bradpaul

Just what is the "NAS" is it everything above ground as the FAA is trying to establish? When the government tries to control/regulate the airspace below 400' in my backyard then we all have become servants to government.

Would Timmy or Cindy that got a RC Drone for Christmas even be expected to know about FAR's or NOTAMS to fly their toys? That would make for some great news stories having the FAA or local police arrest kids for playing with their toys.

And that is exactly where the FAA has a huge problem....................... if they ignore the toys they set a precedent on what they will be able to prosecute. Judges frown on selective enforcement.

At my club we have taken the position that if you are in compliance with the CBO rules (AMA 550) then you are good to fly.

Sport_Pilot

From part 91.1 (c)

So there is nobody the part applies to if no people are on board. I suppose they can blame the model aircraft, but the pilot in command is not on board and not covered by part 91.

Now I know the FAA claims otherwise so quoting stuff from the FAA will not fly with me. Also they will likely rewrite this in future editions of Part 91. But as of now a good lawer could make a case to a non partial judge (possibly a rare beast) that part 91 was not intended for model aircraft in any way and the above exerpt proves this. With that statement the FAA should not be able to pick or chose from the regulation. If they do then perhaps someone could pick the part that says aircraft should fly above 500 feet! Or even higher in some cases.

phlpsfrnk

Paul,
Did you mean 540-D See and Avoid Guidance? AMA 550 is no longer listed in the AMA documents as an active document.

Frank

HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

All the FAA has to do is say that U must have a license to buy,use, posses or fly any thing in the NAS from Ground to 80,000' MSL
Fortuitously for us, the FAA can't get it's act together. For about 10 years know they haven't been able to wright any proposed FAR's
concerning sUAS's. Who knows with the field changing so rapidly that they will ever be able to keep up. The only way that the FAA has
kept up with Aviation in general is they have made it so difficult and expensive to get a new Airworthiness Certificate,
that no real progress has been made in 70 or more years.
General Aviation other than composit construction air craft are generally the same aircraft built in the 30's and & 40's.

bradpaul

yes AMA 550 under Advanced Flight Systems Operations

bradpaul

Where do I get my FAA license to play golf in the NAS?

HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

God don't even go there the FAA might think that Golf Balls are a hazard to the NAS next.

phlpsfrnk

Quote:

Originally Posted by bradpaul

yes AMA 550 under Advanced Flight Systems Operations

AMA 550 is not listed in the AMA documents section;

http://www.modelaircraft.org/documents.aspx

I have an old copy of 550 that says:

First Person View (FPV) Operations

1. An FPV-equipped model must be flown by two AMA members utilizing a buddy-box system. The pilot in command must be on the primary transmitter, maintain visual contact, and be prepared to assume control in the event of a problem

phlpsfrnk

Okay, never mind, I found it. It has grown from four simple rules to three pages. What ever happened to the KISS principle?

Frank

phlpsfrnk

I thought this argument was sounding familiar;

http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/ama-...mally-fly.html

Frank

Sport_Pilot

Not sure if there is a clear definition but the FAA considers all airspace the NAS, under the Federal Code that establish's the FAA mandate there is an air superiority clause that says that the air space belongs to the Federal Government then a clause that gives the FAA the right to regulate navigable airspace.

Sport_Pilot

Well some now have electronic ignition. Do they yet have any computer controlled engines? IMO an expermential with a well built automobile engine and OBD II computer would be more reliable than most GA engines. When I owned a small plane it was a FORD. Not Ford Motor company but Fix Or Repair Daily. I remember that someone complained that I was replacing my own starter solonoid on my plane once, complained to the local FBO AP who told him that was a user servicable part.

DeferredDefect

In some respects, an automotive engine would work quite well, but you have to remember that those engines are designed to be operated at relatively low power settings over the majority of their lives. The engine out of a new Ford or Chevrolet was never designed to run WOT and close-to-it every time it's operated. I'm sure that kind of life-cycle would kill it far before a purpose built aircraft engine.

Regardless, the average Lycoming you see today is incredibly old technology, and not much different than what was being made in the 1940s. The relatively recent aircraft I fly is fuel-injected, but even that is mechanically controlled and not exactly efficient.

