This week's "EAA Hotline", an email newsletter for EAA members has a story on the Team Black Sheep video. They don't state a position on the flight, but report AMA's position, and conclude with:
"The FAA includes R/C aircraft flown by modelers in its definition of Unmanned Aircraft Systems and states its “recreational use of the National Airspace System is covered by FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 91-57, which generally limits operations to below 400 feet above ground level and away from airports and air traffic."
http://www.eaa.org/news/2010/2010-12-09_zephyr.asp
That video is getting notice in a lot of places...
Comments
What altitude are birds allowed to go, and are they any less dangerous?
I dont really know what it would have looked like if that NYC plane had came down in traffic, but if its anything near like a deer smashing into my windshield at 65mph. It would be unexpected, but as I found out, I would be still responcible for maintainting the vehicle in any event. $hit happens daily. Get over it.
From the above article;
In August, police in Santa Barbara, Calif., detained flight instructors John and Martha King at gunpoint after federal authorities mistook their Cessna for a plane that was stolen in 2002. The Kings are famous in aviation because they produce and star in a popular series of test-preparation videos for pilots.
The error in the Kings' case was eventually traced to a law-enforcement database that is cross-referenced with the FAA's registry, not to the registry itself. But Brown of the FAA called it an example of the real-world consequences of bad recordkeeping.
"It's very, very scary," Martha King said. "If this keeps happening to people, somebody's going to get shot."
To update the FAA registry, the agency will cancel all aircraft registrations over the next three years. Owners will have three months to re-register. In addition, the FAA will do away with its one-time registration certificate and adopt one that has to be replaced every three years. Those who fail to re-register will lose their certificate, and the plane must be grounded.
Consequences to innocent registered pilots, real damage and , maybe death !
FAA should have issued this policy on 9-12, while all planes were grounded !
We will be subject to FAA sUAS registration, inspection and enforcement too...
New sUAS policy will tell all.
Thought everyone might get a bit of a chuckle out of this latest story about our vaulted FAA and their lack of power to enforce even their existing rules and regulations. Link: http://www.newsday.com/news/new-york/ap-enterprise-faa-loses-track-...
This is not to say we should thumb our noses, rather it's intended to demonstrate just how hard it would be for them to track down offenders of rules which are intended to curtail use of the sort of technology we propose to use.
I am amazed at the way trappy found to show us that beautifull city, i am sure he doesn´t want to brake laws, but at the end the result was a wonderfull video and a lot of publicity.....
Well said, Mike.
I guess one of his points was to get us all arguing. All said, I think his stunt was not a good thing for us. It was just not dangerous in this one case. If every knucklehead thinks it's ok to do this then the authorities will take notice. The only thing we got going for us is most knuckleheads can't do it. This concept applies to a lot of potentiality dangerous things.
Duane, Joel, I posted this link so that we could get some insight into how other airspace users see us. (I know, one can argue there's a difference between hobby UAVs, FPV and model R/C, but on of those insights is that manned aircraft folks don't really see those differences.) I don't really see the point of arguing legalities and definitions, when the issue is one of perceptions. Right now, the manned aviation community is starting to take an interest in operations like ours because of videos of "Team Black Sheep" and the recent R/C - homebuilt accident. They don't see thousands of hours of safe operations, or the effort that goes making them happen. They see unlicensed aircraft doing things outside of AC 91-57, and collisions between airplanes like theirs and people they don't know.
If you want to change that perception, which I would assert is having an influence on the NPRM that's being written now, I suggest that videos showing safe flights within the current rules, and finding ways to positively engage with other airspace users would work better than asserting your "rights" or assuming that the sky is falling.
He wasn't flying over 5th ave... he was over a river...
If there would have been a crowd of people he would have stayed away from it(watch his other vids).
BTW, i'm not just talking FPV, i'm also talking regular rc users. FPV is equally dangerous in my eyes. And actually if you try a flight sim, FPV makes mroe sense because you are flying from the point of view of a pilot. With a regular rc plane you have to keep in mind orientation from your position. nose in, nose out etc.
(assuming the FPV pilot stays within line of site. If he leaves that then yes you can deal with loss of signal etc. But if he stays within LOS then he has the same possibilities of failer as the regular RC pilot.
-
1
-
2
of 2 Next