And one more thing, not trying to be that guy, but the second your craft leaves VLOS, you now fall under 107, which requires a remote pilot license and restricts flying BVLOS without a waiver. So technically not legal there, but at least you are being cautious about it.
FAA Got Slapped Down - Cannot Regulate Model Aircraft
- Thread starter Colorado CJ
- Start date
And one more thing, not trying to be that guy, but the second your craft leaves VLOS, you now fall under 107, which requires a remote pilot license and restricts flying BVLOS without a waiver. So technically not legal there, but at least you are being cautious about it.
Thank you for saying this. I've been saying the same thing for a while, but I never had anyone back me up when people tried to disagree. For many people on here, it is their first dealing with anything related to the FAA. I've been dealing with the FAA for 27 years as an airline pilot, A&P, IA, and DPE and my mother was an FAA inspector. FAA regulations are difficult to interpret for someone who isn't versed in reading them.
As someone with that level of experience, would you prefer hobby aircraft being limited to 400 feet AGL across the board or do you feel the current restrictions around airports suffices, that someone could go out and fly above that level, without putting manned aircraft at risk?
Congress wrote the law, the FAA cannot change or remove it. In fact, regulatory reach was actually taken away from the FAA in regards to model aircraft.
And I don't know if you noticed, but when you registered, there was an attached agreement to fly by certain guidelines that are clearly outside their Perdue as well. Their overreach was big. Give me an inch, and they'll take a mile. The argument is the unconstitutional overreach, not the idea of registration per se.
This is not a fact that you become a part 107 flyer, if you fly outside of sec. 336. This is an assumption, but it is not stated as such by the FAA. The FAA has made it clear that you fly recreationally or commercially. They define it by the reason why you fly, not how you fly. They do say that they can enforce laws and restrictions on pilots who break 336, but you do not automatically become part 107. They say that if you endanger the NAS, you are subject to their authority.
You are SO right. The fundamental overrreach cannot be overstated, despite the good points registration may have.
Agree to disagree. Part 107's applicability states that you fall under the regulation of 14 CFR 107, unless you are flying under certain circumstances such as public use or Section 336. A model aircraft is defined as one that is operated within visual line of site, per 336(c)(2). So if you are operating your aircraft outside of visual line of site, you are no longer operating a model aircraft according to Section 336(c)(2). Therefore you are operating a civil unmanned aircraft, because your craft no longer meets the requirements of 14 CFR 101 or Section 336. The only applicable regulation at that point would be 14 CFR 107.
You are correct that the FAA has not stated this themselves and I should have made that clear in my original post.
What also complicates this scenario is that there is no case law to prove how the FAA would actually behave. Because flying not only outside LOS, but outside "community guidelines" , or not notifying airports in close proximity, subject you to potential FAA regulation. I don't think they would cite you for flying without a 107 license, improper registration of an unmanned aircraft, and all the commercially oriented penalties possible under that classification. I believe the only citation would be for endangerment to the NAS, and then only if a reportable incident were filed.
I agree that there seems to be no gray area of operation, but it may be more practical to say that a hobby flyer will likely be judged as such, and not a commercial pilot. At least that's what I believe.
Yeah, you pick your battles at work, with your family, on the roads, whatever. But not with the government. When the government oversteps it's bounds you ALWAYS fight that battle or you have zero complaint when it's done again and deserve exactly what they do to you. No one should be settling for what comes down the pipe just because the government threatens you will get worse if you don't. That's absurd.
There will always be a compromise required, unless you are implying just overthrow or eliminate the government completely. Paying $5 and registering is the compromise, not laying down because the future rules could be worse. That was also not the point of the topic of discussion, it was that fighting a small factor like this, is what will push the government to enact more restrictive rules, causing us to have to fight even more. Whereas arguing about a specific part of the law that states something, will only cause the lawmakers to change the law in their favor. As I had said previously, in a few years time, Congress will amend 336 to remove that line and then your fight will be much harder. I am not telling you not to stand up to the government or to lay down, I am making a valid point that these types of actions can and will lead to more restrictive laws.
How about an argument against the need to register model aircraft or what benefit/downside it causes a pilot, outside of wording of the law? We will need that come time that Congress amends 336.
