bellport, NY
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Model airplanes over NYC bad idea.
Short write up and video from Airpigz.com Superman, Iron Man And The Rocketeer All Fly Over New York?: http://adf.ly/59FOw
02-02-2012, 06:16 PM
#152
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: South Florida
Posts: 375
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Model airplanes over NYC bad idea.
Ahh, the hell with law and order. That's boring. I vote for anarchy, chaos, confusion, casual dating, free sex, and liquor!
02-02-2012, 06:37 PM
#153
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Orange County,
CA
Posts: 5,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Model airplanes over NYC bad idea.
ORIGINAL: cj_rumley
Silent-
You have said many times that compliance with current FAA rules, in particular the 400' ceiling for MA operations, is voluntary and clearly support modelers ignoring it. Yet when it comes to some instance like the subject of this thread that is completely innocuous and unlikely to be of any concern whatever to FAA, you're Mr Lawandorder. How in 'ell do you rationalize that? I am concerned because AMA appears to apply similar rationalization that is nonsensical to me.
CJ
Silent-
You have said many times that compliance with current FAA rules, in particular the 400' ceiling for MA operations, is voluntary and clearly support modelers ignoring it. Yet when it comes to some instance like the subject of this thread that is completely innocuous and unlikely to be of any concern whatever to FAA, you're Mr Lawandorder. How in 'ell do you rationalize that? I am concerned because AMA appears to apply similar rationalization that is nonsensical to me.
CJ
Well you seem intent about making this thread about what an AC means and not about what operating authority the New York flying was done under. Not sure why you want to take the thread off topic, but I'll try to answer your questions.
Please allow me to restate what I have said, since it is clear you have misunderstood me. What I have said many times is not that compliance with FAA rules is voluntary. I have said, just as the FAA says, that compliance with an AC is voluntary. I have never supported modelers ignoring anything. As far as your fixation on gliders over 400 feet, as long as it is done safely that is what matters.
Here's an oddity. The FAA witnessed a model glider well in excess of 400 feet during a demo for them. Full size traffic transited the area and the model immediately descended. The FAA people were impressed and never said a word about being over 400 feet. Go figure. Had the glider caused a conflict then I suspect things would have gone differently.
I have further not said anything about the subject of this thread other than they likely were not operating under any of the three FAA-defined authorities for sUAS operations in the NAS. Not sure where the snide "Mr. Law and Order" crap comes from. What is so difficult to understand? Which of the three operating authorizations were they operating under? Simple question.
I thought the flight was cool and I do not think they compromised safety in the least. But their flight is a perfect illustration of why the FAA is writing far more stringently defined regulations for sUAS operations, including models.
02-02-2012, 06:45 PM
#154
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Rochester,
MN
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Model airplanes over NYC bad idea.
This is a publicity stunt for a movie about teenagers with special powers. I saw the clip on CNN and Moos as usual spins it to the populist audience. The link was "flying people over New York City" to get attention. The stunt works for the movie promotion, but it doesn't help us in the public eye. One wonders if the sUAS guys are are going to use this as ammo to further strengthen their case for FAA regulation of the hobby industry. I'm sure the commercial sUAS industry wants to distance themselves from any public perception of "toying around" as they mean business and don't want "toys" getting in the way.
02-02-2012, 07:00 PM
#155
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga,
CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Model airplanes over NYC bad idea.
ORIGINAL: Silent-AV8R
Please allow me to restate what I have said, since it is clear you have misunderstood me. What I have said many times is not that compliance with FAA rules is voluntary. I have said, just as the FAA says, that compliance with an AC is voluntary. I have never supported modelers ignoring anything. As far as your fixation on gliders over 400 feet, as long as it is done safely that is what matters.
Please allow me to restate what I have said, since it is clear you have misunderstood me. What I have said many times is not that compliance with FAA rules is voluntary. I have said, just as the FAA says, that compliance with an AC is voluntary. I have never supported modelers ignoring anything. As far as your fixation on gliders over 400 feet, as long as it is done safely that is what matters.
Compliance with an ACis not voluntary after it has been incorporated by reference into regulatory material. But then you knew that...........
02-02-2012, 07:34 PM
#156
RE: Model airplanes over NYC bad idea.
ORIGINAL: H5487
The beef is that three r/c pilots (AMA members who supposedly knew better) illegally used their models for commercial purposes during a time when the FAA has all radio controlled aircraft under their microscope. Those three pilots didn't do us any favors.
Harvey
ORIGINAL: takevin
Original poster is a wet blanket
No harm was done so what the heck is the beef?
Original poster is a wet blanket
No harm was done so what the heck is the beef?
