What's new
By:
Aloft Forums

Welcome to Aloft Forums. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

FAA 400ft Limit

Exactly!
We don't know how the FAA would have faired had the case gone to trial. The FAA did retract much of what they claimed (interpreted) to support the reckless claims.

The FDA might not be the best example looking at the opioid epidemic. The FDA and DOJ claim to not have the resources to enforce the rules already on the books. In any case there should be no way that the government regulators could be allowed to go into the industry he or she regulated. This only makes for an environment ripe for abuse.

I thought we were done?

All the best,
Konrad
 
Ipse dixit. Nolo contendere is a binding judicial admission that the offense or infraction will be proven in accord with the governing standard of proof, and that the defense can not overcome it, or join issue upon it. A single act in violation of the statute is all it takes to support the determination, with the remainder of facts being probative of actual or constructive intent.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
How did I get on the wrong side of defending Trappy?

With much of what the FAA was basing as reckless being removed in the settlement, this statement is weak; beaten like drums. Doing an internest search with what is left in the record, what I could find by my quick search, it looks like Trappy might have been guilty of flying an aircraft for hire, monitary reward.

"Sum: Crappy and his Crappy lawyer were soundly defeated as he was substantively determined by an agency, with authority, to have operated an aircraft recklessly, which he allowed to become final and non appealable, and but for this outrage by Crappy, the FAA’s regulatory authority over US viz reckless operation would not be a legal certainty, but would remain a valid defense issue. He and his arse wipe attorney closed the door, and both were beaten like drums."

I don't know about you but I often loose $1100 just going to the slopes.

Do your contacts explain why of all the violations brought to their attention, they choose to hang their hat on this one to enforce test their 2007 polices?

All the best,
Konrad
 
As it was said earlier, drone was the cause of all our issues. Now that we have something that is cheap and anyone can get easily that causes so much invasion of privacy, it is a big topic. It did helps us in a way that in brought lots of money to the hobby and further development for our hobby for sure, but people who are not courteous and cautious messed it up for the rest of us. Just like it did for the RC car locations. We used to be able to drive Rc cars on the side of roads, etc until people started using the tracks for their kids with the small dirt bikes instead of driving all the way to the designated areas to do so. . What a joke. Once the police see this they ban everyone from that area.
 
Trappy is an egg sucking sack of crap. As an ATP, I think the FAA acted rationally to an irrational turd and his greedy lawyer.
 
So it is the toy drone, or the industrial (commercial) drone?

The airspace requirements were poorly defined in the 2007 FAA guidelines. The industry wanted/ needed well define regulations. Trappy may have brought this to a head with his commercial use of the "drone". But these reg were on their way, as the industrial players and their legal counsel need them to help assign liability.

I was never allowed to play on the side of the road. This was going way back into the 60's. The sheriffs always sent me away. I recall something about right away going 6 feet from the edge of the road. (I'm sure some wish I'd had played in the road! But thats another discussion! :rolleyes:)
 
Ipse dixit from the unlearned. Trappy and his lawyer are greedy turds.
 
Yes, for commercial flying without a license. Drone or no drone. And as you say based on that one point Trappy was guilty. The other points not so much. As a result the FAA decided to capitulate and end the farce by resending the reckless endangerment parts of the charges.

Am sure what you claim can be levied against all lawyers, as I'm sure the lowering of the fine did not cover the legal expenses incurred standing up (questioning) to the FAA.

Is there a document from the FAA administrator or his designee stating that these new regulation are as a result of the Trappy incident? Most new regulation I've read from the FAA have a justification that sights an incident (NTSB report) that drove the new regulation. I'm looking for a trail that shows Trappy is the impetus for these new regulation. The only NTSB report I've read (there may be more) agreed with the FAA that the "drone" was an aircraft (over turning the lower court ruling, typical of regs being as clear as mud). It questioned why the FAA was going after Trappy.

The NTSB is to be blamed (credited) for wrapping us modelers into the airspace issue by defining our "models, drones" as aircraft under the FAA regulation.

