Go Back  RCU Forums > RC Airplanes > AMA Discussions
Reload this Page >

FAA fine against drone photographer dismissed.

Notices
AMA Discussions Discuss AMA policies, decisions & any other AMA related topics here.

FAA fine against drone photographer dismissed.

Old 03-12-2014, 03:55 PM
  #76  
mr_matt
My Feedback: (10)
 
mr_matt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Oak Park, CA,
Posts: 10,412
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes on 5 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by JohnShe View Post
Since the AMA and the FAA have agreed that our rules are OK, we are in the clear. .
Hi John,

When did this happen? The FAA approved the existing AMA rules?

Thanks

Matt
Old 03-12-2014, 03:57 PM
  #77  
Sport_Pilot
 
Sport_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 16,916
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

GerKonig, IMO I agree with the late George Wallace, there is not a nickle's worth of difference between the Democrats and Republicans. They both speak different politics, but their actions are the same.
Old 03-12-2014, 04:09 PM
  #78  
Sport_Pilot
 
Sport_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 16,916
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

A vacant lot? Between two buildings, near a street with cars passing and pedestrians passing by. You do know that that fits my definition of a sociopath?
Funny I learned to fly with owners permission from a vacant lot. I flew my first RC and recieved my first instruction their from Mr. Mickey Walker an AMA Hall of Fame member. Another hall of ffame member was the free flighter George Perryman who also flew from that vacant lot. This is was when the Cobb County RC club was without a field in the 70's and the vacant lot was later developed into a large industrial park. But you can also fly many park flyers and 1/2a models safely from a residential vacant lot, or more likely a series of vacant lots.
Old 03-12-2014, 04:16 PM
  #79  
Sport_Pilot
 
Sport_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 16,916
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

It is not the FAA's intent to do as you stated. They realize that it would place an unwieldy burden on operators of small 'drones' and in fact their intent is to pare down from current full scale regulation and tailor a minimal set of rules to allow them to operate without posing undue hazard to the citizenry. I don't fault them for their intent, but do find them lacking for their execution, which is far behind schedule and so has interminably denied availability of the technology to applications that could/should be benefiting from it, e.g., your Fire Dept.
Actually it is their intent, and they may try to regulate our model aircraft as well. They know they do not have enough people, and when they get the courts and congress to see it thier way they will request people and money to grow thier empire. Expect visits from them at your field.
Old 03-12-2014, 05:21 PM
  #80  
JW0311
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Whitewater, CO
Posts: 152
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

cj_rumley, I see your point. Flying over the RC field vs. flying over downtown and I would agree the risk is much greater with the later. I would hope, as you stated, that the FAA would make the distinction between an airplane pilot and an RC pilot.

James
Old 03-12-2014, 05:44 PM
  #81  
jtotten
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: lisle, IL
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 1 Post
Default

Below is a link to a stock market investors view of drone potential - It lists a half dozen potential commercial drone uses - most of which involve urban environments.

http://investorplace.com/2014/03/dro...avav/view-all/
Old 03-12-2014, 05:47 PM
  #82  
littlecrankshaf
My Feedback: (58)
 
littlecrankshaf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: here
Posts: 5,413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by JohnShe View Post
A vacant lot? Between two buildings, near a street with cars passing and pedestrians passing by. You do know that that fits my definition of a sociopath?
Wow...I was wondering why you kept interjecting the term "sociopath"...at least half of the AMA members I know are sociopaths...LOL\

This thread gets funnier and funnier...what a hoot!
Old 03-12-2014, 06:00 PM
  #83  
cj_rumley
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga, CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Sport_Pilot View Post
Actually it is their intent, and they may try to regulate our model aircraft as well. They know they do not have enough people, and when they get the courts and congress to see it thier way they will request people and money to grow thier empire. Expect visits from them at your field.
OK Sport, maybe I should have qualified that by saying their publicly stated intent. If you have information that reveals a nefarious intent on their part, provide a cite to show the substance of your claim. Lest there be any misunderstanding, I am calling you for BS.
Old 03-12-2014, 09:08 PM
  #84  
Sport_Pilot
 
Sport_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 16,916
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by cj_rumley View Post
OK Sport, maybe I should have qualified that by saying their publicly stated intent. If you have informsation that reveals a nefarious intent on their part, provide a cite to show the substance of your claim. Lest there be any misunderstanding, I am calling you for BS.

You only have to see what they do when someone flys a model for hire to see their intent. Actions speak louder than words. They don't care for our freedom and they don't care that the feds are not supposed to regulate intrastate commerce.

