turtlespeed 226 #26 July 20, 2015 AnvilbrotherYou jump in here and inject youself I to a conversation late leaving out the context. Sure all alphabet soup federal agencies all have that we can do whatever they want clause. Quade said this QuoteNope. Anything man-made that flies over the US airspace falls under FAA regulations. Which is what my replies are talking to. So please show me where he is right that the FAA has regulations for my planes.... Not the one sentence blanket we have the right to investigate incidents part. Show me the REGULATIONS he said we fall under as HOBBY pilots. I will wait. He was originally fined for commercial operations and that's what the ENTIRE shit show was about. After the ruling that said the FAA was acting illegally that's when the other part came out of butthurtness. His case has and will always be about commercial operation. No one actually knows if the part 91.13 actually sticks to rc aircraft because he backed out and just paid the $1,100 so no review or appeals were made to justify if he was reckless or if that even applies to rc aircraft! http://www.team-blacksheep.com/docs/pirker-faa-settlement.pdf Shouldn't that be somehow included in some kind of double jeopardy kinda thing? Are they allowed to just throw random charges up at the wall to see what sticks. How can that be legal at all?I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Anvilbrother 0 #27 July 21, 2015 Maybe because it was civil fines and not a crime? I think it's bullshit too. The FAA got seriously embarrassed and had their brother the NTSB come in and trump a bunch of shit up to make it sound real bad. My favorite is. -you did not hold an FAA pilots certificate Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along, Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,159 #28 July 21, 2015 AnvilbrotherYou jump in here and inject youself I to a conversation late leaving out the context. Sure all alphabet soup federal agencies all have that we can do whatever they want clause. Quade said this QuoteNope. Anything man-made that flies over the US airspace falls under FAA regulations. Which is what my replies are talking to. So please show me where he is right that the FAA has regulations for my planes.... Not the one sentence blanket we have the right to investigate incidents part. Show me the REGULATIONS he said we fall under as HOBBY pilots. I will wait. He was originally fined for commercial operations and that's what the ENTIRE shit show was about. After the ruling that said the FAA was acting illegally that's when the other part came out of butthurtness. His case has and will always be about commercial operation. No one actually knows if the part 91.13 actually sticks to rc aircraft because he backed out and just paid the $1,100 so no review or appeals were made to justify if he was reckless or if that even applies to rc aircraft! http://www.team-blacksheep.com/docs/pirker-faa-settlement.pdf FAR 91.13 is an FAA regulation that NTSB, has stated applies to model aircraft. Until thrown out by a higher court, this IS the law. Federal Aviation REGULATION. To be exempt from other FAA regulations the model must satisfy ALL of the requirements of Section 336. Including following the safety code of a nationwide community based organization. Pirker was never fined for commercial operations. He was fined for a 91.13 violation. Read the transcripts.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #29 July 21, 2015 kallend***You jump in here and inject youself I to a conversation late leaving out the context. Sure all alphabet soup federal agencies all have that we can do whatever they want clause. Quade said this QuoteNope. Anything man-made that flies over the US airspace falls under FAA regulations. Which is what my replies are talking to. So please show me where he is right that the FAA has regulations for my planes.... Not the one sentence blanket we have the right to investigate incidents part. Show me the REGULATIONS he said we fall under as HOBBY pilots. I will wait. He was originally fined for commercial operations and that's what the ENTIRE shit show was about. After the ruling that said the FAA was acting illegally that's when the other part came out of butthurtness. His case has and will always be about commercial operation. No one actually knows if the part 91.13 actually sticks to rc aircraft because he backed out and just paid the $1,100 so no review or appeals were made to justify if he was reckless or if that even applies to rc aircraft! http://www.team-blacksheep.com/docs/pirker-faa-settlement.pdf FAR 91.13 is an FAA regulation that NTSB, has stated applies to model aircraft. Until thrown out by a higher court, this IS the law. Federal Aviation REGULATION. To be exempt from other FAA regulations the model must satisfy ALL of the requirements of Section 336. Including following the safety code of a nationwide community based organization. Pirker was never fined for commercial operations. He was fined for a 91.13 violation. Read the transcripts. Interesting precedent. Guilty until proven innocent. NTSB, not the court says it is a certain way, until it is inconvenient, then says it is another way, now you have to have a court over rule it. Kinda like saying that a paper airplane is under FAA regulation. What next, as you are driving around and fly your hand out the window in the fog, you are not in compliance of FAA rules regarding instrument flying?I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,159 #30 July 21, 2015 turtlespeed******You jump in here and inject youself I to a conversation late leaving out the context. Sure all alphabet soup federal agencies all have that we can do whatever they want clause. Quade said this QuoteNope. Anything man-made that flies over the US airspace falls under FAA regulations. Which is what my replies are talking to. So please show me where he is right that the FAA has regulations for my planes.... Not the one sentence blanket we have the right to investigate incidents part. Show me the REGULATIONS he said we fall under as HOBBY pilots. I will wait. He was originally fined for commercial operations and that's what the ENTIRE shit show was about. After the ruling that said the FAA was acting illegally that's when the other part came out of butthurtness. His case has and will always be about commercial operation. No one actually knows if the part 91.13 actually sticks to rc aircraft because he backed out and just paid the $1,100 so no review or appeals were made to justify if he was reckless or if that even applies to rc aircraft! http://www.team-blacksheep.com/docs/pirker-faa-settlement.pdf FAR 91.13 is an FAA regulation that NTSB, has stated applies to model aircraft. Until thrown out by a higher court, this IS the law. Federal Aviation REGULATION. To be exempt from other FAA regulations the model must satisfy ALL of the requirements of Section 336. Including following the safety code of a nationwide community based organization. Pirker was never fined for commercial operations. He was fined for a 91.13 violation. Read the transcripts. Interesting precedent. Guilty until proven innocent. NTSB, not the court says it is a certain way, until it is inconvenient, then says it is another way, now you have to have a court over rule it. Kinda like saying that a paper airplane is under FAA regulation. What next, as you are driving around and fly your hand out the window in the fog, you are not in compliance of FAA rules regarding instrument flying? I agree with you, but that IS the way it is. The administrative law judge made that exact point (about paper planes), but was reversed on appeal. One of the big problems with administrative (as opposed to criminal) law.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,159 #31 July 21, 2015 One geek's analysis: www.wired.com/2015/07/uh-oh-video-pistol-firing-drone-probably-real/... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
