Sport_Pilot

I think they can claim violation of Part 77 if a bullet hit an aircraft. Though the FBI, State, and Local police might have much more severe charges, enough that the FAA might not bother.

I know they use Part 77 when vehicles accidently get onto airport runways.

HellcatAce

My Feedback: (6)

From what I see, the FAA is much like the FCC. They really don't want to admit it, but they are both only concerned with how they can help big business at the ultimate expense of the general public. The FAA has been making it more difficult, and much more costly to be a "private pilot" or "general aviator" for many years, while bending over backwards to help the big airlines. The FCC has been pandering (quite openly) to the big wireless providers for years (the real reason for the big DTV transition by the way) and has made no attempt whatsoever to actually engage the public as to how the public airwaves are utilized, they just send you a converter coupon and tell you to pound sand if you don't like it!

If anyone honestly thinks that the FAA cares what we have to say in regards to the national airspace, even if they actually give us a forum to do so, please send me a sample of your prescription so I can be there too.

Remeber the credo of the FAA......We are the FAA, we're not happy until you're not happy.

cfircav8r

My Feedback: (1)

I don't see how the FAA has made it more difficult or costly for the private pilot (general aviator.) The only thing that makes it difficult for me to fly as a general aviator is the cost of the aircraft and insurance (lawyers) and the cost of fuel (corporate greed.) If you read your aviation history you will see a parallel to the FAA's inception (CAA.) We are becoming more available to the general public, the envelopes are getting streched, hazardous situations are appearing to become more prevalent (youtube) to the general public, more R/C's are being used in commercial operations. The small minority of R/C pilots that are flat out dangerous are all over the internet. What do you think would happen in a country that will pull a toy that has been sold for years after 2-3 children are killed (usually from parental neglect or freak accidents.) If something were to happen with model aircraft, who will the media and thereby the public blame for allowing it to happen? The FAA. Now I by no means want these new regulations, but I can see how we arrived at this situation. I do agree that the FAA doesn't give two hoots as to our opinion.

hook57

My Feedback: (21)

Yep, it must have been awhile for you Sport. Let's bet that you mean "VFR on top", which is an IFR clearance. Now let's bet that you were in fact VFR and trying to go VFR over the top (which is VFR only). Chances are ATC did not know who, what ,or where you were (and maybe you didn't either). Perhaps you heard them because they transmit on overlapping sector frequencies, but they did not respond because they did not know what channel you were on. Perhaps the trouble was that once you somehow managed to work it out ATC called in a pilot deviation and you received an LOI etc, etc. Perhaps that is why you have the ill will toward them? Perhaps, if IFR is so much "more dangerous" than a motorcycle (I disagree and do enjoy both) your "ideas" are more complex than they are just simple.
hook

hook57

My Feedback: (21)

There are many that do give a hoot Cfi, small in numbers, but that's the nature of the beast; still, they do care.
hook

hook57

My Feedback: (21)

Maybe in a MOA or a resticted area they can or will do as they please. Outside of that, in the NAS, they are ex[pected to comply with the applicable operating rules or regulations. As for the flyovers at sporting events and such, they are issued a waiver by the local FSDO. Do they always comply with the waiver provisions? No, but then there are plenty of first person accounts that go into the EIR package that gets forwarded to the individuals CO to be dealt with (and if they have a civilian certificate, asction may be taken against that). If you know otherwise Sport, please give us a valid reference, I'm sure the TAC demo teams and other military performers would like to know that one.
hook

[quote]ORIGINAL: Sport_Pilot

[
There is a suit about this in the courts. The suit claims that the FAA does not have the authority, but I don not know the grounds. The issue is not the military, they can fly everywhere, anytime. They regularly break FAA rules they are allowed to), even flying low during flyovers at sporting events.......... [quote]

hook57

My Feedback: (21)

.....

Sport_Pilot

Opps, yes I mean't VFR on top, and I had done this successfully before, but was a much shorter streach. Being that far back I do not know what happened, perhaps I did get the frequencies wrong, but I knew exactly where I was and had the transponder code set as directed for the handoff. I turned back well before I got half way to play it safe. I have no ill will from it, in fact as I said it is the only problem, other than perhaps a controller getting irritated from asking me to repeat, but even then it was only the tone in his voice and handled professionally. In fact I would say the controllers are very proffesional, no problems there. The problem is that the FAA insists in operating the system as they did in the 60's, all with radar. Only the recent anti collision systems use data from the aircraft.

