Clue Giver said:peter nap said:
This type of behavior is typical for the many nerdlets that lack critical thinking skills. It is all too common on the RC discussion boards.
:lol: :lol: :lol:
That says it all... :lol: :lol: :lol:
Nice day for a high altitude flight 700 feet up
- Thread starter BenDronePilot
- Start date
:lol: :lol: :lol:
That says it all... :lol: :lol: :lol:
It's simple, Can't anyone understand that the more regulation needed to ensure everyones safety will equates to stricter laws? So please understand if you fly your quad dangerously, when laws do come in regulating RC multirotors they'll be stricter than otherwise.
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2013
- Messages
- 97
- Reaction score
- 0
Peter,
That's simply wrong.
when Congress passes any legislation that is the law. Once a Law is in place it's up to the Agency responsible for enforcement of laws Congress passes to write Regulations in order to inform the public, describe the way the law is to be enforced and all that is put into the Code of Federal Regulations and in the case of the FAA into the FAR's. That's just the way its been done for ions. Laws may carry criminal penalties and regulations civil. The names may be different but you better believe Regulations are enforceable through civil penalties and there are way to cross the threshold into a criminal violation.
The The Federal Aviation Administration Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 IS Public Law No. 112-95, Section 312.
I assume you are part of the public. In this law Congress defined "aircraft" to INCLUDE unmanned aircraft systems. That's what they're calling them not drones, UAV's, RC models, Radio controlled plane etc. If it flies and you're controlling it it's a UAV.
The FAA's position is, even if you are an unlicensed hobbyist you are not relieved of the responsibility to follow guidelines when operating your “model aircraft” inside the National Airspace System (NAS). Part of the act includes language that operators must maintain "line of sight" and be in a position to "see and avoid" all other air traffic. Additionally, you may not receive compensation for any flight otherwise you will not be considered a modeler or hobbyst but rather a commercial operation and there is currently no license for this category.
Since we now know that our Phantoms are defined by the government as "aircraft" and since Part 91 of the FAR's define how and when aircraft may operate in Class B airspace, if you launch your bird inside one of these control zones you are in violation of the FARs pilot license or not. Ultralights require no license to operate. Would you say if a guy flew his ultralight through a control zone he's not subject to fines and penalties?
I'm not here to get into a pissing contest Peter; or give an ATP ground school but some here are really under the wrong impression about how they can operate their Quads. I started flying in 1968 and retired recently off the 747-400 at a major Airline. I have over 30,000 hours in jets and flew AH-1G Cobra helicopters in VietNam and other unsavory places. I've served as a Standardization Instructor Pilot and Line Check Airman so, this is not my first rodeo. Just trying to save some folks some grief because some of you are going to get yourselves in a pickle eventually.
That's simply wrong.
when Congress passes any legislation that is the law. Once a Law is in place it's up to the Agency responsible for enforcement of laws Congress passes to write Regulations in order to inform the public, describe the way the law is to be enforced and all that is put into the Code of Federal Regulations and in the case of the FAA into the FAR's. That's just the way its been done for ions. Laws may carry criminal penalties and regulations civil. The names may be different but you better believe Regulations are enforceable through civil penalties and there are way to cross the threshold into a criminal violation.
The The Federal Aviation Administration Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 IS Public Law No. 112-95, Section 312.
I assume you are part of the public. In this law Congress defined "aircraft" to INCLUDE unmanned aircraft systems. That's what they're calling them not drones, UAV's, RC models, Radio controlled plane etc. If it flies and you're controlling it it's a UAV.
The FAA's position is, even if you are an unlicensed hobbyist you are not relieved of the responsibility to follow guidelines when operating your “model aircraft” inside the National Airspace System (NAS). Part of the act includes language that operators must maintain "line of sight" and be in a position to "see and avoid" all other air traffic. Additionally, you may not receive compensation for any flight otherwise you will not be considered a modeler or hobbyst but rather a commercial operation and there is currently no license for this category.
Since we now know that our Phantoms are defined by the government as "aircraft" and since Part 91 of the FAR's define how and when aircraft may operate in Class B airspace, if you launch your bird inside one of these control zones you are in violation of the FARs pilot license or not. Ultralights require no license to operate. Would you say if a guy flew his ultralight through a control zone he's not subject to fines and penalties?
