FAA says all (goggles) FPV is illegal - Page 148 - RC Groups
Thread Tools
Oct 25, 2014, 09:32 PM
Team WarpSquad
Quote:
Originally Posted by David22
This is from public law

Read first page

Then look at sections 336 and ones before that

Cheers
https://www.rcgroups.com/forums/show...67&postcount=6
In the link you provided, where does it say 400 feet?
Sign up now
to remove ads between posts
Oct 26, 2014, 05:59 PM
Suspended Account
Quote:
Originally Posted by InFocus
In the link you provided, where does it say 400 feet?
400 feet

No

Its line of sight thats the weak link

Because large planes can be seen very far away

Thats my point

Weak link in faa's saftey argument

Now canada is cartoon character and try to show 300 foot is understandable
Ie transport canada

But maac says otherwise
Will maac follow 300 foot rule change

But this thread is about usa
Oct 26, 2014, 06:05 PM
fly by night
BCSaltchucker's Avatar
I don't think Transport Canada has clearly put forth any guidelines yet for RC flying. They just put out an information release recommending folks act a certain way. QAnd a very poorly worded, poorly thought-out one at that,.
Oct 27, 2014, 01:39 AM
VP of Policy & Legal at DJI
bmschulman's Avatar
I'm not a Canadian lawyer but my understanding is that these are guidelines rather than regulations.
Oct 27, 2014, 05:36 PM
Helicopters
Airworks's Avatar
In the USA a guideline is a regulation.... They will "enforce it " if its profitable to enforce. in which case , they are making numbers....(fines) for breaking of such guideline....
All about the extortion.What number can they impose upon this in which costs grease the pockets of all our "campaign funders". And make sure we get our fair share for sitting back and writing these up!
Oct 27, 2014, 08:10 PM
A man with too many toys
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airworks
In the USA a guideline is a regulation.... They will "enforce it " if its profitable to enforce. in which case , they are making numbers....(fines) for breaking of such guideline....


LOL That's not really how it works. Actually congress has to approve them before they can be enforced. Thatís why the earlier memo from the FAA got canceled.




.
Oct 27, 2014, 08:37 PM
Endangered User
MattLarson29's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by RC Man
LOL That's not really how it works. Actually congress has to approve them before they can be enforced. Thatís why the earlier memo from the FAA got canceled.




.
Sorry, but this is completely incorrect. Congress passes "enabling legislation" when an agency is created, and that legislation allows the agency to adopt regulations that have the force of law.
Oct 28, 2014, 12:03 AM
Team WarpSquad
I thought that the regulations had to follow the defined rule making process in order to have the force of law.
Oct 28, 2014, 10:23 AM
SlowStick Test Pilot
patrickegan's Avatar
Nope, willy nilly is how we do it here in the U.S.
Oct 28, 2014, 11:47 PM
Techenstein

FAA Claims to Criminalize Model Aircraft Operations Near Certain Sporting Events


Press release/email from bmschulman:
FAA Purports to Criminalize Unmanned Aircraft and Model Aircraft Operations Near Stadiums During Certain Sporting Events

...caused me to write my article here:
http://www.techenstein.com/faa-claim...orting-events/

Quote:
The FAA yesterday has issued an updated Notice To Airman (NOTAM) to replace an older version. The NOTAM had previously restricted airplanes and parachute activity within 3 miles and 3,000 feet vertically of large stadiums during games, as well as several professional racing events. The justification for this was post 9/11 concerns of terrorist acts targeted towards large gatherings of people. However it was controversial when it was issued because many argued that a 3 mile ring would not stop terrorists, and is more likely to only bring consequences for regular pilots that strayed into the airspace. Also it has the appearance of being a political favor to professional sports and the team owners, who want to prevent photographers from seeing the event without paying the teams. Continue Reading...
Oct 29, 2014, 10:31 AM
DJI Support - 107 Certified
Tahoe Ed's Avatar
I agree. What about the operator that has been hired to fly the event. No exemption?? The 2012 act does not give them the authority to control this airspace but they continue to try.
Oct 29, 2014, 10:36 AM
VP of Policy & Legal at DJI
bmschulman's Avatar
The statute allows for a limited waivers, but do you think the FAA is going to grant a waiver to someone "hired to fly"?
Oct 29, 2014, 11:24 AM
Cinematographer
Burntpixel's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmschulman
The statute allows for a limited waivers, but do you think the FAA is going to grant a waiver to someone "hired to fly"?
Not at this time!
Oct 29, 2014, 03:23 PM
Gaftopher
Gary Mortimer's Avatar
I quickly made up a man of all the 30k seat stadiums and the exclusion zones I could find, tomorrow I might add the cars and stuff. Even that one where they just turn left ;-)

https://drive.google.com/a/suasnews....Y2RHBPRm8/view

You can tell this one was just rubber stamped without any thought or consultation, half a mile would more than do.
Oct 29, 2014, 09:09 PM
Techenstein
The professional sports teams and the broadcasters that pay for rights to air the events are clearly using the FAA and the guise of 'safety' to block others from seeing the event, in my opinion.
Quote:
ANY STADIUM HAVING A SEATING CAPACITY OF 30,000 OR MORE PEOPLE WHERE EITHER A REGULAR OR POST SEASON MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL, NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE, OR NCAA DIVISION ONE FOOTBALL GAME IS OCCURRING. THIS NOTAM ALSO APPLIES TO NASCAR SPRINT CUP, INDY CAR, AND CHAMP SERIES RACES EXCLUDING QUALIFYING AND PRE-RACE EVENTS.
If you have 40,000 people in a stadium for a rock concert, no TFR, but if it's the NFL, there's a TFR.

If you have the Las Vegas Motor Speedway grandstands with 35,000 fans (only 25% capacity) for a pre-race event, there is no TFR, but once the broadcast rights start at T minus 1:00, suddenly there is a safety concern?