Bob Pastorello

My Feedback: (198)

Yep. A good example is the fact that the FAA wasn't even created until the tragic midair over the Grand Canyon. I'm not defending legislators or rule-makers, but sometimes the most difficult thing is anticipating what "may" be out there that "needs" regulation.

Advisory circular you referenced is a good example: when that was drafted little was understood or known about the long-term growth of the capabilities of model aircraft technologies.

Now that we're there, the FAA has to draft up some rules, and unfortunately, this one is a lot like designing the proverbial horse by committee. Probably will look strange when "finished", and the darn thing may not even "work" for what it was intended.

Sport_Pilot

That is correct, and you made my point. You danced right around it and not sure if you got it.

Bob Pastorello

My Feedback: (198)

For me, trying to understand your point isn't on the radar, and I don't care about your position, knowledge, or lack of same.
FAA didn't (and currently doesn't) have regs on the books covering the issue of this thread. MY "point" is that the FAA now has the SOLE responsibility for creating those rules and will do so, and if their past performance is any indication of future rule-making, it is highly likely that their rules and regs will be expansive, somewhat vague, subject to legal interpretation by courts, defendants and plaintiffs, and somewhere in that mess will be things that likely will be pretty clear and will impact model aviation, whether or not they have been instructed to not make rules about models.

They will make rules governing potential for unsafe interference, injury, and/harm by users of remote-piloted vehicles in airspace that they (the FAA) considers within their domain, and I think that is the point of MANY posters in this thread and others.

Some of us, probably rightly, are a bit concerned about the reach and scope of FAA operating without oversight or challenge when they use their cannons (rules, FARs, regs) to swat at flies (model equipment operators).

Jim Branaum

My Feedback: (3)

Mr. Sport Pilot
since you have found it necessary to call me names and suggest less than honorable intentions of me, you may not use my given name unless you provide your first and last name. That is a measure of integrity you don't seem to have so I do not want your foul mouth all over my name. Is that clear enough for your small mind to comprehend and accept? If you must address me, please use the format presented in this post or a harassment complaint will be registered as you have been officially and formally asked to cease and desist using other forms of address.


Others have already pointed out the fallacy of your position so I will let you continue your silly rants, changing the subject each and every time your bogus point is highlighted as false.

Sport_Pilot

Any wonder I don't use my name?

Sport_Pilot

The FAA doesn't have sole responsibility, all three branch's have responsibilitess in this. The congress has responsibility and they write the US Code to set the outline for the rule making and that is law, not regulation. If the code defines navigabe airspace then the FAA cannot redifine it. The NTSB has the responsibility to makes recomendations on revising the regulation, and the courts have the responsibility to make sure the regulations don't overstep our rights, Other than that I am in agreement with you.

Bob Pastorello

My Feedback: (198)

"Other than that..." you are wrong. Once the USC is passed by Congress...unless *ALTERED* by Congress, nobody can edit/change/modify. I won't bore you (or anyone else) with my credentials to prove I'm correct on this, but it is fact.
The other point you missed is that the USC directs rule making bodies to do their jobs. I already explained that, but maybe it was too wordy.
AUTHORITY to manage is directed by the USC.
RESPONSIBILITY to manage is directed by the Agency or function identified by the USC.

Bob Pastorello

My Feedback: (198)

Personally, I devalue any post from anyone who presents themselves as knowledgeable if they do not at least identify themselves by real name(s) in some fashion. To me, it's "hiding behind the keyboard". Sad. Lots of folks don't like that, but I think folks who won't openly post with their identification included have eliminated any potential credibility they may have had with me, anyway. Does not apply if I know the person through other means, connections, or whatever.

Sport - you are SQUARELY in that bucket - I think it's regrettable that you post so much potentially useful information.....but....it seems you're incapable of writing otherwise. Too bad, I think.
Henceforth, I will give your posts the attention they truly deserve, and the matching credibility.

