ORIGINAL: Sport_Pilot

OK but it still allows the FAA to regulate models bigger than 55 lbs. Sounds like letting the camels nose under the tent to me.

ORIGINAL: NorfolkSouthern

You know, I dive into this further and I must admit that tommygun has some good common sense observations. Why would someone want a model that's almost the size of a full-sized plane? Where do people put something that big? And finally: WHY in the world would anybody need all that carrying capacity? And yes, back in the day, there was hardly anything on the market with an engine larger than a .60 and most of us were perfectly fine with .049 or even .010. They performed their function admirably. Most people who did models back then flew control-line or free-flight, and they were all the happier for it.

I think a part of the FAA's argument is going to be: ''Why would anybody need an assault weapon''? And frankly, anything over 20 pounds can indeed be used as an assault weapon by the wrong person with an intelligent mind.

NorfolkSouthern

ORIGINAL: NorfolkSouthern

Think of it this way, 804: The reasoning I am giving, is essentially how many lawmakers think. Would you put it beyond the FAA to use that sort of reasoning when they try to impose this rule of theirs (and I still believe that the amendment the Senate passed makes it a moot issue)? If you want the AMA to be like the NRA, then they'll need to ACT like the NRA. And those types of statements I gave, are essentially what they are likely to have to deal with.

And I still can't figure out why someone would want to put servos and a radio on a full-sized Decathlon, and then fly it.

NorfolkSouthern

The altitude limits would eliminate most pattern flying and the top speed limit would make slope soaring, pylon, warbirds and speed planes museum pieces

ORIGINAL: 804


Well, NorfolkSouthern, your question ''Why would anyone need...'' can start a long chain of why's.
Why does anyone need rc anyway?
Why does anyone need any type of gun?
Why do we need to post in this forum?

I hope you can see where this is going, for there is no end, nor any answer to the question, ''Why does anyone need...''?

ORIGINAL: Tommygun





That's a bit short-sighted. You're trying to draw a parallel here where there is none (and yet another model airplane/gun owner's rights comparison ) Let me ask you this, if you were the maker of the rules, and you alone were able to determine a weight/size limit (if any), what would it be? 200lbs? 500lbs? None? Could I then buy a surplus Chinese Mig 15 and throw some servos in it? Consider that you'd preserve (and extend) all rights afforded to R/C flyers, but totally ignore the rights of citizens, homeowners, and aircraft pilots/passengers. Most people would expect the right to be reasonably assured that massive (for this discussion >55lbs) out of control, unregistered, poorly maintained, non-certified, questionably assembled, unmanned aircraft (flown by unlicensed, mediocre pilots) carrying flammable fuel aren't going to come crashing into their living rooms, their cars, or aircraft they're riding in. In the past, model aircraft that weighed an average of 10 lbs or less would be less capable of causing that degree of damage, nor was the average 60 size plane likely to travel over 50 miles or up into FAA airspace when it departed radio control. It's physics- 10 lbs of balsa or foam vs 100 lbs of fiberglass, aluminum and steel hitting your roof or car cause different levels of damage. Full scale aircraft have collided with R/C planes in the past, fortunately with no fatalities. >55lb RC planes could most likely yield a much different outcome. The commercial UAV operators will have that cross to bear, and that is why the aircraft they want to operate will be registered, flown, and maintained in accordance with FAA accepted practices, standards, and procedures. I'm sure there will be growing pains. Accidents will occur, and ultimately there will be further evolution of Aviation Law as a result. That's the annoying thing about freedom- it doesn't only apply to you.