paulsf86

My Feedback: (52)

I am glad someone went to the same math classes I did.

Paul S

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

Sorry, I was wrong...John is indeed right.

Bob Pastorello

My Feedback: (198)

You caught me....rhetoric it was.
I guess the whole thing just leaves me slack-jawed, not comprehending "how", much less "why".
Gonna be a wild ride for the hobby for awhile, I'm thinkin'.

Lineman8888

My Feedback: (3)

How about this FAA leave Radio Controlled whatever alone. Get this government shrink up and stay away from me! We the people dont need you we dont want you and you arent valued. So go away!

JohnShe

I did. And I repeat. My field is more than 10 miles each from two airports, one is a 5 runway international and the other is a single runway executive airport.

bradpaul

I may have missed it, but how is within 5 miles of an airport measured?

- From the control tower, if there is one?
- from the physical boundaries of the airport?
- from a point that represents the center point of the airport?

Using the boundaries would result in a much larger answer.

In the case of large airports like DFW, MCO, ORD, LAX, etc. this could result in a huge area.

Bob Pastorello

My Feedback: (198)

bradpaul - very good question. Using this link, http://vfrmap.com/ , it's clearly roughly the center of the runways, MOL, but doesn't seem to be exactly the case. At any rate, the 5 mile radius of traffic area is clearly marked, so if your rc site is inside one of those, you have to talk to whatever airports overlap....and yes, there are areas of congested space where the TSRs do overlap, resulting in large areas, where ALL airports would need to be advised, and presumably, ANY could have veto authority over RC operations within their 5 mi radius areas under the propose Interpretative Rule.

Bummer for many populated areas; hell, it ain't so good even in my little corner of the aviation universe.

dbacque

My Feedback: (3)

Maybe we need to think about this another way. Maybe we need to make the FAA decide this is too much work for them.

I used to fly high power rockets so I'm familiar with notices and waivers. In cases where you need to notify the FAA, you do just that, you call the local tower and notify them of your activities and go about your business. In cases of prohibited activities you file for a waiver. Waivers are granted as a normal course of operations and NOTAMs are issued on the waivered flight operations. In all my years of rocketry we received nearly all our waivers. And we were flying high power rockets to 2,000 feet only 2 miles from an active airport. The only ones that were sometimes blocked were the 5,000" waiver requests at the same field.

Our busy RC field is used every day the weather is decent and we're 2 1/2 miles from an airport. There are 2 more clubs within the 5 mile radius. Imagine if every person heading to the field called the local tower every time they went flying! Add in all the park flyers in a 5 mile radius calling in and the phone wouldn't stop ringing. Add to that the paperwork that would be filed out answering all the people looking for waivers.

How long before they decide they don't have staffing or budget for it? Maybe we should start calling our local towers every time we head off to fly and tell them we're good law abiding modelers heading out for an enjoyable afternoon. Maybe every FPV flier should start filing waivers as frequently as they can. Maybe we should start doing this immediately, not after any period for entering replies. When the FAA finds out that they can't run a tower and answer the phones and do the paperwork, it might make a bigger statement than all the replies we can muster. And it is our right, nay our duty according to the FAA's interpretation call to notify them every time we want to fly. It's also our right to file for waivers.

Just a thought.

Dave

Top_Gunn

My Feedback: (6)

Don't assume that the only airports we have to worry about are the ones shown on the sectional charts. In my county, there are 13 airports listed on the FAA website. Only two of them are shown on the sectional chart.

mr_matt

My Feedback: (10)

Yes good question. I got one too......how do you get an "agreement from the airport". Do you ask the guy pumping gas? Does someone have to sign a piece of paper? What piece of paper?

Can you just imagine? What is in it for_any_airport to agree?..........just their good nature?

Bob Pastorello

My Feedback: (198)

Agree absolutely; we have probably that many also, in this agricultural area....dusters everywhere. Some identified, some not....the more we talk about this notification requirement the scarier this thing gets. dbacque may be on to something....if/when all the tower phones start ringing, they will probably ring UP the org chart, also....

ira d

I think the FAA needs to do some leg work also on this airport deal. I think when a clubs gives the FAA the address of the of their flying site the FAA should send the club
a list of all airports in a five mi radius and the airport contact info.

Sport_Pilot

I suspect the FAA is keeping some puppet CBO in a box somewhere.

ira d

With about 95% of the flying sites in the USA requiring AMA membership to fly at it would be difficult for a new CBO to get members I would think.

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

That really is the $64,000 question...not only from the perspective of what is in it for the airport but the perceived danger they may allow if they do say yes...perception is the driving factor today...

bradpaul

Just consider this............ the AMA "National Flying Site" in Muncie has an airport adjacent to the property. It looks like the airport operator has total control, What would keep an airport operator from denying use or wanting compensation for granting the permission for RC activity?

