Another Drone Pilot does it Again
10-12-2016, 07:05 AM
#3851
Yep , to be technical , any unmanned aircraft is a drone . Now , how many members of the non aviation public use it that way ? Exactly none that I know of because they have been media taught that Drone = MR . When you see someone in one of these forums trot out the tired old "but every unmanned aircraft is a drone" horse , it's plain and obvious proof that person has lost whatever point they were trying to make and has instead resorted to "the sun is yellow , no it's not it's orange" type of circular logic in attempt to walk away being "right" . Kinda sad , really ......
10-12-2016, 07:15 AM
#3852
Your "all unmanned aircraft are drones" horse has already left the barn , you can argue about the open barn door all ya want to , but the simple fact is that it's COMMON USAGE that defines what a word means , and to the public who ARE the ones who decide what words mean , the word Drone just like the word Gay now have different meanings that they originally did .
I wish you luck in your crusade for absolute word purity and that no word can ever come to mean something different than it originally did . It's bound to be a lonely crusade indeed ....
10-12-2016, 07:22 AM
#3853
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
Agreed 100% , it's not the machinery itself , it's how it's used that causes the problems . Yes , it just so happens that the majority of today's BLOS FPV is being flown with MRs but the simple fact is that BLOS FPV is the problem no matter what platform is being used to carry the camera . Of course , now that the media has indoctrinated the public that MR = Drone = spy , it really doesn't matter what one person with a clueless agenda wants to push here about the "right" definition of what a "drone" "really" is , to the public (the ones who call their congressmen demanding something be done about the "spying drone menace") the word has come to be known exclusively as a MR carrying a camera that'll be peepin in their windows at any chance it gets .
Yep , to be technical , any unmanned aircraft is a drone . Now , how many members of the non aviation public use it that way ? Exactly none that I know of because they have been media taught that Drone = MR . When you see someone in one of these forums trot out the tired old "but every unmanned aircraft is a drone" horse , it's plain and obvious proof that person has lost whatever point they were trying to make and has instead resorted to "the sun is yellow , no it's not it's orange" type of circular logic in attempt to walk away being "right" . Kinda sad , really ......
Yep , to be technical , any unmanned aircraft is a drone . Now , how many members of the non aviation public use it that way ? Exactly none that I know of because they have been media taught that Drone = MR . When you see someone in one of these forums trot out the tired old "but every unmanned aircraft is a drone" horse , it's plain and obvious proof that person has lost whatever point they were trying to make and has instead resorted to "the sun is yellow , no it's not it's orange" type of circular logic in attempt to walk away being "right" . Kinda sad , really ......
I couldn't agree more, that's why I was surprised Astro did exactly that by going to the whole "well he flew a drone", and then doubled down on that in post 3833. It's pretty obvious he thought Trappy was flying a MR, commonly called a "drone". The not so subtle shift to "well I guess you don't realize that a plane can be a drone". I think I've actually been saying that for sometime now. I even noted it doesn't matter what we call it, the FAA calls it one thing, and that's that. But I think we all agree, it was in fact an airplane, and it was the reckless operation of that airplane that caused the FAA to take notice of it. I know we agree on far more than we disagree!
10-12-2016, 07:23 AM
#3854
Nope, I've already mentioned that piece of it. It's irrelevant in the context of this discussion, the original point of the thread (MR focused), and wasn't in any way an issue for the FAA. You've tried to make that a distinguishing feature or issue after being challenged about him flying a drone, when in fact he was flying an airplane.
Feel free to read the FAA document I've linked to, not a single word in there about BLOS, LOS, or FPV. For more accuracy....peruse FAA reg 91.13(a)
The agenda here is to be factual, and precise, and accurate.
Feel free to read the FAA document I've linked to, not a single word in there about BLOS, LOS, or FPV. For more accuracy....peruse FAA reg 91.13(a)
The agenda here is to be factual, and precise, and accurate.
To be accurate, he was flying an SuAS (per your own previous statement, and by todays standards) NOT "an airplane" (more of your spin)
If you REALLY want to be factual, precise and accurate, try to keep up! The BLOS/FPV IS a distinguishing feature as the rules apply today (that is why there was no mention in this OLD case), as well as the public safety thing (those rules have since been defined more clearly since this case was news).
Here are some facts about this OLD case.
"March 11, 2014
The Federal Aviation Administration’s $10,000 enforcement case against Raphael Pirker, whom the FAA characterized as a commercial unmanned aircraft system (UAS) operator, was dismissed on March 6, 2014, by Administrative Law Judge Patrick G. Geraghty. The FAA alleged that Pirker was paid by a communications company to take aerial photographs over the University of Virginia’s campus using a remote UAS. The FAA charged Pirker with violating the provisions of Part 91, Section 91.13(a) of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs), which prohibits operating an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life of property of another.[1]
Decisional Order
The ALJ issued a decisional order granting Pirker’s motion to dismiss, vacating and setting aside the FAA’s order of assessment, and terminating the proceeding with prejudice.
