rurye

My Feedback: (16)

1565th from texas. way to go Lone Star State

Sport_Pilot

Yes he (the senior statesman) has indeed helped the AMA in the past. Sometimes hard to get along with on the forums at least, but apparently a hard worker who has done some good things for the AMA.

swede5

My Feedback: (1)

I'm curious as to how one can check the total number of letters sent in by your state ................. I have yet to find that tidbit.......

KidEpoxy

what does the government mean when they pass stuff ~protecting~ modeling?

ok, so only the models UNDER 55lb will be exempted from the FAA regulation banning models over 55lb????[&:]

cj_rumley

Note: Kid, not in reply to you in particular, I just happened to come in after your post.

Well, let's just say a nugget of wisdom came my way from out of the clouds, and after cogitating for a while my feelings about the topical issue have taken a U-turn. I'm writing letters asking for support of the SB to all the congress critters whose domains I can stretch a fit into.

The law of unintended consequences is going to prevail in this situation, as it does with such frequency as to make us feel foolish for not expecting it. LUC often creates undesirable outcomes (the Murphy's Law adage) as result of intervention in complex systems, e.g., politics, but not always. The outcome can be a positive, unexpected benefit and so it will be in this matter. Modelers will be happy with it regardless of affiliation.........well maybe not 100%, but even the few that will hate the outcome will say it's what they sought all along and probably have the hubris to claim credit for making it happen.

Keep those emails and letters flowing guys.

yard-dart

My Feedback: (35)

[/quote]


All of us really appreciate your comment toward us. Only could a comment like that come from a lib. Us conservatives want everybody in govt outta the rc biz. He77, we want'em outta most everything.

By the way slick, I'm a Proud Tea Party, gun carrying, white, christian, guy from down in the Missouri Ozarks.

[/quote]

Well, what do you know! So am I. Only thing is, I'm in Louisiana, which is about as far down as it gets. I'd say it's probably best if you start "respecting" those who don't necessarily agree with you, nor defend what "you" want defended.

cannonball200

My Feedback: (36)

Swede5, The number count from Oklahoma came on a response when I forwarded the letters. When you click send to your senators and congressmen, it will give you a response back with the number that you were.
Thanks,

yard-dart

My Feedback: (35)

What you don't get is that I'm completely happy with the outcome.

Here's how I see it. Technology has come a very, very long way over the past 10 years or so, when it comes to our hobby. Drones, Jets, Size, Speed, etc......... we are our own worst enemy. Did modelers think that things would keep going on at that rate and the FAA keep quiet? They are only getting involved to keep things "safe". Sure, money is always involved, but the big picture is safety. They're upholding the basic regs that the AMA has enforced for years. It's the more updated aspects of the hobby that have grabbed their attention. They are trying to keep our airways safe.

Here's a hypothetical to think about. Someone builds an 85 pound jet that can cruise somewhere around the neighborhood of 250 MPH for approximately 20 minutes. It has unlimited radio range, or can simply by flown on autopilot by using GPS coordinates. This aircraft is also able to easily handle a payload of 10 pounds. Now........add to the scenario that the guy who owns the plane is a really, really bad guy! Surely you get the picture.

Need I say more?

ira d

I see what you are saying but thefact is no matter what laws are passed they will not stop a really bad guy from doing whatever they want to do.

yard-dart

My Feedback: (35)

I agree, but I don't see where there can be any blame toward them for tightening up on the regulations. I don't think it's fair to impose restrictions on models that already exist, but I can see them limiting it to no more than what's already out there. Let's use the same scenario I made up earlier, and let's say he's not a bad guy, with no payload capacity. He's at an event. The plane goes AWOL, and ends up in a housing subdivision five miles away. Not good, especially a plane of that size, moving at that rate of speed. You can rest assured that would make national headlines.