Besides thay have said all along that they consider commercial operation of model aircraft their domain. But the Constitution says otherwise.
Old 03-12-2014, 09:24 PM
  #85  
Jim Branaum
My Feedback: (3)
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Fair Oaks Ranch, TX
Posts: 2,627
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Sport_Pilot View Post
The judge knew that this was an FPV for hire and yet he accepted that this was a model airplane. IMO this is a good thing that we are now free to make money with our hobby without FAA interference.
If you check the regs carefully it should become obvious that the ONLY way the FAA gets involved with models is when there is compensation which is what has been used to define commercial operations in aviation for many decades.

Go rent a Cessna 172 and take your buddy with you for a lunch burger 100 miles away and everything is fine. Just because you did not know x was against the law if you do x you have broken the law and frequently find out when the consequences arrive. That is also a legal standard that has withstood the test of time. So lets change the scene a bit to see where it goes.

This time you ask your buddy to SHARE in ANY of the expenses (except maybe buying his own lunch) it becomes a commercial operation according to the FAA and is subject to all the commercial rules and regulations already in existence. That definition has been defined by the courts several times so I suspect it is pretty well set in concrete. I strongly suspect the FAA will win on appeal because the precedent has been set for decades and all of the National Airspace Acts gives the FAA regulatory authority.

I am sure that the FAA response to any modeling activity that crosses the line into commercial application will be draconian until those actors get in line with the FAA's approach to flying. We have to remember they think they invented 'safety' in aviation and their view of modeling is not aviation until compensation happens. I would not want to be sponsored (read that as paid) by a manufacturer for a couple of years while they try to get the pieces and parts of this hashed out.
Old 03-12-2014, 09:36 PM
  #86  
Sport_Pilot
 
Sport_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 16,916
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

If you check the regs carefully it should become obvious that the ONLY way the FAA gets involved with models is when there is compensation which is what has been used to define commercial operations in aviation for many decades.
Full scale is capable of interstate commerce, They fly through navigable airspace used for interstate commerce. Model cannot fly far enough for interstate commerce and are not carrying cargo. No cargo no buddies riding thus no commerce in the traditional meaning of commerce, that is the model is not carying goods or people across state lines thus this is intrastate and the FAA has no business with intrastate commerce per the Constitution. Commercial flying, be it interstate or intrastate, for models has not yet been decided as far as I know.

I have a private license and I am fully aware of the FAA's commerce rules.

I am sure that the FAA response to any modeling activity that crosses the line into commercial application will be draconian until those actors get in line with the FAA's approach to flying.
Yes we must all get in line. Some of us will line up right to the gas chambers.

Last edited by Sport_Pilot; 03-12-2014 at 09:38 PM.
Old 03-13-2014, 04:35 AM
  #87  
Top_Gunn
My Feedback: (6)
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Granger, IN
Posts: 2,241
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes on 5 Posts
Default

FWIW the regulations prohibiting private pilots from flying for compensation do not prohibit cost sharing. FAR 61.113(c) says, "[a] private pilot may not pay less than the pro rata share of the operating expenses of a flight with passengers, provided the expenses involve only fuel, oil, airport expenditures, or rental fees."

As for the "interstate commerce" stuff, the commerce clause has been interpreted so broadly that the Federal government can regulate any commercial activity it wants to, whether it does or can cross state lines, and lots of noncommercial ones, too. One of the old cases involved a farmer growing crops on his own farm for his own use. This was held to be "Interstate commerce," and therefore subject to federal regulation, because if lots of people grew their own crops, the price of crops would be affected. The commerce clause does not limit the FAA's power to regulate things that fly.
Old 03-13-2014, 05:17 AM
  #88  
DocYates
My Feedback: (102)
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Oklahoma City, OK
Posts: 3,354
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Jim, Al is right. Cost sharing and charging for hire are too different things. If the guy flying with you pays for his half of the gas, oil and plane rental, he is sharing the costs. If he is charged one dollar over that amount then it is considered a commercial operation. This is the type of rationale that will be used to seperate commercial from hobbyists. As I read the judge's decision, he is telling the FAA that they have not clearly established a rule for the law to be applied. This opens the door for them to do so. Just because they do not have a rule does not mean they are not going to write one. Compensation for activity will be the defining medium for this type of flying. It was this reason that the current full scale rules were written.
Old 03-13-2014, 05:48 AM
  #89  
mr_matt
My Feedback: (10)
 
mr_matt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Oak Park, CA,
Posts: 10,412
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes on 5 Posts
Default

I have long wished that the commercial litmus test would be used. It seems so simple. It would have kept out all of the CBO rules, any technical specs etc. If you take money for it, it is not model aviation..... So simple.

