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 06-27-2016, 09:07 AM
  #3201  
HoundDog
My Feedback: (49)
 
HoundDog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Apache Junction AZ. WI 0WI8
Posts: 4,501
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by franklin_m
I don't think it's necessary to write the Governor, other than to support his decision, which I do.

I am however writing a letter to both Senators and my Congressmen asking them to support (via amendments) two issues:

(1) A national 400 foot limit on sUAS operations. The case I argue to them is that if they're going to restrict trained and certified operators (part 107 operators) to 400 feet and below out of concern for manned aircraft above 500 feet, then why allow a potentially larger group of untrained and uncertified operators (those 180,000 AMA members for example), to exceed that limit?

(2) In light of this most recent TFR incursion, I'm also asking them to support (via amendment), more more severe fines for violating any TFR that restricts operations of "all aircraft" whether or not "model aircraft" are specifically mentioned. Some believe that even if a TFR mentioned "all aircraft", that it does not mean "model aircraft" even though FAA has articulated that "model aircraft" are indeed a subcategory of "aircraft." See note.

Note: In the FAA interpretation of the special rule for model aircraft, on page 16 part IV "Examples of Regulations That Apply to Model Aircraft," the FAA uses as an example that a TFRs. In that paragraph on page 17, the FAA said that "the third category of rules relevant to model aircraft operations are rules relating to operations in areas covered by temporary flight restrictions and NOTAMs found in §§91.137 through 91.145. The FAA would expect that model aircraft operations comply with restrictions on airspace when established under these rules." So, it appears that if a TFR is issued under 91.137 through 91.145, whether or not "model aircraft" are specifically mentioned, the TFR still applies.
Hey Frankie do U even fly R/C anymore? We've been flying above 400 feet for 80+ years. If anything have your Senators and congressman suggest that the FAA mark "ALL" Registered Flying sites as SUA or Alert Areas (google the destination of each) as applied to Aviation Sectional Charts. Besides it is illegal for any maned air craft to be below the highest object within 2000' horizontal of any OCCUPIED R/C Flying Field. Check it Out right here.
FAR
91.119(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.

Simple as that It's the responsibility of ALL full scale Pilots to be at a minimum 1000' + Above any R/C Field with 2 or more people present. Flying or "NOT". I don't know why that is so hard to understand...It's plain English, Something exceptional for the FAA.
Old 06-27-2016, 09:33 AM
  #3202  
franklin_m
 
franklin_m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 4,561
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by HoundDog
Hey Frankie do U even fly R/C anymore? We've been flying above 400 feet for 80+ years.
I don't have data going back that far, but according to the bureau of transportation statistics, there's been 170% increase in domestic revenue departures just since 1956. To think that we can "do things as we've always done them" in the face this growth is, in my opinion, asking for trouble. For the 400' limit, I'm just advocating that the Congress force FAA to be consistent with respect to traffic separation in the airspace. If commercial drones are too risky above 400' AGL, then those operated by folks who aren't even required to pass a vision test or FARs test must be too risky as well. I would like to see them allow for flights above 400', but require a NOTAM to do so.

http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/ri...ion/index.html
Old 06-27-2016, 09:41 AM
  #3203  
Chris P. Bacon
Banned
My Feedback: (4)
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,762
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by franklin_m
The Governor did not detail actions he took, though I'm sure if you write him a letter and ask those questions, his office would be more than happy to tell you. They'd likely be more inclined if you also cite your aviation experience and rationale for why his decision was wrong.
So you don't know what, if any, actions he took, but you're assuming I'm implying his decision was wrong?

In a previous post you indicated the Governor was in charge during the TFR. What aviation experience does the Governor have?
Old 06-27-2016, 09:45 AM
  #3204  
Chris P. Bacon
Banned
My Feedback: (4)
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,762
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by franklin_m
The Governor did not detail actions he took
Originally Posted by franklin_m
I don't think it's necessary to write the Governor, other than to support his decision, which I do.
So what is the actual decision the Governor made that you're supporting him on?
Old 06-27-2016, 09:53 AM
  #3205  
HoundDog
My Feedback: (49)
 
HoundDog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Apache Junction AZ. WI 0WI8
Posts: 4,501
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by franklin_m
I don't have data going back that far, but according to the bureau of transportation statistics, there's been 170% increase in domestic revenue departures just since 1956. To think that we can "do things as we've always done them" in the face this growth is, in my opinion, asking for trouble. For the 400' limit, I'm just advocating that the Congress force FAA to be consistent with respect to traffic separation in the airspace. If commercial drones are too risky above 400' AGL, then those operated by folks who aren't even required to pass a vision test or FARs test must be too risky as well. I would like to see them allow for flights above 400', but require a NOTAM to do so.