The ALJ agreed with Pirker’s argument that “model aircraft” do not fall under the definition of “aircraft” under 14 CFR § 1.1, and that FAR 91 therefore does not apply to the operation of “model aircraft.” In support, the decision sets out four conclusions.
First, the FAA has historically in their policy notices modified the term “aircraft” by prefixing the word “model” to distinguish the device being considered. Second, to accept the FAA’s argument that a model aircraft is an “aircraft” would lead to a conclusion that “aircraft” includes all types of devices/contrivances used for flight in the air. Under this logic, even a paper airplane operator would evidently be subject to the regulatory provisions of Section 91.13(a).
Third, the FAA has historically not required model aircraft operators to comply with the FARs requiring an Airworthiness and Registration Certificate for an aircraft. Fourth, the FAA issued Advisory Circular 91-57 (AC 91-57) on Model Aircraft Operating Standards, encouraging voluntary compliance with safety standards for model aircraft operators. Doing so is incompatible with the argument that model aircraft are also “aircraft” and their operators are pilots subject to the FARs.
Finally, the FAA has not deemed every device used for flight as aircraft, as evidenced by the FAA’s treatment of Ultralights, which are defined in the statute not as “aircraft” but as “Ultralight Vehicle[s]” subject to a particular provision of the FARs. The ALJ thus concluded that as the FAA “has not issued an enforceable FAR regulatory rule governing model aircraft operation; has historically exempted model aircraft from the statutory FAR definitions of ‘aircraft’ by relegating model aircraft operations to voluntary compliance with the guidance expressed in AC 91-57, Respondent’s model aircraft operation was not subject to FAR regulation, and enforcement.”
The decisional order also held that the FAA’s various statements of policy are insufficient to impose any binding obligation on “model aircraft” operators. The ALJ determined that a 2005 memorandum on UAS policy was intended to provide internal guidance and could not bind the public. Moreover, the ALJ concluded that the FAA’s 2007 “Notice of Policy,” which purported to impose a ban on commercial operation of UAS, was insufficient to establish binding rules because it did not meet the criteria for valid legislative rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act.
The ALJ also noted that in 2012 Congress directed the FAA to develop a plan for integration of civil UAS into the national airspace. This congressional mandate includes a requirement that the FAA issue a final rule on small UAS and states that the FAA “may not promulgate any rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft” where the model aircraft satisfies the criteria stated therein. The order holds that it is a reasonable inference that the legislators were of the view that there were no effective rules or regulations governing model aircraft operations.
Having found that no binding regulations applied, the order did not reach Pirker’s other arguments. For example, Pirker had also asserted that the FAA lacked jurisdiction over activities that took place at low altitudes, below what is “navigable” airspace. However, this and Pirker’s other arguments may still play a role in the resolution of the case on appeal.
Procedural Next Steps
On March 7, 2014, the FAA issued a notice appealing the ALJ’s decision, stating that “[t]he agency is concerned that this decision could impact the safe operation of the national airspace system and the safety of people and property on the ground.” The filing of a timely notice of appeal with the board stays the effectiveness of the ALJ’s order.[2]
On appeal, the board will consider only the following questions: (1) Are the findings of fact each supported by a preponderance of reliable, probative and substantial evidence?; (2) Are conclusions made in accordance with law, precedent and policy?; (3) Are the questions on appeal substantial?; and (4) Have any prejudicial errors occurred?[3]
If the board determines that the ALJ erred in any respect, or that his or her initial decision or order should be changed, the board may make any necessary findings and may issue an order in lieu of the law judge’s initial decision or order, or may remand the proceeding for any such purpose as the board may deem necessary. A party may appeal the board’s decision by filing a petition in either the U.S. district court or the U.S. court of appeals.[4]
Key Takeaways
The ALJ’s decision provides a potential opening for using small UAS for commercial purposes but is not a final decision and leaves key questions unresolved. Notably, the decision adopts Pirker’s argument that FAR 91.13 does not apply to “model aircraft.” In addition, the various policy statements the FAA has adopted over the years on UAS do not impose binding rules on “model aircraft” operations. “Model aircraft” operation is subject only to the FAA’s requested voluntary compliance with the safety guidelines in AC 91-57.
Further, the decision does not define “model aircraft,” leaving the scope of this potential exemption undefined. Pirker’s motion to dismiss, which the ALJ granted, characterized “model airplane” as having an “obvious” “ordinary meaning.” But model airplanes and UAS range in size, speed, and capabilities. The bounds of what constitutes a “model airplane” are thus ill-defined. For practical purposes, a larger, faster UAS seems more likely to attract the notice of the FAA.