All the best,
Konrad
 
Ipse dixit from the unlearned. Trappy and his greedy lawyer are the proximate cause.
 
Diceman said:
As it was said earlier, drone was the cause of all our issues. Now that we have something that is cheap and anyone can get easily that causes so much invasion of privacy, it is a big topic. It did helps us in a way that in brought lots of money to the hobby and further development for our hobby for sure, but people who are not courteous and cautious messed it up for the rest of us. Just like it did for the RC car locations. We used to be able to drive Rc cars on the side of roads, etc until people started using the tracks for their kids with the small dirt bikes instead of driving all the way to the designated areas to do so. . What a joke. Once the police see this they ban everyone from that area.
Click to expand...
Invasion of privacy is the main issue? The police chiefs might frame it in this context, so that it is more difficult to oversee their actions. But I thought it was the safety of the airspace, avoiding collisions that is at the heart of these regulations..
 
Skye said:
Ipse dixit from the unlearned. Trappy and his greedy lawyer are the proximate cause.
Click to expand...
So you claim. Do you have a document from the FAA of NTSB supporting this, that Trappsy is the impetus for the new regulations?

All the best,
Konrad
 
Konrad said:
Invasion of privacy is the main issue? The police chiefs might frame it in this context, so that it is more difficult to oversee their actions. But I thought it was the safety of the airspace, avoiding collisions that is at the heart of these regulations..
Click to expand...
I am just saying that is what provoked the FAA to look into our hobby again. They left us alone for decades, now since the quads/drones came out, this is the result.
 
Hum. I've never seen that on the federal level. Yes, some municipalities have privacy concerns. But this really isn't a logical concern. I live in San Francisco, just looking out my bed room window there are 50 or more windows that can look into my bedroom. No need for a drone.(One would need to really be bored to look. And looking would bore anyone that did).

Also what federal regs I've read on the drone topic don't mention privacy issues. They are about the public safety of the airspace, collision avoidance.

When did the FAA first look at us modelers? Is there a part of the Trappy case that addressed privacy concerns?

Yes, the FCC was on our butts with the CB (27 mhz)and other emission concerns (72 mhz) over the radio airways.
(Remember when we needed to have a FCC license to fly RC? and no I'm not talking just about the Ham 6 meter band)?

Prior to Value Jet we modelers were thought of as part of the promotional aspect of the FAA's dual mandate. After that crash and the scathing report from the NTSB, that mandate (promotion of aviation) was stripped from the FAA. So we lost the protection form unnecessary regulation. Instead of being looked at as an incubator for the growth of the aviation industry. (This is why in the 2002(?) FAA appropriation bill, models were explicitly exempt form the FAA's jurisdiction. This resulted in the poor FAA guidelines of 2007).

Congress now feels that models (drones) are just like any another aircraft that need to be regulated for the safety of the public. How much and of what kind of regulation is being debated?

All the best,
Konrad
 
Last edited:
I remember a while back flite test guys talking about making a new group as a choice over ama but haven't heard anything about it in a while.
 
Do do what? I recall there was an organization SFA (Sport Flier Association) a few years back.

What powers, procedures do folks think are available to us, that the AMA or another organization can use to persuade the FAA to write regulations that favor our interest while meeting the statutes written into law by the congress?

I more than understand folks frustration but given that the FAA no longer has the mandate to promote aviation, that there are entities with deep pockets that want to monetize the low level airspace and that congress has passed the current laws, What specific clause would you like to see written into the law or regulations? (Remember to think like a lawyer when coming up with these regulations. How can your regulations be side stepped? )


All the best,
Konrad
 
You ask-
I would like to see as law:
Fixed Model airplane sites shown on the navagation charts with altitude restrictions for manned aircraft. So models have enough airspace and altitude.
The altitude restrictions for models to be based on the altitude above the flyers feet (think sloped sites)
Give us 2,000ft in an upside down wedding cake shape and put a 500ft buffer zone between the manned aircraft and our space - where this is feasible.

