Thread Tools
Aug 26, 2013, 03:43 PM
Flying R/C since 1964
kallend's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by harryarnold
lies.
So you can't even understand the stuff you quote in your own posts.

Read it again until you get it.
Latest blog entry: Make your own EDF afterburner
Sign up now
to remove ads between posts
Aug 26, 2013, 03:44 PM
Suspended Account
Quote:
Originally Posted by kallend
So you can't even understand the stuff you quote in your own posts.

Read it again until you get it.
i regret taking time out of my life for those 2 sentences and you want me to 'go back' ???

no thanks
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmschulman
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
Aug 26, 2013, 03:45 PM
Registered User
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brandigan
But you can't retroactively enforce something like that, so they shot themselves in the foot with that one.
Who cares if it's retroactive? It won't be about what RCAP operations have done to date. Tomorrow is the future. If the policy changes, it changes. All sorts of previously legal and unregulated business activities have been brought to a screeching halt by changes in the regulatory atmosphere. Ask a power plant operator about putting a new (or substantially updated) coal plant online ... where's the law making them illegal? Doesn't exist. But the regulatory burden and paperwork storm effectively (and with teeth) bans the activity of lighting up a new plant. Wave of a single administration pen, and presto. Hugely expensive legal adventure to challenge it.

A few more Bull Run crashes that do more than the very minor injuries we just saw, and it'll be like trying to fly RC coal plants.
Aug 26, 2013, 03:46 PM
Flying R/C since 1964
kallend's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by harryarnold
Thanks for another amatuer legal opinion.

Unfortunately for you, professions have already enlightened us.

Actually it was the defense attorney's opinion that YOU quoted.

Here it is since apparently you missed it when you quoted it.

"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."

Cut and pasted from YOUR post.
Latest blog entry: Make your own EDF afterburner
Aug 26, 2013, 03:47 PM
Suspended Account
Quote:
Originally Posted by IronAgeMedia
Who cares if it's retroactive? It won't be about what RCAP operations have done to date. Tomorrow is the future. If the policy changes, it changes. All sorts of previously legal and unregulated business activities have been brought to a screeching halt by changes in the regulatory atmosphere. Ask a power plant operator about putting a new (or substantially updated) coal plant online ... where's the law making them illegal? Doesn't exist. But the regulatory burden and paperwork storm effectively (and with teeth) bans the activity of lighting up a new plant. Wave of a single administration pen, and presto. Hugely expensive legal adventure to challenge it.

A few more Bull Run crashes that do more than the very minor injuries we just saw, and it'll be like trying to fly RC coal plants.
I'm sure you'll be around to blog about their legality too.

is this thread about predicting the future...or actual current regs/laws ?
Aug 26, 2013, 03:49 PM
Suspended Account
Quote:
Originally Posted by kallend
Actually it was the defense attorney's opinion that YOU quoted.

Here it is since apparently you missed it when you quoted it.

"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."

Cut and pasted from YOUR post.
thanks, i was just about to repost that quote.
Aug 26, 2013, 03:50 PM
Suspended Account
hey..
does anyone have any facts to challenge this?
slam dunk so far. no errors in this post..

Quote:
Originally Posted by bmschulman
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
Aug 26, 2013, 03:50 PM
Suspended Account
Quote:
Originally Posted by CenTexFlyer
I guess you can call me the boogieman. <BOO> (RPSearchServices)

I've been TOLD to stop. Now, here's the story to the moral.......

A guy rolls through a stop sign. A cop sees him and pulls him over.
Cop gives they guy a warning and sends him on his way.
Next day, the same guy rolls through the same stop sign - same cop stops him.

"I gave you a verbal warning yesterday and here you are again. Today, I'm giving you a written warning"

A few days pass and the guy feels safe, and he rolls through a stop sign - you got it. Same cop.

The cop say's now I'm going to give you a ticket for today, and the other times you rolled through"

The guy gets all indignant and says "You can't do that! I slowed down, there were no cars coming - it didn't hurt anybody!"

The cop asks the man to step out of his vehicle and he complies. Once out, the cop pulls out his nightstick and starts beating the guy.......

The cop then says "OK, do you want me SLOW DOWN or do want me to STOP?"

I KNOW the difference!
Yeah, yeah, great story.

So... given what you now know about Trappy's lawyers opinions about the regulations, would you stop again, or get your lawyer to ask the FAA to tell you exactly why they think any of their regulations apply to you?

And so far you make the list 5 people long. 6 if we count Patrick.
Aug 26, 2013, 03:51 PM
Registered User
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brandigan
So they exist? So he was telling the truth? Good to know one of you was.
He earlier claimed that the Aerial Pak policy covered commercial RCAP. It doesn't, despite his stamping his feet. He's not telling the truth about that.

