Qwadjok said:
If it is untrue then post a link here for everyone to read that supports your claim. Counter it with proof the FAA can interfere with an RC hobbiest or stop private citizens from starting a business and charge for their services.
You can't. Dont be vague. To the ground does not mean to the ground everywhere. i also noticed you did not mention what the FAA's minimum altitude is. Im sure this only applies to areas immediately surrounding an ATC controlled airport and not to the farmer who flies his RC quad on his farm.
The FAA is over reaching its authority which is why their first attempt to fine a man $10k was thrown out of court. Even though they pkan to appeal it will be dismissed on the grounds they lack the authority. I suggest you Google the bogus FAA fine and familiarize yourself with the facts of the case.
QJ
Apparently we're talking past each other; I was challenging the assertion that the FAA only has "jurisdiction 400 feet or higher" figuring that you meant that was the case
everywhere, and you apparently thought that I meant that the FAA has jurisdiction to the ground
everywhere. Neither appears to be the case. The general powers of the FAA can be found in the Federal Aviation Act itself; the Cliff's Notes version can be found at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_rights though the whole act is available online for the highly motivated. The control of airspace down to the surface (in certain areas) can be seen by looking at any aeronautical chart, which displays areas where controlled airspace goes to the ground (the area around airports in class B, C, and D airspace, as well as areas of class E airspace near some airports with instrument approaches). With enough digging I'm sure one can find evidence that aeronautical charts reflect regulatory authority. And the supposed "known fact" of the 400 feet figure appears nowhere (except in the infamous non-regulatory 1981 AC)--the FAA's authority clearly applies down to the ground in
some areas, and is quite high in other areas--there's a spot near here where the ceiling of class G airspace is 11,500 MSL (meaning uncontrolled below that altitude).
None of this has anything to do with commercial or non-commercial use, or UAVs, or anything else--the FAA has sole and broad authority over the airspace it controls, though not without proper procedure.
Having said that, I actually agree with you on pretty much all that you say--the farmer flying his UAV around his fields should be able to do so, etc., and it doesn't appear to be the case that the FAA has the regulatory authority to back its stated policies at the moment. The case of the $10K fine is outrageous and was struck down appropriately, IMHO. Basically they're trying to keep a lid on things until they manage to get some regs written and run through the NPRM process, in a rather heavy-handed way.
