RunRyder RC
WATCH
 24 pages [ <<    <     9      10     ( 11 )     12      13     NEXT    >> ] 20061 views POST REPLY
Home✈️Aircraft🚁HelicopterHelicopter Main Discussion › FAA comes down with aggressive position on model aircraft
07-06-2014 04:43 PM  6 years ago
revmix

rrKey Veteran

NJ

MyPosts All Forum Topic
some fun
no 400' altitude limit, either by AMA or FAA
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
07-06-2014 04:57 PM  6 years ago
unclejane

rrElite Veteran

santa fe, NM, USA

MyPosts All Forum Topic
Here's the direct link - TMoore and the rest of you "advocates" go here. It only takes the effort to write a comment, the rest is cut-n-paste:

http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketBrowser;rpp=25;po=0;D=FAA-2014-0396

LS
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
07-06-2014 05:29 PM  6 years ago
TMoore

rrMaster

Cookeville, TN

MyPosts All Forum Topic
By definition, a model aircraft must be “flown within visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft.” Public Law 112-95, section 336(c)(2). (1) Based on the plain language of the statute, the FAA interprets this requirement to mean that: (1) The aircraft must be visible at all times to the operator; (2) that the operator must use his or her own natural vision (which includes vision corrected by standard eyeglasses or contact lenses) to observe the aircraft; and (3) people other than the operator may not be used in lieu of the operator for maintaining visual line of sight. Under the criteria above, visual line of sight would mean that the operator has an unobstructed view of the model aircraft. To ensure that the operator has the best view of the aircraft, the statutory requirement would preclude the use of vision-enhancing devices, such as binoculars, night vision goggles, powered vision magnifying devices, and goggles designed to provide a “first-person view” from the model. (2) Such devices would limit the operator's field of view thereby reducing his or her ability to see-and-avoid other aircraft in the area. Additionally, some of these devices could dramatically increase the distance at which an operator could see the aircraft, rendering the statutory visual-line-of-sight requirements meaningless. Finally, based on the plain language of the statute, which says that aircraft must be “flown within the visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft,” an operator could not rely on another person to satisfy the visual line of sight requirement. See id. (emphasis added). While the statute would not preclude using an observer to augment the safety of the operation, the operator must be able to view the aircraft at all times.
I like these rules.
Part 107.
The only ZERO flight hour certificate in the world.
It's like getting a driver's license without the driver's test.
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  HOMEPAGE  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
07-06-2014 05:34 PM  6 years ago
AirWolfRC

rrProfessor

42½ N, 83½ W

MyPosts All Forum Topic
The FAA still thinks it's the 800lb gorilla in the room but forgets it is required to go through the law making process like every other goverment organization. When it ignores that, like it has many times, it gets challenged in court . . . and looses.
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  HOMEPAGE  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
07-06-2014 07:14 PM  6 years ago
Ace Dude

rrProfessor

USA

MyPosts All Forum Topic
This link goes directly to the correct location:

http://www.regulations.gov/#!docket...D=FAA-2014-0396
  
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
07-06-2014 08:10 PM  6 years ago
unclejane

rrElite Veteran

santa fe, NM, USA

MyPosts All Forum Topic
I like these rules.
You would be the only one, in fact the first person in history to accept an FAA regulation silently and without any objection whatsoever. Even the AMA deeply deplores (and rightly, in my view) this part as overly intrusive and running over Congress' own legislation. Did you read the rest of the interpretation?

LS
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
07-06-2014 08:26 PM  6 years ago
TMoore

rrMaster

Cookeville, TN

MyPosts All Forum Topic
https://www.modelaircraft.org/files...tiveRule614.pdf

I see nothing in the document referenced above that supports FPV.

I do have concerns with their definition of what would be considered commercial operations but I believe those can be addressed. I have no interest in promoting FPV in the US and fully support the FAA's stance on that.
Part 107.
The only ZERO flight hour certificate in the world.
It's like getting a driver's license without the driver's test.
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  HOMEPAGE  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
07-06-2014 09:41 PM  6 years ago
rexxigpilot

rrProfessor

rexxig2@comcast.net

MyPosts All Forum Topic
I have no interest in promoting FPV in the US and fully support the FAA's stance on that.
I strongly disagree with that stance. I believe FPV is a nascent technology that will become (already is in some places) commonplace throughout the world, except perhaps in the USA. Doesn't it bother you that the USA talks out of both sides of its mouth when it comes to freedom. All the elected and appointed overseers have to do is create a little bit of fear in the citizens and they willfully throw away their freedom. Sheep to slaughter!

FPV allows one to almost achieve the dream of being able to fly. It may not be for everyone, but it damn sure should not be killed by the overreaching FAA before it even begins to develop.
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
07-06-2014 10:18 PM  6 years ago
unclejane

rrElite Veteran

santa fe, NM, USA

MyPosts All Forum Topic
I do have concerns with their definition of what would be considered commercial operations but I believe those can be addressed.
So did you put a comment in stating those concerns? If not, are you going to?

LS
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
07-06-2014 10:39 PM  6 years ago
unclejane

rrElite Veteran

santa fe, NM, USA

MyPosts All Forum Topic
FPV allows one to almost achieve the dream of being able to fly. It may not be for everyone, but it damn sure should not be killed by the overreaching FAA before it even begins to develop.
I'll let TMoore try to attack FPV with rexx here; I've done my part. In fact, it'll be entertaining to watch him attack FPV against the rest of the hobby, even.

I just wanted to see if he's actually on the hobby's side and is at least trying to address the FAA's intervention by commenting on the interpretation. That is, is he doing nothing like Ace, or is he actually doing something?

You guys can go at it about FPV now.

