Welcome to PhantomPilots.com

Sign up for a weekly email of the latest drone news & information

FAA is a bunch of

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by phantomflyer, Nov 26, 2013.

  1. phantomflyer

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2013
    Messages:
    244
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    New Hampshire
    This may be old news to some of you but this is the first time I've seen this video!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kV0HEzQM ... detailpage

    I don't think the FAA should have any say on anyone flying drones less then a couple hundred feet if they want to own a business taken pictures for people! Their pretty much saying they own all the air around us and if we make money of it then they want there cut, This is bull!!
     
  2. OI Photography

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2013
    Messages:
    5,542
    Likes Received:
    17
    Location:
    Clarksville, TN
    There's nothing wrong with the FAA regulating commercial use of aircraft, in fact commercial aviation wouldn't and couldn't exist without it...the problem is that they are still dragging their feet when it comes to officially classifying private unmanned craft as eligible for that type of use.

    Drones will need to identified and regulated separately from the "experimental aircraft" they're classed with now, and that's going to require some type of consistent certification process for both pilots and equipment.

    Money is definitely the driving factor, but not in terms of potential profit. Think about it this way...if the FAA said that unregulated commercial drone use was allowed for small craft, then anybody who was injured by one of these while being used for business could go after the government for failing to protect the public safety. The money they'll save in averting potential settlements far outweighs any gains they might make from licensing.
     
  3. DaveTown

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2013
    Messages:
    124
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    South Jersey
    The FAA is all about keeping the skies safe, and keeping aircraft flying, not falling. Money is not the issue. Unfortunately, big government bureaucracy slows down progress to a crawl.

    D.T.
     
  4. phantomflyer

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2013
    Messages:
    244
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    New Hampshire
    If money weren't the issue then why are they mad this guy made a little money off his video's and such? And they want to sue him for $10,000. I understand the FAA should be there to regulate the sky's but there jurisdiction should only be at certain heights! I've seen alot of real estate company's use these for taking picture of houses up for market! Does this mean they are braking the law? Does this law only count if they where to make money off of the pic's themselves? If and when the FAA makes people get a pilot license for these like I've been hearing about will the one's that already own one be grandfathered into that law?
    I do believe that the rule's that the FAA have for drones and other RC planes are reasonable in the cases of not flying them more then 400 feet and at least a mile away from airports but that's where it should end even though some of these people I see on youtube sending them up a couple thousand feet even one where a kid was chasing wildlife "Ducks" in a park and one where a guy sent one up to an eagles nest in which one of them tried attacking his drone and could have gotten injured, This kind of behavior is really going to f us in the end! They need to make a law on selling them or owning them for anyone under 18 and catch and find the one's posting video of them going up so high or harassing wildlife with these thing's.
    These are fun but those who are posting these kind of video's are just going to mess it up for the rest of us!!
     
  5. DaveTown

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2013
    Messages:
    124
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    South Jersey
    The fine is meant as a deterrent to keep other flyers from breaking the rules. The FAA has a set of rules, called the F.A.R. and they do not grant wiggle room. The rules are there for the safety of people and property, and the FAA does not allow for compromise.
     
  6. phantomflyer

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2013
    Messages:
    244
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    New Hampshire
    The fine is meant as a deterrent to keep other flyers from breaking the rules. The FAA has a set of rules, called the F.A.R. and they do not grant wiggle room. The rules are there for the safety of people and property, and the FAA does not allow for compromise.

    Seems they do allow for compromise because if they where to watch the youtube video's on all the people braking them rule's they would have there handful with law suits!!
     
  7. OI Photography

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2013
    Messages:
    5,542
    Likes Received:
    17
    Location:
    Clarksville, TN
    Technically, yes. And so is every studio and production house in Hollywood and elsewhere who are using them for movies, shows, commercials and documentaries.

    Domino's pizza recently experimented with the idea of drones delivering pizza, and that too would be outside the scope of what is allowed under current regulations.
     
  8. phantomflyer

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2013
    Messages:
    244
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    New Hampshire
    I agree, I mean there should be rules and or laws on these "Like not bothering wild life with them such as birds" I don't see one of these taking down a plane! But who knows one of these days a plane will come down that the FAA can't explain and then they will put it on a drone doing it and get their way!
     
  9. Buk

    Buk

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2013
    Messages:
    654
    Likes Received:
    29
    Location:
    Iowa, United States
    While I agree rules are needed for safe flying and to prevent conflicts between model aircraft and full scale aircraft, I'm not sure I understand the need for a pilot's license to be able to fly a Phantom over a cornfield taking some photographs and charge the farmer a fee for my time and effort. A $10,000 fine for doing so is excessive. A graduated scale is more appropriate. $100 for first offense, $500 for the second....
     
