UAV / FPV Forum to talk about UAV / FPV electric R/C flight.

"Trappy" gets slapped with a $10K fine!

Old 11-24-2013, 09:47 AM
  #76  
JetPlaneFlyer
Super Contributor
 
JetPlaneFlyer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland
Posts: 6,122
Default

Rather than getting bogged down in interpretation of AMA rules could common sense not be applied (yeah I know, not so common these days).

Clearly Trappy was intentionally causing a hazard. He was flying through road tunnels and along pavement making people dive for cover. His flying obviously posed a significant hazard to people and property and he should face some sort of penalty.

Is driving and flying the same?.. Well if it was the same guy driving and flying then clearly yes, but I'm sure that's not how it was done. If the driver of the car obeyed all the rules of the road and the flyer of the plane kept the plane at a safe distance from the road, avoided overflying built up areas etc, than I don't see that there is really any significant hazard to people or property?

To say the latter is just as 'wrong' as the former is a twisted view on reality.
JetPlaneFlyer is offline  
Old 11-24-2013, 03:34 PM
  #77  
Fishbonez
Love my Stinger
 
Fishbonez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 2,951
Default

Originally Posted by JetPlaneFlyer View Post
Is driving and flying the same?.. Well if it was the same guy driving and flying then clearly yes, but I'm sure that's not how it was done. If the driver of the car obeyed all the rules of the road and the flyer of the plane kept the plane at a safe distance from the road, avoided overflying built up areas etc, than I don't see that there is really any significant hazard to people or property?
Well let me clarify what I meant by driving and flying. I was thinking the driver drives and the passenger flies. I guess I did not make myself to clear on that.

To think a driver could drive and fly at the same time well that brings crazy to a whole new level
Fishbonez is offline  
Old 02-02-2014, 06:58 PM
  #78  
IAFlyer
New Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 1
Default

Good on the FAA!
They've been very hands off over the years when it comes to responsible hobbyists, and even people providing a service for pay with safety in mind. But this is IMO a clear case of reckless endangerment.
Trappy and the DHS are a far greater threat to our hobby than the FAA ever was. After all the FAA's packed full of RC flyers
IAFlyer is offline  
Old 02-27-2014, 05:18 PM
  #79  
Nitro Blast
Community Moderator
Thread Starter
 
Nitro Blast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Sunny San Diego Ca
Posts: 4,052
Default

The Drama is just getting warmed up:

Trappys first entry:

http://www.kramerlevin.com/files/upl...A-v-Pirker.pdf

FAA Response:

http://lohrman.com/blogimage/FAA_Response.PDF

and the press jumps in on the tangle:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...al-flying-ban/


You are the Judge..... what is your ruling?
Nitro Blast is offline  
Old 02-27-2014, 05:35 PM
  #80  
pizzano
Behold The Renaissance
 
pizzano's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: So. Calif
Posts: 2,316
Default

Interesting.......the 1981 and 2007 "regulations" certainly could use an overhaul.....and like most legal issues, case precedents will most likely serve as the backdrop for future legal actions related to "reckless and unauthorized "drone" fights.........if the terms "drone" and "commercial" will ever be completely defined by a regulating agency that has the ability and "stones" to enforce such a broad range of multi prop flying craft used for both recreation and commercial purposes.......damn, if I get paid to fly my quad, does that constitute commercial use?.......
pizzano is offline  
Old 02-27-2014, 06:44 PM
  #81  
sidybee
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: middle of cali
Posts: 75
Default

more goverment getting in our lives . ya i understand it could have been a bad accident with that ,but that was good piloting and $10000. fine shoot man hollywood would pay that just to use his movie and then pay him more.
i wanna know what radio he was using it had to be good..
and if every one is so concerned about safety then WHY DONT THEY(FAA) MAKE A RADIO better so we dont have loss of control issues.....very good point here!!!!
i lost a plane once it flew till it was a dot then it was gone who knows where.
many times ive been out flying only to have interference. so now about that safety thing.............not condoning what he did ... but really what hell does the these people in power want from us answer TOTAL CONTROL OF OUR LIFE. B/S
i dont belong to nobody period. now back to safety , what about the full size air craft flying around with loose fasteners and tools left in there bodys.dont tell me it dont happen ive seen it first hand . had a wrench come through my roof one night and some misc parts seen crap in them that u would not beleive. how many lives can one of those take out..... faa has to much power stay out of our life more goverment B/S
ok im done deleet me kill me i dont care im tired of crap.
sidybee is offline  
Old 02-27-2014, 06:54 PM
  #82  
Turner
Super Contributor
 
Turner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Posts: 1,534
Default

So I guess you believe in anarchy?
Turner is offline  
Old 02-27-2014, 08:20 PM
  #83  
xmech2k
Ya got any Beeman's?
 
xmech2k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 3,100
Default

@ Sidybee: Wow. Can't argue with that. Except that I doubt most of us could afford that crash proof radio the FAA should make for us.

Nitro, the Scientific American link comes up bad. Fix?

