Ama should have left faa alone!
#151
My Feedback: (49)
Originally Posted by franklin_m;120188
As for accident reporting, don't let your imagination get out of hand. I'm talking a simple members only website reporting system, where the club safety officer regularly reports simple data. Number of fliers over a period of time, approximate number of flights by aircraft size and power type,[FONT=comic sans ms
As for accident reporting, don't let your imagination get out of hand. I'm talking a simple members only website reporting system, where the club safety officer regularly reports simple data. Number of fliers over a period of time, approximate number of flights by aircraft size and power type,[FONT=comic sans ms
and number of crashes by size and power type.[/FONT] Any injuries would also be recorded. All it would require is members to keep track of their flights in a simple log and either enter that info themselves or pass to a club safety officer to do. Even all the data required in a log for full scale flights requires SECONDS to record. Are you really saying that's too difficult? When the data collected could help AMA prove we're as safe as we say we are? Really?
Frank: " "and number of crashes by size and power type".
Funny U should bring this Up a few years ago I printed a Google map (Earth View) and made a simple matrix with No. Date Pilot I then Estamated )or used GPS location to determianwhere a plane crashed. I'd put an "X" on the map with the corrisponding Number. We had 50 Crashes thet I knew of, from 15 April to 10 Oct.
The criteria for getting o the map if U will was it was totaled not repaable. 19 of those 50 crashes were right on the field. Well That winter I started the same type of record here in AJ at the Arizona Model aviators Park.. Well I had 6 or 7 crashes logged in 4 days. I posted this Log on the field Bullitian Board Went to log a couple more a day or 2 later and Guess What ... I found the Log in the Trash Can ... They didn't want to know, Much less have some record of crashes. Go Figure.
Spelly is still KPUT's
#152
That is not an sUAV! I meant a small sUAV the size of our model aircraft. That was much much larger and certainly not a good comparison with model airplanes. The military have many hand launched drones and someone said they just bounce off the aircraft.
Last edited by Sport_Pilot; 04-09-2015 at 06:14 AM.
#153
plane still landed Is the ruptured Fuel Tank did not catch fire or exploed.
#154
Frank: " "and number of crashes by size and power type".
Funny U should bring this Up a few years ago I printed a Google map (Earth View) and made a simple matrix with No. Date Pilot I then Estamated )or used GPS location to determianwhere a plane crashed. I'd put an "X" on the map with the corrisponding Number. We had 50 Crashes thet I knew of, from 15 April to 10 Oct.
The criteria for getting o the map if U will was it was totaled not repaable. 19 of those 50 crashes were right on the field. Well That winter I started the same type of record here in AJ at the Arizona Model aviators Park.. Well I had 6 or 7 crashes logged in 4 days. I posted this Log on the field Bullitian Board Went to log a couple more a day or 2 later and Guess What ... I found the Log in the Trash Can ... They didn't want to know, Much less have some record of crashes. Go Figure.
Spelly is still KPUT's
Funny U should bring this Up a few years ago I printed a Google map (Earth View) and made a simple matrix with No. Date Pilot I then Estamated )or used GPS location to determianwhere a plane crashed. I'd put an "X" on the map with the corrisponding Number. We had 50 Crashes thet I knew of, from 15 April to 10 Oct.
The criteria for getting o the map if U will was it was totaled not repaable. 19 of those 50 crashes were right on the field. Well That winter I started the same type of record here in AJ at the Arizona Model aviators Park.. Well I had 6 or 7 crashes logged in 4 days. I posted this Log on the field Bullitian Board Went to log a couple more a day or 2 later and Guess What ... I found the Log in the Trash Can ... They didn't want to know, Much less have some record of crashes. Go Figure.
Spelly is still KPUT's
LOL did it have the same fonts, spelling, and punctuation we see here? Go figure!
#155
My Feedback: (49)
plane still landed Is the ruptured Fuel Tank did not catch fire or exploed.
]Fuel cells never explode and rarely catch fire NOT TRUE Just Google it.
Originally Posted by Sport_Pilot;12019336[COLOR=#ff0000
]Fuel cells never explode and rarely catch fire.[/COLOR] You can put a match to jet fuel and it will not ignite. It has to contact red hot exhaust and a spark, or be extremely mixed and thrashed around such as in a crash.
#156
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Spring Hill, FL
Posts: 893
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While at sea on 18 April, however, Marathon suffered a fuel leak and fire in the turbine spaces that burned into the crew spaces
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Marathon_(PGM-89)
You just keep putting matches in fuel, please.
