. My recent posts had nothing to do with navigable airspace where you should be flying your plane. They were directed to non-navigable airspace where the FAA says you are not allowed to fly your small plane. So the safety issue you purport is not an issue unless you break the FAA minimum altitude rules.

I understand the insistence that you have the RIGHT to point a loaded gun at the general public but I really don't comprehend the stupidity it takes to do that. All of your "navigable airspace" posts have been public ad hominem attacks on folks talking about safety. Good show Sport_pilot, keep up the attack.

Quad copters over the public has already been proven, WITH BLOOD, to be dangerous to folks. Please go get your quad copter and see how close to your nose you can fly it FPV.

I fail to see how flying a model in my backyard is pointing a loaded gun!

I was going to reply with reason, but there is no point when you consider that a reasoned calm response is an ad hominem attack. So now you are on my ignore list.

Jim,

I don't recall Sport or anyone else suggesting that flying FPV over unprotected people is wise or consistent with any freedom. I can't speak for him but I think he and I both believe that by merely choosing to fly in a man carrying craft you do not automatically have some superior right or privilege that trumps land owner's rights to use the immediate airspace above their property... The question in my mind, after reading your recent posts, do you?

Sport, you seem to misunderstand what "navigable/non-navigable airspace" means. It has nothing to do with aircraft. You are absolutely allowed to fly in airspace classified as non-navigable. It is a guidline for when you need permission from the FAA to build a structure that may be a hazard to aircraft. Any structure or object that will protrude into navigable airspace must be approved by the FAA. If you believe that models are not "aircraft" but instead only "obstructions" then the FAA would have no say as long as we stay outside "navigable airspace." The problem is the FAA does claim models are aircraft and therefore the point is moot.

Not so. Navigable airspace is defined as airspace below the lower minimums that aircraft are allowed to fly. An aircraft can only fly through when landing or taking off from a field that is normally below the limit. In that instance it is navigable. Also helicopters are allowed to fly through airspace that is not normally considered navigable airspace.

From

Quote:

---

Navigable airspace

---

Again the FAA does not approve obstructions, the FCC does. I have been through that before.

Sport,

maybe just a mistake but the definition you present does not reconcile well with the beginning of your post. i.e." Navigable airspace is defined as airspace below the lower minimums that aircraft" vs "means airspace at and above the minimum flight altitudes prescribed by or under this chapter, including airspace needed for safe takeoff and landing.".

I think I get your point but you left it open for more petty bickering IMO

You are correct, I should have said above not below.

Where do all the drones fly that are making trouble ive never seen one at 6 differnt clubs around me in ca

They are all in the desert.

I do enjoy your comments!. Well we can gather up a few thousand, send them to the desert, Hemet,CA. Then you can see them!!!!!!
They will be all over the place, everywhere you look, hard to miss. Don't look directly up!!!!!

and here I was thinking the
[h=2]The tubed-meat enthusiast[/h]would be a jumping off point for a different direction.....:)

"Uncontrolled airspace is airspace where an Air Traffic Control (ATC) service is not deemed necessary or cannot be provided for practical reasons. According to the airspace classes set by ICAO both class F and class G airspace are uncontrolled. It is the opposite of controlled airspace.
"
See that ATC? It doesn't say FAA it says ATC! Get that through your thick skull. There is nothing that stops a pilot from lfying through Class Fand Class G airspace and they do it all the time.

Oh, and note that it is ICAO who defines this, not FAA. We here in the US are still part of the larger world.

Airspace classes and navigable airspace are not the same thing.

Navigable Airspace is between towers within altitude requirements. Uncontrolled Airspace is just that. Faa has no control over it in any fashion, no matter how you reword it.

I saw the first one this week. We were at about 3 blocks from home and my wife said: Look, a drone. It was above the tree height, I would guess 100 yards up, and this was a big sucker. Proffesional grade, like the king to lug up a professional Nikon, 5 rotors. It was sitting w/o moving hovering in the air, until we lost sight.

My first comment was I hope it never falls out of the sky...

My other hobby is photography, and there are articles, and pictures and how-to articles all over. If something heavy as a professional Nikon, with a nice chunk of glass falls of the sky.

Gerry

Nobody said a word about flying a model in your back yard so for you to twist what was said into that clearly indicates the total lack of integrity you have. I hope your physicians have the exact same set of ethics, morals, and integrity that you have shown us in this thread. Please put me on the ignore list because, as far as I can tell, you prefer to tell lies than deal in facts. I really hate dirty rotten scumbags that tell lies and for you to say that I said a single word about flying in your own back yard puts you squarely in that category. You are clearly interested in creating and causing trouble as you have implied the use of firearms in relation to what most of us consider modeling activities. If they are not modeling activities then you are suggesting folks break federal laws by shooting at other folks drones.

