Goodbye Everybody Thanks - FAA Shut me down

Screw the FAA. I hope they are reading this board! Read this Inspector "SCREW YOU"

I am an airline pilot and have been dealing with the FAA for 13 years. They are a bunch of morons. I can not tell you how many poorly thought out rules they implement that just makes things worse. I can not tell you how many piss poor airport or airspace designs I deal with every day that they designed which CAUSE more problems then they solve.

Someone may retaliate "well why dont you join the FAA and make change for the better". I tried about 5 years ago, submitted my application and it got nowhere because it is one big fraternity of nepotism. Your loss you missed out on an employee who actually has a brain. But even if the chance came back to work for them, I wouldn't take it anymore after continuously witnessing their ever increasing stupidity with every new rule they pass.

This is america. It was founded by people who said "screw your stupid rules that dont make sense". Go fly your phantom. Make money. If everyone cowers in shame at the FAA then they will win. If more and more people dont give a ****, then the FAA will say "ok we need to reach some sort of compromise."
 
If I saw a drone being used in a commercial application, I'd have a presumption the operator was completely professional with excellent piloting skills. I'd assume he was there with all the right permissions (not including the FAA), and was covered for public liability.
If the operator came across as someone's uncle taking photos at a wedding because he bought a good camera, I'd be concerned. I understand the frustration of those on here who do aerial photography for a living. They watch so many newer pilots move into the commercial aspect of this hobby and threaten their livelihood, not with competition, but with unwanted attention from authorities. If all the permissions were given to the OP (or he didn't bother asking), he would be out there today charging clients and flying on a wing and a prayer hoping his Phantom didn't hit anything. This would be a bad situation for hobbyists and commercial operators alike.
 
Suwaneeguy said:
Viking, the FAA is still trying to create and enforce laws that do not exist.
1) You do not need a COA for an R/C vehicle. Period.
2) Congress told the FAA, in a law, that says the FAA has no authority over R/C vehicles.
3) The NTSB has already ruled that the FAA can not enforce laws that do not exist.

Why did you tell the FAA you were going to use it for commercial purposes? That just gives them the oppurtunity to bully even more.

Wow, you are really misinformed plus your facts are screwed up.

1. The COA was my way of deflecting concerns by my community of prospective clients that I was FAA compliant. It worked well. but as long as I had the application that I could show them the realtors, associations and businesses were cool. Incidentally, no one ever asked to see it. PLUS about 50% never even asked nor did they express any concerns about accidents! What blew up in my face is when the Department of the Interior said NO MORE flying in National Parks. In my town the Monument State Park is the #1 beauty shot for the TV stations and a lot of local businesses, it's part of their image.

2. When you cite that Congress "told" the FAA they have no authority over RC's, you better be able to cite your source. You see, since the Wright Brothers, people were worried about aircraft dropping our of the sky. The FAA, was born and mandated by the Federal Government to have "domain" over the skies.

RC's drop out of the skies all the time, therefore they are a threat. the FAA is mandated to get involved. If we were all great pilots and flew sadly maybe they would treat us like other RC flyers. But sadly, their are idiots that buzz dogs and babies. The FAA is obligated to step in. As far as recreational use, so far we're in the clear. That could change.

Look at how all the Pilots are banned from Yosemite National Park. Why, mostly because they are annoying the tourists and also dangerous.

3. Your third point about the NTSB, can you cite this ruling? Even if you can, I defy you to fly in my home town of Grand Junction. The FAA, The Department of the Interior, and our business community won't let you. The local business community is very resistant especially when they see poor reporting and scare tactics presented by Morely Safer on 60 Minutes. Hey, isn't it time for Morely to retire. I mean he was a killer journalist in Viet Nam, but there comes a time. Right?

I had a BIG job lined up with a realtor and I could never shoot it because of the wind, but moreover I would have had to fly obliques, figure eight kinda maneuvers and other advanced precision moves. I am incapable of executing advanced moves, plus the ******* trees get in the way of the props. We have a fair amount of trees and rocks in Colorado.

I lost one H2-2D and one H3-3D, one rotor, one GoPro, and a lot of time. I'm the first to admit I don't have advanced Pilot skills. It would have taken me months to get up to that proficiency.

If you would like to see my $2200.00 shot of the only time my P2 with the H3-3D was working in concert, check out https://vimeo.com/95664235 They guy at the end is me. I didn't know that five minutes later when I decided it would be great to see how high I could go and go for the amazing high altitude. At the apex of the flight I descended, and something in my brain chose not to use the fly back/fail safe. Can you imagine? So I brought it down myself and I came down to fast and the dreaded vortex kicked in and that was the end. You should have seen the condition of the H3-3D. The crash even took out the GoPro, and a prop just flew off in mid air.

I admire the CAA in the U.K.

All this crap could be avoided with responsible pilots and government control. There are responsible pilots in the forum, but giving our fouled up government more control of ANYTHING is a bad idea. For you youngsters out there, (rhetorical question alert) did you know that the US was once the most powerful country on this planet, well respected by almost everyone, the budget deficit was manageable, and a middle class family could buy a new car every year if they wanted to in the 60's?

My source? My family and the community of Southeast Denver I grew up in. That's the way it was, I witnessed it. That's the best source to cite of all.
 
scooter339 said:
2. When you cite that Congress "told" the FAA they have no authority over RC's, you better be able to cite your source.

