JohnShe

Well, I am not going to throw FPV under the bus because a bunch of a'holes are misusing it. I only associate with responsible flyers.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

Are you feeling like you're the only one who is "getting it" ?

I'll speak for myself, I don't miss the point. Sorry if I don't echo your torch and pitchfork knee jerk ban them all reign them in rally cry. That you want to take the simplistic, naive, and and completely unrealistic approach by banning something you don't like is very much up to you. Have at it.

"bad elements"...lulz, what's next, "those dagnamit whippersnappers"? That method of flying, and the technology are here to stay, those that can't deal with that are going to have a very hard time moving forward.

Although I hate to say it....it is what it is.

ira d

It seems like almost daily I hear something on the news about drone sighting by full scale aircraft, I have to wonder does the FAA have a plan to turn the general public
against RC aircraft and at some point put something up for vote against RC operations.

Also it seems the FAA is not moving in the right direction to try and stem the tide of these rouge flyers, To me a simple approach would be for the FAA to put out the
word that if you fly at a RC site or your own property you will be left alone otherwise no FAA rules to worry about unless you interfere with full scale. But if you don't
fly at a RC site you will will be under close scrutiny and face stiff fines if caught doing something unsafe.

HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

That's why we all must stand fast together with the AMA

kdunlap

My Feedback: (12)

I am all for standing with the AMA, but the webcast on Friday didn't make me feel warm and fuzzy. I was looking at my computer thinking, "Where's the strategy? Can somebody tell me how we're going to save the hobby?" I am really disappointed that there are no current plans to start lobbying Congress. I think the response was "we'll see if that's needed." Well, here's the lay of the land... the hobby is being attacked every day in the news. The UAV manufacturers, small and large are lobbying Congress every day and creating new coalitions.. What are we doing? Let's wait and see. With 140K or so members we should be able to be heard.

rcmiket

The AMA pissed away(IMO) $250 grand not too long ago "for educating safe operation". It got us nowhere.So how much more do you want to spend? No amount of money will fix this issue.It's going to get worst for the average traditional RC flyer who's been operating within the set guidelines before it gets better.

Mike

franklin_m

I would not be surprised at all if, in the not too distant future, we see nothing above 400', nothing within five miles of class D or C airports, no fly zones specific to each class B airport, nothing in restricted airspace (and obviously nothing in prohibited airspace), and no FPV. I would consider >55lbs at risk, perhaps even turbine could be at risk. Why the latter? It's a speed and size combination - a 100lb turbine at 150mph is like a 3000lb car hitting something at 40mph. Just my 2 cents - I'm sure many much more informed folks will disagree.

bradpaul

And how ironic will it be that The United States of America which used to stand for freedom and individual rights will be where you can't fly what they fly in the rest of the world.

Technology will evolve elsewhere and the U.S. will be left behind. Better learn to speak Chinese.

franklin_m

Unfortunately, flying RC airplanes is not an affirmative right, rather a privilege we enjoy so long as we do it safely - and per NTSB the FAA (through administrative judges) gets to decide what's safe. I for one say that we shouldn't be flying above 400', shouldn't be flying within 5nm of class D or C airports, shouldn't be flying in (or perhaps even under) class B airspace, and certainly not in restricted or prohibited airspace. I think the FAA is spot on about the risk of FPV and the limited ability to "see and avoid". Additionally, FPV certainly makes it tempting to fly "just a little bit further," "just a little bit closer," and "just a little bit higher." On the size issue, I think it's not if but rather when we have a large airplane plow into a crowd at an RC event. How big and fast do we want that aircraft to be in this day of instant access to mass media? Based on what I've seen at flying fields around the nation, I welcome the oversight. I realize that's unpopular, but when a sponsored AMA Q40 racer is flying laps of the pits at well over 100mph, it tells the rest of us that "we're all equal, but some are more equal than others."

bradpaul

The word "safety" is a term that can be used both by well-intentioned people and dictators. It was used by Vladimir Putin to justify the invasion of Crimea "safety of the ethnic Russian population".

Let's talk about crashes. There was a at the Reno Air Show a very deadly crash. Parts of the plane went into the stands. Did the FAA ban the use of highly modified WW2 warbidrs at airshows? No matter how far the setback there is the potential for a deadly crash including spectators.

