Be Worried Now. NTSB Says RC=aircraft
11-21-2014, 09:29 AM
#76
I don't feel that they should abandon it at all, but embrace it. However because of its potential to cause serious harm, it should be segmented from the rest. There should be rules regarding its use that don't or cant be applied to legacy aircraft. Of course the #1 thing that needs to be done is training buyers of these devices so that they don't become a hazard, but we all know and probably agree, That will Never happen!
11-21-2014, 09:45 AM
#77
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Apopka,
FL
Posts: 1,367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't feel that they should abandon it at all, but embrace it. However because of its potential to cause serious harm, it should be segmented from the rest. There should be rules regarding its use that don't or cant be applied to legacy aircraft. Of course the #1 thing that needs to be done is training buyers of these devices so that they don't become a hazard, but we all know and probably agree, That will Never happen!
[h=3]Advanced Flight Systems Operations[/h][TABLE="width: 600"]
[TR]
[TH="width: 50, align: left"]Doc #[/TH]
[TH="align: left"]Document Description
[/TH]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: left"][/TD]
[TD="align: left"]
Advanced Flight Systems Committee Report 101 (including 550, 560, and FAQs)[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: left"]550[/TD]
[TD="align: left"]
First Person View (FPV) Operations[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: left"]551[/TD]
[TD="align: left"]
First Person View (FPV) Operations for Indoor[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: left"]560[/TD]
[TD="align: left"]
RC Operation Utilizing Failsafe, Stabilization and Autopilot Systems[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: left"]570[/TD]
[TD="align: left"]
Advanced Flight Systems FAQs[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: left"]580[/TD]
[TD="align: left"]
System Licensing Guidance for FPV Flight[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
If you are flying at an AMA club field and you see a AMA pilot flying FPV or autonomous beyond LOS or without a spotter, what do you do.................................. stop the violation?, sit back and say nothing?, complain online about FPV?
It is up to you the members of the AMA to protect the hobby if you see someone flying in a dangerous or reckless way. But I fear that most would just do nothing.
11-21-2014, 09:59 AM
#78
A single rotor heli, does not do what a Multirotor can. They have no where near the stability of a multirotor platform designed to carry video equipment, which is what this really is all about. Maybe a finer clarification would help, a Scale representation of a real helicopter exemption. There are always exceptions to the rule, someone can build a large RC plane capable of non los flight, but the chances are that Quads and above, as seen in multiple videos doing things they shouldnt be doing, will be the main culprits.
It all boils down to one thing, stupidity and too much money. You can go online and for a few hundred $$$ buy a fully equipped Multirotor, Video camera carrying platform, pull it out of the box, charge the batteries, and with no flying experience, go outside and fly it. You can't do that with a plane or a helicopter, especially a helicopter, other than the coax and fixed pitched tiny little things that can only be flown indoors, any collective pitch heli that would be capable of carrying a video camera is a bugger to fly, even with stability gyros. Single Rotor Helicoters are not in the same league as multirotors, they only share the fact that their wings spin, but they are quite different from each other. Multi rotor craft should be categorized as any aircraft with 3 or more rotors. That puts quads and up into their own category.
We already have rules in place for RC planes and Helicopters, those are the ones I am referring to as being exempt. Now there should be rules for the new stuff that has hit the market in recent years, anything that can fly itself, which these quads can now do, I have seen it myself, they have GPS tracking in them and will return home if the signal is lost. there should be well defined rules for the use of FPV, another recent development in the past few years, that wasn't around when the existing rules were created.
If someone puts FPV on an exempted plane, or Heli, it would remove that aircraft from exempt status, and put it under the new rules, that currently do not exist. these are the rules I refer to. We all know they are coming, but What I am hoping for is that they don't blanket all RC aircraft, only those which have the new technology in them.
