HobbyKing.com New Products Flash Sale
Reply
Thread Tools
Old Sep 11, 2013, 03:16 PM
FPV Crash Test Dummy
vewdew1's Avatar
United States, AR, Sparkman
Joined Aug 2012
247 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brandigan View Post
Well, like the lottery, the odds are apparently astronomical. It's like the FAA either don't care, or don't have sufficient faith in their legal position to add to the list unless they 'really' have to.
The more likely answer is that they simply don't have the resources. But I would also agree that it's clearly not at the top of their priority list (nor would I want it to be).
vewdew1 is offline Find More Posts by vewdew1
Reply With Quote
Sign up now
to remove ads between posts
Old Sep 11, 2013, 03:21 PM
Suspended Account
Joined Jul 2012
1,861 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by kallend View Post
I HAVE spoken to a lawyer. And she was quite adamant that until the FAA comes up with its UAS recommendations, that commercial UAS is impossible in the USA without explicit authorization.
Finally hearsay.

hearsay is the first step on the road towards a referenced quote.

glad to see your making progress.

next i would advise you to name the attorney and post their words.

that way we all just don't get more of your interpretations. (as hearsay)

finally they could post for themselves.

this would be the MOST believable.

kind of like the attorney that already posted that there are no regulations against commercial RC.

so nobody doubts the truth of that statement, here is a link to the official legal opinion of our esteemed resident legal counsel.

http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showt...6#post25891176

This lawyer is trying to educate us all. let him.

---

www.detroitdrone.com - for all your video & photo needs - call for a quote

slogan candidates
1. "The sky is the limit"
2. "nowhere to go but up"
3. "we dont land at airports"
4. "if the prop don't fit, you must acquit"
harryarnold is offline Find More Posts by harryarnold
Last edited by harryarnold; Sep 11, 2013 at 03:28 PM.
Reply With Quote  (Disabled)
Old Sep 11, 2013, 04:08 PM
Registered User
Joined Jul 2013
1,118 Posts
Harry says:
Quote:
hearsay is the first step on the road towards a referenced quote
Would that be anything like the referenced quotes you've (never!) provided from the mystery FAA officials that you say contradict the FAA's own documents, or the unameable lawyer that you say has provided an unquoteable opinion on the matter? You want citations but won't provide your own?

You didn't get into "but a lawyer says so!" mode until one defense lawyer posted an out of context strategy remark on this forum. You've breathlessly pasted that text over and over again as if it's (as it likely is) the only thing you've actually ever come across that says the words you want. If you had a shred more, you'd be pasting THAT in over and over, too.

I'm fine with other people relating in summary, abstract form, the conversations they've had with lawyers. No name-dropping needed. But you're not allowed to insist that other people name names when you won't do the same yourself. You can't have it both ways.

Here's the take-away from some conversations I've had along those lines in the last 30 or so days:

1) An in-depth chat with an attorney who is currently working as a lead government relations liaison for a gigantic multi-national corporation that makes beverages we've all consumed. That office works on company policy positions for everything from where they buy raw materials to how they handle security at their very large production facilities. They very much want to have the use of sUAS so they can use them at will to do some facility inspection and site emergency response support as needed. But they've concluded that they would be in violation of binding FAA rules, so they will wait.

They likewise have no interest in being exposed to the legal risks that could come with hiring any third party that might provide such tools and services for them. This is a company that has a fleet of corporate vehicles including passenger jets, helicopters, freighters, thousands of trucks, vans, golf carts and the rest. If it moves on the ground, water, or through the air, they've dealt with untold dollars worth of legal and insurance issues surrounding it. Their legal conclusion: commercial UAS is currently not allowed by the FAA, and they'd be exposed to serious and essentially "slam dunk" (since you love that phrase) fines or worse if they dabbled in it. They have back-burnered the matter until the law changes. Their fleet and research people are not happy.