  10. OI Photography

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2013
    Messages:
    5,542
    Likes Received:
    17
    Location:
    Clarksville, TN
    Because then the farmer would know that the pilot and aircraft have at least some minimal level of certification, and are therefore far less likely to crash, burst the Lipo, and burn down half the season's crop...or worse yet, the crop of the next guy over who had no say in the matter at all.

    I've already been looking into options for getting bonded (like a home contractor) while we wait for "official certification" but there's still some huge gaping potential liabilities here.
     
  11. Buk

    Buk

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2013
    Messages:
    654
    Likes Received:
    29
    Location:
    Iowa, United States
    Just as long as we're not mixing a model pilot's need for a specific level of knowledge and full scale pilot's specific level of knowledge. And also confusing skill versus knowledge. I can know all the rules have a license, yet still be a poorly skilled, bad pilot and set a cornfield on fire.
     
  12. OI Photography

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2013
    Messages:
    5,542
    Likes Received:
    17
    Location:
    Clarksville, TN
    Correct, and agreed.
     
  13. OI Photography

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2013
    Messages:
    5,542
    Likes Received:
    17
    Location:
    Clarksville, TN
    Tell it to the lawyers :lol:

    The issue isn't regulating TOYS...the issue is regulating "Toys" that are used for commercial purposes. Any time you make money with something, expect to be regulated, especially when the tools you use to make that money carry the potential to harm people and property.

    Failure to acknowledge that type of potential risk is exactly why regulation is needed in the first place.
     
  14. ToddSmi

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2013
    Messages:
    112
    Likes Received:
    0
    The video you referenced shows Trappy's defense attorney with his take on the situation. Here's a link to the actual video that got Trappy busted. Watch and decide for yourself what you think:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... ZnJeuAja-4

    In my view, Trappy is acting selfishly and trying to increase his youtube and facebook followers at the expense of the rest of us that are trying to enjoy this hobby without burdensome new regulations. Although he is an extremely skilled pilot, he is putting his copter in very dangerous situations where things can go wrong, and at the very least, he is operating in a manner that may be objective to many of the citizens of our society. Unfortunately, this gives the legislators more ammunition to call for tighter regulations.
     
  15. phantomflyer

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2013
    Messages:
    244
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    New Hampshire
    No but he is putting others in danger going under under passes near cars and over road ways and people! Not like burning a corn field down but **** does happen and I believe you shouldn't fly them within a city! A field,farm land out in the mountains or even just around your back yard should be the only place to fly them even at that it should be the towns, City or state that make them laws not the FAA and thats way I think the FAA would only have a problem making money off it they are a government entity and they didn't get their cut! If he didn't get paid they would have never bothered like with all the other youtube videos out there where people are going way over FAA regulations of 400feet limit unless that's changed?
     
  16. ToddSmi

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2013
    Messages:
    112
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't think anyone including the FAA cares about what happens to his copter. The concern that some have is related to the potential risk to the property or health of someone else that could be caused by his copter. And the additional concern many hobbyists have is that because of the reckless nature of a low percentage of people, all people including hobbyists may eventually be regulated.
     
  17. martcerv

    Joined:
    May 27, 2013
    Messages:
    1,002
    Likes Received:
    2
    The cornfield fire is quite laughable and how is it any different if this extremely unlikely scenario of yours is created by someone as a hobby or being paid to fly. Why is it a safety issue only if done commercially lol thats the biggest joke of all, if flying over the cornfield is fine for a hobby user with permision by the land owner how is it all of a sudden so dangerouse if this farmer was to pay the guy to fly over his field. By the way full size aircraft pretty much always cause great damage death and fires when they crash yet I am yet to see a single lipo powered quadcopter world wide cause a significant amount of damage or kill a person on the ground. Anything that is considered safe as hobby use shouod have no longer be considered unsafe unless you pay your bribe beforehand and get paid to do this.
     
  18. OI Photography

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2013
    Messages:
    5,542
    Likes Received:
    17
    Location:
    Clarksville, TN
    1. Any commercial activity that takes place in the air in the US has always been under the jurisdiction of the FAA and subject to its regulation. If anybody wants to spin their wheels fighting its authority in this, be my guest.

    2. One of the benefits that the public does get from this type of regulation is a safer environment. Obviously no measures can eliminate all risk from this or any regulated industry, but you couldn't pay me to get on a roller coaster or airliner that wasn't subject to regular uniform regulated safety certification. This is good for the owner (you, me, whoever), the customer, and the government as well, as it reduces (but never eliminates of course) the chance we will end up in a liability-inducing situation.

