Register

If this is your first visit, please click the Sign Up now button to begin the process of creating your account so you can begin posting on our forums! The Sign Up process will only take up about a minute of two of your time.

View Poll Results: A poll

Voters
520. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, our self-policing efforts (i.e. AMA Safety Codes) aren''t working.

    25 4.81%
  • Yes, the world has changed considerably since 9/11.

    83 15.96%
  • I''m not sure.

    29 5.58%
  • No, the FAA has no business regulating "hobby" airplanes.

    180 34.62%
  • No, we are fully capable of policing ourselves.

    66 12.69%
  • No, the perceived threat to society doesn't exist!

    72 13.85%
  • I hate polls like this!

    65 12.50%
Page 6 of 21 FirstFirst ... 4567816 ... LastLast
Results 126 to 150 of 502

  1. #126
    H5487's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    905
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?

    Guys, please take your insurance discussion elsewhere. That's not the subject matter of this thread.

    Thanks,

    Harvey
    Weather Geek

  2. #127
    littlecrankshaf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    here
    Posts
    4,699
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?


    ORIGINAL: Silent-AV8R



    Actually, I was the one who helped defend a fellow AMA member against a baseless claim by a person who was injured as a direct result of his own documented and continued negligence. As far as being an AVP at the time the Superior Court judge nor the opposing counsel had an issue with it, but you do. Is this based on your wide and extensive legal training and experience, or something else?

    Word smith it however you wish but the fact remains, you were paid to help invalidate a claim for serious injury sustained by an AMA member after another AMA member flew his model into that seriously injured modeler. Phrase it however you wish...semantics are just that...you were defending AMA’s culpability...not a defendant...because we know who would have ultimately paid the claim. Go sell a Brooklyn Bridge somewhere else...

    Yes, my mind is made up... It was a serious conflict of interest no matter how someone or you try to explain it away.
    It is very important to understand that Jesus not only died for our sins but died because of our sins...even harder to understand now, exactly what were those sins???

  3. #128
    Silent-AV8R's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Orange County, CA
    Posts
    4,838
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?

    Guys, please take your insurance discussion elsewhere. That's not the subject matter of this thread.

    Thanks,

    Harvey

    Agreed
    Team Futaba - RClipos.com

  4. #129
    littlecrankshaf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    here
    Posts
    4,699
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?


    ORIGINAL: H5487

    Guys, please take your insurance discussion elsewhere. That's not the subject matter of this thread.

    Thanks,

    Harvey
    Sorry, I just couldn’t let a line of BS stand without some contrast of reality.
    It is very important to understand that Jesus not only died for our sins but died because of our sins...even harder to understand now, exactly what were those sins???

  5. #130
    Sport_Pilot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Acworth, GA
    Posts
    13,314
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?


    ORIGINAL: H5487

    ORIGINAL: warningshot
    What he did is not illegal.
    Okay, I'll tell you what. Get caught with your model loaded with fireworks (also known as Class C explosives) and let us know how they couldn't find anything to charge you with.

    Harvey
    Only where fireworks are legal. It's legal here so you can go blow your RC plane out of the sky if you want. The AMA won't like it, but if not at an AMA field no one should give a crap.
    Glow Head Brotherhood #15

  6. #131
    Sport_Pilot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Acworth, GA
    Posts
    13,314
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?


    ORIGINAL: ira d

    Models have been flying in the range of 300- 500 ft for years with no problems andvirtually no conflict with full scale planes, The main reason for there
    being almost contact between the two is full scale rarely flys below 2,000 ft unless taking off or landings and models rarely go above 500 ft due to
    visibllity. I know some sail planes and rockets also balloons can on ocassion exceed 500ft and maybe the FAA needs to make some rules specific
    for models that fly at high alititude.

    The top of the aerobatic box's are 1000 feet. They go above 500 feet every time they compete or practice. Nothing new, look at the AMA competition rules.
    Glow Head Brotherhood #15

  7. #132
    H5487's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    905
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?

    ORIGINAL: Silent-AV8R

    Guys, please take your insurance discussion elsewhere. That's not the subject matter of this thread.

    Thanks,

    Harvey
    Agreed
    ORIGINAL: littlecrankshaf

    Sorry...
    Thanks guys! I know how easy it is to go off on a tangent, occasionally being guilty of it myself.