One of the most important things to remember about this decision is that the FAA has appealed it. Accordingly, the decision’s effectiveness is stayed until the board rules. The status quo regarding UAS has not changed. Given this stay of effectiveness, and the speed with which the FAA filed its appeal, it is likely that the FAA plans to continue to keep a close eye on UAS operations.
The agency’s continued concern is underlined by the statement it released when it filed its notice of appeal, which emphasized that the FAA viewed the ALJ’s decision as potentially “impact[ing] the safe operation of the national airspace system and the safety of people and property on the ground.” It thus also appears likely that the FAA will continue to send cease and desist letters to commercial UAS operators during the pendency of the proceeding.
Finally, the regulatory landscape for UAS is subject to change in the near future. The 2012 FAA Modernization Act gives the FAA authority to adopt rules governing small UAS. The rulemaking will likely launch later this year. Using the congressional directive as source of authority, the FAA can comply with APA rulemaking procedures and promulgate UAS rules that would withstand the challenges raised by Pirker. Indeed, the FAA will presumably use the rulemaking to cure the legal issues cited by the ALJ in this decision.
In sum, while this decision presents a setback to the agency’s authority to regulate UAS in the short term, the FAA’s long-term plans to regulate UAS are unaffected."
The rules have since changed, rendering your contentions not relevant. One of the main tenants of the FAA's case was the "flight for hire", the other was concern for public safety and in this case, the FAA was trying to hold Pirker accountable for flying an "aircraft" which, it was determined, was not the case as there had been precedent set that models had historically been defined separately.
Of course, none of this has any real bearing on the discussion we were having, it is merely another of your distractions. Context, context, context.........
Regards,
Astro
10-12-2016, 07:31 AM
#3856
Sad indeed! I couldn't agree more, that's why I was surprised Astro did exactly that by going to the whole "well he flew a drone", and then doubled down on that in post 3833. It's pretty obvious he thought Trappy was flying a MR, commonly called a "drone". The not so subtle shift to "well I guess you don't realize that a plane can be a drone". I think I've actually been saying that for sometime now. I even noted it doesn't matter what we call it, the FAA calls it one thing, and that's that. But I think we all agree, it was in fact an airplane, and it was the reckless operation of that airplane that caused the FAA to take notice of it. I know we agree on far more than we disagree!
Regards,
Astro
10-12-2016, 07:40 AM
#3857
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
I have read the FAA doc. Did you see the date? It was BEFORE the FPV/BLOS rules were developed. It IS relevant today.
To be accurate, he was flying an SuAS (per your own previous statement, and by todays standards) NOT "an airplane" (more of your spin)
If you REALLY want to be factual, precise and accurate, try to keep up! The BLOS/FPV IS a distinguishing feature as the rules apply today (that is why there was no mention in this OLD case), as well as the public safety thing (those rules have since been defined more clearly since this case was news).
Here are some facts about this OLD case.
"March 11, 2014
The Federal Aviation Administration’s $10,000 enforcement case against Raphael Pirker, whom the FAA characterized as a commercial unmanned aircraft system (UAS) operator, was dismissed on March 6, 2014, by Administrative Law Judge Patrick G. Geraghty. The FAA alleged that Pirker was paid by a communications company to take aerial photographs over the University of Virginia’s campus using a remote UAS. The FAA charged Pirker with violating the provisions of Part 91, Section 91.13(a) of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs), which prohibits operating an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life of property of another.[1]
Decisional Order
The ALJ issued a decisional order granting Pirker’s motion to dismiss, vacating and setting aside the FAA’s order of assessment, and terminating the proceeding with prejudice.
The ALJ agreed with Pirker’s argument that “model aircraft” do not fall under the definition of “aircraft” under 14 CFR § 1.1, and that FAR 91 therefore does not apply to the operation of “model aircraft.” In support, the decision sets out four conclusions.
First, the FAA has historically in their policy notices modified the term “aircraft” by prefixing the word “model” to distinguish the device being considered. Second, to accept the FAA’s argument that a model aircraft is an “aircraft” would lead to a conclusion that “aircraft” includes all types of devices/contrivances used for flight in the air. Under this logic, even a paper airplane operator would evidently be subject to the regulatory provisions of Section 91.13(a).
Third, the FAA has historically not required model aircraft operators to comply with the FARs requiring an Airworthiness and Registration Certificate for an aircraft. Fourth, the FAA issued Advisory Circular 91-57 (AC 91-57) on Model Aircraft Operating Standards, encouraging voluntary compliance with safety standards for model aircraft operators. Doing so is incompatible with the argument that model aircraft are also “aircraft” and their operators are pilots subject to the FARs.
