Go Back  RCU Forums > RC Airplanes > AMA Discussions
Reload this Page >

Another Drone Pilot does it Again

Notices
AMA Discussions Discuss AMA policies, decisions & any other AMA related topics here.

Another Drone Pilot does it Again

Old 07-06-2015, 08:10 AM
  #1951  
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 FLAPHappy View Post
LCS: Lets clear up the question of the NAS.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Airspace_System
Well there you go...wikipedia is now the authority for defining everything for us...another modern convenience for painting...
lol
Old 07-06-2015, 08:50 AM
  #1952  
MajorTomski
 
MajorTomski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Oklahoma City, OK
Posts: 2,536
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Sport_Pilot View Post
Correct, the NAS is the system of airspace control, it impossible for the NAS to start from the ground up because the NAS is not airspace itself.
Sport Pilot, littlecrankshaf, so you disagree with the Wiki article?

Class G airspace is completely uncontrolled airspace which extends from the surface to either 700 or 1,200 ft. AGL depending on the floor of the overlying Class E. In the vicinity of an uncontrolled airport, the CTAF for that airport is used for radio communication among pilots. In remote areas other frequencies such as MULTICOM are used. No towers or in-flight control services are provided although communications may be established with flight service stations which are not part of the NAS.

Last edited by MajorTomski; 07-06-2015 at 10:19 AM.
Old 07-06-2015, 11:27 AM
  #1953  
Sport_Pilot
 
Sport_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 16,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Class G airspace is completely uncontrolled airspace
No control of Class G airspace. Nothing in any of it that says FAA has control of individual use of their on airspace.
Old 07-06-2015, 11:29 AM
  #1954  
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

The National Airspace System (NAS) is the airspace, navigation facilities and airports of the United States...
Hmmm...right out of the gate there is a problem... If it had started with; The National Airspace System (NAS) is the authorized FAA controlled navigable airspace, navigation facilities and airports of the United States... Then that would help... Otherwise, just more over reach through inadvertent or purposeful ambiguous language... But that matters little... It's people's acceptance and lack of questioning of such things that is so very troubling to me... Where will that take us in the end?

Sorry for the brevity but typing on this phone is not conducive to further discussion but I hope at least one person out there in the vast ether can understand the very simple point(s)...
Old 07-06-2015, 12:52 PM
  #1955  
rgburrill
 
rgburrill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Dallas, Tx CT
Posts: 2,280
Received 11 Likes on 10 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Sport_Pilot View Post
No control of Class G airspace. Nothing in any of it that says FAA has control of individual use of their on airspace.
Where do you think that Class G airspace is? And who do you think defines that?

I love reading the futile attempts of some people to superceed wither failure to understand that everything we do in life is controlled by something greater thans ourselves by making up their own "reality" of who does what to whom. If SportPilot, and others like him, really wanted to get at the truth they maight follow this links given in those wikipedia articles. (Yes, littlecrankshaft, they do have some wisdom, if not authority since they are generated supposedly by those with some authority). They might find, for example, that somehwere hidden on the FAA webiste and buried deep in the Code of Federal Regulations (those little rules we all in the US must live by) that the national airspace is defined to start at ground level but for pratical purposes starts at 12 feet above ground. But it is so much easier to standy by invalid arguements to happen to support their case, isn't it. Who knows, maybe that's what I'm doing right now since I am not quoting chapter and paragraph.

BTW, did aayone notice that another firefighting airplane was grounded because of some a-hole with a "drone"? Oh well, it's just California and if it doesn't burn it will eventually just wash away into the sea.

Last edited by rgburrill; 07-06-2015 at 12:58 PM.
Old 07-06-2015, 03:23 PM
  #1956  
FLAPHappy
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (209)
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: right here
Posts: 867
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by rgburrill View Post
Where do you think that Class G airspace is? And who do you think defines that?

I love reading the futile attempts of some people to superceed wither failure to understand that everything we do in life is controlled by something greater thans ourselves by making up their own "reality" of who does what to whom. If SportPilot, and others like him, really wanted to get at the truth they maight follow this links given in those wikipedia articles. (Yes, littlecrankshaft, they do have some wisdom, if not authority since they are generated supposedly by those with some authority). They might find, for example, that somehwere hidden on the FAA webiste and buried deep in the Code of Federal Regulations (those little rules we all in the US must live by) that the national airspace is defined to start at ground level but for pratical purposes starts at 12 feet above ground. But it is so much easier to standy by invalid arguements to happen to support their case, isn't it. Who knows, maybe that's what I'm doing right now since I am not quoting chapter and paragraph.

