Trappy versus the FAA (an opinion-piece rant)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 9 окт 2013
- No flying in this video - it's one of my occasional rants - pure opinion so if strong opinions offend, give this video a miss.
Please read this story on wired.com:
www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013...
It details how and why Raphael Pirker (AKA Trappy) of Team Blacksheep has been fined $10,000 by the US airspace administrator, the FAA
Another article by sUAS News gives more information about the exact charges involved:
www.suasnews.com/2013/10/25471...
Well I'm not impressed with the way that airspace administrators around the world are dealing with the issues surrounding FPV models and the use of RC model aircraft for earning a penny or two and effectively treat a 2oz Walkera Ladybird with FPV onboard just as if it were a fire-breathing Preadator drone.
In theory, every single person who posts a video of their flying to RUclips and monetizes that vide is in violation of these policies and exposes themselves to prosecution because -- when you fly an RC model for financial reward, it loses its RC model status and becomes an Unmanned Aerial System (UAS), just like a predator drone.
Now read this article by the Australian ABC and see how that country plans to stratify its rules regarding "UAS" based on their weight and the level of danger they may represent to person and property:
www.abc.net.au/news/2013-03-01...
In that article, John McCormick of CASA is quoted as saying "I can't write a regulation I know I can't enforce -- I can. But it's bad law." Too bad other airspace administrators don't have the same pragmatic and sensible perspectives on this issue.
Trappy's RUclips channe:
/ nastycop420 
Спорт
I would just like to say that not all RC modelers are reckless. As an avid flyer in this growing revolution of technology. I live an a rual area Georgia, the local law enforcement are not fully equipped to deal with all aspects of possible activities and situations that can occur. Case in point: Lost child in a wooded, swampy area made it quite difficult to searchers to locate the child in a timely manner. Phone rings, its the local authorities. They ask me if I am the guy with the model aircraft that has airborne video capabilities. Yes! ... would I be willing to bring my equipment to the search area and assist in the search for the lost child. Of course without thought I said yes. When I got to the sight the authorities merged upon me to see what this was all about (FPV). I assembled and ground tested the equipment and launched my search with the help of local authorities. Up my multi rotor went. after just a few minutes with my fat shark goggles I located the child in a swampy area inaccessible to searchers. Needless to say the child was brought home safely to it parents. Local authorities asked if I would assist in obtaining and training their people in the use of this type of equipment. They awarded me a local honor for my helping in the search and rescue mission ( no pay). Just one but very important use of FPV equipped models. And the FAA says I am a criminal in their eyes. They should talk to the parents of the missing child.
I think you have to remember that people working in the employ of government are sometimes not the brightest bulbs in the socket and if there's one thing they hate, it's being bested in court. The FAA *was* embarrassed by the Pirker case and seem to have taken it very personally -- to the extent of actively seekin gto shut down the FPV aspect of our hobby (by way of the recent reinterpretation of the definition of a model aircraft) and by effectively crippling the US hobby industry by declaring any commercial use of RC models to be illegal.
We have the same problems in New Zealand -- it's just the way the world works. If these guys were *any* good at what they do, they'd have a *real* job in private enterprise but, sadly, all they can do is work for Uncle Sam -- which gives them a little power -- and what good is power if you don't abuse it?
***** If they ban FPV it won't stop FPV. People will still operate FPV, but they'll do it on the sly and they will be considered "criminals" should they get caught. By banning it all they are creating is a cat versus mouse game. Much like drug prohibition. What is needed is sensible regulation that encourages safe and sane operation. Not banning. Banning never works and even creates dangers,
Well done, thanks for doing this and thanks for showing people that having such a tool will help save lives.cheers to you.
Truly it comes down to money. If your getting paid they want their cut for licenses and taxes.
It comes down to this: it's taking money out of corporations' pockets. If someone flies a DJI Phantom around a house for sale, and a real estate agent pays them to do it, that means a corporation doesn't get a shot at marketing their $75000 UAV to the real estate company.