Sport_Pilot

I used my name for many years, but was threatened with implied physical violence. I decided my credibility on such forums is not that important. Heck I rarely spell check. If you don't believe me, fine.

hook57

My Feedback: (21)

You all need to stop feeding the fish!!! Bob P. has stated some very correct points, and I'm not going to get into a credential thing except to assure you SP.. I know a WHOALMTY do on this matter. To your credit, you do argue correctly that "navigable" airspace is defined under the USC, but you argue incorrectly it applies "only" to full scale aircraft (no where in the code does it state "full scale" aircraft). Navigable airspace, by code as you like to reiterate constantly, is that airspace above the minimum safe altitudes "prescribed by regulation" including that needed for safe "take offs and landings." That same part also defines "aircraft" as "any contrivance invented, used, or designed to navigate, or fly in, the air" (please note the absence of FULL SCALE). Furthermore, if you would simply read all of the code and comprehend it, you' likely surprise yourself. The code, or law, does in fact allow the FAA (or any federal agency or administration) to modify or amend the regs it writes. In this case, it's clear, no interp needed if you understand the basics of our language and its construct, under USC 40103(b)(2) "shall.......... and assign by regulation or order the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. (And here is where you fall of your Dino SP) The Administrator may modify or revoke an assignment when required in the public interest." So, if required in the public interest it can and likely would be done (just as the USC allows).
Regarding AC 91.57, it wasn't bad, a mistake, or done in error, but it was a reasonable non interfering piece of governmental "advice" at that time given the technology in use.
Finally, as Bob P. stated and I have in the past, you often have potentially useful information but you muddy it with truckloads of manure. Worst yet, you have no shame in doing that.
So why did I waste my time in posting this? It's Friday evening and I had a good day of flying and my oats have been sewed, spew forth SP!

hook

hook57

My Feedback: (21)

" I used my name for many years, but was threatened with implied physical violence. I decided my credibility on such forums is not that important. Heck I rarely spell check. If you don't believe me, fine."

No ***** SP, you were really that wise at one moment in the past!!! Hard to believe, really is.
hook

Jim Branaum

My Feedback: (3)

Mr. Sport Pilot,

I guess you really are trying to entertain folks with your tall tales of woe. You probably need to try again because there is readily available proof that others have had worse on the Internet over modeling and still use their real names. That kind of makes you and your arguments look rather lame, which is what folks have been saying.

Check carefully and you might be smart enough to discover that there was talk of a contract on me (and think my family but that may be wrong) and our address and phone numbers were published on an open forum. I have the intestinal fortitude and integrity not to hide. Too bad you don't.

As was said, your hiding behind a keyboard significantly detracts from anything of value you might bring to the table.

As Fred said to me once:

"Cheers!"

NorfolkSouthern

All of this "I got mine, and screw everybody else". Ok, so navigable airspace is anything over 500', for full-scale aircraft. FAA claims it regulates anything that flies an inch above ground. I'm exempt, because I sold all of my RC equipment, because it has proven to be an attractive nuisance and a liability issue. So, the FAA rules no longer affect me, nor do any AMA guidelines. All of this now makes me a third party.

Now, what I think everybody's afraid of, is this: Model airplanes being stuffed into the same classification as drones. This, of course, frightens scale modelers and kit builders, because I feel that the FAA might come up with regulations that will limit them. But, I have my doubts that the FAA will come after someone's 1/4 scale Cap 540 any more than Diane Feinstein will go after my father's .270 bolt-action deer hunting rifle. Those who fly electrics with an FPV downlink, might or might not experience difficulties when the guidelines are set up. Who knows? Quad copters have received a lot of media attention lately, some good, some bad.