I'm not here to get into a pissing contest Peter; or give an ATP ground school but some here are really under the wrong impression about how they can operate their Quads. I started flying in 1968 and retired recently off the 747-400 at a major Airline. I have over 30,000 hours in jets and flew AH-1G Cobra helicopters in VietNam and other unsavory places. I've served as a Standardization Instructor Pilot and Line Check Airman so, this is not my first rodeo. Just trying to save some folks some grief because some of you are going to get yourselves in a pickle eventually.
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2013
- Messages
- 97
- Reaction score
- 0
FASTFJR said:
The yellow indicates populated areas and should roughly match what it looks like from the air when lit up at night.
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2013
- Messages
- 97
- Reaction score
- 0
peter nap said:
I disagree. I'm trying to provide a FACT here and people get into this "Oh it's just a regulation and doesn't apply if you don't have a license." or "There is no Regulation"
That all changed in 2012 and until the FAA releases the "Notice of proposed rulemaking" for public comment these UAS's are in a sort of limbo. The FAA is working on it and what we as hobbyist don't want to happen is to see any regulation outside the Advisory Circular. But with the proliferation of these copters there's been an increase in concern of the Public and the aviation community in general about safety risk to manned aircraft due to goofy operation on the part of some. I've hit seagull's that caused 100k in damage. Swallow a phantom in an intake and the damage might be 5 times that and possibly fatal to small aircraft and helicopters. Call it hysterics if you wish but I hate to see anyone turn fun into tragedy and that's what the FAA will be taking into account as this process moves forward.
The airplane you see in the beginning of the video is on the "Expressway Visual Approach to Rwy 31 at LGA." FWIW
Hey Ben,
on youtube you say "raw unedited video".. I'm new at this.
But the horizon is so right? with what did you do this?
Thx
on youtube you say "raw unedited video".. I'm new at this.
But the horizon is so right? with what did you do this?
Thx
its all well and good looking at your area, working out how far you are from the nearest airport / airbase/ police helicopter / news crew etc, the one aircraft that will 'get you' is the one that isnt following the rules, is flying blind due to an emergency or is lost and flying off the beaten track.
merry christmas by the way
merry christmas by the way
Sidewinder, that's the worst case of speculation and generalization I've heard for a long time....BUT THAT"S FINE!
I honestly don't care. I tell people repeatedly not to get their legal opinions off of internet forums. Research is king and in this case....it's being done for them by the courts.
There are going to be people who believe the world is flat, the economy is good and the law is simple. That's everyone's god given right.
The upcoming cases will set the parameter of any laws passed, not people on the internet and the current one is well documented. Hopefully the thinking owners of these things will watch it's progress carefully so they are aware of the real limitations we face instead of wild ravings.
NOW JUST SO WE UNDERSTAND EACH OTHER, THIS ARGUMENT IS OVER. I've given my opinion,The law is out there for those that want to research it and the current case will clear up the fuzzy areas....but I have better thing to do than go point to point with you about the bogyman.
Maybe this thread can get stretched to 20 pages if you really try hard but instead I'd suggest you file an Amicus brief in the case and explain to the judge. I suspect he'll pay as much attention as I am.
I honestly don't care. I tell people repeatedly not to get their legal opinions off of internet forums. Research is king and in this case....it's being done for them by the courts.
There are going to be people who believe the world is flat, the economy is good and the law is simple. That's everyone's god given right.
The upcoming cases will set the parameter of any laws passed, not people on the internet and the current one is well documented. Hopefully the thinking owners of these things will watch it's progress carefully so they are aware of the real limitations we face instead of wild ravings.
NOW JUST SO WE UNDERSTAND EACH OTHER, THIS ARGUMENT IS OVER. I've given my opinion,The law is out there for those that want to research it and the current case will clear up the fuzzy areas....but I have better thing to do than go point to point with you about the bogyman.
Maybe this thread can get stretched to 20 pages if you really try hard but instead I'd suggest you file an Amicus brief in the case and explain to the judge. I suspect he'll pay as much attention as I am.
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2013
- Messages
- 97
- Reaction score
- 0
Yeah Peter, this horse has been flogged enough for now. We will just have to agree to disagree and wait until we see what happens.
commercial pilot here, too lazy to pull out my charts and look at JFK or LGA.
but class B controlled airspace resembles an upside down wedding cake. Immediately around the airport it goes from the surface up to usually 10,000 feet. Then at about 5 miles out it usually goes from 1,000 feet to 10,000 feet. And the floor goes progressively higher as you go farther out usually up to 30 miles. These dimensions are tailored for specific airspace, but that is a rough description. So Yes if you are 7 miles out from JFK or LGA and keep it below 700, you might be in uncontrolled airspace(again I am too lazy to look at specifics for NYC) , but that doesn't mean it is clear of planes. When everything runs smoothly that airspace should never be used, but throw a go around or windshear, or a weather cell into NYC airspace and all hell breaks loose and ATC basically starts routing aircraft any which way possible to keep things running and they will use every bit of airspace that they want in order to keep things flowing.
