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

AMA getting above 400 AGL - Not so successful

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

AMA getting above 400 AGL - Not so successful

Old 05-10-2022, 02:57 PM
  #126  
astrohog
My Feedback: (1)
 
astrohog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Bellingham, WA
Posts: 2,839
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by speedracerntrixie View Post
Exactly correct assessment of my particular encounter. I was nose to nose with a law ENFORCEMENT officer telling him that no laws were broken and threatened with a citation. Keep in mind that FAA is under the blanket of the DOT so if I were hold my stance with the law ENFORCEMENT officer I very well could have been cited ( although I wasn’t the pilot ) for operating my “vehicle “ in an unsafe manner and had my day in traffic court.
Stand your ground all you want, he couldn't have cited you for any FAA violations. That is reserved for the FAA.

Astro
Old 05-10-2022, 03:27 PM
  #127  
speedracerntrixie
My Feedback: (29)
 
speedracerntrixie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Happy Valley, Oregon
Posts: 8,618
Received 133 Likes on 115 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by astrohog View Post
Stand your ground all you want, he couldn't have cited you for any FAA violations. That is reserved for the FAA.

Astro

Being a law abiding citizen, I followed the law enforcement officers direction. I will address Hydro’s comments when I get home.
Old 05-10-2022, 03:42 PM
  #128  
astrohog
My Feedback: (1)
 
astrohog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Bellingham, WA
Posts: 2,839
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by speedracerntrixie View Post
Being a law abiding citizen, I followed the law enforcement officers direction. I will address Hydro’s comments when I get home.
That's great, however I was more speaking to how that pertains to our debate.

Astro
Old 05-10-2022, 04:16 PM
  #129  
Hydro Junkie
 
Hydro Junkie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Marysville, WA
Posts: 9,979
Received 115 Likes on 109 Posts
Default

Address what, Speed? You claim:
  • that you were involved in the incident but not the one flying the R/C
  • that the 182 was at roughly 500 feet
  • that the R/C pilot dropped to a safe altitude when the 182 was seen
  • that the 182 moved away from the R/C field and that the R/C pilot resumed practicing after the 182 moved away
I see nothing to address on this one. I was not there so I could not be a witness. Therefore, I have to assume your account is accurate, at least as far as you can remember. You're telling us things from 16 years ago so, therefore, there has to be an allowance for error. I'm not saying you're wrong since I wasn't there, just that we have to assume your recollection is fairly accurate. Based on that, it sounds to me that the 182 pilot was the one that was in the wrong for flying over people and/or structures below legal altitude, not you or the other R/C pilot.

Last edited by Hydro Junkie; 05-10-2022 at 04:18 PM.
Old 05-10-2022, 04:23 PM
  #130  
speedracerntrixie
My Feedback: (29)
 
speedracerntrixie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Happy Valley, Oregon
Posts: 8,618
Received 133 Likes on 115 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Hydro Junkie View Post
Address what, Speed? You claim:
  • that you were involved in the incident but not the one flying the R/C
  • that the 182 was at roughly 500 feet
  • that the R/C pilot dropped to a safe altitude when the 182 was seen
  • that the 182 moved away from the R/C field and that the R/C pilot resumed practicing after the 182 moved away
I see nothing to address on this one. I was not there so I could not be a witness. Therefore, I have to assume your account is accurate, at least as far as you can remember. You're telling us things from 16 years ago so, therefore, there has to be an allowance for error. I'm not saying you're wrong since I wasn't there, just that we have to assume your recollection is fairly accurate. Based on that, it sounds to me that the 182 pilot was the one that was in the wrong for flying over people and/or structures below legal altitude, not you or the other R/C pilot.
Well then no need to elaborate on what took place in the weeks following the incident.
Old 05-10-2022, 04:45 PM
  #131  
Hydro Junkie
 
Hydro Junkie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Marysville, WA
Posts: 9,979
Received 115 Likes on 109 Posts
Default

Feel free. I'm all "eyes" on this one. When you said you were going to "address" my statement, had you said there was more to the story, I wouldn't have made my last post.
Old 05-10-2022, 06:46 PM
  #132  
astrohog
My Feedback: (1)
 
astrohog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Bellingham, WA
Posts: 2,839
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by init4fun View Post
That's cool and I totally understand your point that the local LEOs aren't under any mandate to help the FAA. It's also my belief that they wouldn't one day just up and decide to stop by the local flying field checking for UAS violations unprompted, they've got their regular duties to attend to, but if prompted by a complaint call and forced to respond to the field they would take whatever action needed to mitigate the situation. If the people at the field behaved reasonably to the officer's requests to cease and desist the actions that caused the complaint call, I'm fairly sure that'd be the end of it. But if the people at the field tried to pull the ol "Your not the FAA, so you can't tell us how to fly" I'd bet the poop would hit the fan very quickly, with the LEO using all the means at his disposal to punish the insolence, up to and including presenting whatever evidence was collected to the FAA.
I found this document that further clarifies that, "Local law enforcement cannot enforce FAA regulations" and that, "The FAA has civil enforcement authority, and has responsibility for enforcing its own regulations."

