NTSB Rules Against Pirker
- Thread starter SilentAV8R
- Start date
I just read about this here
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/faa-ca ... ourt-rules
Really dumb stuff there
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/faa-ca ... ourt-rules
Really dumb stuff there
I hadn't seen the Pirker video before this, but having now seen it I don't blame the FAA for fining the a-hole $10,000 for recklessly using the drone - even if he had permission from the University to fly it. It's a perfect example of how one idiot can ruin things for everyone else.
Well, now that our drones have been classified as "aircraft" perhaps we should expect all pilots to treat them as such. Maybe that means that we shouldn't bother landing when we hear manned aircraft flying in the area, as we should have just as much a right to flight as they do.
Perhaps the FAA should be careful what it wishes for.
Perhaps the FAA should be careful what it wishes for.
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2014
- Messages
- 134
- Reaction score
- 7
- "So, for the time being, any drone flight by anyone in the country can be considered "reckless" by the FAA under the NTSB's latest ruling, meaning that the FAA can fine you $10,000 for flying one anywhere, for any purpose. And the fact that "any device that is used for flight" can be considered an aircraft seems to suggest that even tiny toy aircraft are subject to the FAA's whim"
What is everyone take on what these new laws are going to be? Should we all sell our birds now before its to late? Or just fly ?
What is everyone take on what these new laws are going to be? Should we all sell our birds now before its to late? Or just fly ?
CRankin said:
The FAA might agree with you and say "fine, follow all parts of FAR 91 and have at it." So maybe we too should be careful of what we wish for!!
It is also consistent with the FAA's "clarification" from back in June where they basically said that since Section 336 of the FMRA defined our models as "aircraft" that we are now subject to the whims of the FAA when they want to violate you using the FARs.
my biggest concerns now th local police will think that drones are illegal. And they think they have the power to arrest people
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2014
- Messages
- 17
- Reaction score
- 0
*** holes like this are why we are at all restricted. Been in arguments with similar jerkwads in the Phantom forum who post their illegal flight videos, who believe rules and laws only apply to other people or are up for their uneducated interpretation. Stupid!
This means the appeal was granted and the case can be re-heard under the context of certain language clarifications.
Now the defendant faces court hearings again to re-address the initial lawsuit.
There is still a ways to go before this case is closed.
------------------
Aircraft Definition: Page 12 Conclusion
FRISBEE or Boomerang:
Now the defendant faces court hearings again to re-address the initial lawsuit.
There is still a ways to go before this case is closed.
------------------
Aircraft Definition: Page 12 Conclusion
49 U.S.C. § 40102(a)(6) and 14 C.F.R. § 1.1: an “aircraft” is any “device” “used for flight in the air.”
FRISBEE or Boomerang:
Both of these device/contrivances incorporate a controlled airfoil surface which makes them an "aircraft" by the appeal-definition. Their navigational trajectory plot is pre-determined by the human operator.
However, the FAA can simply not raise a complaint or law suit as they see fit to ignore such aircraft until something occurs (at their discretion) to raise as an incident... whatever.
Really? Show me anywhere in the video that Pirker flew over a crowd or otherwise endangered anyone from his four pound winged, foam aircraft.MapMaker53 said:
([youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZnJeuAja-4[/youtube])
Is this where you fly, where you want everyone to fly?
SteveMann said:
One Example:
YouTube Timestamp 2:31 going thru a tunnel with opposing traffic moving cars and just missed a walking pedestrian.
The tunnel flight possibly has the highest chance of loosing temporary link; thus no fast flight-skill reflexes could correct.
(what you don't see is the pilots real-time video downlink feed. If we could play that back and then discuss; opinions might further vary. You'd most likely see video dropouts and static.)
At those speeds, if the aircraft motor shaft struck you with four pounds behind it, it could cause serious injury. Especially to the eye.
MapMaker53 said:
At what point were hoards of people put in danger in the video? Were people running fearful and scared? Was significant damage done to property? Simply because you would not fly your drone in that manner does not necessarily means that it should automatically be classified as reckless.
Personally, I'd rather that the government keep its uneducated, uninformed, and arrogant nose completely out of what I choose to do with the property I own which was bought with my money. The world would be a far better place if agencies like the FAA stuck to regulating manned commercial air operations and left everything else to those who actually have a clue.
And I should be able to drive my own car that I bought with my own money while completely wasted behind the wheel, as long as I don't hit anyone. Boo hoo.
Again.. If someone needs to explain it to you, the law was meant for you.
Again.. If someone needs to explain it to you, the law was meant for you.
AerialIris said:
Darn, I guess I should take down the video of me flying over runway then?
Hold on, let me take that video down first.
Similar threads