I agree, our lawyer driven society is f'ing stupid. It pisses me off that the government needs to hold everyones hand because no one has common sense anymore. I see you have common sense, if a plane is in the area then don't fly it right? simple enough. But all it takes is that 1% chance that something goes wrong and I can guarantee that if a phantom smacks into an airliner, the FAA will be given the full authority to BAN these overnight.
So keep using common sense and bring it just a little bit lower. The view from 700 is not that much different then 400.
but class B controlled airspace resembles an upside down wedding cake. Immediately around the airport it goes from the surface up to usually 10,000 feet. Then at about 5 miles out it usually goes from 1,000 feet to 10,000 feet. And the floor goes progressively higher as you go farther out usually up to 30 miles. These dimensions are tailored for specific airspace, but that is a rough description. So Yes if you are 7 miles out from JFK or LGA and keep it below 700, you might be in uncontrolled airspace(again I am too lazy to look at specifics for NYC) , but that doesn't mean it is clear of planes. When everything runs smoothly that airspace should never be used, but throw a go around or windshear, or a weather cell into NYC airspace and all hell breaks loose and ATC basically starts routing aircraft any which way possible to keep things running and they will use every bit of airspace that they want in order to keep things flowing.
I agree, our lawyer driven society is f'ing stupid. It pisses me off that the government needs to hold everyones hand because no one has common sense anymore. I see you have common sense, if a plane is in the area then don't fly it right? simple enough. But all it takes is that 1% chance that something goes wrong and I can guarantee that if a phantom smacks into an airliner, the FAA will be given the full authority to BAN these overnight.
So keep using common sense and bring it just a little bit lower. The view from 700 is not that much different then 400.
Hello all, new member here, I know this is an old thread, but it intrigued me.
The original poster has given quite a few intelligent and thoughtful answers on other threads so I respect his opinion.
However, using Google Earth I was able to pinpoint EXACTLY where this PV2 launched from. You are less than 5 miles from JFK and less than 4 miles from LaGuardia, statute miles, not nautical. You are in Class B airspace controlled from the surface to 7k feet. Having read the previous legal debate I think it is more a moral issue. However unlikely, you could cause damage to a small plane or copter, or perhaps get sucked into a jet engine intake. There have been numerous instances of birds damaging planes.
I think the footage is fantastic, (especially the plane on approach to LaGuardia and Manhattan in the distance) but unfortunately you are in some of the busiest airspace in the US.
http://skyvector.com/?ll=40.71196621078489,-73.84086442877947&chart=119&zoom=1
Btw, if this link to the picture of your airspace works, you will notice you may or not be in the red zone surrounding LaGuardia.It indicates a TFR (temporary flight restriction) for a VIP. Perhaps Obama, perhaps someone else. That starts in 4 hours, today Feb 25,2014. I really would not recommend testing the capabilities of the secret service.
Not the altitude police. Just Saying,
Cheers,
Will
The original poster has given quite a few intelligent and thoughtful answers on other threads so I respect his opinion.
However, using Google Earth I was able to pinpoint EXACTLY where this PV2 launched from. You are less than 5 miles from JFK and less than 4 miles from LaGuardia, statute miles, not nautical. You are in Class B airspace controlled from the surface to 7k feet. Having read the previous legal debate I think it is more a moral issue. However unlikely, you could cause damage to a small plane or copter, or perhaps get sucked into a jet engine intake. There have been numerous instances of birds damaging planes.
I think the footage is fantastic, (especially the plane on approach to LaGuardia and Manhattan in the distance) but unfortunately you are in some of the busiest airspace in the US.
http://skyvector.com/?ll=40.71196621078489,-73.84086442877947&chart=119&zoom=1
Btw, if this link to the picture of your airspace works, you will notice you may or not be in the red zone surrounding LaGuardia.It indicates a TFR (temporary flight restriction) for a VIP. Perhaps Obama, perhaps someone else. That starts in 4 hours, today Feb 25,2014. I really would not recommend testing the capabilities of the secret service.
Not the altitude police. Just Saying,
Cheers,
Will
Similar threads