2) A life-long friend directs launches for a company that puts things in space. They also fly everything imaginable, and do a lot of high-end experimental stuff that requires considerable interaction with the FAA before they can send things through the air. They would REALLY like to use off-the-shelf UAS hardware to handle a wide range of tasks from post-launch site review, RCAP of launches and recovery work, and environmental reviews. Their crews that currently use multirotor camera platforms out in their Pacific work areas have to crate them up and ignore them when they're in the US. Why? Because their extremely experienced aerospace industry attorneys have concluded that the FAA's ban on commercial RC is very real and must be respected. Anyone who spins up an sUAS for company use within the US (and outdoors) will get the axe, and no second chances.

3) The counsel committee (four attorneys working for four different jurisdictions) that helps to handle the legal issues surrounding one of the several large-scale annual multi-department emergency responder training exercises in the area has made it clear: the several companies who've offered to provided supporting tests, services, demonstrations, proofs of concept, etc., with sUAS platforms under no circumstances will be allowed to fly. The committee's attorneys were clear to the event's leadership crew that that allowing such is completely out of the question because the FAA's ban on commercial RC means that any vendor or consultant would be getting their tacit approval to break the FAA's rules and they don't want to get dragged into court, even tangentially, over the fines the FAA can dish out to those third parties. Their words: "If we could do illegal stuff during our exercises, the events would get a lot more realistic."
IronAgeMedia is online now Find More Posts by IronAgeMedia
Reply With Quote
Old Sep 11, 2013, 04:13 PM
Suspended Account
Joined Jul 2012
1,861 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by IronAgeMedia View Post
You didn't get into "but a lawyer says so!" mode until one defense lawyer posted an out of context strategy remark on this forum.
What exactly is 'out of context' about this quote?

YES. 'Lawyer says so' because finally someone with a law degree is weighing in.....NOT HEARSAY

I would never have reposted the text, but i wanted you to identify how his comments were 'out of context'

Hopefully its ok to repost this text so you can be more specific.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bmschulman View Post
I'm a lawyer and in a position to clear up a couple of things, for educational purposes.

1. The FAA is indeed pursuing a $10,000 assessment (fine) against Trappy of Team Blacksheep. This is public knowledge. See the current issue of California Lawyer magazine where it is discussed. http://www.callawyer.com/clstory.cfm...yes_in_the_Sky
Many of the legal issues being discussed here are likely to be litigated. I have been retained by Trappy to defend the case.

2. Just because the FAA says something is "policy" does not make it an enforceable law. The FAA is merely a federal regulatory agency. They cannot just make up law as they go -- they have to conduct a rulemaking process pursuant to the Administrative Procedures Act. And they have NOT done that for model airplanes. The 1981 advisory circular AC 91-57 is purely voluntary. The proposed regulations on unmanned aircraft (due in 2015) have not even been released for public comment. As a result, there are NO regulations prohibiting the flying of radio-control model airplanes for commercial purposes. You can find documents in which the FAA says commercial UAS flight is not allowed, including the one patrickegan and CenTexFlyer posted above. However, these kinds of "policy" documents are not actual regulations. Notice that the document Patrick and CenTex posted specifically says "This notice is subject to continuous review, will be updated when appropriate, is not meant as a substitute for any regulatory process." (Paragraph 6)

This distinction about what the FAA says and what is actually law is admittedly legalistic, and has been lost in 200 pages of discussion here, and elsewhere. But it is actually what matters with respect to enforcement (fines).

I am a lawyer, but this is not legal advice. You must consult your own attorney for guidance.

Also, I'm not going to engage in a debate here. You can read our legal papers when they are filed. If you are interested in these and related issues, register for the NYU Law School drone conference in October, where I will be speaking. www.droneconference.org
harryarnold is offline Find More Posts by harryarnold
Reply With Quote  (Disabled)
Old Sep 11, 2013, 04:21 PM
Suspended Account
Joined Jul 2012
1,861 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by IronAgeMedia View Post
Here's the take-away from some conversations I've had along those lines in the last 30 or so days:

1) An in-depth chat with an attorney who is currently working as a lead government relations liaison for a gigantic multi-national corporation that makes beverages we've all consumed. That office works on company policy positions for everything from where they buy raw materials to how they handle security at their very large production facilities. They very much want to have the use of sUAS so they can use them at will to do some facility inspection and site emergency response support as needed. But they've concluded that they would be in violation of binding FAA rules, so they will wait.