    Harvey
    Weather Geek

  8. #133
    H5487's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    905
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?

    Poll observations...

    As of Monday morning, a good day and a half after starting the poll, the percentages have somewhat stabilized at roughly 25% of the respondants saying that they DO welcome FAA involvement. On the other hand, and clearly the majority of opinion, roughly 53% say that the FAA should butt out. (The numbers don't add up to 100% because I'm not including the votes for "I'm not sure" and "I hate polls".)

    While the numbers indicate a little more than a 2 to 1 ratio, I'm surprised that the votes haven't been overwhelmingly against FAA involvement in our hobby. (Let's face it - The government doesn't have a sterling reputation when it comes to sticking its nose into something in order to try to fix it.) However, with almost a third of the respondants saying that they think the FAA should step in, I'm inclined to wonder why. Is it that these members possibly feel that our hobby is starting to get out of control and they would like to see some minimal FAA guidance now instead of more-smothering legislation in the future?

    The small number (just 4%) of votes for "I'm not sure" tell me that very few folks haven't already made up their minds one way or the other on this matter. This tells me that the issue invokes strong passionate opinions in folks. That's not too surprising. (Again, we're talking about the government's welcome or unwelcome involvement here.) Such a low number of "undecideds" also indicates that most folks have already made up their minds before knowing what the FAA's proposals are. It'll be interesting to see if the yes/no percentages change after the FAA publishes its NPRM.

    Sadly, 40 guys (14% of the overall number of contributers) chose to throw their vote away by clicking on "I hate polls like this" instead of contributing to the poll in a positive way. I guess my watermelon did its job.

    Harvey
    Weather Geek

  9. #134

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Aguanga, CA
    Posts
    950
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?


    ORIGINAL: Sport_Pilot


    ORIGINAL: ira d

    Models have been flying in the range of 300- 500 ft for years with no problems andvirtually no conflict with full scale planes, The main reason for there
    being almost contact between the two is full scale rarely flys below 2,000 ft unless taking off or landings and models rarely go above 500 ft due to
    visibllity. I know some sail planes and rockets also balloons can on ocassion exceed 500ft and maybe the FAA needs to make some rules specific
    for models that fly at high alititude.

    The top of the aerobatic box's are 1000 feet. They go above 500 feet every time they compete or practice. Nothing new, look at the AMA competition rules.

    I didn't know that. Is that the ceiling on MAoperations that AMA wants (vs. the 400' limit FAA has said they want since AC 91-57 was released in 1981)? If that is all there is to the issue, it should be easy to get relief in vast areas of the country, i.e., where human activity on the ground restricts regulated aircraft to a floor of 1000' AGL. Without violating the FAA rationale for the existing 400' ceiling in any way, it could be lifted to 900' in many or most areas where MA operations occur. Could the 'aerobatic box' be reduced 900' as a compromise w/o causing major trauma for the competetors?

    CJ


  10. #135

    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Sparks, NV
    Posts
    515
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?


    ORIGINAL: H5487

    ORIGINAL: cublover
    I made my own ordinance and dropped them many times, but they were never,,,,NEVER,,, made to kill anyone... They just made a nice boom....
    Despite your intentions not to hurt anyone, you clearly and willfully showed a complete disregard for the AMA Safety Code AND the existing Federal Aviation Regulations regarding dropping potentially harmful objects from an aircraft (ANY aircraft). It appears to me that YOU are one of those malcontents who is now bringing the government down on the entire hobby.

    Thanks!

    Harvey
    And you would be wrong!! My ordnance is no more dangerous than a "Blank load" they use in Hollywood in gun fights...But thanks for Play'n!! Typical America,,,Shout before they know what they are talking about... I have NEVER done this at a AMA field. I'm not AMA. I fly out in the middle of nowhere, and just enjoy the hobby...
    Life is to short,,, to fly slow planes!!!!!!

  11. #136

    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Ann Arbor, MI
    Posts
    1,451
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?


    ORIGINAL: GerKonig


    ORIGINAL: NorfolkSouthern


    ORIGINAL: chuckk2

    Where to draw the line is the big question. Weight has long been one of the factors considered. Another is ''line of sight''. Altitude is another.
    I believe that 1500 AGL or so is a reasonable limit, not 400 AGL. After all even birds fly higher than 400 AGL.
    Another area that I don't care for (even though I do hold a private pilot's license) is any requirement that a modeler/pilot carry any sort of license or medical certificate.
    Many of the RC modelers are older, and likely would not pass any FAA medical requirements for a certificate.
    (The devil is in the details, believe me!)