Well, it looks like the modeling community has worked its self into a frenzy, much of that due to the bad press. But I must admit, some of it hasn't been bad at all. Are people afraid of new technology? Probably so, but the New York incident involving the DJI Phantom really didn't cause injuries, other than bumping into a building. I think this will make it a little hard for the government to come up with any hard and fast rules. If a tragic incident does occur (and I would give that a billion to one chance, if that), then that will probably affect the whole recreational modeling community. With the FAA being so slow to come up with any hard and fast rules, I am sure we can all relax for now. I don't see anything coming down the pike, any time soon.

hook57

My Feedback: (21)

"So navigable airspace is anything over 500', for full-scale aircraft". Well, a bit morereading / analyzing on your part may be required, nowhere does it state "full-scale", by definition it's "any contrivance". It's also just not about injuries, four important considerations include:
(A) navigating, protecting, and identifying aircraft;(B) protecting individuals and property on the ground;
(C) using the navigable airspace efficiently; and
(D) preventing collision between aircraft, between aircraft and land or water vehicles, and between aircraft and airborne objects.
By the way, FAA didn't write that, your Congress did, and it was done a loooong time ago.

Bob Pastorello

My Feedback: (198)

Just curious - as the original poster/starter of this thread, have you achieved what you wanted? Have you learned what you needed? Have you elicited enough dialog to satisfy the collective? Usually, threads discuss a specific issue/question/concern to a resolution of closure - participants have written what they thought was helpful. Readers have learned what they can. And frequently, the OP has the "issue" resolved, curiosity satisfied or whatever and everyone can choose a new horse to beat to death.

Personally, although I've enjoyed this particular thread - I think this particular horse ain't gonna be any dead-er, no matter how much more we say about it. Good entertainment value, and educational value, perhaps....but I think just about any rational person now sees that nothing is new or different on this topic.

In the US, the "modeling community", and the sUAS operators are in a holding pattern, awaiting whatever regulatory defecation occurs from whatever authority is granted rights to do so, apparently at this juncture, that appears to be the FAA.

So on May 31st, on this issue of the Photographers' case being tossed out, we know nothing more about what is going to come at us than we did in mid-March.
Can this horse get any deader?

koastrc

A dead horse. For those that enjoy this sort of thing, perhaps it is dead. Good entertainment? Maybe to some. Drones are going to be regulated. We the model aviators do not want to get lumped in with the regulations. This thread has been a peek into the mind set of the typical cyber model aviator. You folks are the squeaky wheel. A regulator, or a person that write regulations. This exercise would be a eye opener. Change? We are living in a world that has increased the rate of change. Model aviation is changing, it is going to change. How we adjust to the change is really the important thing.
I do not envy the FAA when it comes to this issue. It is here and now and ready or not the FAA and the model aviators are going to be forced to deal with it. This thread has done the job of displaying the views of some model aviators. When the photographer was fined and the case dismissed. That meant nothing other than a signal that there is no regulation a court can get it's teeth into. Do we know what we really have? I asked this thread run and let us hear what you all had to say. Many have commented. Some of the comments were fun and others informative. It wouldn't hurt for us to lighten up on each other. Thanks

Jim Branaum

My Feedback: (3)

Wait!

The Australian incident where there were significant injuries does not count? Sorry, but your viewpoints seem to be significantly skewed to ignore public safety and that does not mean just FAA regulations (which you got wrong in detail [500' is bogus] and in general anyway as others pointed out).

Your animus against aircraft implied in your original post is as interesting as the fact that you no longer have any RC equipment. What are you? Someone who violated some FAR and need to raise money to pay the fine?

hook57

My Feedback: (21)

Just food for thought, if I'm not mistaken; "on this issue of the Photographers' case being tossed out", I'm fairly certain the FAA appealed the ruling and it is pending on that appeal. Whether it stands or not remains to be seen. It's clear that the FAA has the statutory authority to regulate commercial (contrivances) or "unmanned aerial vehicles" of any size. Though Congress did recently take away the FAA’s authority to regulate "model aircraft" operated for hobby or recreational purposes by "community" groups. So the question remaining is whether it has properly promulgated regulations; which it is required to do if necessary. IMO, put simply, I do not believe it did or has when it comes to small contrivances (sUAV). Though many believe it had to the extent of the advisory circular for those aircraft considered to be model aircraft.

