petersachs said:
Good luck. "Gary567" has proven to be quite confused and misinformed on the subject in a number of threads.
He appears to be unable to understand how misguided his "advice" is.
Busting Myths about the FAA and Unmanned Aircraft
- Thread starter MikesTooLz
- Start date
Good luck. "Gary567" has proven to be quite confused and misinformed on the subject in a number of threads.
He appears to be unable to understand how misguided his "advice" is.
It's fairly common for people to not understand this stuff. It's claimed by the Feds, so people are inclined to believe it. It's just simply not the law and is plain old untrue. The law is often complex and not easy to understand. I've tried my best to lay it out as clearly as possible on my site. Each is free to believe the actual law, or the fake law the FAA is claiming. Sadly, the FAA is blatantly lying in an effort to intimidate people from doing what is perfectly legal— flying drones for pleasure or profit.shrill mute said:
petersachs said:
I keep Bob Hoover in the back of my mind when I think about what the FAA can do with respect to your ticket.
Had the pleasure of meeting Bob back in the 80s when I worked at Van Nuys Airport. Whether his medical being pulled (and later re-issued) was correct or not was no doubt controversial, but it was at least based upon existing actual regulations.SilentAV8R said:
With drones, there simply exist none at all at this time. No person can ever be successfully charged with violating a regulation that does not exist, certified airmen included. That is why the Pirker case was initially won, and why it will be won again on appeal. Sure, there might be a legal battle and legal expenses, but ultimately a decision based upon actual law will be reached.
We are a nation of laws. If something is not illegal, it's legal.
You said it yourself. Doesn't matter if the court finds you right or wrong the FAA can tie you up in a legal battle and your defense attorney will bleed you dry. Goes for any law under the sun. Has more to do with who's got more will and money to fight. Better to stay far to the right instead of walk the thin line IMHO.
Certainly a valid point. It's far easier for me to say since I have no legal fees.ocphantom said:
ocphantom said:
Thank goodness I'm not the only person who thinks like this. Sometimes, I start to wonder... :roll:
Gary567 said:
You're confusing laughter with anger. At least you are consistent with your confusion though.
I am glad this is still an on going discussion and gets everyone interested in the issues.
However, as I stated in my previous post and others have eluded to, if we don't play nice now, when the
laws are written, and the Feds are going through the process's now to get something into law, we will not like the
outcome if we have flown too high or too far under what FAA considers "Safe and Prudent" RC operations.
What are being discussed are if any UAS drones, RC or not fit into the US airspace system and play well with the
other already established users, commercial, military and civilian. Where the drones fit into this has yet to be seen. You guys that think you can fly anywhere and any height and not be a safety risk to the others are just plain wrong. If you cannot see in front and to the sides and rear of your aircraft, (being in it or not) then this is a potential problem for everyone. Aircraft
that use the US airspace VFR is required to see and be seen, IFR aircraft have on board systems and radar for detection, long range (beyond visual range) RC'ers do not have this ability unless you have multiple video cameras setup on your RC. And when one of these drones hits or is hit by another aircraft if the damage is severe enough to cause a crash of the human occupied aircraft then you will see an instant development of laws regarding what you can and cannot do within US airspace.
I would love nothing better than to fly anywhere and any height as this is cool and technology is great, but it is not always prudent to mix where we cannot, or do not, belong do to the shortcomings of our equipment.
And just because there is no law currently does not make it a free for all.
We are safe on the ground but impinging on the right-of-way of human occupied aircraft will always be undesirable.
I am not try to be Henny Penny but these are the facts and I for one do not want to be responsible for damage or something worse just for the cool factor.
Controll
However, as I stated in my previous post and others have eluded to, if we don't play nice now, when the
laws are written, and the Feds are going through the process's now to get something into law, we will not like the
outcome if we have flown too high or too far under what FAA considers "Safe and Prudent" RC operations.
