Go Back  RCU Forums > RC Airplanes > AMA Discussions
Reload this Page >

time to stop the dromes..........NOW

Notices
AMA Discussions Discuss AMA policies, decisions & any other AMA related topics here.

time to stop the dromes..........NOW

Old 11-30-2014, 07:32 AM
  #126  
porcia83
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Hartford, CT
Posts: 7,269
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Anyone catch the head of the Admin of theFAA (Huerta) being interviewed on ABC this morning?
Old 11-30-2014, 07:49 AM
  #127  
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

We have been flying RC at AMA fields for 75 + years with out any/many incidents. It's the Idiots off the reservation cauesing the problem.... The FAA has chosen to lump All RC with Full Scale aircraft. Wright or wrong this is the way it is ... they don't regulate even Hang gliders to 400' except when in the vicinity od an uncontrolled airport, for separation. Again those that fly on the reservation are not the problem. FAA and the media must some how be convinced of this fact. Again it up to every RC'er to do what ever possible to work toward these goals.
Old 11-30-2014, 08:53 AM
  #128  
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 N410DC
Keep in mind that as the size and speed of an aircraft, the larger the radius of various maneuvers.
Patently false.

Dive recovery altitude loss is a function of radial "G" available & airspeed only - physical dimensions or engine size of the aircraft has nothing to do with the physics and aerodynamics of it. See: http://apstraining.com/blog/2009/10/...from-the-dive/ , specifically figure 2. Note the absence of any size factors in the calculation for turn radius.

Slow the airplanes down and the airspace can be smaller. Enhance aerodynamics to give more lift, and therefore more "G" (along with strengthened airframe), then the airpace can be smaller. Of course one could always just design competitive maneuvers that require less airspace too.

Last edited by franklin_m; 11-30-2014 at 09:02 AM.
Old 11-30-2014, 09:02 AM
  #129  
vertical grimmace
My Feedback: (1)
 
vertical grimmace's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: ft collins , CO
Posts: 7,252
Received 12 Likes on 11 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by franklin_m
Not true. Dive recovery altitude loss is a function of radial "G" available & airspeed - size of the aircraft has nothing to do with the physics and aerodynamics of it. See: http://apstraining.com/blog/2009/10/...from-the-dive/

Slow the airplanes down and the airspace can be smaller. Enhance aerodynamics to give more lift, and therefore more "G", then the airpace can be smaller.
Of course a large aircraft can turn a tight radius. The issue is more about making the maneuver look correct. So I suppose if you scaled down the entire program, so it maintained it's symmetry, then it would look fine.

Maybe I missed something though, why are we limited to 400'? Is this just your idea yo appease an agency, or has this been officially brought up? Where I fly, there is absolutely no reason to create such a low ceiling, as we are not anywhere near an airport.

So with that said, all this discussion of airplane size, maneuver size, box size etc. is moot.
Old 11-30-2014, 09:06 AM
  #130  
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 vertical grimmace
Of course a large aircraft can turn a tight radius. The issue is more about making the maneuver look correct. So I suppose if you scaled down the entire program, so it maintained it's symmetry, then it would look fine.

Maybe I missed something though, why are we limited to 400'? Is this just your idea yo appease an agency, or has this been officially brought up? Where I fly, there is absolutely no reason to create such a low ceiling, as we are not anywhere near an airport.

So with that said, all this discussion of airplane size, maneuver size, box size etc. is moot.
I'm an advocate for LOS only, no FPV for PIC, a 400' AGL absolute limit, no flight within 5NM of class D airport or horizontal limits of class C or B airports, no flight within the lateral limits of a VR, IR, or SR military training route during the periods of operation, and no flight in restricted or prohibited airspace. That vastly reduces the risk of RC airplanes, drones, etc. coming into contact with full scale in a policy that can be defined in a simple sentence (therefore easily enforced, communicated, managed, and understood). Most of all, it also makes it consistent everywhere in US.

Last edited by franklin_m; 11-30-2014 at 09:09 AM. Reason: add info & correct punctuation
Old 11-30-2014, 09:11 AM
  #131  
littlecrankshaf
My Feedback: (58)
 
littlecrankshaf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: here
Posts: 5,413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by franklin_m
Patently false.

