Ok, read it. Guess I missed the part about the Regulations.
FYI Both WY and MS are in the US.
And you are where PowerTroll?
FYI Both WY and MS are in the US.
And you are where PowerTroll?
Got a call from the FAA today
- Thread starter Stevenas
- Start date
dirkclod
Premium Pilot
Here's you some to read / http://www.phantompilots.com/pages/communityguidelines/
It's kind of like getting a speeding a ticket and telling the trooper, "what about the other speeders?"
I see it as (trying to) change the subject, counterproductive, and mean-spirited.
If my flight was not wrong, then that needs to be my stance. Not "hey look at the other guy."
If you posted a link to the video here and had someone telling you you were putting others at risk, that would be my first line of thinking. That someone from one of these communities reported the video.
I don't work for the FAA, but I was under the impression there were only two ways for them to notify you of a potential infraction. Either in person or in writing. Not sure if the email constitutes "in writing" or not.
Could just be the FAA guy was giving you a warning with no intent to follow up on it, so he called. He could technically still be wrong, but I wouldn't make a fuss over it. I'd just leave it alone. It's likely the last time you'll hear anything unless you continue to fly over crowds.
I don't work for the FAA, but I was under the impression there were only two ways for them to notify you of a potential infraction. Either in person or in writing. Not sure if the email constitutes "in writing" or not.
Could just be the FAA guy was giving you a warning with no intent to follow up on it, so he called. He could technically still be wrong, but I wouldn't make a fuss over it. I'd just leave it alone. It's likely the last time you'll hear anything unless you continue to fly over crowds.
After reading all this, I'll repeat what someone else said. Was the phone call really from the FAA? It's probably too late to determine in this case. But if it happens again, the caller should be asked for his name, phone number, and proof -- and asked to state what the violations were, very-specifically what laws, rules, regulations, or ordinances were violated -- and why they apply in this case. Posting photos and videos on the Web is clearly not commercial use, so what was his angle? If it turns out he really was from the FAA, it would be worth reporting the incident to his superiors, and making lots of pubic noise about it!
ianwood
Taco Wrangler
@powerlord, settle down.
@SteveMann, it amazes me how much you misinform over the FAA process for investigating drone complaints. The header points to this IP as the origin: http://whois.domaintools.com/162.58.35.115.
@Stevenas, it is more likely than not that someone reported your video to the FAA. It's possible that a staffer stumbled across it, but they don't make a habit of scouring the Internet for transgressions. They don't have the bandwidth.
@SteveMann, it amazes me how much you misinform over the FAA process for investigating drone complaints. The header points to this IP as the origin: http://whois.domaintools.com/162.58.35.115.
@Stevenas, it is more likely than not that someone reported your video to the FAA. It's possible that a staffer stumbled across it, but they don't make a habit of scouring the Internet for transgressions. They don't have the bandwidth.
It sounds like a real pain to even enjoy flying a hobby drone in the states. Randoms phoning you up at work???
Glad the UK hasn't become that strict yet.
Glad the UK hasn't become that strict yet.
I don't want our hobby to become a Congressional topic so maybe we should discourage fellow pilots who do things that might land us there? It's a great hobby and I love flying and taking video. Hopefully a few morons won't ruin it for us all. Videos of "flights above the clouds" are not helping our cause. I tend to strongly believe that when the first collision between an aircraft and a drone occurs, this hobby will get a swift regulatory facelift and it won't be pretty.
Overzealous lawmakers could impose stupid regs that don't make sense like a 200 ft limit or 1000ft from other people or no flying in residential areas, or the drone must remain within 300 ft of the operator etc.
Commercial license requirements ($$$) could be imposed for flying beyond these limits.
The bad and the ugly.....what would regulations look like?....
One thing I think they might do very easily is require manufacturers to incorporate transponders into the drones. Similar to used in gas station "speedpass" pendents or toll plaza transponders similar to used on Florida's toll roads. If these were integrated onto the mainboards, they could transmit a signal identifying the drone in question. Of course, that would require that each and every one of us register our drones upon purchase into a national database (just lovely!). In the era of massive government, you best believe there are bureaucrats just drooling over the thought of doing that. This is what I think would be considered after even one drone collides with an aircraft. (Or a few high profile injury cases). Just because there are no regulations now doesn't mean it will remain this way. We are the "Regulation Nation" after all.
Overzealous lawmakers could impose stupid regs that don't make sense like a 200 ft limit or 1000ft from other people or no flying in residential areas, or the drone must remain within 300 ft of the operator etc.
Commercial license requirements ($$$) could be imposed for flying beyond these limits.
The bad and the ugly.....what would regulations look like?....
One thing I think they might do very easily is require manufacturers to incorporate transponders into the drones. Similar to used in gas station "speedpass" pendents or toll plaza transponders similar to used on Florida's toll roads. If these were integrated onto the mainboards, they could transmit a signal identifying the drone in question. Of course, that would require that each and every one of us register our drones upon purchase into a national database (just lovely!). In the era of massive government, you best believe there are bureaucrats just drooling over the thought of doing that. This is what I think would be considered after even one drone collides with an aircraft. (Or a few high profile injury cases). Just because there are no regulations now doesn't mean it will remain this way. We are the "Regulation Nation" after all.
Last edited:
If you look at the video, there were no crowds. The specific incident was the person on the sidewalk who had to dodge the drone. Ironic only because the person on the sidewalk was an associate of Pirker who was trying to hand catch the landing aircraft. Other people looked as the drone flew by, but no one was "ducking for cover".