While Trappy's lawyer makes points that sound good at first(lawyer-speak?), the FAA response is a good rebuttal. I looked up CFR 91-13 which the FAA mentioned, as I don't recall seeing the text in either document, and it's simply this:

" 91.13 Careless or reckless operation.
(a) Aircraft operations for the purpose
of air navigation. No person may operate
an aircraft in a careless or reckless
manner so as to endanger the life or
property of another.
(b) Aircraft operations other than for
the purpose of air navigation. No person
may operate an aircraft, other than for
the purpose of air navigation, on any
part of the surface of an airport used
by aircraft for air commerce (including
areas used by those aircraft for receiving
or discharging persons or cargo), in
a careless or reckless manner so as to
endanger the life or property of another."

I think Trappy's argument boils down to 'my plane is a hobbyists model airplane, which the FAA has no authority over'. I think it fails, partly because we have to admit, there are hobby-level vehicles that far exceed the capabilities of some UAV's out there. The hobby has progressed and evolved to the point where you can order the stuff on line to make those kind of UAV's. The line has been blurred, and as is usually the case, it's happened faster than regulations and common sense can keep up with.

So the FAA, like any government agency is slow to move. It's a blurry line, and Trappy stepped deep into it. I lean towards the FAA's side, but I'm no lawyer. Even if Trappy gets out of it, he's probably spent considerable money and worry over the situation, and the signal has been sent from the FAA this won't be tolerated in the future.

As a side note, while I don't do FPV and quads and these new things like it, I'm not against them at all. I believe they are a great advancement that will prove very helpful in many ways. Heck, it may be a future job opportunity that I'm being slow to react to. But people have to do it responsibly. I'll leave out the details, but recently I had a quad crash less than 5 feet from me due to a dead battery. (He was hovering very close.) While they weren't at full power, that was still 4 whirling razor blades that nearly hit me. Not even a sorry from the pilot. So was this type of flying OK just because there was a camera on it? I wonder how he would feel if I strapped a camera on my Edge540 and hovered so near him? What's the difference? OK, I'll put a gyro in it too, so anyone can fly it. Then is it OK?
xmech2k is offline  
Old 02-27-2014, 09:10 PM
  #84  
crxmanpat
Community Moderator
 
crxmanpat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Crawfordville, FL
Posts: 6,966
Default

My personal opinion is that the FAA has Trappy by the short hairs on this one. Once you do the "for hire" thing, you are considered an "aircraft" under 91-13, and you have to follow all the rules therein.
crxmanpat is offline  
Old 02-27-2014, 11:27 PM
  #85  
Bub Steve
Super Contributor
 
Bub Steve's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Shadeville Fl,
Posts: 7,189
Default

'my plane is a hobbyists model airplane, which the FAA has no authority over, This jerk is hiding under our sports skirt, as if we need all his bad press,,,,,,
bubsteve
Bub Steve is offline  
Old 02-28-2014, 09:50 PM
  #86  
propnut48
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: So , Cal (but not by choice)
Posts: 170
Default

May get to the point where the FAA will ban FPV's. I have several police officers and they want to use Quads to monitor actions on a call and the city won't alolow them to use them as they are considered "Drones". Funny because they use tracked vehicles (drones to a sort) to get in to various situations. Same thing but with wheels or tracks . Why something with wings be any different is beyond me. Go figure!
propnut48 is offline  
Old 02-28-2014, 10:27 PM
  #87  
xmech2k
Ya got any Beeman's?
 
xmech2k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 3,100
Default

You 'have' several police officers?

Somehow people have been brainwashed by the 'drone' term. Kinda like men on the Oprah show. Women=Good, Men=Bad. Drone=Bad. CNN, Fox, and those folks need to have some reports when they are shown in a positive light before sheeple, err, I mean people, get reprogrammed on their feelings about them. Right now you only get a super brief mention of things like the UAV that surveyed the Fukushima reactors after the tsunami.

They inevitably will become part of our world and soon people will forget a time where they weren't around, and wonder how we got along without them. Like microwaves and cell phones. It's just a mountain to climb to get to the point where they are accepted and safely operated.
xmech2k is offline  
Old 02-28-2014, 11:47 PM
  #88  
propnut48
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: So , Cal (but not by choice)
Posts: 170
Default

Yep. I fly with a guy that does the Autoclub speed way with a quad copter, FPV, and he is always flying around the neighborhood and has no problems at all. No one has ever called the cops on him. I can see if someone uses it it do the peeping tom thing, but 99.999% of us are just flight enthusiasts. Police should be able to use them to fight crime. Its cheaper then a $6-10,000,000 chopper. Not as big a problem if it goes down too. BIG BROTHER AHOY!!
propnut48 is offline  
Old 03-07-2014, 11:02 PM
  #89  
crxmanpat
Community Moderator
 
crxmanpat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Crawfordville, FL
Posts: 6,966
Default

Looks like Trappy might get out of the fine after all.

http://www.suasnews.com/2014/03/2792...-six-year-ban/
crxmanpat is offline  
Old 03-08-2014, 12:07 AM
  #90  
Panther
Super Contributor
 
Panther's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: South East Queensland, Australia
Posts: 1,639
Default