LS
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
07-06-2014 10:53 PM  6 years ago
revmix

rrKey Veteran

NJ

MyPosts All Forum Topic
go at it about
(b) STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section shall
be construed to limit the authority of the Administrator to pursue
enforcement action against persons operating model aircraft who
endanger the safety of the national airspace system.
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
07-06-2014 11:22 PM  6 years ago
TMoore

rrMaster

Cookeville, TN

MyPosts All Forum Topic
So did you put a comment in stating those concerns? If not, are you going to?
I plan to submit my comments via mail.
Part 107.
The only ZERO flight hour certificate in the world.
It's like getting a driver's license without the driver's test.
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  HOMEPAGE  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
07-07-2014 02:18 PM  6 years ago
unclejane

rrElite Veteran

santa fe, NM, USA

MyPosts All Forum Topic
I plan to submit my comments via mail.
I sure hope that's not just code for "I'm actually going to do nothing" - we need action from as many and as quickly as possible. You can submit electronically right at the website; quicker and easier than snail-mail..

LS
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
07-07-2014 02:26 PM  6 years ago
unclejane

rrElite Veteran

santa fe, NM, USA

MyPosts All Forum Topic
@rexxigpilot - Yes, I will definitely be submitting my comments during the public comment period. Just having some fun with uj.
Yeah, enough "fun" that you had to go get Mark involved to try to quiet me down - but you should be embarrassed, and horribly so. Our hobby is on the line and you and TMoore, while lecturing others about being bad influences on the hobby, are yourselves sitting on your duffs doing zilch.

Go to the website and submit there - it's easy and fast.

LS
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
07-07-2014 03:16 PM  6 years ago
HREFAB

rrApprentice

Long Island NY

MyPosts All Forum Topic
I plan to submit my comments via mail.
Translation to English: " I have no intention of doing anything as I really don't care"
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  HOMEPAGE  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
07-07-2014 03:19 PM  6 years ago
TMoore

rrMaster

Cookeville, TN

MyPosts All Forum Topic
I sure hope that's not just code for "I'm actually going to do nothing" - we need action from as many and as quickly as possible. You can submit electronically right at the website; quicker and easier than snail-mail..
I'll respond in my way, you have yours.
Translation to English: " I have no intention of doing anything as I really don't care"
It's none of your ** business how I respond and I really don't care what you think. How's that?
Yeah, enough "fun" that you had to go get Mark involved to try to quiet me down - but you should be embarrassed, and horribly so. Our hobby is on the line and you and TMoore are on your duffs doing zilch.
Go to the website and submit there - it's easy and fast.
You know what they say when you assume. Keep on assuming.
Part 107.
The only ZERO flight hour certificate in the world.
It's like getting a driver's license without the driver's test.
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  HOMEPAGE  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
07-07-2014 03:29 PM  6 years ago
unclejane

rrElite Veteran

santa fe, NM, USA

MyPosts All Forum Topic
Translation to English: " I have no intention of doing anything as I really don't care"
I think that's what we're actually looking at. This is the true hazard to our hobby - haughty, ignorant lecturers who themselves silently do absolutely nothing to defend our hobby.

Truly and utterly shameful and the height of embarrassment....

Oh well, time to move on and leave them behind. Let's hope the NPRM comes out ASAP, then we'll have a better idea of what we're in for. The process there will be very similar, even the FAA is finally in the electronic age so submitting comments will be similarly easy to do.

LS
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
07-07-2014 03:40 PM  6 years ago
Chris Bergen

rrElite Veteran

cassopolis, MI USA

MyPosts All Forum Topic
The gun case presented doesn't really qualify as it was settled, out if court, by a mediator. Which in many cases is done simply to mitigate costs.... IOW, it was cheaper to settle than to fight it in court and win. So yes they sued and received money, but the manufacturer (bushmaster) was not held responsible for the snipers actions. And by responsible, I would define that as losing their license to manufacture/sell which if the courts truly thought they had done something illegal surely would have done. As it was, their insurance company paid the settlements, Bushmaster continued business as usual. The dealer on the other hand..... Tsk tsk....Chris D. Bergen
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
07-07-2014 05:20 PM  6 years ago
unclejane

rrElite Veteran

santa fe, NM, USA

MyPosts All Forum Topic
It's worth mentioning that DJI gets a lot of hate in general, even in the FPV and multirotor communities. This is more or less normal when you're the market leader as DJI currently is in multirotor controllers - competitors come out of the woodwork all over the place and look for any angle they can find to attack you. Sometimes they land on something real, and sometimes they don't.

I have 5 DJI multirotors and I can assure you any flying or other mistakes ever made with any of them are purely my fault and nothing to do with DJI.

They're certainly not perfect - their firmware tends to be really buggy in the early releases, for example - but they do a good job making their multis easy to setup and fly. For example, if you learn to fly a multi on a Phantom, it's practically nothing to transition to one of their big machines like the S800, especially if you use Atti or GPS/Atti modes for the flying you do. Manual mode is different depending on the size of the machine, but the "autopilot" modes are very consistent across their machines...

LS
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
07-07-2014 05:25 PM  6 years ago
whirlyspud

rrKey Veteran

USA

MyPosts All Forum Topic
Have you ever seen a DJI unit get a wild hair up its ass on a return to home?

Mike
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
WATCH
 24 pages [ <<    <     9      10     ( 11 )     12      13     NEXT    >> ] 20061 views POST REPLY
Home✈️Aircraft🚁HelicopterHelicopter Main Discussion › FAA comes down with aggressive position on model aircraft
 Print TOPIC  Make Suggestion 

 26  Topic Subscribe

Saturday, August 8 - 12:31 pm - Copyright © 2000-2020 RunRyder   EMAILEnable Cookies

Login Here
 New Subscriptions 
 Buddies Online