SSRI's and UAS's

[Duckcop]

New to the board, hoping to get some good info. My agency is looking into small UAS (under 10 lbs) as a cost saving measure compared to manned flight. Since it's concidered a commercial operation, the agency requires a Class II medical per FAA regulations. (seems overkill) And from what I understand, SSRI's are a no-go with commercial pilots in the eyes of the FAA, unless your pockets are deep. I guess I can understand the FAA's concern.

Is there a Class II medical for small UAS "pilots" who don't fly manned aircraft? I haven't seen anything like that in the google searches or FAA sites I've looked at. With more and more of these sUAS's coming into the market, does anyone forsee a UAS-specific medical that would allow for those not flying manned aircraft to still get a Class II to fly comercial "from the tailgate of a truck"? Also, from a medical standpoint, why are SSRI's not allowed by the FAA when it's makes those that need them "normal"?

Looking forward to learning more about this.

 

[AggieMike88]

from a medical standpoint, why are SSRI's not allowed by the FAA when it's makes those that need them "normal"?

If I recall some of the past discussion correctly, Many SSRI's have a sedative effect. And sedated pilots at the controls is not something the FAA wants.

A very small number of SSRI's are permitted via the Special Issuance protocols. Hopefully Bruce (who was also one of the authors of this particular SI protocol) will be along soon to elaborate on your case and provide guidance on what is needed for medical certificate issuance.
.

 

[JasonM]

It is possible to fly while using certain approved SSRI's. From my understanding, that would involve a lot of testing and expense $$ to getting certified. There is also a way to get your medical if you can get off of the approved SSRI for a certain amount of time. I believe this very dependent to your diagnosed condition, which may very well disqualify you regardless.

fyi. I had used Lexapro for couple years due to being temporarily down from the economy and had to go through all of this stuff. I had to wait 60 days off of the meds to go through with the application. Dr. Bruce is your man if you want to get your medical. I highly recommend him!

 

[Brad Z]

With more and more of these sUAS's coming into the market, does anyone forsee a UAS-specific medical that would allow for those not flying manned aircraft to still get a Class II to fly comercial "from the tailgate of a truck"?

No, and I doubt they will. Air Traffic Controllers are required to take the same medical, and they're sitting at a chair in a dark air conditioned room all day. Doesn't matter--if you're participating in the Nation Airspace System, you're required to have a medical (unless you're flying an LSA Balloon or glider).

Also, from a medical standpoint, why are SSRI's not allowed by the FAA when it's makes those that need them "normal"?

It's just the way it is. They don't want people with a history of depression flying. I suspect they're more concerned about people on them going off of them with disasterous results.

 

[flyingron]

The FAA is extremely wary of anything that has a psychiatric effect (intentional or side effect). It's not the sedating factor of the SSRI. If it was they'd handle it like they do many other drugs, just let the pilot show a "no adverse effects" determination.

I don't know of any special dispensations for "not really a pilot" either because the pilot is a air traffic controller, RPV video game player, or even an instructor. I knew an instructor who tried to get an exemption to allow him to just be able to be a safety pilot, but they don't make SI's that restrictive.

 

[bbchien]

...and there ARE well documented cognitive effects of SSRIs. That's why the eval is $$s. You have to prove in each instance, that you don't have them, WHILE ON THE lone SSRI.

 

[poadeleted20]

Is there a Class II medical for small UAS "pilots" who don't fly manned aircraft?

No, there is not.

 

[Duckcop]

I can understand ATC personnel needing the medical as even though they are not the pilot, they are controlling the pilots. Small UAS operators are "managing" a 10 lb piece of kevlar with a tiny electric motor. I guess I don't get the comparison.

 

[JasonM]

I can understand ATC personnel needing the medical as even though they are not the pilot, they are controlling the pilots. Small UAS operators are "managing" a 10 lb piece of kevlar with a tiny electric motor. I guess I don't get the comparison.

Maybe so, but your 10lb piece of kevlar could severely damage or even cause small aircraft to crash. Your going to see an argument against you because many pilots don't want these things flying around, have to avoid them or simply have to worry about them when flying.