@LCS, I think you missed something. Your hero has jumped around so much that it takes a lot of careful attention to see where he is this time. When I speak of public activity some low life slime ball accuses me of talking against his rights in his back yard. When the subject is safety the scuz ball talks about navigable airspace and shooting down drones (post 1265). In short he always changes the subject to that which he thinks he can control rather than addressing the issue of SAFETY. If this entire thread is not about some idiot flying FPV over people (by definition if you are over 1K feet, you are over some folks unless you are in the middle of nowhere), and interfering with rider scale aviation what in the heck ARE we wasting band width on? See post #1 for clarification and see how that fits in with your understanding.

As for your question about rights rider scale has over land owners, yes and no depending on location and circumstances. Land owner rights are trumped in approach/departure (landing and takeoff) corridors and that is generally enforced by the FCC and local zoning boards with input from the FAA. Stupid_Pilot seems to think it is just the FCC which actually only addresses various transmission towers, not buildings. Other than that, there is no superior right granted rider scale outside the airport traffic area. Now if Stupid_Pilot or you wish to challenge some rider scale over your property with a FPV bird, I strongly suspect you might find the federal prison system not to your liking for various violations. Failure to see and avoid is prime - if you saw the other traffic and did not avoid you are wrong. It does not matter than you don't move fast enough to clear, you still failed to see and avoid. At the same time you probably failed to provide adequate visibility of your craft or the rider scale might have had a chance to avoid you. And the list of infractions that can be cited goes on and on. You might note that I NEVER addressed the navigable airspace canard Stupid_Pilot constantly trots out to defend rights. Look at the medevac that was chased off by some idiot flying FPV to get a feel for what can happen when you start to play "navigable" versus "non-navigable" airspace word smith games.

Look at this "non-navigable" airspace canard another way. If you go out into the country and find some aerial applicator doing his job and choose that spot to fly your FPV whatever and cause the aerial applicator to crash there is a very strong probability that YOU will experience some jail time. In that case the aerial applicator has the rights to the airspace he is operating in as a function of his business and each pass is considered an approach/departure set. No land owner can shoot at him, as Stupid_Pilot suggest for drones, nor can any land owner take immediate action to legally stop the activity forthwith. And yet Stupid_Pilot insists the aerial applicator is operating in "non-navigable" airspace so he is free to do what he wishes with his quad copter. Really? I will cheer when they lock him up but not as much as when he inspects someone else's operating FPV quad copter at about 5 inches.

One thing that might really help this discussion is an official FAA explanation of navigable vs non-navigable airspace...maybe it has been posted here but I don't recall it...Right now the two terms seem to be somewhat general terms and therefore ambiguous in my mind...

:cool: Hey Sport ,

Wow , really ? You let this internet baloney get you so riled as to purposefully block someone's posts ? I can honestly say that aside from joking in the past about how this or that other poster should be on the world's ignore list , I truly have never put anyone on ignore . All the "regulars" here say stuff occasionally that riles someone or other , can you imagine how weird the conversations would look if every poster had at least one other on ignore ? I promise you this , no matter how many folks you put on ignore here , not one entrenched opinion will ever be changed here or on any other chat forum . People don't come here to learn or to reexamine and refine an opinion , they come here to shout that opinion the loudest and shout down anyone whose opinion differs .....

And, while there is a lot of truth in that, there are also those that really do want to learn and have to pick the good information out of all the crap being thrown around. It's too bad many don't remember that little tidbit as well when they start pushing their own agenda:(

When you see folks pushed to the point of such anger as you see Jim showing in post # 1993 , that's when any meaningful exchange of information has long ago ended and it's just a couple guys chipping away at each other till it gets ugly enough that Ken has gotta come in , delete a few posts , and threaten a ban or two . And for what ? Neither Sport nor Jim are gonna see eye to eye here , neither is likely to ever be in the position that they are so sure is so clear cut , and if folks ever did push their air rights issues in court it's anybody's guess what would actually happen once today's "legal eagles" (GAG) got through with em .......

It's not I cannot deal with facts, but I have dealt with him before and I do not want to see the personal attacks that are coming. He often claims someone is untruthful or stupid when he simply misunderstood the post.

Good point, we now see people fined hundreds of thousands of dollars because they won't sell cakes to those they believe are committing a sin. I.E practicing their religion.

As long as they don't fly over people, without a waiver from those people, I have no problem with that. But if it is real estate brokers flying over my house without permission, I have a big problem with that. As an example of course.