The FAA did charge him for violating Part 41 rules requiring a commercial pilot certificate for commercial flight, but that was dismissed by the ALJ in the first hearing. The FAA has not tried to charge a single drone operator since then for violating Part 41 rules. As far as 91.13 is concerned, the FAA adds it to virtually every Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty or Notice of Proposed Certificate Action that they send to pilots. There have been pilots who have lost their flying privileges for 30, 60-days or more for ridiculously minor violations such as an out of date Weight and Balance sheet on board the aircraft, or the wrong address on the Aircraft Registration certificate.
And even though Snerd hates the current administration (and says so at every opportunity), the FAA inspectors have been this **** for at least the past 30 years under every administration. They always add 91.13 to practically guarantee an inflated "conviction" rate. Most of the time the original rule violation is plea bargained down to only the 91.13 charge. Think of it as the equivalent of a flying speed trap - the more tickets the cops write, the better their performance review.
I'm not sure you understand how the FAA works. They are not exactly like the police in lots of ways. The police enforce laws and officers often have lots of leeway in how they choose to interpret individual laws. The FAA doesn't work that way.
Lots of FAA regulations are written in such a way as to allow multiple interpretations of just what qualifies as a violation and what does not. Pilots who are nervous about running up on wrong side of a reg by doing this or that, or pilots who have been handed a violation by an FAA type can write to their regional counsel office and ask for an official interpretation of the regulation in question. The regional counsel office will then issue an official letter of interpretation and how the reg applies to the circumstances in question. Once that letter is issued, ALL FAA agents are bound to it.
In other words, it becomes like get out of jail free card. Lets say you have a bumbling FAA agent try to ding you for logging tailwheel time when you lack the endorsement to do so. If there is a letter of interpretation on file which says that pilots may log PIC for all time they are sole manipulator of the controls of any category and class of aircraft for which they are rated, even if they are not actually acting as PIC, then that FAA agent can go pound sand.
There is currently no official letter of interpretation which defines posting videos on youtube as a commercial operation. The individual FAA agents are simply taking it upon themselves to use that interpretation to their advantage. If we force the FAA on this, they will have to issue an official letter of interpretation on it. If the regional counsel officially decides that posting videos on youtube qualifies as compensation, thus making the flight to obtain said video a commercial operation, then the FAA will be forced to go after hundreds of pilots for what is essentially nothing. That would mean thousands of man hours invested for essentially no benefit to public safety.
However if they rule that posting on youtube does not constitute a commercial operation, which is what they're much more likely to do if the issue is pushed, then agents will no longer be able to harass drone pilots over youtube postings.
If we do nothing, they get away with their unwarranted harassment. If we push back, they will either be forced to do something they most certainly don't want to do, i.e. issue an interpretation letter that puts hundreds of certified pilots in violation, or do something we all want and need them to do, i.e. issue an interpretation letter that prevents their agents from going after hobbyists who post on youtube.
The FAA are not the police. This is not about why not go after the other speeders. This is about you can't make this illegal for one group and not the other which is what they're currently able to do so long as we do nothing.
What specific items in the "book" are you referring to? According the OP he was not violating the rules for recreational flying and was not flying for commercial purposes.
Hey, Powertroll - I have read the book. At least the FAA book. The UK rules aren't on my radar. The FAA says quite clearly: "Individuals flying for hobby or recreation are strongly encouraged to follow safety guidelines,"
Guidelines being the operative word here. YOU read the book - there are no rules other than 91.13 Careless and Reckless (and you don't get to define careless and reckless) and FAA Order JO 7400.9 Airspace Classifications.
The OP did not violate a single FAA rule. (You may try to argue the circular logic the FAA used to charge Pirker with making a commercial flight without a commercial license, but the NTSB slapped their hands on that one and the FAA is unlikely to try that again, relying solely on 91.13 and civil penalties.)
John Duncan, director of the FAA’s Flight Standard Service in Washington DC, told inspectors in April (2015) that they have no authority to order or suggest that drone videos posted online be removed. A video “is ordinarily not sufficient evidence alone to determine” that a drone flight violated federal rules.
Johan, you're essay is about interpretation. My point has nothing to do with interpretation. It has to do with selective enforcement and my personal objection to using finger pointing as a way out of being the target of selective enforcement.
Sorry, but I still think it's mean-spirited and not my business to get involved with experimental pilots' videos. You may choose to highlight other people to the FAA. That's your choice. I will continue to disagree with you. That's my choice.
Sorry, but I still think it's mean-spirited and not my business to get involved with experimental pilots' videos. You may choose to highlight other people to the FAA. That's your choice. I will continue to disagree with you. That's my choice.
Extremely unlikely. In all respects, extremely unlikely. There's just too much monetary potential for the Congress to even try something this dumb. Congress cannot make regulations, only laws that federal agencies go through the rulemaking process to implement. Licensing hobby operators similar to licensing HAM radio operators is likely even without an accident, and that would be bad, how?
Even with more than a million hours of personal drone flights worldwide there has not been a single incident of a drone vs civil aircraft collision. Not one. Over the last 20 years, manned aircraft midair collisions occur on the average, once a month. One in five involve fatalities. (AOPA Air Safety Foundation) Most of these are transponder-equipped aircraft and often one of the aircraft are in contact with ATC (enroute, approach or tower). Both aircraft are following the rules, yet midair collisions continue to occur. More rules is not going to fix it. ADS-B will probably reduce midair collisions, but they will continue to occur.
So, once again, where is the blood and mayhem to justify your fear-mongering?
Steve,
Thanks for all of your valuable input. You seem to be an informed voice of reason and I really appreciate your opinion. Keep it up.
Stephen Houser
Precisely my point. Seems that they are choosing to pursue "drone" videos and pictures but not other "violations" If it's a rule that all aircraft operators have to adhere to then pursue ALL aircraft operators whether they are standing on tera firma or sitting in a pilots seat...
Similar threads