How many people have been killed by the hundreds of millions of sorties flown by RC aircraft? I can remember four. Two were RC heli pilots hit by the rotor blade, One was a spectator at a RC competition in Hungary, One was a pylon racer pilot.

This sport is orders of magnitude safer then full scale aviation and the FAA is over reaching.

franklin_m

So I guess the FAA should ignore the near misses and wait until an RC airplane/quad/heli etc. is sucked into an airliner engine before they address the issue? You mention 4 people killed by RC aircaft. So is it numbers? How many times should this have to occur before FAA addresses it? Regardless of what Putin does in Crimea, that has little to do with this discussion. Whether anyone believes it's right or not, the FAA has been given the authority to determine what's safe and what's not...so that discussion is moot.

As for the Reno crash, that's interesting you bring it up. NTSB AAB 12-01 PB 2012-10289 made five recommendations to FAA with respect to safety at the air races. Item 2.62, "Spectator Safety," on page 36 it says "...the NTSB noted in its April 10, 2012, safety recommendation letter that there may be opportunities for improving the course design to minimize spectators’ exposure. As a result, the NTSB issued Safety Recommendation A-12-14, which asked the RARA to do the following: Evaluate the design of the unlimited class course and safety areas to minimize maneuvering near and potential conflicts with spectators; if warranted by the results of the evaluation, implement changes to the race course. On July 9, 2012, the RARA responded that it evaluated the design of the unlimited class course and moved the racers and the race course further north than they were located during the 2011 NCAR to create and maintain a greater distance from the racers to the primary spectator viewing area. It stated that it also established another showline 500 feet east of the west airport boundary because the area had become a secondary viewing area due to a large increase in spectators on the private property adjacent to the airport. The NTSB believes that the RARA’s actions are responsive to the recommendation’s intent and classifies Safety Recommendation A-12-14, “Closed — Acceptable Action.”

Furthermore, the same report discussed undocumented modifications, inspections (lack of), and engineering analysis (lack of). So while the FAA didn't "ban highly modified warbirds at airshows", NTSB is driving them to do a better job with crowd locations (which would be the risk I was trying to highlight in my comment) as well as mechanical integrity improvements, pilot training, physical conditioning, and documentation tracking (among others).

The risk of a large RC plane impacting a crowd and injuring people can be reduced a number of ways. You can make it less likely to occur at all through crowd positioning, operational flight rules (velocity vector management, takeoff point, maneuver limits, etc.), mechanical integrity inspections, and pilot proficiency. One can mitigate the damage by reducing the energy of the impact by reducing speeds and or size or both. Ideally, the best accident prevention system would do both - reduce likelihood of it happening at all and reducing the potential for damage even if it does. Fundamentally, that's the approach I advocate.

Hossfly

Mr. franklin_m, with your aeronautical knowledge, you are so far ahead of 99+% of model aviation's people that, IMO, less that .05% have a clue as to what you are bringing to the table. In addition far too few of the average RC Club members along with the Club Officers and membership, they have no idea about what the AMA "Membership Manual" designates for safe flying. Not too long ago, I was at a not-too-distant Club Fly-In. The entire event was, as I thought, taken over by a group, about 8 or so individuals flying very large war-birds. None could fly a true racetrack pattern with the wind situation.

Runway there is north and south. Wind was about from 150 degrees. After take-offs and/or a low pass they turned tightly into that wind, rather than making a shallow turn into the wind to move the ground track further out, they let the downwind track start closer in than it should be, then turned straight downwind, while drifting more towards the pit area, then a turn into the inside track, while drifting across the fence over into the area right up to where others were watching and/or pitting. At least they had to cut tight to get back over the runway so as not to pass over themselves, or between the fliers and the main Pit area. I attempted to bring this to one of the main group, as to how to keep the aircraft over the runway, but that was not given any credence. I soon went to the Contest Director (A long time AMA CD) but he refused to do anything because the group was putting on a good show. (IMO none other would have a chance, and I certainly did not want to be on a pilot station with such whizzing very close.) I left a bit early.

My main point here is that the average RC Pilot has very little knowledge of real world aviation and if his/her model flies, then that is all that matters, while, again just my opinion, the average club officer is only interested in being a big-buddy, and again has very little if any knowledge that is in the AMA's "Membership Manual." Just how many bother to download the Manual on to their computer and read the safety stuff. I dare say not more than 2%.

