HobbyKing.com New Products Flash Sale
Reply
Thread Tools
Old Jan 26, 2013, 11:53 AM
Registered User
Joined Jul 2012
430 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by harryarnold View Post
You are a full of crap, fear mongering, loser.
http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/m...r/8130.34B.pdf

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/...s/uas/coa/faq/

http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/1acfc3f689769a56862569e70077c9cc/$FILE/ATTBJMAC/ac91-57.pdf

http://rgl.faa.gov/regulatory_and_guidance_library/rgOrders.nsf/0/8616600949dcc4b78625742c004c52b0/$FILE/1110.150.pdf

http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives...notice_uas.pdf


You seem like an ornery fellow Harry. Here are several links from research I have done in the past. This info is all over the forums. It's not easy or fun reading.

Here is a link to a thread:

http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showt...8#post22533653

Start at my post at 263.

This info is poorly organized and I don't have time to organize it for you. Suffice it to say that everybody is right who says this is forbidden by the FAA.

Best,

Tom
tombrown1 is offline Find More Posts by tombrown1
Reply With Quote
Sign up now
to remove ads between posts
Old Jan 26, 2013, 12:00 PM
aerialskycam
AerialSkyCam's Avatar
Joined Feb 2011
149 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by harryarnold
You are a full of crap, fear mongering, loser.
I have tried to help you. But it seems with the comments, as quoted above, that you are here to argue. I will not allow myself to get caught up in your arguments and aggressive behavior. I am sorry you have to resort to this behavior, but I will no longer be responding to you or giving you anymore advice. With that said, I hope you are successful in your future. Thanks.

Quote:
http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/...s/uas/coa/faq/

http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/1acfc3f689769a56862569e70077c9cc/$FILE/ATTBJMAC/ac91-57.pdf

http://rgl.faa.gov/regulatory_and_guidance_library/rgOrders.nsf/0/8616600949dcc4b78625742c004c52b0/$FILE/1110.150.pdf

http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives...notice_uas.pdf

Quote:
You seem like an ornery fellow Harry.
I think that this has been established.

Quote:
Here are several links from research I have done in the past. This info is all over the forums. It's not easy or fun reading.

Here is a link to a thread:

http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showt...8#post22533653

Start at my post at 263.

This info is poorly organized and I don't have time to organize it for you.
Quote:
Suffice it to say that everybody is right who says this is forbidden by the FAA.
Thanks for the links Tom. But at this point, I do not believe Harry Arnold understands.
AerialSkyCam is offline Find More Posts by AerialSkyCam
Last edited by AerialSkyCam; Jan 26, 2013 at 12:24 PM.
Reply With Quote
Old Jan 26, 2013, 02:40 PM
Suspended Account
Joined Jul 2012
1,861 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by tombrown1 View Post
You seem like an ornery fellow Harry. Here are several links from research I have done in the past. This info is all over the forums. It's not easy or fun reading.This info is poorly organized and I don't have time to organize it for you. Suffice it to say that everybody is right who says this is forbidden by the FAA.

Best,

Tom
LOL, really? I think its pompous of you to call me ornery.
Is telling me "there is a lot of unorganized information out there" your best argument? OMG.
Please show me the statute that says you have to be a "FULL SCALE COMMERCIAL PILOT" to fly RCAP ...

FEAR MONGERING AND OBFUSCATION.

I understand that you havent shown me the statute you claim to be true. i understand that.
harryarnold is offline Find More Posts by harryarnold
Reply With Quote  (Disabled)
Old Jan 26, 2013, 02:44 PM
Registered User
United States, MO, Springfield
Joined Jul 2010
3,451 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by harryarnold View Post
LOL, really? I think its pompous of you to call me ornery.
Is telling me "there is a lot of unorganized information out there" your best argument? OMG.
Please show me the statute that says you have to be a "FULL SCALE COMMERCIAL PILOT" to fly RCAP ...

FEAR MONGERING AND OBFUSCATION.