    3. I used the cornfield scenario simply has a handy example of the type of "it sounds crazy till someone gets hurt by it or sued for it" risk that does exist and must be considered by anyone expecting to turn a dime using their Phantom or other multirotor. If you have an actual licensed business, then your potential liability is magnified compared to personal use, and if you don't have a business license but are generating income, then you're running a calculated risk anyway, depending on how much you make. One of the legal gray areas in all this is whether "commercial use" in this case can be argued as relating to any revenue at all, or only enough to report to the IRS...? In other words, if you just sell some shots here and there and only make a few bucks, and you have a good lawyer, you could probably make the case that you're not subject to commercial regulation anyway.
     
  19. mwtkns

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2013
    Messages:
    2
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    North Branch, MN
    http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?secti ... id=9237643 Not a quadcopter -- but still some danger I guess.
     
  20. Sidewinder

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2013
    Messages:
    97
    Likes Received:
    0
    The pilot Raphael Pirker or "Trappy" as he is know from the Black Sheep videos is a Swiss citizen either living or operating a business in Hong Kong. He and his pals already had a run in with the National Park service for flying in restricted airspace earlier or during this trip. Their popularity with the youtube videos apparently has given them a feeling of empowerment. I think they do damage to the hobby or sport and ultimately to any commercial application. They simply go about it the wrong way. They just go operate any way they want.

    The FAA makes about 11 points in their charge. all of which I can see on the video which is clearly a reckless operation. At least twice he makes diving passes over the UVA Hospital helipad which is an active and sometimes busy pad. Don't think he coordinated anything with them or the university to do this flight. (it is a Ritewing Zephyr ... a powered glider not a quad copter). The passes towards vehicles and especially the bus at one point could have cause drivers to make sudden evasive move that may have resulted in injuries. The one pass was within just a few feet of a pedestrian and at a high rate of speed could have resulted in serious injury to that individual had a failure in some component occurred at the right time or sudden wind gust affecting the judgement of the pilot as to the actual position of the aircraft.

    In any case this was piss poor judgement on his part and he should be made to pay the penalty. The charge is he violated Section 91.13(a), which states that no person may operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another. After viewing the video I feel comfortable that this is exactly what he did. The FAA is doing its job in this instance.

    Got my first flying model 57 years ago. Had strings attached to it. Watch the hobby grow and technology expand. It's awesome but never have operators done stupid stuff like this. Involved pedestrians have a right to not expect 4 pound missiles to come flying by their heads at 40 knots just so some thoughtless Euro-trash idiot can make a buck off his video's and hobby shop sales.

    Right now Modelers operate under FAA Circular AC 91-57 written in 1981. There have been little or no problems up until now. Now recently the FAA has issued a policy statement:

    The current FAA policy for UAS operations is that no person may operate a UAS in the National Airspace System without specific authority. For UAS operating as public aircraft the authority is the COA, for UAS operating as civil aircraft the authority is special
    airworthiness certificates, and for model aircraft the authority is AC 91-57.

    The FAA recognizes that people and companies other than modelers might be flying UAS with the mistaken understanding that they are legally operating under the authority of AC 91-57. AC 91-57 only applies to modelers, and thus specifically excludes its use by persons or companies for business purposes.

    The FAA has undertaken a safety review that will examine the feasibility of creating a different category of unmanned “vehicles” that may be defined by the operator’s visual line of sight and are also small and slow enough to adequately mitigate hazards to other aircraft and persons on the ground. The end product of this analysis may be a new flight authorization instrument similar to AC 91-57, but focused on operations which do not qualify as sport and recreation, but also may not require a certificate of airworthiness. They will, however, require compliance with applicable FAA regulations and guidance developed for this category.
    Feedback regarding current FAA policy for Unmanned Aircraft Systems can be submitted at http://www.faa.gov/uas.

    I hold an Airline Transport Pilot Certificate with Rotorcraft-Helicopter Instrument-Helicopter ratings and have been in this business 47 years. I've seen my share of pinheads and bureaucrats at the FAA but they are few, far between and generally don't last. The FAA generally does a good job and without it our airspace would be chaos. They are not there to pick on us poor ol Phantom pilots. (frankly they could care less and would rather not have to deal with us) They are charged with protecting the life and property of the public when it comes to things entering the airspace and under the control of an operator or his surrogate (i.e. programmed flight path) .... it's idiots like this who will cause possible regulation that may restrict your flights.

    I say if you are doing this for a hobby, stay under 400 feet and away from airports, flight patterns and don't endanger the public you will have fun. If you want to make a buck and deviate from that standard then lets get some regulation in place that makes sense, establishes acceptable safety standards and is not overly prohibitive. Meanwhile we are in a gray area and if you enter the realm of Commercial flight you better know and understand the regulations under FAR part 91.

    Standing by for incoming. :D