You Log In, You Post In Here
- Thread starter Tony
- Start date
- Status
Stambo
Well-Known Member
Last edited:
HeliDinoRC
Senior Rc-Help Member
Gotta love the English language!
murankar
Staff member
I guess I am done with helping folks. I have an acquaintance who will not listen. I have told him many times that he can not charge for a.p. work. He thinks it's okay just because one case said it not legal for the faa to do what they are doing. At thus point the case is in limbo because of appeals being made by the faa.
I have told this guy to quit referring to his quad as a drone, I have told him on many occasions that a.p. is illegal. Since he keeps posting on Facebook about his new venture I guess he deserves what is due.
Who knows he may never get caught, but if he does I have educated him.
Rchn ep. 127, the last 30 minutes or so explains just where we are at with a.p. in the U.S. As of right now, still illegal.
Sent from my LG-E980 using Forum Runner
I have told this guy to quit referring to his quad as a drone, I have told him on many occasions that a.p. is illegal. Since he keeps posting on Facebook about his new venture I guess he deserves what is due.
Who knows he may never get caught, but if he does I have educated him.
Rchn ep. 127, the last 30 minutes or so explains just where we are at with a.p. in the U.S. As of right now, still illegal.
Sent from my LG-E980 using Forum Runner
With respect, just because the faa handed down a couple of fines (and not for commercial ap with a "drone" but for negligent/dangerous flight of the uas) doesn't make commercial ap with them illegal. There are many jobs that would entail practically no risk to others that the faa would have zero basis to regulate or fine under current law and rules/regs. Yes, they can drag you through court and hang a fine out there as a liability against the company. You aren't going to be able to get insurance. But it may be worth the risks to get a foothold, gain experience, establish a biz and whatnot in anticipation of the faa or Congress getting in gear and explicitly legalizing it (at least in low risk areas of flight).
They fined him, if it is the case I'm thinking of, for unsafe flying. I believe this was the case where he was flying over a university or something like that. I don't know what the specific circumstances were of the shoot, but I'm assuming they did not shut down the place so there were people, cars, etc. and he was flying over all of it. That would be the reason they fined him, not merely because it was a commercial endeavor. The FAA doesn't really care if RC flying is recreational or commercial in nature. They're concerned about safety of the airspace and, in this case, potentially for those on the ground over which the flight is occuring. They'd have just as much authority to fine one of us for flying a single rotor heli over such a location, camera or not, money exchanged or not. At least in their minds.
Ultimately, I do not believe current law or rules allow the FAA to fine anyone for any of this when it involves an RC airplane/heli/quad. They simply have not been granted that authority and as such it is default legal. And there is nothing that would grant them special authority to fine an unmanned AP flight that would have been, supposedly, all fine and good had no money exchanged hands. Why did they impose the fine then? Because that's what they're wont to do. Like any government regulatory agency they want the authority and lacking explicit case law or legislation making it clear they did not have it, they decided to roll the dice on a case they thought they could win if it went to court. They'll use it as precedent to grab the power across the board while they get their official rule making process into gear. Government seeks to control.
- - - Updated - - -
No worries, Tony. I hope none of this is being taken as fighting or argument with you, Matt. Just my opinion on the matter. If I don't get to vent here then I have to wait until my monthly RC club meetings.
Ultimately, I do not believe current law or rules allow the FAA to fine anyone for any of this when it involves an RC airplane/heli/quad. They simply have not been granted that authority and as such it is default legal. And there is nothing that would grant them special authority to fine an unmanned AP flight that would have been, supposedly, all fine and good had no money exchanged hands. Why did they impose the fine then? Because that's what they're wont to do. Like any government regulatory agency they want the authority and lacking explicit case law or legislation making it clear they did not have it, they decided to roll the dice on a case they thought they could win if it went to court. They'll use it as precedent to grab the power across the board while they get their official rule making process into gear. Government seeks to control.
