mongo

My Feedback: (15)

no where in the authorization to regulate all commercial use of aircraft, does it state that the flying has to be in "navigable airspace"

Jim Branaum

My Feedback: (3)

Really? Is that why all state owned airports have ILS systems? I am beginning to see that the only way you will comprehend the level of unsafe action you are supporting is when you meet one of those model airplane sized sUAV's at altitude. Kind of like that scale Pitts someone posted. You know, the one above the cloud deck. I guess it is easier to bribe Bubba than the Feds, so I do understand why you want that as the way to manage this stupidity with no cohesive rules.

I find it interesting that the person who had no clue that there was ever anyone killed by model airplanes is demanding proof and suddenly the resident authority on everything. Good show. Keep up the excellent work. Make it probable instead of only possible that you WILL meet one of them at altitude.

Before you go off on another subject changing tangent like most liberals do when pressed, let me restate my position so you can prove how rotten and not good it is. I do not think that any commercial activity should be originated by the hobbyist. Most don't have a clue as to all the dangers involved and few even know what other safety options are available.

Just to give you a place to start, what is the MTBF of the standard servo? Some of us think that is a very important part of the mix since it will (or will not if it fails) keep you (or any other smarter than the rest of us person) from planting his/her rotor or prop in another persons body. Why don't you do some research on that very subject and get your closed mind and eyes opened, I have and it is scary. While you are at it, how about the same sort of information on the radios in use? Be brand and model specific as there are great differences and they add up to safe or unsafe. These are the sort of things that rational commercial operators already have answers to and use when building/deploying their products. If you really want Johnny SixPack to deploy a toy over peoples heads, let yours be among them.

Sport_Pilot

And you accuse me of changing the subject? Please if you think the FAA has control of non navigable airspace, prove it. I really would like to know what source gives the FAA of all air down to a blade of grass. Especially when the judge for the Causby case said otherwise. So instead of insults and hot language please show some proof or I will put you on ignore. If that feature is still available.

JohnShe

Jim, you just went way over his head. I doubt that more than a half dozen contributors to this forum know what "mean time between failure" means.

But, you are correct. I don't know of a single model airplane component sold at the average hobby shop that lists MTBF or any other reliability figure in its specifications.

Sport_Pilot

FAR 91.119 says that only helicopters, powered parachutes, and weight shift controlled aircraft may operate in non navigable airspace. In "United States VS Causby" the judge said that the land owner has rights up to the navigable airspace. In the FAA act of 1958 the FAA was given authority to regulate in navigable airspace. It did not say one could not fly in that non navigable airspace only the FAA's mininum altitude definition says that, but the FAA says the minimum alititued includes airspace for takeoff and landing so you can land in a field on your property without registering it as an airport.

Other that I am not sure what else you may be refering to. Can you point out the regulation and clause you may have in mind?

Sport_Pilot

I really don't understand what you are getting at here. I don't see why it matters, not all airports need ILS systems. Most airports are owned by a county, or city actually. The large airports are not owned by the FAA who does not own airports, OK maybe one or two, but not many if any. Hartsfield Jackson for example is owned by the City of Atlanta,

But we are changing the subject with this.

Jim Branaum

My Feedback: (3)

LOL!

John, there is a good reason for that! Most flights don't keep the average servo under load, so that makes the MBTF seem longer. Couple that with the fact that most modelers are only up for about 15 minutes a flight so it take a very long time to collect, say 2 hours under load, on a servo. What hobby supplier wants their target market to have knowledge of when their stuff breaks?

Under serious (like you had a plan for it and a way to record the activity and results) testing, the MBTF for most servos can be easily developed. Serious commercial operations have already done some of this testing and the results I have heard are scary. Oh, higher dollar HOBBY servos did not change the results.

The reason these commercial wanna be's would rather talk about this or that law review rather than safety is that safe equipment costs money. In almost every case they are trying to get in on the cheap and don't care if they kill someone through their lack of concern about safety. Until someone dies, it must be safe see - no one has gotten killed.