The safety staticis I am refering too were originally published in Aviation Consumer and I have seen them on the web before as well. VFR is much safer than IFR in GA aircraft being slightly less safe than a car. But IFR is less safe than a motor cycle in fatalities, with fewer injuries. The FAA won't own up to it. There have been plenty of alternative IFR ideas proposed, the best possibly by Burt Rutan, but the FAA won't incoporate them because it would mean fewer air traffic controllers.

cfircav8r

My Feedback: (1)

Yes I generalized my statement. I am sure there is a minority that does give a hoot, but unless they are in the upper management they wont make much difference. Even if we were able to make a united front and went to the FAA with a well thought out and researched case and said "this is why we don't need regulation, or why we should be able to self regulate ie:the AMA" it will be like talking to a brick wall. We would have to go in there and say "What do you propose, these are the regulations we think would benefit both sides" and hope they agree with most of what we propose. It sounds like that is what the AMA is doing, but there are those that feel we are being sold out because of this, as if the AMA cooperating is giving them the authority to make these regulations.

Sport_Pilot

Yes but they are not governed by the FAA.
But the military does the enforcement.

http://www.ajc.com/news/atlanta/fami...ts-392423.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NgZU-AmnkQg

Silent-AV8R

Some recent NTSB data:

Motorcycle fatalities: 5,357
Automobile: 42,116
General Aviation fatalities : 465

http://www.ntsb.gov

Raw numbers of course, but still interesting

hook57

My Feedback: (21)

Sport_Pilot

I agree our models are aircraft, but the law, not regulation clearly only gives the FAA authority of navagible airspace. I gave 500 feet because an FAA man I discussed this with said or implied it was 500 feet, but I believe it to be just a general rule, not the same everywhere, clearly not near an airport. I don't think it reasonable to assume that just because an aircraft safely made an emergency landing that the airspace was navigable. The law clearly defines navigable airspace, it doesn't change just because an aircraft goes through it. Although I believe you can argue it is different for airplanes and helicopters.


Agree.

Part 77 is meant for structural objects, but it has been used for moving objects near airports. Yet I cannot see where else the infraction would be if for example someone shot pumpkins in front of airplanes. I have written a FAQ on the FAA website but they have not responded.

Sport_Pilot

I probably see 20 motorcycles go by for every small airplane above. That is not very scientific but would put the GA accident record much higher as a percentage.

hook57

My Feedback: (21)

Upper management tends to listen more in these instances because they are not as familiar with the "front line" of the industry under discussion. Unfortunately, notwithstanding the AMA perhaps, I've yet to see anything approaching a united front. But when it develops, it needs to know where to go to garnish attention. Rallies, unless in very, very large numbers, rarely garnishes national attention; however,it does oftentend toattain local attention. That can filter upwards and attain wider attention; that is when the numbers of participants are really revealed/known.
hook

PLANE JIM

My Feedback: (109)

Ap..............,
I must have not been clear-I was not trying to reference the AMA and FAA as two different animals(athough we are). My point-That SUAV's do need regulation from the FAA since they are operated without the "see and avoid principles", and modelers that the AMA represent operate using "see and avoid principles" that we are two different animals as far as the type of flying we do based on the principles forementioned and that the AMA may have to change the perimeters of the type aircraft that are allowed to be flown under their guidelines.

cfircav8r

My Feedback: (1)

Our biggest problem as I see it is the more vocal we get the more the media will show us as a bunch of old guys that never grew out of playing with toy planes. I know it sounds cynical but that will sell better than the real story. Lets face it the general public views hobbies like racing, boating, fishing, hunting...etc. as manly and worthwhile, but flying "toy" airplanes as childish men fulfilling their flights of fancy and therefore not worthy of concern. Again I may be overly cynical, but I am rarely disappointed when I expect this type of reaction from the "public."

hook57

My Feedback: (21)

That is a difficult debate Cfi, yet there is a common thread in each activity (or hobby) you mentioned; and that is there are certain risks that are accepted by the participants in those activities. So, I choose to enjoy something that led me down a very productive means by which to earn my keep. I'm sure fishing did the same for Babe Winkleman. If we attempt to contrast our activities as something that can be (and often is) more productive than simply playing with a toy, then at least we stand a chance of altering or modifying that perception. Still, the underlying fact is the desire to continue to do so without undue economicand other restrictions. Not all of us are old, but I can't help but think that some of the bantering here is a turn-off for younger individuals that have yet to see the nuances of the more senior political games that can be played (I use political in loose terms too). Toys are the starter sets, I'll admit we can't ignore that. Yet not everyone started playing golf with with the latest, hottest, and highest priced, set of Taylor Mades or Pings; or startedoff with Ranger's finest bass boat (though I'm sure some with more money than most did). As for the public, I think you'd agree, the majority cannot discern the difference between the proverbial C-172and a Piper Cub,or a Lear Jet from a B-727 (but is that really their fault?) Still, it's an important reason to present model aviationas more than a romp in the sandbox.
I agree with Plane Jim's comment' too,it is pretty much spot on, and it goes along way in promoting an attitude of safety mindedness too.
hook

hook57

My Feedback: (21)