Finally, the FAA has not deemed every device used for flight as aircraft, as evidenced by the FAA’s treatment of Ultralights, which are defined in the statute not as “aircraft” but as “Ultralight Vehicle[s]” subject to a particular provision of the FARs. The ALJ thus concluded that as the FAA “has not issued an enforceable FAR regulatory rule governing model aircraft operation; has historically exempted model aircraft from the statutory FAR definitions of ‘aircraft’ by relegating model aircraft operations to voluntary compliance with the guidance expressed in AC 91-57, Respondent’s model aircraft operation was not subject to FAR regulation, and enforcement.”
The decisional order also held that the FAA’s various statements of policy are insufficient to impose any binding obligation on “model aircraft” operators. The ALJ determined that a 2005 memorandum on UAS policy was intended to provide internal guidance and could not bind the public. Moreover, the ALJ concluded that the FAA’s 2007 “Notice of Policy,” which purported to impose a ban on commercial operation of UAS, was insufficient to establish binding rules because it did not meet the criteria for valid legislative rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act.
The ALJ also noted that in 2012 Congress directed the FAA to develop a plan for integration of civil UAS into the national airspace. This congressional mandate includes a requirement that the FAA issue a final rule on small UAS and states that the FAA “may not promulgate any rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft” where the model aircraft satisfies the criteria stated therein. The order holds that it is a reasonable inference that the legislators were of the view that there were no effective rules or regulations governing model aircraft operations.
Having found that no binding regulations applied, the order did not reach Pirker’s other arguments. For example, Pirker had also asserted that the FAA lacked jurisdiction over activities that took place at low altitudes, below what is “navigable” airspace. However, this and Pirker’s other arguments may still play a role in the resolution of the case on appeal.
Procedural Next Steps
On March 7, 2014, the FAA issued a notice appealing the ALJ’s decision, stating that “[t]he agency is concerned that this decision could impact the safe operation of the national airspace system and the safety of people and property on the ground.” The filing of a timely notice of appeal with the board stays the effectiveness of the ALJ’s order.[2]
On appeal, the board will consider only the following questions: (1) Are the findings of fact each supported by a preponderance of reliable, probative and substantial evidence?; (2) Are conclusions made in accordance with law, precedent and policy?; (3) Are the questions on appeal substantial?; and (4) Have any prejudicial errors occurred?[3]
If the board determines that the ALJ erred in any respect, or that his or her initial decision or order should be changed, the board may make any necessary findings and may issue an order in lieu of the law judge’s initial decision or order, or may remand the proceeding for any such purpose as the board may deem necessary. A party may appeal the board’s decision by filing a petition in either the U.S. district court or the U.S. court of appeals.[4]
Key Takeaways
The ALJ’s decision provides a potential opening for using small UAS for commercial purposes but is not a final decision and leaves key questions unresolved. Notably, the decision adopts Pirker’s argument that FAR 91.13 does not apply to “model aircraft.” In addition, the various policy statements the FAA has adopted over the years on UAS do not impose binding rules on “model aircraft” operations. “Model aircraft” operation is subject only to the FAA’s requested voluntary compliance with the safety guidelines in AC 91-57.
Further, the decision does not define “model aircraft,” leaving the scope of this potential exemption undefined. Pirker’s motion to dismiss, which the ALJ granted, characterized “model airplane” as having an “obvious” “ordinary meaning.” But model airplanes and UAS range in size, speed, and capabilities. The bounds of what constitutes a “model airplane” are thus ill-defined. For practical purposes, a larger, faster UAS seems more likely to attract the notice of the FAA.
One of the most important things to remember about this decision is that the FAA has appealed it. Accordingly, the decision’s effectiveness is stayed until the board rules. The status quo regarding UAS has not changed. Given this stay of effectiveness, and the speed with which the FAA filed its appeal, it is likely that the FAA plans to continue to keep a close eye on UAS operations.
The agency’s continued concern is underlined by the statement it released when it filed its notice of appeal, which emphasized that the FAA viewed the ALJ’s decision as potentially “impact[ing] the safe operation of the national airspace system and the safety of people and property on the ground.” It thus also appears likely that the FAA will continue to send cease and desist letters to commercial UAS operators during the pendency of the proceeding.
Finally, the regulatory landscape for UAS is subject to change in the near future. The 2012 FAA Modernization Act gives the FAA authority to adopt rules governing small UAS. The rulemaking will likely launch later this year. Using the congressional directive as source of authority, the FAA can comply with APA rulemaking procedures and promulgate UAS rules that would withstand the challenges raised by Pirker. Indeed, the FAA will presumably use the rulemaking to cure the legal issues cited by the ALJ in this decision.
In sum, while this decision presents a setback to the agency’s authority to regulate UAS in the short term, the FAA’s long-term plans to regulate UAS are unaffected."
The rules have since changed, rendering your contentions not relevant. One of the main tenants of the FAA's case was the "flight for hire", the other was concern for public safety and in this case, the FAA was trying to hold Pirker accountable for flying an "aircraft" which, it was determined, was not the case as there had been precedent set that models had historically been defined separately.
