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 05-22-2014, 08:05 PM
  #1226  
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

Recreational users or commercial users?
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.
Old 05-26-2014, 06:16 AM
  #1227  
bradpaul
 
bradpaul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Apopka, FL
Posts: 1,367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default A reasonable article on drones

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?

Last edited by bradpaul; 05-26-2014 at 06:19 AM.
Old 05-26-2014, 10:51 AM
  #1228  
NorfolkSouthern
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 1,588
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Another article about drones being used to potentially save lives:

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/...p-them-n113611
Old 05-26-2014, 12:12 PM
  #1229  
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 bradpaul View Post
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?
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.
Old 05-26-2014, 03:28 PM
  #1230  
bradpaul
 
bradpaul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Apopka, FL
Posts: 1,367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by JohnShe View Post
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.
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.
Old 05-26-2014, 05:27 PM
  #1231  
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 bradpaul View Post
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.
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.
Old 05-27-2014, 02:46 AM
  #1232  
DocYates
My Feedback: (102)
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Oklahoma City, OK
Posts: 3,354
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

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/
Old 05-27-2014, 05:04 AM
  #1233  
koastrc
Senior Member
 
koastrc's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: BILOXI Mississippi
Posts: 283
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

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.
Old 05-27-2014, 05:29 AM
  #1234  
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 koastrc View Post
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.
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.
Old 05-27-2014, 05:54 AM
  #1235  
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
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.
"non-navigable airspace" is an oxymoron.
Old 05-27-2014, 12:19 PM
  #1236  
koastrc
Senior Member
 
koastrc's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: BILOXI Mississippi
Posts: 283
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

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..
Old 05-27-2014, 08:37 PM
  #1237  
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 koastrc View Post
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..
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.
Old 05-27-2014, 08:39 PM
  #1238  
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 JohnShe View Post
"non-navigable airspace" is an oxymoron.
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.
Old 05-28-2014, 04:02 AM
  #1239  
DocYates
My Feedback: (102)
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Oklahoma City, OK
Posts: 3,354
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

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.
Old 05-28-2014, 04:59 AM
  #1240  
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

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.
Old 05-28-2014, 05:04 AM
  #1241  
DocYates
My Feedback: (102)
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Oklahoma City, OK
Posts: 3,354
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

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.
Old 05-28-2014, 05:16 AM
  #1242  
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

They think they have the power to enforce the rules,
They know they don't but are doing everything they can to stem a flood of drones.
Old 05-28-2014, 05:33 AM
  #1243  
DocYates
My Feedback: (102)
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Oklahoma City, OK
Posts: 3,354
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

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.
Old 05-28-2014, 05:59 AM
  #1244  
DocYates
My Feedback: (102)
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Oklahoma City, OK
Posts: 3,354
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

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.
Old 05-28-2014, 07:35 AM
  #1245  
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 DocYates View Post
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.
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.
Old 05-28-2014, 09:18 AM
  #1246  
bradpaul
 
bradpaul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Apopka, FL
Posts: 1,367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Sport_Pilot View Post
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.
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.
Old 05-28-2014, 09:34 AM
  #1247  
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 bradpaul View Post
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.
Exactly! Our laws have now run amuck.
Old 05-28-2014, 04:24 PM
  #1248  
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
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.
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.
Old 05-28-2014, 08:54 PM
  #1249  
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

Therefore any airspace above 400' is non-navigable for us, according to your interpretation.
It is not my interpretation, it is as defined in the US code.

49 U.S. Code 40102 - Definitions

(a)
General Definitions.— In this part—

(32)“navigable airspace” means airspace above the minimum altitudes of flight prescribed by regulations under this subpart and subpart III of this part, including airspace needed to ensure safety in the takeoff and landing of aircraft.
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?

Last edited by Sport_Pilot; 05-28-2014 at 09:01 PM.
Old 05-28-2014, 09:03 PM
  #1250  
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 bradpaul View Post
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.
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.

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.