RunRyder RC
WATCH
 7 pages [ <<    <     5      6     ( 7 )    >    >> ] 7998 views POST REPLY
HomeAircraftHelicopterHelicopter Main Discussion › The 1st FAA Prosecution of a Civilian Drone UAV
10-26-2013 11:38 PM  5 years agoPost 121
qraptor

rrApprentice

Illinois

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Nicely explained.

And, I think most people are forgetting that the AMA has wrangled verbiage into law that exempts hobbyists.

Its only when people start going into business that a different set of rules will apply. Of course, we don't know when those rules will come up.

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
10-26-2013 11:53 PM  5 years agoPost 122
Mike Fortin

rrElite Veteran

USA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Its only when people start going into business that a different set of rules will apply.
People have been using model aircraft commercially for a very, very long time and it's never once been an issue with the FAA or with the AMA.

Every year the AMA actually promotes the commercial use of model aircraft, model aircraft events and competitions around the US.

Some of those very events are hosted on AMA property.

There will undoubtedly be some silly rules/regulations that the FAA concocts that nobody will agree with.

It's really not that hard, look at what Canada has done or other countries and how they have handled this very same issue. They've had this language done long ago and they haven't had any issues.

Sadly, in the US everything gets twisted and over thought by people in positions that have no clue as to what we do or how things are done and simply guess and make assumptions.

Welcome to Washington!

Have Rotors, Will Fly!

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
10-27-2013 07:01 PM  5 years agoPost 123
qraptor

rrApprentice

Illinois

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Sadly, in the US everything gets twisted and over thought by people in positions that have no clue as to what we do or how things are done and simply guess and make assumptions.
So true. No bureaucrat ever got fired for making too many rules.

I will say that we do need some rules for commercial UAV use, even if it only to keep the general public happy. But there are so many potential uses that inventive people could come up if there aren't too many restrictions.

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
10-28-2013 07:01 PM  5 years agoPost 124
Chris Bergen

rrElite Veteran

cassopolis, MI USA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

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.
Absolutely!! But we ALREADY have laws, such as it's against the law to kill someone. Do we really need more onerous laws requiring registration that only the law abiding will jump through hoops to abide by?

It IS against FAR's to fly ANY aircraft in controlled airspace without the proper clearances, INCLUDING model aircraft. It's already against FAR's to fly an aircraft in a TFR area, INCLUDING model aircraft.

Does it still happen? Absolutely! Mostly due to lack of knowledge, Joe Plumber has no idea that going to the park to fly his model airplane with little Jimmy is against the law when the President happens to be visiting the next town over. This doesn't mean that this particular regulation is bad, just that it can be difficult to enforce.

If someone is being stupid while doing commercial work and damages property or hurts someone, then that's a Police matter, as there is undoubtedly a law against hurting someone. It doesn't require specific FAR's to tell us we'll get in trouble for doing so!

Chris D. Bergen

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
10-28-2013 08:54 PM  5 years agoPost 125
unclejane

rrElite Veteran

santa fe, NM, USA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Absolutely!! But we ALREADY have laws, such as it's against the law to kill someone. Do we really need more onerous laws requiring registration that only the law abiding will jump through hoops to abide by?
That some won't follow them isn't a justification for not having laws, though. In this instance, I'm sympathetic towards regulation and legal standards - you don't simply do away with laws because some don't follow them. That's too conservative of an approach, in my view.

Now, if it's a law that _nobody_ follows or only a very few... or is a bad law that doesn't serve the best interests of society as a whole and causes more harm than good... yes, those are different matters where the law itself should either be changed or done away with.

But I'm not quite convinced that we should do away with laws just because some decide to break those laws. Those persons are really what the law is intended for - to give us a legal way of dealing with that kind of deviant behavior.
It IS against FAR's to fly ANY aircraft in controlled airspace without the proper clearances, INCLUDING model aircraft. It's already against FAR's to fly an aircraft in a TFR area, INCLUDING model aircraft.
Does it still happen? Absolutely! Mostly due to lack of knowledge, Joe Plumber has no idea that going to the park to fly his model airplane with little Jimmy is against the law when the President happens to be visiting the next town over. This doesn't mean that this particular regulation is bad, just that it can be difficult to enforce.
True, but you have to take hard-to-enforce on a case by case basis, in my view. A law could be hard to enforce because it's a bad law; or it could be because the authorities are simply incompetent to enforce it - they've not made the investment in enforcement personnel necessary or the ones who are minding the store don't have a clue.

In the case of little Jimmy flying his foamy when the president is in town, yeah, that's just stupid. A cessna landing on the white house lawn, yeah that's borderline... and so on.

So by itself, enforcement isn't a justification for eliminating a law but in some cases like little Jimmy... yeah, that's just dumb...
If someone is being stupid while doing commercial work and damages property or hurts someone, then that's a Police matter, as there is undoubtedly a law against hurting someone. It doesn't require specific FAR's to tell us we'll get in trouble for doing so!
I'm afraid I can't agree. The NAS is owned by the people of the US, not just the individuals of one state, county, locale or community. So when the NAS is misused in such a way that personal injury or property damage results, I agree that that's a federal matter. So unfortunately, that is FAA's domain. For better or for worse, the NAS is ours, so we all have responsibility for its ownership.

