RunRyder RC
WATCH
 7 pages [ <<    <     4      5     ( 6 )     7     NEXT    >> ] 7953 views POST REPLY
HomeAircraftHelicopterHelicopter Main Discussion › The 1st FAA Prosecution of a Civilian Drone UAV
10-24-2013 06:03 PM  4 years agoPost 101
NQNA

rrElite Veteran

USA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

This is what the FAA said this pilot did..
According to the FAA, the operator... whose name is Raphael Pirker but who is known as "Trappy" ... was the pilot in command of the aircraft, and that he does not "possess a Federal Aviation Administration pilot certificate."

The Order of Assessment (Docket No. 2012EA210009) charges that Trappy operated the aircraft with a camera aboard that sent real-time video to the ground; that the flight was performed for compensation; and that he operated the aircraft at altitudes of approximately 10 feet to approximately 400 feet over the University of Virginia in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.

Specifically, the FAA charges that the pilot:

•Operated the aircraft directly towards an individual standing on a UVA sidewalk causing the individual to take immediate evasive maneuvers so as to avoid being struck by your aircraft.
•Operated the aircraft through a UVA tunnel containing moving vehicles.
•Operated the aircraft under a crane.
•Operated the aircraft below tree top level over a tree lined walkway.
•Operated the aircraft within approximately 15 feet of a UVA statue,
•Operated the aircraft within approximately 50 feet of railway tracks.
•Operated the aircraft within approximately 50 feet of numerous individuals.
•Operated the aircraft within approximately 20 feet of a UVA active street containing numerous pedestrians and cars.
•Operated the aircraft within approximately 25 feet of numerous UVA buildings.
•Operated the aircraft on at least three occasions under an elevated pedestrian walkway and above an active street.
•Operated the aircraft directly towards a two story UVA building below rooftop level and made an abrupt climb in order to avoid hitting the building.
•Operated the aircraft within approximately 100 feet of an active heliport at UVA.
"Additionally, in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another, you operated the above-described aircraft at altitudes between 10 and 1500 feet AGL when you failed to take precautions to prevent collision hazards with other aircraft that may have been flying within the vicinity of your aircraft," the order states.
If he did all this, this is not helpful to any "Model Pilot"

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
10-24-2013 06:22 PM  4 years agoPost 102
Rsams

rrApprentice

Fort Dodge, IA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

That is exactly right it ain't good no matter legal or not.

Ryan,Team JR, Team Morgan Fuels, Team KDE Direct, RCBearings.com Tech Rep

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
10-24-2013 06:42 PM  4 years agoPost 103
Mike Fortin

rrElite Veteran

USA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

That is what he did, all of which is documented on video.

Regardless, there are no rules or laws governing what he did with his "model aircraft" and the "infractions" as cited by the FAA in their complaint are in reference to "full size" aircraft.

They are simply making up those infractions as they go along as it pertains to this case.

Have Rotors, Will Fly!

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
10-24-2013 06:44 PM  4 years agoPost 104
AirWolfRC

rrProfessor

42½ N, 83½ W

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

That laundry list of "offenses" is rediculous !
Please show me where the "danger" is.
That rates right up there with a 10 year old wearing a t-shirt to school with a picture of an AR on it and being expelled.

What about those people that drive their cars within 10 feet of other cars in excess of 50 miles per hour ? ?
- - - that's called a two way street !

PM  EMAIL  HOMEPAGE  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
10-24-2013 08:21 PM  4 years agoPost 105
Chris Bergen

rrElite Veteran

cassopolis, MI USA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Sorry guys, got busy for a couple of days with a rush order..

As is shown on this thread, our country is made up of people with many different opinions on government and law. Some will ascribe to the opinion that laws are absolute "if the government sys so it MUST be followed, thats the LAW!"

Rules and regs are typically put in place to protect the majority of the populace, take driving laws for instance, the rules of the road. They help keep us safe IF everyone follows the rules. But there are times when those Rules don't apply even though you are driving a car.

At least the personal attacks seemed to have quelled a bit, and guys really, this is not personal to me, if YOU feel the need to follow the rules as you believe them to be, go for it!! Except as I understand what you THINK the rules to mean, you CAN'T be flying for commercial reasons... So DON'T FLY!! Stay home. Play Xbox, whatever..

Here's an example of something I want you to consider, and please before you blast me into outerspace just because you may disagree, think about what I'm showing you, not to figure out why I'm wrong, but think about why I might be RIGHT...

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-201...-2013-12445.pdf

This is an NPRM issued on July 16th 2013. This was issued to make a minor correction to 14 CFR Part 25 having to do with Harmonization of Airworthiness Standards—Gust and Maneuver Load Requirements.