    A medical certificate to fly a model plane? Where did you get that idea? How embarrassing it's gonna be for some folks when this thing finally unwinds. It's gonna be very hard to get most of us to stop laughing!

    NS

    That is a silly idea. Do you need a medical to fly a full size glider? Do you need a medical to fly a Skycatcher? (in case you do not know the answer: Of course not!)

    Asking for a medical to fly a heavy sUAS over populated areas, and COMMERCIALLY, yes is a good idea. They would also need to prove proficiency somehow... and use certified platforms.

    Gerry
    You don't need a medical certificate to fly a motor glider, or standard glider. However, the Cessna Skycatcher is a light-sport aircraft, which is subject to the catch-22: If you were ever denied an FAA medical certificate in the past, then you would need to prove that a disqualifying condition no longer exists, retake and pass the medical exam, and then get the medical certificate. But after that, as long as you don't fly anything other than a light-sport, you can allow that medical certificate to lapse and would no longer need to take the physical. Look up "Light Sport" and "Catch-22" on Google, it will explain more.

    NS

  12. #137
    Sport_Pilot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Acworth, GA
    Posts
    13,314
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?

    The number is about representative of the people who would rather live in a socialistic totalitarian sociaty. Most of the third that do will not admit that they want a socialistic totalitarian sociaty. Heck not sure if most of them even know that that means?
    Glow Head Brotherhood #15

  13. #138

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Levittown, PA
    Posts
    1,842
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?


    ORIGINAL: NorfolkSouthern


    ORIGINAL: GerKonig


    ORIGINAL: NorfolkSouthern


    ORIGINAL: chuckk2

    Where to draw the line is the big question. Weight has long been one of the factors considered. Another is ''line of sight''. Altitude is another.
    I believe that 1500 AGL or so is a reasonable limit, not 400 AGL. After all even birds fly higher than 400 AGL.
    Another area that I don't care for (even though I do hold a private pilot's license) is any requirement that a modeler/pilot carry any sort of license or medical certificate.
    Many of the RC modelers are older, and likely would not pass any FAA medical requirements for a certificate.
    (The devil is in the details, believe me!)

    A medical certificate to fly a model plane? Where did you get that idea? How embarrassing it's gonna be for some folks when this thing finally unwinds. It's gonna be very hard to get most of us to stop laughing!

    NS

    That is a silly idea. Do you need a medical to fly a full size glider? Do you need a medical to fly a Skycatcher? (in case you do not know the answer: Of course not!)

    Asking for a medical to fly a heavy sUAS over populated areas, and COMMERCIALLY, yes is a good idea. They would also need to prove proficiency somehow... and use certified platforms.

    Gerry
    You don't need a medical certificate to fly a motor glider, or standard glider. However, the Cessna Skycatcher is a light-sport aircraft, which is subject to the catch-22: If you were ever denied an FAA medical certificate in the past, then you would need to prove that a disqualifying condition no longer exists, retake and pass the medical exam, and then get the medical certificate. But after that, as long as you don't fly anything other than a light-sport, you can allow that medical certificate to lapse and would no longer need to take the physical. Look up ''Light Sport'' and ''Catch-22'' on Google, it will explain more.

    NS

    Yes, I am very familiar with the subject. A small percentage of people would be affected, as you indicate. They have to be pilots, lost their medical, etc... The fact is that for a newbie, same as for gliders, no physical is required.

    Gerry

  14. #139

    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Ann Arbor, MI
    Posts
    1,451
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?


    ORIGINAL: Silent-AV8R


    ORIGINAL: NorfolkSouthern
    Yes, that's for the sUAS guys. You know, the ones who fly something made by Northrop-Grumman, that weighs 300 pounds, with a video camera, a zillion miles out of the line of sight to sniff out drugs and illegal aliens. Something like that. But the notion sounds a bit silly for someone who goes to the field to play with their toy airplanes on a Sunday afternoon.

    NS

    Not just for the large UAS, even the small ones. I have several friends who work for AeroVirnoment, the leader in smaller UAS, and they all hold 2nd Class medicals and they have all taken and passed the FAA Private Pilot written test.

