Are you ready to register your aircraft?
10-23-2015, 08:55 AM
#476
Don't mater if the FAA/NTSB/AMA mandate displaying of Registration numbers on your model then so be it. Hope U can figure out how to get 12" or even 3" "N" Numbers on your Quad or 40 size trainer. FAR PART 45-29 Size of Markings
http://www.flightsimaviation.com/dat...art_45-29.html
http://www.flightsimaviation.com/dat...art_45-29.html
10-23-2015, 08:55 AM
#477
Member
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well what we've spent so far has netted us what? Did you see the registration thing coming or the DOT becoming involved? As I see it this is a new game with the DOT and any "deals" we had are now on the table. Only a complete fool would think that we are not in danger of our hobby being changed forever. Maybe distancing our organization for the whole "drone"/ UAV thing may not have been a bad thing after all.
Mike
Mike
10-23-2015, 08:59 AM
#479
franklin_m, all good points, and I hadn't even considered Mixed Use airports. I certainly think that in terms of what is likely to happen, AMA members are going to be the starting point for any FAA registration program. I only hope that they at least protect their core chartered fields and the members who fly there from negative impacts of the hobby they enjoy. Regarding Leading Indicators captured by the AMA, I can tell you exactly how difficult it is implementing just such a reporting system at a club, been there have the T-shirt.
10-23-2015, 09:03 AM
#480
Again, apply for a NOTAM. As for giant scale aerobatics, perhaps the answer is smaller aircraft?
As for a sailplane at "thousands of feet," I am of the belief it is a hazard to full scale aircraft. I find it hard to fathom how a pilot on the ground could accurately judge constant bearing decreasing range from the ground with reliability worthy of protecting manned aircraft. The link to the study below shows considerable differences in perceived distance between two objects and actual distance without perspective cues, it warrants bringing sUAS closer to ground and further away from manned aircraft. The manned aircraft has perspective cues given they're field of view includes ground reference. On the other hand, the pilot looking up from the ground has no such perspective cues.
http://jov.arvojournals.org/article....icleid=2191614
As for a sailplane at "thousands of feet," I am of the belief it is a hazard to full scale aircraft. I find it hard to fathom how a pilot on the ground could accurately judge constant bearing decreasing range from the ground with reliability worthy of protecting manned aircraft. The link to the study below shows considerable differences in perceived distance between two objects and actual distance without perspective cues, it warrants bringing sUAS closer to ground and further away from manned aircraft. The manned aircraft has perspective cues given they're field of view includes ground reference. On the other hand, the pilot looking up from the ground has no such perspective cues.
http://jov.arvojournals.org/article....icleid=2191614
Also free flight sometimes get that high and there is no control at all other than the DT timer. They chose fields well out of most aircraft traffic and launch when there are no aircraft in sight other than a high flying airliner or other jet.
I can't see it as a hazard because there are very few incidents.
10-23-2015, 09:27 AM
#482
Why? Any size will not be seen from the ground. If flown low enough to be seen they will be out of the way of aircraft. Rather pointless.
10-23-2015, 10:37 AM
#483
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga,
CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Again, apply for a NOTAM. As for giant scale aerobatics, perhaps the answer is smaller aircraft?
As for a sailplane at "thousands of feet," I am of the belief it is a hazard to full scale aircraft. I find it hard to fathom how a pilot on the ground could accurately judge constant bearing decreasing range from the ground with reliability worthy of protecting manned aircraft. The link to the study below shows considerable differences in perceived distance between two objects and actual distance without perspective cues, it warrants bringing sUAS closer to ground and further away from manned aircraft. The manned aircraft has perspective cues given they're field of view includes ground reference. On the other hand, the pilot looking up from the ground has no such perspective cues.
http://jov.arvojournals.org/article....icleid=2191614
As for a sailplane at "thousands of feet," I am of the belief it is a hazard to full scale aircraft. I find it hard to fathom how a pilot on the ground could accurately judge constant bearing decreasing range from the ground with reliability worthy of protecting manned aircraft. The link to the study below shows considerable differences in perceived distance between two objects and actual distance without perspective cues, it warrants bringing sUAS closer to ground and further away from manned aircraft. The manned aircraft has perspective cues given they're field of view includes ground reference. On the other hand, the pilot looking up from the ground has no such perspective cues.
