AMA Discussions Discuss AMA policies, decisions & any other AMA related topics here.

Government intrusion in hobby flying

Reply
Old 03-09-2011, 08:04 AM
  #426
rurye
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: joshua, TX
Posts: 12
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Government intrusion in hobby flying

1565th from texas. way to go Lone Star State
rurye is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2011, 08:14 AM
  #427
Sport_Pilot
 
Sport_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 16,889
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Government intrusion in hobby flying

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.
Sport_Pilot is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2011, 12:47 PM
  #428
swede5
 
swede5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Cedar Rapids, IA
Posts: 139
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Government intrusion in hobby flying


Quote:
ORIGINAL: cannonball200

My letters were #266 in Oklahoma last evening and as of 5 pm today it was up to #277. Of course Senator Jim Inhoff from Oklahoma is the sponsor of the amendment for us r c modelers to be exempt and he is an airplane guy. He pilots his own plane (small 2 seat Tiger) and has a love for avaition with us.

Thanks for all the people that have sent in letters (emailed)....
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.......
swede5 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2011, 02:32 PM
  #429
KidEpoxy
 
KidEpoxy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 6,681
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Government intrusion in hobby flying

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

Quote:
<...>
On February 17, I voted to pass S. 223, the FAA Air Transportation Modernization and Safety Improvement Act, which includes a provision protecting model aircraft from FAA regulation provided they are under 55 pounds and used exclusively for recreation or educational purposes. The bill is awaiting consideration in the House of Representatives. As the FAA works to integrate more unmanned aircraft into the National Airspace System, its primary focus will be on safety and security. However, reasonable accommodations can be made for those who wish to participate in a safe recreational activity. <....>

Be assured that I will monitor this situation and keep your views in mind as Congress works on FAA reauthorization. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future.

Sincerely,
Senator Bill Nelson
ok, so only the models UNDER 55lb will be exempted from the FAA regulation banning models over 55lb????[&:]
KidEpoxy is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2011, 05:33 PM
  #430
cj_rumley
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga, CA
Posts: 1,758
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Government intrusion in hobby flying

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.

cj_rumley is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2011, 06:16 PM
  #431
yard-dart
 
yard-dart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: West Monroe, LA
Posts: 1,149
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Government intrusion in hobby flying



[/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.
yard-dart is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2011, 06:27 PM
  #432
cannonball200
 
cannonball200's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Oklahoma City, OK
Posts: 329
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Government intrusion in hobby flying

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,
cannonball200 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2011, 06:57 PM
  #433
yard-dart
 
yard-dart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: West Monroe, LA
Posts: 1,149
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Government intrusion in hobby flying


Quote:
ORIGINAL: PilotFighter

Don't shoot the messenger dude ! The Senate amendment doesn't change the fact that the FAA gets to write our Safety Code now.

Deal with it !

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?
yard-dart is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2011, 08:09 PM
  #434
ira d
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Moreno Valley, CA
Posts: 3,031
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Government intrusion in hobby flying


Quote:
ORIGINAL: yard-dart


Quote:
ORIGINAL: PilotFighter

Don't shoot the messenger dude ! The Senate amendment doesn't change the fact that the FAA gets to write our Safety Code now.

Deal with it !

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?

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.
ira d is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2011, 08:32 PM
  #435
yard-dart
 
yard-dart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: West Monroe, LA
Posts: 1,149
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Government intrusion in hobby flying

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.
yard-dart is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2011, 10:16 PM
  #436
ira d
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Moreno Valley, CA
Posts: 3,031
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Government intrusion in hobby flying

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.
ira d is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2011, 04:33 AM
  #437
The Toolman
 
The Toolman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: The Ozarks, MO
Posts: 1,921
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Government intrusion in hobby flying

Quote:
ORIGINAL: yard-dart

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.

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
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	Jh17103.jpg
Views:	4
Size:	182.9 KB
ID:	1576372  
The Toolman is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2011, 06:49 AM
  #438
yard-dart
 
yard-dart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: West Monroe, LA
Posts: 1,149
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Government intrusion in hobby flying

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.
yard-dart is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2011, 06:52 AM
  #439
TexasAirBoss
 
TexasAirBoss's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 2,972
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Government intrusion in hobby flying

Quote:
ORIGINAL: yard-dart


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.

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.
TexasAirBoss is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2011, 07:52 AM
  #440
yard-dart
 
yard-dart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: West Monroe, LA
Posts: 1,149
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Government intrusion in hobby flying

Quote:
ORIGINAL: PilotFighter

Quote:
ORIGINAL: yard-dart


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.



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.

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.

yard-dart is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2011, 08:22 AM
  #441
hook57
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: North Aurora, IL
Posts: 945
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Government intrusion in hobby flying


Quote:
ORIGINAL: yard-dart

Quote:
ORIGINAL: PilotFighter

Quote:
ORIGINAL: yard-dart


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.
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.
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.
Logic and reason! Well put yard-dart, well put.
hook57 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2011, 09:43 AM
  #442
TexasAirBoss
 
TexasAirBoss's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 2,972
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Government intrusion in hobby flying


Quote:
ORIGINAL: yard-dart

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.
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.

TexasAirBoss is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2011, 10:01 AM
  #443
Silent-AV8R
 
Silent-AV8R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 5,308
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Government intrusion in hobby flying

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.
Silent-AV8R is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2011, 11:14 AM
  #444
KidEpoxy
 
KidEpoxy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 6,681
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Government intrusion in hobby flying

Quote:
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"
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
KidEpoxy is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2011, 11:31 AM
  #445
jp_boud
 
jp_boud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Kingsville, TX
Posts: 182
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Government intrusion in hobby flying

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.
jp_boud is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2011, 11:33 AM
  #446
warningshot
 
warningshot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: OU-OSU OK
Posts: 474
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Government intrusion in hobby flying


Quote:
ORIGINAL: PilotFighter

Quote:
ORIGINAL: yard-dart


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.

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.
For my own education, what makes them illegal now?
warningshot is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2011, 12:45 PM
  #447
The Toolman
 
The Toolman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: The Ozarks, MO
Posts: 1,921
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Government intrusion in hobby flying

Quote:
ORIGINAL: jp_boud

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 LOS model.

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.
The Toolman is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2011, 01:17 PM
  #448
yard-dart
 
yard-dart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: West Monroe, LA
Posts: 1,149
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Government intrusion in hobby flying


Quote:
ORIGINAL: PilotFighter


Quote:
ORIGINAL: yard-dart

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.
Your hypothetical is illegal right now.

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).
yard-dart is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2011, 02:11 PM
  #449
TexasAirBoss
 
TexasAirBoss's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 2,972
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Government intrusion in hobby flying


Quote:
ORIGINAL: warningshot



For my own education, what makes them illegal now?

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 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2011, 02:46 PM
  #450
TexasAirBoss
 
TexasAirBoss's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 2,972
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Government intrusion in hobby flying


Quote:
ORIGINAL: yard-dart


Don't think for one minute, though, that it can't be done exactly as I stated (using GPS).
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.
TexasAirBoss is offline  
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:17 AM.