FAA fine against drone photographer dismissed.
#77
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.
#78
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?
#79
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.
#80
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Whitewater,
CO
Posts: 152
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
James
#81
Member
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/
http://investorplace.com/2014/03/dro...avav/view-all/
#83
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga,
CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
#84
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.
#85
My Feedback: (3)
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.
#86
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.
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.
Last edited by Sport_Pilot; 03-12-2014 at 09:38 PM.
#87
My Feedback: (6)
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.
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.
#88
My Feedback: (102)
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.
#89
My Feedback: (10)
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)
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)
#90
My Feedback: (3)
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.
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.
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
#91
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Round Hill, VA
Posts: 1,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#92
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Round Hill, VA
Posts: 1,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#93
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Round Hill, VA
Posts: 1,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
#94
My Feedback: (6)
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.
#95
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Round Hill, VA
Posts: 1,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Besides thay have said all along that they consider commercial operation of model aircraft their domain. But the Constitution says otherwise.
#96
My Feedback: (58)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: here
Posts: 5,413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
#97
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Round Hill, VA
Posts: 1,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
#98
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.
#99
Thread Starter
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".
Hey, I got an idea. Why don't you call Shannon Watts, and have her add RC planes to her list of assault weapons?
#100
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Round Hill, VA
Posts: 1,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.