Originally Posted by crxmanpat View Post
Looks like Trappy might get out of the fine after all.

http://www.suasnews.com/2014/03/2792...-six-year-ban/

Thanks for the report.
Panther is offline  
Old 03-08-2014, 03:04 AM
  #91  
pizzano
Behold The Renaissance
 
pizzano's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: So. Calif
Posts: 2,316
Default

Originally Posted by propnut48 View Post
Yep. I fly with a guy that does the Autoclub speed way with a quad copter, FPV, and he is always flying around the neighborhood and has no problems at all. No one has ever called the cops on him. I can see if someone uses it it do the peeping tom thing, but 99.999% of us are just flight enthusiasts. Police should be able to use them to fight crime. Its cheaper then a $6-10,000,000 chopper. Not as big a problem if it goes down too. BIG BROTHER AHOY!!

A couple of small problems....they are really only good (at the moment) for surveillance and can be taken out of the air pretty easy (shot down)...and (at the moment) not that stealthy unless fairly high up where tactical surveillance becomes an issue for non-military trained personell.....

Edit:
Particularly in urban (city) environments in our larger communities in the U.S. where most everyone is sensitive to anything that is related to personal privacy, noises from above, stuff falling from the sky.....my RC helicopter landing on their fornt yard.......lol.
pizzano is offline  
Old 03-08-2014, 03:05 AM
  #92  
kyleservicetech
Super Contributor
 
kyleservicetech's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Posts: 8,952
Default

Originally Posted by crxmanpat View Post
Looks like Trappy might get out of the fine after all.

http://www.suasnews.com/2014/03/2792...-six-year-ban/
Wonder how much Trappy spent in legal fees???
kyleservicetech is offline  
Old 03-08-2014, 04:24 AM
  #93  
crxmanpat
Community Moderator
 
crxmanpat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Crawfordville, FL
Posts: 6,966
Default

Evidently his lawyer is a NY resident and long-time RC enthusiest. He may have offered his services pro bono.
crxmanpat is offline  
Old 03-08-2014, 05:10 AM
  #94  
propnut48
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: So , Cal (but not by choice)
Posts: 170
Default

Wonder how long it will be before the government says all RC planes/copter/quads/etc are classified as uav's. Cameras on planes, etc will probably be banned.
propnut48 is offline  
Old 03-08-2014, 08:17 AM
  #95  
thepiper92
Warbird Fanatic
 
thepiper92's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Winnipeg, Canada
Posts: 1,513
Default

All of this drones/uav stuff is ridiculous. Common sense is needed, of course, and people should think about what they are doing, such as flying a plane around unsuspecting people is not a smart idea. On the other hand, it is not right to consider rc planes and such drones/uavs, and doing so is not the correct way to solve the problem of some behaving irresponsibly with an rc vehicle. On a lighter not, this is how I see drones: http://au.tv.yahoo.com/plus7/snl-arc...912086/drones/
thepiper92 is offline  
Old 03-08-2014, 02:53 PM
  #96  
Turner
Super Contributor
 
Turner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Posts: 1,534
Default

Seems to me the ridiculous thing is the inappropriate behavior of some irresponsible pilots.

Looks like the FAA and the AMA agree about what constitutes legitimate modeling practices. Because some choose to not follow clear AMA guidelines for safe flight these rules will eventually need to be codified into law.
Turner is offline  
Old 03-08-2014, 04:17 PM
  #97  
thepiper92
Warbird Fanatic
 
thepiper92's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Winnipeg, Canada
Posts: 1,513
Default

Irresponsibility should be dealt with on the personal level. If first time, tell them what they did wrong (unless injury or damage took place). Second time, fine them. Painting everyone with the same brush is wrong; if I fly quad copters, and some guy wants to pay me to film something, why should I be considered to be flying a uav, which to me is almost a weapon. Yes some rc vehicles are huge and can kill someone, but people just need common sense.
thepiper92 is offline  
Old 03-09-2014, 12:16 AM
  #98  
Turner
Super Contributor
 
Turner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Posts: 1,534
Default

The common sense that seems to be lacking so frequently is on the issue of flying close to and over people. It just shouldn't be done. I'll be pleased if this becomes law.
Turner is offline  
Old 03-09-2014, 12:50 AM
  #99  
thepiper92
Warbird Fanatic
 
thepiper92's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Winnipeg, Canada
Posts: 1,513
Default

Common sense is lacking. Although if all parties agree, and I mean all parties, to a rc flying over them for filming, that is fine. Any laws should be categorized for size and speed. A little vapor will not hurt anyone, but a 30 inch wingspan edf going 100mph or a 1/4 scale plane will easily hurt or even kill someone. I fly in a quiet area, but even property damage could happen if I flew a 1/4 and something goes wrong. With something like a mini, if it hits a fence, no harm is done.
thepiper92 is offline  
Old 03-09-2014, 12:57 AM
  #100  
Turner
Super Contributor
 
Turner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Posts: 1,534
Default

Can't really disagree with any of that.
Turner is offline  

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.

Page generated in 0.15502 seconds with 12 queries