I personally think they are pretty cool, but as a pilot in training, I also see why they can be very dangerous to small aircraft. Take me back in time about a year and my feeling on this would have been different. It can be hard enough to spot other planes. I absolutely believe there needs to be very strict qualifications for those that fly these unmanned vehicles unless they are flying within line of sight like an RC plane etc.

Just out of curiosity; how far MAX away and what elevations MAX will your UAS be operating?

 

[bbchien]

I can understand ATC personnel needing the medical as even though they are not the pilot, they are controlling the pilots. Small UAS operators are "managing" a 10 lb piece of kevlar with a tiny electric motor. I guess I don't get the comparison.

You will when my estate sues the municipality that employs you and the municipality declares bankruptcy.

 

[Duckcop]

So am I understanding this right, that people are fine with municipal employees operating 2000-10,000 lb vehicles at 55 mph passing within 2 ft of you on a road or highway, but are afraid of that same person operating a 10 lb UAS at 20 mph at less than 400 ft above the ground in rural areas? Interesting.

 

[TMetzinger]

So am I understanding this right, that people are fine with municipal employees operating 2000-10,000 lb vehicles at 55 mph passing within 2 ft of you on a road or highway, but are afraid of that same person operating a 10 lb UAS at 20 mph at less than 400 ft above the ground in rural areas? Interesting.

Yes. The set standards for medical fitness in aviation have always been higher than surface transportation.

Imagine what would happen if we required a Class 3 Physical to have a drivers license.

The class 3 requirement exists because it's regulating a small subset of the population, and the rest of the population either doesn't know/care, or they think "oh, goody, the gov't is making me safer". Now, go tell Grandma or Grandpa or Cousin Jimmy they can't drive any more because they can't pass the medical exam, or heck, just tell everyone they have to pay $100 every two to three years for a drivers medical exam, and watch how quickly the majority of the population rises up in revolt.

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

So am I understanding this right, that people are fine with municipal employees operating 2000-10,000 lb vehicles at 55 mph passing within 2 ft of you on a road or highway, but are afraid of that same person operating a 10 lb UAS at 20 mph at less than 400 ft above the ground in rural areas? Interesting.

It's only an issue if you get paid. If you do it as a hobby, you are good to go.

Now does it make sense?

I didn't think so.

 

[poadeleted20]

It's only an issue if you get paid. If you do it as a hobby, you are good to go.

If you are a billionaire and buy a Global Hawk and fly it by remote piloting without an FAA LoA, the fact that you are not getting paid to do it won't keep you out of FAA trouble.

 

[JasonM]

Drone hits cargo plane: http://www.ktnv.com/news/local/128147318.html

This is with the military operating it. Just imagine what will happen if anyone could do this stuff.

I personally think if they stay under 200 feet AGL,within 1 mile while flying FPV and far away from airports that it shouldn't be an issue and be allowed without any medical requirements. Over that it is risking lives in my opinion. I met a guy that has a large RC helicopter setup for FPV to take pictures and capture video. He said he can fly this thing over 20 miles from where he stands. I think he paid like $30K for this thing too. http://vikingaero.com/wolverine-helicopter-uav.html, Its cool technology and like I said before, a year ago I had a totally different outlook on these things. I didn't understand either why they would need to regulate them at all before I started flying.

 

[Unregistered]

Yes. The set standards for medical fitness in aviation have always been higher than surface transportation.

Imagine what would happen if we required a Class 3 Physical to have a drivers license.

The class 3 requirement exists because it's regulating a small subset of the population, and the rest of the population either doesn't know/care, or they think "oh, goody, the gov't is making me safer". Now, go tell Grandma or Grandpa or Cousin Jimmy they can't drive any more because they can't pass the medical exam, or heck, just tell everyone they have to pay $100 every two to three years for a drivers medical exam, and watch how quickly the majority of the population rises up in revolt.

WERD!

 

[RJM62]

So am I understanding this right, that people are fine with municipal employees operating 2000-10,000 lb vehicles at 55 mph passing within 2 ft of you on a road or highway, but are afraid of that same person operating a 10 lb UAS at 20 mph at less than 400 ft above the ground in rural areas? Interesting.