I understand that you havent shown me the statute you claim to be true. i understand that.
not really the "there is a lot of unorganized information out there" is pretty much par for the course for the FAA and other other alphabet soup of the US gov't
welcome to administrative law lol
not saying your wrong just that yea its disorganized as hell
which is part why the whole NPRM thing
imo i dont think the FAA it self knows what the whole story is atm
Elios000 is offline Find More Posts by Elios000
Reply With Quote
Old Jan 26, 2013, 02:54 PM
Suspended Account
Joined Jul 2012
1,861 Posts
http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=646450
There Cannot Be Double Standards

My stance: The Federal Aviation Administration should not set-up a different standard or class of aircraft within what is currently defined as a model aircraft for the sole reason that these aircraft would be considered for commercial purposes… The ramifications to the burgeoning and existing industries of commercial model aircraft use would be detrimental and the precedent would be set for changing the hobby/recreational guidelines in an adverse way…

As the FAA has stated, everything that flies by remote operation (unmanned) and from 4oz to tons of weight is now considered an Unmanned Aerial System… The FAA regulates all UAS… Model aircraft have been defined as less than 55lbs. since 1981 and operations have been guided by FAA Advisory Circular 91-57*… The FAA has allowed the continuation of the model aircraft class to operate under AC 91-57 as long as it is for hobby/recreational purposes only… All private commercial use of model aircraft is not allowed per FAA policy**… This is one double standard…

Who has been affected by this policy?

1. Operators of model aircraft for commercial purposes
2. Manufacturers of model aircraft and equipment
3. Retailers of model aircraft and equipment
4. Model aircraft research and development companies
5. Electronics and camera manufacturers and retailers
6. Commercial sponsorship
7. University and college programs
8. Law enforcement agencies
9. Fire fighting efforts
10. Search and rescue efforts
11. Movie industry
12. News media
13. Construction contractors
14. Realtors
15. Land managers
16. Farmers
17. Archeological research
18. Security and surveillance
19. Ecological studies
20. Advertising
21. + ?

If you combine all of that together - how much money has been lost due to the FAA's policy? Whose jobs are harder and more costly now? How many jobs have been lost? How much research has been negated? What is the future? Should it be only up to the bureaucrats and only by their edict?

Is one type or size of aircraft able to do all the possible operations listed above? - NO - Is it proper to have any type of model aircraft do all the possible operations listed above? - NO - Is there a proper time, place, and safe operation for every type and size of model aircraft to date that would be suitable for at least one type of commercial venture listed above? - YES - No one is going to fly a 55lbs. model airplane on the local parks baseball diamond… On the same token, not many would fly a Slow Stick at an Academy of Model Aeronautics club field…

A 55lbs. aircraft is legal and deemed safe to operate at an AMA field for a hobby/recreational purpose… But, what if that pilot is sponsored/paid by the manufacturer to demonstrate that model at the AMA field - is it legal? I would imagine "marketing survey" would cover that, but the aircraft would have to have an experimental airworthiness certificate and the pilot would have to meet the requirements for a UAS pilot… What if the aircraft has a camera on-board and the local media would like to purchase the images or video - is it legal? - NO - another double standard…

Manned aircraft precedents and double standards:

1. Airworthiness certificates were primarily implemented to protect the safety of the pilot and passengers - secondarily to people and property on the ground… Most model aircraft are regularly and safely flown at AMA fields to stress levels far beyond the capabilities of certified manned aircraft… Model aircraft can be flown safely with far less possibility of damage to people or property on the ground in a crash incident in comparison to a manned aircraft…

2. Private commercial operations of one type or another are allowed in every certified manned aircraft… None are allowed for model aircraft…

3. Commercial pilots are allowed to fly private commercial operations of one type or another in all certified manned aircraft… Qualified UAS pilots are limited to authorized public operations and restricted experimental category aircraft in the private sector… Model aircraft and pilots are not allowed any access to commercial operation possibilities and the authorities scoff at experimental certification…

4. Commercial pilots and operators are not going to fly a Cessna 172 to dump water on a wildfire… And, they are not going to use a 747 for sightseeing trips around town… But, technically, it would be legal for either circumstance… Why would a commercial model aircraft pilot fly the wrong type of model aircraft for a particular type of operation?