Just because the FAA does not control the airspace down around the blades of grass does not make that a safe place to play with deadly equipment. Those that say this stuff is not deadly have no clue as to the number of recent deaths to helicopters or the way electric motors turning propellers damage that which they hit and are playing the smoke and mirror game of laws and regulations rather than safety for the uninvolved public they wish to put at risk while they make money.

Silent-AV8R

It is interesting to me that while deciding that the FAA had no authority to level a fine against Trappy, not ONCE did the judge mention that the FAA had no authority over the airspace he was operating in (i.e., well below 500 feet agl). I wonder why that was?? Seems that if that was the case, the judge could have simply used that as the cause for reversing the fine and tossing the case.

SP has been pounding this drum about FAA authority in "non-navigable" airspace for a long time. As far as I can tell, is in the minority in thinking the FAA has no authority in such airspace.

I look at it that the FAA likely has no authority in any airspace not classified by them in the FARs. So if you can find a slice of airspace that lies outside Class A, B, C, D, E, or G, (and other special use airspace areas) then I'll agree, the FAA would have no authority there.

Sport_Pilot

Look I have nothing against safety. And I have no issue if done with state or local government. I also have no plans to do commercial R/C or sUAV's. I am more worried that this could cause the FAA to get a foothold onto regulating our models. I also do not think it needs to be as complicated as to do MTBF tests for servo's. However if the FAA does this for the larger UAV's flying through navigable airspace then you could perhaps co opt from those tests.

Sport_Pilot

That would have greatly complicated the case. I only commented on a few cases it is not as black and white as I may have made it seem. The Judge can go past issues brought up by the lawyer's but often they do not. Much simpler to rule on the fact that there was no regulation.

NorfolkSouthern

I believe it is going to get a foothold into regulating models. Winning the appeal is only going to give the FAA the ability to do what it pleases, even if that means throwing the AMA (their "useful idiot") under the bus.

Jim Branaum

My Feedback: (3)

If you knew the numbers you would care a lot. Generally, not a single hobby servo measured up to a reasonable level of time under load. Price did not change the results and in some cases gave worse results. The only satisfactory results came from equipment not readily or cheaply available to the hobbyist and probably too much weight and power consumption for the average modeler.

You do not give the impression of caring about safety. If that is incorrect look at it from a rational point of view rather than that of some wild eyed anti-government person who would rather play tea party politics than deal with modeling.

Fighting over the FAA regulating is not going to protect the hobby because hobbyist taking his dangerous stuff commercial and putting the public at risk is going to insure that the hobby will become regulated to prevent that sort of stupidity. There is little you or I can do or say to prevent that. It will probably happen after some one who insists "these foamies can't hurt anyone" puts one into a crowd and seriously injures someone, or worse. How good will you feel when someone put some little kid's eye out exercising the rights you have insisted they have? I refer you to the Candle Stick Park incident as a place to start the thinking about how 'safe' this stuff is. Or you might consider the wedding the photographer that was using a sUAV at, it is on YouTube and should be a real eye-opener (commercial operation). Consider if the sUAV that crashed in Manhattan had hurt someone, what would you say then? Who's rights were violated there?


Seriously, I have an opinion you disagree with which is your right. However when the facts are looked at there is more risk being presented to the public by these activities than is generally acceptable. After all how many folks around you would go nuts if you walked down the streets of downtown Atlanta with a .357 strapped to your leg (no, not concealed). What is the difference between that and flying an sUAV over the busy downtown sidewalk? Here is the real question, which is more dangerous to the public? Refer to the above noted incidents before you jump to a response.

Those are the things that are going to force the issue no matter what you or I say or do. So given that, I prefer to regulate the commercial activities as then we only have to worry about the mental midgets that intentionally endanger folks for fun (and they do abound) rather than all activities. Take a look at the EAA approach for a good example of the different ways to get it done.

Propworn

My Feedback: (3)

M.A.A.C. Canada has posted their guidelines for FPV http://www.maac.ca/docs/2012/maac_fpv_guidelines.pdf

JohnShe

It says that it is a proposed guideline and not the final approved version. The AMA already has an FPV safety code. Also, the topic of this thread has been about the use or misuse and intended regulation of commercial drones and not necessarily the technology employed. Although, several posters have seemed to conflate the two separate issues.

