what happened to bob eddelman on youtube?

SilentAV8R · Jul 14, 2014

kymedic121 said:
Yes sir, I joined before buying the PV2+. It is an awesome group but from what I see the AMA is pretty much siding with FAA and not willing to fight them, this as per what some of the other members are saying.

I'm not sure where you formed this opinion but I can tell you that you are entirely incorrect in your assessment. I happen to know several of the key AMA people involved in this and I can absolutely tell you they are not "siding" with the FAA. But neither are they trying to provoke them in order to make a smaller point.

Can you explain what would be an acceptable "fight" for the AMA to have mounted. So far they have issued a statement that in no uncertain terms lays out how they are categorically opposed to the FAA interpretation, they have tried to mobilize members to send in comments, and they have enlisted the help of the EAA to also issue a statement in support of model aviation. They also just went to DC and sat across the table from the FAA folks who are trying to pull this.

You want to talk about "rolling over" can you explain why with all the people who belong to the AMA, who belong to this site and who belong to various other hobby oriented sites only 3,000 some odd have been bothered enough to write a response to the FAA.

But I'll circle back here and say that the person who is the topic of this thread was one who helped to push the FAA over the edge. Not saying it was him alone, but the daily posting of stupidity that we all responded with "Cool" was actually feeding the FAA with all the evidence they needed to support them stepping into our world and messing it up big time.

kymedic121 · Jul 14, 2014

It has been stated here in this forum and with local hobbyist that say enough is not being done. I am not the one that started the thread, I merely stated that NO laws have been passed and that is a fact. I only posted this because people are now being scared away from purchasing or using goggles or flying FPV because the FAA issues a useless Initiative that is designed to scare people. I was merely trying to show that there is NO legislative body has created, reviewed or approved any laws regulating anything when it comes to the above mentioned items. I find it personally offensive and infringement of my rights that I cannot use my PV2+ to survey my corn or soybean crops, or take a photo of a piece of real estate that I may be trying to sell, or for a professional photographer not to be able to sell and beautiful photograph of landscape all because they deem it to be "Commercial Use". It all boils down to money, they want to find a way to mandate, regulate, license and create more revenue every time a new technology comes out. Not to mention that Homeland Security is basically trying to classify everyone who owns a UAV as a home grown terrorist. It also infuriates me that as a law enforcement officer that my agency can use a UAV for intelligence gathering, or the movie studios can use them to film the next block buster movie. I merely posted an article from UAVlawjournal that stated a fact, and that the "Re-Authorization of policies is nothing more than an Initiative" it is not law. For the record, I called my legislators and I spoke with the one for nearly an hour on the telephone regarding the matter and if need be I will go to Frankfort and talk to the rest. Am I saying that there should be no regulation? Absolutely not, there probably should be some regulation and law governing some of the use, especially for the reckless flying in crowded venues, extremely high altitudes but to tell someone they can't use FPV goggles, or for commercial use within certain parameters, no I think that is unfair and unjust. The only thing I was trying to convey is that there are no laws or punishments on the books that restrict the use of goggles or commercial use. Once again, I encourage everyone in the RC community around here to please contact their legislators and express your concerns and willingness to listen but convey to them that we want to be heard as well. It seem that most are willing to just accept what the FAA decides no matter how restrictive without challenging the validity or rationale of it. This was my only point.............

SilentAV8R · Jul 14, 2014

kymedic121 said:
It has been stated here in this forum and with local hobbyist that say enough is not being done. I am not the one that started the thread, I merely stated that NO laws have been passed and that is a fact.

Well no, that is not a fact. Public Law 112-95 was signed into law in February 2014. It is this law that the FAA is using to exercise its chartered authority to interpret in the way they see best fits the their mission, which is air safety. Now we may not agree with what they have done. but to keep saying there is no law is simply wrong.

I only posted this because people are now being scared away from purchasing or using goggles or flying FPV because the FAA issues a useless Initiative that is designed to scare people.

The FAA submitted into the Federal Register an interpretation of Public Law 112-95, Section 336. This is entirely within their authority to do, and in fact, most regulatory agencies do not even do that.