BTW, did aayone notice that another firefighting airplane was grounded because of some a-hole with a "drone"? Oh well, it's just California and if it doesn't burn it will eventually just wash away into the sea.
RG: where did you come up 12 feet AGL??? I would like to see that in print. SO my house, trees,my motorhome, are in the NAS??
I know it's lost in the FAA Regs, nobody could ever find the definition if they wanted to.
The Wiki article kind of explains it in general, within a controlled airport or non controlled airport, it gives altitudes etc, but nothing beyond the ground level or the 12 feet AGL as you mentioned is even mentioned in the article.??????????. That is uncontrolled airspace, and NOT the NAS.
I just can go by the 5 mile rule of an airport, STAY AWAY!
Please reread the definition again......
Old 07-06-2015, 03:49 PM
  #1957  
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

Thanks rgburrill, I knew I could count on someone to validate my position...
Old 07-06-2015, 03:58 PM
  #1958  
smeckert
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Warren, MI
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Wiki can be changed by enough people putting in a new defination.
Old 07-06-2015, 05:53 PM
  #1959  
HoundDog
My Feedback: (49)
 
HoundDog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Apache Junction AZ. WI 0WI8
Posts: 4,497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by FLAPHappy View Post
RG: where did you come up 12 feet AGL??? I would like to see that in print. SO my house, trees,my motorhome, are in the NAS??
I know it's lost in the FAA Regs, nobody could ever find the definition if they wanted to.
The Wiki article kind of explains it in general, within a controlled airport or non controlled airport, it gives altitudes etc, but nothing beyond the ground level or the 12 feet AGL as you mentioned is even mentioned in the article.??????????. That is uncontrolled airspace, and NOT the NAS.
I just can go by the 5 mile rule of an airport, STAY AWAY!
Please reread the definition again......
Controlled and uncontrolled airspace refers to weather minimums that must be maintained
i.e. 1 mile visibility and clear of clouds all the way up to 3000 foot ceilings and 3 miles visibility ECT..
and if you have to maintain radio contact with the controlling authority.


[TABLE="width: 100%, align: center"]
[TR]
[TH="width: 26%"]Airspace Features[/TH]
[TH="width: 18%, bgcolor: #ffccff"]Class A Airspace[/TH]
[TH="width: 11%, bgcolor: #99ccff"]Class B Airspace[/TH]
[TH="width: 11%, bgcolor: #ff99ff"]Class C Airspace[/TH]
[TH="width: 11%, bgcolor: #66ffff"]Class D Airspace[/TH]
[TH="width: 11%, bgcolor: #66cc99"]Class E Airspace[/TH]
[TH="width: 12%, bgcolor: #ffff99"]Class G Airspace[/TH]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TH]Operations Permitted
[/TH]
[TD="bgcolor: #ffccff"]IFR[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #99ccff"]IFR & VFR[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #ff99ff"]IFR & VFR[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #66ffff"]IFR & VFR[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #66cc99"]IFR & VFR[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #ffff99"]IFR & VFR[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TH]Entry Prerequisites[/TH]
[TD="bgcolor: #ffccff"]ATC Clearance[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #99ccff"]ATC Clearance[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #ff99ff"]IFR: Clearance
VFR: Radio Contact

[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #66ffff"]IFR: Clearance
VFR: Radio Contact[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #66cc99"]IFR: Clearance and Radio Contact
VFR: None[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #ffff99"]None[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TH]Minimum Pilot Qualifications[/TH]
[TD="bgcolor: #ffccff"]Instrument Rating[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #99ccff"]Private Cert.
Endorsed Student Cert.