Years ago there was nothing called a park flyer, then out come the little foamies with full radio control that can be flown in a back yard. AMA went and made a category for Park Flyers. Now they need to do the same for FPV and Multirotors. As long as those rules are clearly stated and understandable, then one some idiot breaks those rules, they should be dealt with. Right now, there are no clear defined rules for this type of aircraft, since they go beyond what the current rules were designed for.
It all boils down to one thing, stupidity and too much money. You can go online and for a few hundred $$$ buy a fully equipped Multirotor, Video camera carrying platform, pull it out of the box, charge the batteries, and with no flying experience, go outside and fly it. You can't do that with a plane or a helicopter, especially a helicopter, other than the coax and fixed pitched tiny little things that can only be flown indoors, any collective pitch heli that would be capable of carrying a video camera is a bugger to fly, even with stability gyros. Single Rotor Helicoters are not in the same league as multirotors, they only share the fact that their wings spin, but they are quite different from each other. Multi rotor craft should be categorized as any aircraft with 3 or more rotors. That puts quads and up into their own category.
We already have rules in place for RC planes and Helicopters, those are the ones I am referring to as being exempt. Now there should be rules for the new stuff that has hit the market in recent years, anything that can fly itself, which these quads can now do, I have seen it myself, they have GPS tracking in them and will return home if the signal is lost. there should be well defined rules for the use of FPV, another recent development in the past few years, that wasn't around when the existing rules were created.
If someone puts FPV on an exempted plane, or Heli, it would remove that aircraft from exempt status, and put it under the new rules, that currently do not exist. these are the rules I refer to. We all know they are coming, but What I am hoping for is that they don't blanket all RC aircraft, only those which have the new technology in them.
Years ago there was nothing called a park flyer, then out come the little foamies with full radio control that can be flown in a back yard. AMA went and made a category for Park Flyers. Now they need to do the same for FPV and Multirotors. As long as those rules are clearly stated and understandable, then one some idiot breaks those rules, they should be dealt with. Right now, there are no clear defined rules for this type of aircraft, since they go beyond what the current rules were designed for.
agree the FAA needs to go after these people who endanger full scale aircraft but to come down on a type of model will do nothing for safety.
It kind of like the gun control crowd who think if we ban guns or make the gun laws so restrictive that any time someone tries to protect themselves or their property
they end up in trouble with the law we will lower crime while In fact in many places this kind of thinking had made crime worse.
As I said before the FAA needs to reach out to the RC community and come up with some common sense rules that will enhance safety and also go after the
rouge flyers that are causing problems.
11-21-2014, 11:08 AM
#79
There should be clear separation between types of models as they are so profoundly different. I could see it being perfectly acceptable to have FPV models be effected by a NOTAM, but conventional line of sight r/c be exempt. This will of course never happen unless there is a will for it to occur. As the line of sight models offer no REAL threat at all, due to such limited range. That is why we need separation of type of model. How ludicrous would it be to include a C/L model in a NOTAM? To me it is almost the same thing with the difference between line of sight R/C, and long range FPV.
11-21-2014, 11:23 AM
#80
There should be clear separation between types of models as they are so profoundly different. I could see it being perfectly acceptable to have FPV models be effected by a NOTAM, but conventional line of sight r/c be exempt. This will of course never happen unless there is a will for it to occur. As the line of sight models offer no REAL threat at all, due to such limited range. That is why we need separation of type of model. How ludicrous would it be to include a C/L model in a NOTAM? To me it is almost the same thing with the difference between line of sight R/C, and long range FPV.
11-21-2014, 11:29 AM
#81
The problem we're running into is that while AMA was able to get the section 336 language, that language has not actually proven effective at stopping the FAA from saying no to hobby flight operations. In fact, to test the lunacy, I even asked the FAA for a TFR waiver to fly a micro helicopter INSIDE MY HOUSE. Despite the language in section 336, the FAA still denied it. So one can reasonably ask, "What exactly did we get for all that money we spent on the AMA lobbying effort?" Not much I would contend.
