Flight Risk

My Feedback: (1)

The Golden Gate or the Bay Bridge? Seems like a good idea to me. Too many cables and other obstructions. I wouldn't want to be on any road and have a quad or other flying object buzz by.

init4fun

And if you think your flying under the auspices of AMA rules or insurance protection , you already ARE banned from such flights !

Guys , it's right there in the safety code ;

Document 105 , Paragraph B , Subheading #1

Clearly states ;

"All pilots shall avoid flying directly over unprotected people , vessels , vehicles , or structures and shall avoid endangerment of life and property of others"

That's it . *Exact quote* . So meaning that anyone flying anything over anyone else's head is now part of the FAA controled NAS and has nothing to do with model aviation as our organization defines or protects it .


(*Exact quote* meaning just that , I did not create the fractured sentence by omitting the word "the" that belongs between the words "of" and "life" at the end of the sentence . )

I heartily invite anyone curious to hop on over to the AMA site and read the passage for themselves . To me it makes it clear that any sort of operations that involve much more than traditional club flying are not going to be protected in case of an incident causing financial loss . How in the Hell could you possibly get a quad , traditional RC plane , or a flippin remote controlled blimp for that matter over any bridge in any city without "flying directly over unprotected people , vessels , vehicles , or structures" ?

Rob2160

Hi HoundDog.

Take a look at this page which describes the different dimensions of circling area for the 5 categories. http://www.nbaa.org/ops/airspace/iss...approaches.php

See the VOR 13 approach chart for Nashville which lists different circling minima for each category - these altitudes (501, 521 & 561) are feet above the runway but actual height above ground may be lower during the visual circle - For Category A & B as low as 300 ft and for C & D, 400 ft.

At this airport the MDA is higher from A - D as the circling area encompasses a larger area with higher obstacles (some airports will have the same the circling MDA for all categories - it depends on the surrounding terrain )

Sport_Pilot

The drone pilot was likely recreational and thus it was legal to be at 1,000 feet. The rule is see and avoid. So if it was a near miss the airliner was as much at fault. Why did he not move away from the drone?

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

I don't know exactly what causes the dichotomy that seems inherent in the human nature of some individuals...hypocrisy, just the shear desire to control others or just plain ignorance and the inability to see their own contradicting views...but whatever it is, it seems to be the very thing that draws me to these type discussions. Always amazed at people's fear of some action...all the while advocating the very thing they fear... In this particular case, it seems those that fear regulation and licensing for our recreational modeling pursuits are the very one's calling for exactly that... I know, I know, someone will reply that we need self regulation as a means to mitigate this post...but regulation is regulation...self imposed or not.

I guess I am just a dinosaur holding the belief that people should be ultimately held individually accountable for their actions...regardless of whether a law addresses a particular issue or not. In my mind, in all the specificity of law that some seem to desire gives credence to those that take harmful action not addressed by such laws... I see that as a greater danger at the end of the day.

phlpsfrnk

Seriously!!

init4fun

Come on , sport , are you really that uninformed of our safety code , or are ya just trollin for reactions to your "out there" nonsense ?

Let me clue ya in , and again I'll quote the AMA safety code directly ....

Document 105

Paragraph A

Subheading 1,a

CLEARLY states ;

"MODEL AIRCRAFT PILOTS WILL YIELD THE RIGHT OF WAY TO ALL HUMAN CARRYING AIRCRAFT"

Now , if you say the quad in question was being operated under recreational rules , could you please explain exactly which part of the above captioned statement you seem to have a problem grasping ? Cause to the rest of the AMA membership who actually abide by the safety code , YOUR notion of a jetliner having to evade some idiot with his toy in the wrong place would be downright laughable if not so patently moronic .

DeferredDefect

Interesting post. As you said, be it self or federal regulation, it's still regulation.

Considering the scope of the hobby now, which is much larger but poorer defined then it was 20 years ago, I'd say regulation is absolutely necessary. At the very least, it's a cut-and-dry way of keeping people personally responsible, and means that violations aren't so unprecedented that there's multi-million dollar lawsuits and clear confusion from the FAA, legislators, media, and public. You break the law, this is the charge.

If our laws were better defined and understood, it's far less likely that people will break them and argue ignorance.

init4fun

rgburrill

And yet the response right above yours show the total lack of care that many in the FPV world have.

rgburrill

When I took sailing clases we were taught that sailboats under sail have right of way over all power boats. We were also taught in any conflict the bigger boat wins. Just like a sialor is stupid to try to cut in front of an oil tanker a quad pilot is stupid to not watch out for full scale aircraft.

DeferredDefect

In aviation, the right of way goes to the less manoeuvrable aircraft.

Powered aircraft give way to gliders, gliders give way to balloons, etc.

