HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

We've been flying with out incident at altitudes well over 400' at AMA R/C fields. There is no reason that we should not be permitted to continue as we have for the last 75 years ... This is the Reason we mus ALL stand as a united front and stand up to our rights to fly. If the FAA considers our models as air Craft subject to the FAR's then we should have the same rights as Full Scale air craft.

vertical grimmace

My Feedback: (1)

I am going to guess, 2,000. Mainly for gliders, but aerobatics up to 1,500 for sure. The trend to 40% IMAC really pushed the size of the maneuvers. Only way to get that smaller would be to add size requirements. But Pattern was getting way up there, even when .60 sized.

Maybe if the field is close to an airport, holding a contest like these should not be considered. Putting a 400' ceiling on RC operations is not very practical.

049flyer

My Feedback: (18)

franklin:

I can tell you that as a sport thermal sailplane pilot, 400 ft is a severe restriction. I fly a 2 meter sailplane with a variometer so I know exactly how high the aircraft is at all times. Sailplanes are typically launched with a high start, winch or engine (glow or electric). A high start launch will typically net at least 400 ft in altitude and a launch using a Cox .049 on a pod will net almost twice that. Not sure about a winch but I suspect it is somewhere between those two.

Thermals tend to get a little easier to find above 300 to 400 ft. I think they expand as they rise up. Usually if you launch to 400 ft altitude and don't find a thermal pretty quick you will soon find yourself too low to do much looking around and you will end up with a 3 minute flight. It is very unusual to launch straight into a thermal so usually you have to fly to where you think they might be, all the while descending. Sure is a lot more fun to fly a 45 minute flight bouncing up and down between thermals than a 3 minute "no thermal" flight.

My 2 meter glider is small for most thermal soaring pilots, more for beginners than real enthusiasts. However I can tell you that the maximum limit of visibility for my eyes with my 2 meter glider is around 1000 to 1200 ft, any higher and it is very difficult to track and fly without binoculars. You should be aware that there are much larger gliders with 10 to 14 ft wingspans that can be seen when much higher.

Cross country events are not uncommon with model sailplanes. The League of Silent Flight level V requires an out and back cross country with a minimum of 6.2 miles each way. I have read that one should not start out from the point of origin until at least 2000 ft high in order to make it.

You can read about the LSF here: http://www.silentflight.org


Asking a sailplane pilot to stay under 400ft is like asking a bass fisherman to only fish with a cane pole, 10 ft of fishing line and a piece of cork. Yes it IS possible but the restriction would kill all interest in the activity.

franklin_m

If the size of the airspace box is driven by the size of the aircraft, then why not just use smaller airplanes? Certainly the airplanes have not always been that big. What is the operational need that requires larger airplanes? Or is it that there's a "want" for larger planes?

tailskid

My Feedback: (34)

Bigger flies better

franklin_m

I understand. The challenge for our hobby moving forward will be managing risk. Not just from our perspective, but managing risk as perceived by the traveling public - which outnumber us by at least an order of magnitude. They also vote, call their Congressmen, and call the FAA. As a full scale pilot, 1500/2000 feet anywhere even close to an airport concerns me a lot. When you look at typical radar patterns used by ATC around airfields, you could easily be putting sailplanes into that aircraft's path. As many others have pointed out, the first time a "drone" of any type gets into the engine of a commercial plane, then we're in for some serious regulation - regulation that will make most of what's been discussed here seem trivial. The worst part is that the difference between a "drone", quad, RC sailplane, or anything else, will be lost on the traveling public. Also lost will be the distinction between AMA compliant ops and non compliant.

Where does this put RC soaring? Well, I wouldn't want to be anywhere within 10 miles of any towered field, probably further from class C and class B airfields. I'd also want to make sure I'm not in the middle of a Military Training Route (those often go down to 500' AGL or lower and up to a couple thousand AGL, with speeds in excess of 250 KIAS). There's also an entire set of SR routes used by military helicopters for low altitude (by full scale definition) training. Then there are the restricted and prohibited airspace, areas used for special VFR by helicopters, crop dusters, etc. So to me, this is sounding like "Out in the boonies"

049flyer

My Feedback: (18)

How about we all fly aircraft that weigh no more than 4 oz or maybe we should restrict ourselves to indoor flying only. No threat to anyone then.

I actually prefer small planes but you will be keelhauled on most RC message boards by suggesting we all fly smaller planes.

Actually, the airplanes used to be nearly as big as they are now due to the weight of the primitive radio gear and engines.

400ft is too low and perhaps 2000 ft a bit high, maybe something in between. But how to enforce it?