11-21-2014, 11:44 AM
#82
I think the biggest problem is that FPV, and quad copters are the future of war machines, and assassinations. The Govt. is going to want
total domain over this to try and contain it. The question is how much are they going to sweep along and stifle the established fixed wing
and heli hobbies when they do it.
No amount of rules or common sense will stop many people.
I wouldn't be even slightly surprised if the Govt. tries to ban everyone but themselves and some businesses from flying them.
Its hard to know where this will all end?
total domain over this to try and contain it. The question is how much are they going to sweep along and stifle the established fixed wing
and heli hobbies when they do it.
No amount of rules or common sense will stop many people.
I wouldn't be even slightly surprised if the Govt. tries to ban everyone but themselves and some businesses from flying them.
Its hard to know where this will all end?
11-21-2014, 11:46 AM
#83
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Spring Hill, FL
Posts: 893
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Frank
11-21-2014, 12:44 PM
#84
There should be clear separation between types of models as they are so profoundly different. I could see it being perfectly acceptable to have FPV models be effected by a NOTAM, but conventional line of sight r/c be exempt. This will of course never happen unless there is a will for it to occur. As the line of sight models offer no REAL threat at all, due to such limited range. That is why we need separation of type of model. How ludicrous would it be to include a C/L model in a NOTAM? To me it is almost the same thing with the difference between line of sight R/C, and long range FPV.
Any type of model be it multi rotor or fixed wing can be flown with FPV, To me it's not the type of model that is the issue but where the model is operated
and is being done safely is the issue.
11-21-2014, 01:16 PM
#85
So that last one is really the only option, but to try it I need both an airport and "standard air traffic control procedures." So I'm actually toying with the idea of telling the FAA that my helicopter will be operating out of a "Temporary Airport" as allowed by FAR 157.1, using standard air traffic control procedures for an uncontrolled field. Just to "play nice" I'd say that the field is private, and field operating procedures require that it is used only for hover and slow speed flight to take place entirely within field boundaries at less than 25' agl. They'll probably go apoplectic...but it's really the last option.
11-21-2014, 05:15 PM
#90
My Feedback: (209)
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: right here
Posts: 867
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
11-21-2014, 05:18 PM
#91
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
As well you should be...far more serious and issue than some errant DJI's. Now take them, and then factor in big tech businesses who see potential use of them, I'm not talking about a realtor or a farmer either, think much much bigger. Now take them, and then the military, and factor that it to an already hectic airspace. Think the hobby really has a big seat at the table?
11-21-2014, 05:56 PM
#92
Come On Now! your car has a vin! you regester your car, your name to vin!!!! Make some regs for sellers and buyers of rc aircraft to have regestered vins and report them to a national data base. We know who purchased this one and we know crashed this one.
11-21-2014, 05:59 PM
#93
I woudn't worry about military drones to much until they start screwin around on the Hudson in NYC. But they don't because its to dame crouded with real aircraft. (following the rules)
11-21-2014, 06:54 PM
#95
Well if they did the FAA knew about it. The B-2'S had to report in comming back from Iraq. I've had Blackhawks buz my house at dusk with crew members hanging out the doors with NVG gear on while I was doing RC stuff in my back yard. I should have ratted them out. But I'm sure the FAA knew about it already.
11-21-2014, 07:41 PM
#96
My Feedback: (22)
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: palm harbor,
FL
Posts: 2,232
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's scary to imagine that the hobby I so dearly love the past 40 years could be killed off.i love flying for the pure enjoyment it gives mi still strain my neck looking up into the sky to see planes.i love model building and still get nervous with each maiden flight.wish I could say I am not biased toward drones but it's big oncern.if one flies over my property and snoops I will do whatever it takes to bring it down sorry the rogues out there flaunt authorities and put the rest of us in a bad light.at 65 if they spoil rc I will just hang it up and walk away.
11-21-2014, 08:01 PM
#97
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Apopka,
FL
Posts: 1,367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
11-22-2014, 03:33 AM
#98
My Feedback: (15)
If you want to stop the worry as far as RC planes are concered your going about it in the wrong manner . AMA and other small time groups are just that small time in a big politcal fish bowl.
