Originally Posted by littlecrankshaf

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...

Originally Posted by franklin_m

I'm an aviation accident investigator by training, and I watched with great interest the video of the crash. It was frightening to watch the airplane clearly unable to maintain centerline from the very start of the takeoff roll. And despite that, the pilot decided to continue the takeoff, the deviation worsened, and yet still no abort. Finally, once completely out of room and careening toward the crowd, the pilot yanked the out of control airplane into the air. It didn't look so much like a 180 as a wingover type maneuver with the airplane impacting as it came down the back side. That said, if you say it made a 180, then it did.

As for what's possible at certain venues, that's where it's a balance between field size, layout, winds, crowd size, crowd control, course rules, operating procedures, and in some cases perhaps even aircraft size (as to what's allowed and not). Not easy to be sure, but I suspect there will be increased scrutiny - I'd predict giant scale and/or turbines first. But time will tell. That said though, it would be wise for any group contemplating a large event to take a real hard look at planned operations - with an eye toward "how would a regulator view what we're about to do?"

Originally Posted by 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.

Originally Posted by 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).

Originally Posted by franklin_m

I'm an aviation accident investigator by training, and I watched with great interest the video of the crash. It was frightening to watch the airplane clearly unable to maintain centerline almost from the start of the takeoff roll and yet it continued, and got worse, and despite that was still yanked into the air. It didn't look so much like a 180 as a wingover type maneuver with the airplane impacting as it came down the back side. That said, if you say it made a 180, then it did.

As for what's possible at certain venues, that's where it's a balance between field size, layout, winds, crowd size, crowd control, course rules, operating procedures, and in some cases perhaps even aircraft size (as to what's allowed and not). Not easy to be sure, but I suspect there will be increased scrutiny - I'd predict giant scale and/or turbines first. But time will tell. That said though, it would be wise for any group contemplating a large event to take a real hard look at planned operations - with an eye toward "how would a regulator view what we're about to do?"

Originally Posted by rich6170

As a life member of the AMA and a person that is involved regularly with the FAA as a participant in WW1 aviation flying events, I hve 2 comments here. First it is about time that I read that others have the opinion that the AMA is not doing the job that they are created to do and protecting the RC Flying fields and the people that attend RC events. For some reason they have decided to spend the majority of time to support people (in my opinion) have no business with AMA. Drones as discussed here are not any longer "Model Aircraft". They are not patterned after any full sized aircraft and are built for a specific workload and therefore are not model aircraft. When they fit that description they are aircraft in their own right and should no longer be concerned with by AMA. It is at that time that they become the responsibility of the FAA, as they are ,a stated , aircraft in their own right. The AMA has put all their efforts in protecting these aircraft and has lost a substantial view of the RC field. I also would probably reconsider my membership renewal if I had not already paid for it.
Second, It is about time I heard something in support of the FAA and all the work that they do for all the full scale aircraft (including the drones regardless of size) in the quest for safety in a very quickly expanding airspace. RC flying fields are not the only consideration that they have right now as people are more and more building their own airstrips in their back yards and these do have an effect on the airspace. The FAA representative for the WW1 event that was recently presented at the National Museum of the United States Air Force in Dayton Ohio as very fair and reasonable to enable all participants a safe and fun event.

Originally Posted by jetjockey69

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.

Originally Posted by ira d

Jetjockey you made some good points and I understand and agree with your concerns, I also feel the points you made the FAA should be making also
and reaching out to the RC community to get these points across.

I also feel the rules that the FAA has been coming up recently do little or nothing to increase safety for full scale craft. The rule that you can't fly RC
within 3.5 miles of Disneyland is one such rule, Next telling RC flyers they can't receive any money in connection with their flying is a another. Also
giving airports the right to shut down any RC flying within five miles of the airport without showing a valid reason is also a poor rule.

IMO the FAA needs to work with the RC community and come up with some common sense rules that will increase safety and far as full scale
is concerned and leave the rest of the RC flying alone.