Dive recovery altitude loss is a function of radial "G" available & airspeed only - physical dimensions or engine size of the aircraft has nothing to do with the physics and aerodynamics of it. See: http://apstraining.com/blog/2009/10/...from-the-dive/ , specifically figure 2. Note the absence of any size factors in the calculation for turn radius.

Slow the airplanes down and the airspace can be smaller. Enhance aerodynamics to give more lift, and therefore more "G" (along with strengthened airframe), then the airpace can be smaller. Of course one could always just design competitive maneuvers that require less airspace too.
Sorry, but have to agree with N410DC. I understood exactly what he said and his point.
Old 11-30-2014, 09:14 AM
  #132  
vertical grimmace
My Feedback: (1)
 
vertical grimmace's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: ft collins , CO
Posts: 7,252
Received 12 Likes on 11 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by franklin_m
I'm an advocate for a 400' agl limit, and no flight within 5NM of class D airport or horizontal limits of class C or B airports, and nothing within the lateral limits of a VR, IR, or SR military training route during the periods of operation.
Well, even if that were to come to pass (a concession I may or may not support) It really would not matter, as if an IMAC event were to be planned, scheduled in a given area, those flying sites within this restriction would be avoided. The same with the soaring community. The reason why the safety record with full scale vs, models, is that the modelers stay away from the full scales. This seems to be something the idiots in the news do not care about.
I am going to assert that the model aircraft community is by and large an educated and responsible group, many closely tied to full scale aircraft. I am of the opinion that those that are flying FPV, the ones creating the close calls and flying near airports, are not. We did not have this problem before FPV showed up. So who is the problem?
Old 11-30-2014, 09:25 AM
  #133  
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 vertical grimmace
Well, even if that were to come to pass (a concession I may or may not support) It really would not matter, as if an IMAC event were to be planned, scheduled in a given area, those flying sites within this restriction would be avoided. The same with the soaring community. The reason why the safety record with full scale vs, models, is that the modelers stay away from the full scales. This seems to be something the idiots in the news do not care about.
I am going to assert that the model aircraft community is by and large an educated and responsible group, many closely tied to full scale aircraft. I am of the opinion that those that are flying FPV, the ones creating the close calls and flying near airports, are not. We did not have this problem before FPV showed up. So who is the problem?
I would be inclined to agree with you were it not for events I've personally observed by AMA members and AMA clubs. While I would agree that it's likely the MAJORITY of these media events are non-AMA members, I would not agree that there are not a handful of AMA members who think the rules don't apply to them or that they know better than FAA.

The problem is, we as a hobby community and the AMA as our advocacy group have not created a clear, bright, easy to understand (i.e. media friendly) distinction between "us" and "them". Unfortunately, the media train is rolling and we (collectively) are playing catch up. I'm of the opinion that it's almost too late - too many FPV and self Nav easy to fly quads are out there to stop now. The easiest to enforce from a policy standpoint - keeping in mind those operating outside of or despite the AMA code - is clear unambiguous limits like I've outlined above.
Old 11-30-2014, 09:29 AM
  #134  
porcia83
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Hartford, CT
Posts: 7,269
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default New DJI Drone?

http://gawker.com/afghan-police-shoo...ous-1664816864


DJI Falcon?
DJI Hawk?
DJI Buzzard?

Old 11-30-2014, 10:00 AM
  #135  
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 franklin_m
I'm of the opinion that it's almost too late...
I take that back, I now think it's too late. In an interview this morning, FAA Administrator Huerta "warned operators should not fly their aircraft higher than 400 feet, stay away from airports and “maintain line of sight.”

Here's the link in "The Hill" : http://thehill.com/policy/transporta...erious-concern

Here's the link to CNN article on increased regulation : http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/30/politi...lation-safety/

The fact that this is hitting the news so heavily (Google "Huerta" and "drones"), and that he appeared on one of the Sunday shows, is no accident. The administration is getting their policy changes out into the media in advance of the formal announcement.