Of course, none of this has any real bearing on the discussion we were having, it is merely another of your distractions. Context, context, context.........
Regards,
Astro
To be accurate, he was flying an SuAS (per your own previous statement, and by todays standards) NOT "an airplane" (more of your spin)
If you REALLY want to be factual, precise and accurate, try to keep up! The BLOS/FPV IS a distinguishing feature as the rules apply today (that is why there was no mention in this OLD case), as well as the public safety thing (those rules have since been defined more clearly since this case was news).
Here are some facts about this OLD case.
"March 11, 2014
The Federal Aviation Administration’s $10,000 enforcement case against Raphael Pirker, whom the FAA characterized as a commercial unmanned aircraft system (UAS) operator, was dismissed on March 6, 2014, by Administrative Law Judge Patrick G. Geraghty. The FAA alleged that Pirker was paid by a communications company to take aerial photographs over the University of Virginia’s campus using a remote UAS. The FAA charged Pirker with violating the provisions of Part 91, Section 91.13(a) of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs), which prohibits operating an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life of property of another.[1]
Decisional Order
The ALJ issued a decisional order granting Pirker’s motion to dismiss, vacating and setting aside the FAA’s order of assessment, and terminating the proceeding with prejudice.
The ALJ agreed with Pirker’s argument that “model aircraft” do not fall under the definition of “aircraft” under 14 CFR § 1.1, and that FAR 91 therefore does not apply to the operation of “model aircraft.” In support, the decision sets out four conclusions.
First, the FAA has historically in their policy notices modified the term “aircraft” by prefixing the word “model” to distinguish the device being considered. Second, to accept the FAA’s argument that a model aircraft is an “aircraft” would lead to a conclusion that “aircraft” includes all types of devices/contrivances used for flight in the air. Under this logic, even a paper airplane operator would evidently be subject to the regulatory provisions of Section 91.13(a).
Third, the FAA has historically not required model aircraft operators to comply with the FARs requiring an Airworthiness and Registration Certificate for an aircraft. Fourth, the FAA issued Advisory Circular 91-57 (AC 91-57) on Model Aircraft Operating Standards, encouraging voluntary compliance with safety standards for model aircraft operators. Doing so is incompatible with the argument that model aircraft are also “aircraft” and their operators are pilots subject to the FARs.
Finally, the FAA has not deemed every device used for flight as aircraft, as evidenced by the FAA’s treatment of Ultralights, which are defined in the statute not as “aircraft” but as “Ultralight Vehicle[s]” subject to a particular provision of the FARs. The ALJ thus concluded that as the FAA “has not issued an enforceable FAR regulatory rule governing model aircraft operation; has historically exempted model aircraft from the statutory FAR definitions of ‘aircraft’ by relegating model aircraft operations to voluntary compliance with the guidance expressed in AC 91-57, Respondent’s model aircraft operation was not subject to FAR regulation, and enforcement.”
The decisional order also held that the FAA’s various statements of policy are insufficient to impose any binding obligation on “model aircraft” operators. The ALJ determined that a 2005 memorandum on UAS policy was intended to provide internal guidance and could not bind the public. Moreover, the ALJ concluded that the FAA’s 2007 “Notice of Policy,” which purported to impose a ban on commercial operation of UAS, was insufficient to establish binding rules because it did not meet the criteria for valid legislative rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act.
The ALJ also noted that in 2012 Congress directed the FAA to develop a plan for integration of civil UAS into the national airspace. This congressional mandate includes a requirement that the FAA issue a final rule on small UAS and states that the FAA “may not promulgate any rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft” where the model aircraft satisfies the criteria stated therein. The order holds that it is a reasonable inference that the legislators were of the view that there were no effective rules or regulations governing model aircraft operations.
Having found that no binding regulations applied, the order did not reach Pirker’s other arguments. For example, Pirker had also asserted that the FAA lacked jurisdiction over activities that took place at low altitudes, below what is “navigable” airspace. However, this and Pirker’s other arguments may still play a role in the resolution of the case on appeal.
