Wrote some information but I think I understand what you are saying. That is, the FAA has not made regulation that applies to UAVs that does not apply to other aircraft. Got it.
Flew at a Public Park, got stopped
- Thread starter AerialPhantom
- Start date
Wrote some information but I think I understand what you are saying. That is, the FAA has not made regulation that applies to UAVs that does not apply to other aircraft. Got it.
Read my posts on page 1 of this thread. You will find a link in post #5 and text in quotes in post #9.
I had some jumped up little bell-end try to stop me flying on a common, quoting all sorts of bye-laws, etc. I told him he was wrong, he responded that he was a councillor (like, WOW, how important 
) and would call the police. I told him to call them, I would stay around and discuss it with them when they arrived.
They never did......
Sadly, there are people out there who just aren't happy unless you're not happy.
) and would call the police. I told him to call them, I would stay around and discuss it with them when they arrived.They never did......
Sadly, there are people out there who just aren't happy unless you're not happy.
Just found out that in my area 99% of the parks and open space are covered by byelaws outlawing remote control aircraft. No idea where you are in the world, but I bet there are a lot more byelaws lurking in the shadows.I had some jumped up little bell-end try to stop me flying on a common, quoting all sorts of bye-laws, etc. I told him he was wrong, he responded that he was a councillor (like, WOW, how important
They never did......
Sadly, there are people out there who just aren't happy unless you're not happy.
N017RW
Premium Pilot
I think it might be interesting when encountering such laws, ordinances, etc., to see how long they have been in effect.
My guess is long before 'drones', UAVs/UASs, etc.
My point is that these laws were not implemented in the wake of the multi-rotor industry explosion and media hype as many feel but has been a public safety issue for years if not decades.
My guess is long before 'drones', UAVs/UASs, etc.
My point is that these laws were not implemented in the wake of the multi-rotor industry explosion and media hype as many feel but has been a public safety issue for years if not decades.
UK - a 'common' is a piece of land for public use. I'm a member of the public, so unless a policeman (a real one dressed in a uniform, not some wannabe) tells me to stop because of a law I'll continue to fly.
In all cases where someone has told me about a 'no fly' bye-law it has failed to exist when investigated.
YMMV, etc.
A
In all cases where someone has told me about a 'no fly' bye-law it has failed to exist when investigated.
YMMV, etc.
A
Sure. In my case however it is there on the council website. Not hard to find and is derived from the Open Spaces Act. However there may be a loophole
This is partially correct.
The FAA is implementing the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, Senate Bill, Section 607(g), Conference Committee Report:
"...language is added that will ensure that nothing in this provision will interfere with the Administrator's authority to pursue enforcement action against persons operating model aircraft who endanger the safety of the national airspace system."
That does not mean that "all aircraft rules apply to consumer UAVs". This simply gives the FAA the statutory authority to apply 91.13 "Reckless and Careless" to anything that leaves the ground. That is all the FAA needs; 91.13 is their trump card. No matter what other charges the FAA throws at a pilot, 91.13 is always included. the NTSB rarely rules for the pilot in a 91.13 charge.
Did the FAA tell you this Steve, or are you interpreting for us, while making it sound like fact?
Other than 91.13 I can't think of a single rule that could be applied to model aircraft that isn't already covered in Section 336 of the FAA Modernization Act. If you can, then tell me which rule and how it can apply to hobby flight.
I think Steve's interpretation is correct to a point...
The existing "laws" and regulations are in a sort of legal grey area and have yet to be fully tested in the courts, IMO.
Also in my opinion, ignoring these pseudo laws isn't very wise unless you are prepared to face the possible consequences. And if you really want to fight the FAA, have deep pockets.
I'm not sure if Steve is advocating that hobbyists flaunt the laws/regulations/suggestions and try to prove they are not enforceable if confronted or arrested?
Unfortunately I don't see that tactic doing much to advance our rights, it just makes the public see another "idiot with a drone."
Perhaps we drone operators should organize a national fly day - a national coming out day where we all take to the skies en masse and show the public how many of us there are, and how safe drones can be.
Hmmm...National Drone Appreciation Day...
The existing "laws" and regulations are in a sort of legal grey area and have yet to be fully tested in the courts, IMO.
Also in my opinion, ignoring these pseudo laws isn't very wise unless you are prepared to face the possible consequences. And if you really want to fight the FAA, have deep pockets.
I'm not sure if Steve is advocating that hobbyists flaunt the laws/regulations/suggestions and try to prove they are not enforceable if confronted or arrested?
Unfortunately I don't see that tactic doing much to advance our rights, it just makes the public see another "idiot with a drone."
Perhaps we drone operators should organize a national fly day - a national coming out day where we all take to the skies en masse and show the public how many of us there are, and how safe drones can be.
Hmmm...National Drone Appreciation Day...
I am neither proposing the flaunting of laws nor the following of non-existent rules.
The rules exist.
I guess the question is "do the laws exist," or "how enforceable are the rules?"
I understand what you are saying, and I only caution that challenging these rules by an individual could potentially be expensive and time consuming.
I wonder how much Pirker and Team BlackSheep spent to defend themselves for what ended up slap on the wrist?
I guess the question is "do the laws exist," or "how enforceable are the rules?"
I understand what you are saying, and I only caution that challenging these rules by an individual could potentially be expensive and time consuming.
I wonder how much Pirker and Team BlackSheep spent to defend themselves for what ended up slap on the wrist?
Print it out and on the other side of the paper print out the regulation that says it's a federal offence to mess with a pilot. They could go to prison for 20 years.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/32
Hey AerialPhantom, WELCOME TO THE PARTY
Ha!
I love you guys.
I'll print that out and see if I need it.
Q~
Similar threads
- Deleted member 130213
- General Discussion