He was referring to the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CRPT-112hrpt381/pdf/CRPT-112hrpt381.pdf
Section 336 of that law prevents the FAA from making rules or regulations about "model aircraft." The problem is that there are several conditions laid out in that section which define what is considered a model aircraft - one of which being that it has to be flown "strictly for hobby or recreational use" and another that it's "operated in accordance with a community-based set of safety guidelines (in this case meaning it's flown according to AMA guidelines)

scooter339 said:
3. Your third point about the NTSB, can you cite this ruling?

http://www.ntsb.gov/legal/pirker/Pirker-CP-217.pdf

It should be noted that the ruling is under appeal, so it could potentially be overturned once it goes to the full NTSB board.

Also, the premise of the argument that was used to dismiss the case was that the FAA had not actually gone through the process of publishing rules (which have a specific procedure that must be followed with respect to publishing and comment) related to operating model aircraft. They had published guidelines, but these are voluntary. So essentially Pirker's lawyer argued (successfully, so far) that the FAA can't fine someone for not following guidelines if those guidelines were voluntary.

Not surprisingly - the FAA has just posted their "interpretation" of the modernization act section 336 that is actually going through that publishing/comment period, which ends in a few weeks. So, while the argument that Pirker used in this case was pretty solid (and I suspect may even hold up on appeal), that argument may no longer be applicable once the FAA interpretation becomes final. That's why it's extra critical for everyone to read and respond to the FAA interpretation notice as the AMA has requested.

Please see threads like http://www.phantompilots.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=19035 for more info on how/where to do this.
 
...People are doing this and getting away with it all the time. There are loopholes I have no doubt you could use...

casey neistat, just to mention one
1 million views per episode, with a low $1 cpm = $1,000 dollars a day

so how about flying and filming for free and charge your clients for the video edits?
 
so how about flying and filming for free and charge your clients for the video edits?

Seriously?

Commercial is Commercial no matter how you try to subvert it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BigAl07
Seriously?

Commercial is Commercial no matter how you try to subvert it.

yes, seriously.
you are filming for free.
 
This is why I hesitate to send in my 333. If they are just going to deny me, I'd rather just not be on the FAA's radar.

Unfortunately this is about competition as well. How many companies with 333s turn in people without them? My guess is, a lot. Bunch of punks. Just let us all compete.

Open letter to the FAA. Make a **** certification process that doesn't require me to invest $20K in a pilot's license and I'll be happy to attend and pay for it.

Punks man. No motivation to let us compete and make a living.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GenesisX
yes, seriously.
you are filming for free.

These "guidelines" state you can't do any aerial filming with a drone for money. Even if it supplements your business. This "loop hole" is interesting but still probably not going to fly. Pun intended.
 
Miller4, what do you fly? Airbus crap (like I'd really know) or Boeing.

Sorry, I just hate the side stick B.S. and Airbus' automation over man stance. Even though I have no real opinion of the two manufactures that has any credibility because I'm not a pilot. And I know Boeing is just as automated. I'm a Boeing guy though as you can tell by my avatar.
 
Last edited:
Miller4, what do you fly? Airbus crap (like I'd really know) or Boeing.

Sorry, I just hate the side stick B.S. and Airbus' automation over man stance. Even though I have no real opinion of the two manufactures that has any credibility because I'm not a pilot. And I know Boeing is just as automated. :smirk:
Wow holy thread revival, I wouldnt have even have seen this unless I scrolled down. You need to quote me to send an alert to check this thread.

Anyways i used to fly Embraer 145's. Not anymore. I joined the real world and work for a small company where suggestions are encouraged. unlike aviation where suggestions are discouraged and it is a bureaucratic mess of paperwork and garbage and people who dont know are in charge of making the rules. I have never been happier since leaving aviation.
 
I don't pay attention to dates. LOL. I just noticed that.

Those planes are badass. Good thing it wasn't a 120. Those suckers had some serious propeller issues.

I roam around Delta's training center sometimes when I deliver flight manuals to them and stuff. It's hilarious. Nobody cares. I walk by all the simulator rooms and stuff. Just minding my own business. I used to have the stall warning for an A330 for my rigntone and my phone went off one time when I was down there and I got a funny look from two pilots. LOL.
 
Last edited:
Lets face it flying these things has responsibilities for recreational flyers and those in business. The UK has CAA courses for pilots of small UAVs who want to use them for business purposes, where they learn flight skills, weather interpretation, navigation etc before the CAA certifies them as fit to fly, which I think is only right and correct that its policed in that way.

Just my thoughts.

:|
To be honest, I don't why it's restricted to those using them for business. I know this won't go down well with many/most on this forum, but I think anyone wanting to fly a drone should undergo some formal training in flight skills, or be subject to greater restrictions in terms of where they can fly compared to this who've passed the training
 
To be honest, I don't why it's restricted to those using them for business.

Very good points. The reason is because if you're only doing it for hobby/recreation back in 2012 Congress pretty much made your untouchable unless you fly in a genuinely unsafe manner. Tack the term "commerce" onto it and the FAA has some degree of authority over the operator. When Congress made "modelers" untouchable in 2012 they had no idea anyone was "really" going to use this technology to make $$ or I'm sure they would have worded things VERY differently than they did.

I know this won't go down well with many/most on this forum, but I think anyone wanting to fly a drone should undergo some formal training in flight skills, or be subject to greater restrictions in terms of where they can fly compared to this who've passed the training
BINGO! I totally agree. I happen to feel like a great deal of training should be done to simply own one but that's my 2 cents.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DAVEJF
Found this, seems they've decided already they DO and CAN enforce laws (FAA)

Finally, the model-aircraft component of this rulemaking incorporates the statutory mandate in section 336(b) that preserves the FAA's authority, under 49 U.S.C. 40103(b) and 44701(a)(5), to pursue enforcement “against persons operating model aircraft who endanger the safety of the national airspace system.”
 

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
143,066
Messages
1,467,356
Members
104,934
Latest member
jody.paugh@fullerandsons.