That said, flying BVR, whether FPV or not, is inherently hazardous. The three-word phrase which covers the bases is "see and avoid". The Academy of Model Aeronautics (in the US) adopted FAA Advisory Circular 91-57's restrictions as a condition of their insurance coverage: within direct view of the operator, below 400 feet AGL. In order to keep regulatory agencies from slapping draconian restrictions on the hobby, the hobby must demonstrate itself to be self-policing, much as amateur radio is largely self-policing. Until that has been demonstrated, Trappy's escapades do nothing but endanger the entire FPV hobby.
Just my 2p worth. Save up the change for a pint.
Hi Bruce, is it 1.5kg or 2kg that will be the limit for 'small' RC models in Australia? The ABC article you linked to says 2kg.
Have you got any more up to date link about the Australian regulations? I've been looking since the abc published the article and I cannot find any up dates about it. It just seems like that is a future idea and that currently you need pilot license and $10,000 for form processing. I'd love to do it as a side business but I can't find any updates.
I agree with the whole commercial issue and the stupid rules the CAA and FAA apply to our models, its obviously ridiculous. So on that front I hope things change and wish Trappy the best of luck in fighting our corner.
BUT - While I love watching Team Black sheep FPV videos and am super impressed with their quality and skill, they do take unnecessary risks in public areas in my opinion. You have to accept that in our hobby sometimes things go wrong no matter what your skill level, and for this reason you absolutely must not fly in close proximity or directly overhead of the general public - accidents happen, and it will damage the hobby when someone gets injured from this.
Where can i get information about this topic. I don't know where to go, i leave in Portugal.
Hi Bruce, do you have a link to the CASA information you have ? Many thanks
There's a link to the ABC story in the description of the video.
Any developments on small scale commercial use? I've come across stories of professional photographers using them for weddings and being able to get insurance for their services. Locally, I noticed that a pro photographer named his studio in a RUclips video made this past winter.
Seems the entire rant is about the FAA/CAAs line drawing between model aircraft and unmanned aerial systems.
There must be a line somewhere, they (the FAA/CAA) have decided (wrongly IMHO) the line should be if remuneration is made not the potential danger of the machine. CASA have drawn the line at 1500 grams, does that mean 1501 grams suddenly becomes very dangerous?
It's very obvious that a Predator drone is MUCH more dangerous than that 48g 'thing' but what about a half scale Predator and a double scale 'thing' ? What about a quarter scale Predator and a quad scale 'thing'. what about an eigth ...
THE LINE HAS TO BE DRAWN SOMEWHERE.
You hit the Nail on the head. Some countries are already handling this in a productive , organized way , instead of bundling 2oz models in the same category as the 2000lb predator drones. I hope the FAA truly joins suit in there Next publication of policies.
Well said Bruce.
And this issue is connected to this other video you made about a worldwide FPV organization to protect FPV pilots and help to regulate about it. Any news on this direction?
Bruce,
You make good points and I am happy to see this thread is still read....The only thing I can state that will be good or bad for our hobby will be if we can show that as modeler's we have good practices and safe operations then the enforcement agencies will look favorably on us, if not we have a very uphill battle to keep flying.
I hope we come out on top and get to still enjoy this hobby....thanks again for responding and love the videos and info.
what is "NP"?
Bruce, in light of the recent decision regarding Trappy, are you planning a follow up piece to this video?
I was thinking of it... but there's probably not a lot to be said.. except "I told you that policies were no substitute for regulation" :-)
***** For those of us who missed it, would you consider doing a quick comment to let us know how it turned out... Please?
Here's an update on the appeal process:
www.suasnews.com/2014/11/32771/faa-statement-on-ntsb-decision-in-huerta-v-pirker/
It looks like the focus has shifted to spinning the issue ... it doesn't say you can't do it - just can't do it in a 'careless or reckless manner'.
The video that caused all the fuss ... Stunt Sheep Don t try this at home: Trappys $10k fine UVA video
Watching that a layman might say it looks 'careless and reckless' but so do the Red Bull fliers, seen in that light - yet consider that Trappy is probably one of the most experienced and skilful FPV pilots and has bags of experience ... so a close pass to a building is not because he had to panic pull out of the way, but because he wanted to go there for the visual effect - it makes for dramatic footage but it's under control and deliberate.
