Hossfly

Check this one out. Hope it works.

http://www.aolnews.com/surge-desk/ar..._lnk3%7C183117

Sport_Pilot

This was well outside the FAA's jurisdiction.  They suspect the military, but if it were rocket modelers, I suspect it may be legal in international waters.

Silent-AV8R

Not the new one Hoss is talking about, but here is the latest update from Rich Hanson on the coming sUAS regulations:

http://www.modelaircraft.org/news/ama-faa.aspx

Definitely not good news and not the direction we were hoping for.

Silent-AV8R

I agree not likely to be model rockets, more likely just something the gubbermint doesn't want to talk about.

If they were in fact 35 miles off shore that is absolutely within FAA controlled airspace since that is still within the ADIZ.

ira d

It would be nice if the FAA would publish the rules the way they would be proposed so we could know what to expect.

Sport_Pilot

Now they are saying this is an airliner contrail.  What looks like the flame of a rocket exhaust is actually a reflection of the sun off the metal plane.

Silent-AV8R

They will. It is called a Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM). Until then they play it close to the chest. The AMA folks dealing with this are very frustrated since the FAA by their own rules are prevented from disclosing much about what they are doing. Once the NPRM is published, likely mid-2011, there is a public comment period and more time for re-tooling the rules if required. AMA estimates that it will be 2012 before we see any actual rules going into effect.

beepee

Forgive a bit of nitpick - it is "Notice of Proposed Rule Making." I know that is what Silent meant.

Bedford

Silent-AV8R

Typing too fast and thinking too slowly. Fixed.[&:]

GAP-RCU

I would add that, in the past with other issues, the public response to a NPRM has been so overwhelming that the FAA pulls the rules back for a major re-write. It's rare, but it can happen.

So, when the time comes, if the proposed rules do indeed trample on model aviation, it will be important for all of us to submit a response with our opinion, and better, with specific comments on what should be changed/deleted from the rules. The more of us that do that, written by our own hand, the better. Cookie cutter responses, with AMA talking points, can help, but the best feedback to the FAA will come from individuals who submit their own, original opinion, based on their first-hand knowledge of our complex and varied hobby.

Silent-AV8R

I think that is what the AMA is doing now in getting people more aware so that when the NPRM comes out we can act immediately rather than have everyone asking what's up on the 89th day of the comment period. If 100,000 or more modelers write their elected representatives along with the AMA, that should make some noise. But until we see the actual NPRM there is little benefit in acting right now. But it is the time for us to be aware and to start thinking about what we will do if things do not go our way.

Hossfly

Yes, and "they" are simply playing sheepherder, you know - meaning "all flocked up". "They" will say anything to make someone think "they" have knowledge when "they" have no clue at all.

I have seen many a contrail since I was in high school - 56+ years ago - observing from ground level up to 45,000 ft in a cockpit. It will take a lot of "convincin' " to make me swallow that as a contrail. In addition I have heard "they" speak clueless many times when "they" can cover up their own stupidity until so far after the fact, that no one pays any attention.

An example is the UA 737 that went down during an approach to Colorado Springs. "They" came out with all kinds of weird wind stuff, but it was not until later after US Air lost one in an approach to Pittsburgh that "they" finally had to admit to faulty yaw dampers.
Pilots had been reporting yawdamper incidents for years. "They" had to protect Boeing. [:@]
Then there was an instance where it was taped that a 747 was shot down by a missile off the East Coast. The retired pilot that just happened to be taping some stuff that evening went through difficulties for years with all his personal communications being stopped by "they". That too finally waned away like everything else concerning "they". He got out a few communications then stopped. He was a prisoner in his own home. I really don't know what ever happened to him.

Sport_Pilot

"They" may deny this, but people on the southern coast of California can claim to have seen a UFO. "They" won't want to hear that ,but until they idnetify it, then it is an Unidentified Flying Object. Course being Californians it will be easy for "Them", to claim that the observers are crazy.

Sport_Pilot

Well dang it now its not a UFO.  Its a contrail.  But they still didn't identify what aircraft, so its still a UFO?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot...merely-a-plane

Silent-AV8R

And they still manage to get it not quite right. Contrails are "smoke"? I thought they were from condensation, hence CONtrails. They give the impression that the engines are spewing a smoke trail. Sort of like when they show pictures of steam rising from the cooling towers at a nuclear power plant as if to infer that the steam is being released from the plant.

PLANE JIM

My Feedback: (109)

I know what it was.

KidEpoxy

Usual Federal Obfuscation

cj_rumley

Obfuscation, yes. That seems to apply to the only input to this thread that is AMA related, post #2, and posts that follow it directly related to it.


What is the purpose of it?

It says,

1) AMA has been involved in the FAA sUAS rulemaking process for 3 years with an objective of preventing that rulemaking from infringing on our freedom to fly model airplanes, and

2) Nevertheless, ".....it has become increasingly apparent that the proposed rule will be highly restrictive and will have a significant impact on the modeling community as a whole," ergo,

AMA has admitted to failing to accomplish the stated objective.

