Sport_Pilot

Under this administration, it will be commercial users. Especially if they are used to inspect pipelines, they will just close the pipe line so they won't need those pesky sUAV's.

bradpaul

How to shoot amazing video from drones

http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/22/tech/i...tml?hpt=hp_bn5

When was the last time the MSM ever took positive interest in model aviation? More and more it looks like the future of model aviation will be camera carrying multirotors. Now I like my 1/4 scale WWI biplanes but just how many people are actually interested in putting hundreds of hours in building?

NorfolkSouthern

Another article about drones being used to potentially save lives:

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/...p-them-n113611

JohnShe

I put hundreds of hours into building and I enjoy every second of it. I consider multirotor helicopters to be toys for the short attention span individuals. They will soon tire of them and go back to being couch potatoes.

My future of model aviation remains building ad flying.

bradpaul

I build so I understand your desire to stop the inevitable, but what is the ratio of ARF's to kit/scratch built at your club? If it is like most AMA clubs the builders are a slowly disappearing species. Sad but true.

JohnShe

I never said that I was trying to stop the inevitable, what ever that is, I do what I do because I enjoy it. I am not gonna change, I don't care what other people do. When my LHS told me they don't sell kits because nobody buys them, I found another dealer.

DocYates

My Feedback: (102)

Was another article on this weekend, on ESPN, featuring the current head of the FAA. He basically said in the interview that if you were flying anything for money, it is illegal, and that the rules when they are issued will address this subject. Hobbyists, and those flying line of sight will be exempt. According to him, there are already procedures in place if you fly for money to be prosecuted. He addressed the UVA case that started this thread and said that is was being challenged. He said the public holds a standard that if someone is doing something for pay, as a business, that they will be held to certain standards, and they plan to act accordingly. It is worth watching if you can find it/

koastrc

Doc, it appears the FAA is taking the same approach as other regulatory agencies. Boats for example. There are to basic types. Recreational and commercial. If a person is using a boat for anything but recreation. That vessel is commercial and has to obtain the correct permit or license to operate.

Sport_Pilot

Except boats are done by the State. It is completely illegal for the FAA to do this when the craft is flying through non-navigable airspace.

JohnShe

"non-navigable airspace" is an oxymoron.

koastrc

Sport, you are 100% wrong about the boats. A vessel over five tons is to be registered with the Federal government. There is no such thing as a no-navigable water way. You know air-boats and all. I happen to have a tiny bit of experience in this area. The words commercial is the thing. I do understand that may be hard for me to make this understood. I only have twenty-eight years in this area. There is some exceptions to ever rule. I think the commercial use and recreational use will be the key in this idea of a debate. There is a case, maybe more than one, that a recreational aircraft was used to spot fish for a commercial operation. It was not pretty. Fines that are so high are to act as deterrence..

Sport_Pilot

We are talking boats, not ships. Many consider vessels 5 tons or more as ships and are considered capable of interstate and even international travel.

Sport_Pilot

Not at all, navigable airspace is defined in the FARS and is the same as defined in the 1958 FAA act. All airspace that is not navigable airspace is thus non navigable in that it is illegal for aircraft to fly through such airspace.

DocYates

My Feedback: (102)

SP,
Not trying to start an argument, just passing along what was said. The interviewer appeared to have a pretty good handle on the terminology, one would think he might even had been reading this post. He asked the questions just like they had been presented here, even asking if it was illegal to fly these and the FAA head made the following examples:
-as long as it was not being done for compensation
-as long as the model was within line of sight
_he also mentioned altitude restrictions, and I think he mentioned 400'
-he mentioned they are working with the "industry" which I assume was the AMA (again that is only an assumption, but it followed the guidelines that have been expressed by the AMA so far)
-he said the rules would be in place by next year
-penalties will be assessed and they will actively seek out to prosecute
-his main defintion of "hobbyist", was one who is not doing this for compensation, and said that the public has expectations on those performing for compensation, and therefore these will be considered commercial endeavors and held to another standard.