I have full confidence that the outcome of all of this will be positive. Sure, those who fly the extreme planes my be forced into buying a license while having to have his plane inspected at every event. I feel it's a small price to pay.

ira d

The proposed rules that everyone is talking about does nothing to prevent a fly away incedent OTH making failsafe systems mandatory would go a long way
in preventing fly aways but I dont hear anyone proposing failsafe systems.

The Toolman

You mean something like this? Looks like a F-117 to me, and it was a LOS plane.


Edit-Thats what happens when ya let'em go over 55 lbs

yard-dart

My Feedback: (35)

Ira, at Warbirds Over Atlanta, they do random checks on pilots to see if failsafe is working. While approaching the runway, a field marshall may approach a pilot asking the pilot to restrain his plane while turning the transmitter off. If failsafe is set up correctly, and engaged, the plane's throttle should cut back to idle. Preset control surface inputs may also be set. This is a very good practice. And you're right, mandating transmitters with full-time failsafe is a good idea. I'd be willing to bet that 50% fo the pilots out there don't even know what failsafe is.

Toolman, that's probably what the result would be if an 85 pound, 250 mph jet hit a house.

Let's look at this whole subject again. Surely some of you can understand why the FAA is getting involved. It's not a bad thing guys. Sure, the last thing we need in our lives in another form of government, but we've got to look and each incident with some sensability. I think what we are dealing with is "sensable".

Mandating health care, totally the opposite.

TexasAirBoss

My Feedback: (22)

Your hypothetical is illegal right now.

I would share your enthusiasm about this Bill if we had an agreement with the FAA and knew what restrictions will be required in the AMA Safety Code in order to qualify as an exempted CBO.

yard-dart

My Feedback: (35)

You're right, they are illegal right now, but people are flying them anyway, and I'm talking about right her in the U.S. It's ellegal to drive and text, but people do it every minute of the day. Just because something is outlawed doesn't mean it's not going to continue. I don't see any R/C police being hired any time soon, and if they do, I don't think they can hire enough of them to make a difference.

And as far as you finding out about the qualifying exempted CBO, you'll eventually find out, but it's most likely you're not going to like the outcome . Sorry. I'm not enthused about any bill, but I'm definately not worried about either.

Just because my aspect of the hobby "probably" won't be affected by the bill, that doesn't make me a supporter of it. And, just because I can see where the FAA may have some concerns, that too does not make me a supporter of the bill.

Just because I'm not 100% on "your" side does not make me a supporter of the bill. I think I've gone out of my way to state the following........I'm neither for, nor against the AMA. I'm neither for, nor against the idea of the FAA getting involved in our hobby. And lastly, I'm neither for, nor against what "you" are in support of.

hook57

My Feedback: (21)

Logic and reason! Well put yard-dart, well put.

TexasAirBoss

My Feedback: (22)

Your hypothetical is illegal right now.

[/quote]


they are illegal right now, but people are flying them anyway


[/quote]


People are not flying 85 pound, GPS guided, unlimited range jets at 250 mph over neighborhoods. That statement is wildy inaccurate. You know that.

If you feel that you have made an informed decision , then great. That was my only goal.

Silent-AV8R

It seems like people are losing focus a bit. There are two things going on. One is the FAA effort to write new sUAS rules which will potentially have a negative impact on our hobby. The second is the legislative effort as part of the FAA Reauthorization bill to limit the FAA's authority to regulate our hobby.

The "bill" and the FAA "rule" are not one in the same thing.

KidEpoxy

So you have no problems with the CBO 'DIYDrones' being exempted from FAA regulations
as long as DIYD members follow THEIR cbo standards (of autonomous/FPV/Turbine/Weight/Alt).
because they do Sensible droning

Its all about using the term 'CBO' to just write one's group out of having to obey fed law.
Read up on OMBa119,
if you dont think OMB119 is important, ask yourself why DIYD is all into using it for freedom from FAA oppression

If you think DIYDrones is not a CBO,
explain what existing federal cbo criteria they fail to meet.
Such that if they are a CBO,
then obviously they can write CBO standards that allow them to drone over everyones house
and the Senate bill protects their ability to do so as a cbo

jp_boud

My Feedback: (2)

Toolman, thanks for the picture, would you like the story behind that crash.......hint, it was in 1994 and involved a full scale f-117, not a LOSmodel.

warningshot

For my own education, what makes them illegal now?