No FPV, 400' limit, not close to airports...it's not "if" these come, but only "when."

Last edited by franklin_m; 11-30-2014 at 10:02 AM.
Old 11-30-2014, 10:12 AM
  #136  
porcia83
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Hartford, CT
Posts: 7,269
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Sounds alarmist.

He was on at least two shows today, CNN and ABC. His concern sure seems to be safety. I don't have a big issue with that.
Old 11-30-2014, 10:17 AM
  #137  
vertical grimmace
My Feedback: (1)
 
vertical grimmace's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: ft collins , CO
Posts: 7,252
Received 12 Likes on 11 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by franklin_m
I would be inclined to agree with you were it not for events I've personally observed by AMA members and AMA clubs. While I would agree that it's likely the MAJORITY of these media events are non-AMA members, I would not agree that there are not a handful of AMA members who think the rules don't apply to them or that they know better than FAA.

The problem is, we as a hobby community and the AMA as our advocacy group have not created a clear, bright, easy to understand (i.e. media friendly) distinction between "us" and "them". Unfortunately, the media train is rolling and we (collectively) are playing catch up. I'm of the opinion that it's almost too late - too many FPV and self Nav easy to fly quads are out there to stop now. The easiest to enforce from a policy standpoint - keeping in mind those operating outside of or despite the AMA code - is clear unambiguous limits like I've outlined above.
I agree, and I think that the AMA really dropped the ball on this one, not being in front of this.

As far as AMA members being unsafe, that is up to us at our flying fields to enforce the rules, regardless of how "famous" a pilot is. One of the reasons we are mandated to have a safety officer.

Flying a Q40 in the pits is serious, and I would have no problem grounding that guy, regardless of who he was.
Old 11-30-2014, 10:22 AM
  #138  
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 franklin_m
I'm an advocate for LOS only, no FPV for PIC, a 400' AGL absolute limit, no flight within 5NM of class D airport or horizontal limits of class C or B airports, no flight within the lateral limits of a VR, IR, or SR military training route during the periods of operation, and no flight in restricted or prohibited airspace.
Based on his comments this morning, it looks like I wasn't too far from the mark. I don't have any inside knowledge other than formal training in military aviation safety as well as experience running safety programs. I think it's a case that I probably think the same way his advisors do, and what I'm hearing is what I'd have advised him to do.

If the ultimate policy is along these lines, it strikes a good, reasonable, and defensible balance that protects the traveling public while preserving the majority of legitimate hobby use. Simultaneously, it establishes clear lines of right and wrong, therefore is easier to enforce, is easy to make consistent across the country, and it directly addresses the majority of the problems to date.

Last edited by franklin_m; 11-30-2014 at 10:25 AM. Reason: Reword for clarity.
Old 11-30-2014, 10:23 AM
  #139  
NorfolkSouthern
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 1,588
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by franklin_m
I take that back, I now think it's too late. In an interview this morning, FAA Administrator Huerta "warned operators should not fly their aircraft higher than 400 feet, stay away from airports and “maintain line of sight.”

Here's the link in "The Hill" : http://thehill.com/policy/transporta...erious-concern

Here's the link to CNN article on increased regulation : http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/30/politi...lation-safety/

The fact that this is hitting the news so heavily (Google "Huerta" and "drones"), and that he appeared on one of the Sunday shows, is no accident. The administration is getting their policy changes out into the media in advance of the formal announcement.

No FPV, 400' limit, not close to airports...it's not "if" these come, but only "when."
In light of all this, I guess the FAA might as well license model airplane hobbyists (including the medical certificate) along with the commercial drone users, and be done with it. I like the idea of freedom to fly my quad copter (should I get one) where ever and when ever I like, but it's looking like owning one would be a waste of money at this point. I bet it will get harder to find a model airplane flying sight than it will a rifle range (which is already difficult enough as it is).

Last edited by NorfolkSouthern; 11-30-2014 at 10:32 AM. Reason: fix typing error
Old 11-30-2014, 10:25 AM
  #140  
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 vertical grimmace
I agree, and I think that the AMA really dropped the ball on this one, not being in front of this.

