speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

Astro, you have heard “crickets “ from me simply because one cannot ask a brick to be anything else but a brick.

I gave a first hand account of CHP responding to what they thought was an FAA violation. I was told to cease activity and leave the premises. Most people will consider that enforcement simply because the point of contact was by a law enforcement officer. Now had I held my ground I imagine the I would have been cited for “ reckless endangerment “. There is the loophole to this. What you fail to realize is that most laws are not absolute, as a prosecutor there are always secondary charges that can be applied. If a first hand account is not enough for you so be it. What you feel is right or not is zero consequence to me and thus a waste of my time.

ECHO24

The problem here is astrohog pretending to not know how this works. The FAA is not going around writing tickets. An FAA "enforcement" comes long after
the fact and many months down the road. First there is an investigation, which often involves local police. A case in point is the incident where the guy
flew a drone over a Frontier Air jet over McCarran Int. and posted it on YouTube. It was Las Vegas police who tracked the guy down and interviewed him.

It's the lasted case of astro going off half-cocked and arguing till he's blue in the face just for the sake of arguing, here, conflating "investigating" with
"enforcement" just so he can keep banging on about it.

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

Just let him believe what he wants, it doesn’t matter. Why do you think this forum gets very little participation? It’s obvious to most that there are three main personalities here that verbally beat up on those who don’t follow their lead. At the end of the day, they are just three nobody’s.

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

And, as usual, you resort to logical fallacies when your back is against the wall. The bandwagon fallacy assumes something is true (or right or good) because others agree with it. In other words, the fallacy argues that if everyone thinks a certain way, then you should, too.One problem with this kind of reasoning is that the broad acceptance of a claim or action doesn't mean that it's factually justified. People can be mistaken, confused, deceived, or even willfully irrational in their opinions, so using them to make an argument is flawed.

What you prescribe is not a 'loophole', it is the clear distinction between local laws and FAA regs, which I did not, "fail to recognize" as you assert, I mentioned it early on in this thread. Very simply, if you HAD been cited for reckless endangerment, it would have been an example of being cited for violating a local law, not enforcement of an FAA regulation.

What I have stated is not that your first hand account didn't happen, it simply was not an instance of the CHP enforcing FAA regs.

This is also not, "What I feel is right", it is factual and can be confirmed by the documents I provided. Ironically, this is actually YOU spinning to fit your narrative and trying to save face from being wrong yet again.

The only reason I have spent the time to discuss this here is because these forums are here to help educate, especially for any new members that may wander in, we should provide accurate information, rather than the confirmation bias of a few from the 'good ole boy network' who want to proclaim their elevated status in the toy airplane world.

Astro

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

Astro, the two law enforcement officers responded to the claim of flying above 400’. In other words, responded to a claim that FAA regulations were being broken. Regardless of what you have read via the internet, this event happened. To claim they did not have jurisdiction is irrelevant, the event took place. Your failure to acknowledge that is unreasonable for someone who claims to have a certain level of intelligence.

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

You've gone full-circle in your backtracking. Go back and read the first posts that started this conversation. I have never claimed your interaction did not happen, not sure why you keep saying that. First post of mine stated that the "CHP has no authority (jurisdiction) to enforce FAA rules.

Your repeated attempts to spin this in your favor are not only transparent, they are the reasons these threads devolve.

Astro

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

No spin on my side. You say LEO can’t enforce FAA Regs and I have given an account of LEO enforcing FAA regs. Like I said earlier, a brick can only be a brick, your choice to be that brick. Either way think what you want, your opinion means nothing.

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

Except the CHP didn't enforce any FAA reg. in your scenario. You missed that one little point.

How many instances have you seen of overzealous LE that try to get people to to give them information that they are not legally compelled to give by threatening them with arrest? In your instance, the CHP told you to pack up or get arrested. You CHOSE to pack up. Had you not, he MAY have arrested you, but THAT would not constitute that he had AUTHORITY to do so. The fact is, he DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ARREST YOU whether you violated FAA rules or not.

The FAA is the sole enforcement agency for FAA regs.

Astro

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

Good lord Astro, nobody said anything about being arrested. Your black and white view has blinded you. The LEO officers responded to an FAA violation. Had I held my ground and been cited, the charge would have been changed to reckless endangerment by the time my court appearance was scheduled. The reckless endangerment charge most likely would have stuck based on a CHP pilot testifying that there was a “ near Miss “. The end result is the same! Granted it’s not a direct path for the LEO and court system to enforce FAA regulations. Like the majority of arguments in this forum you and a couple others want to make claims with no consideration with what happens out in the real world.

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

Ok. Cited vs. arrested. (it's been a while since that post).

The fact is, that CHP officer threatened to cite you. My stance has always been that the CHP officer has no authority to cite you for breaking FAA regs. Period. It was true then and it is now. Do you disagree?

astro

mongo

My Feedback: (15)

quick correction,

every single soul in these forum conversations is a "nobody".

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

I do not actually disagree with that. However the officers did respond to an FAA matter so it stands to reason that they were under the impression that they had jurisdiction. That said, in my situation they could have charged me with something they could, example reckless endangerment. My point is that the end result is the same. That’s what the legal system does. They change charges all the time to what they are able to get a conviction. Why is it so difficult for you to understand that even if they are not able to get you directly for an FAA violation, there are tools for them to get you for other things concerning the same incident. You are simply hanging onto nothing more then semantics.

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

I guess that would depend on your perspective. Everyone in these forums are important to their family and friends. The context in which Inwas referring to would be people who have made positive contributions to the hobby.