What are being discussed are if any UAS drones, RC or not fit into the US airspace system and play well with the
other already established users, commercial, military and civilian. Where the drones fit into this has yet to be seen. You guys that think you can fly anywhere and any height and not be a safety risk to the others are just plain wrong. If you cannot see in front and to the sides and rear of your aircraft, (being in it or not) then this is a potential problem for everyone. Aircraft
that use the US airspace VFR is required to see and be seen, IFR aircraft have on board systems and radar for detection, long range (beyond visual range) RC'ers do not have this ability unless you have multiple video cameras setup on your RC. And when one of these drones hits or is hit by another aircraft if the damage is severe enough to cause a crash of the human occupied aircraft then you will see an instant development of laws regarding what you can and cannot do within US airspace.
I would love nothing better than to fly anywhere and any height as this is cool and technology is great, but it is not always prudent to mix where we cannot, or do not, belong do to the shortcomings of our equipment.
And just because there is no law currently does not make it a free for all.
We are safe on the ground but impinging on the right-of-way of human occupied aircraft will always be undesirable.
I am not try to be Henny Penny but these are the facts and I for one do not want to be responsible for damage or something worse just for the cool factor.
Controll
Peter,
Thank you for the clarification. You have obviously studied the law quite closely and have the knowledge to interpret it much better than a layman.
I wholeheartedly agree. Fly responsibly!
petersachs said:
I'm curious, since Section 336 of the FMRA carves out an exemption for model aircraft from future regulations and defines the requirements to be met in order to operate under that exemption, how does this not apply to the public.?
Certainly it instructs the FAA on not being able to formulate new rules for those operating under that definition contained in the act, but doesn't it also define for hobbyists what they need to do in order to be free from FAA regulation? Seems that does apply to the public. To me it says "follow the steps laid out in this section and the FAA cannot regulate you (in the future)."
Or am I missing something?
Of course, none of that changes the basic fact that right now there are no regulations covering hobby or commercial UAS, just the blustering of the FAA.
Oh, another thought as well. I am confident that the FAA is going to publish Rules in the coming sUAS NPRM that cover model/hobby operations for those that choose not to operate under the programming of a CBO. The Act only prevents them from having rules for those that do operate under a CBO.
SilentAV8R said:
When I say the FMRA of 2012 is a prospective law that applies to the FAA only, I mean that with its passage, Congress directed the FAA to do certain things in the future. Specifically as it relates to unmanned aircraft, it directed the FAA to create regulations, and it dictated what some of those regulations must be, such as the exception found in Sec.336, when the FAA creates them.
Since Congress directed the FAA to create regulations, (as opposed to modifying or amending existing regulations), by definition, (both common and legal), it means that those regulations do not currently exist, and are not in effect right now.
Therefore, everything found within the FMRA of 2012 applies to the FAA only at this time since it tells the FAA what it is required to do, and the FAA has not yet done it. It does not at apply to the public right now. It's provisions will apply to the public at a future date when the FAA creates the regulations that Congress said that it must.
Sorry for the wordiness, and I hope this helps to clarify what I am saying. It's in more detail on my site, but this summarizes the whole FMRA of 2012 portion.
Still a tiny bit confused.
I understand the prospective part of the FMRA as a whole, but how can a prohibition from forming a rule in the future be prospective?? Did not Section 336 take effect upon signing of the Act into law? And if not, then how do we know when it does become effective?
I understand the prospective part of the FMRA as a whole, but how can a prohibition from forming a rule in the future be prospective?? Did not Section 336 take effect upon signing of the Act into law? And if not, then how do we know when it does become effective?
Good question. Sec. 332 sets forth "the plan" of integration of unmanned aircraft in general, and the timelines for the plan. None of the deadlines have been met by the way. But there's not penalty for not meeting the deadlines.SilentAV8R said:
Sec. 336 reads, in relevant part, "the Federal Aviation Administration may not promulgate any rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft, or an aircraft being developed as a model aircraft, if—" and it goes on to give the specifics. That means, "Hey FAA, when you do create these new regs as we have told you to above, you can't create any that have to do with model aircraft, as long as..."