So in legal terms one has to look at all the unseen factors to decide if it was 'careless and reckless' there would have to be lack of foresight or lack of concern to show carelessness, or blatant disregard for safety of persons or property to show recklessness..
Trappy usually flies with a support team assisting to ensure technical success and probably did planning to ensure no failures like signal loss, etc Also, his equipment would have been totally up to scratch and proven. Team Black Sheep produce the stuff so he can pick and choose at will.
Hardly 'careless and reckless'.
Yes, it is a *VERY* bad law which relies on subjective evaluations such as what constitutes "reckless" use.
This NTSB decision effectively makes the legality or illegality of *every* model flight (RC or otherwise) entirely at the discretion of the FAA. When you give such a huge amount of power to a bureaucracy you run the huge risk of that power being abused for personal or political ends -- not only by the bureaucracy itself but by anyone who might decide they don't like RC planes flying in their part of the world. All they have to do is file an official complaint with the FAA alleging "reckless" flying and then the huge wheels of the Federal monster spin into action.
Get enough of these complaints and the bureaucrats will simply say "too hard -- just fine everyone and let them appeal if they feel our decision was wrong". They will know full-well that most folk will simply pay the fine, even if they're innocent -- because the appeal process is so expensive.
So, all those folk who presently complain about the noise or the privacy issues associated with RC models will be empowered to have yo prosecuted and fined, without just cause.
As I said... VERY VERY bad law.
*****
It's not a risk, it's a guarantee. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
*****
Hi Bruce, I have something I want to send you regarding the 'drone' regulatory process .. some proposals that are close to final for South Africa, may be interesting for you as NZ is at a similar stage of discussion/comment ... but also my comment on a situation in UK that I know you will find interesting and I suggest it as a 'rant' video for you ... but don't want to publish email addresses .. so if you email me david at animaz dot co dot za ... and I'll edit this out after I hear from you ....
As a Aircraft Maintenance Engineer in Australia i deal with CASA every day. I agree 100% with what you are saying and i think the casa model weight classes are by far the best way of determining the regulations. One thing i would like to point out is most people are unaware of the ACMA regarding radio frequencies. All fpv systems i am aware of are illegal with out an Amateur radio licence. They aren't that expensive to get and you will learn a lot of useful stuff. GET ONE!
What are they going to do next ban playing darts, would they class them as un-maned guided missiles that people are being paid to launch ( professional darts tournaments ), well that's how petty this whole thing sounds to me.
People are having way too much fun and this can not be allowed, people who enjoy life are harder to control.
CASA Is fantastic to deal with. Whether its to do with general aviation or model flying, they are great! Its hard to believe that they are a government department.
An battery pack is like birdstrike on engine, regardless of payment, old, or new aircraft?
The guy Trappy is one of the people, perhaps, the most responsible person for bringing all these regulations towards to hobby. People told him not to do it. People advised him, not to do it of it will affect the hobby. Still Trappy came to the US and flew in NY (he didn't give a rat's a$$). $10,000 is nothing for how he has ruined things for people that love the hobby. Because of that, I will not buy any products endorsed or that he is involved in. He is a smart guy but full of ego.
Still, at some point the problem would have come up any way
Great video, the regulations and laws for sure have to change.
Here in Texas, a brand new law was passed that makes any hobby RC craft with a camera on it illegal if a house is in any picture. We can thank Lance Gooden a state rep. He was on a radio talk show saying that the rancher next door watches over his herd with a RC toy copter and he was worried that the rancher might be looking over at him as he watches his herd. Most hobby copters can fly for 8 to 10 minutes per charge. Lance got a law passed that essentially kills the RC hobby in Texas.
I'm glad you made the tiny quad argument. I've been saying the same thing to Transport Canada inspectors for the last year. The regulatory situation in Canada is similar to the US. It becomes a UAV when you get paid. Except that Transport Canada has a procedure for UAVs, where you have to request and obtain a Special Flight Operation Certificate... Which basically means that we get to make a SFOC request, get ignored, not get a reply from TC, harass the TC inspector, finally get him to process the request one month later, and get the request denied... Yay!
I'm glad that Trappy won his court case, even if that means that it's going to be easier now to exploit a multirotor or radio-controlled aircraft in the US than in Canada.