    And again, the only place that medical for modelers is being discussed is in the fantasy and that is the Internet.
    And that's my point. The sUAS may weigh only 5 pounds or less, and be hand launched, but the difference is in the electronics, and the way it is used. There is a huge difference, in fact: Autonomy, sophisticated sensors, cameras, artificial intelligence, GPS link with way points, FPV and use by a commercial enterprise or government entity. A model airplane isn't going to have much more than a receiver and servos. But here's another example. To drive a school bus, you need a Class B CDL and DOT physical. However, if you buy it retired at an auction, take out the master switch, black out the "School Bus" labels front and back, and remove the stop arm, then it's no longer a school bus. It becomes a personal vehicle, which you don't need the medical certificate or Class B CDL to operate. Just a standard drivers license, as if you were renting a U-Haul will work just fine. Now going back to the sUAS: Say the army ends up with a huge surplus of Aerovironment wasps, and wants to sell them to the public to be "cool" and to bring in more recruits. They strip all the stuff from the airframe that make it an sUAS, and plug some of the holes left by sophisticated gadgets and electronics, like they would if it were a surplus P-51. Now it's a model airplane that requires no license of medical certificate. What it all boils down to is this: It will depend on what's inside the airframe, who is using it, and under which circumstances it will be used.

    For the most part: I don't think this new law is going to have much of an affect on modelers. But I do think the AMA will have to start working on "launch" windows and NOTAM's so as to avoid conflict with full-scale planes. It may inconvenience some (I can't launch a rocket over 3.3 pounds without the launch waiver and clearance, for example). But most of us who fly at fields and events probably won't notice much of a difference.

    NS

  15. #140
    Silent-AV8R's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Orange County, CA
    Posts
    4,838
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?


    ORIGINAL: cj_rumley


    ORIGINAL: Sport_Pilot


    ORIGINAL: ira d

    Models have been flying in the range of 300- 500 ft for years with no problems andΒ*virtually no conflict with full scale planes, The main reason for there
    being almost contact between the two is full scale rarely flys below 2,000 ft unless taking off or landings and models rarely go above 500 ft due to
    visibllity. I know some sail planes and rockets also balloons can on ocassion exceed 500ft and maybe the FAA needs to make some rules specific
    for models that fly at high alititude.

    The top of the aerobatic box's are 1000 feet.Β* They go above 500 feet every time they compete or practice.Β* Nothing new, look at the AMA competition rules.

    I didn't know that.Β*Β* Is that the ceiling on MAΒ*operations that AMA wants (vs. the 400' limit FAA has said they want since AC 91-57 was released in 1981)?Β* If that is all there is to the issue, it should be easy to get relief in vast areas of the country, i.e., where human activity on the ground restricts regulated aircraft to a floor of 1000' AGL.Β*Β* Without violating the FAA rationale for the existing 400' ceiling in any way, it could be lifted to 900' in many or most areas where MA operations occur.Β* Could the 'aerobatic box' be reduced 900' as a compromise w/o causing major trauma for the competetors?

    CJ

    FWIW, IMAC no longer uses a defined aerobatic box, and thus has no "top" and has not for some time.

    Pattern uses a box, but does not define an altitude, instead they use a measure of degrees above the horizon:

    14. Flight pattern and maneuvering area: The maneuver schedules of all classes must be executed in the order in which they are listed during an uninterrupted flight within a maneuvering area or β€œbox” bounded by lines 60 degrees each side of center. The vertical height shall not exceed 60 degrees from the horizontal.
    Doing the math is how you get an estimated "top" of the box. The "ideal" line is ~175 meters from the judges (574 ft). That is an estimated 994 feet high.
    Team Futaba - RClipos.com

  16. #141
    Silent-AV8R's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Orange County, CA
    Posts
    4,838
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?


    ORIGINAL: NorfolkSouthern

    For the most part: I don't think this new law is going to have much of an affect on modelers.
    I just got my latest issue of MA. Dave Mathewson's column speaks to the NPRM. One thing he mentions is that the AMA is fairly certain that the default path will contain four things:

    1 -Altitude limits
    2 - Weight limits
    3 - Speed limits
    4 - modeling activity in proximity to full-scale airports.

    Items 1,2, and 3 will still allow maybe 95% of modelers to operate happily.. #4 is one where everyone might get negatively affected. 5NM around any charted airport is the number I keep hearing. Take a map and start drawing 5NM (5.75SM) circles around all the full-scale airports in you area and see what effect that might have. In LA it would be crippling.