Harvey
I can't see why you think the rc pilots should have know better, In fact if it was not for all the chatter here on RCU most folks would have no way of knowing
that anybody thought anything negtive about the flight.
1. The AMA as far as i'm aware has not contacted it's members and said the flight violated any AMA rules or laws.
2. As a recreational flyer there is no law that says we have to know the laws that apply to non recreational rc flying.
3. There is no law that says the flight was not allowed because the pilots and models were considered hobbist.
4. I not heard that the FAA has contacted the pilots and made a threat to bring charges.
02-02-2012, 07:49 PM
#157
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Orange County,
CA
Posts: 5,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Model airplanes over NYC bad idea.
ORIGINAL: cj_rumley
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10940794
Compliance with an AC is not voluntary after it has been incorporated by reference into regulatory material. But then you knew that...........
ORIGINAL: Silent-AV8R
Please allow me to restate what I have said, since it is clear you have misunderstood me. What I have said many times is not that compliance with FAA rules is voluntary. I have said, just as the FAA says, that compliance with an AC is voluntary. I have never supported modelers ignoring anything. As far as your fixation on gliders over 400 feet, as long as it is done safely that is what matters.
Please allow me to restate what I have said, since it is clear you have misunderstood me. What I have said many times is not that compliance with FAA rules is voluntary. I have said, just as the FAA says, that compliance with an AC is voluntary. I have never supported modelers ignoring anything. As far as your fixation on gliders over 400 feet, as long as it is done safely that is what matters.
Compliance with an AC is not voluntary after it has been incorporated by reference into regulatory material. But then you knew that...........
Nope, missed it by that much....
All the Guidance does is make it clear that AC 91-57 is the operating authority for models. It does not turn it into a mandatory compliance issue. Hard to follow I know when your mind is already made up, but an AC is an AC. All the FAA has done is spell out that for models, and models alone, AC 91-57 is the authority under which they operate.
02-02-2012, 08:32 PM
#158
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga,
CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Model airplanes over NYC bad idea.
ORIGINAL: Silent-AV8R
Nope, missed it by that much....
All the Guidance does is make it clear that AC 91-57 is the operating authority for models. It does not turn it into a mandatory compliance issue. Hard to follow I know when your mind is already made up, but an AC is an AC. All the FAA has done is spell out that for models, and models alone, AC 91-57 is the authority under which they operate.
ORIGINAL: cj_rumley
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10940794
Compliance with an ACis not voluntary after it has been incorporated by reference into regulatory material. But then you knew that...........
ORIGINAL: Silent-AV8R
Please allow me to restate what I have said, since it is clear you have misunderstood me. What I have said many times is not that compliance with FAA rules is voluntary. I have said, just as the FAA says, that compliance with an AC is voluntary. I have never supported modelers ignoring anything. As far as your fixation on gliders over 400 feet, as long as it is done safely that is what matters.
Please allow me to restate what I have said, since it is clear you have misunderstood me. What I have said many times is not that compliance with FAA rules is voluntary. I have said, just as the FAA says, that compliance with an AC is voluntary. I have never supported modelers ignoring anything. As far as your fixation on gliders over 400 feet, as long as it is done safely that is what matters.
Compliance with an ACis not voluntary after it has been incorporated by reference into regulatory material. But then you knew that...........
Nope, missed it by that much....
All the Guidance does is make it clear that AC 91-57 is the operating authority for models. It does not turn it into a mandatory compliance issue. Hard to follow I know when your mind is already made up, but an AC is an AC. All the FAA has done is spell out that for models, and models alone, AC 91-57 is the authority under which they operate.
From http://www.faa.gov/library/manuals/a...83-30_Ch12.pdf
"Other FAA Documents
Advisory Circulars (ACs)
The FAA issues advisory circulars to inform the
aviation public in a systematic way of non-regulatory
material. Unless incorporated into a regulation by
reference, the contents of an advisory circular are not
binding on the public. Advisory circulars are issued
in a numbered-subject system corresponding to the
subject areas of the Federal Aviation Regulations
(Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Chapter
I, Federal Aviation Administration) and Chapter III,
Commercial Space Transportation, Federal Aviation
Administration, Department of Transportation, Parts
400–450. An AC is issued to provide guidance and
information in a designated subject area or to show a
method acceptable to the Administrator for complying
with a related federal aviation regulation."
02-02-2012, 09:45 PM
#159
RE: Model airplanes over NYC bad idea.
ORIGINAL: H5487
Why do people continue to say that compliance with an AC is optional? Advisory Circulars are written into Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14CFR). While the AC lacks the legal clout of a regulation, it is often cited as supporting documentation for a charge against a pilot. Call your local FSDO and ask one of the inspectors if ACs are optional.