Ugh, seriously brother? You have to ask me if I'm implying that we overthrow the government? Do you even read what you comment on or do you skim over it just to say what you feel you have to? You one of those folks that only listens to reply? I made it ridiculously clear among my very first comments to you that if the government uses the process in place and things turn out unsatisfactory, then that sucks but there's nothing to be done except comply and try to affect change. How can I possibly make what I'm saying any clearer? I mean really, I have NEVER minced words. There are two problems here. The first is that a government agency circumvented a process and threatened citizens with jail if they didn't comply. The second is that there's a group of people who say this is ok because "they could have done worse". But you turn those things into I don't think people should be held accountable for things they do and that I want to overthrow the government. :
:
Last edited:
Ugh, seriously brother? You have to ask me if I'm implying that we overthrow the government? Do you even read what you comment on or do you skim over it just to say what you feel you have to? You one of those folks that only listens to reply? I made it ridiculously clear among my very first comments to you that if the government uses the process in place and things turn out unsatisfactory, then that sucks but there's nothing to be done except comply and try to affect change. How can I possibly make what I'm saying any clearer? I mean really, I have NEVER minced words. There are two problems here. The first is that a government agency circumvented a process and threatened citizens with jail if they didn't comply. The second is that there's a group of people who say this is ok because "they could have done worse". But you turn those things into I don't think people should be held accountable for things they do and that I want to overthrow the government. :
I'm in none of those boats. Are you arguing the registration rule is useless or that the government is over reaching? I wasn't here to argue government overreach or state that it could be worse. Do you not believe we need to have a system in place to tie unmanned aircraft in the US, to an owner or pilot, in the event of an accident?
Alright, I'm being punk'd right? I just don't see any other explanation for this. This is all a "jokey joke", yes?
You're not here to "argue about government overreach" yet YOU are the one that engaged me and started this entire back and forth by replying to my comment I made on the last page about government overreach. You are quite the comedian.
The government enacting laws for the safety of everyone, is not overreach. So no, I did not engage you to argue that point, I engaged you to tell you my opinion of the law in place and that it has nothing to do with government overreach. You said it does and that is what we should be fighting, unconstitutional overreach.
What I am asking, is if you think this law is useless? Because if you do, then that is an entirely different argument. If you think registration is necessary to keep everyone safe and accountable, then you would probably not think this is overreach.
If by the government enacting laws refers to the FAA mandatory registration in this thread, then it most certainly IS overreach. What else do you call it when an agency of the government ignores a direct mandate by Congress like in this case? They've acted beyond their mandate, period. To me, the biggest part of the overreach is the added on agreements that were attached to the registration process as well as the associated penalties. They had us agree to flying guidelines/restrictions that were illegal to enforce.
While I personally like the idea of responsibility as a pilot, and a registration number as a show of accountability, Congress needs to make that happen. The FAA cannot act on there own. In reality, the registration doesn't make anything safer IMO. Irresponsible pilots won't register, or won't label there AC. And if an incident like a mid air collision were to occur, they likely wouldn't recover the AC, or it (and any identifying labels) would be destroyed beyond recognition. You pretty much have to see and apprehend the pilot to effect justice. It may be good for someone who crashes their AC in a National Park or something like that. And that is just about levying fines, not so much about public safety. And again, the risk most of these toy sized quads actually present is pretty darn small.
While I personally like the idea of responsibility as a pilot, and a registration number as a show of accountability, Congress needs to make that happen. The FAA cannot act on there own. In reality, the registration doesn't make anything safer IMO. Irresponsible pilots won't register, or won't label there AC. And if an incident like a mid air collision were to occur, they likely wouldn't recover the AC, or it (and any identifying labels) would be destroyed beyond recognition. You pretty much have to see and apprehend the pilot to effect justice. It may be good for someone who crashes their AC in a National Park or something like that. And that is just about levying fines, not so much about public safety. And again, the risk most of these toy sized quads actually present is pretty darn small.
LOL, no way kid. You got me to repeat myself once already and I won't be doing it again. You've not listened to a word meanwhile somehow perverted what you read into a totally unrecognizable thought that doesn't even begin to come close to what I actually stated all in the distance traveled from your eyes to your brain. I try to learn something new every day and today I learned that I stand nothing to gain by continuing this game you're playing.
Similar threads
DJI Drone Deals
New Threads
-
-
Can a DJI Drone Purchased in China be Used in the USA- Started by Greatsign1
- Replies: 6
-
Help please!! Mavic isnt connecting to controller wont bind!!
- Started by Connorkingdomofmii
- Replies: 0
-
-
Forum statistics