I don't think the FAA wants it that way or they already would have done it.... too simple. They feel the need to go down this technical route (altitude, proximity to airports, airspeed, LOS)
Old 03-13-2014, 05:54 AM
  #90  
Jim Branaum
My Feedback: (3)
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Fair Oaks Ranch, TX
Posts: 2,627
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Sport_Pilot View Post
Full scale is capable of interstate commerce, They fly through navigable airspace used for interstate commerce. Model cannot fly far enough for interstate commerce and are not carrying cargo. No cargo no buddies riding thus no commerce in the traditional meaning of commerce, that is the model is not carying goods or people across state lines thus this is intrastate and the FAA has no business with intrastate commerce per the Constitution. Commercial flying, be it interstate or intrastate, for models has not yet been decided as far as I know.

I have a private license and I am fully aware of the FAA's commerce rules.



Yes we must all get in line. Some of us will line up right to the gas chambers.
Sorry, but the bolded statement has been proven bogus for years (since the early 1980's) by Maynard Hill. There are other misconceptions in that paragraph, but please be accurate. Look in your local phone book to find out how many folks in your area earn their living taking photographs and realize that taking one from the air is a commercial activity.

As for your sarcasm, visit your local FAA office and ask an examiner what concerns them the most. If you really do have a private ticket, you should already know that flight safety is their first concern and too many folks try to slither around that by talking of government control and freedoms rather than look at the issues. When I got my private ticket, the examiner told me that it was my license to learn so I have progressed from there. You might consider looking at yours the same way as ultimately it is safer and will result in a longer lifespan. Cumulo Granitus is unforgiving.

I am convinced that you have not had the chance to investigate what all here are saying is one of the safest of all machines, at eye level and less than 3 feet while it was being operated by another you do not know. Rather than assuming that is an aggressive remark, consider both of its parts because they fit with the FAA's approach to aviation. Well, except for the anal in their employ and there are LOTS of them!

It proposes that you put your physical body less than 3 feet from plastic propellers powered by electric motors which are not known for stopping when they hit something, rather they tend to chop on it until one or the other breaks or the power is removed. It also ignores that there might be skill involved in prevent injury to another. You might have noticed that there was no mention of communication between the individuals, you know 'hey Joe, stand still while I go around you' or 'that is close enough'.

If you think those are meaningless and unimportant things because it is simply a model, then please explain all the deaths related directly to model aviation. There have been several, and they have caused some changes in the AMA Safety Code. However the latest have not yet caused any changes but do apply directly to this discussion because they were not fixed winged aircraft, and neither was this guys "toy".

Those are the sort of things 'getting in line with the FAA approach to aviation' means, but you have tired to make it clear that you already know it all and could not ever be anything but perfect. Have more Kool Aide
Old 03-13-2014, 06:03 AM
  #91  
JohnShe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Round Hill, VA
Posts: 1,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Sport_Pilot View Post
The judge knew that this was an FPV for hire and yet he accepted that this was a model airplane. IMO this is a good thing that we are now free to make money with our hobby without FAA interference.
Nope!
Old 03-13-2014, 06:15 AM
  #92  
JohnShe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Round Hill, VA
Posts: 1,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by mr_matt View Post
Hi John,

When did this happen? The FAA approved the existing AMA rules?

Thanks

Matt
January 11, 2014

http://amablog.modelaircraft.org/ama...understanding/
Old 03-13-2014, 06:20 AM
  #93  
JohnShe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Round Hill, VA
Posts: 1,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by littlecrankshaf View Post
Wow...I was wondering why you kept interjecting the term "sociopath"...at least half of the AMA members I know are sociopaths...LOL\

This thread gets funnier and funnier...what a hoot!
Wow! History repeats itself.

so·ci·o·path
ˈsōsēōˌpaTH/
noun
noun: sociopath; plural noun: sociopaths
  • 1.
    a person with a personality disorder manifesting itself in extreme antisocial attitudes and behavior and a lack of conscience.








