It is this exact point that motivates me to get involved in these urinating contests. In the end nobody will be swayed from their POV, but at least it can be shown to others that there is no gospel even though some are preaching it.
Flying over mountain
- Thread starter christian0707
- Start date
I used suggestion this time because the FAA has both. And I was referencing the suggestions this time. You can think what you want, and I debate this because I do believe it's true. I am open to other schools of thought. How do you say this only to me when AyeYo debates the same as I do?
You still haven't clarified which "guidelines" you think are guidelines and which ones you think are only suggestions.
AyeYo as many posts where he states 336 are not rules, and others where he says 336 are rules. In the heat of discussion, a wrong word or term can slip out, so I don't really hold him uncorrectably accountable to everthing he posts. Thats why a summary belief is a better read than individual posts.
Are we all just saying no one really knows the truth? I guess we all just fly and wait till bad things happen then. And I am definitely open to hearing other sides to the argument, but other than what the FAA says, I don't know what else to go by.
Please quote. 336 does not contain regulations, as you repeatedly claim it does. It contains stipulations and definitions of what kind and style of RC flight is exempted from FAA regulation.
Totally agree. Go by the FAA. Never fly above 400' if you don't want to. But if you do, it's okay. Just don't hit anything. Have fun, kids!
I believe the FAA ultimately polices us. They get their direction from the Congress that empowers them. I believe that the FAA groups us into 2 categories: Hobby or commercial pilots. The FAA paper defines who we are by WHY we fly, not how we fly. I believe the Getting Started publication table is the regulations/legal rules we should follow, and it is consistent with 336, on the directive by Congress. I believe the community based guidelines mentioned are open for debate. The FAA would tell us that this likely refers to the AMA, as they have indicated in their position paper. This is can be disputed in my opinion. If the AMA were to be used, I believe the Safety Code page is the regulation to follow. This code is geared toward AMA events and parks, but some generalizations can be gleaned.
Now, can you state yours?
Last edited:
Also, the FAA does have other publications and articles which, in my opinion, are recommendations for safe flying. They are not, however, based on law as it is currently written.
And yet you acknowledge that this has zero legal basis whatsoever. That's what I can't wrap my mind around. Is it just because it suits what you want that you choose to believe it's what's correct?
I've stated mine multiple times. Section 336 defines the kind and type of flying that is exempt from FAA regulation, which includes adhering to "community guidelines" - which at this point we can only assume is AMA or FAA guidelines, as not one single person has presented a 3rd set.
If you fall within 336, your only restrictions are following the stipulations that keep you within 336 AND the set of community guidelines you've chosen.
If you fall outside of 336, you are now under the FAA's authority to regulate and that is what they've done with Part 107.
The part you don't seem to understand is that "flying for fun" doesn't exist. You don't self-declare what type of flying you're flying. What type of flying you're doing and whether you fall under FAA regulation is determined solely by whether you're within the bounds of 336 or not.
Neither are the AMA rules. No one said they were based on law. But there IS a law that requires you to follow them.
I further believe that any recommendation outside of the Getting Started table is just that, recommendations. Since Congress has limited their application of additonal regulation to model aircraft and hobby fliers.
Chill out. Not sure what you mean. What has zero legal basis? I am not chosing one thing or another.
The FAA has expressly stated that a hobby flier is defined by Webster's Dictionary. You are assuming that if you break one of the 336 stipulations, that you are no longer a hobby flier. The FAA does not say this, and they go out of their way to say so. And since the FAA enforces this, I would believe this. You're whole assumption is that you are a hobby flier or a part 107 flier, and that you are regulated by what rules you fly by or even break. You assume this, it is not stated anywhere. But rather it is stated that they will enforce rules based on WHY you fly (for fun, or for business)
Last edited:
Look, you asked me to state my belief and I have done so. If you think I'm wrong, so be it. But that doesn't make yours right. In the end, if we believe in the same result but take a different road to get there, we all still got there.
Confuscious would say that there are many confused people, all being very confused by everyone from the FAA to ourselves.
The net result is the same, right now we are being given a lot of leeway to govern ourselves.
The only true time any of this will be clarified, or cleared up once and for all is when a major incident takes place, (and it probably will at some point), and everyone runs around like headless chickens deciphering exactly what that person will be charged with.
As yet every rule or guideline is based on the AVOIDANCE of any incident happening not based on a major incident that has yet happened.
When it does happen no one will be confused any longer, especially the person being charged.
The question is, do you really want to be that person finding out?
i have flown at night, i have been above 400 feet AGL. i have flown over a road, a railway line and houses.
