Go Back  RCU Forums > RC Airplanes > AMA Discussions
Reload this Page >

Another Drone Pilot does it Again

Notices
AMA Discussions Discuss AMA policies, decisions & any other AMA related topics here.

Another Drone Pilot does it Again

Old 11-09-2014, 06:33 AM
  #126  
JohnShe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Round Hill, VA
Posts: 1,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by ira d
The problem would be there are a lot flying sites within five miles of a airport, And if the FAA gets it way they could authorize any airport to
shut down any flying site within five miles of the airport without any reason.
So you are still trying out your failed mind reading act? The interpretive rule gives no indication that the FAA wants all airports to shut down nearby model aviation airfields. The only restriction that the FAA has stated is that of endangering the NAS. They clearly state that, if model aviation conducts itself according to the AMA, or other CBO, safety guidelines, there is no reason to restrict model airplane operations.
Old 11-09-2014, 06:37 AM
  #127  
JohnShe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Round Hill, VA
Posts: 1,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by AllModesR/C
You're alright. I personally don't see anything wrong with your flights. Plus it's a foam plane. The amount of damage it is capable of is very low.
Were the electric motor, battery, servos, camera, and propeller made out of foam also? It doesn't take a lot of hard mass to damage an engine, just a nut or a washer can ding a fan blade and throw it out of balance.
Old 11-09-2014, 06:48 AM
  #128  
phlpsfrnk
Senior Member
 
phlpsfrnk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Spring Hill, FL
Posts: 893
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Maximilionalpha
Gentlemen! The videos that you've seen posted, were indeed over 2,000 feet AGL. But the fact of the matter is, I always keep it vertically above me and then, just a few dozen feet over across the roadway, to capture the stream, sceneries. I have never flown over someones residence, nor will I ever. If you'd observe the video's more closely, you'll notice that I follow the outline of the park... 170 degree,wide-angle lens
Max,
Do you have any idea what airspace you were flying in?

Frank
Old 11-09-2014, 06:51 AM
  #129  
Sport_Pilot
 
Sport_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 16,916
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

The only restriction that the FAA has stated is that of endangering the NAS.
And Mickey Mouse.
Old 11-09-2014, 07:24 AM
  #130  
JohnShe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Round Hill, VA
Posts: 1,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Sport_Pilot
And Mickey Mouse.
And the POTUS, SCOTUS, Congress and any other VIP.
Old 11-09-2014, 07:29 AM
  #131  
BobbyMcGee
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: South Florida
Posts: 375
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by JohnShe
And the POTUS, SCOTUS, Congress and any other VIP.
You were going good until you included Congress in your statement. There are no VIP's in Congress.
Old 11-09-2014, 07:29 AM
  #132  
phlpsfrnk
Senior Member
 
phlpsfrnk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Spring Hill, FL
Posts: 893
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Maximilionalpha
Yes, that's 2986 AGL. It's not difficult to see at that altitude,(at least not for me), being that my far-sight is very good. I like to call it "Naked-Eye Flying"! Since that flight, though, I've exceeded that altitude, by about 200 feet. Camera got glitched while I was riding an updraft, beneath a lightening cloud, but altimeter, recorded it at a little over 3280ft AGL, so I'd have to say that was my highest unaided flight, yet! Yes, it does start to become sort of a speck, but not quite. That's why I like to do what I've termed, "Step-Climbing". That's why in the video, you see when I'm climbing, that the plane seems to be leveling off and then pointing back horizontal..that's so, that I can keep track of it, from the ground, because when it's up that high and climbing, it become just a thin slit, in the sky, so therefore, I level off in intervals to make sure that it's still going upwards. That particular camera, is the MD80, camera. About thumb-sized and under 6 grams.
Most barometric altimeters measure in MSL, what type of altimeter are you using? The current F5 open (Radio Control Flight Electric) "World record ID 16072" is 3843 m (12,608 ft) by Patrick Vallet of France in 2010-08-06. Have you had your claim ratified yet?