They are not making new law here, all they are doing is taking the law congress passed and the President signed and issued an interpretation telling us how they intend to enforce that law. Personally I think they have a twisted view of Section 336, but at this point it is more than likely going to take one, perhaps more, test cases that go to court so a judge can sort it out.

kymedic121 · Jul 14, 2014

The NTSB has ruled that the FAA has no jurisdictional authority and they FAA announced that they would be seeking legislation for the 2015 session (this was on NBC Nightly News 2 weeks ago). There are no sections in federal criminal law that state that it is "Illegal for one to do: whatever" nor is there a legal definition of penalties or punishments. That Initiative can be beat in a court of law. No statute exists that is criminally Illegal to use FPV goggles or anything else for that matter (With the exception of the 400' Altitude which is very reasonable) Bottom line, Yes, if they are going to try to criminally prosecute someone for using FPV goggles, or for charging a nominal fee for a real estate photo or for a farmer for using the aircraft to access their agriculture fields with no established law governing those actions then you bet, more will go to court and it will go before a judge and any good attorney worth his salt will get it dismissed.

GMANNZ · Jul 14, 2014

Should hold the court case under "JUDGE JUDY" .... would make it as fun as continually reading about whose right and whose wrong in these threads ... to funny. :lol:

kymedic121 · Jul 14, 2014

GMANNZ said:
Should hold the court case under "JUDGE JUDY" .... would make it as fun as continually reading about whose right and whose wrong in these threads ... to funny. :lol:

You are exactly right, because that is where court cases like these belong because they are mostly political bullying at its finest. Rest assured there will be more court cases for us all to watch as long as we have these folks out here with the "Hold My Beer and Watch this" mentality and they crash one of these into a crowd at a ballpark, racing event or some other public venue or when one strikes a private or commercial flight. Yes, those people should be held accountable for their actions and there should be laws governing such acts but to seek to punish the folks out here at the local air park for using goggles or a photographer for taking photos for his business is just wrong. Unfortunately we live in a society of "Punish them all before they have a chance to do something wrong".

SilentAV8R · Jul 14, 2014

kymedic121 said:
The NTSB has ruled that the FAA has no jurisdictional authority and they FAA announced that they would be seeking legislation for the 2015 session (this was on NBC Nightly News 2 weeks ago).

One more time, at the time of the Pirker incident is what the NTSB judge rules on. It PREDATED the FMRA of 2012 which is what FAA is using now to exert authority over model. Until you grasp that fundamental fact there is little chance you can understand the basis of what the FAA is doing now.

CarlJ · Jul 14, 2014

SilentAV8R said:
One more time, at the time of the Pirker incident is what the NTSB judge rules on. It PREDATED the FMRA of 2012 which is what FAA is using now to exert authority over model. Until you grasp that fundamental fact there is little chance you can understand the basis of what the FAA is doing now.

This is my understanding as well. Regardless of the amount of time that I spend at the Holiday Inn Express, I still have a difficult time understanding all the various nuance of what's going on. My advice remains that none of us should be screwing with the FAA, it's the kobayashi maru of situations for quad pilots.

Now none of you are required to listen, so go ahead, spit in their eye.

/popcorn

Jeremyconk · Jul 14, 2014

Mori55 said:
Well your in la la land if you think anyone going to stop calling them drones. Not going to happen , right or wrong ! Sorry to say.
In the publics eye they're DRONES. never had someone come up to me and say ," that's a nice "multirotor you have " !
It is what it is now.

+1....

According to webster dictionary - drone - an aircraft without a pilot that is operated by remote control
Synonyms: pilotless aircraft, radio-controlled aircraft

You can't change the name just because you don't like how people think of it.... People need to wrap their heads around the fact that we do have drones by their very definition.... I love how people constantly correct the term drone, and want to use UAV, Quad copter, UAS, and every other synonym.... But we have drones... It's up to us as pilots to show the public they are not evil.

nedro018 · Jul 14, 2014

im the original OP and this link has certainly wandered, yet has been fruitful in many ways.

@jeremy: youre wrong pal. words DO HAVE emotional meanings. try calling a black person the N-word. ever called your wife the B-word? how'd that work?

dictionaries definitions dont matter. what do you call the police officer who just pulled you over? copper? fuzz boy? look up cop in the dictionary. but you wouldnt use this word.

im american but fly overseas and dont have perfect command of the language yet, over here.. i get lots of gazers coming up to me and asking questions, some of which i cant fully understand/answer.

what i DONT TELL THEM is that this is a drone with a camera. i tell them is a hobby RC copter.

the US drones that kill thousands overseas will soon be flying over there...initially doing surveillance work. americans will get pissed over this change in policy.

bet you wont tell your neighbor, hey, this is a drone, in that day. geez.