As a layman it looks to me that there is an issue of government taking away property rights without proper procedure. A property owner that was enjoying the use of their property by flying model airplanes or a property owner that was receiving compensation for the use of their property to fly model airplanes just had their right to enjoy their property reduced if they are within 5 miles of an airport.

Between the EPA, the FAA and the DOA does an American still have any property rights? Perhaps some lawyers could comment.

koastrc

Model aviators and the AMA has found themselves in the political BIG LEAGUE. A Liberal member of the House of Representatives put it best. Our Nation was built on the idea of three (3) branches of government. Legislature, Executive, and Judicial. He said we are developing a forth branch. The bureaucracy! Unelected rule makers. I don't have a thing against any agency charged with protecting the rights and welfare of the people, but when they enforce and write the rules we have a new problem.
The big league. Think about it. We are now caught in the raging stream of special interest. Now, we as a group will have to play the game. There is no intention of putting us out of business, but we may get taxed some kind of way and that is what it is all about. We are going to be put in the same kind of pot as hunting and fishing. Every thing you buy that is hobby related will have some sort of extra tax. Google up Dingle Johnson for example. What is needed first is a head count.

VF84sluggo

My Feedback: (55)

Agree. I just don't see many airport manager career-bureaucrat types, if given the authority, being willing to risk his/her cush taxpayer-funded government job, benefits, and pension by allowing a bunch of r/c guys to fly these 'toys' anywhere near "their" airport.

Bob Pastorello

My Feedback: (198)

I guess sometimes I don't see the obvious things real fast...and tend to over think....but here's what just struck me.
Let's say that a bunch (read thousands and thousands) of buyers of electric remote-controlled hovercraft with video recording/transmitting capability decide that the AMA requirements aren't worth the entry fee (annual dues), so they "opt out" of the CBO. And then lets' assume that a pretty fair numbers of these folks buying these toys online, in malls, etc. are doing it for grins and giggles, and have NO interest in "model aviation" and will not, nor ever will be "model aircraft operators", but they go ahead and fly their toys anywhere they like because they don't know, don't care, aren't aware, or simply snub the FAA rules on these operations.

Who's gonna manage that big hot mess?

mr_matt

My Feedback: (10)

I think we are already there. And to think the AMA spends actual effort trying to reach out to the geniuses.
http://www.post-gazette.com/business...s/201406270183

VF84sluggo

My Feedback: (55)

I'm afraid what we see reported, though, is just the tip of the bonehead iceberg. Some jackwagon has been flying a lighted quadcopter over the local high school football stadium at home games. Some people think it's cool, but others don't. Let it glitch and crash into the stands, and nobody will think it's cool. I'd hate to think a responsible aeromodeler is doing it...they should know better.

Yep, we are paying the price for the behavior of those Bob P perfectly described in post 119. They crap, and we have to wear diapers.

Sluggo

cj_rumley

The same people that manage it now, Bob. Nobody, except in instances rare and unusual enough to be newsworthy.
I don't see anything of significant change in that scenario from what exists today.

Few buyers of that sort of craft join the CBO (is AMA 'it' yet?). Only those that want access to CBO sanctioned club sites do. Even among that small segment I suspect many also fly at 'uncontrolled' venues of interest and opportunity, even among those that were CBO members before the new diversion. How many folks would invest substantial $$ in that equipment just to go sightseeing via FPV and record videos within the bounds of a model flying field? Boring! Some might join for the insurance (which AMA has been pushing in their latest marketing scheme), but the validity of that may be questioned/negated by uncertainty about legality of their ops.

Numbers of that sub-population of operators may and probably will increase, but even before 'electric remote-controlled hovercraft with video recording/transmitting capability' came on the scene, the CBO member end of the see-saw has been much lighter than the indie modeler end. The CBO influence on subduing the tomfoolery is likely to remain minimal, and FAA isn't likely to spend much of their appropriation on it. Maybe they can make a dent deterrent-wise if they can recruit some local enforcement aid, as by providing them with informational material about applicable regs and how to get them applied. Deputy Fife probably doesn't know FARs from Shinola.

ira d

I think it's more than obvious that the people we read about in the news flying in the wrong places are not operating according to the AMA safety code. The FAA
need to go after the rouge flyers and leave the AMA flyers alone.

JohnShe

The AMA doesn't have to do anything about the outlaws. That is a local, state and federal law enforcement problem. We are a self policing organization. As long as it can be shown that we, AMA members, obey the rules, we have nothing to fear.

ira d

John you are right, I accidentally typed AMA instead of FAA but I have corrected my post.