Well... speaking only for myself, I'm okay with municipal employees operating 2000-10,000 lb vehicles at 55 mph passing within 2 ft of me on a road or highway if they're doing something like filling potholes or plowing snow, which I consider to be valid enough reasons to justify the risk.

I am not okay with municipal employees flying UAs under any circumstances because I can't come up with a valid reason why they should be allowed to do so in any event, much less one that justifies the risk to aviation.

My position is that flying drones is riskier than flying an aircraft one is actually sitting in. You're losing too much sensory input. Your awareness is reduced to one sense -- vision -- and even there, only what can be provided by the cameras aboard the drone. That must make for some pretty tricky and risky flying, which to me says that there needs to be a darn good reason to justify that risk.

What exactly do you, as a local LEO, plan to do with your drones? Hand out more speeding tickets? Look for someone's backyard weed crop? Harass truck drivers who are using secondary roads to beat the tolls? None of these, in my opinion, are sufficiently important to justify the risk to aviation safety.

In fact, the only valid reason I can think of for a municipality to use drones might be for SAR operations, for which I wonder if the drones are particularly well-suited in any case. I would think you'd want actual eyeballs aloft for that mission.

So as far as I'm concerned, any obstacle that FAA puts in the way of municipalities going drone crazy is a good thing. Most of the uses I can think of would create an imminent risk to public safety to "combat" something which, in itself, does not create an imminent risk to public safety. More likely, the drones would just be used as another way to increase revenue -- at the cost of endangering the flying public, as well as people on the ground.

-Rich

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

You're losing too much sensory input. Your awareness is reduced to one sense -- vision -- and even there, only what can be provided by the cameras aboard the drone.

One of my students is into quad copters with live video and autonomous navigation - he has shown me lots of video flying around the campus. But he doesn't like to fly on video alone because it's too easy to hit trees and things due to the limitied field of view from the camera.

But it's amazing how well he can aim the camera from a distance - this was shot without using the live video stream:

 

[Duckcop]

So as far as I'm concerned, any obstacle that FAA puts in the way of municipalities going drone crazy is a good thing.
-Rich

Interesting point. So what you're saying is you approve government action to oppose government action?

I came to this board hoping to gain some knowledge on how SSRI use translated to people sitting on the ground versus people sitting in the air. Unfortunately, this quickly turned into a "it's my sky, not yours" argument by manned aircraft pilots. I did learn something here however, that the manned aircraft pilot group seems to be a pretty discriminatory group, at least by some of those few that have posted here. I still hold hope that the majority of the aviation group doesn't have the same views.

I guess I'll take my questions somewhere else. Thanks.

 

[RJM62]

One of my students is into quad copters with live video and autonomous navigation - he has shown me lots of video flying around the campus. But he doesn't like to fly on video alone because it's too easy to hit trees and things due to the limitied field of view from the camera.

But it's amazing how well he can aim the camera from a distance - this was shot without using the live video stream:

Good for him! It shows he has good sense. I imagine he wouldn't want to hit airplanes or things, either.

The video looks to me like he's hovering about 25 to 50 feet over a parking lot, where it's highly doubtful that he's going to encounter -- or endanger -- any other air traffic. That's a lot different from a law enforcement agency sending drones out to do missions, where they would be more likely to encounter other air traffic.

Another inherent risk of any sort of RC flying is loss of radio communication with the aircraft. It's pretty unusual, but it does happen; and both the risk and the consequences are higher in drones because of the greater distances they travel, the fact that they are out of sight of the pilot, and the fact that controlling them requires a two-way connection (control input to the aircraft, and video feed from the aircraft). Lose that connection, and your drone becomes an unguided missile that does, in fact, have enough energy to damage a GA aircraft.

In fact, the small size of the drones proposed by OP is itself a risk factor simply because they would be more difficult to see and avoid, but would still carry enough energy to bring down a GA aircraft.

So again, is the risk of allowing municipal law enforcement officers fly drones justified by the benefits? I can't think of many municipal law enforcement functions for which that would be the case.

