H5487

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

Thanks,

Harvey

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

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.

Silent-AV8R

Agreed

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

Sorry, I just couldn’t let a line of BS stand without some contrast of reality.

Sport_Pilot

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.

Sport_Pilot

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.

H5487

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

Harvey

H5487

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

cj_rumley

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

cublover

My Feedback: (47)

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...

NorfolkSouthern

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

Sport_Pilot

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?

GerKonig

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

NorfolkSouthern

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

Silent-AV8R

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:

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.

Silent-AV8R

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.

ira d

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.

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

Sport_Pilot

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.

Sport_Pilot

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.

Sport_Pilot

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.

ira d

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

Silent-AV8R

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.

cj_rumley

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.

Silent-AV8R

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.