Have a look if you are interested. 251435.pdf

Astro
Old 05-11-2022, 02:06 AM
  #133  
init4fun
 
init4fun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 4,029
Received 34 Likes on 28 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by astrohog View Post
I found this document that further clarifies that, "Local law enforcement cannot enforce FAA regulations" and that, "The FAA has civil enforcement authority, and has responsibility for enforcing its own regulations."

Have a look if you are interested. Attachment 2271780

Astro
Hi Astro, oh I'm sure the local law enforcement can't prosecute, for example, someone flying over 400 feet, my point being that by collecting and submitting evidence to the FAA, under the FAA's LEAP protocol, they have become a defacto "field officer" for them, whether or not they are being paid for such assistance.

I have to believe evidence submitted to the FAA by a law enforcement officer is going to be far more "airtight" than any report submitted by a private citizen, even though neither is under any mandatory requirement to report breaches of FAA law....
Old 05-11-2022, 02:23 AM
  #134  
init4fun
 
init4fun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 4,029
Received 34 Likes on 28 Posts
Default

"The FAA wants to enlist the assistance of local law enforcement. To assist the FAA in gathering information about suspected unauthorized UAS activities, law enforcement can provide invaluable assistance by: Identifying and interviewing potential witnesses. Identifying the UAS operator. Viewing and recording the location of the event for follow-up FAA investigation. Identifying sensitive locations, events or activities subject to temporary flight restrictions or other prohibitions on flight operations. November 28, 2017 - 2 of 5 - by Michele Coppola Notifying one of the FAA Regional Operation Centers of the incident as soon as possible when the event poses an imminent danger to other aircraft or has resulted in accident/injury. Collecting and preserving evidence the FAA can use in its investigation."

This is a cut & paste of a part of Astro's attachment. The very last sentence; "collecting and preserving evidence the FAA can use in it's investigation" is where my contention of local law enforcement acting as an agent for the FAA comes from.
Old 05-13-2022, 06:17 PM
  #135  
NEoldtimer
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2022
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

under the current arrangement, local law enforcement may assist the FAA, but it is up to each officer. As has been mentioned above, it isn't really an issue if you want to just go fly like you always have. so long as you have a FAA reg number and proof you took the "test" and follow the safety code just go fly, exactly like you always have
Old 05-13-2022, 06:54 PM
  #136  
mongo
My Feedback: (15)
 
mongo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Midland, TX
Posts: 3,090
Received 43 Likes on 35 Posts
Default

main thing is,
if yer doing stuff that isn't "approved", just keep yer mouth shut about it and don't do anything stupid, and no one will care.
Old 05-14-2022, 05:24 AM
  #137  
astrohog
My Feedback: (1)
 
astrohog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Bellingham, WA
Posts: 2,839
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by speedracerntrixie View Post
I have established precedent and a means to verify. You have established nothing.
Mongo, I was merely trying to debunk Speedy's disinformation spin. It all started when I asked him a question regarding his post. In typical fashion, instead of simply answering my question, he begs engagement by answering with his own question, to which I gave a simple, straightforward, factual answer. It was speedy who then doubled-down, trying to spin his narrative in order to save face.
Kind of funny how he claims establishing precedent (he did not!) and says I have established nothing, when I supplied the DOJ document which absolutely verifies my original statement.
Too bad he won't admit when he is wrong, even though he claims to. I haven't seen a post from him since I posted the smoking gun....typical.
It's what I call pigeon chess. Debate with stupid people online and they strut around, knock over all the pieces, take a crap on the board and try to tell you they won!

Astro
Old 05-14-2022, 09:39 AM
  #138  
mongo
My Feedback: (15)
 
mongo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Midland, TX
Posts: 3,090
Received 43 Likes on 35 Posts
Default

you realize that all my little post really says is,
if do something that is "wrong" and get away with it, then don't be so stupid as to be telling the whole internet about it in a form that exists forever.
as the old joke says, "if yer warm, happy, and well fed in a pile of carp, keep your mouth shut."
Old 05-15-2022, 04:17 AM
  #139  
franklin_m
Thread Starter
 
franklin_m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 4,072
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by speedracerntrixie View Post
At what point off the freeway does the officer’s empowerment end?
"The California Highway Patrol (CHP) is a state law enforcement agency of the U.S. state of California. The CHP has primary patrol jurisdiction over all California highways and roads and streets outside city limits, and can exercise law enforcement powers anywhere within the state (emphasis added)."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Highway_Patrol (first sentence)

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

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

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.