FAA Regulations--Please Read
- Thread starter Govman
- Start date
ianwood
Taco Wrangler
I'm all for clear rules but I don't need a license to be able to follow rules.
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.
Just pass this type of stuff up and don't feed the trolls.
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.
And by your posts, I'm thinking the proud moment of your life was just a few months ago when you hit 16?
But your fellow moderator claims that Govman is the real McCoy.
Oh man...who do I trust???
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...
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.
I, for one, hope you are truly an FAA employee and welcome the information and insight you can share with us.
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: "
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.
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?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.”
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.
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
Taco Wrangler
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.
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.
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. 
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Similar threads