    Team Futaba - RClipos.com

  17. #142

    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Moreno Valley, CA
    Posts
    2,269
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?


    ORIGINAL: Sport_Pilot


    ORIGINAL: ira d

    Models have been flying in the range of 300- 500 ft for years with no problems andvirtually no conflict with full scale planes, The main reason for there
    being almost contact between the two is full scale rarely flys below 2,000 ft unless taking off or landings and models rarely go above 500 ft due to
    visibllity. I know some sail planes and rockets also balloons can on ocassion exceed 500ft and maybe the FAA needs to make some rules specific
    for models that fly at high alititude.

    The top of the aerobatic box's are 1000 feet. They go above 500 feet every time they compete or practice. Nothing new, look at the AMA competition rules.
    Dont doubt what you or saying, I use to fly at a field that had a lot of competition flyers that some times flew most of the day. It did not seem
    they were flying that much higher than the sport flyers but Icouldhave been wrong in my perception. But in any case it very rare to see models
    and full scale flying at the same alitiude.
    Ira d

  18. #143

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Aguanga, CA
    Posts
    950
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?


    ORIGINAL: Silent-AV8R


    ORIGINAL: NorfolkSouthern

    For the most part: I don't think this new law is going to have much of an affect on modelers.
    I just got my latest issue of MA. Dave Mathewson's column speaks to the NPRM. One thing he mentions is that the AMA is fairly certain that the default path will contain four things:

    1 -Altitude limits
    2 - Weight limits
    3 - Speed limits
    4 - modeling activity in proximity to full-scale airports.

    Items 1,2, and 3 will still allow maybe 95% of modelers to operate happily.. #4 is one where everyone might get negatively affected. 5NM around any charted airport is the number I keep hearing. Take a map and start drawing 5NM (5.75SM) circles around all the full-scale airports in you area and see what effect that might have. In LA it would be crippling.
    Okay, #4 is the biggie (if FAAis really planning to do that, and they won't say they are), at least for folks that fly model airplanes in the LAbasin (NYC, etc.). AMA is representing "us" as modelers. What do "we" want, and why doesn't AMAcare to to hear from "us" on that? "Our" representatives before FAA seem recalcitrant about telling "us" what they have decided "we" want. Am Ialone in thinking that seems rather obtuse?

    CJ


  19. #144
    Sport_Pilot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Acworth, GA
    Posts
    13,314
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?

    Could the 'aerobatic box' be reduced 900' as a compromise w/o causing major trauma for the competetors?

    As it is now there is no reason to change the rule.  There is no FAA requirement to keep below 900 feet.  However it may be a different story soon.
    Glow Head Brotherhood #15

  20. #145
    Sport_Pilot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Acworth, GA
    Posts
    13,314
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?

    It did not seem
    they were flying that much higher than the sport flyers but I could have been  wrong in my perception. But in any case it very rare to see models
    The top of the box is almost 1000 feet and they are flying in front of that and do not usually use all of it, so they are probably flying at 800 feet or so.  The sport flyers are probably flying up to 6 or 700 feet most of the time.  Almost everybody flys above 400 feet at some point as that is fairly low.
    Glow Head Brotherhood #15

  21. #146
    Sport_Pilot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Acworth, GA
    Posts
    13,314
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?

    "Our" representatives before FAA seem recalcitrant about telling "us" what they have decided "we" want. Am I alone in thinking that seems rather obtuse?
    They are not allowed to tell us till the FAA sends the rules out for comment. What you are hearing is stuff told to the wrong person, or somthing sombody made up. Hopefully the latter.
    Glow Head Brotherhood #15

  22. #147

    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Moreno Valley, CA
    Posts
    2,269
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?


    ORIGINAL: Sport_Pilot

    It did not seem
    they were flying that much higher than the sport flyers but Icouldhave been wrong in my perception. But in any case it very rare to see models
    The top of the box is almost 1000 feet and they are flying in front of that and do not usually use all of it, so they are probably flying at 800 feet or so. The sport flyers are probably flying up to 6 or 700 feet most of the time. Almost everybody flys above 400 feet at some point as that is fairly low.