http://jov.arvojournals.org/article....icleid=2191614
A local club has had multiple noise complaints, and the 'right thing' is bring the noisy models into compliance with the local ordinances. Some responsible modelers using the large gas engines have demonstrated that it can easily be done with canister mufflers and some care in prop selection. The response from the loudest (both engine and verbal emissions) is "you can't put a canister on a warbird." That's the impasse; the rights of a few folks to fly their noisy airplanes trumps the rights of the vast majority of club members to secure continued use of the flying site.
10-23-2015, 10:49 AM
#484
There will always be some that will feel a negative impact of effecting measures to do the right thing.
A local club has had multiple noise complaints, and the 'right thing' is bring the noisy models into compliance with the local ordinances. Some responsible modelers using the large gas engines have demonstrated that it can easily be done with canister mufflers and some care in prop selection. The response from the loudest (both engine and verbal emissions) is "you can't put a canister on a warbird." That's the impasse; the rights of a few folks to fly their noisy airplanes trumps the rights of the vast majority of club members to secure continued use of the flying site.
A local club has had multiple noise complaints, and the 'right thing' is bring the noisy models into compliance with the local ordinances. Some responsible modelers using the large gas engines have demonstrated that it can easily be done with canister mufflers and some care in prop selection. The response from the loudest (both engine and verbal emissions) is "you can't put a canister on a warbird." That's the impasse; the rights of a few folks to fly their noisy airplanes trumps the rights of the vast majority of club members to secure continued use of the flying site.
10-23-2015, 11:00 AM
#485
There will always be some that will feel a negative impact of effecting measures to do the right thing.
A local club has had multiple noise complaints, and the 'right thing' is bring the noisy models into compliance with the local ordinances. Some responsible modelers using the large gas engines have demonstrated that it can easily be done with canister mufflers and some care in prop selection. The response from the loudest (both engine and verbal emissions) is "you can't put a canister on a warbird." That's the impasse; the rights of a few folks to fly their noisy airplanes trumps the rights of the vast majority of club members to secure continued use of the flying site.
A local club has had multiple noise complaints, and the 'right thing' is bring the noisy models into compliance with the local ordinances. Some responsible modelers using the large gas engines have demonstrated that it can easily be done with canister mufflers and some care in prop selection. The response from the loudest (both engine and verbal emissions) is "you can't put a canister on a warbird." That's the impasse; the rights of a few folks to fly their noisy airplanes trumps the rights of the vast majority of club members to secure continued use of the flying site.
Had a similar situation with a club in my neck of woods. The club leadership immediately enacted a rule requiring canister mufflers and three bladed props, no whining, no exceptions. You don't like it, go fly somewhere else.
10-23-2015, 11:24 AM
#486
Why only canister mufflers? Sometimes just closing off one of the pipes to a two pipe pit muffler makes a huge difference. Some engines are luggers and just a larger prop would do the job. Others may be too loud with a canister muffler and three blade prop. Why not simply use a Db meter and require the engine to be below the municipality law?
10-23-2015, 11:35 AM
#487
Why only canister mufflers? Sometimes just closing off one of the pipes to a two pipe pit muffler makes a huge difference. Some engines are luggers and just a larger prop would do the job. Others may be too loud with a canister muffler and three blade prop. Why not simply use a Db meter and require the engine to be below the municipality law?
http://www.modelaircraft.org/files/927.pdf
10-23-2015, 12:00 PM
#488
Member
My Feedback: (2)
Relax. Take a few deep breathes. Now listen to this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TchjQ9v6ZoQ They don't want to register every single RC flying thing. Remain calm.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TchjQ9v6ZoQ They don't want to register every single RC flying thing. Remain calm.