Procedural Next Steps
On March 7, 2014, the FAA issued a notice appealing the ALJ’s decision, stating that “[t]he agency is concerned that this decision could impact the safe operation of the national airspace system and the safety of people and property on the ground.” The filing of a timely notice of appeal with the board stays the effectiveness of the ALJ’s order.[2]
On appeal, the board will consider only the following questions: (1) Are the findings of fact each supported by a preponderance of reliable, probative and substantial evidence?; (2) Are conclusions made in accordance with law, precedent and policy?; (3) Are the questions on appeal substantial?; and (4) Have any prejudicial errors occurred?[3]
If the board determines that the ALJ erred in any respect, or that his or her initial decision or order should be changed, the board may make any necessary findings and may issue an order in lieu of the law judge’s initial decision or order, or may remand the proceeding for any such purpose as the board may deem necessary. A party may appeal the board’s decision by filing a petition in either the U.S. district court or the U.S. court of appeals.[4]
Key Takeaways
The ALJ’s decision provides a potential opening for using small UAS for commercial purposes but is not a final decision and leaves key questions unresolved. Notably, the decision adopts Pirker’s argument that FAR 91.13 does not apply to “model aircraft.” In addition, the various policy statements the FAA has adopted over the years on UAS do not impose binding rules on “model aircraft” operations. “Model aircraft” operation is subject only to the FAA’s requested voluntary compliance with the safety guidelines in AC 91-57.
Further, the decision does not define “model aircraft,” leaving the scope of this potential exemption undefined. Pirker’s motion to dismiss, which the ALJ granted, characterized “model airplane” as having an “obvious” “ordinary meaning.” But model airplanes and UAS range in size, speed, and capabilities. The bounds of what constitutes a “model airplane” are thus ill-defined. For practical purposes, a larger, faster UAS seems more likely to attract the notice of the FAA.
One of the most important things to remember about this decision is that the FAA has appealed it. Accordingly, the decision’s effectiveness is stayed until the board rules. The status quo regarding UAS has not changed. Given this stay of effectiveness, and the speed with which the FAA filed its appeal, it is likely that the FAA plans to continue to keep a close eye on UAS operations.
The agency’s continued concern is underlined by the statement it released when it filed its notice of appeal, which emphasized that the FAA viewed the ALJ’s decision as potentially “impact[ing] the safe operation of the national airspace system and the safety of people and property on the ground.” It thus also appears likely that the FAA will continue to send cease and desist letters to commercial UAS operators during the pendency of the proceeding.
Finally, the regulatory landscape for UAS is subject to change in the near future. The 2012 FAA Modernization Act gives the FAA authority to adopt rules governing small UAS. The rulemaking will likely launch later this year. Using the congressional directive as source of authority, the FAA can comply with APA rulemaking procedures and promulgate UAS rules that would withstand the challenges raised by Pirker. Indeed, the FAA will presumably use the rulemaking to cure the legal issues cited by the ALJ in this decision.
In sum, while this decision presents a setback to the agency’s authority to regulate UAS in the short term, the FAA’s long-term plans to regulate UAS are unaffected."
The rules have since changed, rendering your contentions not relevant. One of the main tenants of the FAA's case was the "flight for hire", the other was concern for public safety and in this case, the FAA was trying to hold Pirker accountable for flying an "aircraft" which, it was determined, was not the case as there had been precedent set that models had historically been defined separately.
Of course, none of this has any real bearing on the discussion we were having, it is merely another of your distractions. Context, context, context.........
Regards,
Astro
Do you remember how the Pirker case was resolved?
10-12-2016, 07:43 AM
#3858
I had a very happy morning yesterday , flying my model planes with my friends .
I had a very gay morning yesterday , flying my drones with my acquaintances . 
Both factually correct , but which would YOU be more likely to say ? Nuff Said .......
10-12-2016, 08:07 AM
#3860
Porcia , I really do believe the one thing you , Astro , myself , and every other poster out here can agree on is that it doesn't matter the type of craft carrying it , it IS the flying camera flying BLOS that brought the attention . Now one thing that doesn't seem to be universally accepted is what the word drone means to the different folks who use it . Yes sir , the FAA description is factually correct , but that is not how the common man , right on up to the AMA* , is using the word today . Can you really deny that it's common usage , over time , that defines what a word means ? Just as my crazy example of the word gay , the public can and frequently does change the meaning of words . Some changes , like the word gay , remain changed forever and never revert back to their original meanings . Some changes are temporary , such as in the 1990s when something good came to be known as "the Bomb" , with that word now having gone back to being today of course more associated with terrorism than something good . But I truly do believe that drone = multicopter is now SO well ingrained into the public psyche that eventually ALL references including legal references will adopt that new meaning the (media influenced) public have given it . * In all AMA published materials , when they refer to "Drone" , it most certainly IS Multicopters to which they are referring to , and not all unmanned aircraft . In fact , I challenge anyone to find AMA usage of the word "Drone" where they are referring to a PT-17 and not a MR .
Go in Peace , Love thy neighbor , and Happy Flying ......
Last edited by init4fun; 10-12-2016 at 08:10 AM.
10-12-2016, 08:24 AM
#3861
Still don't know how that is relevant per the discussion we are having here. LOL. More Of your deflectin.
Of more pertinance to our discussion than the case itself is the numerous references I found to Pirker's "fixed wing drone" and "professional videographer runs afoul with the FAA".
Funny how "modeler" was never mentioned. Coincidence? Or separation?