http://www.fai.org/records/aeromodelling-spacemodelling

Regards
Frank
Old 11-09-2014, 07:39 AM
  #133  
Iflyglow
My Feedback: (79)
 
Iflyglow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Clintonville, WI
Posts: 3,870
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Default

These idiots that keep doing this BS will wreck it for everyone.
Old 11-09-2014, 09:05 AM
  #134  
Maximilionalpha
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Hither & Yonder, USA
Posts: 188
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by phlpsfrnk
Most barometric altimeters measure in MSL, what type of altimeter are you using? The current F5 open (Radio Control Flight Electric) "World record ID 16072" is 3843 m (12,608 ft) by Patrick Vallet of France in 2010-08-06. Have you had your claim ratified yet?

http://www.fai.org/records/aeromodelling-spacemodelling

Regards
Frank
If I'm not mistaken, but, Mr. Vallet used a very large sailplane with solar cells on it;s wings and he also used high powered binoculars, to aid in his spotting.
Old 11-09-2014, 09:31 AM
  #135  
Sport_Pilot
 
Sport_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 16,916
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by phlpsfrnk
Max,
Do you have any idea what airspace you were flying in?

Frank

Good point, there is a major airport there and a lot of airports in SCal.
Old 11-09-2014, 10:48 AM
  #136  
JohnShe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Round Hill, VA
Posts: 1,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by bobbymcgee
you were going good until you included congress in your statement. There are no vip's in congress.
lol! :-)
Old 11-09-2014, 10:50 AM
  #137  
Hossfly
 
Hossfly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: New Caney, TX
Posts: 6,130
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Iflyglow
These idiots that keep doing this BS will wreck it for everyone.

There is some new info on the Club House. I just posted drone info from my monthly RUPA NEWS. Funnies from FAA bureaucrats.

"Air Traffic Control Plan Fails to Include Drones"
Old 11-09-2014, 10:52 AM
  #138  
JohnShe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Round Hill, VA
Posts: 1,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Hossfly
There is some new info on the Club House. I just posted drone info from my monthly RUPA NEWS. Funnies from FAA bureaucrats.

"Air Traffic Control Plan Fails to Include Drones"
Of course the FAA did not include drones, there was no budget or direction from congress to do so. The 2012 law takes care of that.
Old 11-09-2014, 11:47 AM
  #139  
N410DC
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Cartersville, GA
Posts: 360
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by JohnShe
So you are still trying out your failed mind reading act? The interpretive rule gives no indication that the FAA wants all airports to shut down nearby model aviation airfields. The only restriction that the FAA has stated is that of endangering the NAS. They clearly state that, if model aviation conducts itself according to the AMA, or other CBO, safety guidelines, there is no reason to restrict model airplane operations.
Though I am not convinced that the FAA wants to shut down model operations within 5mi. of all airports, I think the wording in the interpretative clearly states that the airport operator at each airport has the authority to decide if model aircraft will be flown within 5 miles of the airport, even if the model aircraft are being operated under CBO guidelines. It is not clear whether or not model aircraft pilots could appeal the matter to the FAA, or if the FAA would be likely to overrule the airport operator's decision.
Old 11-09-2014, 12:01 PM
  #140  
CKLLOYD
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: estacada, OR
Posts: 142
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

A lot of info here and a few real stupid miss informed personal. The AMA was started for a couple reasons. to have one org. to represent the RC aircraft field. To establish fcc trans meter frequencies. and establish guide lines and restrictions. They also reg. the size and weight of the plane they also mandate the area that the plane must fly with in. All of this was work out between the AMA and the FAA So the out come was this. The government said that the rc aircraft is a experimental aircraft and will be listed as such. The rules that the AMA has laid down for its member is guide lines work out between the FAA and the AMA this includes the insurance. As a new ama member you are required to have buddy training. So as for you people that dont think the FAA mandates your flying fun think again. A lot of hard work went into this 50 years ago so we can all enjoy flying and I sure hope that we dont have are wings clipped by big brother over a few stupid people. Heres a idea Have a transponder in all transmitters that would ID. the owner of the RC Vehicle .
Old 11-09-2014, 12:16 PM
  #141  
JohnShe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Round Hill, VA
Posts: 1,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by N410DC
Though I am not convinced that the FAA wants to shut down model operations within 5mi. of all airports, I think the wording in the interpretative clearly states that the airport operator at each airport has the authority to decide if model aircraft will be flown within 5 miles of the airport, even if the model aircraft are being operated under CBO guidelines. It is not clear whether or not model aircraft pilots could appeal the matter to the FAA, or if the FAA would be likely to overrule the airport operator's decision.