I am open and agreeable to the FAA wanting to prohibit unsafe or impracticable operations of these contrivances that very well may endanger persons or property (which FAA believed was at issue); however, it must be done properly via its own rule making process and thus properly enacted regulations. The advisory circular, 91.57, is just that, advisory and nothing....nothing more. It is not incorporated by reference in any current rule/reg and issuing notices (as it has since 2007) serves no regulatory purpose. As such, those notices are not rules and thus they are not legally enforceable. So, in simple terms, time will tell. Some will proceed cautiously with respect towards others while others will "get theirs and screw everybody (read everyone) else". Keeping in mind that my RC pursuit is a passionate hobby (not a commercial venture) the question arises (whether you care, if you care, or how much you care), how am I going to proceed? Just as much is how selfish are we or do we need to be, as a community (group, club, whatever) in pursuit of our hobby. Just my two and half cents again.
hook

Bob Pastorello

My Feedback: (198)

Personally, and for no particular reason other than learning FAA regs on various topics and having studied a goodly assortment of USC Titles....I'm betting that any rules and regs we end up having to deal with will ignore the "type" of contrivance navigating the airspace!!!!!

Instead - I think the rules we end up with will tightly control OPERATIONS within the airspace by defining the airspace proper, as well as what operations will be permitted, what won't be allowed, and what procedures, etc. will have to be followed by whatever contrivance moves through that airspace.

Whether it's an airplane, helo, FPV, flying horse, pig or sUAV, if the regulatory guidance defines the what, how, when, and how not to that those things are supposed to operate within the airspace, the FAA will have achieved it's purpose, and complied with instructions from Congress and Title 49.

It will be very interesting to see how close to the mark my prediction here actually comes to pass.

hook57

My Feedback: (21)

Bob P.

My misread and I appreciate the clarification, but still done here. Enjoy the hobby, as that is all it really is.

Mark

Bob Pastorello

My Feedback: (198)

hook - Mark - my post was not intended to be directed at anyone, honestly. Certainly not you as an individual, no upset here. I was borrowing some words to emphasize my point, but I am not p.o.'d at anyone. Since my replay was below yours, I guess that made it seem as if I had some issue, which I do not. Again, my apologies.

I also try to use dry humor and sarcasm probably too frequently, and those can easily be misinterpreted or misunderstood from a keyboard. My apologies for that.

JohnShe

Great post, you are preaching at the choir on the main issues. Couple of points.

Yes, the FAA is attempting to appeal on the basis of Pirker's reckless behavior. It was tossed unfortunately on the basis that there were no regulation in the FAR governing the use of model aircraft or toys in this case. The FAA is supposed to working on this, although at a glacial pace.


Second, the FAA was been authorized and directed to integrate unmanned A/C (UAS) into the NAS. They were permitted to not regulate model aircraft and charged with making sure that community rules were valid and followed. Which means, if a jerk like Pirker does something "crazy stupid" the FAA can and will take action. Also, the community rules will have o be accepted by the FAA. The AMA is already working on this and seems to be making progress.

bradpaul

Check this one out.................... A youth was flying a camera drone over the beach and a JohnShe type upstanding concerned citizen called the cops!!!!!!! Guess who ended up getting arrested?

http://photographyisnotacrime.com/20...h-connecticut/

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=57e_1402206030 <iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.liveleak.com/ll_embed?f=7acf50aa78c9" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

DocYates

My Feedback: (102)

What is more distrubing is that she thinks somebody would want to see a picture of her on the beach. What a scumbag, I hope she gets fined and then the young guy sues her for assault. he was doing nothing wrong, at a public beach, and was not doing it commercially. he was well within his rights. She acted aggressively and was just wanting to stomp on his rights, because she felt like hers were threatened. The kid should be commended for staying cool and thinking enough to tape the event. Kudos to him.

ira d

What is wrong with people these days? If she didn't like him taking pictures move to another part of the beach. As for me I could care less if I was at a beach
and someone was flying a rc as long as it was not directly over me and if someone was and I asked them to stop and they didn't I would either move or call
the police.