Astro
10-12-2016, 08:24 AM
#3862
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
We can debate and split hairs on all types of issues and hopefully have fun while doing it, but it doesn't really matter at this point, we are where we are right? Trying to determine "blame" or the cause of the FAA getting more involved in the hobby is really dealing with the past, not the present or foreseeable future. People will continue to fly in a reckless and silly manner and post it up to social media. I think the big outrage, brought on by both the pilots, and a media hungry for the newest and best stories pushed the issue into the light, and got some ratings while they were at it. To me, the furor seems to have died down. Seems to be less stories about it now, certainly a huge reduction in the near misses stories we were seeing two years ago, even last year for that matter. A lot of the stuff we heard and read was hype...I don't think I ever saw a case where the allegations of peeping or spying were ever confirmed. It made for good copy though. Very few near misses resulted in actual findings (the cops in NY busted a few folks), but at the end of the day all of these pilots put themselves in the cross-hairs for additional scrutiny and question by flying the way they did.
Pack up your Mustang and any other drones you got laying around and head down to our Swap meet on 10/22. A short ride on a nice fall day, I promise you'll have a gay old time, lol.
Pack up your Mustang and any other drones you got laying around and head down to our Swap meet on 10/22. A short ride on a nice fall day, I promise you'll have a gay old time, lol.
10-12-2016, 08:27 AM
#3863
10-12-2016, 08:40 AM
#3864
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
Ummm...yes. He paid a fraction of the original fine and admitted no guilt. Classic plea bargain.
Still don't know how that is relevant per the discussion we are having here. LOL. More Of your deflectin.
Of more pertinance to our discussion than the case itself is the numerous references I found to Pirker's "fixed wing drone" and "professional videographer runs afoul with the FAA".
Funny how "modeler" was never mentioned. Coincidence? Or separation?
Astro
Still don't know how that is relevant per the discussion we are having here. LOL. More Of your deflectin.
Of more pertinance to our discussion than the case itself is the numerous references I found to Pirker's "fixed wing drone" and "professional videographer runs afoul with the FAA".
Funny how "modeler" was never mentioned. Coincidence? Or separation?
Astro
Are you sure he was never referred to as a modeler? Ever? You read all the articles on him?
Is he a modeler, absolutely. He built and flew airplanes, no question about that. For better or worse, he was in on the ground floor of FPV and is still pushing the boundaries. He has taken his hobby interest and transformed it into an international business. 30 million views a year on his sites, and contracts out for photo shoots, in addition to selling his own branded line of goods. Things seemed to have worked out for him.
10-12-2016, 08:46 AM
#3865
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
The covering/color combinations are yet another reason why I'm not particular the the MR scene. I know there of lots of different ones out there, but they all look very similar to me. There are so many liveries and color combinations possible with fixed wing, helis too. Once the storm passed by, the weather has been glorious, only a short while left to enjoy foliage and flying before it gets bitter cold.
10-12-2016, 08:50 AM
#3866
We can debate and split hairs on all types of issues and hopefully have fun while doing it, but it doesn't really matter at this point, we are where we are right? Trying to determine "blame" or the cause of the FAA getting more involved in the hobby is really dealing with the past, not the present or foreseeable future. People will continue to fly in a reckless and silly manner and post it up to social media. I think the big outrage, brought on by both the pilots, and a media hungry for the newest and best stories pushed the issue into the light, and got some ratings while they were at it. To me, the furor seems to have died down. Seems to be less stories about it now, certainly a huge reduction in the near misses stories we were seeing two years ago, even last year for that matter. A lot of the stuff we heard and read was hype...I don't think I ever saw a case where the allegations of peeping or spying were ever confirmed. It made for good copy though. Very few near misses resulted in actual findings (the cops in NY busted a few folks), but at the end of the day all of these pilots put themselves in the cross-hairs for additional scrutiny and question by flying the way they did.
Pack up your Mustang and any other drones you got laying around and head down to our Swap meet on 10/22. A short ride on a nice fall day, I promise you'll have a gay old time, lol.
Pack up your Mustang and any other drones you got laying around and head down to our Swap meet on 10/22. A short ride on a nice fall day, I promise you'll have a gay old time, lol.
PS , the last I remember of that word being happy was the exact quote you posted , it was the Flintstones theme song I believe that had the "you'll have a gay old time" line in it ...
10-12-2016, 09:00 AM
#3868
And Hell yea , that wing looks great ! My almost 80 year old flying buddy has a thing for wings , he builds them out of everything from styrofoam to wood to just about any material he thinks he can get to fly , and they are always something to see fly . This guy also flies LOS multirotors , has built one of those "flying superhero" things and will pretty much fly anything else he can bind to his TX . While I myself do fly only fixed wing I really enjoy seeing the variety of things this guy flies . Yes sir he is even planning to scale up a tiny flying bird toy to be a 30 or so inch wing RC ornithopter and I bet the whole club turns up on the day that's finally maidened .