Model aircraft of every type and size and their pilots have been shown to be safe, conscientious commercial operators over the past 2-1/2 years that the FAA has been looking into the ways that they can incorporate them into an operations standard… Many model aircraft pilots were verbally told and even encouraged to operate commercially under AC 91-57 prior to February 13th, 2007…

Model aircraft as currently defined should be allowed to operate in a commercial capacity… Commercial model aircraft pilots should either qualify as UAS pilots as stipulated in the FAA documents*** or as RCAPA has suggested… Either one, but not one over the other… Spotters should self-certify that they can see the aircraft at all times that the model aircraft is operated…

AC 91-57 should only be updated to incorporate the technology advancements since 1981… The FAA has on a number of occasions sited "churches, schools, etc." out of context… Noise nuisance was the main complaint in 1981… With the advent of electric powered model aircraft this is not an issue… I would suggest: "Model aircraft should not be operated where the noise of the aircraft adversely effects people on the ground." If someone does come up to you and says that the aircraft is noisy or disruptive, then the operation should cease immediately…

In respect to RCAPA's efforts and letter, I am only posting this here on RCGroups… I cannot sign RCAPA's letter due to the differences in viewpoint that I have with that letter… I have laid out the differences in this post without the intention of undermining their letters intention, but only to offer alternatives that I feel should be considered… Since the FAA "is watching", perhaps if you agree with the stance of this post you could post your agreement… If you do not agree or would like to add something, post that also, and please, make a case as to why… It is not going to be sent anywhere but here… The FAA does watch this group as characterized by them quoting my posts to me in the past so there is no need to send it anywhere else…

Kevin

*AC 91-57 - http://www.faa.gov/ats/ata/uas/ac91-57.pdf
** FAA policy statement 02-13-2007 - http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/p89/452254.pdf
*** AFS 400 UAS Policy 05-01 - http://www.faa.gov/ats/ata/uas/AFS_P...ept16_2005.pdf
harryarnold is offline Find More Posts by harryarnold
Reply With Quote  (Disabled)
Old Jan 26, 2013, 03:13 PM
Registered User
United States, MO, Springfield
Joined Jul 2010
3,451 Posts
i think the issue is the FAA doesnt want every one and there mother flying a UAV till they can
so a blanket ban till they get new rules made but with out any real rules all they can do is say "dont do that or else" and hope no one calls the bluff but im not sure i want to test it
set some better organized and ENFORCEABLE rules
but i think that process may have been subverted for the profit of big aviation

it would not surpise me at all if they came up with a new commercial UAV rating that meant getting privet ticket and then a commercial then the UAV rating
as this would make the most money for the likes of Boeing and Lockheed to sell contracts for pilots with the airframes
along with hopes for airframes like we see in full scale IE cant fly commercial with an "experimental" aircraft which means buying a complete aircraft from some that did all the testing which means HUGE costs to get in

but i could be wrong
Elios000 is offline Find More Posts by Elios000
Reply With Quote
Old Jan 26, 2013, 03:40 PM
aerialskycam
AerialSkyCam's Avatar
Joined Feb 2011
149 Posts
Quote:
it would not surpise me at all if they came up with a new commercial UAV rating that meant getting privet ticket and then a commercial then the UAV rating
as this would make the most money for the likes of Boeing and Lockheed to sell contracts for pilots with the airframes
along with hopes for airframes like we see in full scale IE cant fly commercial with an "experimental" aircraft which means buying a complete aircraft from some that did all the testing which means HUGE costs to get in
Which is the main reason I am in flight training for full-scale helicopters. Once I receive my commercial license, I should just take aerial photography stills and video from the full-scale.

