FAA Regulations--Please Read

[rhoffart]

If you are a Government Employee ... go back to work and quit wasting our tax dollars!

 

[ianwood]

This thread applies to all Phantoms (and UAVs) so moving this thread to the General section.

 

[Apparition]

Common. Sense.

Thank you.

I'm all for clear rules but I don't need a license to be able to follow rules.

 

[IflyinWY]

If you are a Government Employee ... go back to work and quit wasting our tax dollars!

Maybe we've got our own "Information Officer", who is working, informing us.

 

[LuvMyTJ]

C'mon guys, I hope you can all see this is just troll bait. He listed incorrect information which sets off the bells & whistles.
Just pass this type of stuff up and don't feed the trolls.

 

[GoodnNuff]

The funny thing is that I really am an FAA inspector. But even if I were not, have you gone to www.faa.gov/uas? Have you done an internet search for the "Pirker Case"? The facts are what they are regardless of who I claim to be.

Because Pirker and Team Blacksheep is new to you, doesn't mean it is new to us.
Nor are the FAA guidelines new to us.

 

[GoodnNuff]

My mom was talking to one of the DMV road test officials while I was out on my road test. The official told her that I would fail 100% guaranteed, because the official I was driving with never in 20 years passed his first driver of the day. I didn't fail, and if I did I'd probably get that official fired.

And by your posts, I'm thinking the proud moment of your life was just a few months ago when you hit 16?

 

[GoodnNuff]

C'mon guys, I hope you can all see this is just troll bait. He listed incorrect information which sets off the bells & whistles.
Just pass this type of stuff up and don't feed the trolls.

But your fellow moderator claims that Govman is the real McCoy.
Oh man...who do I trust???

 

[GoodnNuff]

Why would I give out my real name in this day and age of idenitiy theft--especially since I've gotten so many angry with me? How does my remaining anonyomous detract from my message? I'm flattered that you think a government employee is "more important than others." Nothing could be further from the truth. I am neither rich nor successful. But I do work for the FAA. Why would I lie about that?

How can your name lead to ID theft? Seriously? There are mutliple ways I can easily get anyone's name on the internet from public tax records, white pages, etc., etc. Knowing that your name is Kerwin Jacobee doesn't allow me to "become" Kerwin Jacobee...

 

[Clipper707]

Welcome to the board, Govman. There are those on the board who have the knee-jerk reaction to the FAA as if they were the Khmer Rouge.

I, for one, hope you are truly an FAA employee and welcome the information and insight you can share with us.

 

[SteveMann]

I'm thought about to staying out of this one. But this is too good to pass.

Govman may well be an FAA employee in the Eastern FSDO, but he is forming his own opinion in the absence of finalized rules. FAA inspectors are guided by the Inspectors Handbooks which are all in the FSIMS (Flight Standards Information Management System). The word "Drone" does not appear anywhere. If it's not in the FAR's or the Inspector's Handbook, it's only their opinion.

The Pirker decision DID NOT allow for all aviation regulations to apply to model aircraft. Only 91.13, which the FAA throws in with every enforcement action because they never lose that charge on appeal to the NTSB. Had Pirker pursued his appeal the FAA had a real chance of losing a 91.13 charge for the first time. What a precedent that would have been.
According to Pirker's lawyer: "

The NTSB Board in November decided the appeal very narrowly, reversing the Administrative
Law Judge and holding that a model aircraft operator is subject to a single aviation regulation, 14
CFR 91.13(a), concerning “careless or reckless operation that endangers the life or property of
another.” Whether any aspect of Raphael’s flight was actually “reckless” was not decided. The
NTSB Board did not comment on whether commercial use is or is not prohibited, but did
recognize a fundamental problem with the FAA’s current position: “certain provisions of the
[federal aviation regulations] may not be logically applicable to model aircraft.”
​

However, Govman, when you said: "Look, let's all be realistic:say you are operating in rural Montana at 500 feet. Technically that's illegal--despite what most of you believe." If you are really from the FAA then you should have no problem citing the specific FAR when you say "that's illegal". If flight in Class E airspace at 500 ft it illegal, then what rule makes it illegal?

Seriously, if Govman really wants to help, even with troll-like anonymity then drop the hyperbole and opinions and cite your facts. Just saying "that's illegal" doesn't make it so.

In all fairness, if I worked for the FAA, I would also be reluctant to ID myself and be put in the position of being quoted out of context in an enforcement proceeding. It could be a career decision.

 

[Clipper707]

In all fairness, if I worked for the FAA, I would also be reluctant to ID myself and be put in the position of being quoted out of context in an enforcement proceeding. It could be a career decision.

Agreed. It could be career suicide.

I see no harm in taking the "innocent until proven guilty approach" for this one. It's not so farfetched a retired airline pilot/FAA inspector could be drone enthusiast.

This is an internet forum and there are many folks here who choose to remain anonymous for many reasons other than trolling. Trolls don't last long anyway.

BTW, I have yet to verify IflyinWY actually flies in Wyoming, but for now will take that claim at face value. And I really believe GoodnNuff is good enough.

Govman: again, welcome to the forum.

 

[ianwood]

Steve, Govman stated he was not conveying his own opinion but the position of the FAA. You may not agree with it. You may think it makes no sense. I certainly don't agree with all of it or think it all makes sense. But it's good to know what it is.