They likewise have no interest in being exposed to the legal risks that could come with hiring any third party that might provide such tools and services for them. This is a company that has a fleet of corporate vehicles including passenger jets, helicopters, freighters, thousands of trucks, vans, golf carts and the rest. If it moves on the ground, water, or through the air, they've dealt with untold dollars worth of legal and insurance issues surrounding it. Their legal conclusion: commercial UAS is currently not allowed by the FAA, and they'd be exposed to serious and essentially "slam dunk" (since you love that phrase) fines or worse if they dabbled in it. They have back-burnered the matter until the law changes. Their fleet and research people are not happy.

2) A life-long friend directs launches for a company that puts things in space. They also fly everything imaginable, and do a lot of high-end experimental stuff that requires considerable interaction with the FAA before they can send things through the air. They would REALLY like to use off-the-shelf UAS hardware to handle a wide range of tasks from post-launch site review, RCAP of launches and recovery work, and environmental reviews. Their crews that currently use multirotor camera platforms out in their Pacific work areas have to crate them up and ignore them when they're in the US. Why? Because their extremely experienced aerospace industry attorneys have concluded that the FAA's ban on commercial RC is very real and must be respected. Anyone who spins up an sUAS for company use within the US (and outdoors) will get the axe, and no second chances.

3) The counsel committee (four attorneys working for four different jurisdictions) that helps to handle the legal issues surrounding one of the several large-scale annual multi-department emergency responder training exercises in the area has made it clear: the several companies who've offered to provided supporting tests, services, demonstrations, proofs of concept, etc., with sUAS platforms under no circumstances will be allowed to fly. The committee's attorneys were clear to the event's leadership crew that that allowing such is completely out of the question because the FAA's ban on commercial RC means that any vendor or consultant would be getting their tacit approval to break the FAA's rules and they don't want to get dragged into court, even tangentially, over the fines the FAA can dish out to those third parties. Their words: "If we could do illegal stuff during our exercises, the events would get a lot more realistic."
you cant see the forest for the trees.

the examples above are for COMPANIES doing UAS work.

Not RC Modelers, shopping at the LHS and flying <400' LOS

You guys have blinders on. You should check out whats going on in the RC Modeler /RCAP community.

Then you will see a huge movement that is just getting started.

Brushless Gimbals and micro cameras have changed AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY for good.

Trust me, everything is fine for the indy operator.

COMPLETELY LEGAL RCAP
harryarnold is offline Find More Posts by harryarnold
Reply With Quote  (Disabled)
Old Sep 11, 2013, 04:57 PM
Registered User
Joined Jun 2012
2,578 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by IronAgeMedia View Post
Harry says:

Would that be anything like the referenced quotes you've (never!) provided from the mystery FAA officials that you say contradict the FAA's own documents, or the unameable lawyer that you say has provided an unquoteable opinion on the matter? You want citations but won't provide your own?
Irony Alert.

Harry is insisting on the same referenced quotes you keep asking for and when he does you complain about it?

Isn't it frustrating when someone uses your own arguments against you?

Funny though.
Brandigan is offline Find More Posts by Brandigan
Reply With Quote
Old Sep 11, 2013, 05:34 PM
Registered User
Joined Jul 2013
1,118 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brandigan View Post
Harry is insisting on the same referenced quotes you keep asking for and when he does you complain about it?
You're missing the point. The people pointing out the danger in Harry's assertions insist that the FAA is very clear about the rules. They point to the written rules, and a long history of FAA regulation of the airspace that puts it all in workable (if highly annoying) context.

Harry, on the other hand, insists that the written rules don't apply to him, and says that he's got lawyers (always the plural) to back him up. He points to a forum post showing a defense attorney's informal strategy comment in a vanilla case about reckless flying. That's one lawyer. He feels no urge to cite any others but insists over and over again that he's got his proof. Which would be fine, if he characterized the whole thing as his opinion. But he refers to the matter in absolute, settled terms, and says the FAA has no authority over commercial RC. Because the FAA's authority (from congress) is on paper and easy to point to, the burden IS on Harry to solidly demonstrate that the agency has no power. He refers incessantly to one post in this forum (wherein the person he quotes cautions him not to take it to heart!), and that's it.

