JR Davis

My Feedback: (106)

Did anyone see Tuesday nights episode of Chicago Fire on NBC? It was about a full scale helicopter crash caused by a mid air with an RC Drone.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

If what the AMA did was "insanity", and led to nothing, what can the filing of a TFR waiver with the FAA to fly a micro copter in your own yard be labeled as?

Flight Risk

My Feedback: (1)

Just a few minutes ago on NBC Nightly News a report on drone close calls.
http://www.nbcnews.com/nightly-news/...drones-n252161

Flight Risk

My Feedback: (1)

I mentioned this on the previous page. It sure didn't give a good image of the drones.
I wish they wouldn't call them drones unless they are doing remote photography or other activity. Otherwise they are just quad-copters or such.

FLAPHappy

My Feedback: (209)

Flight Risk: This is exactly the reason I started this thread. This kind of thing is VERY BIG TROUBLE for the AMA and R/C. The sad part is these clowns somehow avoid being arrested, fined or put in jail. Hold on, it's going to get much worse. I don't say the SKY is Falling, but for R/C, it maybe so. Something has to be done.
Register pilots or anyone buying these things? Any suggestions?

Fundafly

My Feedback: (1)

Having been a responsible RC flyer since 1974, I think it would be best to let the FAA regulate it.
Demand that all people that want to fly an RC aircraft register for a test, take the test, and be licensed for it (like driving a car or a full scale pilots license)

If someone really want to fly then they will have to take the time to become intimate with the hobby, just as you did back in the 70's and 80's before all the mind numbing technology became available.

I am 100% in favor of having to take a test and obtain a license to be able to fly, as it will get rid of all the idiots !
Ya I know the implications that it will have on the hobby, but it is pretty much the only way to do it

Have a good day

smeckert

Can't the FAA just require all full scale aircraft have a
FOD screen. Solves the drone in the engine problem, and creates jobs!

FLAPHappy

My Feedback: (209)

No and they won't. It is not just about something getting sucked in a jet engine,or a prop, what if it hit a windshield, or a control surface, the FAA has enough problems with Bird strikes, now this stuff.
These nuts flying drones without any education on what they are doing, and the ramifications that follow IF a full size aircraft goes down because of it, that is where the problem is.

HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

Half the guys flying for the last 30 years would be grounded. How many guys in your club can't even hit the runway half the time or the big one Make right hand turns into them selves. also Who's going to administer these tests and what sill it cost to get a certificate to fly a toy airplane.

Flight Risk

My Feedback: (1)

Shouldn't be any more complicated than getting a fishing license. Or not.

HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

Nothing is simple when it comes to the FAA. Cost me thousands to get my Full scale ratings, Besides there are a lot of AMA members and others flying for over 30 years that shouldn't be allowed to drive much less pilot a DRONE as the FAA now refers to R/C planes.

jeffharris75

We have crossed the line. Time to regulate within controlled airspace and above 400 ft agl. Visual reference and sport pilots ticket or basic ground instructor faa.
too many inconsiderate children with credit cards.

HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

If U look at the FAR 91.119 Minimum Safe Altitudes

Sec. 91.119

[TABLE]
[TR]
[TD="colspan: 2"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 50%"]Subpart B--Flight Rules[/TD]
[TD="width: 50%"][/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

Sec. 91.119

Minimum safe altitudes: General.

Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:
(a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.
(b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft.
(c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.
[ (d) Helicopters, powered parachutes, and weight-shift-control aircraft. If the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface--
(1) A helicopter may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section, provided each person operating the helicopter complies with any routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the FAA; and
(2) A powered parachute or weight-shift-control aircraft may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (c) of this section.]
I asked the Phoenix Flight Standards District Offices (FSDO) What constitutes an "open air assembly of persons" I was told it could be as few as a small gathering at a picnic. This means that if your R/C Field is occupied Full Scale air craft are required to maintain an altitude of 1000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft.

thepamster

Having a license does nothing for safety. I have seen many people continue to do incredibly stupid things under the tag of those licenses, and quite honestly wonder how in the heck they were able to obtain that license in the first place.

Maximilionalpha

I think that what all this is going to boil down to, is a lot of AMA members, turning away from being members and just flying where they will. Here's my question, though...Seems that the USDOT, is trying to regulate rc pilots, flying in their own backyards. But the law also states that, if an rc aircraft f any sort is flying over someone's property, the property owner, has the right to shoot it down. Well, my question is this..does it matter, how high that rc aircraft is, over that owners property? If not, then doesn't the owner of private land, have the right to tell the FAA to divert it's aircraft, away from flying over said owners property? I mean, does the USDOT, actually own, the sky above us? Next, they'll be charging us just to walk outside and breath! just my thoughts,

thepamster

Max apparently you have not tried to join a organized AMA chartered club before as most of them require you to be an AMA member. If you fly large gas airplanes, and a lot of us do, you can't just go fly anywhere you want or "we" would then be a problem.