Harvey
ORIGINAL: cj_rumley
AMA's interpretation of Guidance 08 is that since AC 91-57, which is referenced as authorization for operation of MA is just advisory, so compliance is voluntary.
AMA's interpretation of Guidance 08 is that since AC 91-57, which is referenced as authorization for operation of MA is just advisory, so compliance is voluntary.
Harvey
02-02-2012, 09:54 PM
#160
RE: Model airplanes over NYC bad idea.
ORIGINAL: Silent-AV8R
CJ/Abel. I've given you all the document references. Your refusal to read and understand them appears to serve no useful purpose other than to continue this argument. We are not talking about the AMA, how the AMA "enforces" FAA rules or anything of the like. My one and only focus in this thread has been to focus on the FAA's recognized operating authority for sUAS in the NAS. I simply am at a loss as to what else can be said or quoted.
I am in no way trying to uphold law-n-order or whatever. I am simply stating facts. Facts you, and a few others, seem completely unwilling to accept. That is fine, it does not change the truthfulness of the facts.
CJ/Abel. I've given you all the document references. Your refusal to read and understand them appears to serve no useful purpose other than to continue this argument. We are not talking about the AMA, how the AMA "enforces" FAA rules or anything of the like. My one and only focus in this thread has been to focus on the FAA's recognized operating authority for sUAS in the NAS. I simply am at a loss as to what else can be said or quoted.
I am in no way trying to uphold law-n-order or whatever. I am simply stating facts. Facts you, and a few others, seem completely unwilling to accept. That is fine, it does not change the truthfulness of the facts.
The fact is that this is apparently decided now on a case by case basis. FAA officials have said that getting paid for RC training and flight testing will not be commercial. This will all be very clear soon.
02-02-2012, 10:18 PM
#161
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Orange County,
CA
Posts: 5,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Model airplanes over NYC bad idea.
ORIGINAL: Sport_Pilot
Your contention is that any payment to fly an RC plane is commercial.
Your contention is that any payment to fly an RC plane is commercial.
An SAC-EC is the only certification means available to civil operators for UAS and optionallypiloted aircraft (OPA). Due to regulatory requirements, this approval precludes carrying persons or property for compensation or hire, but does allow operations for research and development, market survey, and crew training.
http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives...FACT_Sheet.pdf
http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives...FACT_Sheet.pdf
The FAA has issued five experimental certificates for unmanned aircraft systems for the purposes of research and development, marketing surveys, or crew training. UAS issued experimental certificates may not be used for compensation or hire.
http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives...notice_uas.pdf
http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives...notice_uas.pdf
02-03-2012, 02:46 AM
#162
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Model airplanes over NYC bad idea.
ORIGINAL: Silent-AV8R
As a matter of fact I have been saying that the term "commercial" has no relevance to the operating authority that must be used. You are either a recreational/sport/hobby (model), a civil, or public use sUAS. Right now the only Special Airworthiness certificates that are considered are defined as follows:
As a matter of fact I have been saying that the term "commercial" has no relevance to the operating authority that must be used. You are either a recreational/sport/hobby (model), a civil, or public use sUAS. Right now the only Special Airworthiness certificates that are considered are defined as follows:
This.
The uSAS AC defines and distinguishes betweenmodel aircraft (a/k/a R/C) and sUAS.
02-03-2012, 03:00 AM
#163
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Model airplanes over NYC bad idea.
ORIGINAL: H5487
No, of course not. One of the purposes of the AMA is to be the buffer between modelers and the FARs. As Silent has pointed out several times, the three pilots flew their models for commercial purposes during a time when the FAA has put a hold on all commercial UAV operations until the NPRM becomes law. While the FAA has said that some limited exceptions to the moritorium will be approved, some of us doubt that they had a waiver because the write-up for the YouTube video includes a few curious statements that have us wondering about the legality of their flights.
While we're not against positive media exposure for model airplane use, we're not for it if the flying was done illegally; especially during a time when the FAA is watching us closely.
Harvey
ORIGINAL: cj_rumley
Are modelers expected to read every word of FARs, ACs, policy statements, guidance documents, etc. to ferret out rules they must follow?
Are modelers expected to read every word of FARs, ACs, policy statements, guidance documents, etc. to ferret out rules they must follow?
While we're not against positive media exposure for model airplane use, we're not for it if the flying was done illegally; especially during a time when the FAA is watching us closely.
Harvey
Watch AMA membership decline as well.