Then this: "It’s time for all of us to understand these proposed changes, familiarize ourselves with the regulatory process, and to prepare an appropriate response to the proposed regulations. Click the link below for background."

IMHO it way past time for us to understand the proposed changes. What are they (as AMA knows them at this time, and presumably is the motivation for this release from AMA) ? The AMA Government Relations and Regulatory Affairs Representative strongly infers that he knows, but he isn't saying what he knows. AMA has ostensibly already prepared a response to the ARC recommendations which may or may not be the basis FAA's current and presumably evolved position to be presented in NPRM form, but it hasn't been made available to members (and other modelers) to assist them in preparing appropriate responses by making them aware of what the issues are and how AMA intends to respond, as our representatives.
Go ahead, click on the link provided by the AMA Government Relations and Regulatory Affairs Representative for background on the issues in the proposed regulation. Then please explain to me how knowledge of scores of pages of transient NOTAMS/TFRs will help me and other modelers reply to FAA's sUAS NPRM whenever the hell it will be published and open for comment.

KidEpoxy

very good point.

A few here have gone over the sUAS ARC text with a fine tooth comb,
and I have to wonder what is the NEW information that is causing HQ to say we NOW need to learn what they helped write back in Arpil09. If what the rules will be changed, enough to have HQ change its member plan from Sit&Wait to UnderstandChanges, just what new changed rules are we supposed to be understanding?

I'm gonna throw a dart on this one, my guess is:
What changed is that AMA figured they would be just handwaved into sUASARC s2 CBO status, thereby excluding AMA from all the harsh stuff thrown at the rest of the hobby in s3... but the new info is that getting excluded is hard and AMA will be treated like the rest of the hobby- Harshly.

Well, thats what the AMA said it wanted, right? One set of rules rather than two... if nobody anywhere qualifies for the second tier of rules, then in effect all of america is in the one first tier. Now we can rewind to fall of last year, and get back to arguing all the harsh things the hobby (which AMA is now part of) will be burdened with by the sUAS regs.

Thomas B

My Feedback: (4)

Speaking of speaking clueless....

I normally respect your knowledge of full scale flight, but you are not correct in this case. There was no yaw damper problem. The 737 rudder hard over problem was eventually traced to the somewhat unique hydraulic rudder actuator/power control unit that, while supposedly designed to be reversal proof, could actually reverse under an odd set of circumstances and cause the rudder to move opposite the rudder pedal input from the piot.

For your educational pleasure: http://www.b737.org.uk/rudder.htm

Getting back on topic:

I saw the photos and the video and I am not convinced that it was anything but a contrail.

Thomas B

My Feedback: (4)

A pretty slanted viewpoint, I think. The AMA wanted one set of rules with the least possible restrictions for all modelers and not just for the AMA members to have better rules due to the CBO oversight that the AMA would provide. It seems clear to me that they had the best interests of all modelers, both AMA and non AMA, in mind. The early ARC AMA documents with the yellow highlighted passages made this quite clear.

The AMA did not want a set of rules that were more restrictive for all parties.

I see lots of letter writing in our futures and I see model events that need more than 400 feet of altitude (soaring, IMAC, turbine jets, at least) doing a lot of wavier requesting, if the feared 400 foot advisory from AC91-57 becomes the law.

KidEpoxy

Thomas
I'm not sure why you just referenced fearing AC91-57 becoming law
when you should be fearing the sUAS ARC becoming law.

We would all be in far FAR better shape if it were just AC91-57 becoming law
than all the AMA-based hooey put into ARC s3

phlpsfrnk

What does this have to do with the AMA?

Thomas B

My Feedback: (4)

I think the suggested 400 foot altitude limit in the AC91-57 is going to become an actual FAR when the rules resulting from the ARC go into effect, unless we and the AMA can protest enough to get some other language in there. There is a linkage between AC-97 and the ARC recommendations, as one can clearly see from reading the docs on the AMA site. However, the ARC adds a lot more on to the terms of AC91-57.

In my opinion, the original 400 foot advisory was an off the cuff limit proposed by the FAA, as they were thinking that if we limit models to 400 feet, they will never interface with full scale aircraft that rarely fly below 500 feet, except near an airport...and they added advisories for being near an airport. It was overly restrictive and did not account for certain types of models that are grossly hampered by the 400 foot altitude limitation. Model rockets and large model rockets weighing up to 3.3 lbs are not limited to 400 feet, so why should model airplanes be limited to 400 feet?

Hossfly

IMO, everything using sky-space has something to do with AMA because AMA has to do with aeromodeling. Most of my model airplanes spend most of their working time in the sky. Maybe yours cannot do so, but mine do.

If you no likee, then no lookee, no readee. Dona' maka' me no shoot! [sm=47_47.gif]