A MINOR correction!! And an NPRM was issued so they could make this change to a Federal Regulation.

NQNA posted a link to a Policy Notice, a quite lengthy Policy Notice. This is a MAJOR change/addition/new Policy for the FAA.

Yet no NPRM has been issued.

For those who are adamant about the point that this is the LAW, why aren't you just as adamant that the FAA follow the law?
A notice of proposed rule making (NPRM) is a public notice issued by law when one of the independent agencies of the United States government wishes to add, remove, or change a rule or regulation as part of the rulemaking process. It is an important part of United States administrative law which facilitates government by typically creating a process of taking of public comment. This nomenclature is also utilized at the state level.
The Administrative Procedure Act (APA), Pub.L. 79–404, 60 Stat. 237, enacted June 11, 1946, is the United States federal statute that governs the way in which administrative agencies of the federal government of the United States may propose and establish regulations. The APA also sets up a process for the United States federal courts to directly review agency decisions. It is one of the most important pieces of United States administrative law. The Act became law in 1946.
The APA applies to both the federal executive departments and the independent agencies. U.S. Senator Pat McCarran called the APA "a bill of rights for the hundreds of thousands of Americans whose affairs are controlled or regulated" by federal government agencies. The text of the APA can be found under Title 5 of the United States Code, beginning at Section 500.
A law or regulation or "policy" made incorrectly has no weight, just as an unconstitutional law is invalid.

As I stated previously, I am NOT against having regulations. Safety is ALWAYS paramount, whether you are following the law or not. Laws and regulations don't necessarily make us safe either, a fact the gun banners don't seem to get as well...

Chris D. Bergen

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
10-24-2013 09:16 PM  4 years agoPost 106
Rsams

rrApprentice

Fort Dodge, IA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

I think tho the reason all of this is being brought up right or wrong is too many ppl are being careless. There is no argument there I don't think because we are hearing more and more of it happening. I think if you were to really look into all the cases where they have been flown recklessly you would find most of these ppl are not true modelers that care about the sport. That is the part I am worried about cause just like the ppl wanting guns banned it will only hurt the good ppl and not the ones that caused the problem in the first place

Ryan,Team JR, Team Morgan Fuels, Team KDE Direct, RCBearings.com Tech Rep

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
10-25-2013 03:36 PM  4 years agoPost 107
Chris Bergen

rrElite Veteran

cassopolis, MI USA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Agreed Rsams, and just like "gun regulations", they'll do nothing to stop stupid people from being stupid.

Chris D. Bergen

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
10-25-2013 07:48 PM  4 years agoPost 108
jbdww

rrElite Veteran

Round Rock, Texas

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Government is not the solution for stupid.

Skids Up
http://www.jbdww.com
http://twitter.com/jbdww/

PM  EMAIL  HOMEPAGE  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
10-25-2013 08:11 PM  4 years agoPost 109
Santiago P

rrProfessor

South West, Ohio

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

You can't regulate stupid.

That was actually the 11th commandment,
but Mosaic law thought if one can not figure it out with the first 10, the 11th was not going to help.

BTW,
A friend send me this which includes more details on the "killer foamy"

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-...89-billion.html

S

PM  EMAIL  HOMEPAGE  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
10-25-2013 08:24 PM  4 years agoPost 110
AirWolfRC

rrProfessor

42½ N, 83½ W

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

The regulation cited by the FAA has been used against traditional pilots who buzzed homes or made other unsafe maneuvers. In 2009, the FAA fined a Colorado man who launched an unmanned weather balloon that flew over Denver International Airport, according to agency records.
Pirker’s lawyer, Brendan Schulman, said the regulation doesn’t apply in this case. Pirker was fined because he accepted money, making it a commercial flight that the FAA said it wouldn’t permit in a 2007 policy notice. That notice has no legal standing, Schulman, of the firm Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP in New York, said an interview.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-...89-billion.html

PM  EMAIL  HOMEPAGE  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
10-26-2013 01:53 PM  4 years agoPost 111
unclejane

rrElite Veteran

santa fe, NM, USA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Agreed Rsams, and just like "gun regulations", they'll do nothing to stop stupid people from being stupid.
They might, however, give you some legal recourse in case of stupid. You can't have just no laws whatsoever; that leads to frontier justice in the event of stupid which history has shown not to work very well at keeping a society together. Or helping out much with stupid.

Namely, legal protection against the FAA - that's what I really hope comes out of this.

Right now I think the industry is hanging its hopes on things like the Trappy litigation, where there seems to be a lot of optimism about a favorable outcome against the FAA.

I think that optimism is really unwarranted - FAA has a way of getting through things like this like the ol' proverbial greased pig. I'll be really surprised if Trappy prevails against FAA at all.

