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

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.

How do you stay 500' away from the gymnasium your lil elecitric 3d/4d foamie is flying inside?
lol [8D]



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.

For many flyers i've seen even 500' is too close.

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)

http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2012/06/...searchers-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/...#ixzz1zitVd8Eh
Go Git 'em, Boys

TAB
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-


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).

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?

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

There is nothing in that law that says models or any type of RPVmust 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 ?

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 weretalking about modelsnot violating the 500 foot rule.Our models are only limited by the airrights that arecommon law and not written down except inpriorcourt 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.

<span class="SECTNO SECTION-SECTNO">

Quote:

&sect; 91.1 Applicability.

(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section and &sect;&sect; 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 &sect;&sect; 91.1 through 91.21; &sect;&sect; 91.101 through 91.143; &sect;&sect; 91.151 through 91.159; &sect;&sect; 91.167 through 91.193; &sect; 91.203; &sect; 91.205; &sect;&sect; 91.209 through 91.217; &sect; 91.221, &sect; 91.225; &sect;&sect; 91.303 through 91.319; &sect;&sect; 91.323 through 91.327; &sect; 91.605; &sect; 91.609; &sect;&sect; 91.703 through 91.715; and &sect; 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]

</span><span class="SECTNO SECTION-SECTNO">

Since we cannot be on board our mofels this part does not apply.</span>

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


post15:


post18

post25



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

post29 T A B

..... 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)

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