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: 3,345
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by speedracerntrixie
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: 9,527
Received 177 Likes on 152 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by astrohog
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: 3,345
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by speedracerntrixie
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: 10,535
Received 130 Likes on 123 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: 9,527
Received 177 Likes on 152 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Hydro Junkie
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: 10,535
Received 130 Likes on 123 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: 3,345
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by init4fun
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
Posts: 4,363
Received 49 Likes on 43 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by astrohog
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
Posts: 4,363
Received 49 Likes on 43 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: 5
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: 3,521
Received 82 Likes on 72 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: 3,345
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by speedracerntrixie
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: 3,521
Received 82 Likes on 72 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: 4,564
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by speedracerntrixie
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)
Old 05-21-2022, 05:18 PM
  #140  
NEoldtimer
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2022
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by franklin_m
Sorry. I was going to see if anyone else would give info. I knew mine was likely partial, so I waited.
what is the point though?
Old 05-22-2022, 02:12 PM
  #141  
flyboy2610
My Feedback: (1)
 
flyboy2610's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Lincoln, NE
Posts: 705
Received 43 Likes on 32 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by mongo
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.
Whatever happened to the philosophy of obeying the law, simply because it IS the law?
Old 05-22-2022, 03:01 PM
  #142  
init4fun
 
init4fun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 4,363
Received 49 Likes on 43 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by flyboy2610
Whatever happened to the philosophy of obeying the law, simply because it IS the law?
Sorry Flyboy2610, but that concept died right around the time in history when the second law was made

When people decided there were "big laws" (Murder, rape, etc) and "little laws" (jaywalking, speeding, petty theft) the whole "the law, the whole law, and nothing but the law" thing kinda went right out the window

But, since it sounds good on paper to say we're all following every single law ever written, for now we'll go with that

Uh oh, this looks like a job for the "HALL MONITOR!!!!"




Last edited by init4fun; 05-22-2022 at 03:46 PM. Reason: typos
Old 05-22-2022, 03:57 PM
  #143  
speedracerntrixie
My Feedback: (29)
 
speedracerntrixie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Happy Valley, Oregon
Posts: 9,527
Received 177 Likes on 152 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by flyboy2610
Whatever happened to the philosophy of obeying the law, simply because it IS the law?

For the most part I agree with you. I however I do not appreciate the fact that this “ law “ puts all of us traditional airplane guys into the collateral damage category. It’s painfully obvious that the FAA realizes this too and is content on leaving us alone.
Old 05-22-2022, 07:32 PM
  #144  
mongo
My Feedback: (15)
 
mongo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Midland, TX
Posts: 3,521
Received 82 Likes on 72 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by flyboy2610
Whatever happened to the philosophy of obeying the law, simply because it IS the law?
from my view, this sorta comes under the speed limit stuff.
if everyone else is traveling 7 mph above the limit, you are presenting a hazard by driving at the limit. so, to be safe most of us will just travel along at the prevailing traffic speed. now, we do not go around advertising this fact in open forums and to the news hounds, because we do not want to be in trouble any more than we want to be rear ended on the road.which is why,
"don't do anything stupid, and keep yer mouth shut."
is sound advise.

you can do whatever you want to do.
Old 05-22-2022, 09:23 PM
  #145  
ira d
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Maricopa County AZ
Posts: 3,249
Received 5 Likes on 5 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by flyboy2610
Whatever happened to the philosophy of obeying the law, simply because it IS the law?
People tend to look at laws where there is not a victim or any harm caused by not following the law as unnecessary that is just a fact of life.
Old 05-23-2022, 02:35 PM
  #146  
pkoury
My Feedback: (7)
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Picayune, MS
Posts: 442
Received 5 Likes on 5 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by speedracerntrixie
Yea, you keep saying that. Another reality fun fact, the 400’ advisory came about in 1981 which was 41 years ago. Between the advisory to law time frame not one single manned aircraft was downed by a model airplane. Now that it is a non enforced, unchallenged law, we all pretty much have a heightened sense of safety. Odds are that the hobby could easily go another 41 plus years without incident. That would bring us to 2063, neither of us will be above ground.
Goodyear blimp hit by RC airplane
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-...0was%20injured.
Old 05-23-2022, 02:48 PM
  #147  
init4fun
 
init4fun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 4,363
Received 49 Likes on 43 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by speedracerntrixie
Yea, you keep saying that. Another reality fun fact, the 400’ advisory came about in 1981 which was 41 years ago. Between the advisory to law time frame not one single manned aircraft was downed by a model airplane. Now that it is a non enforced, unchallenged law, we all pretty much have a heightened sense of safety. Odds are that the hobby could easily go another 41 plus years without incident. That would bring us to 2063, neither of us will be above ground.
Originally Posted by pkoury
"Not one single manned aircraft was DOWNED by a model airplane"

Now, as I recall, the Goodyear blimp wasn't "downed", so I fail to see your point of quoting Speed's post and mentioning the blimp being struck here . Got any news stories of an RC plane downing a full scale aircraft of any type?
Old 05-23-2022, 03:13 PM
  #148  
astrohog
My Feedback: (1)
 
astrohog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Bellingham, WA
Posts: 3,345
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by init4fun
"Not one single manned aircraft was DOWNED by a model airplane"

Now, as I recall, the Goodyear blimp wasn't "downed", so I fail to see your point of quoting Speed's post and mentioning the blimp being struck here . Got any news stories of an RC plane downing a full scale aircraft of any type?
Not to mention just being obtuse and acting like a child. ONE instance of a human being purposefully being a jackass 32 years ago does not substantiate ANY safety concerns regarding rc flight at 400' or above.

Astro
Old 05-23-2022, 03:40 PM
  #149  
init4fun
 
init4fun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 4,363
Received 49 Likes on 43 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by astrohog
Not to mention just being obtuse and acting like a child. ONE instance of a human being purposefully being a jackass 32 years ago does not substantiate ANY safety concerns regarding rc flight at 400' or above.

Astro
Yep, I agree 100%, that guy who purposefully hit the blimp was a jackass, and thankfully no repeat incidents happened. Sure the blimp was damaged enough to be forced to land, but I certainly wouldn't call it "downed" , as it (thankfully) didn't crash and there were no injuries. Hopefully the court where the idiot was charged banned him forever from owning/flying any kind of remote controlled aircraft. One thing's for sure, a "one of" incident like that really shouldn't cast a negative light on a hobby that's statistically safer than a lot of others are...
Old 05-23-2022, 05:20 PM
  #150  
mongo
My Feedback: (15)
 
mongo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Midland, TX
Posts: 3,521
Received 82 Likes on 72 Posts
Default

it does not put a bad light on us, just shows everyone how really easy it is to do something that could turn out badly, if one puts their mind to it.

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.