For example, if they're used for traffic enforcement, consider the relative risk. Some might believe that by using drones to catch speeders, they would be saving lives. But the fact is that most people who speed do not get into accidents, and most traffic accidents do not result in death. Mid-air collisions, on the other hand, almost always result in death. So using drones for traffic enforcement would increase the risk of an event that almost always is fatal, to enforce a law against a behavior that usually is not fatal.

Does this make any sense at all?

I feel the same way about using drones to look for marihuana fields, catch wildlife poachers, and so forth. None of those crimes present an immediate threat to human life, but drones do; and I don't get the logic of creating an immediate risk to human life and safety in order to enforce laws against behaviors that do not.

Long story short, the only advantage to a municipality using drones would be a fiscal advantage that would derive to the municipality itself, either in the form of increased revenue from things like traffic tickets, or reduced costs for operations presently performed by actual aircraft, or both. But the fiscal advantage to the municipality would come at a cost of in increased risk to general aviation aircraft, as well as those on the ground.

So frankly, I don't shed any tears over FAA regs that make it impossible for an LEO who is taking SSRIs (which also begs the question of why he or she is taking SSRIs) to fly drones. If anything, they are more challenging to fly than real aircraft, and also have their own set of unique, additional risk factors. They create a risk to general aviation that at least in my opinion cannot be justified by the fiscal advantages they would provide to municipalities.

So for once in my life, I say Hooray for FAA medical certification regs. Anything that places an obstacle in the paths of municipalities who want to endanger my safety in the air for no reason other than their own fiscal advantage is a very good thing, as far as I'm concerned.

-Rich

 

[RJM62]

Interesting point. So what you're saying is you approve government action to oppose government action?

I came to this board hoping to gain some knowledge on how SSRI use translated to people sitting on the ground versus people sitting in the air. Unfortunately, this quickly turned into a "it's my sky, not yours" argument by manned aircraft pilots. I did learn something here however, that the manned aircraft pilot group seems to be a pretty discriminatory group, at least by some of those few that have posted here. I still hold hope that the majority of the aviation group doesn't have the same views.

I guess I'll take my questions somewhere else. Thanks.

I doubt that the majority of manned aircraft pilots support increased risks to aviation safety and their own lives in the name of your municipality increasing its ticket revenues. But hey, that's just me.

-Rich

 

[Duckcop]

I doubt that the majority of manned aircraft pilots support increased risks to aviation safety and their own lives in the name of your municipality increasing its ticket revenues. But hey, that's just me.

-Rich

Oh yea, I forgot to mention, the intent of operating UAS's below 400 ft in rural, unpopulated areas for resource work has nothing to do with ticket revenues. I suspect that if you're operating your aircraft less than 400 above the ground in rural areas, unless you're a duster, you've probably got more important things to worry about. That's just me, though.

 

[bbchien]

I came to this board hoping to gain some knowledge on how SSRI use translated to people sitting on the ground versus people sitting in the air....I guess I'll take my questions somewhere else. Thanks.

Well you didn't like the answer. The reason why you can't operate a UAV on an SSRI is that they have SERIOUS effects on judgment and on the executive functions.

If you have the potential to do harm in the air, you should be held to the same standards as pilots. You are talking the one of the authors of the only medical protocol that allows SOME pilots to fly on such a medication... but they are subjected to intensive cognitive evaluation, at then end of which we will know about as much as the USAF knows about a flight deck rated officer.

You might be able to put the console down, but the guy in the air about to be hit by you cannot do so.

You're a cop? You ask a question, don't like the answer and then walk off in a huff? Man, are we scraping our LEOs from the bottom of the psychological competence barrel or what? If you want a medical certificate, there is a way.

You never once asked, "what is the way?"

 

[Duckcop]

Well you didn't like the answer. The reason why you can't operate a UAV on an SSRI is that they have SERIOUS effects on judgment and on the executive functions.

If you have the potential to do harm in the air, you should be held to the same standards as pilots. You are talking the one of the authors of the only medical protocol that allows SOME pilots to fly on such a medication... but they are subjected to intensive cognitive evaluation, at then end of which we will know about as much as the USAF knows about a flight deck rated officer.