02-03-2012, 03:36 AM
#164
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: FrederickMD
Posts: 2,114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Model airplanes over NYC bad idea.
http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/off...his-spring.cnn
Apparently they did it right - practiced at a safe location, got permission from (well not sure who, but they had a permit), flew in safe locations (used camera tricks to make it look more dramatic, but I suspect they never even got close to major landmarks).
My only concern is that someone less responsible may try it without these precautions. Perhaps we should be playing up the positive aspects of what they did right, rather than panicking and worrying about the scope of AC 91-57.
Brad
Apparently they did it right - practiced at a safe location, got permission from (well not sure who, but they had a permit), flew in safe locations (used camera tricks to make it look more dramatic, but I suspect they never even got close to major landmarks).
My only concern is that someone less responsible may try it without these precautions. Perhaps we should be playing up the positive aspects of what they did right, rather than panicking and worrying about the scope of AC 91-57.
Brad
02-03-2012, 03:44 AM
#165
My Feedback: (11)
RE: Model airplanes over NYC bad idea.
Wow, I did not know that I needed a law degree to FOLLOW the law. Sir, you need to change the color scheme because it is offensive to women and marginalizes their brains for their busts. The other reason you need to change is because it is plain ugly. If they are paying you to fly at airshows, that too is a commercial venture and disallowed by the current law. Should you fail to follow the law and someone is injured, it is willful disregard. You have already advertised here that you NOW know the rule. You would have been better off to shut up and pleaded ignorance later. Does your other shoe fit in your mouth too?
ORIGINAL: BobbyMcGee
Holy crap! You mean I have to repaint my Hooter's plane because it falls under ''Commercial advertising''?
Get a grip! Where is your law degree that supports your idea as to what commercial advertising is, or is not; how it is used; and how it relates to such FAA regulation?
The way this is going, next you could all be discussing and debating neuro-surgery as if you knew all about it.
ORIGINAL: on_your_six
You are correct... the only reason our private RC aircraft are still flying is because they are not commercial enterprises.
If you try and start an arial photography business (or any other commercial RC flying) and advertise it.. don't be surprised at the stop order arriving from the FAA.
You are correct... the only reason our private RC aircraft are still flying is because they are not commercial enterprises.
If you try and start an arial photography business (or any other commercial RC flying) and advertise it.. don't be surprised at the stop order arriving from the FAA.
Get a grip! Where is your law degree that supports your idea as to what commercial advertising is, or is not; how it is used; and how it relates to such FAA regulation?
The way this is going, next you could all be discussing and debating neuro-surgery as if you knew all about it.
02-03-2012, 04:18 AM
#166
My Feedback: (11)
RE: Model airplanes over NYC bad idea.
All of this inane discussion is exactly why we need the FAA to establish exactly what is allowable and not allowable when flying RC airplanes.
Every RC pilot should be forced to attend RC ground school and required to pass an exam on the appropriate FARs in order to fly. Then we will talk about flight testing and competency. The AMA guidelines are a bunch of maybe you should possibly think about doing this suggestions.
As everyone here with a pilots license has tried to help you understand the MAJOR differences between private and commercial tickets, you either don't accept it or don't want to accept it. The rules are the rules. You want to fly GA aircraft, you follow the rules or you deal with license suspensions and fines. Of course, there are things that slip through and everybody knows someone who got away with something. The rule did not change, you just got lucky it was not enforced.
The first time we have a GA aircraft legally transiting an RC field and is struck by an RC plane, the FAA will descend on our hobby. Private is private, commercial is commercial..
Thanks to the guy who posted the shared expenses circular.
Every RC pilot should be forced to attend RC ground school and required to pass an exam on the appropriate FARs in order to fly. Then we will talk about flight testing and competency. The AMA guidelines are a bunch of maybe you should possibly think about doing this suggestions.
As everyone here with a pilots license has tried to help you understand the MAJOR differences between private and commercial tickets, you either don't accept it or don't want to accept it. The rules are the rules. You want to fly GA aircraft, you follow the rules or you deal with license suspensions and fines. Of course, there are things that slip through and everybody knows someone who got away with something. The rule did not change, you just got lucky it was not enforced.
The first time we have a GA aircraft legally transiting an RC field and is struck by an RC plane, the FAA will descend on our hobby. Private is private, commercial is commercial..
Thanks to the guy who posted the shared expenses circular.
02-03-2012, 04:47 AM
#167
RE: Model airplanes over NYC bad idea.
If they are paying you to fly at airshows, that too is a commercial venture and disallowed by the current law.
02-03-2012, 04:51 AM
#168
RE: Model airplanes over NYC bad idea.
All of this inane discussion is exactly why we need the FAA to establish exactly what is allowable and not allowable when flying RC airplanes.