049flyer

My Feedback: (18)

Surprisingly, there have been very few if any conflicts to my knowledge between RC sailplanes and full scale aircraft. That end of the hobby is not nearly as popular as other areas and I think the modelers that participate are a responsible bunch.

But the average Joe non-AMA FPV/Drone type is a different breed of cat and cares little for the AMA or modelers. He is after his 2 minutes of youtube fame and doesn't care about the means used to get it. That is the crux of the problem in my view.

Franklin, I agree with you completely but the real solution is elusive. As a pilot you know that many FARs are written in blood. I fear the real FPV/Drone solution will be no different.

franklin_m

And unfortunately, the politicians, media, and the traveling public does not see, nor understand any of those distinctions. Nor do they want to.

franklin_m

Ok, but that's more of a "want", one that will be difficult to justify in the eyes of the Non-RC public, and especially in the eyes of the traveling public.

vertical grimmace

My Feedback: (1)

Another guess on my part is that these sail plane events are not being flown this close to airports, so by and large this is a non issue. RC pilots have always had to be aware of full scale when operating close to airports. The field I learned at was in the direct final approach pattern and we were not allowed to fly over 500'. Not to mention this field was in a state park, the the rules were enforced by park rangers.

Competitive events and general flying are 2 completely different animals. If a field is not suitable for an event, then it is not considered. Pylon is a good example. Not for altitude, but the setbacks required to keep the planes away from the pits and spectators.

Still, 400' as a general over altitude limit is unreasonably low IMO. Especially in rural areas. We have a lot of space out west, and have few airports. We should not be lumped in with eastern cities, where things are much more congested.

franklin_m

The only challenge will be how do you create, inform, and enforce the variety of policy (ie. rules) related to operation of model aircraft? I could see a maze of location specific rules with make compliance challenging. The secret to effective public policy is making the right thing easy. The strict 400' cap gives you that, albeit at the expense of the way we've done things in the past.

Unfortunately, I've got two AMA members here locally that are flying 2+ meter sailplanes within 5NM of a class D airport served by commercial airlines.

HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

Proximity to airports is not the problem here. These fields for the most part have been there for many many years with out any problems with full scale traffic. The problem is the Un informed public and uninformed flyers that continue to fly in a dangerious and improper manor. If the flying pubic would read the FAA/s own statistics of bird strikes and the frequency they happen they'ed clamor for an open season on all birds from sparrows to condors. Especially with Migratory water foul. Birds form a far grater threat to all air craft including RC air craft than RC planes do to any full scale aircraft. A friend of mine lost a plane when it colided with a hawk didn't do the hawk much good either ... he circled down into the corn field too.

http://wildlifecenter.pr.erau.edu/databaseQuery/selectAirport.php
[h=1]Search FAA Wildlife Strike Database[/h] Latest Report: 06-30-2014
Earliest Report: 01-01-1990
Last Update: 10-23-2014

Number of strike reports in the database:154,985
civilian strikes:147,199
military strikes: 7,786

Number of fatalities: 26
Number of reports with substantial damage*: 3,892(2.51%)

vertical grimmace

My Feedback: (1)

Well, this in lies our task, and the problem with our close association with FPV. FPV allows us to fly high and far away with no real peripheral sense that you have in a Full scale aircraft under VFR rules. Under line of sight RC, we know our relation to the aircraft around us. Full scale or models. That to me is the danger of FPV. It allows the models to be put into a dangerous situation, essentially blind, but just good enough to retrieve. There is no collision avoidance built in to the model FPV models. Maybe they will require this?

The thing that sucks, is that soaring models are not, and have not been a problem . And now this new FPV thing comes along and screws it for the soaring guys, due to irresponsible behavior. So the FPV will screw the pooch for everyone, including themselves.

DeferredDefect

As for situational awareness, FPV is both better and worse.

The last major crash that I had was plowing my Kadet into a grove of trees that my depth perception said I was far in front of.

I'd be willing to bet almost all line-of-sight pilots have done the same at one time or another.

With FPV, that's not going to happen, and it's far easier to determine what you are flying over top of, and subsequently avoid it.
Obviously, you'd still want a spotter to look out for things outside your field of vision, like other models or aircraft, but used responsibly, FPV actually makes avoiding obstacles far easier and safer. I know I wouldn't have written off my Kadet had I been flying it FPV.

I do like the idea of mandatory spotters for FPV, though.

HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

There are 2 RC fields in the Phoenix area restricted to 400' the Sun Vally Flyers 3 miles ENE of the Deer Vally airport and the AMPS field 3 miles directly off the end of the deer Vally runway 25. They are not restricted by the FAA but the county. A few years ago a flight examiner and a student had a 40 presenter go vertical above them as they flew in the proximity of the airport. There are also 2 flight schools located at the field so there can be a lot of full scale traffic. U ask how they can enforce the 400' rule. Answer if we think U are over 400' we'll shut u down. PERIOD.

vertical grimmace

My Feedback: (1)

Under the rules now, FPV is not allowed to be flown out of sight. The AMA requires a spotter regardless.

My comments about collision avoidance come out of what I have seen people doing, flying way, way high, and way out of sight. Which would be a threat to full scale. But, back to the rules, if they were following them, it would not be an issue.

The problem I see, is that the technology that is FPV, does not lend itself to our traditional line of sight rules. They are too restrictive, and take the fun out of it. So the temptation is just too much for most and they are going too far.

HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

Actually all RC's should employ a spotter system. If for no other reason than to warn of low flying full scale airplanes. Also to let the RC pilot know if the runway is obstructed or any other matter he may not be aware of while consecrating on flying his plane.
Because we fly on a full scale air port in Wisconsin once the corn reaches aver 4 feet we employ a spotter stationed at the intersection or the RC runway and the Full Scale runway 18. We are unable to see the full scale aircraft leave the hanger aera and if runway 18 is the active we would not see the full scale until it was too close to avoid it.

franklin_m

This why I told an AMA VP recently that we're rapidly losing if not have already lost the PR battle. Like it or not, regulators are going to respond to the fears of the traveling public, informed or not, and that public is concerned about what many are doing with "drones." Are some of these AMA members? I hope not, but I'm not naive enough to think there aren't a few. I've seen sponsored pilots blow off AMA safety code at small fields (Q40 pilot flying 100+ MPH airplane around the pits, behind the flight line) pretty much forcing everyone else to "defer to his greatness." So long as we have folks who think "the rules don't apply to me" out there, all we're doing is "handing the regulators a stick to beat us with." Whether these are AMA members or not, operating inside the AMA code or not, flying RC sailplanes or quads, are a knucklehead or a guy genuinely trying to do the right thing, all of those distinctions are lost on the public that finds the idea of a drone hitting a passenger plane very scary.

Sport_Pilot

Only if the pattern airplanes are maybe 25 size. And of course no giant scale areobatics, I don't think there is a turbine engine that small.

HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

Then it should be every RCer's AMA or not to, at every chance, educate the public. Have fun flys or mall shows. Invite the public FREE of Charge to see what responsible RC is all about. Have your club instructors or anyone certified to do INTRO PILOT and if U have to supply every thing needed for the 60 days that INTRO PILOT allows.
We have to educate the News media that there reporting of DRONES is not what real RC is all about. Remember a few years ago when the NUT BALL in Boston was encouraged by the FBI to continue with his plan to bomb a federal facility with an RC jet. We were having our annual jet rally around that time and this Dumb ASS female reporter from one of the local TV Stations kept asking the same question over and over. "How Much Explosives can U get into one of these jets. The answer was it's all most impossible to do what this guy was going to attempt and we showed her that there was virtually no room for any explosives. That didn't stop her she still kept asking every one. Sometimes it just better to Ignore some people. U can't convince them other wise .

Sport_Pilot

I guess the sailplane pilots will have to put a hot plate in the middle of a gym for their thermals.

franklin_m

Why can't the maneuvers themselves be changed so the verticals are lower? For example, all major military airshow teams have what's called a "low show" which they perform when the weather isn't good enough for the normal show. Again I ask, why can't the maneuvers themselves be designed to require less vertical? I think it can be done. What's difficult is doing the same maneuvers we've always done in the smaller airspace. If that's the desire, then the size of the airplanes would need to be decreased. However, I'd point out that neither is an insurmountable obstacle.

Maximilionalpha

I fly a 2 metre glider, well above 2000ft and have no problem seeing it, with my naked eyes, alone. Even at over 3000ft, I do not need any visual aides.

N410DC

Keep in mind that as the size and speed of an aircraft, the larger the radius of various maneuvers. My Escapade .40 can pull out of a 100 mph vertical dive quicker, and at a lower altitude, than a 200 mph jet. The time that a sailplane can remain aloft is proportional to the attitude, due to the law of gravity. It is possible to fly fast aircraft and sailplanes below 400' AGL. This actually happens during all flights, given the need for a takeoff and a landing. However, the capabilities of these aircraft is severely limited if the aircraft is forced to remain below 400" AGL.

I am sure the AMA would be happy to deny an insurance claim for a club that failed to insure that the data for their field were accurate. I think scrubbing these data is a the duty of the club officers, not the AMA.