I don't think a sociopath would pay membership dues.
Old 03-13-2014, 06:23 AM
  #94  
Top_Gunn
My Feedback: (6)
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Granger, IN
Posts: 2,241
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes on 5 Posts
Default

That "understanding" between the FAA and the AMA is just a statement that it would be nice if they work together. It makes no rules and it doesn't approve anything. And even if it did say something substantive, it would have no legal effect because it was not adopted as a regulation. It's probably a good thing that the FAA and the AMA are on what seem to be friendly terms. But nothing real has been done so far.
Old 03-13-2014, 06:25 AM
  #95  
JohnShe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Round Hill, VA
Posts: 1,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Sport_Pilot View Post
You only have to see what they do when someone flys a model for hire to see their intent. Actions speak louder than words. They don't care for our freedom and they don't care that the feds are not supposed to regulate intrastate commerce.

Besides thay have said all along that they consider commercial operation of model aircraft their domain. But the Constitution says otherwise.
SP, the guy used a model airplane as a drone for commercial purposes. The FAA was going after the drone use, not the model airplane. It seems to me that you are conflating the two separate issues. Because, if he had obtained a real military drone the FAA would still have gone after him. It was the judge who confused the model airplane vs drone issue.
Old 03-13-2014, 07:10 AM
  #96  
littlecrankshaf
My Feedback: (58)
 
littlecrankshaf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: here
Posts: 5,413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Do we all realize the "model" being used was a small pusher foam flying wing??? The FAA's claim was reckless endangerment or some such BS... Not commercial operations...

Hard to fathom much danger from such a model if someone tried their best... The case should have be thrown out and the FAA sued for harassment. Hopefully the FAA's appeal will be denied and some such action is brought against the FAA.
Old 03-13-2014, 08:03 AM
  #97  
JohnShe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Round Hill, VA
Posts: 1,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by littlecrankshaf View Post
Do we all realize the "model" being used was a small pusher foam flying wing??? The FAA's claim was reckless endangerment or some such BS... Not commercial operations...

Hard to fathom much danger from such a model if someone tried their best... The case should have be thrown out and the FAA sued for harassment. Hopefully the FAA's appeal will be denied and some such action is brought against the FAA.
It was a RiteWing X=Zephry II Foamy. It weight 4lbs 7oz with a wingspan of 56 in. He used a HobbyKing Orange receiver and a Spectrum DX8 transmitter.


I don't think of that as "small" It definitely fails the Park Flyer definition.

I have several sports planes with 50" wingspans, they are not giant scale but I think of them as pretty big.
Old 03-13-2014, 09:25 AM
  #98  
ira d
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Maricopa County AZ
Posts: 3,214
Received 5 Likes on 5 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Top_Gunn View Post
That "understanding" between the FAA and the AMA is just a statement that it would be nice if they work together. It makes no rules and it doesn't approve anything. And even if it did say something substantive, it would have no legal effect because it was not adopted as a regulation. It's probably a good thing that the FAA and the AMA are on what seem to be friendly terms. But nothing real has been done so far.
That is my understanding also in fact in the last MA it stated that the FAA has not yet recognized the AMA as CBO.
Old 03-13-2014, 09:26 AM
  #99  
NorfolkSouthern
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 1,588
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Jim Branaum View Post

It proposes that you put your physical body less than 3 feet from plastic propellers powered by electric motors which are not known for stopping when they hit something, rather they tend to chop on it until one or the other breaks or the power is removed. It also ignores that there might be skill involved in prevent injury to another. You might have noticed that there was no mention of communication between the individuals, you know 'hey Joe, stand still while I go around you' or 'that is close enough'.

If you think those are meaningless and unimportant things because it is simply a model, then please explain all the deaths related directly to model aviation. There have been several, and they have caused some changes in the AMA Safety Code. However the latest have not yet caused any changes but do apply directly to this discussion because they were not fixed winged aircraft, and neither was this guys "toy".
How many people were really killed? Why don't you go drag up the articles, and post them here, please. How about intentionally? How many jets were taken out of the sky by an RC foam toy? Apparently, not enough to form a grass roots effort to have the RC hobby either shut down, or somehow regulated like they do with firearms, which are a fundamental Constitutional right.

Hey, I got an idea. Why don't you call Shannon Watts, and have her add RC planes to her list of assault weapons?
Old 03-13-2014, 09:38 AM
  #100  
JohnShe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Round Hill, VA
Posts: 1,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by ira d View Post
That is my understanding also in fact in the last MA it stated that the FAA has not yet recognized the AMA as CBO.
You and TG are technically correct in intreperting the specifics of the MOU. But, the very existence of the agreement means CBO status is on track to be a done deal.

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.