- - - Updated - - -
No worries, Tony. I hope none of this is being taken as fighting or argument with you, Matt. Just my opinion on the matter. If I don't get to vent here then I have to wait until my monthly RC club meetings.
Last edited:
murankar
Staff member
Oh no, just a discussion.
From the info I heard safety was never mentioned. According to what I heard about the ruling was that the Faa had exaggerated their definition of aircraft to encompass the quad in question. What was also said was that the ruling body said that the faa was wrong and that no laws were broken, ruling in favor of trappy. Since the faa did not like the ruling they appealed to the next high court. Again safety was never mentioned.
The last thing that was discussed was that the current law is still in effect and ap for profit is still illegal until the courts deems otherwise.
Sent from my LG-E980 using Forum Runner
From the info I heard safety was never mentioned. According to what I heard about the ruling was that the Faa had exaggerated their definition of aircraft to encompass the quad in question. What was also said was that the ruling body said that the faa was wrong and that no laws were broken, ruling in favor of trappy. Since the faa did not like the ruling they appealed to the next high court. Again safety was never mentioned.
The last thing that was discussed was that the current law is still in effect and ap for profit is still illegal until the courts deems otherwise.
Sent from my LG-E980 using Forum Runner
Slobberdog
Well-Known Member
Don't want to jump in to much on the conversation, but it's really quite interesting, just read an article here
Drones FAA Lawsuit - POLITICO Magazine
And it's seems he was cited for careless and reckless operation, but me I don't think it's really clear cut, back to you guys....
Drones FAA Lawsuit - POLITICO Magazine
And it's seems he was cited for careless and reckless operation, but me I don't think it's really clear cut, back to you guys....
murankar
Staff member
Feel free to add to the discussion. All I know is what has been broadcasted through rchn. So if they fail to bring up points then I failed to get the dirty on it. I really don't have much time in my day to get all the on this issue. I rely on social media and such to stay current.
Today has been one of the slowest days for me.
Sent from my LG-E980 using Forum Runner
Today has been one of the slowest days for me.
Sent from my LG-E980 using Forum Runner
murankar
Staff member
I am on my 3rd article on this matter. Only one So far made mention of safety, it was stated as being a claim by the faa.
The biggest theme in this is that pirker
Operated his aircraft for profit. If he had not been compensated he would have not been fined. The only thing pirker was doing was filming promo footage for the university of Virginia. He was contracted to do this job.
The kick in the pants is that according to the current claims by the faa pirker did not have the proper licenses and certificates for his action. The fstb stated that the faa overreached by applying the rules for aircraft to model aircraft.
Hope this fairs good for the hobby.
Here an interesting read, my fourth article.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/drone-pilot-challenges-faa-commercial-flying-ban/
Sent from my LG-E980 using Forum Runner
The biggest theme in this is that pirker
Operated his aircraft for profit. If he had not been compensated he would have not been fined. The only thing pirker was doing was filming promo footage for the university of Virginia. He was contracted to do this job.
The kick in the pants is that according to the current claims by the faa pirker did not have the proper licenses and certificates for his action. The fstb stated that the faa overreached by applying the rules for aircraft to model aircraft.
Hope this fairs good for the hobby.
Here an interesting read, my fourth article.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/drone-pilot-challenges-faa-commercial-flying-ban/
Sent from my LG-E980 using Forum Runner
Last edited:
The careless/reckless citation on the fine is why I'm saying it was a "safety" related fine. The amount of the fine may well have been due to the commercial nature of the flight, but the fact he was cited at all is not contingent on it having been a commercial flight. The FAA's logic on this, I believe, is anyone flying a 10lb (or whatever it is) contraption over people and their property could have been cited. It didn't hinge on commercial vs recreational. It didn't hinge on quad vs single rotor vs fixed wing.
The ruling was right and I hope the FAA loses on appeal. They are overstepping their granted authority, for the time being.
The ruling was right and I hope the FAA loses on appeal. They are overstepping their granted authority, for the time being.
- Status