02-03-2012, 05:08 AM
#169
My Feedback: (58)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: here
Posts: 5,413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Model airplanes over NYC bad idea.
ORIGINAL: on_your_six
All of this inane discussion is exactly why we need the FAA to establish exactly what is allowable and not allowable when flying RC airplanes.
All of this inane discussion is exactly why we need the FAA to establish exactly what is allowable and not allowable when flying RC airplanes.
02-03-2012, 06:05 AM
#170
Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: City
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Model airplanes over NYC bad idea.
ORIGINAL: littlecrankshaf
This one sentence comprises everything that is wrong with out country today. We are screwed...
ORIGINAL: on_your_six
All of this inane discussion is exactly why we need the FAA to establish exactly what is allowable and not allowable when flying RC airplanes.
All of this inane discussion is exactly why we need the FAA to establish exactly what is allowable and not allowable when flying RC airplanes.
See my post #118 in this thread. Our rationale is different (similar but different) but the conclusions are scary similar.
02-03-2012, 06:11 AM
#171
My Feedback: (11)
RE: Model airplanes over NYC bad idea.
Quite the contrary, it is your type that cannot see a larger picture and the consequences of ones actions upon others. That narcissistic, egotistic attitude would have you believe that you alone can decide what is right and wrong for everyone else.
ORIGINAL: littlecrankshaf
This one sentence comprises everything that is wrong with out country today. We are screwed...
ORIGINAL: on_your_six
All of this inane discussion is exactly why we need the FAA to establish exactly what is allowable and not allowable when flying RC airplanes.
All of this inane discussion is exactly why we need the FAA to establish exactly what is allowable and not allowable when flying RC airplanes.
02-03-2012, 06:20 AM
#172
My Feedback: (58)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: here
Posts: 5,413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Model airplanes over NYC bad idea.
ORIGINAL: CashD
See my post #118 in this thread. Our rationale is different (similar but different) but the conclusions are scary similar.
ORIGINAL: littlecrankshaf
This one sentence comprises everything that is wrong with out country today. We are screwed...
ORIGINAL: on_your_six
All of this inane discussion is exactly why we need the FAA to establish exactly what is allowable and not allowable when flying RC airplanes.
All of this inane discussion is exactly why we need the FAA to establish exactly what is allowable and not allowable when flying RC airplanes.
See my post #118 in this thread. Our rationale is different (similar but different) but the conclusions are scary similar.
02-03-2012, 06:26 AM
#174
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Orange County,
CA
Posts: 5,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Model airplanes over NYC bad idea.
ORIGINAL: AugerDawger
This.
The uSAS AC defines and distinguishes between model aircraft (a/k/a R/C) and sUAS.
ORIGINAL: Silent-AV8R
As a matter of fact I have been saying that the term ''commercial'' has no relevance to the operating authority that must be used. You are either a recreational/sport/hobby (model), a civil, or public use sUAS. Right now the only Special Airworthiness certificates that are considered are defined as follows:
As a matter of fact I have been saying that the term ''commercial'' has no relevance to the operating authority that must be used. You are either a recreational/sport/hobby (model), a civil, or public use sUAS. Right now the only Special Airworthiness certificates that are considered are defined as follows:
This.
The uSAS AC defines and distinguishes between model aircraft (a/k/a R/C) and sUAS.
The FAA Des not see models as separate from sUAS. RC hobby models are a type of sUAS. Not sure what "uSAS AC" means or what you are talking about.
02-03-2012, 06:32 AM
#175
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 1,088
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Model airplanes over NYC bad idea.
ORIGINAL: Silent-AV8R
The FAA Des not see models as separate from sUAS. RC hobby models are a type of sUAS. Not sure what ''uSAS AC'' means or what you are talking about.
ORIGINAL: AugerDawger
This.
The uSAS AC defines and distinguishes between model aircraft (a/k/a R/C) and sUAS.
ORIGINAL: Silent-AV8R
As a matter of fact I have been saying that the term ''commercial'' has no relevance to the operating authority that must be used. You are either a recreational/sport/hobby (model), a civil, or public use sUAS. Right now the only Special Airworthiness certificates that are considered are defined as follows:
As a matter of fact I have been saying that the term ''commercial'' has no relevance to the operating authority that must be used. You are either a recreational/sport/hobby (model), a civil, or public use sUAS. Right now the only Special Airworthiness certificates that are considered are defined as follows:
This.
The uSAS AC defines and distinguishes between model aircraft (a/k/a R/C) and sUAS.
The FAA Des not see models as separate from sUAS. RC hobby models are a type of sUAS. Not sure what ''uSAS AC'' means or what you are talking about.
Harvey