I used what i felt was some common sense along with an admittedly, of my own making risk assessment.
Many laws started out as guidelines until the need for them to become law, due to one incident or another made them law.
everything written so far is based on everyone trying to avoid what is possibly unavoidable.
The very sad fact is hypothesis and interpretation will only gain true clarity when it hits the courts for real.
i would never attempt personally to police, fellow fliers, (how can I when i admit to having not always stuck to everything i have read regarding rules or guidelines) only say that your conscience will not be the only thing that is wrecked, if you fly recklessly. Lives will be wrecked and not just one or two.
If you are going to fly outside of the limits laid down, no matter guidelines or law, do it with every precaution you can take, (just like that guy Casey someone or other does) just be aware that when the **** hits the fan, it will be your neck on the block. The punishments will be severe, as the world cries for your head.
there has always been leeway to bend rules and guidelines (a little). it is when they are shattered recklessly that creates the incident that will eventually give us all the true definition of the law.
just what i think
.
The net result is the same, right now we are being given a lot of leeway to govern ourselves.
The only true time any of this will be clarified, or cleared up once and for all is when a major incident takes place, (and it probably will at some point), and everyone runs around like headless chickens deciphering exactly what that person will be charged with.
As yet every rule or guideline is based on the AVOIDANCE of any incident happening not based on a major incident that has yet happened.
When it does happen no one will be confused any longer, especially the person being charged.
The question is, do you really want to be that person finding out?
i have flown at night, i have been above 400 feet AGL. i have flown over a road, a railway line and houses.
I used what i felt was some common sense along with an admittedly, of my own making risk assessment.
Many laws started out as guidelines until the need for them to become law, due to one incident or another made them law.
everything written so far is based on everyone trying to avoid what is possibly unavoidable.
The very sad fact is hypothesis and interpretation will only gain true clarity when it hits the courts for real.
i would never attempt personally to police, fellow fliers, (how can I when i admit to having not always stuck to everything i have read regarding rules or guidelines) only say that your conscience will not be the only thing that is wrecked, if you fly recklessly. Lives will be wrecked and not just one or two.
If you are going to fly outside of the limits laid down, no matter guidelines or law, do it with every precaution you can take, (just like that guy Casey someone or other does) just be aware that when the **** hits the fan, it will be your neck on the block. The punishments will be severe, as the world cries for your head.
there has always been leeway to bend rules and guidelines (a little). it is when they are shattered recklessly that creates the incident that will eventually give us all the true definition of the law.
just what i think
.
It now seems to be coming into focus. The FAA is given the authority to enforce protection of the NAS, but also given limitations to their rule making ability in regards to model aircraft.
I agree that outside 336 puts you in FAA authority. And breaking rules or stipulations (i.e. endangering NAS) also puts you in FAA authority. The part you're not understanding from me is that according to the FAA, you actually do declare what type of flying you do.
And since they are the arm that governs our hobby (and our livelihood if we do this for business), I think this is critical information to know.So if you say you fly within stipulations of 336, the FAA has no jurisdiction. Maybe true. Doesn't really matter because the FAA already recognizes you as a hobby flier. And everybody is happy anyway. But if you fly outside of 336, then you say you become a part 107 flier, correct? So what would that mean? If you break a rule or stipulation, you are subject to FAA punishment. This would happen regardless of your designation (or non-designated 336 exempt) if you actually created an event that endangered NAS. Most basically, to be a part 107 flier, you have to apply for and pass a test to become one. The FAA goes out of its way to make a distinction between the two types of fliers and the rules by which they fly.
The distinction is further exemplified by looking at the chart closely. If it was a rule to fly under 400', it would have been stated in the chart, just as it was stated in the chart for commercial fliers. Same for night flying, etc. There is a definite reason for making the distinction.
On the subject of the AMA:
As far as AMA goes, there is this guidance publication (Note that despite the recommendation to fly below 400' on p.1, every flight code the AMA indicates is actual requirement is cited in the Safety Code at the end of the publication. There are multiple references in the document that explain the 400' altitude limit and when it applies, just as the official Safety Code). See particularly p.6, and also p.8 and 9 which applies to stabilized aircraft:
Can be confusing, be certainly not as black and white plain simple English as you might think.
Similar threads
DJI Drone Deals
New Threads
-
-
-
Air 2 Baleeira Beach and Cape Espichel Sunset- Started by Daniel Boavida
- Replies: 3
-
Looking for answers on how to use various type cameras on Mavic before I purchase.
- Started by shieldscd
- Replies: 5
-
Forum statistics