As far as AMA members being unsafe, that is up to us at our flying fields to enforce the rules, regardless of how "famous" a pilot is. One of the reasons we are mandated to have a safety officer.

Flying a Q40 in the pits is serious, and I would have no problem grounding that guy, regardless of who he was.
Interesting that the AMA gets blasted no matter what they do. Seems to me they have devoted significant funds and time/effort/energy to promoting safety, regardless of the craft being flown. Does a group really need to point out the "them" who break the rules in order to promote the 'us" that do? Doubtful, it just comes off as finger pointing, and would probably result in people claiming they "dropped the ball again" for some reason or another.
Old 11-30-2014, 10:27 AM
  #141  
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 NorfolkSouthern
In light of all this, I guess the FAA might as well license model airplane hobbyists (including the medical certificate) along with the commercial drone users, and be done with it. I like the idea of freedom do fly my quad copter (should I get one) where ever and when ever I like, but it's looking like owning one would be a waste of money at this point. I bet it will get harder to find a model airplane flying sight than it will a rifle range (which is already difficult enough as it is).
That is exactly the approach and mentality that helped get us to where we are now.
Old 11-30-2014, 10:27 AM
  #142  
vertical grimmace
My Feedback: (1)
 
vertical grimmace's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: ft collins , CO
Posts: 7,252
Received 12 Likes on 11 Posts
Default

The AMA safety code already states not to fly 400' over high, within 3 miles of an airport. So it would seem, there will be law made out of what we already should be doing anyway. So, any aircraft activity involving these close calls with full scale, the pilots were in violation of the safety code. Not that all AMA members are golden, but I will assert that the offenders here were not AMA members, and beyond that, I am sure they did not care about any rules.
Old 11-30-2014, 10:35 AM
  #143  
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
Patently false.

Dive recovery altitude loss is a function of radial "G" available & airspeed only - physical dimensions or engine size of the aircraft has nothing to do with the physics and aerodynamics of it. See: http://apstraining.com/blog/2009/10/...from-the-dive/ , specifically figure 2. Note the absence of any size factors in the calculation for turn radius.

Slow the airplanes down and the airspace can be smaller. Enhance aerodynamics to give more lift, and therefore more "G" (along with strengthened airframe), then the airpace can be smaller. Of course one could always just design competitive maneuvers that require less airspace too.
Why change anything when we are not the problem ... the terrorist using Jets to attack federal building went away
this will too
.
Old 11-30-2014, 10:40 AM
  #144  
NorfolkSouthern
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 1,588
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Not that all AMA members are golden, but I will assert that the offenders here were not AMA members, and beyond that, I am sure they did not care about any rules
Can you be 100% sure that none of them could have been AMA members? As one other operator on this thread stated, he can see his glider when it's at a 3,000 foot altitude, and some of these pilots were complaining about drones being seen up to a mile away. They must be pretty big drones.
Old 11-30-2014, 10:44 AM
  #145  
cloudancer03
My Feedback: (22)
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: palm harbor, FL
Posts: 2,232
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Yes I watched the interview this morning.airline pilots are reporting approx 25 close encounters per month and further commented that several pilots took evasive actionspro to avoid what they felt were potential collisions.its hard to argue that drones are free to roam the skies unregulated flying several thousand feet in air for miles when airlines are ferrying thousands of passengers in the skies.the head of the FA was clear that we need to maintain line of site steer clear of airports and likely use the 400 ft ceiling.and it's clear that drones intended to be used for commerce will require some for of pilot certifcation.for the most part I agree.he did reflect he was trying to get clarification working with the model plane industry.i have been flying rc almost 40 years and never an issue.when on a flying site in close quarters with full scale airplanes.used common sense.the prevalence of quad copter and technology advances has afforded many rc folks the opportunity to fly high and far.i personally find quads boring but I also believe if that's what turns your head enjoy it.the far has every right to assure the flying public the skies are safe.they need to be mindful of respecting our hobby.i hope when the clamor stops and cool heads prevail rc will continue to thrive.there is room for unmanned aircraft we all need to be smart and responsible about it.change is always difficult but it's not going away in fact there are hundreds of useful purposes for unmanned aircraft beyond killing terrorist.
Old 11-30-2014, 10:49 AM
  #146  
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
Interesting that the AMA gets blasted no matter what they do. Seems to me they have devoted significant funds and time/effort/energy to promoting safety, regardless of the craft being flown. Does a group really need to point out the "them" who break the rules in order to promote the 'us" that do?
AMA gets the blame because they've been the front piece for the lobbying efforts on the hill. I suspect they saw the CBO language in section 336 as way to encourage membership ($$$$), but did not understand how this would be interpreted by regulators. What regulators have seen is that despite the AMA, despite it's safety code, and despite all the talk from the hobby community, outreach, letters of agreement, etc., the incidents have not stopped. There's a lot of reasons for that, but when AMA injected itself as the face of the hobby to the FAA, they pretty much painted a target on themselves to actually do something about it that helps the FAA. When the incidences continued, some of which are undoubtedly AMA members, the regulators have little choice but to step in since we've demonstrated we can't do it ourselves.