You might be able to put the console down, but the guy in the air about to be hit by you cannot do so.

You're a cop? You ask a question, don't like the answer and then walk off in a huff? Man, are we scraping our LEOs from the bottom of the psychological competence barrel or what? If you want a medical certificate, there is a way.

You never once asked, "what is the way?"

Thanks for the clarification. You are the first one to answer the question specifically. I never said small UAS operators shouldn't be regulated, they absolutely should be. I just didn't understand why the same medical regulations that apply to in-the-air commercial pilots would apply to those sitting on the ground operating small aircraft less than 400 ft above the ground in rural, unpopulated areas. It seems like apples and oranges to this non-aviator. And was asking if the FAA would be looking at the issue as the small, low altitude UAS's become more popular.

So as the author of such regulations, I applaud your efforts. However, you lost me with your completely disrespectful comment about scraping the bottom of the barrel. That was classy. Great bedside manner, Doc. I would have expected more from an educated man. You don't me from Adam. Wow. I actually considered contacting you directly as you seem to be held in high regards on this board. After that comment, not so much.

 

[RJM62]

Thanks for the clarification. You are the first one to answer the question specifically. I never said small UAS operators shouldn't be regulated, they absolutely should be. I just didn't understand why the same medical regulations that apply to in-the-air commercial pilots would apply to those sitting on the ground operating small aircraft less than 400 ft above the ground in rural, unpopulated areas. It seems like apples and oranges to this non-aviator. And was asking if the FAA would be looking at the issue as the small, low altitude UAS's become more popular.

So as the author of such regulations, I applaud your efforts. However, you lost me with your completely disrespectful comment about scraping the bottom of the barrel. That was classy. Great bedside manner, Doc. I would have expected more from an educated man. You don't me from Adam. Wow. I actually considered contacting you directly as you seem to be held in high regards on this board. After that comment, not so much.

Well, as someone who lives and flies in a rural area, I can tell you that I operate at 400 feet AGL or less at least twice during every flight. That, I hope, should explain part of the reason why I believe that people sitting on the ground operating small unmanned aircraft less than 400 ft above the ground in rural areas should be subject to the same standards as anyone else with the potential to kill me in the air.

Frankly, I'd feel more comfortable if you used (manned) ultralight or LSA trikes to perform your low-altitude surveillance. At least then the pilot would have as much skin in the game as I do.

If you don't grasp that your drone presents even more danger than a manned aircraft to manned aircraft operating in the same airspace, then okay, I'll attribute that to your not being an aviator and extend my apologies for assuming that you were. The fact that you're on a pilot's message board gave me that impression, but still, I shouldn't have made the assumption that you understood anything about flying.

But now that the reasons why these unmanned aircraft can present a risk to other air traffic have been explained to you, if you still believe that different standards should apply to unmanned drone operations, then please explain to me why those different standards shouldn't also allow me to grab my shotgun and blow your drone out of the sky as it passes 400 feet about my rural home.

-Rich

 

[Duckcop]

...then please explain to me why those different standards shouldn't also allow me to grab my shotgun and blow your drone out of the sky as it passes 400 feet about my rural home.
-Rich

No problem, as long as I can return the favor while you're in your plane.
(sorry, Rich. My sarcastic nature couldn't pass that one up.)

 

[JasonM]

No problem, as long as I can return the favor while you're in your plane.
(sorry, Rich. My sarcastic nature couldn't pass that one up.)

That to me is absolutely out of line if you truly are a cop. Human life is worth joking about in comparison to an RC UAS? One has to wonder how serious a threat that could actually be not knowing your medical history? I would hope at this point when they evaluate your mental stability, they question if you have even made threats to others lives. Would you pass that on a lie detector even though you were "being sarcastic"??

 

[Duckcop]

That to me is absolutely out of line if you truly are a cop. Human life is worth joking about in comparison to an RC UAS? One has to wonder how serious a threat that could actually be not knowing your medical history? I would hope at this point when they evaluate your mental stability, they question if you have even made threats to others lives. Would you pass that on a lie detector even though you were "being sarcastic"??