[quote]ORIGINAL: Sport_Pilot

I agree our models are aircraft, but the law, not regulation clearly only gives the FAA authority of navagible airspace.......
Okay Sport, if a pilot happens to buzz your homestead attree top levelsevering a telephone line inthe process,and also disrupts your family barbecue;yoube sure to ignore that because it was in non-navigable airspace

I gave 500 feet because an FAA man I discussed this with said or implied it was 500 feet, but I believe it to be just a general rule, not the same everywhere, clearly not near an airport.......
What FAA man? Inspector, ATC controller, engineer, technician, clerk, janitor? It's not general, it's rather specific,and it states "except fortaking offor landing".......

I don't think it reasonable to assume that just because an aircraft safely made an emergency landing that the airspace was navigable.....
Okay, so I suppose when it is non navigable airspacethe aircraft suddenly ceases to perform and drops like bird cr.....

The law clearly defines navigable airspace, it doesn't change just because an aircraft goes through it.....
Wouldyou please cite the United States Code and section number that you seem to know, andno else does, that makes specific reference to your claim of whatis and is not navigable airspace?

Although I believe you can argue it is different for airplanes and helicopters.....
Mostly it's not different, it's found in 14 CFR part 91.119 (a), you should read it some time.

Part 77 is meant for structural objects, but it has been used for moving objects near airports......
Okay, I believe the majority of ships, trains, cranes, etc (even buildings), occasionally are moved or moving.

Yet I cannot see where else the infraction would be if for example someone shot pumpkins in front of airplanes.....
The "infraction' would be scrutinized under Title 18 of the United States Code (that islaw Sport) section 32; (1) Whoever willfully.....
you can read the rest.

I have written a FAQ on the FAA website but they have not responded....
Perhaps your question wasn't one that was frequently asked?

hook

Sport_Pilot

Well not really an FAQ, but they have a place to ask questions. They responded requesting more information, I did not mention model aircraft. I was curious as to how and what regulation or law they use to prevent people from shooting objects into navigable airspace. Or what their policy might be.

hook57

My Feedback: (21)

Sport_Pilot

Since when was shooting pumpkins in the air a criminal offense? Should the Discovery channel be charged? It would appear to me the pumpkins get well into navigable airspace, for they go well over 3,000 feet and therefore must go 3,000 feet up. Does the FAA have any regulations that cover this?

Not sure aloof is the exact discription. I hate govenment bureaucracies and the FAA is one of the worst. Not doing the worst work, that would probably be FEMA, but one of the worst to deal with. The stand in the way of GA progress and safety.

Hossfly

Sure you do, sport! OTOH you also hate someone that tries to break up another "Bureaucracy".

Why don't you just give up trying to display your superior knowledge about everything and everyone? Go back to the _ _ Groups where you can skim through and have anyone's post removed when you don't like either the message or the poster. [sm=47_47.gif] That will save you a lot of typing and this forum some bandspace.

Sport_Pilot

Well Hoss, as usuall you prefer to show your backside. I have never claimed to be an expert. Rather I have been asking questions which either are not answered or answered with what seems to be unworkable solutions. I have occassionally taken a ground and debated it to see if anyone could give reasonable answeres. Debate does not work if you immediatly admit you are wrong. Hook seems to be doing that for the most part. You however continue to have poor behavior.

BTW I have never had peoples posts removed. I doubt anyone had to ask the moderator to remove them.

hook57

My Feedback: (21)

Sport, c'mon now! I didn't say it was. But it could very well be if, andeven Snoopyknow's that's a big if,an undesirable event with an undesirable outcome should occurr. Rest assurred, the forces that be would likely find and prosecute to the fullest extent.
For someone who has stated that he has had very little interaction with a particular group, how is it that you can pointedly state that it is the worse? A little validationis in order.Regarding GA progress, there has been quitea bit of it in later years, kind of in line with technological progress. Currently the economy more likely has something to do with itthan anything else.Also, Hoss (IMO) comes across as quite informed, but I think underneath he's probably seen a lot more silver linings behind the cloud banks than he lets on.
hook