As for the comment that we should have to create "us" vs. "them", that is an unfortunate consequence of public policy making and implementation as influenced by mass media. It's about creating a clear public perception difference. That difference comes by aggressively coming out on one side of the issue - and unfortunately on FPV the AMA tried to play both sides of the fence - now the hobby will now pay the price for that. Why do I think that? Well, imagine if AMA had not endorsed FPV operations in any form. Do you think Horizon Hobby, DJI, and other commercial vendors would have developed the technology for mass use? I think it might have influenced their decision to be sure. But AMA did support it, which made the technology available to AMA members - and all the others as well. The latter being the major source of the incidents that have the attention of the public and of regulators.
Old 11-30-2014, 10:59 AM
  #147  
NorfolkSouthern
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 1,588
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

One can blame technology such as outrunners, and LiPos for a lot of this. That's what it takes to make a typical quad copter run. But it can also be found in anything that has a propeller and a radio. That, plus as franklin_m states, the lobbying efforts of the AMA which roused the FAA. Why didn't the AMA just keep its mouth shut?
Old 11-30-2014, 11:02 AM
  #148  
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 NorfolkSouthern
Can you be 100% sure that none of them could have been AMA members? As one other operator on this thread stated, he can see his glider when it's at a 3,000 foot altitude, and some of these pilots were complaining about drones being seen up to a mile away. They must be pretty big drones.
I was curious too, so I did a little math. 20/20 visual acuity means that an individual can resolve down to 1/60 of a degree of arc. That converts to 0.0002908882 radians. Since the angular distance between two points at a distance is equal to the distance away times the angle (in radians), this means that at one nautical mile, someone with 20/20 vision can resolve down to 1.77 feet. At two and three nautical miles, the resolution is 3.53 and 5.30 feet respectively. So it's entirely possible that an airline pilot could easily spot all but the smallest RC aircraft at considerable distances.
Old 11-30-2014, 11:05 AM
  #149  
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 NorfolkSouthern
Why didn't the AMA just keep its mouth shut?
There's a latin saying that's used in law enforcement when looking for suspects, it's "Cui bono" which roughly translates to "Who benefits?" So the question to ask is who benefits from the AMA's efforts to get the concept of a CBO in the language of 336?
Old 11-30-2014, 11:18 AM
  #150  
NorfolkSouthern
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 1,588
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by franklin_m
There's a latin saying that's used in law enforcement when looking for suspects, it's "Cui bono" which roughly translates to "Who benefits?" So the question to ask is who benefits from the AMA's efforts to get the concept of a CBO in the language of 336?
I'm not sure if anybody will benefit at this point. What is going to stop the drones from flying? From the FAA's brochure, it clearly illustrates the drawing of a radio, a fixed wing, and a QUAD COPTER. Sorry, but they are ALL being lumped together. If it flies with a radio, it's a drone. FPV or not, it's a drone, even if it's just a foam park flyer. That's what the general public feels, and I'm betting it's also what the regulators think. These problems never existed back in the days of control-line flying and nitro engines.

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.