Worth pointing out that maybe even Govman disagrees with his employer's position though I doubt he would say that publicly. He did say they (The FAA) were far behind on this stuff. That's more than we've heard in any congressional hearing to date.

 

[LuvMyTJ]

So it has been brought to my attention he is who he says he is. So I retract my troll statement. I suppose he has had his trial by fire by making a post about a topic that has many opinions. I imagine this type of posting will go away in the coming years when official rules are put into place. Anyways, welcome aboard GovMan, and don't forget your flame retardant suit.

 

[Buzz313th]

After reading the above posts, I think it is abundantly clear that all of us truly love this hobby and would like to continue flying our aircraft with as few mandated rules and restrictions as possible. That being said there is a lot of scrutiny on our hobby by uninformed people. Take for example when some idiot(s) flying near the White House or some National Park that has been designated as an area prohibited for Unmanned Aircraft, and something happens that catches the eye of the lame stream media, it is portrayed to masses as a major event with negative connotations. This has caused the general public to form negative unfair and uninformed opinions of our hobby. And the one thing we have to remember is there are a lot more of them than there are of us. If some point in the future a serious incident is caused by a Unmanned Aircraft involving the loss of life, you mark my words some unqualified Politician trying to make a name for themselves is going spearhead rules and regulations that will possibly strangle our hobby because they will have the public support. And if you think those supposed violations couldn't be enforced think of all those citizens with eyes and ears ready to report us if we considered villainous in the court of public opinion.
My reason for voicing my opinion is that with the multitude of Pilots that are entering this hobby with different intents it is getting to be like the old West.
I propose we be proactive and lobby for licensing and Pilot proficiency before it is rammed down our throats. Don't get me wrong I'm not a fan of government bureaucracy but the only way we can legitimize our hobby is to show outsiders that we have some organization and that we would be willing to police ourselves if the errant actions of a few will have a detreamental affect us all.
Thanks for reading this and Happy landings everybody

That's a great idea!!

 

[John Christensen]

I was unaware that other FAA employees (or at least others claiming to be with the FAA) have also posted.

5. I received a complaint against one of your members who allegedly flew his Phantom over JFK at 3000'. I only want to point out that this is a hazard and is illegal. This is the reason I made my first post. Simply educatuional outreach.

I guess I expected a fair amount of hostility but am still disappointed that it occurred, and is directed at me and not the regulations. Thanks.

What's unfortunate is when people do stupid stuff, like fly over JFK... and then the government overreaches and goes past common sense in the opposite direction. No fly areas make sense. Some other regulations make sense. Unfortunately, I'm afraid that regulations the government make sill make sense to a couple extreme situations and unapplicable to the 99+% of flyers.

 

[Hasan Ahmad]

I agree: Only aircraft taking off or landing fly from 400-1000 feet. But do you know how many reports this office receives every week of drones being spotted by airline pilots as they ARE taking off and landing? Don't you all agree this is a hazard? Why are some drone operators operating near airports and airliners?

yes..within 5 miles. FAA should not limit the height to 400 feet 30 miles from an airport for example. If a plane is flying at 500 feet 30 miles from the airport, that plane is already in trouble.

 

[SteveMann]

Steve, Govman stated he was not conveying his own opinion but the position of the FAA. You may not agree with it. You may think it makes no sense. I certainly don't agree with all of it or think it all makes sense. But it's good to know what it is.

All I asked was that if Govman is stating "it's illegal", then he really should be able to provide the FAR that makes "it" illegal.
Just saying it's illegal doesn't make it so.

 

[Buk]

While I appreciate the FAA's new "grassroots approach" to educating the hobby and commercial UAV/UAS/sUAV operating public and I welcome the possibility of developing a genuine dialog with a representative of the federal government, I'm "just not digg'n it yet".

Perhaps you can garner some of our trust and respect by providing a bit of your background and work experience with the FAA. Thanks and best wishes on your quest to educate us and provide a safe environment for manned and unmanned vehicles.

 

[Wheatfield]

Here is a post of a conversation I recently started with another member:

Good morning everyone. I am an inspector for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) at their Garden City, New York office. I can certainly appreciate the fun involved in flying a drone--I am a retired airline pilot myself. And, I admit that if I were not in this line of work, I too, would be unaware of the regulations and laws that drone operators--you all--must adhere to.
Basically you are not allowed to fly higher than 400 feet above the ground. I understand that this puts a damper on your activities; but how would you feel if your drone collided with a commercial airliner and hundreds of people were to die? I know that is not something you would want to go through the rest of your life with. I'm not exaggerating, either. A large airliner such as a Boeing or an Airbus is not designed to withstand ANY impact once in the air. I assure you, I'm not using "scare tactics." If a drone were to collide with an airplane of ANY size, the potential for disaster is enormous. I am sure that many of you are young, and honestly haven't thought about it too much. I recently bought a Phantom for my son; so please understand I have no issues with drones. I only ask that you obey the regulations. Please vist WWW. FAA.GOV/UAS for the current guidelines on flying drones. We refer to them as "Unmanned Aircraft Systems" (UASs).
If you have any questions, I will periodically log in to this forum and be happy to answer them.
Thank you for your time.

Crock of poop. I've seen some very convincing discussion about quads being sucked into jet engines. The bottom line is that the aircraft we fly are much frailer than a duck or a goose, animals which routinely get sucked into jet engines without causing any damage.
If airliners were as frail as this troll says they were, we would be dealing with several air disasters a week from bird strikes.