VF84sluggo

My Feedback: (55)

This is an excerpt from "Capitol Hill Brief" from ALPA (Air Line Pilots Association), received this morning, 25Apr11:

Call to Action: Support One Level of Safety
ALPA Pilots Urged to Participate in the Legislative Process

Unmanned Aircraft Systems: Both the House and Senate bills have provisions related to the integration of Unmanned Aircraft Systems into the NAS. The House version is of concern because it mandates a deadline for integration of UAS into the NAS and does not make accommodations for safety oversight. ALPA’s position is that no UAS should be allowed unrestricted access to public airspace unless it meets all the high standards currently required for every other airspace user. The House provision is a step backwards and does not promote One Level of Safety.

Of note, "ALPA's position is that no UAS should be allowed unrestricted access..." I wonder if this 'position' includes rc jets, or any rc aircraft for that matter, that are line-of-sight controlled? There was no amplifying information in the brief about this, or any definition of what ALPA considers a "UAS."

(NOTE: I initially posted this in the "Jets" forum: http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_10...m.htm#10483817
I decided to duplicate post here since I am not sure if the AMA is aware of ALPA's input, and how aeromodeling may or may not be affected by it.)

VF84sluggo

My Feedback: (55)

Also, FAA Administrator Randy Babbitt was the National ALPA president in the early nineties and could be sympathetic to the ALPA position.

Silent-AV8R

ALPA was part of the ARC so I am pretty certain that the AMA knows where they stand on this issue.

VF84sluggo

My Feedback: (55)

Good. I'm hoping that ALPA has what we would consider "drones" to be the UAS's they are talking about, not a bunch of guys (and gals) at a rc flying field.

NorfolkSouthern

A few months ago, I was at a the local FBO, and spoke with one of the pilots there. He made it clear to me that although free-flight is one of his hobbies, R/C model planes are not compatible with full-scale aircraft. He explained that it is a safety issue, and I would tend to agree with him. Models are increasing in size, and I was told a few days ago by an owner of a 50cc Yak, that he would never consider anything smaller. He went on to say (and I don't mean IMPLY either) that anything smaller than a model with a 50cc engine is trash, and those were HIS words, not mine. I'm sorry, but if modelers have the philosophy that my smaller-scale planes (and believe me, a .40 sized plane is HUGE in my book!) are not good enough to fly, then I'm afraid there has to be some limits set. If not, then people will do what ever they please. It's just a matter of time before some doofus pulls off another trick like the one in Florida involving the electric heli, and kills somebody with his "wonderful" big gasser. It's that very small minority of people who will ruin it for everybody else.

NorfolkSouthern

Silent-AV8R

SO one guy expresses his idiotic opinion about smaller planes and now that is proof we need to either eliminate or regulate larger models?

Perhaps the next time you are at the FBO you might inform them that there are numerous RC model fields, some even flying large planes, located ON active airport properties around the US and there have been exactly ZERO issues caused by the RC activity. GO figure.

You very clearly think large planes are dangerous, yet oddly the facts do not support your opinion. In the past few years there have been several severe injury accidents and a few deaths involving models. Not one involved a large plane. A fellow in Houston was killed by a heli. A man in Tucson was killed by his own .40-sized trainer (flown by him no less), another man was killed (inside the judges cage) at a warbird race by a twin 40 Mustang F-82.

SO this "us versus them" mentality where one group is willing to sacrifice another group is really a bad way to go in my book. You want to know what accounts for the majority of medical claims each year? Guys getting their fingers/hands cut by smaller nitro engines. Maybe we should ban small planes since they very clearly are very dangerous.

BarracudaHockey

My Feedback: (11)

As an aside, we do have size/weight guidelines that AMA members must adhere to or obtain waivers proving a certain competence.

cfircav8r

My Feedback: (1)

I am also a F/S pilot (commercial) and I know that any modeler, even the idiotic morons that give us a bad name are so minimal a risk as to be a non issue when compared to the average commute to the airport. The likelyhood that you will be killed on the drive to the airport compared to being killed by some incredibly unsafe modeler is ridiculously small. See and avoid is the rule for both models and full scale, and many of the fields I have found were spotted from 2500' flying at 120-180 kts. These were average sized sport planes flying at average altitudes well below my altitude. Most ultralights fly higher, slower, are less maneuverable and they tend to have little to no training and some get severe tunnel vision, yet these have been integrated safely and are allowed to operate from a large number of this nations airports. You can't midigate all risk and you can't make others follow safe practices or even the laws of the land, yet we have flown successfully/safely in the same airspace as F/S for more than half a century. As participation increases some new guidlines are usually needed, but the urge to severely restrict to the lowest common denominator is strong with the patriarchal government mentality so prevelent these days. You will always have reactionary fear mongers on the F/S side and arrogant anarchists on the modeler side, but fortunitely these are the vast minority.

KidEpoxy

Sluggo


... no UAS should be allowed ...
... does not promote One Level of Safety

hmm, those seem like kinda absolute terms they're usin thar
I'm having a hard time reading that as ~ ... no UAS (except for some) should be allowed... ,
but its easy to see it as 'no UAS' meaning ~ not any UAS at all not even the ones some guys fly for fun

VF84sluggo

My Feedback: (55)

Kid - Yeah...I'm just sayin', that's all...just wanting to know what ALPA considers a "UAS." And I very well could have started a thread about a nothing, as far as I know, since I didn't sit in on the ARC. But, since I wasn't at the ARC, it would be nice to know ALPA's definition of UAS, and the scope of their position. At face value, looks pretty absolute to me, too. If ALPA had it's way, I'd bet the only users of the NAS would be ALPA-member air carriers.

Regretting that I didn't post here first. A guy over on the duplicate thread in the "Jets" forum that's a FedEx pilot has contacted the ALPA guys to try and get a reading of ALPA's position in regards to recreational rc flying.

KidEpoxy

yeah, that would shine some light on their statement you posted up top

but it would be more telling to get their take on SenateBill 223 a86,
where folks are just allowed to do whatever they want if they are ... well, you know the deal with what the senate amendment does.

What does ALPA think about what s223a86 will allow unlicensed folks to do in the sky

Sport_Pilot

Freedom, in other words. Because models only fly line of sight and thus over a limited area I do not see size as any reson to limit their use. Even a .40 size can bring down an airliner. At least the larger planes will be easier for the FS pilot to use. And if below 1000 feet or 500 feet in rural areas, the FS plane shouldn't even be there.

Red Scholefield

My Feedback: (9)

"You will always have reactionary fear mongers on the F/S side and arrogant anarchists on the modeler side, but fortunitely these are the vast minority. "

Very true, and you will also have some twit in the middle egging them on, stirring the pot simply for recreational purposes.

Sport_Pilot

A drone would be baned by UAS proposed rules. A drone only has a rudimentry navigation system, basically an autopilot that makes it fly straight and level. There is no communication with the operator. As I understand it the UAS needs to sense other aircraft and see and avoid, thus either it needs video and a very smart robot, or a person on the ground viewing the video transmissions and takeing over the controls to avoid other aircraft.

Sport_Pilot

The air carriers want all planes other than military and airliners banned. You would have to be in the military to learn to fly a plane, and they get the cream of the crop. The same system the Soviets had before they collapsed. Of course many of these people also wouldn't mind if the goverment owned them, then they would get a piece of the kingdom.

TexasAirBoss

My Feedback: (22)

It does not.