The Toolman

Edit....... It crashed in 97 I thought

I hope LOS meant Line of Sight, cause thats what I took it as

I was watching TV the day it happened an pretty well kept track of the story for quite awhile. And yes I know it was a full scale.(come on, give me a little credit, I haven't lived in the Ozarks all my life) I was just been sarcastic with yard dart.............
I'm pretty sure it was one of the news channels (CNN?) I was watching when they broke in with the news of the crash.

yard-dart

My Feedback: (35)

they are illegal right now, but people are flying them anyway


[/quote]


People are not flying 85 pound, GPS guided, unlimited range jets at 250 mph over neighborhoods. That statement is wildy inaccurate. You know that.

If you feel that you have made an informed decision , then great. That was my only goal.


[/quote]

You're right again, only about the GPS guided system. But, the technology is being used in other forms of R/C aircraft. You can Youtube that. But, there are very large 250+mph R/C jets flying here in the U.S. today. It is reality that a plane that large, flying that fast, not set up on failsafe "properly" can cover ground very quickly and end up in through someone's living room. If you've ever seen a turbine powered plane crash, you know what will happen to a wooden structure. I wasn't trying to be totally right, it was indeed mostly hypothetical. Don't think for one minute, though, that it can't be done exactly as I stated (using GPS).

TexasAirBoss

My Feedback: (22)

There are several aspects of the hypothetical that are unlawful. You cannot in anyway alter your transmitter to increase its output. A model with unlimited radio range, even if possible ,would be unlawful. So the law limits the range of our models to basically line of sight by the fact that the radios have a limited range.

And this is essentially a deadly weapon in the hypothetical described above. Designed specifically to be such. When used in the manner described in the scenario, carrying a 10lbs malicious payload, I believe that would be a felony even if it didn't succeed in delivering the payload.

Now back to the non-criminal violations: Exceeding 55 pounds would be unlawful under the new FAA regulations. And I question the speed of the model. It is true that the big Pegasus engines are propelling Starfires to nearly 350mph, but not in the states. That was forbidden. They needed to go down into the Carribean to set the record. The question is, did the AMA make them go there, or did the FAA? I don't know. But there does seem to be a speed limit at this time. And I think it is 200mph although I don't really know. And I don't know if that is a law or an insurance thing.

TexasAirBoss

My Feedback: (22)

I never questioned its feasibility.

Piling on another misdemeanor or two isn't going to stop such a home grown terrorist. Not unless you completely ban turbines. But the turbine engine really isn't essential to the scenario, is it? This type of home made cruise missle could just as easily be powered by a weed eater engine. We had better ban those also. And you know what? You could put an even larger bomb in a sedan and send it into a building. We better ban sedans. Boats? Goners. If it moves at all, someone could use it to deliver a weapon.

The RC jet is the least feasible method to deliver a weapon because it requires so much time and money to learn how to adequately operate the machine and it has the smallest payload. Also, we are known to one another. We all know when something is gone awry in the RC community. A terrorist might find it difficult to navigate through our good old boy system. We are the failsafe. We report that things don't look right or that funny people were asking strange questions. You can't say that about a Ryder truck, (as was used in the first WTC bombing). An al queda sleeper cell isn't going to train for a year to attack a neighborhood. They have no strategic value. Blow up the Dairy Queen? No one really cares. If anything, the neighbors might live longer. hehe

I don't have any jets myself. Friends do. They have alot of money tied up in them. I know they have a very limited lifespan before their airframes crack and fatique. But it seems pretty harsh to ground them.