Propworn

My Feedback: (3)

In regards to the AMA FPV safety code this is an excerpt from the M.A.A.C. FPV committee recommendation to the board of directors: The whole document can be viewed here http://www.maac.ca/docs/2012/prerequ...guidelines.pdf

After examination, the FPV committee has found the current 4 point FPV recommendations:
- Inadequate and incomplete
- Scares pilots away from the MAAC and club fields
- Could result in dangerous flight outcome in case of emergency
- Does not consider availability of new technology
- Is not open for progress and development in the RC hobby.
The unanimous opinion of the FPV committee is that this temporary AMA document is nothing else, but
a temporary “recommendation” until a better, well thought out guidelines document can be forwarded
for approval to the board of directors.
After much consideration, the FPV committee has completed a document which represents a truly
Canadian product, tailored for MAAC and the Canadian RC pilot.
We examined guidelines and proposals from all over the world for FPV practices in different countries
and organizations. We examined existing practices for examination of standard RC flight, guidelines
regarding use of different frequencies, amateur radio licensing, documents from Industry Canada and
Transport Canada and compiled an easy to read and easy to understand guidelines for the Canadian FPV
pilot.
We covered all the bases and we are forwarding this document for study to the board of directors, and
we suggest approval as our base guidelines for FPV.

The AMA while working towards a final set of guidelines are waiting to see what comes from the M.A.A.C. committee. Both the AMA and M.A.A.C. often share resources to tailor their rules to best suit their members. Many times these goals are in parallel and the wording will be very similar. We also share a mutual or reciprocal agreement insurance wise with the AMA where our respective insurances cover us when visiting the other country.
It has been commonly agreed in both countries between the Aviation bodies FAA in the US and Transport Canada in Canada to let the recognized modeling bodies provide the rules of engagement for models. All else will be regulated via the FAA and Transport Canada. One area where this has proven successful on both sides of the border is how large overweight models reaching 100 lbs are allowed to fly under stricter regulations and inspections. The precedent has been set.

Dennis

bradpaul

BTW .......... did you see "Sons of Guns" and their prototype hexacopter with the 9mil semi auto hanging underneath?

Jim Branaum

My Feedback: (3)

Did you mean THIS one?

http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=SNPJMk2fgJU

NorfolkSouthern

It is said to be a fake:

http://www.geekosystem.com/fake-cod-quadrotor/

It is very obvious that they packed stage explosives in the mannequins. Also, the recoil of the gun used on the drone would likely cause it to crash due to lack of stability, so the muzzle flash of the gun had to be edited in to get the effect of actually firing. I seriously doubt a drone that size could be set up like the one in the video. Otherwise, the military would have adopted it years ago.

cj_rumley

Is it legit to do (say in the case it was real)? What FAR says I can't?

JohnShe

What does an FAA FAR have to do with this. It's just some guy out playing with a toy in, what looks like, a remote location Except for endangering himself and any assistants he may have it looked like a cool way to have fun, it that is your kind of fun.

bradpaul

No this was on the Discovery Channel show "Sons of Guns" on Friday night. They mounted a semi auto 9mm vertical from the camera mount so that the recoil only caused the multirotor to move upward. The FPV camera was mounted to the gun and the "pilot" sighted through the "iron sights" on the gun. Supposed use was to dispose of IED's.

Jim Branaum

My Feedback: (3)

That NorfolkSouthern guy will insist it is fake. I wonder what he will think when one of his drug running neighbors pops one over the fence to visit him!

Bet he turns the area brown...

JohnShe

NS ain't afeard 'o no immergunts, it's the FAA that makes him poop in his diaper.

NorfolkSouthern

Actually, the one in the YouTube video with the machine gun and mannequins was fake. But the one pictured by bradpaul apparently is not. A setup like the one on the Discovery Channel would probably fall under the BATFE regulations, since it would most likely be considered a "destructive device". But replace the pistol with a camera, then it's back to being a model airplane.

JohnShe

Or an FAA regulated reconnaissance drone.