Yes maybe, but has it happened yet. I know that my club officers went to our local airport (only 4.5 miles from our field) and met with the authorities. The results were positive, we have permission to fly there as long as we obey our own rules.
Old 11-09-2014, 12:22 PM
  #142  
Top_Gunn
My Feedback: (6)
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Granger, IN
Posts: 2,344
Received 6 Likes on 5 Posts
Default

So you are still trying out your failed mind reading act? The interpretive rule gives no indication that the FAA wants all airports to shut down nearby model aviation airfields. The only restriction that the FAA has stated is that of endangering the NAS. They clearly state that, if model aviation conducts itself according to the AMA, or other CBO, safety guidelines, there is no reason to restrict model airplane operations.
(Quoting JohnShe)

This is just plain wrong. The FAA's interpretation says that if an airport operator objects to model flying within five miles of the airport, the FAA would consider that flying there despite the objection would endanger the NAS. All that counts is the airport operator's (or ATC's) objection: the interpretation does not call for any actual determination by the FAA that there is a danger. So if Old MacDonald, who has a backyard airstrip on his farm, from which he flies maybe three times a year, wants to shut down model aviation in the 78-square-mile circle around his "airport," he can do it just by saying he objects to model flying. (This assumes that all the airports listed in the FAA's listing of airport contact information will count as "airports" for purposes of the five-mile rule. Some people insist that they won't, but they have given no reasons, so there's no reason to be particularly hopeful).

Here is the relevant language from the FAA's "interpretation":

"...the FAA would consider flying model aircraft over the objections of FAA air traffic or airport operators to be endangering the safety of the NAS."

Notice the complete absence of any need for a factual determination that there is some danger. An airport operator's objection is enough.

And, in response to the latest bit of wisdom on this, the fact that one club has gotten an OK from one airport operator does not guarantee that the 17,000 other airport operators in the US will be equally reasonable. This may seem obvious to most people, but it keep coming up, so maybe it isn't.

Last edited by Top_Gunn; 11-09-2014 at 12:28 PM. Reason: Add last sentence in response to later post
Old 11-09-2014, 12:50 PM
  #143  
Len Todd
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Baldwin, MI
Posts: 1,626
Likes: 0
Received 38 Likes on 34 Posts
Default

Our flying field is on a basic airport. We have coordinated with the State (MDOT Aero). Our "RC Park" areas are designated on the State's Airport's Directory Map. We have had FAA visitors out there. The State and FAA Reps have all been very supportive! So far, it has been better to work with them.

We have a "license" from the Airport's owner (the Village) to operate and maintain a PUBLIC RC Park (we have a huge RC Car Track and two 400' x 75' turf RC runways.) on the Airport property. This license addresses "continual permission" for 10 years + there is automatic renewal. We also have two asphalt RC Taxiways and a Pit Row off the center of our full-scale Main Runway. When we use the Main Runway, we use aviation radios to coordinate with full-scale pilots. When we fly Jets and Giants, we typically go higher than 400'. When we hold an event, we notify the FAA. We also have RC Operational Rules that include full-scale planes having the right-of-way at all times. We have safety zones designated for loitering should we get unexpectedly trapped in the air by a pilot who chooses to come "straight in" w/o following normal communications protocols. All RC pilots are required to have AMA or equivalent liability insurance. Our RC areas are located where we have line of sight to airborne full-scale aircraft for miles in all directions.