[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #ff99ff"]Student Cert.[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #66ffff"]Student Cert.[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #66cc99"]Student Cert.[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #ffff99"]Student Cert.[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TH]Two-way Radio Comm.[/TH]
[TD="bgcolor: #ffccff"]Yes[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #99ccff"]Yes[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #ff99ff"]Yes[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #66ffff"]Yes[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #66cc99"]IFR Only[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #ffff99"]No[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TH]VFR Minimum Visibility Below 10,000 MSL[/TH]
[TD="bgcolor: #ffccff"]N/A[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #99ccff"]3 Statute Miles[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #ff99ff"]3 Statute Miles[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #66ffff"]3 Statute Miles[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #66cc99"]3 Statute Miles[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #ffff99"]Day - 1 Statute Mile
Night - 3 Statute Miles[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TH]VFR Minimum Distance from Clouds Below 10,000 MSL[/TH]
[TD="bgcolor: #ffccff"]N/A[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #99ccff"]Clear of Clouds[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #ff99ff"]500 Below
1000 Above
2000 Horizontal[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #66ffff"]500 Below
1000 Above
2000 Horizontal[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #66cc99"]500 Below
1000 Above
2000 Horizontal[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #ffff99"][500 Below
1000 Above
2000 Horizontal]**[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TH]VFR Minimum Visibility Above 10,000 MSL[/TH]
[TD="bgcolor: #ffccff"]N/A[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #99ccff"]3 Statute Miles[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #ff99ff"]3 Statute Miles[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #66ffff"]3 Statute Miles[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #66cc99"]5 Statute Miles[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #ffff99"]5 Statute Miles**[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TH]VFR Minimum Distance from Clouds Above 10,000 MSL[/TH]
[TD="bgcolor: #ffccff"]N/A[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #99ccff"]Clear of Clouds[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #ff99ff"]500 Below; 1,000 Above; 2,000 Horizontal[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #66ffff"]500 Below; 1,000 Above; 2,000 Horizontal[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #66cc99"]1,000 Below; 1,000 Above;
1 Statute Mile Horizontal[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #ffff99"]1,000 Below; 1,000 Above;
1 Statute Mile Horizontal**[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TH]Aircraft Separation[/TH]
[TD="bgcolor: #ffccff"]All[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #99ccff"]All[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #ff99ff"]IFR, Special VFR and Runway Operations[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #66ffff"]FR, Special VFR and Runway Operations[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #66cc99"]IFR, Special VFR[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #ffff99"]None[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TH]Traffic Advisories[/TH]
[TD="bgcolor: #ffccff"]N/A[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #99ccff"]N/A[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #ff99ff"]Yes[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #66ffff"]Workload Permitting[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #66cc99"]Workload Permitting[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #ffff99"]Workload Permitting[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TH="colspan: 7"] *Student pilot operations at some Class B airports are prohibited.
**When flying 1,200 AGL or below: Day: 1 mile visibility, clear of clouds; Night: 3 miles visibility, 500 below, 1,000 above, 2,000 horizontal [/TH]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
Old 07-06-2015, 08:53 PM
  #1960  
Sport_Pilot
 
Sport_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 16,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by rgburrill View Post
Where do you think that Class G airspace is? And who do you think defines that?

I love reading the futile attempts of some people to superceed wither failure to understand that everything we do in life is controlled by something greater thans ourselves by making up their own "reality" of who does what to whom. If SportPilot, and others like him, really wanted to get at the truth they maight follow this links given in those wikipedia articles. (Yes, littlecrankshaft, they do have some wisdom, if not authority since they are generated supposedly by those with some authority). They might find, for example, that somehwere hidden on the FAA webiste and buried deep in the Code of Federal Regulations (those little rules we all in the US must live by) that the national airspace is defined to start at ground level but for pratical purposes starts at 12 feet above ground. But it is so much easier to standy by invalid arguements to happen to support their case, isn't it. Who knows, maybe that's what I'm doing right now since I am not quoting chapter and paragraph.

BTW, did aayone notice that another firefighting airplane was grounded because of some a-hole with a "drone"? Oh well, it's just California and if it doesn't burn it will eventually just wash away into the sea.

The FAA only has authority of navigable airspace, but past court proceedings allow regulations to protect navigable airspace.
49 U.S. Code 40103 - Sovereignty and use of airspaceCurrent through Pub. L. 114-19. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)




(a) Sovereignty and Public Right of Transit.(1) The United States Government has exclusive sovereignty of airspace of the United States.
(2) A citizen of the United States has a public right of transit through the navigable airspace. To further that right, the Secretary of Transportation shall consult with the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board established under section 502 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 792) before prescribing a regulation or issuing an order or procedure that will have a significant impact on the accessibility of commercial airports or commercial air transportation for handicapped individuals.

(b) Use of Airspace.(1) The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall develop plans and policy for the use of the navigable airspace and assign by regulation or order the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. The Administrator may modify or revoke an assignment when required in the public interest...