If that was taken the wrong way, I apologize. No threat intended.

 

[bbchien]

Thanks for the clarification. You are the first one to answer the question specifically. I never said small UAS operators shouldn't be regulated, they absolutely should be. I just didn't understand why the same medical regulations that apply to in-the-air commercial pilots would apply to those sitting on the ground operating small aircraft less than 400 ft above the ground in rural, unpopulated areas. It seems like apples and oranges to this non-aviator. And was asking if the FAA would be looking at the issue as the small, low altitude UAS's become more popular.

So as the author of such regulations, I applaud your efforts. However, you lost me with your completely disrespectful comment about scraping the bottom of the barrel. That was classy. Great bedside manner, Doc. I would have expected more from an educated man. You don't me from Adam. Wow. I actually considered contacting you directly as you seem to be held in high regards on this board. After that comment, not so much.

Well go back and look at your 8 posts. That's pretty much the pot calling the kettle black. You didn't like the answers and so you said:

I guess I'll take my questions somewhere else. Thanks

I have no time for angry, sarcastic types. THAT's YOU. And so it is. If you post as an educated, considerate person, that is returned. However, look at the above quote. That certainly did not warrant a sweet response from me. You ARE (as you represent), after all, an LEO. A certain amount of classiness is expected from you, too, FIRST. I don't automatically give respect after a comment, as I quote from you, above, and below.

No problem, as long as I can return the favor while you're in your plane.
(sorry, Rich. My sarcastic nature couldn't pass that one up.)

Persons who contact me personally fall into two categories: (1) angry, and (2) respectful. Guess which one you fall into?

That to me is absolutely out of line if you truly are a cop. Human life is worth joking about in comparison to an RC UAS?

Rich got it dead on, here. Duckcop, you are so totally out of line here. Sarcasm + disrespect for life...

...return the favor....

...in an LEO on SSRIs suggests serious personality issues. You would probably be screened out in the $4,000 evaluation anyway.

You seem to think that "Badge" = commands respect. NOT. It requires compliance, of which I am capable, without necessarily respect....because you certainly didn't earn it here.

Now folks here know that I generally do try to help people out. But not the sarcastic a-_____es. Check out this latest, most difficult attempt at "helpout"....http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showthread.php?t=57680 . Kid was considering lying. He got piled on. It was very tempting to just walk away. He did not .

I don't owe you a thing.....growup, and stay on the ground. The kid in the other string had a lot more maturity than you. G'bye.

 

[Duckcop]

That's the only problem with these and other boards; writing styles get misconstrued. I'm sure in real life, we'd get along just fine.

 

[bbchien]

That's the only problem with these and other boards; writing styles get misconstrued. I'm sure in real life, we'd get along just fine.

You're the one that said,

...comment about scraping the bottom of the barrel. That was classy. Great bedside manner, Doc.

You might be right, but you came to the board. And, you sure didn't earn the attention.

If you want to start over, you might want to man up and retract the sh_t you laid where you are trying to eat.

 

[RJM62]

If that was taken the wrong way, I apologize. No threat intended.

Well... it struck me as kind of crude and tasteless; but having been raised in Brooklyn, I'm vaguely familiar with sarcasm. So apology accepted.

-Rich

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

"Recreational use of airspace by model aircraft is covered by FAA Advisory Circular 91-57, which generally limits operations to below 400 feet above ground level and away from airports and air traffic. In 2007, the FAA clarified that AC 91-57 only applies to modelers, and specifically excludes individuals or companies flying model aircraft for business purposes."

http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/91-57.pdf

http://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?newsId=14153

 

[Duckcop]

You're the one that said,
You might be right, but you came to the board. And, you sure didn't earn the attention.

If you want to start over, you might want to man up and retract the sh_t you laid where you are trying to eat.

Bruce, I took your advice and went through my past posts. Post #1 was me asking the question.

Then #8 was me pointing out what I figured were apples and oranges comparing ATC folks directing hundreds of lives with a dude sitting on the ground directing a small unmanned object.