10-23-2015, 12:10 PM
#489
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
+10. I didn't listen to it, watched most of the original presser and although the term "aircraft" was mentioned, it sure sounded like it wasn't every flying aircraft. It sounded like the direction they were heading was FPV/Drone aircraft of a certain weight and size. I've already said I don't believe we will ever have to register all aircraft, there is just no way to realistically do that, or track it. It's one of those things we're going to have to see shake out.
10-23-2015, 12:51 PM
#490
Member
Join Date: May 2013
Location: FL
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The only information I get from the video is that regarding the NPRM and it sounds like the press release pre-dates the registration announcement made the other day. I say that because they're talking about a comment period, and the comment period for the NPRM is closed as of April 24.
Last edited by Andy_S; 10-23-2015 at 12:57 PM. Reason: the other day, not yesterday
10-23-2015, 12:57 PM
#491
The goal is not to see them in flight, but rather to have them on the aircraft when it ends up somewhere it shouldn't so they can track down the owner. FAA is already working on technology to bring down a drone electronically. That plus a mandatory registration number on the bird will allow them a much better chance of finding the owner / violator.
10-23-2015, 01:36 PM
#493
My Feedback: (569)
The goal is not to see them in flight, but rather to have them on the aircraft when it ends up somewhere it shouldn't so they can track down the owner. FAA is already working on technology to bring down a drone electronically. That plus a mandatory registration number on the bird will allow them a much better chance of finding the owner / violator.
10-23-2015, 01:49 PM
#494
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga,
CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Understand the tracking idea but what's to stop the 'original' owner from claiming that he/she sold/gave away the aircraft and doesn't remember/know the name of the buyer......think that the system will be so complex that it will require transfer of ownership information to be recorded/kept/provided to the authorities.....what a logistical nightmare that could/would be
10-23-2015, 02:23 PM
#495
+10. I didn't listen to it, watched most of the original presser and although the term "aircraft" was mentioned, it sure sounded like it wasn't every flying aircraft. It sounded like the direction they were heading was FPV/Drone aircraft of a certain weight and size. I've already said I don't believe we will ever have to register all aircraft, there is just no way to realistically do that, or track it. It's one of those things we're going to have to see shake out.
With respect to registration, I'd put more weight on the announcement made by the Secretary of Transportation. Fortunately, an exact transcript of it is readily available. The source is cited below in a hyperlink. For your convenience though, I've attached a version of that statement that includes line number for a common frame of reference.
(1) I call your attention to lines 39-40 of the attached transcript where the Secretary of Transportation says: "We are going to require all operators of drones to register their aircraft – just like commercial drone operators do currently."
(2) As to applicability to model flights, I encourage you to look at lines 46-47 where the Secretary of Transportation says that "...registration will reinforce the need for unmanned aircraft users, including consumers and hobbyists, to operate their drones safely."
So, I struggle to see how anyone could do a plain language read of the Secretary's statement from the 19th and not conclude the DOT/FAA goal is to register "all" drones, including those used by "hobbyists."
Lastly, given the rapidly increasing number of sUAS that are driving the need for this regulation, I suspect they'll find a way to register just about anything they want to register.
[ATTACH]2127253[/IMG]
Source : https://www.transportation.gov/brief...n-announcement
10-23-2015, 02:25 PM
#496
Understand the tracking idea but what's to stop the 'original' owner from claiming that he/she sold/gave away the aircraft and doesn't remember/know the name of the buyer......think that the system will be so complex that it will require transfer of ownership information to be recorded/kept/provided to the authorities.....what a logistical nightmare that could/would be
10-23-2015, 03:05 PM
#497
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: El Paso,
TX
Posts: 5,277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
10-23-2015, 03:45 PM
#498
Member
Join Date: May 2013
Location: FL
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you went back in time, I don't think anything you did can be considered updating.
Seriously though, was there something regarding registration in the NPRM? I don't get your meaning.
Seriously though, was there something regarding registration in the NPRM? I don't get your meaning.
10-23-2015, 04:14 PM
#500
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: El Paso,
TX
Posts: 5,277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Geezz, it was a joke.
Mike