Also in US VS Causby the court ruled that farmer Causby had rights to his airspace to 83 feet. But just above the 83 foot threshold was the approach zone to a military air base.
Old 07-06-2015, 09:40 PM
  #1961  
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

Ok, since everyone is having a little fun with Wiki...here is little excerpt: BTW here is the link too; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_rights so the "outta context" kids in the back row don't start jumping up and down while raising their hands again...LOL I'll highlight and underline some of the good stuff.

The landowner's claim raises some fundamental legal principles about the ownership of land and the airspace above the land. These principles have been developing over time. In early common law, when there was little practical use of the upper air over a person's land, the law considered that alandowner owned all of the airspace above their land. That doctrine quickly became obsolete when the airplane came on the scene, along with the realization that each property owner whose land was overflown could demand that aircraft keep out of the landowner's airspace, or exact a price for the use of the airspace. The law, drawing heavily on the law of the sea, then declared that the upper reaches of the airspace were free for the navigation of aircraft. In the case of United States v. Causby,[SUP][6][/SUP] the U.S. Supreme Court declared the navigable airspace to be "a public highway" and within thepublic domain. At the same time, the law, and the Supreme Court, recognized that a landowner had property rights in the lower reaches of the airspace above their property. The law, in balancing the public interest in using the airspace for air navigation against the landowner's rights, declared that a landowner controls use of the airspace above their property in connection with their uninterrupted use and enjoyment of the underlying land. In other words, a person's real property ownership includes a reasonable amount of the private airspace above the property in order to prevent nuisance. A landowner may make any legitimate use of their property that they want, even if it interferes with aircraft overflying the land."[SUP][7][/SUP]

Last edited by littlecrankshaf; 07-06-2015 at 09:43 PM.
Old 07-07-2015, 09:26 AM
  #1962  
cfircav8r
My Feedback: (1)
 
cfircav8r's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Hampton, IA
Posts: 1,241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

The FAA has authority over all aircraft operaions (including models) regardless of what and where you are flying. The problem is in the fact that there are some issues with how people interpret the wording. Class G (often called uncontrolled) airspace does not mean they have no authority, only that specific rules apply. Basic rules of flight always apply making it by definition still "controlled" by the FAA. Navigable airspace is airspace that the FAA has control over what the public can do, such as if you wan't to build a tower and it will extend into navigable airspace you would then have to get permission to build. If it doesn't extend into navigable airspace then no permission is needed. Again the FAA still has control over aircraft operations even in non-navigable airspace, hence the reason for last line of Littlecrankshaf"s quote.

Last edited by cfircav8r; 07-07-2015 at 01:15 PM.
Old 07-07-2015, 09:49 AM
  #1963  
Sport_Pilot
 
Sport_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 16,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Basic rules of flight still apply making it by definition still "controlled" by the FAA. Navigable airspace is airspace that the FAA has control over what the public can do, such as if you wan't to build a tower and it will extend into navigable airspace you would then have to get permission to build. If
That is not true. I have worked with these permits and that is with the FCC. And it is not required till the tower is over 200 feet or near an airport. As stated by myself and littlecrankshaft the SCOTUS ruled that the FAA has no authority outside of navigable airspace. The exception are for drones as outlined in the recent bill 112-95. Also the FAA has control of any certified aircraft, and other code allows the government to issue those TSA's for security reasons. . But for all other uncertified aircraft and when not under a TSA, the FAA has no control.

BTW I have doubts about the legality of many of the TSA's, especially the permanent ones over amusement parks and stadium's.
Old 07-07-2015, 10:16 AM
  #1964  
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 cfircav8r View Post
The FAA has authority over all aircraft operaions (including models) regardless of what and where you are flying. The problem is in the fact that there are some issues with how people interpret the wording. Uncontrolled airspace does not mean they have no authority, only that the rules associated specifically with controlled airspace don't apply. Basic rules of flight still apply making it by definition still "controlled" by the FAA. Navigable airspace is airspace that the FAA has control over what the public can do, such as if you wan't to build a tower and it will extend into navigable airspace you would then have to get permission to build. If it doesn't extend into navigable airspace then no permission is needed. Again the FAA still has control over aircraft operations even in non-navigable airspace, hence the reason for last line of Littlecrankshaf"s quote.
OK, maybe its time to sum all this up. Any right, liberty or privilege will cease without continual exercising and maintenance...and conceding to whatever perceived limits, by whatever language, specific or ambiguous, will accelerate the demise of any right or liberty. We really have only two choices, take the perceived easy road, concede to be timid and accept over-reach or take an opposing stance however unpopular and fight to maintain our liberties as individuals. I just happen to believe the former is in vogue now and the America I grew up in is going to be nothing but a bunch of timid, mealy mouthed, spineless wusses that can only paint by the numbers before I see the end of my existence.... But what the hey, if looking to government for your validation and needs is what you want...I support you...but if you can muster some push-back, I am with you.
Old 07-07-2015, 10:22 AM
  #1965  
Sport_Pilot
 