Great point with the "policy" vs "law." I have been saying this for years. Hopefully, the report will finally take notice of this and get rid of this policy, the fcc regs, and the damn violation of constitutional rights that happens every day in an airport!
Is this really the case in NZ too? Hell i want to do this just to prove a point!
Why not, as a modeler, try and sign up with CAZZER(?), even if you don't live in Aussie land.
If you get a letter from your national FAA about being reported for flying a model for "expenses", you can tell them you are signed up with CAZZER and ask them why they don't grow up like the Assies have, and deal with "their" problem to make a decent law that won't stop modelers and others from enjoying their pastime.
I believe their should be weight limits for fpv. If the plane exceeds a certain weight it would qualify as as a drone. If the size of the plane is too big it can carry more weight therefore it poses more of a threat to property.
No matter how much it's discussed, the laws just aren't there. Notice that no one can quote a specific regulation
I'm not arguing at all that if a UAV brings a plane down, that the UAV operator could be brought into court. What I am saying, however, is that there are no UAV laws or regulations that can be used in court to prove the plantiff's case, and there is no precedent, so any assertion(s), including the guy's in this video, of the outcome of flying and not registering are only conjecture.
Also, I was unable to find the FAA regulation that says that UAV operators "Must" use "See and Avoid." As stated above, there are no regulations on UAVs at this time. Please reply with a regulation number or link.
I pointed to Trappy once about my concern of safety him flying over peoples heads in a city(I think Venice),that a multirotor is potential failure of everything regardless of piloting skills,so I truly hope it will not be taken into consideration in the court but thumbs up for him for not letting himself being bullied by bureaucrats.They just want to make a point and make an example for everybody,and who they choose-one of the most famous FPV'er of course...On the same note- Bruce is a legend!!!
This video was very informative and humorous to boot. Thanks for covering this, Bruce!
Reckless endangerment: A person commits the crime of reckless endangerment if the person recklessly engages in conduct which creates a substantial risk of serious physical injury to another person. “Reckless” conduct is conduct that exhibits a culpable disregard of foreseeable consequences to others from the act or omission involved. The accused need not intentionally cause a resulting harm. The ultimate question is whether, under all the circumstances, the accursed conduct was of that heedless nature that made it actually or imminently dangerous to the rights or safety of others.
Public endangerment is a criminal act that can be prosecuted in a court. It is usually applied to crimes which place the public in some form of danger, although that danger can be more or less severe according to the crime. It is punished most frequently in Canada.
Endangerment can range from a misdemeanor to a felony. The NY Penal Code codifies Reckless Endangerment in §120.20 in the second degree and §120.25 in the first degree for injuries to persons and 145.25 for risk to damage to property. One of the most important elements in these charges is not that necessarily damage or injury happened, but that there was potential for substantial injury or damage to occur by the defendant's actions.
I fly FPV and have been flying RC since 79. These idiots who fly over city's and the public are going to ruin it for everyone! Remember the Government always goes overboard when they pass new regulations and it would be very difficult for hobbyists to get them lessened or overturned when passed and implemented. Local authorities should have charged him. These kinds of videos are cool in a movie when it's a controlled environment and everyone is on-board and choreographed but to fly like this guy did is no different than recklessly driving a motorcycle or car through traffic. We have laws to protect us from ourselves and idiots that have taken things too far and laws are usually formed because of public outcry or to protect the public. There is even a guy on youtube, who landed on a stadium! What do you think the public would say if that was on the evening news? There is NO logical argument for this kind of behavior. NONE!
Flying commercial in constrained areas, evaluated for safe flight according to specific guidelines, < 400ft AGL,
Thank you. It's so nice to have some logic put in to the body of injustice we are currently being subjected to. Your an inspiration.
Unfortunately there is no way about it, full scale aircraft carry people and transverse over populated areas. Airports are usually located in cities. If you look at the statistics and the number of flights and total carried persons vs casualties the actual number is quite low. RC aircraft do not carry passengers and hence do not need to fly near populated areas-it is for the most part a hobby and should be conducted in a safe area away from population. As far as casualties-it is still early in the game. They are plenty of posted videos of crashes, just lucky these where not involving windows, or children or autos.
