franklin_m

So when 100lb plus airplanes take off narrowly miss the crowd at an AMA sactioned event with AMA Executives in attendance (i.e. Warbirds Over Delaware), I suspect the AMA will now take interest.

bradpaul

Consider this, in addition to your idea to submit for a NOTAM exception, as ALL OUR RC MODELS ARE "AIRCRAFT" we need to report all crashes to the NTSB so they can investigate and determine the reason for the "AIRCRAFT" crash.

bradpaul

You may report an aircraft accident to the NTSB by calling their 24-hour Response Operations Center at 844-373-9922, or by
emailing [email protected].

http://www.ntsb.gov/report.html

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

I'm guessing both suggestions are made in jest, or hope they are. Does anyone really think pitting agencies against each other is a wise move at this point, or trying to bury an agency in paperwork? In addition to it not really being realistic, do we really want to poke that dog? For better or worse, our collective efforts could probably be better directed to something more constructive via the AMA no?

franklin_m

It seems that is what we've been doing for the last couple years. I've lost count of how many times MA has carried glowing reports of meetings, talk of relationship building, favorable language in law, and optimism about eventual outcomes, yet we've see the issuing a restrictive interpretation of the law and the NTSB ruling today. Seems the group hug approach isn't working so well, despite MA's reports otherwise. What counts is results, and to date they've been poor. Even the legal language they touted only handed FAA an additional opportunity to create a new interpretation...a second bite at the apple if you will. So I fail to understand how using the FAA's own waiver request authority to ask for a waiver -- as one would expect any full scale pilot to do -- is somehow going to provoke them?

All I'm doing is highlighting the overly broad blanket FAA NOTAM and the implications of the language within it. Rewording it wouldn't be difficult.

franklin_m

You know, it probably would not be a bad idea to report them...especially those over 55lbs, lest the failure to report an "aircraft crash" create another opportunity to regulate.

bradpaul

In jest? well sorta yes, sorta no.

When supsosedly intelligent administrators classify "model aircraft" as "Air craft" then whatever unintended consequences happen they own.

Does the government serve the people, or do the people serve the government? By the timid position some here show, if they were alive in 1776 we would still be drinking tea.........

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

I think highlighting the issues in the language is great, and helpful at the end of the day. Rewording and word-smithing is going to be needed, and would be best done by a group of interested parties, rather than individually, imo. Can't disagree that the results to date haven't been optimal, even with the AMA's involvement, but I think the best hope still lies with them, not one off reports and actions meant solely (or for the most part) to gum up the bureaucracy. Not that I think there would be an overwhelming amount of them....based on the recent voting results, we can't even get 10% of the membership to vote!

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

I get what you're saying, but the reality is this issue isn't going to cause any revolt (other than us feeling the language is revolting ) There are differing opinions on the ruling, and how to move forward, but I don't see that any one person, or even small group of people will be able to affect change here. It's going to be a long and probably expensive process, and I'm hopeful (and perhaps naive) that the AMA is the best group to move forward with.

FLAPHappy

My Feedback: (209)

Brad: I do not even get into the political debate here. Please let us try to keep it in the hobby discussion, not in Politics. Agreed?

franklin_m

Unfortunately, the "group of interested parties", which thus far has included the AMA, hasn't produced much in the way of results, so why would we expect more success in the future? This is where I disagree. I've seen two flying fields lost in the last 10 years, and AMA hasn't lifted a finger, despite the members' tithe to the AMA over many years. AMA executives attened AMA sponsored events where crashes of large aircraft put people on the ground at real risk - yet they did nothing - and even bragged about being there in subsequent MA columns. Unfortunately, I'm now questioning what exactly I get for the money I send to AMA. It's not saving fields. It's not effective lobbying. It's not effective outcomes for my hobby.

bradpaul

and here I thought we were talking about the actions of a government agency. This is ALL POLITICS, AMA politics, FAA politics, Public Laws, Agency Interpretations and you thought this was about a hobby?