I think lobby groups can make a big difference. The EAA kept at the FAA, and where the prime force behind the sport pilot license. The NRA keeps at Congress with good success. The AMA and EAA joined forces a few years back and I'm surprised AMA leadership has not leverage the relationship for help. Many Experimental guys started with and continue with model airplanes.
 
jvaliensi said:
You ask-
I would like to see as law:
Fixed Model airplane sites shown on the navagation charts with altitude restrictions for manned aircraft. So models have enough airspace and altitude.
The altitude restrictions for models to be based on the altitude above the flyers feet (think sloped sites)
Give us 2,000ft in an upside down wedding cake shape and put a 500ft buffer zone between the manned aircraft and our space - where this is feasible.

I think lobby groups can make a big difference. The EAA kept at the FAA, and where the prime force behind the sport pilot license. The NRA keeps at Congress with good success. The AMA and EAA joined forces a few years back and I'm surprised AMA leadership has not leverage the relationship for help. Many Experimental guys started with and continue with model airplanes.
Click to expand...
Thank you.

Let me play devils advocate.

I’m a private pilot I don’t want another restricted area to have to avoid. In urban areas there already are too many areas where the FAA can bust my chops. Also who is going to administer this? Model airfields are often little more than just some carpet thrown out over the land for a landing strip. Also there is a high turn over rate with development. In the last 6 years I’ve lost 3 flying fields in the San Francisco Bay area.

As I recall the Sport Pilot class was pushed through sighting the impending pilot shortage and its disruption to the national transportation system. This shortage never really happened with the upping of the mandatory retirement age and the loss of traffic as a result of 9/11 and the 2008 economic down turn. I sight that pilot wages have not gone up any significant amount in the last 15 years.

"The AMA and EAA joined forces a few years back" This was on what issues?

Yes, lobbying has its power. But this comes from numbers or money. The NRA has 7 million members that for the most part will vote along a certain line. The AMA has 200,000 members that only half of those that vote would vote in any one direction. In a democracy we don’t have the numbers. Nor do we have the other lobbying power, money!

For many, toy airplanes may have fostered an interest in aviation. The impact on the economy is the only way I can see the rules being changed. Do you think a strong compelling case can be made that modeling will have a positive impact on the aviation economy? I started modeling when I was 8 years old, but it really had no impact on my career choices. In my youth I didn’t have the resources or didn’t want to spend them on a pilots license. If the Sport Pilot option was available things might have been different. Despite my love of toy airplanes, my involvement in aviation was though the back door, in manufacturing and engineering.
 
Four weeks ago the AMA posted youtube videos on using three different cell phone applications to apply for, and receive recreational flying LAANC -Low Altitude Authorization and Notification. I use the version called Air Map. Airmap also has a version for commercial authorization. If you download this app you will see that AMA sited -- including listed AMA slope sites -- are designated on the map. If you have not seen this application yet, I suggest taking a look @ it. Look at the specificity and variability of the ceiling in controlled airspace, as well as how much space is available in your area that is not controlled airspace.

 
Thank you.
Yes I have seen that. I don't know how much if any input the AMA had with this. It goes to show that the FAA is not as draconian or as petty as many feel. They are trying to incorporate all user of the airspace as is practical. I'd also like to mention that there is a waiver process. This is to address situations that are outside the norm. It is clear that the environment has changed and we can no longer fly like we use to fly.

With the commercial drone coming over the horizon the airspace we fly in has changed drastically. With the introduction of autonomous vehicles the landscape has changed. We will have to adapt to these changes. Just like the FCC with the use of the radio spectrum we modelers in the eyes of FAA will be seen as secondary user to the commercial user.

The regulations were sought to incorporate these autonomous machines (drones). They are not a punitive response to Trappy or other fliers. Prior to the current regulation there were ample regulation on the books to address reckless use of the airspace that endangered or could endanger the public. For example aerobatic flight is restricted to safe areas where collision with other aircraft is minimized and that the chance of bystanders on the ground being harmed is very low.

All the best,
Konrad
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top