As far as I can see it is wrong to do what is NOT per the AMA guide lines that I posted, if and when this is changed then a new set of rules will exist to protect the public and you can then go and break those.
G-Day Bruce, I live here in Australia - & I want to point out how IMPORTANT this video of yours is to me.A friend and I were considering taking redundancy & going into business doing Aerial work for a living. My mate came back to me after doing some checking back in January this year & said it wasn't worth doing because of all the regulations. I just checked with the website there & YEA! now I CAN tell my boss Ill take the redundancy & start the ball rolling! - thank you So MUCH! Bruce cheers!
Thanks for your information Bruce. We need to speak up more about any shortcomings of our RC flyer associations, especially in their performance of safety enforcement.
Whilst our association in Australia do a pretty good job overall, I've never seen or heard of a 'model flight association appointed officer' going to a model airfield to do a random check on a club's safety procedures.
Surely they should do this to abide by air traffic regulations. This would be a commonsense approach to ensure FPV pilots etc obey the rule of having a buddy who keeps the model in line of sight.
Isn't it really just a commercial vehicle issue? Like a commercial pilot versus a private pilot license
That's why I'm saying you should read the actual legal filings involved with the case. The FAA is not accusing him of getting paid. The crime he is charged with is "Careless or reckless operation of aircraft" under 14 C.F.R. § 91.13 which does not discriminate between aircraft for hire and otherwise. His attorneys are not disputing whether he was paid or the events of the crime itself, they are arguing against the authority of the FAA to regulate model airplanes, whether they are for hire or not
actually according to trappy's lawyer's motion to dismiss RC pre-date FAA and well it seem FAA as no law (none legally passed at least) regarding RC nor fpv, and it seem that the US Congress had told FAA to produce regulation and they didn't even start by the end of the deadline :p
if you want to read it look it up (google it or go to flitetest, there's a link in the podcast page with Trappy's interview)
PS: it also seem that the FAA had no authority fining Trappy if they had any law against what he did since he is not american (they should have handed the case to their Switzerland equivalent)
It's the same here in New Zealand.
I challenged CAA's "policies" and claimed they had no standing in law.
CAA disagreed.
Now they have effectively turned around and said "ignore our polices until we get some *regulations* in place" which is an admission that "policies" have no legal standing -- as I asserted in the first place.
The same applies in the USA.
Great rant, thanks! I had skimmed through a thread about this on RCG but i learned a lot listening to this video, thank you. For me, this subject is quite pertinent, since I've recently plunged into the fpv business world .... I'll be anxiously awaiting the verdict on this case.
Rant on Bruce, you're not wrong. Everyone should have a rant. Helps clear the air.
Ranting is underrated.
I think the governing body in the U.K have made some exceptions for FPV, but still way behind Australia.
Thanks Bruce. you taught me something about AU im in perth and thought i knew the laws. when did this change? my model is 1.3kg and ive been very worried about taking money for my work... ill have to research further. Thanks again Bruce
It's all about Jurisdiction and Federal Contract.
If you aren't Federal, nor bound to Federal Jurisdiction, the FAA has no Authority to dictate Policy, Code, Statute, or Law, to you.
Private individuals can even contract with each other and the Feds haven't any say.
Trappy, an agent for his company, engaging in an International Contract between international entities, likely does fall under Fed Authority, making him liable for FAA Authority also.
If I, a private individual, was to do the same thing as Paddy, the Fed wouldn't have any say over my otherwise lawful activities.
This may have already been mentioned, but Trappy won his legal battle against the FAA and was not fined $10k. His Lawyer, , Brendan Schulman, fought the case, saying that the FAA has never regulated model aircraft and that its entire basis for making them “illegal,” a 2007 policy notice, was not legally binding.
motherboard.vice.com/read/commercial-drones-are-completely-legal-a-federal-judge-ruled
Problem is this issue is in the hands of journalists who need to create stories to earn a living. They are unlikely to sell a story that does not provoke controversy - they have every reason to exaggerate the danger, intrusion of privacy or potential terrorist threats.
from the uk. we love you sir.. Keep up the good work..