Originally Posted by Flight Risk

I'm not sure if this has been brought up anywhere, but on NBC Chicago Fire tonight. season 3 epidode 8 "Chopper", they had an incident with an r/c quad drone bringing down a full scale helicopter. Big bloody mess as you may imagine. It didn't seem that he was flying FPV, just a nut flying in the city. This is certainly a topic we will see more of.

Originally Posted by franklin_m

Granted, the response to this request singly or in large groups is an unknown. But I'd ask how has what we've been doing so far been working out? Today the NTSB affirmed the FAA's right to restrict model airplane operations. FAA/TSA put in place this restriction, and created a waiver process, so why not try to do what any reasonable responsible model pilot "should" do, and that is to request a waiver? AMA tried blanket waivers, which was denied per Hanson's comments above. Next logical step would be the individual waiver for a specific day, time, and RC aircraft type. But the real wildcard is the media. They've been all over the knucklehead "drone" pilots flying irresponsibly. But how would they react when someone tries to do the responsible thing and still gets denied ("by the evil wicked goverment")? Again, I don't know. But again, what I do know is the approach taken so far isn't working so well.

Originally Posted by jetjockey69

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.

Originally Posted by jetjockey69

Ira D - I agree with everything you've just said. I've begun to wonder about something... I just realized that not one of the many FAA folks I know, at least at the FSDO level, are into the RC hobby, and that realization then begs the question: I wonder how many of the AMA leadership are professional pilots? I'm not talking about simply having a Private or Commercial Pilot certificate. I'm talking about being an experienced career pilot with many thousands of hours flying throughout the wide spectrum of operations that exist.

All of my closest friends are professional pilots AND highly experienced RC pilots. Many of them, like me, have flown RC competitively and been sponsored by manufacturers to some extent, some more than others. I find it interesting for example, that some of the top American RC pilots in F3B and F3J competition also happen to be full scale pilots. Now imagine how the rulemaking process would go if you had everyone sitting down together and everyone shared in depth experience, knowledge and interest across both sides of the fence. I bet we could come up with some very reasonable and realistic regs or policies.

Originally Posted by AllModesR/C

Was that based on a true story?

Originally Posted by rich6170

As a life member of the AMA and a person that is involved regularly with the FAA as a participant in WW1 aviation flying events, I hve 2 comments here. First it is about time that I read that others have the opinion that the AMA is not doing the job that they are created to do and protecting the RC Flying fields and the people that attend RC events. For some reason they have decided to spend the majority of time to support people (in my opinion) have no business with AMA. Drones as discussed here are not any longer "Model Aircraft". They are not patterned after any full sized aircraft and are built for a specific workload and therefore are not model aircraft. When they fit that description they are aircraft in their own right and should no longer be concerned with by AMA. It is at that time that they become the responsibility of the FAA, as they are ,a stated , aircraft in their own right. The AMA has put all their efforts in protecting these aircraft and has lost a substantial view of the RC field. I also would probably reconsider my membership renewal if I had not already paid for it.
Second, It is about time I heard something in support of the FAA and all the work that they do for all the full scale aircraft (including the drones regardless of size) in the quest for safety in a very quickly expanding airspace. RC flying fields are not the only consideration that they have right now as people are more and more building their own airstrips in their back yards and these do have an effect on the airspace. The FAA representative for the WW1 event that was recently presented at the National Museum of the United States Air Force in Dayton Ohio as very fair and reasonable to enable all participants a safe and fun event.

Originally Posted by bradpaul

If it was only that simple, but it is not and that causes the confusion.


Lets just be honest and recognize that the issue concerns FPV and autonomous flight. The AMA has so far fully supported the new technologies, so let's debate the actual issue.

It's not a type of airframe it is a type of flying the airframe.

Originally Posted by speed20

As an avid modeler since the 60's and an airline mechanic for the last 29 years, in no way shape or form would I want to see an RC aircraft (quad or otherwise) be injested in a jet engine. NOTHING good would come from an event like that!