Then #11 was me trying to point out that folks on these meds are already out there in bigger and badder vehicles than a 10 lb UAS at less than 400 ft.

My next post was #19 just pointing out an apparent hypocrisy of a previous poster. The original question was being lost as the thread started going the way of proper use of small UAS's, which is a whole 'nother topic.

#22 was me clarifying that the intended use was not in populated areas used for revenue gain. The next post was you counseling me about being disgruntled that I didn't want to hear what was being said. What was being said wasn't, in my opinion, answering my initial question. Then you pretty much gave me a good answer which I was fine with, then compared me to the bottom of some barrel. Sure, I was pi**ed at that statement and responded emotionally. Something I don't mind apologizing for, and is the only place where I may have sh*t where I ate, in my opinion.

Then #26 was me having a little fun with Rich, with no malice intended.

#29 was you responding emotionally in response to my emotional response, which I consider a wash.

Bruce, I don't know if this is manning-up enough for you, I hope so.

 

[Duckcop]

"Recreational use of airspace by model aircraft is covered by FAA Advisory Circular 91-57, which generally limits operations to below 400 feet above ground level and away from airports and air traffic. In 2007, the FAA clarified that AC 91-57 only applies to modelers, and specifically excludes individuals or companies flying model aircraft for business purposes."

http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/91-57.pdf

http://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?newsId=14153

Hey Capt., would an owner of an RC model shop taking the latest and greatest model out to the field to drum up business be considered a "business purpose" requiring licensesure by the FAA? I don't know, just asking.

 

[bbchien]

Bruce, I took your advice and went through my past posts. Post #1 was me asking the question.

What was being said wasn't, in my opinion, answering my initial question. Then you pretty much gave me a good answer which I was fine with, then compared me to the bottom of some barrel.

Which you subsequently proved. So it's okay to present the appearance of abuse of your LEO-ship, and it's not okay for me to point that out to you, because I'm expected to have "bedside manner". Well, let me point out, if you really are an LEO (and I sure hope not), you are a public official "funning " about shooting a manned aircraft down. FAIL. FAIL.

Sure, I was pi**ed at that statement and responded emotionally. Something I don't mind apologizing for, and is the only place where I may have sh*t where I ate, in my opinion.

See my above response.

Then #26 was me having a little fun with Rich, with no malice intended.

From an LEO, not fun. My second amendment rights shall not be abridged by the likes of you.

#29 was you responding emotionally in response to my emotional response, which I consider a wash.

Bruce, I don't know if this is manning-up enough for you, I hope so.

You're a scary guy.

 

[Duckcop]

...in an LEO on SSRIs suggests serious personality issues. You would probably be screened out in the $4,000 evaluation anyway.

For what it's worth, and I don't mind saying, I take 25mg a day to take the edge off of intermittent anxiety related to OCD, brought on by a traumatic incident. Would something like that really screen me out? I don't know, just asking.

 

[bbchien]

For what it's worth, and I don't mind saying, I take 25mg a day to take the edge off of intermittent anxiety related to OCD, brought on by a traumatic incident. Would something like that really screen me out? I don't know, just asking.

You're a scary guy.

So it's okay to present the appearance of abuse of your LEO-ship, and it's not okay for me to point that out to you, because I'm expected to have "bedside manner". Well, let me point out, if you really are an LEO (and I sure hope not), you are a public official "funning " about shooting a manned aircraft down. FAIL. FAIL.

 

[Duckcop]

So it's okay to present the appearance of abuse of your LEO-ship, and it's not okay for me to point that out to you, because I'm expected to have "bedside manner". Well, let me point out, if you really are an LEO (and I sure hope not), you are a public official "funning " about shooting a manned aircraft down. FAIL. FAIL.

Which I apologized for, and which was accepted by the poster it was directed towards. That's all I got. Sorry, Bruce.

 

[ClimbnSink]

What is unpopulated area resource work? Just looking for stuff to seize in the name of the lord all mighty war on drugs? Since you guys get to keep what you take you should be able to score a helicopter and pay for it by spotting more money from the sky. UAVs are rinky dink go steal a chopper.