Frank
Last edited by phlpsfrnk; 04-09-2015 at 06:57 AM. Reason: fix link
#157
I KNEW this would happen. Why? Because there are plenty of examples of fire occurring, but then nobody reports when the tank ruptures or engine explodes but there is no fire. But if you are going to give me an example please be current as nobody uses JP-5 which was watered down kerosene. I believe JP-8 is the norm which is Diesel fuel with additives and no dye. I have seen the tests and it takes a violent fire or agitation to start a fire. The point is that a mid air from a model airplane is not likely to start a fire on a full scale aircraft. Nor do much else either.
#158
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga,
CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm saving this post so I can cite an expert when I need to.
#159
I wonder what damage a Phantom I drone at 1200g and a 350 mm wingspan would have done to that wing of the C-130?
BTW as the RQ-7 has a 20' wingspan why did the props not have damage?
BTW as the RQ-7 has a 20' wingspan why did the props not have damage?
#160
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , NV
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you guys hate the AMA so much why don't you start your own organization. OH that's right.. it would require you to actually do something other than sit back and complain.
#161
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: sheridan,
IN
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm here for you cj.
You may be unaware of this, but in the recent FAA authorization legislation,
congress called out for the development of a new coating to protect aircraft from errant drones.
DOD and, I believe, the USAF, came up with something called, "Drone Repelling Instantly Vulcanized Elastomeric Latex"
I think he is talking about DRIVEL.
You may be unaware of this, but in the recent FAA authorization legislation,
congress called out for the development of a new coating to protect aircraft from errant drones.
DOD and, I believe, the USAF, came up with something called, "Drone Repelling Instantly Vulcanized Elastomeric Latex"
I think he is talking about DRIVEL.
#163
My Feedback: (58)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: here
Posts: 5,413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not sure how you interpret and find all that 'hate' you mention but wouldn't be the first time someone played the "hate AMA" card successfully in here... You might get that to stick as well...but I'm not buying.
#164
My Feedback: (49)
I KNEW this would happen. Why? Because there are plenty of examples of fire occurring, but then nobody reports when the tank ruptures or engine explodes but there is no fire. But if you are going to give me an example please be current as nobody uses JP-5 which was watered down kerosene. I believe JP-8 is the norm which is Diesel fuel with additives and no dye. I have seen the tests and it takes a violent fire or agitation to start a fire. The point is that a mid air from a model airplane is not likely to start a fire on a full scale aircraft. Nor do much else either.
... > World-wide Civil Jet Fuel Grades
http://www.shell.com/global/products...xtwithimage_19
- Jet A-1
- Jet A
- Jet B
- TS-1
- American Civil Jet Fuels
- UK Jet Fuels
- Former Soviet Union and East European Jet Fuels
- Chinese Jet Fuels
- International Specifications - AFQRJOS Checklist
- Other National Civil Jet Fuel Specifications
[h=1]https://www.shell.com/global/product...el-grades.html
Military Jet Fuel Grades and Specifications (NATO) - Shell Global[/h]
Military Jet Fuel Grades and Specifications (NATO) - Shell Global[/h]
- [h=4]Products & Services[/h]
You are here:
... > Military Jet Fuel Grades
[h=1]Military Jet Fuel Grades and Specifications (NATO)[/h]Shell provides fuels for military use
[h=3]JP-4[/h]
JP-4 used to be the primary jet fuel for the USAF but was phased out in the 1990s because of safety problems. A few airforces around the world still use it but there is very little production.
JP-4 is the military equivalent of Jet B with the addition of corrosion inhibitor and anti-icing additives; it meets the requirements of the U.S. Military Specification MIL-PRF-5624S Grade JP-4. The UK Military specification for this grade is DEF STAN 91-88 AVTAG/FSII (formerly DERD 2454),where FSII stands for Fuel Systems Icing Inhibitor. NATO Code F-40.
[h=3]JP-8[/h]
JP-8 is the military equivalent of Jet A-1 with the addition of corrosion inhibitor and anti-icing additives; it meets the requirements of the U.S. Military Specification MIL-T-83188D. It is the dominant military jet fuel grade for NATO airforces. The UK also have a specification for this grade namely DEF STAN 91-87 AVTUR/FSII (formerly DERD 2453). NATO Code F-34.
To read more about the fuel, download its MSDS now.
[h=3]JP-5[/h]
JP-5 is a high flash point kerosine meeting the requirements of the U.S. Military Specification MIL-PRF-5624S Grade JP-5. The UK Military specification for this grade is DEF STAN 91-86 AVCAT/FSII (formerly DERD 2452). This is primarily jet fuel for use in aircraft carriers. NATO Code F-44.