We never have had a problem. The State and FAA reps have all been very positive about our presence. Granted, we do not have a lot of full-scale air traffic. If we did, the site probably would not be suitable for RC activities. But the open ground space at the airport offers an excellent safety margin because there are no homes and few unauthorized people to fly over on an airport. We have never had a full-scale pilot complain. Sometimes they even taxi over and join our events. It only helps when you make an effort to communicate and help these folks. Sometimes we give them ground transport. We always improve the security on their planes and vehicles when they are sitting on the parkway. We also sponsor their poker runs and other fly-ins with hot food and refreshments, etc..

Guess we have been lucky? Not exactly. We have community support. We save the Village $s by cutting the Airport's grass. Whew! We promote the local businesses at our events. We provide on-site after school programs for the local students. And last but not least, we have the Airport Manager in the RC club and the President of the RC Club has been active in the Village (property owner) government. We never present the attitude that flying RC is a "right." We feel flying RC at the Airport is a privilege, and we are willing to work to maintain that privilege.

Last but not least, even though we are fairly well integrated into the community, we continue to look for more ways to better integrate (e.g. Chamber of Commerce, Rotary Club, local Community Foundation, etc.) and, ... we remember: You will always catch more flying with honey than you do with vinegar! Heck, last week I even put the giant gas P-40 back in the trailer and got out the electrics, so a local hunter could have some piece and quiet to hunt deer adjacent to the Airport. A little honey goes a long way!
Old 11-09-2014, 01:04 PM
  #144  
JohnShe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Round Hill, VA
Posts: 1,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Top_Gunn
(Quoting JohnShe)

This is just plain wrong. The FAA's interpretation says that if an airport operator objects to model flying within five miles of the airport, the FAA would consider that flying there despite the objection would endanger the NAS. All that counts is the airport operator's (or ATC's) objection: the interpretation does not call for any actual determination by the FAA that there is a danger. So if Old MacDonald, who has a backyard airstrip on his farm, from which he flies maybe three times a year, wants to shut down model aviation in the 78-square-mile circle around his "airport," he can do it just by saying he objects to model flying. (This assumes that all the airports listed in the FAA's listing of airport contact information will count as "airports" for purposes of the five-mile rule. Some people insist that they won't, but they have given no reasons, so there's no reason to be particularly hopeful).

Here is the relevant language from the FAA's "interpretation":

"...the FAA would consider flying model aircraft over the objections of FAA air traffic or airport operators to be endangering the safety of the NAS."

Notice the complete absence of any need for a factual determination that there is some danger. An airport operator's objection is enough.

And, in response to the latest bit of wisdom on this, the fact that one club has gotten an OK from one airport operator does not guarantee that the 17,000 other airport operators in the US will be equally reasonable. This may seem obvious to most people, but it keep coming up, so maybe it isn't.
Unfortunately, the FAA did not specify the airport types and qualifications in the interpretative rule, but I think it absurd that just any cow pasture runway will qualify. However, it is remotely possible that some cow pasture operator might try to restrict operations. It will be amusing to to observe said operators failure to do so.

How many clubs have been refused under the three mile rule? By the way, I know of at least one club that operates on airport property (http://www.binghamtonaeros.wildapricot.org/),ther e may be others. Do you think the airport owner will throw them off the airport?
Old 11-09-2014, 01:45 PM
  #145  
Top_Gunn
My Feedback: (6)
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Granger, IN
Posts: 2,344
Received 6 Likes on 5 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by JohnShe
Unfortunately, the FAA did not specify the airport types and qualifications in the interpretative rule, but I think it absurd that just any cow pasture runway will qualify. However, it is remotely possible that some cow pasture operator might try to restrict operations. It will be amusing to to observe said operators failure to do so.