As for me, well I am going to fly my models now and then, but after this failure to get into the AMA's inner sanctum, with only 10% +/- bothering to vote, I am out of that business to any large extent. Ya''ll all take care out there.

franklin_m

Hossfly, thanks for the compliment. For the record, you had my vote.

I've opened communication with some of the AMA board members after one of them contacted me in response to an email I sent them. He asked for some written input based on our phone conversation, which I provided. I also spent the better part of a day generating a SWOT analysis from a safety management and policy making perspective, which I provided to that individual as well as three other board members.

I'm waiting to hear back. Meanwhile, the FAA continues to move forward.

JoeEagle

My Feedback: (26)

100# at 150 MPH = 101002 joules
3000# at 40 mph = 196953 joules

so more like a 1500 # car at 40 mph

course, that's just kinetic energy---- perhaps different damage potential with a RC airplane airframe not being as rigid/strong as the front end of a car.

but energy is energy-just how its is dissipated may be quite different.

franklin_m

Joe, good catch. I gooned the math in my spreadsheet - that's what I get for working with the imperial system/slugs (and over complicating the calculation)


100 lb airplane at 150 MPH has same Kinetic energy as a 3000 lb car at 27.4 MPH or a 1500 lb car at 38.7 MPH. I think the other factors are interesting now that you bring them up.

Cars have design features that make them less dangerous to pedestrians, but have much more momentum than the airplane. On the other hand, the airplane will probably have some carbon fiber it's potential HAZMAT (fibers in skin or, if burning, toxic fumes). My crash and salvage crews had to don tyvek suits and respirators to do crash cleanup if we had a mishap. While there's a lot less CF in a turbine model than a full size jet, HAZMAT is HAZMAT.

JoeEagle

My Feedback: (26)

I agree that all these things have diverse failure characteristics. Either one will cause some serious damage.

On on a related topic, while I understand your desire for uniformity I think that is likely not taking into account other factors of the local environment. If I am within 5 miles if an airport that is in class D airspace, but the number of operations per year is under 2000, that is not the same likelihood of an encounter as a class D airport with 20,000 operations per year or with multiple flight schools located at the airport. So while some locations might necessitate adherence to lower altitude operations by RC, other airports that are still class D but with a lower lever of operations (or with the rc field not located on the approach path, etc) may not need the same types of altitude operational considerations. That said, I do think some locations will have a higher likelihood to consider changes in how they operate.

franklin_m

Or, what if of the 2000 at the low use airport, half were scheduled airline service (commuter planes)? It gets confusing fast. That's why I advocate the 400' AGL limit regardless of location, no FPV, LOS flight only, nothing within 5NM of class D, nothing under lateral confines of class C or B, nothing in restricted or prohibited, and nothing within lateral confines of MTRs when NOTAM'd in use. Even at 1200', RC aircraft could be in IFR routes in many places. Again, keep it as simple as possible.

LDM

My Feedback: (15)

High Power rockets are more of a danger the problem its not a hobby enjoyed at the local school yard or park .
The problem we are faced with is the following .
1) Drownes are being used by irresponcible people near commercial flights
2) Drownes are being used to capture pics of the elete lives that live behind the walls of Hollywood
So what is the answer --we have to regulate our own or be regulated -
so we need a law that creates the following process .
1)Any drown that is cabable of flight over 500ft distance with FPV has to be registered like a high powered gun
2) those of us who know about certain high powerd guns know they can only be used at shooting ranges
3) FPV Drowns will be regulated to either RC fields or drown only RC related clubs
4) Flying a HP FPV drown outside of a club will be a violoation of the law with subject financial restitution and loss of drown.
5)HP FPV will be limted to 18 and older with a valid drivers license
I can go on .
You might say " its a loss of freedom" well since 9/11 I have lost so many freedoms as a 100,000 mile a year passenger on commercial flights that its a joke to say we are truely free. We live in a world that safty is no longer guarenteed by our borders but by all of our ability to participate with open eyes on all of our public saftey .
So be warned, the AMA has tp step up or step out of this process because if you can see us all losing the ability to fly an RC plane as others stated its coming and its comeing as a result of drownes

HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

Hey Navy: From the looks of your hanger U fly only little RC planes and none of the restriction U propose affect U personaly ... easy to make rules for that get a turbine and then see how U feel about the 400' rule. Not trying to start an argument Just stating an opinion.

acdii

That 400' ceiling would kill pattern planes that usually fly a 1000' box. That would also require every RC plane to have a telemetry altitude responder so you would know where 400' is. If you knew just how much or how little 400' is, you would be surprised at how many times you exceed it in routine flying.