http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/ri...ion/index.html
Frankie get real ... Revenue generating don't fly below 2800' With in 25 miles till cleared for an approach. On take off they climb as fast as they can and when they hit the 5 mile radius or ATA edge they are well above 1500 AGL mainly for Noise abatement.
We are not the Enemy. Like I stated earlier Just like AR 15's because of a few Idiots we responsible R/C Flyers have been Lumped in with these idiots. Again NO civil revenue generating Fly low enough to be bothered by any Traditional R/C or even UN traditional "DRONES" when flown in a responsible manor. U don't blame the Tavern or Car for people driving Drunk why blame the Law abiding citizen or R/Cer. U can quote all the statics u want none of them pertain to the Operation of R/C model aircraft and Revenue generating aviation. Besides 99% of all R/C flights are probably below 400' anyway.
If they would keep Revenue generating aircraft at 500' AGL outside the ATA they still would be required to be 1000' above any R/C Field. Witch is just to obsoured to even consider.
Old 06-27-2016, 10:07 AM
  #3206  
HoundDog
My Feedback: (49)
 
HoundDog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Apache Junction AZ. WI 0WI8
Posts: 4,501
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Franky: U didn't answer my question "Do U fly R/C?" Where? I find it hard to believe that there are only 2 AMA R/C Sites with in 25 miles of Zip Codes between 18801 and 18805. [TABLE="width: 700"]
[TR]
[/TR]
[TR="bgcolor: #F7F6F3"]
[TD]STATE COLLEGE RC CLUB
Flying Site Details
11.94 miles[/TD]
[TD]682[/TD]
[TD]38[/TD]
[TD]JON GUIZAR
Email Contact[/TD]
[TD]Phone: 570-263-0353
Visit Website
[/TD]
[TD]3[/TD]
[TD]Yes[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]LEWISTOWN AREA RC SOC
Flying Site Details
17.11 miles[/TD]
[TD]1291[/TD]
[TD]9[/TD]
[TD]DAVID WHITE[/TD]
[TD]Phone: 717/667-3952
[/TD]
[TD]3

[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
Old 06-27-2016, 10:13 AM
  #3207  
porcia83
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Hartford, CT
Posts: 7,269
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by HoundDog
Franky: U didn't answer my question "Do U fly R/C?" Where? I find it hard to believe that there are only 2 AMA R/C Sites with in 25 miles of Zip Codes between 18801 and 18805. [TABLE="width: 700"]
[TR]
[/TR]
[TR="bgcolor: #F7F6F3"]
[TD]STATE COLLEGE RC CLUB
Flying Site Details
11.94 miles[/TD]
[TD]682[/TD]
[TD]38[/TD]
[TD]JON GUIZAR
Email Contact[/TD]
[TD]Phone: 570-263-0353
Visit Website[/TD]
[TD]3[/TD]
[TD]Yes[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]LEWISTOWN AREA RC SOC
Flying Site Details
17.11 miles[/TD]
[TD]1291[/TD]
[TD]9[/TD]
[TD]DAVID WHITE[/TD]
[TD]Phone: 717/667-3952 [/TD]
[TD]3
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
He's noted he doesn't fly at clubs, prefers an empty field by his house.
Old 06-27-2016, 10:17 AM
  #3208  
porcia83
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Hartford, CT
Posts: 7,269
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by franklin_m
Well, just the other day your comrade, Crispy, took issue with my use of "bigger" in a discussion of operating envelope of part 107 ops vs. part 101 ops. I wanted to make sure I accurately quoted you lest Crispy take issue with it.
First pedantry via grammar police tactics, now preemptively going after me for something another person in the thread wrote....having an off day?
Old 06-27-2016, 10:21 AM
  #3209  
franklin_m
 
franklin_m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 4,561
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by porcia83
First pedantry via grammar police tactics, now preemptively going after me for something another person in the thread wrote....having an off day?
I'm a little sun burned after a full day of baseball followed by a full day on the boat. Wasn't pre-emptively going after you but rather "insuring" myself against linguistic gymnastics by another.
Old 06-27-2016, 10:23 AM
  #3210  
franklin_m
 