I have been following the anti-drone bickering for a while and thought I heard it all - dangers of fpv models to the public, flying for commercial gain, 'invasion of privacy' of the people in 'public' places and such. That was until I came across a discussion about the use of UAS to tackle poachers and monitor the safety of endangered animals and their habitats in remote locations. Finally, I thought, a use for these systems that no-one could possibly criticise. Until I came across a post raising concern about the 'privacy of animals'! How cynical can people be! Surly a poacher intent on slaughtering a defenceless animal in it's own home would be more intrusive than a small r/c plane monitoring from a position where the animals would neither see nor hear it? It's a crazy world we live in and seems it will get much worse for us hobbyists and those who could benefit from this technology at the hands of these ignorant excuses for people. Oh and best of luck Trappy ;)
As yet I see no changes on the CASA website to indicate what you say Bruce
w w w.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_100374 Do you have a reference so that I/we can follow this. Thanks. And thumbs up to Trappy for making the powers that be sit up and look at the 'UAS' industry.
Thank you, Bruce, did not even know half this stuff was going on...
I am new to this hobby, so, I have a lot to learn with respects to flying and the policies about these toy quad-copters...
You are invaluable to this hobby... Keep on doing what you do...
hi bruce , I love your little rant and must say that you have a concrete point, I totally agree with what you have just said and you have my full support on this subject, also one other thing you have my total support on is the argument you have with the mfnz , who are they to say you cant fly , screw them, iv already told people not to join with them and shown them your video about this, every one of them have refused to become part of their organization, and to take your wings and barrys just so you cant fly ?? oh my god , have they not left primary school? really? huge ups to you and what you do and what you stand for , keep it up and don't take their crap , full support from me mate !
Hi Bruce, love your videos.
just a FYI here in Singapore we are under CAA too.
In the Netherlands they changed the law about making aerial video and photo's.
First you needed to have a licence but Google earth, maps and Microsoft changed the game since they can broadcast satellite images and street-view.
If they can do it, everyone else can do it.
Even flying over government property and making pictures is not an issue unless it's a restricted/no fly zone. Making pictures on the ground of government property is an other law O_o
The bottom line is that no one was harmed, or even scared by this quad flying close to them. It was under complete control and never posed a threat to anyone near it. Please save your worries for the time when somebody is hurt. Then you can say it is unsafe. Until then, it's only a supposition that somebody may have been hurt. No one was hurt or harmed by the action of the pilot or failure of the hardware/software. You are assuming that if the quad went out of control that it may hit someone.
Hello every one ,
I believe that it's not about one plane vs another , It's about running a business , & having a business an individual will have to get the appropriate insurance, license , tax id & several other certifications to receive money's for services rendered also to cover all liabilities at hand .
Good on you Bruce! I like the sound of Australia's system! are you going to update us on how the court case goes? and when it is? love to see it!
I agree with you on the matter and hope there will be a positive outcome on in court. A lot of companies are set up camp on the up coming of the drone producion.I very much love this hobby and i am always learning new things. just have not gotten into Fpv because of muy bugget
Thank You Bruce... Dont think it was boring at all...I run an aerial photography business using quadcopters in NH, USA and all this BS laws coming out are STUPID . Trappy Rules...He's good at what he does and definately promotes the hobby. He's also been a big help to me over the yrs when it comes to helping ppl with a problem...Good Guy....and resourseful . He will stand up fine before our courts and let them know what BS their policies are here in the USA....Thank you for all u do too..
there is actually a loophole for getting paid to fly model aircraft without being fined. all you do is charge for: a. video editing, b. your time, or c. gas money to get you there (you can charge as much as you want, not just the amount of gas you used). there is a loophole for anything. if you get suspected for taking money for flying, you can say "it was a favor, and he was paying me gas money so i can drive up there". I almost guarentee they wont do anything.
in Norway as i have understood it, we have to get a permit to take film or photo in the air (by the nasjonal security agency) . but it do not cost that much.
I absolutely agree with you, no harm no foul. The FAA went way overboard in Trappy's case.
However, like you mentioned, there are cases of dangerous and harmful behavior of some of UAS operators. Case in point, the Virginia Motorsport Park drone crash, An unidentified person was operating a 'drone' at a public event that crashed into the grandstands hitting at least one person. The drone was bigger than a quadcopter! Now THAT guy should get a healthy fine! No one claimed the crashed UAS.