One other thing to note, mentioned above, you can't always have people with common sense. Flying too close to the pits and bystanders, taking up the field by a few flyers. I was at a fly in last year and was horrified by one person who picked up his plane with the engine still running, and carried it through a crowd of people! That right there showed me 2 thing about that person, one he did not know how to set up the plane so the engine could be killed with the flick of a switch, and two, he had no common sense to realize the danger he put other in by waling through people with a deadly knife spinning. Anyone who has been bitten by a prop knows what I mean. Thankfully I have not had a running prop hurt me, but I have been hit by a backwards prop on start up and sliced my hand open on an APC prop while of all things, taking the sharp edges off.

JoeEagle

My Feedback: (26)

Franklin-you realize that your "no" RC within 5 NM of class D airports would eliminate hundreds of AMA Chartered clubs current flying sites, right? that doesn't seem to be much in the spirit or letter of PL112-95 Sec 336, or the interpretation.

I recall reading that there were approx. 540 US airports with commercial service. some with a couple of flights per day. those are scheduled service, not random, pop up flights. yes, flights do get delayed and could arrive at a different time-but what I am driving at is that there are other ways to mitigate the likelihood of an encounter besides staying under 400 feet.

acdii

Did some looking for a 400' tall building. Roughly a 31 story building is at 400'. One Logan Square in PA is a good example of 400' as that is its exact height, and I can tell you just by the few pics I found, I exceed that with my 4*120 quite easily when doing large loops. The bigger the plane the easier it is to exceed it, especially the big 3D birds going pure vertical. So for smaller planes like my T-clips and LT-40, 400' is fine, but you get larger planes up there and it is quite easy to go well past 400'.

ira d

Models have been exceeding 400' and flying closer than 5 miles to airports for decades with no adverse affect to full scale operations and there is no reason to change that now.

HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

goto this URL https://www.fltplan.com/AwMainToAppr...SEARCH&end=end
Under Approach Charts (U.S. & Canada insert the 3 letter Identifier of the airport of concern, or if unknown fill in the other criteria.
Down load the approach plates for your airport. Print them out as large as U can. Study the charts especially the plan view and the profile with the decent altitudes. Now for a good idea how these approaches affect your RC field go to Google Earth activate the RULER and draw the plan views of each segment of all the approaches that might affect your RC field. Save each segment so as to be able to draw others with out loosing those already drawn. Don't for get about the circle to land criteria for altitude but usually only applies to with in 1 mile of the air port. the Missed approach may be of concern also. From this U will get a better picture where the aircraft doing actual approaches in less than VFR conditions and these Practicing in VFR conditions will or should be with in your proximity to your RC Field. Remember that many time even out side the 5 mile radius there can be extensions were planes might be flying lower than usual.
U must remember that in VFR conditions that 99% of airplanes with in 5 miles of an air port where they intend to land they willl/should be at pattern altitude i.e. usually 1000' AGL but could be as low as 800' agl anywhere in that 5 mile radius from the center of the airport. Some times at pattern altitude even farther out than 5 miles. Then their is always special VFR at a operating towered airport witch is 1 mile visibilith and clear of clouds. If your field is one of these it may behove the club to aquire an aviation capable receiver only tuned to the frequency used at that airport as it will give U a mental picture of the air traffic in your area. Reason for receive only is unless U are licensed it is Illegal to use an Aviation radio.

LDM

My Feedback: (15)

I was very specific with the 400 ft ceiling in saying FPV Vehicles , if you flying a pattern plane at 1000 ft great typically on an RC field and your not two miles away using an FPV added system , this is the root of the problem , RC plane pilots fly withen an area that they can see , many FPV Vehicles are way out of sight and aided and controlled by FPV systems making them very dangerous to air space