Todos
← Back to Squawk list
NTSB judge dismisses fine against small drone user
This just popped up. Admin judge dismissed the fine for user near Univ of VA. Looking for more details on incident and fine. "the small drone was no different than a model aircraft ... and the FAA has no regulations governing model aircraft flights or for classifying model aircraft as an unmanned aircraft" (bigstory.ap.org) Más...Sort type: [Top] [Newest]
Government bureaucracy gone wild. Over a decade to issue rules about using small remote controlled model planes, like that 5 pound styrofoam model plane for simple purposes like aerial photography is way too long.
I have flown rc model airplanes since the early 80's. we were attaching cameras on the planes back then. I now have some quad copters that I fly. Those who fly rc ,that belong to a.m.a. and sanctioned clubs and fields do so in a responsible way. Todays rc aircrafts are much safer with all the technology that has been developed for this hobby. If there are problems, it is with those that fly the rc aircraft in irresponsible ways, don't know the rules already in place regulating the rc hobby and don't feel that rules or laws apply to them.
There are creeps everywhere with cameras using them for all the wrong reasion, do we start to ban all forms of photography?
I have enjoyed this hobby for many years, this over reach by the FAA must be challenged in the courts if this hobby is to continue.
There are creeps everywhere with cameras using them for all the wrong reasion, do we start to ban all forms of photography?
I have enjoyed this hobby for many years, this over reach by the FAA must be challenged in the courts if this hobby is to continue.
We've been flying model airplanes for decades.
Now, was the FAA fine an over reach? Maybe.
However, be mindful of this folks, if government uses this as legal precedent to use drones to spy on the people, we are doomed.
I think this needs to be challenged in federal court with the intent on getting it to SCOTUS.
In my opinion, the definition of a model aircraft use is
A small radio controlled aircraft that resembles or is in the form of a "scale model" of an actual in or previously produced aircraft.
An aircraft that while in flight can be seen by the operator at all times without the use of sight enhancing instruments or devices.
Is used for recreational purposes or in competition or exhibition only.
That's just a start.
Now, was the FAA fine an over reach? Maybe.
However, be mindful of this folks, if government uses this as legal precedent to use drones to spy on the people, we are doomed.
I think this needs to be challenged in federal court with the intent on getting it to SCOTUS.
In my opinion, the definition of a model aircraft use is
A small radio controlled aircraft that resembles or is in the form of a "scale model" of an actual in or previously produced aircraft.
An aircraft that while in flight can be seen by the operator at all times without the use of sight enhancing instruments or devices.
Is used for recreational purposes or in competition or exhibition only.
That's just a start.
Too restrictive.
Lots of legit RC hobbyists have planes that are more creative and don't necessarily look like a current or previously manufactured plane. Sole prefer to make futuristic aircraft.
I see no reason for owners to have their use of their own RC aircraft on their own land restricted, for any reason. They could be inspecting structures, inspecting crops, photographing their property, etc. I see no reason to restrict owners to have employees or agents do any of the above on their behalf.
Let's make that the start. Provides much more liberty without any compromise on safety.
Lots of legit RC hobbyists have planes that are more creative and don't necessarily look like a current or previously manufactured plane. Sole prefer to make futuristic aircraft.
I see no reason for owners to have their use of their own RC aircraft on their own land restricted, for any reason. They could be inspecting structures, inspecting crops, photographing their property, etc. I see no reason to restrict owners to have employees or agents do any of the above on their behalf.
Let's make that the start. Provides much more liberty without any compromise on safety.
This is no simple regulation to write. There are many many groups to satisfy from hunters to nudists to pilots and aircraft owners. I don't need some idiots model or drone crashing through my windscreen or fouling my engine intake or spying on me while I line up a shot on Bambi, or snapping a picture of me on the down stroke. You'll cry big tears when I use more than a stone to chase your "model"away. While you may be a responsible model operator there are some who have far more nefarious plans. I think if your model is out of your line of sight it's fair game for my bird shooting training and practice.
Getting off topic, but no regulation is easy to write. Take for example Cammandment # 6: Thou shalt not kill. Pretty simple eh? But exempt from that is lifetaking associated with taking over Canaan, the promised land which just happened not to be empty. Also death by stoning for violating one or more of the other 600 odd regulations including adultery, and adding cheese to your hamburger.
And that is before the well heeled interest groups start to weigh in.
The FAA position seems to be 'just because you are permitted to do it, does not mean we will allow it."
And that is before the well heeled interest groups start to weigh in.
The FAA position seems to be 'just because you are permitted to do it, does not mean we will allow it."
Valid points as well.
It's been so long since I brought the commandments down the mountain, I've forgotten the exact wording and lest we forget the confusion in translations to so many languages from one so complex as the original.
It's been so long since I brought the commandments down the mountain, I've forgotten the exact wording and lest we forget the confusion in translations to so many languages from one so complex as the original.
Well, on the eighth day, you could have created vowels. That might have helped.
I didn't create anything. You brought up the obscure reference to Bible history and cheese burgers.
You're right, my bad. I misread it- yours referenced the messenger, not the author.
No regulation is easy to write. The law of unintended consequences always finds a way to bite.
No regulation is easy to write. The law of unintended consequences always finds a way to bite.
Now your talkin'.