Its a fact of legal life that business has different and stricter rules, especially with regard to safety than a private individual in any field of endeavour. In aviation you get a PPL, fly as a business you need a commercial licence. Charter out your boat, stricter rules. Its the way the world runs and I think its quite proper.
The risks should be assessed to find relevant levels of regulation,..
If it weighs as much as a common large bird, it should be subject to similar limitations as the bird. (probably some altitude limits, etc...)
Thanks, there should be more people like you to voice all our opinions in our hobby.
FPV seems to be moving away from planes into quads, hex, Oct. As is the way of things they are getting heavier and more powerful. The motivation seems to be video footage rather than aero modelling. Their failure mode is catastrophic. They invite regulation as they will be used irresponsibly. They can be used by
I think it should be pointed out that lipo's can catch fire on heavy impacts or wiring can short out creating a fire risk.While this may not be an issue in cold, wet places .I believe it is something worth considering when flying in dry areas of bush or over populated areas especially if total fire bans are in place.I know i would not like to be responsible for the loss of property or life should a fire get started!
Just as an FYI Bruce, the FAA is getting some major pressure to develop and implement procedures a to allow using "drones" for commercial purposes by the end of 2014 to be implemented by 2015. They debating things like making you obtain a license and whatnot tho. The FAA is anticipating some 30k "drones" patrolling the skies for purposes other than fun.
I really want to go to the CASA headquaters and pull out a tiny drone, then get my friend to give me a dollar and fly it around the building. I wonder what they would do, maybe i would get a 1000 dollar fine.
Oh yeah...sorry. I skim read the description looking for a CASA link. But, still there seems to be no info on the CASA site as yet indicating change is ahead. Can't wait to see it in their words, in black and white.
Great video Bruce. Clears up a lot of misconception. Looks like I have to be super careful flying in Auckland.
I saw an episode of Gold Rush where they used a Hexacopter with some scenes in the US. Since the show makes money and the pilot probably made money, Is this scenario different?
well its very simple, you don't charge for flying you charge for editing ;)
Does this mean, if I get paid for throwing a boomerang, I have broken the law?
BNUC-S and RPQ-S are both qualifications run by commercial companies because the UK CAA doesn't have the man power to do it themselves. They still consider small aircraft in the same manner as larger ones which is ridiculous (as alluded to by Bruce). And the fact it costs around £1,200 for both + annual renewal fees for various aspects. Even if, for instance, you used a Hubsan X4 for aerial photography....
Bruce, CAA is the Canadian Automobile Association, you meant TC is Transport Canada..
in the legislation it might not be noted as an UAS it i have read the australian legislation and they are noted as RPA's remotely piloted aircraft
I'm from Switzerland and here rc models weighing over 30kg is considered as UAS and is subject to very heavy regulations.
In italy a rc model is something you control watching it directly from the ground. Every flying object controlled from inside, like a normal plane or a fpv rc plane, is considered a normal aircraft, under the common regulation of enac.
40 odd years ago we used to ride our road going motor cycles off road in the UK along ancient tracks in very small groups. No-one bothered because there were so few of us. Now, with the number of off the shelf bikes available the numbers rocketed. What's happened? Most of the tracks we used are now out of bounds. The same will happen with FPV which is still in its infancy.
Trappy and TBS motivated me to get into FPV, i love theyr videos, they are super talented people. I hope all goes well in court.
Thanks for addressing this! Hats of to you and especially Trappy.
Using airspace is about 'situational awareness' and communication as much as being able to control your aircraft. UAS operators need to understand control zones and flight rules.
Would you call the tower if you entered a control zone? Would you even know if you did?
There is a lot of ignorance surrounding UAS, and it's not just the 'donut swaddling authorities'.
What are our laws in New Zealand around privacy ,
FPV, Flying a Quad copter near and over buildings, selling footage etc ?
They are very hard to find out there! Apart from the normal ( 400 feet, 4km of Airport etc )
respect to Trappy. We need to stand up for what's right. I really wouldn't to turn to knitting as a hobby if this one goes bad.
Preach it brother!