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

1. It is not difficult for me to understand. I actually clarified and stated that very thing earlier in this thread. It is your untrue and baseless claim that I don’t understand that and you couldn’t be more wrong.

2.The CHP cannot cite you for an FAA violation. So of course, it stands to reason that if they are going to cite you it must be for a local law or local ordinance for which they have jurisdiction.

3. Not semantics at all. My original statement was, “The CHP has no authority to enforce FAA regs”. You came full circle, acknowledged that and now are claiming I used semantics? Look in the mirror.

And I totally agree with Mongo. Bunch of nobodies in here debating toy airplanes. Pretty lame!

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

You’ve made it painfully clear that you feel that you should be exalted for your countless positive contributions to the hobby, unfortunately, the reality is nobody cares that you play with toy airplanes.

Astro

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

And yet nobody cares that you have become RCU’s biggest pain in the rear but here you are every chance you get.

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

That’s the thing, I’m only here for my enjoyment. I’d like to think I’m only a pain in the butt to those who spread misinformation. They are the only ones that seem to take issue with me. Weird, I know.

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

Yes, we all know how you feel you should be the exalted RCU hall monitor. The reality is that nobody cares what you feel is misinformation or not. Especially when you pick of choose those whom you feel the need to correct as the biggest source of misinformation in this forum is Franklin.

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

You say that but I’ve yet to see where you show compelling evidence to prove it, just a bunch of your typical word salad. You spread more than anyone here, and it’s been proven time and again. Typical.

Astro

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

Of course. Then again over the years you have shown your reluctance to accept any form of proof that is presented to you. Kinda remind me of the folks that think the earth is flat, we never went to the moon, there are more then two genders etc.

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

Not the same at all. Proof is proof, it is factual and can be vetted. I never have and never will ignore facts and proof. Problem is, you have no clue what constitutes proof. All of your rhetoric in this thread is proof of that. I can’t make you comprehend, and because you don’t doesn’t change a thing.

Astro

Hydro Junkie

Okay guys, I've been staying out of this one but, like Speed, I'm going to throw in a quick comment and see where it goes from there.
At this point, we know the following from the posts made so far:

1. commercial pilots were arrested for being intoxicated. It was not due to flying drunk, it was do to others realizing they were intoxicated and reporting them to local authorities BEFORE they boarded the plane. At that point, they had not yet broken any FAA reg, other than drinking before flying which cost every one of them a suspended or revoked license, something the FAA is authorized to do, not local LEOs
2. Speed claims he was told to pack up and leave after CHP was called, reporting R/C's flying too high. What was never disclosed is WHO CALLED THE CHP? Now, I'm not saying it didn't happen or that CHP didn't check with the FAA to verify a reg was broken or not. What I am saying is that there isn't enough info to determine if the CHP officers were in or out of their jurisdiction. IF they were called by the FAA, they were in their rights to act as they did but, if they were called by "Joe Schmukittelli"( a person that hates even the thought of noise from an R/C), then they didn't have the authority to do anything

Those two "facts" are what this whole "debate" is over. Not knowing who called the CHP makes it a moot point, doesn't it?

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

No. Under NO circumstances does the CHP have authority to issue citations or enforce FAA regulations.

The whole debate has nothing whatsoever to do with who called them or why they stopped at that field on that day.

I’ll repeat it one more time.

Speedy stated that the CHP showed up at a field he was at and was told to pack up or be cited (because someone was allegedly flying over 400’). I said, “The CHP has no authority to enforce FAA regulations.”

THAT is what started this extravaganza of circular logic, name-calling and logical fallacies.

I provided direct quotes from, and links to, the FAA docs that confirm my statement. It is not arbitrary, it is not an opinion, it is fact. There really isn’t any room for further discussion.

Astro

Hydro Junkie

I get that, Astro.
At the same time, IF the FAA called the CHP to check into a called in report, WHICH IT COULD DO, then the CHP would have been within their jurisdiction, but probably not to threaten issuing a citation. The fact that we don't know WHO called the CHP, as I see it, leaves the whole thing a moot point. On the other hand, IF the CHP officers saw the planes flying and rolled up and said to cease and desist, then they were definitely outside of their jurisdiction

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

That is a whole bunch of, if's, and's and but's......the CHP COULD, at the request of the FAA, go and investigate an incident, but it doesn't give them any enforcement authority or jurisdiction (not even sure jurisdiction is the right term here, it is authority)

It is FAA jurisdiction. PERIOD. No matter how many what-if's you can conjure up, it simply changes nothing.

Not sure why you would even want to muddy the waters here with what-if's?

State and local governments are not permitted to regulate any aircraft operations, such as flight paths or altitudes, or the navigable airspace. State and Local authorities may determine the take-off and landing areas for drones, but only the FAA has the authority to control the National Airspace.

Legal enforcement action may be taken where the FAA legal staff determines that a violation has occurred. Action may take the form of a civil penalty or a certificate action. The FAA will issue a Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty (NPCP), which is a monetary penalty levied for regulatory violations.

"Other investigative methods also may prove useful, such as consensual examination of the UAS, equipment trailers and the like. However, other law enforcement processes, such as arrest and detention or non-consensual searches almost always fall outside of the allowable methods to pursue administrative enforcement actions by the FAA unless they are truly a byproduct of a state criminal investigation."

Legal-eze is definitely one place where words have meaning and one must pay attention to the words used, because, unlike Speedy's "loophole" comments, there really aren't any if you have an understanding of the language.

Astro