LS

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
10-28-2013 10:24 PM  5 years agoPost 126
Chris Bergen

rrElite Veteran

cassopolis, MI USA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

I'm not saying we should do away with laws, nor am i saying we should not enact laws that are necessary, I'm saying that in many instances, MORE laws are not needed and may actually hurt!

AGAIN, I'm not necessarily against FAA regulation. Education will be the key to safe operations.

The discussion here is about whether there are any FAR's or regs CURRENTLY, making commercial use illegal.
I'm afraid I can't agree. The NAS is owned by the people of the US, not just the individuals of one state, county, locale or community. So when the NAS is misused in such a way that personal injury or property damage results, I agree that that's a federal matter. So unfortunately, that is FAA's domain. For better or for worse, the NAS is ours, so we all have responsibility for its ownership.
If someone causes injury or death to a person while doing commercial work, is it the FAA that will prosecute the case?

No, it will be a police matter, as it should be.

Will the FAA issue a fine? Probably. But it will be secondary to the criminal charges. IMHO...

Chris D. Bergen

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
10-28-2013 10:30 PM  5 years agoPost 127
AirWolfRC

rrProfessor

42½ N, 83½ W

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

For many decades, the FAA seems to have spent most of it's time trying to be self important and relevant rather than a supporter and benefit to aviation in this country.

PM  EMAIL  HOMEPAGE  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
10-28-2013 11:27 PM  5 years agoPost 128
unclejane

rrElite Veteran

santa fe, NM, USA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

I'm not saying we should do away with laws, nor am i saying we should not enact laws that are necessary, I'm saying that in many instances, MORE laws are not needed and may actually hurt!
AGAIN, I'm not necessarily against FAA regulation. Education will be the key to safe operations.
The discussion here is about whether there are any FAR's or regs CURRENTLY, making commercial use illegal.
Well we certainly agree here. I think you and Mike are completely right that right now there aren't any FARs relating to the commercial use of "model aircraft". Tho as I've written before, that's where FAA intends to introduce the monkey-works to make it illegal...
If someone causes injury or death to a person while doing commercial work, is it the FAA that will prosecute the case?
No, it will be a police matter, as it should be.
Will the FAA issue a fine? Probably. But it will be secondary to the criminal charges. IMHO...
There will be a whole constellation of crapola that someone in that position will have to deal with - federal, state and local law. Violations of FARs having to do with the NAS will be among them, most likely.

So, like I said this is why to me it's crucial to have actual regulations in place and in as clear a form as possible. That way, you have something to point to that says you were operating legally.

As it is, with NO laws, you're doing a his-opinion-vs-mine with the FAA in the event of a problem. That's not just bad, that's a whole universe of bad. Estate-ruining, life-ruining bad. I'd rather be dead bad.

That's why I push back against the too-many-laws argument from time to time. _Especially_ when something like a federal agency is coming in and claiming ownership of a stretch of turf. Sometimes your soft underbelly is completely exposed and you don't even know it - trying to fight the rule of law there can be massively dangerous and self-destructive. Especially with large bears like the FAA..... you _want_ laws on your side against agencies like FAA...

LS

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
10-29-2013 05:17 PM  5 years agoPost 129
Chris Bergen

rrElite Veteran

cassopolis, MI USA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

+1

Chris D. Bergen

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
03-08-2014 05:25 PM  4 years agoPost 130
Flyagra

rrNovice

Singer Island, Florida

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

It seems that the FAA lost its case - good news, from my perspective.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
03-08-2014 06:12 PM  4 years agoPost 131
Rsams

rrApprentice

Fort Dodge, IA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Don't know if I would go jumping up and down for joy yet. It will prolly be appealed and another judge might see it different. Until then things are good. Even if they do lose don't think for one minute we are in the clear for good. They are already making laws on it here in Iowa and I will bet it will be done everywhere soon. No matter what they are going to have their fingers in it and you can take that to the bank. One guy might get away with it but the majority wont be left behind by our fearless leaders.

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

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
03-08-2014 06:43 PM  4 years agoPost 132
Flyagra

rrNovice

Singer Island, Florida

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

I am happy about having the FAA's authority successfully challenged. I don't own a multicopter or FPV system. Most importantly, the FAA does NOT have the right to simply declare law or regulation. It is a wake up call for bureaucrat nitwits throughout government.
Yes - they probably will go through the proper process and will be forced to forge a rule with input from many perspectives. That's what should happen. Left to themselves the FAA came up with a really stupid rule.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
03-10-2014 06:00 PM  4 years agoPost 133
Mike Fortin

rrElite Veteran

USA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Guess I'm always right sometimes.

Have Rotors, Will Fly!

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
WATCH
 7 pages [ <<    <     5      6     ( 7 )    >    >> ] 7998 views POST REPLY
HomeAircraftHelicopterHelicopter Main Discussion › The 1st FAA Prosecution of a Civilian Drone UAV
 Print TOPIC  Make Suggestion 

 17  Topic Subscribe

Tuesday, November 13 - 4:57 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