BBC World News website has an article on FPV. Looks like its getting noticed thanks to some high profile flying.
You can think that if you want, but the FAA is taking a much more frightening stance than that and I'm just trying to get you to look it up for yourself. They are trying to open the door to go after ANYONE who does the kind of filming he was doing, whether they are being paid or not. His lawyers are arguing they don't have the legal right because it is an unmanned plane. The fact that he got paid is not important - they went after him for the publicity.
I just saw this video. BTW...Thanks so much for all you do Bruce! The FAA has overturned the initial ruling and now has legal authority over everything that flies including paper airplanes. An FAA representative when faced with the absurd question over whether a drone hovering 1 inch (2.54 cm) in one's back yard was indeed in FAA airspace gave the answer of "yes". Basically now that they have declared these devices "aircraft" the FAA assumes jurisdiction over anywhere they can "navigate" No word yet on whether this includes one's living room since many of these devices are capable of navigating there but if we use the FAA logic, then it is indeed regulated airspace.
The reg bodies have an important blanket regulation: "the use of aircraft must not increase risk for other airspace users or people on the ground". They confuse actual use with commercial use. UK and Brazil now tend towards legislation with class distinctions which could well legalize micro and mini vehicles (with requirement to register) for constrained operations: 400ft, 500m, < 1.5/5/7/25kg. ANAC (Brazil) promises such legislation end this year and recognises this comprises 80% of vehicles.
Thanks for the video Bruce, i live in Australia and was recently told by our Parks rangers that i was not allowed to fly in our NP's upon watching this i went and checked the laws and have found out that i can in fact fly my Heli's and Multi rotors in the NP's, i was recording on my multi rotor at the time and told that my "toys" would be taken if caught again.
These bully tactics have to stop and its not just the FAA CAA.
Thanks for bringing this to light.
Very good video Bruce, we need more people like you in the world who tell it like it is. Some times i wonder where the brains are in the people who make up the rules for these things. I have always found the ones in those jobs have a huge education look amazing on paper but have always lacked common sense. Good work on putting it out there and telling it like it is. Keep up the good work. P.s your new studio is looking good.
You should read the answer Trappy's lawyers filed. It makes it pretty clear the FAA's case has nothing to do with him getting paid, it has to do with safety rules that they have repeatedly failed to make. The answer argues that an agency can't enforce rules that don't exist. I can send you a link to their answer, but it won't let me post it here. They have a pretty strong argument, it's a good read.
Thanks for your take Bruce, happy flying mate.
As I recall the onus was on us to work up an acceptable set of rules for Microlights training and flying which the CAA would then allow us to run it as an organisation.....in the same manner as the Gliding and Home-built organisations and model flying did in NZ at the time...Rgds...Laurie
A quad hit Sydney bridge in AU Peter Gibson of CASA stated that the general rc craft rule is 30 metres from structures, people and roadways I think. Search rc hits bridge. Police are searching for the drone operating fugitive he said.
With microlights it definitely helped that we had Reg Fleet and Ted Jarman as they had previous experience working with the CAA from model flying back then...and the contacts in the CAA who knew them....Rgds...Laurie
I have spoken to "Trappy" over email a few times and although I do not completely agree with what they do for simple reasons which have nothing to do with how safe they are, as you said these are the law by the FAA, and it is LAW… He should have not done it. I DISAGREE with many of these laws but we need to educate these ppl and try to change these laws. This is how things work, if you don't like it don't come to the place where these laws exist.
Great points but until we try change these laws properly this is how it will be.
Thank you! I think you are awesome.
We have similar regulations in Austria since recently. And our representatives, the Aeroclub Oesterreich, have done nothing to help. The only thing was they wrote one letter in comment of a proposed law. That was is. They were not part of the negotiations, they are not involved in the austrian aeronautic industry association. And yet they're selling the new law as a "success".
the worst injury i've heard of form model flying is a finger or a hand (unsure as to which it was) being chopped off, but that was in pre-flight checks and was a large scale model plane, other that that the worst you can get with those model air craft is maybe a few scratches. i have never flown but am wanting to and i do love your vids
Trappy should release a HD Blu-Ray of his best flights. And we can all buy a copy to crowd fund the court costs!!