In the case of models and other UAV's, though, it doesn't hold up. A jetliner on approach doing 200 knots is simply not going to see a Phantom until it hits it. See and avoid goes out the window for the full-scale pilot, so it's only appropriate that model pilots stay clear to begin with.

My personal code is that If there's even a chance of conflict, don't fly your models there. Period.

If it's an unfamiliar field, bring a spotter, and get out of the way if you hear a Lycoming!

FLAPHappy

My Feedback: (209)

Sporty, What time do you start Happy Hour?. 0:700? Hummm, let me think for a minute, I'm done. I guess the airliner was supposed to abort the landing 4 miles from the airport, and avoid the drone, right? You are kidding right or still in Happy Hour?.

FLAPHappy

My Feedback: (209)

You are correct. I think Sport was joking in his post. First of all the drone pilot was wrong on all counts. First flying within 5 miles of an airport. Second, flying around 1000ft altitude, Third, de did not contact the control tower for clearance, forth, creating a hazard to a full scale plane. It is the people that do not know the rules, no other excuse.

bradpaul

How stupid are you if you are flying 3 to 4 miles from end of the active runway at Dulles International?????? Perhaps the airliners at low altitude flying overhead every 60 seconds or so, might give you a clue that perhaps you need to stay below 400'. Gee, I wonder why RC clubs at smaller airports are almost always off to the sides of an inactive runway?

init4fun

Ya know something FLAPhappy ?

I'd actually like to think he was joking (or for a better term , trolling) about the full scale having "fault" and some sort of responsibility of getting out of the unmanned craft's way . But his post sure read to me as though he places responsibility on the full scale to give right of way to the UAS . So which is it I wonder , a bad attempt at "humor" or a mistaken assertion of a "right" that simply doesn't exist ?

HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

BP: As U & I know, These Dummies aren't AMA Menbers that are doing this It's the uneducated Quad Flyer. Also As for STUPID it's Like john Wayne always said,
"U just can't fix Stupid". Hopefully they can be educated.
Think about this when is the last time U heard of any
R/C TOY airplane becoming involved with Full Scale Aviation where the R/C Toy was at fault?

Sport_Pilot

Not saying that the quad pilot was in the right, but per the AMA rule he is to be 400 feet if within 3 miles of an airport, but still should give way to aircraft. But part 91 also requires the jetliner to do the same. Are these pilots just cruising by the sUAV's with no effort ot avoid them, then complaining of a near miss they could have avoided? Both pilots should avoid the other, but the jet pilot is the professional.

Sport_Pilot

Ok, so if the pilot doesn't consider the small sUAV a threat to his and his passengers safety. They why make a big deal about it? If it was bad enough to report it, then it was bad enough to abort his landing!

I am aware of the fact that the small sUAV is hard to see, but then again the pilot's seem very sure of their distance from their aircraft and there is no mention of an effort to avoid the sUAV. No matter if the sUAV is in the wrong, the airliner pilot should be making an effort to avoid the sUAV.

Sport_Pilot

As of yet there is no regulation or AMA rule about not flying 5 miles of an airport.

init4fun

Ok , so I did misunderstand you to be saying that the quad pilot was right . you have my apology for the sarcastic post I directed to you .

And yes , by all means a full scale should try to avoid any hazardous situation right of way or not . Lots of folks have died over the years defending their right of way and all ended up rightly , dead .

ira d

I agree with Sport on this one, Full scales have just as much responsibility as models to avoid a collision if they are aware that such a risk exists. That being said we all
know it's usually much easier for the model pilot to see the full scale than the other way around. Also I think we all know that we modelers should always do our very best
to fly safely and avoid full scale aircraft and IMO any model that is being operated in the landing pattern of full scale craft at high altitude is wrong and I think the FAA
should deal with such.

HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

Hey Guys ... Do Your self a favor. Next time at a club meeting or at the R/C field ask just how many of your club members know of any of this and how many even car or even a GGD. Most are obvilious to the AMA/FAA and really don't care. They just want to pay their dues and fly. Very few even have an opinion one way or the other. They Honestly don't want to be bothered. Check it out for your selves and let me know if I'm right or wrong. PLZ don't tell me I'm wrong till U really check with a few of Your flying buddys.

ira d

At the clubs I fly at it has been brought up at the meeting and from time to time there is discussion on the subject, But you are right most are unaware of the RCU chatter and would
rather just fly and be left alone.

FLAPHappy

My Feedback: (209)

/


https://www.faa.gov/uas/model_aircraft/
Sporty, read this link. it says 5 Miles from an airport. It also says not to fly above 400ft. So what is this clown doing at 1000-1200 ft altitude in an airport area?, Much less, what is he doing flying in a direct path of a landing zone for airliners??? Duh...... I just can not get the mentality of some people that consider their right to fly a drone, when it involves putting lives in danger, I just can't get that picture and never will. Those types of people will end this Hobby for sure unless they wake up.