[h=2]Page Tools[/h]
#165
My Feedback: (49)
Man that's gona bring the "RATH" of the small groups of posters here. No U's all has a nice day. I's off ta tka Big Bird Flyin fer the next 3 days thar boys.
Damrn spller ckkr stils broked srry
#166
My Feedback: (49)
Every AMA member should of gotten this Notic from the AMA Read it Watch it And Comment on the NPRM before April 24th. It's Vital to our hoby with what the FAA wants and will do if we don't make objection to it ... For those that belive the NPRM as written and feature FAR's it will make DO NOT only pertain to Comerical Use of sUAS and TOY MODEL AIR PLANES. It (if inacted as written into FAR's it will out lay any thing over 55 lbs any thing over 87 MPH Max altitude 500' ext.
Please read and watch the video and then comment to the FAA before ther take yout TOY airplanes away or make tham Useless and worthless, if they can. Government will take anything U don't veitmently protect.
U should of recieved this today but check It out Here.
http://view.exacttarget.com/?j=fe561...0575741372&r=0
[TABLE="class: yiv8177313427, width: 450"]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #E5E5E5, colspan: 8"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #E5E5E5"][/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #000000"][/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #E5E5E5"][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD="colspan: 2"][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
Please read and watch the video and then comment to the FAA before ther take yout TOY airplanes away or make tham Useless and worthless, if they can. Government will take anything U don't veitmently protect.
U should of recieved this today but check It out Here.
http://view.exacttarget.com/?j=fe561...0575741372&r=0
[TABLE="class: yiv8177313427, width: 450"]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #E5E5E5, colspan: 8"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #E5E5E5"][/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #000000"][/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #E5E5E5"][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD="colspan: 2"][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
Last edited by HoundDog; 04-10-2015 at 09:29 PM.
#167
I looked at the comments on the NPRM. I'm seeing that the majority of people commenting unfavorably to the AMA, models, and drones. Better to leave things unsaid. Adding more comments will only cause the FAA to heighten restrictions that already exist. Be careful what you wish for!
#168
My Feedback: (49)
I looked at the comments on the NPRM. I'm seeing that the majority of people commenting unfavorably to the AMA, models, and drones. Better to leave things unsaid. Adding more comments will only cause the FAA to heighten restrictions that already exist. Be careful what you wish for!
Would U please Post the URL where u found "the comments on the NPRM" Thanks.
#169
#170
I looked at the comments on the NPRM. I'm seeing that the majority of people commenting unfavorably to the AMA, models, and drones. Better to leave things unsaid. Adding more comments will only cause the FAA to heighten restrictions that already exist. Be careful what you wish for!
I looked at about 10 and all of them were copies of the AMA version. Some added additional items but I suspect that will not be noticed. Propose that we DO comment and refer to the AMA version but then add our own opinions. I don't see how not commenting will help in any way.
#171
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Spring Hill, FL
Posts: 893
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When I was in the military I fought a fuel fed shipboard fire for 28 tense minutes. My point was that only ignorant people with a cavalier attitude for safety that have never experienced what those fuels are capable of talk about putting matches out in them.
Frank
#172
Thank you HoundDog,
When I was in the military I fought a fuel fed shipboard fire for 28 tense minutes. My point was that only ignorant people with a cavalier attitude for safety that have never experienced what those fuels are capable of talk about putting matches out in them.
Frank
When I was in the military I fought a fuel fed shipboard fire for 28 tense minutes. My point was that only ignorant people with a cavalier attitude for safety that have never experienced what those fuels are capable of talk about putting matches out in them.
Frank
#173
hmmmm Thats odd. I just ignited my Kerosene camping stove with a match.....very odd. So you may want to explain that a little better...... Think about liquid vs vapor, maybe that will help you out.......
#174
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: South Florida
Posts: 375
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I looked at the comments on the NPRM. I'm seeing that the majority of people commenting unfavorably to the AMA, models, and drones. Better to leave things unsaid. Adding more comments will only cause the FAA to heighten restrictions that already exist. Be careful what you wish for!
I'm sorry ...
#175
hmmmm Thats odd. I just ignited my Kerosene camping stove with a match.....very odd
Here is an explanation of how high flash point liquids can be ignited with wicks, sprays, and other means.
http://firepedia.com/the-truth-about-flash-point/
Last edited by Sport_Pilot; 04-13-2015 at 08:34 PM.