His only other "cited" authorities in the matter are city and other agencies that have absolutely no bearing on the matter. I notice that in your passionate defense of his position, you glibly ignore nonsense like invoking the Secret Service or the fire department as authorities in the matter. That he has to keep dropping those names to sound credible to the gullible is a fair measure of how little he has to work with, here. We ALL wish it weren't so. But saying it isn't so, while seeking out media appearances, isn't constructive - because it's false information.

He's still asked for citations because he insists that he's right and that entities that have as much to do with it as his local barber shop are his proof. Nobody else here is doing anything but pointing right at the rules in print, and noting how many other people with a vested interest in the matter are treating the FAA just like the congressionally empowered regulatory agency that it is - one that has teeth when it feels like using them. Just ask the no longer commercially-flying-RC companies that Harry says don't exist.
IronAgeMedia is online now Find More Posts by IronAgeMedia
Last edited by IronAgeMedia; Sep 11, 2013 at 05:48 PM.
Reply With Quote
Old Sep 11, 2013, 05:39 PM
Suspended Account
Joined Jul 2012
1,861 Posts
I respect the rules here.

I am appealing, but i assume responsibility for my actions in over-reposting the attorneys comments. I posted them too much.

I guess i just wanted some of the people who had made such mean comments about me,

I just wanted to see if they could disparage an actual attorney with the same opinions as me.

court is still out on that one too.

anyway, just saying sorry for over-posting the fact that an attorney involved in the "Trappy/TBS vs. FAA" lawsuit had shared educational information with us.
Information both about the case and our rights as RC Modelers.
I thought it was too important to ignore the EXPERT SOURCE of information.

anyway you can read his post for yourself.
i believe i am allowed to share the link so here it is.

http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showt...6#post25891176

i look forward to one day getting that cool avatar back.

oh yes, there have been (2) lawyers posting here for LEGAL PRO RC. Not just the one.

I have the ADVICE of my attorney, and you can listen to the attorneys opinion in this fox2 interview.

off-camera he shared confirming opinions about flights over private property in particular.

thanks for allowing me to present actual facts

http://wpwr.membercenter.worldnow.co...e-drone-debate

(3) attorneys you can now verify as being pro-pro rc.

(4 for me)
harryarnold is offline Find More Posts by harryarnold
Last edited by harryarnold; Sep 11, 2013 at 05:47 PM.
Reply With Quote  (Disabled)
Old Sep 11, 2013, 05:46 PM
Registered User
Joined Jul 2013
1,118 Posts
Harry says:
Quote:
the examples above are for COMPANIES doing UAS work.

Not RC Modelers, shopping at the LHS and flying <400' LOS
Oh good, more word games to avoid reality! I'm sure another video posting will happen any moment now in order to distract.

"RC Modelers" cease to be so the moment they stop flying recreationally and start doing business. The FAA - as you've been shown many times - makes absolutely no distinction between a 3-pound aircraft and a 300-pound aircraft. They don't care if you're doing commercial RC 10 feet off the ground, or 10,000 feet off the ground, or if you bought your aircraft as a turnkey AP platform for $10k or as a bucket of parts from the hobby store. They don't address any of that, because it's all about what you actually do with it.

You're (sort of) referring to the exemption for hobby flying. But it's good to see that you understand that there is such a thing as "companies" and that that makes a difference. You keep calling yourself a business, and say you just got more business, and that you're doing ever more business. Why is that different than some other business/company? Answer: because you want it to be. You wish it were. Read your own words again: "Those are COMPANIES doing UAS work."