franklin_m

I agree with Bradpaul. Politics drive the decisions that affect our hobby, therefore it's impossible discuss how this impacts our hobby without discussing politics...govermental or internal to FAA.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

...it's all inextricably intertwined.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

I think there is only so much the AMA can do, I don't think we're the big players in all this, I think it's commercial and defense. It looks like they did what they thought was best, even so far as getting involved in litigation, not sure what else they could have done. It's always a crap-shoot dealing with politicians and govt agencies. Not familiar with the two lost fields, and what/if anything the AMA could have done about that. There are tons of reasons for that happening, many of which AMA is powerless to stop. I've read some reports of them helping to get fields up and running, but don't have stats one way or another. Not sure how them being at the Delaware event is relevant to what they do, could they have done anything to avoid what happened? The whole EC was at the Jet event in Maine this year, if there was a terrible crash there, should they share some blame for that somehow, or try to hide the fact they were there?

I completely get the "what am I getting for my money" thought process. So in my case I would ask the question of my local leader members, and district officers, or even national ones. I think that's everyone's prerogative as well, to let those in a position of authority know how we feel about important issues such as this, and ask for specifics as to how they are going to go about serving the membership. I note this as I'm looking at my renewal notice as well.

FLAPHappy

My Feedback: (209)

Brad, I agree, but I was only trying to stop more Political discussion and get off track,, rather than discussing the point of this thread. I am well aware of the Political grab by different Government agencies, and I for one do not want the NTSB or the FAA to regulate Model Aircraft in anyway and to restrict us more.

franklin_m

The AMA VP was at the event when a large WWI aircraft veered over the crowd and crashed in the tents, narrowly missing people. Yet that same VP did nothing to change the standoffs, the crowd location, the flight pattern, nor the "no earlier than liftoff point" to ensure that if there was a wayward aircraft in the future, save a >90 turn, that the velocity vector would be away from the spectators. So, since nothing was done, when the B29 continued it's takeoff despite a clear lack of directional cotrol on the ground, that 100lb aircraft narrowly missed the crowd on a flight path similar to the earlier one. Then, in the MA the next month, that same VP bragged about being there and not one word on the near miss...a very dangerous one.

I'm just not seeing the value for the dollar. I get a magazine that becoming increasingly forgettable, a museum I'll never visit, competitions that are more and more won by sponsored pilots who get $100+ servos by the box, and now completely ineffective government lobbying on behalf of my interests.

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

Sounds like you would feel better if every modeling event was micro managed and the AMA's overall goal was to be another in a long line of special interest groups...Complaining about the B29 incident is really helping our efforts BTW...good going!

franklin_m

No, it's all about actively managing risk...and making sure you've got adequate protections in place. After the first event, it was evident the potential was there. It had already happened once, missing people only by luck. There is no excuse for the second...especially so since the only thing worse than an out of control airplane on the ground is an out of control airplane in the air. Full scale airshows carefully manage aircraft velocity vectors to minimize exposure...and that was clearly not done at WOD. It's important to note that not only did the AMA not engage in a situation that clearly warranted it based on the first close call, they still didn't engage after the second. Furthermore, I have little faith in an organization that doesn't even mention the two serious near misses in safety columns...when they seem to have no problem talking about things much less likely to injure an innocent bystander.

Additionally, they more than micro manage already, just not in the right areas (in my opinion).

bradpaul

LCS you surprise me with this post, safety is the important issue here, unfortunately there are a few "super special" AMA members that can do no wrong. We have a few of them here in Central Florida as shown by the number of turbine jets that have crashed on a 6 lane limited access highway about 200 yards of the end of one of the largest RC clubs. No action taken as the biggest names in turbine jets fly from that field.

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

In this particular case, with the B29, had the spectators been moved back in response to the previous close call, the odds would have been greater of someone getting hurt... Seen this many times, when errant model goes well behind flight line. Fortunately the people were closer in...