Nah, flying RC AP is to much fun. lol
AerialSkyCam is offline Find More Posts by AerialSkyCam
Reply With Quote
Old Jan 26, 2013, 03:46 PM
Registered User
United States, MO, Springfield
Joined Jul 2010
3,451 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by AerialSkyCam View Post
Which is the main reason I am in flight training for full-scale helicopters. Once I receive my commercial license, I should just take aerial photography stills and video from the full-scale.

Nah, flying RC AP is to much fun. lol
you could still run in the "experimental" issue if they keep that part of the rules there running on now
would suck since any one that spent money on rig now has to toss it start all over with "RTF" basicly
i could see Chris Bergen selling such helis and maybe DJI for quads
Elios000 is offline Find More Posts by Elios000
Reply With Quote
Old Jan 26, 2013, 03:57 PM
aerialskycam
AerialSkyCam's Avatar
Joined Feb 2011
149 Posts
Agreed. For me, getting a pilot license is mandatory, because aerial photography is a passion. I will jump through any hoop to succeed.
AerialSkyCam is offline Find More Posts by AerialSkyCam
Reply With Quote
Old Jan 26, 2013, 04:04 PM
Registered User
United States, MO, Springfield
Joined Jul 2010
3,451 Posts
id love to do AP i dont know any one around here doing it
i could make good money but i just dont see the FAA making it some thing you can jump in to on a dime like you can now as much as that sucks
there needs to be some oversight since as soon as money enters the stakes change
and even if every one on the boards here would be safe some one wont and then we all feel it
imo there needs to be some thing like the LSA rating for hobbiest commercial AP
you take a ground school, some one from the local FAA office inspects your rig along with some one from your CBO (the AMA in our case) show your AMA + 3rd party business insurance and business license and your good to go
but it dont think itll be that easy
also avoiding the FCC HAM bands is an issue too ....
not sure how to deal with that one
Elios000 is offline Find More Posts by Elios000
Reply With Quote
Old Jan 26, 2013, 04:13 PM
aerialskycam
AerialSkyCam's Avatar
Joined Feb 2011
149 Posts
We all wish it to be that easy. I think you have a good point about ground school, "Instrument Rating". Let's hope it doesn't come down to it.
AerialSkyCam is offline Find More Posts by AerialSkyCam
Last edited by AerialSkyCam; Feb 13, 2013 at 04:54 PM.
Reply With Quote
Old Jan 26, 2013, 05:17 PM
Suspended Account
Joined Jul 2012
1,861 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by AerialSkyCam View Post
We all wish it to be that easy. Well, the ones who want to do it legally, of course. I think you have a good point about ground school, "Instrument Rating". Let's hope it doesn't come down to it.
everyone wants to do it legally. The rules will clear up soon.
I just came back in from a cold fpv flight. testing a new rig before flying near people.
harryarnold is offline Find More Posts by harryarnold
Reply With Quote  (Disabled)
Old Jan 26, 2013, 07:03 PM
patrickegan's Avatar
Yumastan RCAPA.NET
Joined Feb 2003
5,731 Posts
We (RCAPA) got sandbagged by the DoD vendors other DoD advocates and the FAA. The effort still lacks honesty and daylight. The sUAS News is something they can't ignore as the view numbers are just too damn high.
patrickegan is offline Find More Posts by patrickegan
Site Sponsor
Reply With Quote
Old Jan 26, 2013, 07:55 PM
Registered User
United States, MO, Springfield
Joined Jul 2010
3,451 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by patrickegan View Post
We (RCAPA) got sandbagged by the DoD vendors other DoD advocates and the FAA. The effort still lacks honesty and daylight. The sUAS News is something they can't ignore as the view numbers are just too damn high.


sorry couldnt resist
Elios000 is offline Find More Posts by Elios000
Reply With Quote
Old Jan 26, 2013, 08:03 PM
aerialskycam
AerialSkyCam's Avatar
Joined Feb 2011
149 Posts
lol. That's good.
AerialSkyCam is offline Find More Posts by AerialSkyCam
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