Why would you even use that sentence, and say that there's a difference between one way that a UAS is used and another way, unless you actually DO know that the FAA's distinctions matter? You've just made that same distinction yourself. You compare and separate business use from hobby use, right there in your own words. So does the FAA. They say hobbyists can fly, but businesses cannot. You seem to get the difference, but you get all tangled up when you try to call yourself a hobby and a business at the same time. Get it straight: you are one of those businesses - you keep telling us that yourself, over and over.
IronAgeMedia is online now Find More Posts by IronAgeMedia
Reply With Quote
Old Sep 11, 2013, 05:49 PM
Suspended Account
Joined Jul 2012
1,861 Posts
the tangling is in your understanding of the issues.

i suggest you ask an attorney to explain it to you.

read your post to yourself.

you are arguing against yourself.

you say you are asking people for business and being turned down,

but all YOUR arguments justify them telling you NO.

Dont adopt their arguments. form your own.

arguments that will lead you to being able to do what you want to do.

sorry for the personal advice, but it is painful to witness the RC 'self-hate' thing , day after day.

its like watching a snake eat themselves whole.

Just ask an attorney....please
harryarnold is offline Find More Posts by harryarnold
Last edited by harryarnold; Sep 11, 2013 at 05:54 PM.
Reply With Quote  (Disabled)
Old Sep 11, 2013, 06:00 PM
Registered User
Joined Jul 2013
1,118 Posts
Harry says:
Quote:
the tangling is in your understanding of the issues
Not at all. We both agree, like you just said, that business use of RC ("commercial RC") is different than hobby use of RC.

The "tangling" is in your own description of what you do. So just make it clear: are you using RC in your business, or not? YOU can prevent any more tangling by just answering that one question. Which you wont.
IronAgeMedia is online now Find More Posts by IronAgeMedia
Reply With Quote
Old Sep 11, 2013, 06:04 PM
Suspended Account
Joined Jul 2012
1,861 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by IronAgeMedia View Post
Oh good, more word games to avoid reality! I'm sure another video posting will happen any moment now in order to distract.

"RC Modelers" cease to be so the moment they stop flying recreationally and start doing business. The FAA - as you've been shown many times - makes absolutely no distinction between a 3-pound aircraft and a 300-pound aircraft. They don't care if you're doing commercial RC 10 feet off the ground, or 10,000 feet off the ground, or if you bought your aircraft as a turnkey AP platform for $10k or as a bucket of parts from the hobby store. They don't address any of that, because it's all about what you actually do with it.

You're (sort of) referring to the exemption for hobby flying. But it's good to see that you understand that there is such a thing as "companies" and that that makes a difference. You keep calling yourself a business, and say you just got more business, and that you're doing ever more business. Why is that different than some other business/company? Answer: because you want it to be. You wish it were. Read your own words again: "Those are COMPANIES doing UAS work."

Why would you even use that sentence, and say that there's a difference between one way that a UAS is used and another way, unless you actually DO know that the FAA's distinctions matter? You've just made that same distinction yourself. You compare and separate business use from hobby use, right there in your own words. So does the FAA. They say hobbyists can fly, but businesses cannot. You seem to get the difference, but you get all tangled up when you try to call yourself a hobby and a business at the same time. Get it straight: you are one of those businesses - you keep telling us that yourself, over and over.
I dont want to give you too much info all at once but,

There is a difference between a corporation and an individual.

an indy op is the spirit of RC Modeling.

when my LHS tells me 'raytheon' was just in to buy some propellors,
then i will say an indy op is the same as DEFENSE CONTRACTOR.

money doesnt matter because the regs are not done for commercial RC yet

(as explained in that FAMOUS quote form the honorable attorney)
harryarnold is offline Find More Posts by harryarnold
Reply With Quote  (Disabled)
Old Sep 11, 2013, 06:10 PM
Suspended Account
Joined Jul 2012
1,861 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by IronAgeMedia View Post
Harry says:


Not at all. We both agree, like you just said, that business use of RC ("commercial RC") is different than hobby use of RC.

The "tangling" is in your own description of what you do. So just make it clear: are you using RC in your business, or not? YOU can prevent any more tangling by just answering that one question. Which you wont.
YES , OF COURSE I AM.

