I know... should be a run on tin-foil right around now....
FAA Registration Rules Announced NOW
- Thread starter Jeff48920
- Start date
- Status
I know... should be a run on tin-foil right around now....
Is that the only place people fly those? That's my point. I see them in parks, empty fields near my house. So, they're being flown in an unapproved manner and should be regulated/registered equally.
Yes they can fly much faster and higher as well as further. But we don't because we only fly within sight, it is the rule and so is 400' max altitude. And many AMA fields have no fly zones marked out on a map at the field. And no one flies until they have been approved by an Club safety officer. This is how the 3 AMA clubs I belong to work. I have cameras I sometimes mount in these, but I never fly them FPV, I could but only with a safety pilot on a buddy box within the rules at an AMA club.
I have about 40 model aircraft in flying condition (so yes there are millions of model aircraft flying). 2 of them are jets (EDF's) that are capable of 100mph+ speeds and can climb straight up at 50mph. They are a challenge to fly, but I do so safely and keep to the rules.
Some of my nitro models can fly for 30+ minutes on a tank at 40mph or more.
All this speed performance way beyond what MRs can do and we almost never make the news, because we fly responsibly.
I enjoy MRs as well as other helis a lot and I have 2 MRs with N-umbers for commercial use, but I stick to the rules with those as well. And all my models have my AMA numbers and phone number in them.
From what I see they are, did you not read the FAA release that is linked in the first post? I haven't had a chance to read it all but here is a quote...
"In the sUAS Operation and Certification NPRM, the FAA proposed to define “unmanned aircraft” as “an aircraft operated without the possibility of direct human intervention from within or on the aircraft.”21 This proposed definition would codify the statutory definition of “unmanned aircraft” specified in Public Law 112-95.22"
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2015
- Messages
- 757
- Reaction score
- 152
Why would I want to take video of an RC field anyway. Let alone be turned away because I wasn't a member of the FAA.
Captain America (having saved the world) thinks you owe him.
Lots of us fought in foreign wars. But we don't use it as a crutch every time we want to get defensive on the Internet.
Thanks for agreeing with me. And as you notice my post said these are exactly the kinds of videos that will easily attract FAA scrutiny and make the poster a target.
It is, however, VERY mportant to keep reiterating that the FAA has the discretion to decide that any action may violate the public air safety catch all paragraphs and even if there is no codified law making a specific action illegal, it may still be an action the FAA considers unsafe and therefore actionable under the law.
Now add to that, the fact that it is unlawful to fly an unregistered UAS, the FAA can even win cases that were close calls before. For example, in the first case (which turned out to be a screen grab of a flight simulator) even if the guy was operating the UAS only after notifying the tower, and even if the FAA couldn't prove he was endangering anyone or anything, they still win if he wasn't registered. Those YouTube videos of questionable behavior will still be the first targets for FAA enforcement.
Let's try to keep in mind that we aren't playing semantic antics here, we are trying to establish a level of conduct that will keep the hobby safe from more intrusive legislation. So if someone says that something is considered illegal, against regulations or against guidelines and it clearly fits one of those groupings AND we know that the FAA is going to want to enforce its own language, let's not get our own knickers in a twist over the minutiae. It's just not that helpful.
I've had two bird strikes in my Cardinal, but my bird in the windshield was probably a sparrow, missed the props before hitting the windshield. Little blood, no cracks. The other was on the wing root.
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2014
- Messages
- 360
- Reaction score
- 51
No, I apologize .... I got you confused with another poster that was calling me a coward, because I'm trying to look to the positive aspect of all this.
I should have paid closer attention to whom I was quoting.
I've edited my response.
The airport video is a fake.
At :02 when the drone takes off, the grass beneath it doesn't move.
At :04 when the drone hovers briefly a couple of feet above the ground you should see the grass reacting to the downdraft.
In fact, nothing in the image moves BUT the drone. The "Airport" is a still photo. Note particularly the twin-engine aircraft on the taxiway.
At :21 the camera zooms in and everything appears larger except for the drone.
And the shadows are just wrong. At :16 notice that the shadow under the Beechcraft in the background is almost straight down below the aircraft, while the drone's shadow is offset.
And the drone is locked dead center of the frame. There is no way a cameraman can track a moving object with that kind of precision.
Here's the SAME AIRPORT with a model helicopter. Also a fake.
The video is a screen capture from a Phoenix Flight Simulator. not an example of someone flying a drone at an airport.
Second video, flying over 400 ft is not a violation of FAA rules. Stupid, but not illegal.
I'll give you the third one as probably a TFR violation: NOTAM 9/5151.
Do you know if this new rule is only for hobbyists? If you want to fly commercially do I still need to file for an FAA333??
OK guys, dial it back a bit. The staff here has enough to deal with now that this is the topic of the day.
I imagine I speak for all staff in saying we will not be as lenient as usual due to the emotional responses about this topic and the sheer volume of post.
Not if it is registered in another country, no. If not than yes.
Please read the FAA notice and you won't have to ask silly questions like this one just to make waves.
That's why I put a thicker windshield on my Cessna. General Aviation aircraft do not have any penetration testing requirements like commercial aircraft. This is why the manufacturers install 3/16" thick plexiglass instead of the more expensive Lexan as on airliners.
Yes, hobbies. Commercial info comes out in March as I recall reading. Please read the FAA notice in the first post for all the information.
Yes really large heavy (over 55lbs) have had to have a special registration for a long time in the USA, this has been on the books as long as I remember.
Maybe someone here can give the date of that rule...
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2015
- Messages
- 757
- Reaction score
- 152
Does the size of your font correlate directly with how loud you are speaking?
As I read it, it's only UAS, which I don't believe that fits the definition.
If you read it you should know the answer then. You'll have plenty of time to look it over now that you earned yourself a vacation.
To everyone else - We are serious about giving out bans. Do not violate the rules or expect it.
It is to get your attention... did it work? If not let me know how long of a break you desire.
- Status
Similar threads