JoeEagle

My Feedback: (26)

no buddy box system required by 550, that was removed. only during training of a "FPV Novice" pilot.

Dick T.

My Feedback: (243)

Another dummy adds fuel to FAA interpretation....

http://www.nbcnews.com/tech/gadgets/...spring-n174441

N410DC

If the pilot was willing to violate the NPS regulations, he/she would also be willing to violate federal aviation regulations.

On the other hand, of the pilot were ignorant of the new NPS regulation, he/she would probably be ignorant of any pertinent FARs as well.

Bottom line: new rules, or interpretations of old rules will not prevent incidents such as this.

Sport_Pilot

Actually a large automobile v8 aluminum block engine, recamed for maximum torque, has been used with great success in some home builds. If you have a tach you might notice that most engine cruse at interstate speeds at around the same RPM as most aircraft engines, and can do so all day. Many aircraft engines are capable of being reved much higher. The old 0-200 was used in many of the small Formula 1 racers. I think they just put a smaller prop and reved them up to 4,000 RPM. Maybe a different cam or some stronger rods, not sure. So the old addage that they are pulling full power all the time is a bit of a myth. Really most are loafing because of the speed limitation of the prop and so they compensate with a larger engine and cam timed for torque at that speed.

ira d

I was up today in a Remos GX light sport plane we were cruising around between 3 K and 4 K rpm most of the time with a 100hp 4 cyl engine.

Bob Pastorello

My Feedback: (198)

Which is EXACTLY why the AMA is totally helpless, powerless, and clueless and needs to abandon the non-AMA users. IMO, the masses of ignorant, uneducated, and uninformed consumers of these things (of ANY age) need to be seeing/reading printed warnings/labels/enclosures provided by the manufacturers of the devices. The AMA will never, ever, be able to reach all of these people to educate them.

The only way for any regulations or rules to stand any chance of success is by labeling requirements levied on manufacturers and resellers of the devices.
The AMA ain't gonna get it done.

bradpaul

Yeah that will work, just like the warnings on cigarette packs, and the fasten your seat belt warnings in cars........................ I could go on and on, but bottom line that is just a feel good solution that will not stop ignorant people from being stupid.

Bob Pastorello

My Feedback: (198)

I agree with you, no doubt about it. The point of my post is that on an RC Universe Forum about the AMA organization, it is pretty pointless to strategize and theorize about what they (AMA and FAA) can do because the readers on these forums are very likely **NOT** the dummies creating the problem.

I was only suggesting one possible avenue to make a difference, since it won't be "us" or the AMA, 'cause we ain't there where the idiots are when they are being idiots.

bradpaul

The bottom line is that "common sense" has never been "common"................ our educational system and our society empower a "do what helps build your self esteem" attitude. Is it no wonder that "selfies" and youtube videos of there exploits drive many to act without thinking?

There is no solution for the idiots as long as the benefits (15 minutes of fame) outweigh the costs. How do you stop "hey look at me" if society is creating narcissists?

All we and the AMA can do is to act responsibly and support the acceptance by the FAA of reasonable CBO rules. All else is just the gang here chatting with each other.

TimJ

I believe the FAA interpretation is them merely trying to posture themselves for future lawsuits against people that are flying commercially for the film industry or real estate industry. The FAA have lost two lawsuits now, and I am sure the FAA lawyers are not happy about it.

I also believe that reading section 336 of Public Law 112-95, the FAA are prevented from imposing new rules or regulations. Also, the FAA interpretation in fact adds a few rules per their interpretation which goes against section 336.

It would seem more that the FAA want to successfully make an example out of a few people for flying their Multi-Rotors for commercial video and photography. As it stands, AMA members are protected. Those that want to fly their multi-rotor unsafely, will soon be easily nailed for their practice. These are the people that for the majority do not give two lawn sausages about our hobby, and only want to get the shot and do not care about anything else.

804

My Feedback: (1)

Part of AMA' s stated mission is education. We know many of the users and future users of these devices are young folk who CAN be reached by AMA if the ed. programs
are in place. Sounds like a
good mission and goal for AMA to me, and might have the side benefit of introducing
the younger set to the other facets of model aviation we are already familiar with.

GerKonig

Just found this, I guess a big lack of common sense on some shots...

Gerry

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/0...n_5579199.html