How are you just asking that? i have posted video & interviews, all discussing the use of rc models for aerial photography in relation to my business www.detroitdrone.com

wow, so were good now? that was easy......Deus ex machina
harryarnold is offline Find More Posts by harryarnold
Reply With Quote  (Disabled)
Old Sep 11, 2013, 06:28 PM
Registered User
Joined Jul 2013
1,118 Posts
I think, Harry, we're finally getting to the crux of the matter. You don't understand that a single person doing AP business is NO DIFFERENT, from the FAA's perspective, than a company running a fleet of manned crop dusters. If the fact that a single "indy" person was what mattered, then a whole lot of commercial AP people using manned aircraft would be delighted to know that their entire relationship with the FAA has just changed.

But it hasn't. Because mom-and-pop businesses (whether flying a drone or a Piper Cub) are subject to exactly the same FAA rules as AcmeSuperDuperFlyingCorp that has 2 or 200 employees. You've agreed that you're running a commercial RC business, and you've stipulated above that there's a difference between hobby flying and commercial flying. So here we are on exactly the same page: you're in the same boat as all of the other companies that wish they could legally do commercial RC.

Quote:
when my LHS tells me 'raytheon' was just in to buy some propellors,
then i will say an indy op is the same as DEFENSE CONTRACTOR
Woops, no we're not. Because you're making another false distinction. The number of props you buy, and whether you buy them from a store front or by the case from a factory doesn't change the fact that it's commercial RC. Size doesn't matter - the FAA anticipates people making such spurious distinctions, and explicitly says that it doesn't matter. That's why they had no problem coming down on a small "indy" operation like FBAC, and why larger companies see the FAA rules as written, and avoid that same result by (for now) avoiding commercial RC operations in the first place.

Quote:
money doesnt matter because the regs are not done for commercial RC yet
What you mean is that the new regs aren't done yet. So we're dealing with the current regs until they are. And it's the current regs that the lawyers for those companies are looking at, and citing when they forbid commercial RC as an area of business to pursue. Just because there will be a new set of rules doesn't mean that the current rules don't exist. Ask MI6 or FBAC (who lost their bets) or the many people who have to grit their teeth and not set up shop until the rules change.
IronAgeMedia is online now Find More Posts by IronAgeMedia
Last edited by IronAgeMedia; Sep 11, 2013 at 08:30 PM.
Reply With Quote
Old Sep 11, 2013, 06:55 PM
Registered User
United States, MO, Springfield
Joined Jul 2010
3,490 Posts
and here is the kicker the new rules could insane as some one else posted
it may end up you need a commercial rating any way
and that home built sUAS wont be able to be be any thing more then rated as Expermental with out massive amounts of investment in getting every last nut and bolt certified

i expect the biggest issue is you wont be able to use an off the shelf hobby grade radio for commercial use at the very least since the FAA see the UAS system as every thing from the radio gear to the airframe
now i expect Futaba and the like to come out with systems rated for commercial use but dont expect them to be cheap and will start in the 4 digits for a 6 channel system

ever look at the cost of commercial rated parts and avionics they are easy 3 to 4 times the cost for the same parts for a GA aircraft
and even GA gear cost a ton more then what you buy at a consumer level and all our hobby stuff is what the FAA and FCC see as consumer level
look at price for a top of the line Garmin GPS for your car then look at one for a GA aircraft then look at the SAME GPS system from the GA as rated for a commercial aircraft
Elios000 is offline Find More Posts by Elios000
Last edited by Elios000; Sep 11, 2013 at 07:02 PM.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Similar Threads
Category Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Discussion What size RC airplane would be illegal for me to fly? brtlmj Electric Plane Talk 35 Apr 01, 2014 11:36 AM
Discussion **Update** Fixed my busted plane - now it's forgotten how to fly! - Fixed! kenzietech Beginner Training Area (Aircraft-Electric) 7 Apr 05, 2012 07:29 PM
Discussion my, 'fly right now' plane. twin 26 inch bipe nemoskull Scratchbuilt Indoor and Micro Models 2 Mar 14, 2012 05:53 PM
Discussion charger help needed for RC car now/RC plane later Will91 Batteries and Chargers 10 Jul 30, 2010 10:47 AM
Cool A commercial use for RC heli's - Getting paid to fly the lucky people! Bowerz Electric Heli Talk 4 Jun 01, 2010 06:48 PM