All of the FMRA took effect upon its passage, but since its prospective, it only affected the FAA upon its passage. When the FAA finally does create the regs, those regs will apply to the public. As for how will we know when, well as with all Federal laws, it has to go through the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ("NPRM") process. Unfortunately, since it is so far behind, the current estimate varies between another 2 years, to 7-10 years depending upon the source. (Jim Williams of the FAA said 7-10 years about a month ago.)
OK, still a bit lost. So you are saying thatSection 336 does not take effect until the FAA does not make any rules that section 336 prohibits them from making? Yes, I know that sounds absurd, I meant it to.
Again, when does Section 336 go into effect? It cannot be when the FAA makes rules since the FAA is prohibited from making such a rule covering model aircraft operations under a CBO.
BTW, there are 2 (or more) parts to the UAV integration. The first part is going to be the publication of the sUAS NPRM, which is still slated for later this year. Full integrations, which is what Williams was speaking about will take much longer. But the sUAS Rule is coming first.
Oh, and the FAA is considering allowing some fast track operations of certain commercial operations under Section 333 before they publish the NPRM. Which only furthers my confusion, since you are saying that nothing in the UAV section applies until the FAA publishes their rules. Williams seems to think that they can authorize certain operations under Section 333, so why cannot models operate under Section 336?
Again, when does Section 336 go into effect? It cannot be when the FAA makes rules since the FAA is prohibited from making such a rule covering model aircraft operations under a CBO.
BTW, there are 2 (or more) parts to the UAV integration. The first part is going to be the publication of the sUAS NPRM, which is still slated for later this year. Full integrations, which is what Williams was speaking about will take much longer. But the sUAS Rule is coming first.
Oh, and the FAA is considering allowing some fast track operations of certain commercial operations under Section 333 before they publish the NPRM. Which only furthers my confusion, since you are saying that nothing in the UAV section applies until the FAA publishes their rules. Williams seems to think that they can authorize certain operations under Section 333, so why cannot models operate under Section 336?
Actually, you said it correctly.SilentAV8R said:
It is already in effect with respect to the FAA's being prohibited from making any future regs relating to model aircraft. But it is not in effect with respect to the public, until the rules relating to unmanned aircraft in general are created.See paragraph above.SilentAV8R said:
I should have clarified that. Section 333 is an exception to the Act, which basically says, "Notwithstanding any other requirement of this subtitle" the DOT can determine if certain small unmanned aircraft can fly "before completion of the plan and rulemaking required by section 332 of this Act." So yes, the Sec. 333 stuff is permitted to happen before the rest of the rules are created.SilentAV8R said:
Aside from all this amazing legal gymnastics, which is draining my will to live, I have to wonder what the FAA is really after here. It seems certain that there will be airspace set aside for commercial use of UAV's. The reasons being a) money and b) money and sometimes c) money, and then of course there's always the money.
So what will be left for the hobbyists? I'm thinking that which does not involve...you guessed it...money!
And if driving is a privilege, how will anyone view flying as a right?
So what will be left for the hobbyists? I'm thinking that which does not involve...you guessed it...money!
And if driving is a privilege, how will anyone view flying as a right?
CarlJ said:
Section 336 defines what will be "left' for hobbyists. And for those who do not want to operate under the programming of a CBO (AMA), then I'm certain there will be an alternative path to compliance included in the sUAS Rule. But either way, BLOS will be a thing of the past, of that I can almost be 100% certain. There will also most likely be altitude limits (400 feet?) for non-CBO flying as well as some airspace prohibitions, like no Class B or Class C.
Ask FAA what their goal is and their simple answer is "Air Safety". That is all they are charged with and all they care about. It does not matter what we think about what is safe or not, all that matters is what they think what is safe or not. It is their sandbox as it were.
SilentAV8R said:
I agree with you a 110%, but to ignore the money at play here is folly. A number of companies have already come forward to disclose their plan use of drones, the FAA is no doubt hearing from them regularly. Defense Contractors will no doubt want in on the action, law enforcement, the list just goes on. And the FAA is no more immune to political pressure than any other agency.
Stack that up against what the hobbyist have to represent their concerns; a preponderance of youtube videos with various asshats doing amazingly stupid tricks, and I think you'll see a clear winner here.
Similar threads