But once there are regs in place, we can actually win; we can also go about the business of setting up business .

LS

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
10-26-2013 02:17 PM  4 years agoPost 112
Mike Fortin

rrElite Veteran

USA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

For 60 years model aircraft flying has gone unregulated, why should anything be different now just because we have GoPros.

Have Rotors, Will Fly!

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
10-26-2013 03:15 PM  4 years agoPost 113
whoamis

rrVeteran

san francisco, ca

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

No reason at all; there haven't really been any changes.

oops, bounced it!

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
10-26-2013 03:24 PM  4 years agoPost 114
Rsams

rrApprentice

Fort Dodge, IA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Well I think the only reason they are involved is because of money. Since someone made some our government in typical fashion wants it

Ryan,Team JR, Team Morgan Fuels, Team KDE Direct, RCBearings.com Tech Rep

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
10-26-2013 05:02 PM  4 years agoPost 115
rstacy

rrElite Veteran

Rochester, NY

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

For 60 years model aircraft flying has gone unregulated, why should anything be different now just because we have GoPros.
Because prior to the GoPros we were not in the habit of flying our model aircraft around or over large numbers of people/things. Apparently GoPros have enabled and perhaps encouraged us to do things that aren't that smart.

Up until recently, I was not aware of any R/C pilot ever flying his aircraft in to the head of the groom while trying to get that perfect photo.

PM  EMAIL  HOMEPAGE  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
10-26-2013 05:38 PM  4 years agoPost 116
AirWolfRC

rrProfessor

42½ N, 83½ W

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

You can fix most of the problems when you pass a law against being stupid.

To date, you are still allowed to be stupid without punishment.
. . . only the consequences of said stupidity will get you punishment.

PM  EMAIL  HOMEPAGE  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
10-26-2013 06:44 PM  4 years agoPost 117
Mike Fortin

rrElite Veteran

USA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

We've done plenty of dumb stuff with models prior to having cameras on them it's just that now we actually get to see the dumb stuff.

Have Rotors, Will Fly!

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
10-26-2013 08:05 PM  4 years agoPost 118
rstacy

rrElite Veteran

Rochester, NY

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

We've done plenty of dumb stuff with models prior to having cameras on them it's just that now we actually get to see the dumb stuff.
+1 Exactly!

PM  EMAIL  HOMEPAGE  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
10-26-2013 08:23 PM  4 years agoPost 119
wc_wickedclown (RIP)

rrProfessor

long beach calif

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

+1

Insha Allah made in america

PM  EMAIL  HOMEPAGE  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
10-26-2013 09:57 PM  4 years agoPost 120
Flyagra

rrNovice

Singer Island, Florida

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

The legal issue here is not as clear cut as either side of the debate would lead us to believe. Government bureaucracies have some capacity to make regulations which have the force of law. When they do, they must follow set procedures for rulemaking which allows the public to review, comment, and potentially challenge proposed rules. In this case the Code of Federal Regulations Title 14 Part 11 is the procedure they must follow. Even if they have gone through the entire rulemaking process, their enforcement is based on an interpretation of the law which can be challenged.
Due to the separation of powers in the constitution no one branch of government can create, enforce, and adjudicate laws. The FAA is the Executive branch - so their decisions are subject to review by the judicial branch. Even when the entire FAA, Secretary of Transportation, and Obama himself stand in agreement, an Administrative Law Judge can throw out the case.

So - everyone has a good point, but the verdict is still out.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
WATCH
 7 pages [ <<    <     4      5     ( 6 )     7     NEXT    >> ] 7953 views POST REPLY
HomeAircraftHelicopterHelicopter Main Discussion › The 1st FAA Prosecution of a Civilian Drone UAV
 Print TOPIC  Make Suggestion 

 17  Topic Subscribe

Monday, September 24 - 12:34 am - Copyright © 2000-2018 RunRyder   EMAILEnable Cookies

The RC discussion world needs to consolidate. RR is now one choice for that. Its software is cutting edge. It hosts on-topic advertising. Help RR increase traffic buy making suggestions, posting in RR's new areas (sites) and by spreading the word.

The RunRyder Difference

• Category system to allow Rep/Vendor postings.
• Classifieds with sold (hidden) category.
• Classifieds with separate view new.
• Answer PMs offsite via email reply.
• Member gallery photos with advanced scripting.
• Gallery photo viewer integrated into postings.
• Highly refined search with advanced back end.
• Hosts its own high end fast response servers.
• Hosts thousands of HD event coverage videos.
• Rewrote entire code base with latest technology.
• No off-topic (annoying) click bait advertising.
Login Here
 New Subscriptions 
 Buddies Online