    I do agree that almost everyone flys above 400 feet at some point.
    Ira d

  23. #148
    Silent-AV8R's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Orange County, CA
    Posts
    4,838
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?

    ORIGINAL: cj_rumley

    Okay, #4 is the biggie (if FAAΒ*is really planning to do that, and they won't say they are), at least for folks that fly model airplanes in the LAΒ*basin (NYC, etc.). Β* AMA is representing ''us'' as modelers.Β* What do ''we'' want, and why doesn't AMAΒ*care to to hear from ''us'' on that?Β*Β* ''Our'' representatives before FAA seem recalcitrant about telling ''us'' what they have decided ''we'' want.Β*Β* Am IΒ*alone in thinking that seems rather obtuse?

    CJ

    Not just crowded metropolitan areas would be affected. There are fields in the relatively uncrowded Central Valley of California and even the Coachella Valley east of Indio, CA that would be affected.

    The Central Valley RC Soaring club is 3.45NM from Visalia Airport
    The Tulare club is <1NM for an airport
    The Coachella club is 3.4NM for an airport

    So even in sparsely populated areas things could get tough for clubs if the FAA does what the AMA is hinting at.

    As far as for what the AMA can or is saying, they really don't know anything solid the way I understand it. But since they are dealing with the FAA almost daily I think they probably have a good "sense" of the situation. WRT the AMA standards I have heard the AMA folks say that they will publish them for comment and revision if required before submitting them to the FAA. But right now they are not close enough to complete to really do that. I don't think that should be taken as recalcitrance on their part, I think it is simply that they do not want to publish a partially completed set of standards for review.

    Team Futaba - RClipos.com

  24. #149

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Aguanga, CA
    Posts
    950
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?


    ORIGINAL: Silent-AV8R

    ORIGINAL: cj_rumley

    Okay, #4 is the biggie (if FAAis really planning to do that, and they won't say they are), at least for folks that fly model airplanes in the LAbasin (NYC, etc.). AMA is representing ''us'' as modelers. What do ''we'' want, and why doesn't AMAcare to to hear from ''us'' on that? ''Our'' representatives before FAA seem recalcitrant about telling ''us'' what they have decided ''we'' want. Am Ialone in thinking that seems rather obtuse?

    CJ

    Not just crowded metropolitan areas would be affected. There are fields in the relatively uncrowded Central Valley of California and even the Coachella Valley east of Indio, CA that would be affected.
    You're talking about Thermal Airport? The Coachella club has been around since Thermal was nothing but a rustic dirt strip that a few of the larger rocks wre pushed from. The club may fall to developers with their bulldozers, but it's a real stretch to say it's being threatened by FAArule making.


  25. #150
    Silent-AV8R's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Orange County, CA
    Posts
    4,838
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Do you think the FAA should be sticking its nose into our hobby?

    ORIGINAL: cj_rumley


    ORIGINAL: Silent-AV8R

    ORIGINAL: cj_rumley

    Okay, #4 is the biggie (if FAAΒ*is really planning to do that, and they won't say they are), at least for folks that fly model airplanes in the LAΒ*basin (NYC, etc.). Β* AMA is representing ''us'' as modelers.Β* What do ''we'' want, and why doesn't AMAΒ*care to to hear from ''us'' on that?Β*Β* ''Our'' representatives before FAA seem recalcitrant about telling ''us'' what they have decided ''we'' want.Β*Β* Am IΒ*alone in thinking that seems rather obtuse?

    CJ

    Not just crowded metropolitan areas would be affected. There are fields in the relatively uncrowded Central Valley of California and even the Coachella Valley east of Indio, CA that would be affected.
    You're talking about Thermal Airport?Β*Β* The Coachella club has been around since Thermal was nothing but a rustic dirt strip that a few of the larger rocks wre pushed from.Β*Β* The club may fall to developers with their bulldozers, but it's a real stretch to say it's being threatened by FAAΒ*rule making.

    If one of the more dire proguesstimations happens and the FAA bans all RC flying within 5NM of any charted airport, then CVRC will be toast. Their field is 3.24 NM from the center of Thermal Airport.

    The point being that people need to get over their complacency that this is not going to affect them, because it most certainly might. We can hope that the FAA is not totally over the top and maybe only restricts RC around towered airports or similar busy places.
    Team Futaba - RClipos.com


Page 6 of 21 FirstFirst ... 4567816 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:01 PM.

SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1 ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.