Sport_Pilot

Doc, the FAA is lying and they know it. The NTSB judge ruled and I see no way the FAA can win on that. They are just trying to discourage a large jump in drone usage. They have no jurisdiction under the navigable airspace and though the judge did not use it in his ruling, he did not discount that fact either.

The FAA knows that many would not go to court over a fine that would be less than the court and lawyer fee's, that is why the fines dropped by a tenth over what they were before this case.

As I see it the FAA is supporting the commercial interests of full scale aircraft as the smaller drones will take business away from them. The industry they are refering too are most likely AOPA and other full scale groups, not the AMA. They may also be supported from higher up and other agencies because they are worried about drones being used by terrorists.

DocYates

My Feedback: (102)

I somewhat agree SP, but I don't think they see it as lying. They think they have the power to enforce the rules, they intend to go after anyone who plans to do this for money, and it would appear that if we as hobbyists stay away from that endeavor, stay inconspicuous (low to the ground and out of full scale traffic), we can go about our business without too many problems. I think the majority of RC hobbyists can live within these confines. It is my hope that we can and do not bring down the full power of the federal government and its beauracracy on our heads.

Sport_Pilot

They know they don't but are doing everything they can to stem a flood of drones.

DocYates

My Feedback: (102)

While that may be the case, here is a quote from one of their lawyers, and you can see where they are going with this....

"While the FAA is concerned about privacy, security and safety when it comes to drones, it is actually the exchange of money that makes their use illegal, Quinn said. A hobbyist flying one to shoot video of his kid skateboarding is OK, but a commercial company doing the same is not."
Kenneth Quinn, who is now a partner with Washington, D.C., firm Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, which in March launched a special team of lawyers focused on drone issues.
"If you're doing it and there's any compensation whatsoever to a drone operator or company to assist you in that video surveillance, then the answer would be no," he said, adding that it could also be illegal for an assistant coach, who is paid by a university, to operate a drone as part of his duties."

The stroy was about football teams using drones to look over from a bird's eye view of the field. Evidently the drone operators are being seen as commercial operators, and the FAA has ordered at least one of the teams to cease and desist.

DocYates

My Feedback: (102)

Sorry, I should have put a link to the story....
http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/...ace-technology

The video does not include the interview after the story, which was about using these drones to film sports practices. One team in the NFL has already been given a cease and desist order by the FAA according to the story.

Sport_Pilot

This whole thread is about the NTSB case where the judge stated that they have no regulations that so state these so called facts. The appeal does not give the FAA the right to charge fines. They know this but continue to do so.

bradpaul

It is simple, the FAA lawyers are paid for by the government, the lawyer you hire to defend against a FAA fine will be paid for by you. The cost of the lawyer will exceed the amount of the fine.................... so the FAA intimidation will work.

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

Exactly! Our laws have now run amuck.

JohnShe

Sounds more like restricted airspace to me. We, as hobbyists, are restricted to less than 400' within 3 miles of an airport, currently, without permission to fly higher. Therefore any airspace above 400' is non-navigable for us, according to your interpretation. But, other aviators are permitted to navigate in that airspace so it is both navigable and non-navigable or an oxymoron.

Sport_Pilot

It is not my interpretation, it is as defined in the US code.

No full scale aircraft is permitted to fly outside of navigable airspace. The minimum restrictions for helicopters are different so therefore the navigable airspace is different for them. But by virtue of navigable airspace being airspace above the minimum allowable airspace no full scale aircraft may fly outside of navigable airspace.

So forget about your oxymoron. Per the US code we and sUAV's flying under the navigable airspace are not navigating per say. It is a legal term, got it?

Sport_Pilot

Perhaps, but their are associations and other groups fighting this, so if you get fined one of them may pick up the tab. That is if you did not do something crazy stupid.