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

Oh...I could compare many such similar incidents during AMA sanctioned events... Just not sure how that would help... Not really all that uncommon. Matter of fact I've quit participating at some events because I feel the situation is too risky and just don't want to be apart of it if things do go wrong...and that's exactly the way we all should do...

franklin_m

The answer isn't always just moving folks back. In this case, it would have been changing the liftoff point so that it was no earlier than the farthest most people down the spectator line. Then, save a >90 degree turn, the vector would have put the airplane moving away from spectators rather than toward them.

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

Good point and I really do mean that...not just sarcasm... but (and a big but at that) in this case the model turned almost 180...any number of variables could have factored in to change the outcome...for better or worse... The only sure thing to prevent the B29 from causing an incident was to ground it. I don't think that would have been a popular choice. Sometimes we just need to thank god that he spared us one more time. Besides your option would be nonexistent at some events I attend, as the people extend well beyond the end of the runway...

jetjockey69

My Feedback: (31)

Thank you, Frank! As a working commercial pilot, I am one of those who spends quite a lot of time in the air, often at altitudes and speeds that most of you would be very surprised to see. Any pilot who flies for a living can tell you how low we are required to fly when approaching airports in some areas, due to conflicts with departure routes, and often this is exacerbated because of noise-sensitive communities forcing ATC to funnel traffic around and away from them. Aircraft inbound to an airport in an area where there are other airports can often find themselves at very low altitudes (two to three thousand feet above sea level - which can be much lower than that above the ground depending on the terrain) and high speed (250 knots indicated). That is certainly within the envelope where so many FPV'ers have been flying. YouTube is overflowing with videos of FPV flights at altitudes 2 and 3 times as high as I've been flying a jet when I've been as much as 30 miles from some of the airports I fly into on a regular basis. Because of what I've seen, I've been more and more attentive about what I can see out in front of my airplane, and I've started briefing my crews on the importance of "keeping your eyes outside of the cockpit" at altitudes below 10,000 feet during descent and approach. To say that I'm concerned for my safety and that of my crew and passengers is putting it very mildly.

And for those who think that we can just suck a bird into an engine, or take a hit with one into any other part of the airplane (especially the windshield) and just keep on trucking, think again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bird_strike Please read the whole article, and pay attention to the numbers associated with impact energy, etc. It's not a popular stance at all in the hobby, but I am one of those who do think that any flying object that can be operated beyond visual line of sight, and may also be operated autonomously, should be regulated in some way, even if only requiring the operator to prove a minimum level of safety in the design and construction of the machine and its equipment, and prove some minimum level of skill and knowledge on the part of the operator/pilot, much like the jet crowd has to do in obtaining a turbine waiver. Even something as small as a DJI Phantom or a .25 sized fixed wing model could easily bring down an airplane.

And before anyone thinks that I am anti-model airplane, etc., know that I have been building and flying model airplanes for 51 years (built my first balsa glider from a kit when I was 5) and have been flying everything RC for almost 44 years. I have owned and flown jet models and large scale gassers (still do), and I also own and fly a bunch of electrics, as well as several multirotors (and mine are on the bigger side - 600mm to 1200mm and weigh well over 20 pounds). I love the hobby, but a lot of the multirotor and FPV crowd are doing things that I consider a threat to aircraft and also to people and property on the ground, and that is just so not cool. I consider those who insist that such behavior is okay as the biggest threat to the hobby, especially as they seem so incredibly ignorant of the actual potential and risk involved, not to themselves, but to everyone and everything around them.

You can be the best RC pilot in the world, but if your little DJI Naza goes AWOL because of a bad solder joint or some other little electronic glitch, there's not much you can do about it if your model heads off toward someone's house, cars on a road, or flies into the path of an aircraft potentially full of hundreds of people. THAT is what the FAA has to think about when considering regulations. You fly RC long enough, and you WILL have radio equipment failures and not have any control over your model. I've seen it many many times, including recently. Even the best RC radio equipment isn't designed, tested or certified to the levels of even the cheapest equipment in a full scale airplane. The risk and the threat is real. You are an idiot if you make light of it.