Maximilionalpha

Yes, I was a member of the AMA, even signed up my two youngest. Flew at sanctioned club fields and then, just got tired of the lack of scheduled flying days at the field, the loud gassers, when we did all get together to fly and flying just over the ridge from a small airport. Me, I enjoy flying in all sorts of weather conditions(windy, rainy, snowy, hot and freezing), but the club members were old fogeys, and only came out on Sundays(if the weather was nice). So, I eventually, faded away from there. So, please don't assume that because I fly the way that I do, that I've never been a member of the AMA. Just never really saw what my $$, was paying for, or to whom it was really going to, for that matter.

phlpsfrnk

Lets use some common sense here. Now look at AC-91-57;
MODEL AIRCRAFT OPERATING STANDARDS

1. PURPOSE. This advisory circular outlines, and encourages voluntary compliance with, safety standards for model aircraft operators.

2. BACKGROUND. Modelers, generally, are concerned about safety and do exercise good judgement when flying model aircraft. However, model aircraft can at times pose a hazard to full-scale aircraft in flight and to persons and property on the surface. Compliance with the following standards will help reduce the potential for that hazard and create a good neighbor environment with affected communities and airspace users.

3. OPERATING STANDARDS.
c. Do not operate model aircraft higher than 400 feet above the surface.

Before anyone jumps on this I'm well aware of the "Advisory" nature of AC 91-57 (Ref to AC 91-57 some history). As indicated in AC 91-57 some history "AMA-FAA discussions indicated that the altitude figure was not a limit but a warning point."

I have been to many glider meets that far exceeded the "advisory" 400 foot above the surface altitude however there were precautions in place (spotters) and I have personally witnessed RC pilots advised of approaching full scale aircraft and any potential conflicts avoided. This is NOT the kind of activity the FAA considers careless and reckless. Flying as high as possible without a spotter or being aware of the type or nature of the airspace one is flying in, that in my opinion is irresponsible, careless and reckless. If an incident were to occur with a full scale aircraft or there is property damage or injury on the ground then the irresponsible individual should be prosecuted to the fullest extent possible.

Frank

HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

All aircraft ( FAA / NTSB considers anything remotely controlled to be) are required by 2020 to have the capability of broadcasting their Altitude direction and Lat/Lon. Put one on your plane and it Should keep Full Scale away from your model. That is if they are equipped with an ADS-B Receiver which the FAR don't require.
Or U could have the FAA make a restricted area with a 1 mile radius and up to 1500' AGL around all AMA fields.Fat Chance of that.

Maximilionalpha

I honestly believe, that quite a few of you on here, probably hardly ever get out to the flying fields, to fly anything, except maybe a few times per year. I think that I can safely assume, that most of the ones complaining about everyone else's flying habits, are basically(and no offence), armchair pilots. Who do nothing more, than sit in front of your computers, reprimanding others and boasting of your great and holier than tho, flying skills. IMHO

HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

I For one am at the field every day weather permitting most of my flying these days is institution. Lots of us O'l Gezzers that are retired and the "Lectrics w/ auto pilots" and buddy boxes have made it easier to learn. I have the best of all worlds. 6 months in SE Wisconsin 6 months in AZ. had 14 students last year and already picked up 3 this year. Now I got go to the field and help set up for our 26th annual Jet Rally.

franklin_m

Futile maybe, but certainly no less effective than what AMA has done. They practically broke their arm patting themselves on the back at getting section 336, and it one ruling the NTSB drove a stake through that.

Instructor

My Feedback: (16)

As long as the FAA keeps calling our RC planes a "drone" we are in for a lot of changes to the way we fly them. If everyone that chimes in to these threads, complain about it and don't contact the AMA to get answers, then they might as well just hang their RC plane up and watch it collect dust. Do anyone of you think we are the only ones that follow these threads? Every one that has a comeback smart remark, is just giving the FAA more information for them to use. Staying out of these threads is the best thing anyone off us can do......

Larry

flycatch

My Feedback: (26)

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/l...119-story.html

acdii

Bong by any chance? BFRC? Just wondering if we cross paths at any time.



I posted in the other thread regarding NTSB getting involved. My curiosity has me going. What defines an "airport"? There is an airport with a passenger terminal, then there are "airfields" with nothing more than a grass strip, sometimes not even lit, and a few hangers with no control tower, or even a flight house(whatever they call where you put in flight plans). There are several of them within 5 miles of where I fly, but since none have any sort of "control tower" how would you notify them of any events or such? To me this is a huge gray area that needs to be defined.