franklin_m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 4,561
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by HoundDog
Franky: U didn't answer my question "Do U fly R/C?" Where? I find it hard to believe that there are only 2 AMA R/C Sites with in 25 miles of Zip Codes between 18801 and 18805. [TABLE="width: 700"]
[TR]
[/TR]
[TR="bgcolor: #F7F6F3"]
[TD]STATE COLLEGE RC CLUB
Flying Site Details
11.94 miles[/TD]
[TD]682[/TD]
[TD]38[/TD]
[TD]JON GUIZAR
Email Contact[/TD]
[TD]Phone: 570-263-0353
Visit Website[/TD]
[TD]3[/TD]
[TD]Yes[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]LEWISTOWN AREA RC SOC
Flying Site Details
17.11 miles[/TD]
[TD]1291[/TD]
[TD]9[/TD]
[TD]DAVID WHITE[/TD]
[TD]Phone: 717/667-3952 [/TD]
[TD]3
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
And nothing paved. I've had landing gear ripped out of two 40 sized planes at the grass field (rough), and I don't want to spend the additional money to buy even bigger planes just to fly at that field. Also got tired of the flight line being dominated by 20cc + aerobats rocketing at the flight line only to pull up into a hover. Kinda clobbers the airspace. So I shifted to smaller stuff and fly local. I fly more times in a weekend than I flew all last year at the field.
Old 06-27-2016, 10:27 AM
  #3211  
franklin_m
 
franklin_m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 4,561
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by Chris P. Bacon
In a previous post you indicated the Governor was in charge during the TFR. What aviation experience does the Governor have?
Just like POTUS doesn't have aviation experience, yet is responsible for the FAA as part of one of his cabinet departments, the Governor of Utah does not need to be an expert. He has staff and can always reach out to the Feds for more advice.
Old 06-27-2016, 10:31 AM
  #3212  
HoundDog
My Feedback: (49)
 
HoundDog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Apache Junction AZ. WI 0WI8
Posts: 4,501
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by franklin_m
And nothing paved. I've had landing gear ripped out of two 40 sized planes at the grass field (rough), and I don't want to spend the additional money to buy even bigger planes just to fly at that field. Also got tired of the flight line being dominated by 20cc + aerobats rocketing at the flight line only to pull up into a hover. Kinda clobbers the airspace. So I shifted to smaller stuff and fly local. I fly more times in a weekend than I flew all last year at the field.
Nuff Said: Hey is that U on page 2 of th websight with the FLY Navy T-Shirt.

http://www.scrc-club.com/SCRC%20Docu...20BROCHURE.PDF
Old 06-27-2016, 10:33 AM
  #3213  
franklin_m
 
franklin_m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 4,561
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

[QUOTE=HoundDog;12228656]Frankie get real ... /QUOTE]

I have to disagree. I'm advocating consistency with respect to airspace use. I think I can make a compelling case to limit sUAS of all types to 400' and below - for the reasons the FAA stated in their comments. To not do it invites inconsistencies and creates confusion. I'm exercising my first amendment right to make that and other aviation safety policy recommendations to legislators. Others are free to do the same.
Old 06-27-2016, 10:33 AM
  #3214  
Chris P. Bacon
Banned
My Feedback: (4)
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,762
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by porcia83
He's noted he doesn't fly at clubs, prefers an empty field by his house.
If I remember correctly, the preference was entirely based on financial reasoning with no consideration given to promoting the hobby.
Old 06-27-2016, 10:42 AM
  #3215  
Chris P. Bacon
Banned
My Feedback: (4)
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,762
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by franklin_m
Just like POTUS doesn't have aviation experience, yet is responsible for the FAA as part of one of his cabinet departments, the Governor of Utah does not need to be an expert. He has staff and can always reach out to the Feds for more advice.
I wasn't asking about POTUS or whether or not the Governor of Utah was an expert.

Since you brought up the importance of aviation experience, why can't you tell us what aviation experience the Governor of Utah has, especially since he is the person in charge during a TFR?
Old 06-27-2016, 10:52 AM
  #3216  
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

LOL Notams from every flying site! OK flood the NOTAM system with hundreds of additional NOTAMS every weekend. That would be 10's of additional NOTAMS to follow over a 1000 mile flight plan. I think most pilots would think it crazy! More mountains from mohills for toys that bounce off of the planes.
Old 06-27-2016, 11:00 AM
  #3217  
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 porcia83
He's noted he doesn't fly at clubs, prefers an empty field by his house.
He fly's small stuff. Can't believe that anyone would need to fly over 400 feet. Never mind that the AMA aerobatic box extends to one thousand feet. No room for fast pattern and giant aerobatic planes to do any vertical maneuver. Heck a fast pattern plane probably exceeds 400 feet at the top of a large loop.
Old 06-27-2016, 11:03 AM
  #3218  
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 franklin_m
I'm a little sun burned after a full day of baseball followed by a full day on the boat. Wasn't pre-emptively going after you but rather "insuring" myself against linguistic gymnastics by another.
Those boats are dangerous. I think I will write my Senator that recreational boats should be restricted to stay within 400 feet from the shore to make it safer for the commercial boats.
Old 06-27-2016, 11:07 AM
  #3219  
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 franklin_m
Just like POTUS doesn't have aviation experience, yet is responsible for the FAA as part of one of his cabinet departments, the Governor of Utah does not need to be an expert. He has staff and can always reach out to the Feds for more advice.