He's suggesting that I'm saying you can't buy such insurance. He's not telling the truth about that, either. My point is that him sending people (as he's done) to the standardized Aerial Pak package as a way to cover commercial activity outside the FAA guidelines is a bad idea because a lot of people will miss that all important reference to the guidelines. You can definitely shop around for more coverage ... but don't fall for the pitch that all you need is an "understanding" with your insurance agent. That's complete nonsense. You need, in writing, that your coverage includes activity contrary to FAA rules.
Aug 26, 2013, 03:51 PM
Flying R/C since 1964
kallend's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by harryarnold
thanks, i was just about to repost that quote.
So why did you call me a liar when I first mentioned it?
Latest blog entry: Make your own EDF afterburner
Aug 26, 2013, 03:54 PM
Registered User
Quote:
Originally Posted by harryarnold
is this thread about predicting the future...or actual current regs/laws ?
It's about both. Currently, the FAA doesn't allow commercial RCAP. We all hope that in the future, that can be arranged with as little misery as possible for all involved.

The two defense attorneys that you're confusing with judges also talk about the future and as-yet-unwritten eventual changes in this context. Are you mad at them, too?
Aug 26, 2013, 03:58 PM
Suspended Account
Quote:
Originally Posted by IronAgeMedia
He earlier claimed that the Aerial Pak policy covered commercial RCAP. It doesn't, despite his stamping his feet. He's not telling the truth about that.

He's suggesting that I'm saying you can't buy such insurance. He's not telling the truth about that, either. My point is that him sending people (as he's done) to the standardized Aerial Pak package as a way to cover commercial activity outside the FAA guidelines is a bad idea because a lot of people will miss that all important reference to the guidelines. You can definitely shop around for more coverage ... but don't fall for the pitch that all you need is an "understanding" with your insurance agent. That's complete nonsense. You need, in writing, that your coverage includes activity contrary to FAA rules.
www.aerialpak.com sells insurance for commercial RCAP. period. call and ask if you dont belive me.
it will be in the written policy statement when you close.

stop the lies.
you can tailor the policy to cover anything you want.
CALL AND ASK THEM.
repeating the same lie only makes you look ignorant.
a website FAQ is not a policy.

you have to call and make sure it is in your policy.

You have already been caught in the lie that you say no insurance is available for commercial RC.
glad you admitted your error on that one.
Last edited by harryarnold; Aug 26, 2013 at 04:03 PM.
Aug 26, 2013, 03:59 PM
Suspended Account
Quote:
Originally Posted by IronAgeMedia
Who cares if it's retroactive? It won't be about what RCAP operations have done to date. Tomorrow is the future. If the policy changes, it changes. All sorts of previously legal and unregulated business activities have been brought to a screeching halt by changes in the regulatory atmosphere. Ask a power plant operator about putting a new (or substantially updated) coal plant online ... where's the law making them illegal? Doesn't exist. But the regulatory burden and paperwork storm effectively (and with teeth) bans the activity of lighting up a new plant. Wave of a single administration pen, and presto. Hugely expensive legal adventure to challenge it.

A few more Bull Run crashes that do more than the very minor injuries we just saw, and it'll be like trying to fly RC coal plants.
Well, that's where the CAA (UK etc) seems to have a more measured approach (and I expect the FAA is probably about the same)

If there is an accident, the incident is investigated and, if appropriate, recommendations are put in place to prevent (or mitigate) reoccurance. You don't get a major airline shut down and going bust when an accident occurs - even if a plane crashes. If there is a technical glitch (like the batteries on the 777s) they are grounded temporarily, the glitch is fixed and they are back in the air.

All this "Ooh, one nasty accident and no one can fly ever RCs again. Ever." is just pure, unadulterated baloney and about as informed as the rest of your posts.

So, based on every single thing you've ever posted. J'accuse: Edit: "Your posts contain content which is designed to elicit an emotional response from other users."
Last edited by Brandigan; Aug 31, 2013 at 07:09 AM. Reason: Apparently I'm not allowed to just call him a troll.
Aug 26, 2013, 04:00 PM
Flying R/C since 1964
kallend's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brandigan
Yeah, yeah, great story.

So... given what you now know about Trappy's lawyers opinions about the regulations, would you stop again, or get your lawyer to ask the FAA to tell you exactly why they think any of their regulations apply to you?

.
Since Harry is the individual who claims published FAA regulations don't apply to him, the burden is on Harry to ask the FAA Chief Counsel why he thinks any FAA regulations apply to him. Not to rely on someone else's defense attorney who states very clearly that he's not giving legal advice.
Latest blog entry: Make your own EDF afterburner
Aug 26, 2013, 04:00 PM
Registered User
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brandigan
All this "Ooh, one nasty accident and no one can fly ever RCs again. Ever." is just pure, unadulterated baloney and about as informed as the rest of your posts.
How about pointing out where I said that one accident would do any such thing? If you're going to roll your eyes, roll them over words I've actually said.


Quick Reply
Message:

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