You need big money PACs , so for example Futaba has ties to the Miltray supply chain and should be used in a consultative style with other suppliers in that industry to help get the message communicated in the correct manner .
Second method is networking , I would imagine in all the RC forums we have some very powerful poltical connections but there not surfacing because there too busy in there real jobs , we need to make it worth there efforts !
You need big money PACs , so for example Futaba has ties to the Miltray supply chain and should be used in a consultative style with other suppliers in that industry to help get the message communicated in the correct manner .
Second method is networking , I would imagine in all the RC forums we have some very powerful poltical connections but there not surfacing because there too busy in there real jobs , we need to make it worth there efforts !
11-22-2014, 04:42 AM
#99
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: South Florida
Posts: 375
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe we should be worried now? AMA... your turn to bat now to save this sport/hobby/industry. The language here is pretty clear. Model aviation should be regulated by the FAA. Not my words... the NTSB.
From this morning. In the Pirker case.
http://www.ntsb.gov/news/2014/141118.html
http://www.ntsb.gov/legal/pirker/5730.pdf
C. Conclusion
This case calls upon us to ascertain a clear, reasonable definition of “aircraft” forpurposes of the prohibition on careless and reckless operation in 14 C.F.R. § 91.13(a). We mustlook no further than the clear, unambiguous plain language of 49 U.S.C. § 40102(a)(6) and 14C.F.R. § 1.1: an “aircraft” is any “device” “used for flight in the air.” This definition includesany aircraft, manned or unmanned, large or small. The prohibition on careless and recklessoperation in § 91.13(a) applies with respect to the operation of any “aircraft” other than thosesubject to parts 101 and 103. We therefore remand to the law judge for a full factual hearing todetermine whether respondent operated the aircraft “in a careless or reckless manner so as toendanger the life or property of another,” contrary to § 91.13(a).
ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. The Administrator’s appeal is granted;
2. The law judge’s decisional order is reversed; and
3. The case is remanded to the law judge for further proceedings consistent with this
Opinion and Order.
From this morning. In the Pirker case.
http://www.ntsb.gov/news/2014/141118.html
http://www.ntsb.gov/legal/pirker/5730.pdf
C. Conclusion
This case calls upon us to ascertain a clear, reasonable definition of “aircraft” forpurposes of the prohibition on careless and reckless operation in 14 C.F.R. § 91.13(a). We mustlook no further than the clear, unambiguous plain language of 49 U.S.C. § 40102(a)(6) and 14C.F.R. § 1.1: an “aircraft” is any “device” “used for flight in the air.” This definition includesany aircraft, manned or unmanned, large or small. The prohibition on careless and recklessoperation in § 91.13(a) applies with respect to the operation of any “aircraft” other than thosesubject to parts 101 and 103. We therefore remand to the law judge for a full factual hearing todetermine whether respondent operated the aircraft “in a careless or reckless manner so as toendanger the life or property of another,” contrary to § 91.13(a).
ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. The Administrator’s appeal is granted;
2. The law judge’s decisional order is reversed; and
3. The case is remanded to the law judge for further proceedings consistent with this
Opinion and Order.
Then what will they do with the phrase, "all men are created equal." They could imply / ignorantly state that women aren't created equal?
Will kindergarten kids be required to file flight plans for their spit balls and paper airplanes, or be imprisoned if they did that without FAA approval if the kid did it within 3 miles of an airport?
If a kid throws a paper plane at their teacher and it strikes the teacher, will that be considered an act of terrorism or an act of war? Will the kid, and the parents, go to jail for such an act? Will the kid face criminal charges for developing a paper fighter jet and using it as a weapon?
This just goes to show that there are idiots at the helm of the NTSB, TSA and the FAA.
Last edited by BobbyMcGee; 11-22-2014 at 04:48 AM.