That is the problem with our politico's they are idiots and must rely on bureaucrats to tell them what is safe. If the Secret Service told the President that he cannot leave because of a possible terrorist bumble bee attack he would probably believe them. These people prove they are idiots almost every time they talk outside of their teleprompter.
Old 06-27-2016, 11:30 AM
  #3220  
Chris P. Bacon
Banned
My Feedback: (4)
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,762
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Sport_Pilot
That is the problem with our politico's they are idiots and must rely on bureaucrats to tell them what is safe. If the Secret Service told the President that he cannot leave because of a possible terrorist bumble bee attack he would probably believe them. These people prove they are idiots almost every time they talk outside of their teleprompter.
Often times it works the opposite way too. The person in charge doesn't care what advisement he/she has received.
Old 06-27-2016, 11:33 AM
  #3221  
porcia83
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Hartford, CT
Posts: 7,269
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/ama-...l#post12228625

1: Man, this totally smacks of a concern trolling approach at it's core. More rules, more stringent govt regs, more more more...all for safety? So if some are stuck at 400 feet, let's point out that the AMA members who don't fly for profit but have 80 years of a proven track record should be limited to that as well, is that your argument?

2: More rules, more fines, more govt involvement. That solves the problem how? It doesn't, just means they might get more money by way of fines. Use the laws already on the books (which again, don't preclude future bad acts).

Why keep digging and digging for a solution to a problem that doesn't really warrant that type of action. Before you say "write that to the governor..." I'll just note that these types of situations are statistically minuscule, must we really have a safety rule and reg for everything?

Last edited by porcia83; 06-27-2016 at 11:41 AM.
Old 06-27-2016, 11:40 AM
  #3222  
HoundDog
My Feedback: (49)
 
HoundDog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Apache Junction AZ. WI 0WI8
Posts: 4,501
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

[QUOTE=franklin_m;12228671]
Originally Posted by HoundDog
Frankie get real ... /QUOTE]

I have to disagree. I'm advocating consistency with respect to airspace use. I think I can make a compelling case to limit sUAS of all types to 400' and below - for the reasons the FAA stated in their comments. To not do it invites inconsistencies and creates confusion. I'm exercising my first amendment right to make that and other aviation safety policy recommendations to legislators. Others are free to do the same.
I'm not saying U are not entitled to your 1st amendment rights. Nor that U can't have an Opinion but.


The FAA is contradicting their own FAR's 91.119(b)
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/91.119
Why do R/C model air craft have less rights than full scale, Especially that "ALL" Chimerical air liners say well above any altitude that would be affected by Traditional. R/C Activities. Even 2 or 3000' in certain areas.
Old 06-27-2016, 11:41 AM
  #3223  
franklin_m
 
franklin_m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 4,561
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by Chris P. Bacon
If I remember correctly, the preference was entirely based on financial reasoning with no consideration given to promoting the hobby.
While economics are part of it, so too is what I call logistical overhead. That being defined as the time spent packing aircraft and equipment, driving, unpacking aircraft and equipment, setup of aircraft and equipment, breakdown of aircraft and equipment, repacking of aircraft and equipment, drive home, and unpacking and storing aircraft and equipment in the garage again. In the case of the closest club field, there's at least two hours tied up in that. It mixes in economics when you then add the $100 a year for the club. It does not count waiting for the 3D plane that's hovering over the runway to land / clear to fly.

In my own way, I promote the hobby by reminding folks here and elsewhere that you don't need to fly at a club field to enjoy the hobby. In fact, if you're flexible with respect to the type of aircraft, then there's a number of flying sites available nearby. If you're so inclined, and if you're on a budget, you can then plow club dues into things that fly and just buying access to a flying site.
Old 06-27-2016, 11:42 AM
  #3224  
franklin_m
 
franklin_m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 4,561
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

[QUOTE=HoundDog;12228698]
Originally Posted by franklin_m
Why do R/C model air craft have less rights than full scale, Especially that "ALL" Chimerical air liners say well above any altitude that would be affected by Traditional. R/C Activities.
Perhaps you could pose that question to your legislators? I expect they'll get it kicked to DOT then FAA for a response. Might be good reading - though might not be what you hope it would be.
Old 06-27-2016, 11:44 AM
  #3225  
franklin_m
 
franklin_m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 4,561
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by Sport_Pilot
Those boats are dangerous. I think I will write my Senator that recreational boats should be restricted to stay within 400 feet from the shore to make it safer for the commercial boats.
Feel free.

FYI it's a Corps of Engineers lake without any commercial traffic.

Last edited by franklin_m; 06-27-2016 at 11:51 AM.

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.