10-13-2016, 03:57 AM
#3869
Speed perhaps, but I have been to the field and all of the jets were very small, no more than a 90 size. In fact you can see some of them in the video. They may have a limit or for some reason the small jets are popular there.
10-13-2016, 04:09 AM
#3870
Sorry RG , but the same public that decided the word Gay no longer means happy has decided that the word drone now means multirotor aircraft . You can cite old past references till the cows come home and leave again for all I care , but why don't you go trying to convince the public that an RC model of a P-51 is a "drone" and see how far you get ! While your at it , why don't you demand the public go back to using the original meaning of "Gay" too ?
Your "all unmanned aircraft are drones" horse has already left the barn , you can argue about the open barn door all ya want to , but the simple fact is that it's COMMON USAGE that defines what a word means , and to the public who ARE the ones who decide what words mean , the word Drone just like the word Gay now have different meanings that they originally did .
I wish you luck in your crusade for absolute word purity and that no word can ever come to mean something different than it originally did . It's bound to be a lonely crusade indeed ....
Your "all unmanned aircraft are drones" horse has already left the barn , you can argue about the open barn door all ya want to , but the simple fact is that it's COMMON USAGE that defines what a word means , and to the public who ARE the ones who decide what words mean , the word Drone just like the word Gay now have different meanings that they originally did .
I wish you luck in your crusade for absolute word purity and that no word can ever come to mean something different than it originally did . It's bound to be a lonely crusade indeed ....
http://www.bing.com/search?q=drone%2...276162F4C13415
10-13-2016, 04:14 AM
#3871
<Yawn!
10-13-2016, 04:16 AM
#3872
Yup....a compromise. FAA made their point, Pirker was lucky to get off with a small fine, but his business got a huge amount of publicity for free, and of course his attorney did pretty well for himself as well. Left his law firm to go work for DJI. Had he not been given free counsel, Pirker would have folded and paid the full fine. I suspect the FAA will reach a compromise with the Chicago outfit fined 1.9 million as well.
Are you sure he was never referred to as a modeler? Ever? You read all the articles on him?
Is he a modeler, absolutely. He built and flew airplanes, no question about that. For better or worse, he was in on the ground floor of FPV and is still pushing the boundaries. He has taken his hobby interest and transformed it into an international business. 30 million views a year on his sites, and contracts out for photo shoots, in addition to selling his own branded line of goods. Things seemed to have worked out for him.
Are you sure he was never referred to as a modeler? Ever? You read all the articles on him?
Is he a modeler, absolutely. He built and flew airplanes, no question about that. For better or worse, he was in on the ground floor of FPV and is still pushing the boundaries. He has taken his hobby interest and transformed it into an international business. 30 million views a year on his sites, and contracts out for photo shoots, in addition to selling his own branded line of goods. Things seemed to have worked out for him.
10-13-2016, 05:09 AM
#3874
Howz bout I showz ya a cute little nitroburning drone here Sport , will that get ya revved up for some flyin ?
I was gonna show this one yesterday after Porcia showed the flying wing , but this ain't really a flying wing per se , it's got a separate tail but not much fuselage .
I built this from a House of Balsa kit , they call it the "1/2A Stealth Sport" and yes being that "1/2 A" is in it's name it was intended for a Cox "Dragonfly" .049 , and of course is nicely just a tad overpowered by the TT.07 I installed into it instead .
And . for extra added nitro power , How bout an overhead cam .40 webra thrown into the mix as well
Last edited by init4fun; 11-03-2016 at 06:05 PM.
10-13-2016, 05:36 AM
#3875
Howz bout I showz ya a cute little nitroburning drone here Sport , will that get ya revved up for some flyin ?
I was gonna show this one yesterday after Porcia showed the flying wing , but this ain't really a flying wing per se , it's got a separate tail but not much fuselage .
I built this from a House of Balsa kit , they call it the "1/2A Stealth Sport" and yes being that "1/2 A" is in it's name it was intended for a Cox "Dragonfly" .049 , and of course is nicely just a tad overpowered by the TT.07 I installed into it instead .
And . for extra added nitro power , How bout an overhead cam .40 webra thrown into the mix as well
I was gonna show this one yesterday after Porcia showed the flying wing , but this ain't really a flying wing per se , it's got a separate tail but not much fuselage .
I built this from a House of Balsa kit , they call it the "1/2A Stealth Sport" and yes being that "1/2 A" is in it's name it was intended for a Cox "Dragonfly" .049 , and of course is nicely just a tad overpowered by the TT.07 I installed into it instead .
And . for extra added nitro power , How bout an overhead cam .40 webra thrown into the mix as well
But as with that Webra and the Lazer engines, doesn't the carb position make tank position difficult?