Sport_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 16,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

We will be Greece in a few years. we have a higher benefits to tax ratio than Greece does!

So other countries will use us to grease their wheels!
Old 07-07-2015, 10:35 AM
  #1966  
rgburrill
 
rgburrill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Dallas, Tx CT
Posts: 2,280
Received 11 Likes on 10 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by littlecrankshaf View Post
Ok, since everyone is having a little fun with Wiki...here is little excerpt: BTW here is the link too; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_rights so the "outta context" kids in the back row don't start jumping up and down while raising their hands again...LOL I'll highlight and underline some of the good stuff.

The landowner's claim raises some fundamental legal principles about the ownership of land and the airspace above the land. These principles have been developing over time. In early common law, when there was little practical use of the upper air over a person's land, the law considered that alandowner owned all of the airspace above their land. That doctrine quickly became obsolete when the airplane came on the scene, along with the realization that each property owner whose land was overflown could demand that aircraft keep out of the landowner's airspace, or exact a price for the use of the airspace. The law, drawing heavily on the law of the sea, then declared that the upper reaches of the airspace were free for the navigation of aircraft. In the case of United States v. Causby,[SUP][6][/SUP] the U.S. Supreme Court declared the navigable airspace to be "a public highway" and within thepublic domain. At the same time, the law, and the Supreme Court, recognized that a landowner had property rights in the lower reaches of the airspace above their property. The law, in balancing the public interest in using the airspace for air navigation against the landowner's rights, declared that a landowner controls use of the airspace above their property in connection with their uninterrupted use and enjoyment of the underlying land. In other words, a person's real property ownership includes a reasonable amount of the private airspace above the property in order to prevent nuisance. A landowner may make any legitimate use of their property that they want, even if it interferes with aircraft overflying the land."[SUP][7][/SUP]
The court case is from 1946. The FAA was established 12 years later. The safety aspect of both US and international airspace changed considerably in that time.
Old 07-07-2015, 10:46 AM
  #1967  
rgburrill
 
rgburrill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Dallas, Tx CT
Posts: 2,280
Received 11 Likes on 10 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by littlecrankshaf View Post
OK, maybe its time to sum all this up. Any right, liberty or privilege will cease without continual exercising and maintenance...and conceding to whatever perceived limits, by whatever language, specific or ambiguous, will accelerate the demise of any right or liberty. We really have only two choices, take the perceived easy road, concede to be timid and accept over-reach or take an opposing stance however unpopular and fight to maintain our liberties as individuals. I just happen to believe the former is in vogue now and the America I grew up in is going to be nothing but a bunch of timid, mealy mouthed, spineless wusses that can only paint by the numbers before I see the end of my existence.... But what the hey, if looking to government for your validation and needs is what you want...I support you...but if you can muster some push-back, I am with you.
Perhaps you consider flight safety to be overreach but I don't. Even today, violation of simple flight safety protocols led an F-16 to plow into a Cessna 150. Who was in the worng? I don't know. Perhaps both. But someone had to be. I read today that there are over 10,000 hobby UASs in the US flying aournd without adequate safety controls. There is a lot fo work being done to get safer including things like adding a module to your RC airplane/rotory wing vehicle that reports it's location to ATC and any ohter aircraft in the area. To me that is overreach. But if that is the only way to stop the blatant disregard for other poples lives by the few who want to get their kicks out of flying near an airport, over a stadium full of people, or gett great pictures of thta forest fire then so be it. But expecting people to act reponsibly and think about other peoples' safety would obsolete the need for Darwin awards.
Old 07-07-2015, 10:47 AM
  #1968  
VF84sluggo
My Feedback: (55)
 