How many clubs have been refused under the three mile rule? By the way, I know of at least one club that operates on airport property (http://www.binghamtonaeros.wildapricot.org/),ther e may be others. Do you think the airport owner will throw them off the airport?
The "three mile rule" (which is not in fact a rule at all) doesn't give anybody the right to prohibit model flying.The FAA's "interpretation" will give anybody who operates an "airport" the power to shut down all modeling activity within a circle of some 78 square miles. According to the AMA, there are some 17,000 airports in the US. Do you really think the fact that some airports allow clubs to operate on their property proves that none of the 17,000 people who operate those airports will ever try to shut down modeling without good reason if they can?

The problem isn't that all airport operators are bad people who will put the kibosh on modeling whenever they can. The problem is that giving 17,000 people the power to do that, without even giving a reason, is wrong. Why should they have that power? Even if only one of them does, it's one too many.

Thee bigger problem, though, seems to me to be the inability of some people to read simple English sentences. The FAA announces that any airport operator can say "no" to modeling within five miles of an airport. It does this as an "interpretation" of a law that says only that modelers must "notify" airports. And then people say that the FAA is interpreting the language of the statute "exactly" and that airport operators can only shut down modeling if that modeling is endangering the airspace. It's as if ordinary words have lost all meaning. Sad, really.
Old 11-09-2014, 02:20 PM
  #146  
Maximilionalpha
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Hither & Yonder, USA
Posts: 188
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

My next to ,final attempt at climbing to over 3,000 feet +! 2015, will be the final year for my Naked-Eye, High Altitude flights, when I will attempt to climb to 3,500 ft AGL. That's been my goal from the start and I've got lots of other Radian flyers, trying to keep up with me!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJXtFQ2TsMY
Old 11-09-2014, 03:10 PM
  #147  
combatpigg
Senior Member
My Feedback: (3)
 
combatpigg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: arlington, WA
Posts: 20,388
Received 26 Likes on 24 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Sport_Pilot
It appeared they kept over the field to me. Crossed the roads a few times though.
A lot of folks spend 1000's of dollars on cars that can smoke the tires from here to Pismo...but they know it's illegal so they NEVER do it, right...?
Old 11-09-2014, 04:59 PM
  #148  
YellowBlueBird
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: raleigh, NC
Posts: 323
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

http://www.wral.com/green-hope-high-...ning/14160759/
Old 11-09-2014, 05:05 PM
  #149  
JohnShe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Round Hill, VA
Posts: 1,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Top_Gunn
The "three mile rule" (which is not in fact a rule at all) doesn't give anybody the right to prohibit model flying.The FAA's "interpretation" will give anybody who operates an "airport" the power to shut down all modeling activity within a circle of some 78 square miles. According to the AMA, there are some 17,000 airports in the US. Do you really think the fact that some airports allow clubs to operate on their property proves that none of the 17,000 people who operate those airports will ever try to shut down modeling without good reason if they can?

The problem isn't that all airport operators are bad people who will put the kibosh on modeling whenever they can. The problem is that giving 17,000 people the power to do that, without even giving a reason, is wrong. Why should they have that power? Even if only one of them does, it's one too many.

Thee bigger problem, though, seems to me to be the inability of some people to read simple English sentences. The FAA announces that any airport operator can say "no" to modeling within five miles of an airport. It does this as an "interpretation" of a law that says only that modelers must "notify" airports. And then people say that the FAA is interpreting the language of the statute "exactly" and that airport operators can only shut down modeling if that modeling is endangering the airspace. It's as if ordinary words have lost all meaning. Sad, really.
You are correct, they always could say no, even with the three mile guideline. Did they ever? But, the real question is, will they? I don't have to wear a tinfoil cap to know that "no" will occur very rarely if at all and there will always be a good reason.
Old 11-09-2014, 07:18 PM
  #150  
rrembert
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: West Palm Beach, FL
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Max...how do you insure no conflicts with potential air traffic using the airport (Mifflin Co.) that is 7 road miles (as the Google flies) from Lewisburg. More importantly how do you insure separation from traffic at the Lewistown Hospital Heliport? If you use either the above mean sea level, or above ground level altimetry numbers you posted, it seems you are in a bad place for at the very least helicopter traffic.

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.