Originally Posted by bradpaul

I think any sane person is in 100% agreement. The problem is there can never be 100% reduction of risk when flying. RC pilots have been flying gliders at multiple 1000's of feet for decades and there have been no collisions with full scale. Is flying gliders at high altitude a problem if you fly solo without a spotter? Can you "see and avoid" if all your attention is focused on a spec in the sky? Perhaps not, but again that is a issue of how to fly safely and not the airframe (glider). Turbine jets and pattern aerobatics all get higher then 400' but almost always have spotters/callers so the risk is mitigated. For FPV within the confines of AMA 550 a spotter is required to maintain LOS and "see and avoid".

Thousands of people die annually from traffic accidents and we know the higher the speed the higher the risk of fatality. Should we go back to 55mph "Stay alive drive 55", hell no. If it was your loved one that was killed you might be all for 55.

Short of mandated education and licensing which may be the the way the FAA decides on (I sure hope not) I do not have a good answer, there may not be one that is acceptable in our independent minded society.

Originally Posted by bradpaul

If it was only that simple, but it is not and that causes the confusion.

The real issue here is not drones it is FPV. And FPV is not a type of aircraft it is a type of flying.

Is a RC piot flying LOS is a park flying a drone?

What if the airframe is a small foamy 3D by visual sight?
What if the airframe is a quad copter flown by visual sight?
What if the airframe is a electric glider flown by visual sight?
What if the airframe is a 400 size electric heli flown by visual sight?
What if the airframe is a small foamy 3D by FPV?
What if the airframe is a quad copter flown by FPV?
What if the airframe is a electric glider flown by FPV?
What if the airframe is a 400 size electric heli flown by FPV?

Is a RC pilot flying LOS at an AMA field flying a drone?

What if the airframe is a small foamy 3D by visual sight?
What if the airframe is a quad copter flown by visual sight?
What if the airframe is a electric glider flown by visual sight?
What if the airframe is a 400 size electric heli flown by visual sight?
What if the airframe is a small foamy 3D by FPV?
What if the airframe is a quad copter flown by FPV?
What if the airframe is a electric glider flown by FPV?
What if the airframe is a 400 size electric heli flown by FPV?

When did looking like a full scale aircraft become a requirement to not be a drone? How about a model flying lawn mower, flying stop signs and other creative models?
Should any model with video capability not be covered by the AMA as it is performing a task?
Should model aerotow tugs not be covered by the AMA as they perform a workload?
What is 40 sized trainer equipped to fly FPV and flown within AMA 550 to be considered?

Lets just be honest and recognize that the issue concerns FPV and autonomous flight. The AMA has so far fully supported the new technologies, so let's debate the actual issue.

It's not a type of airframe it is a type of flying the airframe.

Originally Posted by franklin_m

Interestingly enough, I ended up talking with the FAA guy who denied my TFR waiver to fly a micro heli. He indicated that the NTSB ruling is as much a problem for them as it is for us, as now they have to figure out how all the rules written for full scale apply to models. I've been looking at FAR 157, which is notification to FAA of the establishment of an airport/heliport. With the NTSB ruling, if aircraft operate from airports and heliports, then model aircraft operate from model airports and model heliports under that same section of the FAR. Why is that important? Well because a "temporary" airport does not require FAA notification to establish, yet then creates a possible way that FAA could approve flight ops in a TFR under Public Law 108-199 section 521 2.(C) which says they may allow waivers for "the operation of an aircraft in restricted airspace to the extent necessary to arrive at or depart from an airport using standard air traffic control procedures."

Still thinking it over as to whether I'll try to pursue this avenue.

Originally Posted by bradpaul

If our flying fields are now "airports/heliports" under FAR157 does that imply that the FAA might establish a process by which all AMA club fields must apply for approval?

Originally Posted by JohnShe

You made the same ludicrous comment on the What me worry thread. The joke is wearing thin.

Originally Posted by bradpaul

If our flying fields are now "airports/heliports" under FAR157 does that imply that the FAA might establish a process by which all AMA club fields must apply for approval?