VF84sluggo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Gulf Breeze, FL
Posts: 2,367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by rgburrill View Post
Where do you think that Class G airspace is? And who do you think defines that?
Go to your local FBO (or online if you wish) and buy a Sectional chart. You can figure out where the Class G airspace is from there.
Old 07-07-2015, 11:04 AM
  #1969  
Sport_Pilot
 
Sport_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 16,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by rgburrill View Post
Perhaps you consider flight safety to be overreach but I don't. Even today, violation of simple flight safety protocols led an F-16 to plow into a Cessna 150. Who was in the worng? I don't know. Perhaps both. But someone had to be. I read today that there are over 10,000 hobby UASs in the US flying aournd without adequate safety controls. There is a lot fo work being done to get safer including things like adding a module to your RC airplane/rotory wing vehicle that reports it's location to ATC and any ohter aircraft in the area. To me that is overreach. But if that is the only way to stop the blatant disregard for other poples lives by the few who want to get their kicks out of flying near an airport, over a stadium full of people, or gett great pictures of thta forest fire then so be it. But expecting people to act reponsibly and think about other peoples' safety would obsolete the need for Darwin awards.
You are off topic, we were discussing flying around and above your home, not flying near airports.
Old 07-07-2015, 01:29 PM
  #1970  
Jim Branaum
My Feedback: (3)
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Fair Oaks Ranch, TX
Posts: 2,616
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by rgburrill View Post
Perhaps you consider flight safety to be overreach but I don't. SNIP But expecting people to act reponsibly and think about other peoples' safety would obsolete the need for Darwin awards.
Originally Posted by Sport_Pilot View Post
You are off topic, we were discussing flying around and above your home, not flying near airports.

Sorry Sport-Pilot, you are so warped up in proving the wrong thing that you missed the entire point of his post which was wrapped up with a leading and ending sentence. Those 2 directly address the very issue you are trying to play games with. Maybe if someone hits you with one of these toys, your point of view will include public safety which INCLUDES YOUR TRASHY QUADCOPTER OVER MY HOUSE! Is that message clear enough for you or is it going to take Big Bird or Kermit to explain it to you?

All this fighting over SCOTUS decisions from decades ago that have been superseded by technology and rules changes is simply spoiled rotten brats whining to get their way to play with dangerous toys. Yes, I understand that there ARE some things that HAVE to be handed over to prevent the anarchists from killing off the general public out of stupid carelessness and their total lack of concern. These are the same idiots that created the need for lawn mowers with switches so you cannot leave them running for a second to move something in your path and other switches to prevent you from backing up your lawn tractor with the deck engaged or the McDonalds coffee cup redesign. As a pilot I have almost had a mid air with some idiot flying model and having survived a bird strike, which helps me understand the dangers these newer platforms present. Those whining about freedoms lost might change their approach if it were their corpses that were burned because the fire retardant plane diverted or if their loved one perished because the life saving helicopter couldn't get past the UAV taking pictures. Too many say it can't happen in my community and no one I know is stupid enough to take those risks and present them to the public. That is NOT the problem boys and girls! The problem is that this junk is cheap enough and good enough that way too many Joe SixPacks can and do afford it but have no clue as to the potential for disaster they court with when doing things outside the 'rules' of reasonable, rational, and safe conduct. Look at the White House incident for a clue as to how far and wide this problem is.

Sorry, this whole subject irks me because I see fellow modelers fighting to protect dummies that endanger the general public in the name of freedom rather than looking at what can be done to solve the problem before someone shuts us all down.

/end rant
Old 07-07-2015, 01:35 PM
  #1971  
cfircav8r
My Feedback: (1)
 
cfircav8r's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Hampton, IA
Posts: 1,241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

IMO limiting models to below 1200 ft, line of sight (of either the pilot or a safety pilot with dual controls), and not for commercial purposes would be acceptable and in line with full scale aviation. If you wish to operate outside of those rules you need a license or special certificate. If you violate those rules face the punishment. The problem is there is very little force behind the FAA regulations. Basically pulling your ticket is the most severe punishment they have without invoking federal laws.

Last edited by cfircav8r; 07-07-2015 at 01:39 PM.
Old 07-07-2015, 02:45 PM
  #1972  
FLAPHappy
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (209)
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: right here
Posts: 867
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Jim Branaum View Post
Sorry Sport-Pilot, you are so warped up in proving the wrong thing that you missed the entire point of his post which was wrapped up with a leading and ending sentence. Those 2 directly address the very issue you are trying to play games with. Maybe if someone hits you with one of these toys, your point of view will include public safety which INCLUDES YOUR TRASHY QUADCOPTER OVER MY HOUSE! Is that message clear enough for you or is it going to take Big Bird or Kermit to explain it to you?

All this fighting over SCOTUS decisions from decades ago that have been superseded by technology and rules changes is simply spoiled rotten brats whining to get their way to play with dangerous toys. Yes, I understand that there ARE some things that HAVE to be handed over to prevent the anarchists from killing off the general public out of stupid carelessness and their total lack of concern. These are the same idiots that created the need for lawn mowers with switches so you cannot leave them running for a second to move something in your path and other switches to prevent you from backing up your lawn tractor with the deck engaged or the McDonalds coffee cup redesign. As a pilot I have almost had a mid air with some idiot flying model and having survived a bird strike, which helps me understand the dangers these newer platforms present. Those whining about freedoms lost might change their approach if it were their corpses that were burned because the fire retardant plane diverted or if their loved one perished because the life saving helicopter couldn't get past the UAV taking pictures. Too many say it can't happen in my community and no one I know is stupid enough to take those risks and present them to the public. That is NOT the problem boys and girls! The problem is that this junk is cheap enough and good enough that way too many Joe SixPacks can and do afford it but have no clue as to the potential for disaster they court with when doing things outside the 'rules' of reasonable, rational, and safe conduct. Look at the White House incident for a clue as to how far and wide this problem is.

Sorry, this whole subject irks me because I see fellow modelers fighting to protect dummies that endanger the general public in the name of freedom rather than looking at what can be done to solve the problem before someone shuts us all down.

/end rant
Very Well Said. My thoughts exactly. That is the first sentence quoted by myself, somewhat in a slightly different fashion, but remains in this thread............It is a Problem.

Last edited by FLAPHappy; 07-07-2015 at 02:48 PM.
Old 07-07-2015, 02:56 PM
  #1973  
ira d
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Maricopa County AZ
Posts: 3,181
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Sport_Pilot View Post

BTW I have doubts about the legality of many of the TSA's, especially the permanent ones over amusement parks and stadium's.
I have been wondering about that as well especially since only Disneyland and Disneyworld is named , Nothing about Universal Studios, Six Flags, Seaworld and such.
Old 07-07-2015, 02:56 PM
  #1974  
FLAPHappy
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (209)
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: right here
Posts: 867
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Sport_Pilot View Post
You are off topic, we were discussing flying around and above your home, not flying near airports.

Sporty: We all are discussing the violations of the AMA and FAA Rules of Flight, that is the main subject here. We can not dither between the airport or a persons house, both are equally important, very important, yet some idiots go ahead and fly anywhere, they don't care about the rules, that is the problem. Yes, the old saying" you can lead the horse to water, but you can't make him drink" same stuff different subject.
If you or anyone else can not see the difference here, do your homework , study the rules, before you get into big trouble.
Old 07-07-2015, 06:16 PM
  #1975  
porcia83
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Hartford, CT
Posts: 7,269
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default "..The tubed-meat enthusiast..."

Got to love the NY Daily News reporters, famous for their witty commentary.

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/...icle-1.2281577

Then there is some additional information here:

http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2453984

He starts off noting "a friend" was arrested. I think we've all had that "friend" at one point or another. Perhaps I'm jaded, but it sounds like he was the pilot, even more so after reading his commentary. The rationalization appears typical for the few folks who have been busted, and wonder why afterwards. The best/worst line though was this (emphasis added by me):

"...Clearly we do have the right to fly anywhere within the scope that we would not be endangering anyone..."

It's interesting to note all the legal sleuthing he's done after the fact. The only think missing is his commentary is "FREE SPEECH" and a wiki link, or dictionary definition. I'm sure his/the pilot's attorney will clue him into the reality of what he did.

Flying over an amusement park area during one of the busiest times of the year just isn't smart. Especially since the guy is "..a little overconfident in himself...", and "..who knows where he was flying...". The anti-cop rant at the end is pretty obligatory, of course.

Arrested and held for 3 hours, drone confiscated, and now charges brought against him. Oh, and he has hired an attorney now too. Even if the charges are dropped, I wonder if he'll look back on this and think ya, that was worth it!

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.