rgburrill

Luckily commercial use of drones is being controlled much better than hobby use. I don't see an "explosion" coming.

rgburrill

The mother was born a US citizen, the father was born a Cuban citizen. However, both were registered voters in Canada when Ted was born and to be a registered voter in Canada you had to be a Canadian citizen. Whether or not they had dual citizenship has not be discussed that I have seen.

Sport_Pilot

Unless the mother formally renounced her citizenship then she had dual citizenship. But with politics its hard to say what is true.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

That's odd since the AMA was the only non commercial type of entity involved in the discussions etc.

HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

Don't Matter we ain;t has a christian american born for
[h=2]2551 days Or 6 years, 11 months, 26 days including the end date[/h]To and including: Thursday, January 14, 2016

franklin_m

Hey, rather than talk about baseballs, how about coming up with the source for your comment that members of the ultralight association get privileges in the airspace that other ultralight pilots do not.

Sport_Pilot

I believer there is a misunderstanding. You might have thought it was what does USUA members have privileges over non-members. And I thought I was giving privileges over other pilot or aircraft owners. As I said that would be no requirement to license, no requirement for FAA inspection of vehicle, and especially no requirement to register. So on that last requirement they have a privilege over modelers as well.

HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

U bet USUA members do and a lot of them are bigger Idiots than some Drone Flyers. But not many Ultra lighters fly around in the approach paths of towered airports. Most don't anything to do with a towered airport.

mike1974

My Feedback: (1)

I don't agree with this. I have a vested interest whether on the ground or in the air. I would never want to cause harm to someone. When I fly FPV LOS or BLOS I am very cautious and even use an app to see what flights are around the area. I also always have a spotter with me. I also do not fly in an area where a commercial plane would be lower than 10-15 thousand feet. Not everyone has to fly in a highly populated/congested/high air traffic area. Not everyone just takes to the skies without any thought to safety. In fact I believe it to be a very small minority who are flying unsafe. I was just as cautious when I was flying a 172 as I am when flying RC. Also, you can clearly see an RC craft of any decent size at 1000', so I would hope you would see/here a full scale coming your way.

One thing that stands out to me in all these debates is location, location, location! Almost everyone posting that shows there location is around a highly populated city with a decent amount of air traffic. I would never fly BLOS in any of he areas you guys fly. No way. Not safe at all. FPV in general can be done in a very safe manor depending on location.

mike1974

My Feedback: (1)

Why would anyone want to get around a 5 mile geofencing radius????

to the second part I underlined............BS. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I'm not harming anybody flying RC and it brings me happiness. Why don't we just restrict everything and put everyone in a bubble so not a single person will ever get so much as a scratch again. Dang!!!!! Why do so many poeple like to be controlled and told what to do?!?!?!?!?

mike1974

My Feedback: (1)

Yes, absolutely correct!!!!! What other potential harms do you want to regulate?????

Sport_Pilot

Franklin wants to regulate everything, and get permission from the FAA before we take off. Maybe go to the nearest FAA inspector and K!$$ his &$$.

HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

Say hello to the AirMule, an unmanned aircraft that can carry a half-ton payload

http://news.yahoo.com/hello-airmule-...000710721.html

jmiles1941

But do they have the insurance to cover any incidents , this is why we are at this point today flying rc aircraft everywhere , these planes will hurt you or kill you they should not be allowed to be flown in parks schools soccer fields football fields , this is why the FAA got involved come on guys I have flown at AMA fields since 1985 flying fields are a long way out for a reason safety for all and not endangering the public my planes swing a 32x10 carbon fiber prop 29x10 prop they will cut you half in to , we don't need any more incidents , I can see it now rc aircraft loses control kills 3 children at park on a picnic , something like that could end the hobby FLY AT AMA FIELDS GUYS DONT TAKE THAT CHANCE !!!!!

HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

[QUOTE=mike1974;12162124]I don't agree with this. I have a vested interest whether on the ground or in the air. I would never want to cause harm to someone. When I fly FPV LOS or BLOS I am very cautious and even use an app to see what flights are around the area. I also always have a spotter with me. I also do not fly in an area where a commercial plane would be lower than 10-15 thousand feet. Not everyone has to fly in a highly populated/congested/high air traffic area. Not everyone just takes to the skies without any thought to safety. In fact I believe it to be a very small minority who are flying unsafe. I was just as cautious when I was flying a 172 as I am when flying RC. Also, you can clearly see an RC craft of any decent size at 1000', so I would hope you would see/here a full scale coming your way.

One thing that stands out to me in all these debates is location, location, location! Almost everyone posting that shows there location is around a highly populated city with a decent amount of air traffic. I would never fly BLOS in any of he areas you guys fly. No way. Not safe at all. FPV in general can be done in a very safe manor depending on location.
[/QUOTE
]
BRAVO ... It's where U fly that makes the difference BLOS FPV is not detrimental to anyone when kept down and dirty ... Come get me with your 450 knot Military plane. Besides GA doesn't belong below 1000' AGL except for TO and Landing ... Just Because it's legal doesn't make it smart.
How many times do I have to Post FAR 91.119 (b)
(b)Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft.

According to th PHX FSDO Any Occupied R/C field or 2 people on a blanket having a Picnic is an air assembly of persons,"Now Look at ourR/C field in Apache Junction/Mesa AZ. Not the 200' Nigh High tension towers directly1,189.60 ft to the 176 degrees True from the center of oyr Run Way. Now per FAR 91.119(b) when any full scale air planes gets with in 2000' Horizontal distance from that tower and ou R/C field is Occupied by 2 or more people that Pilot is required to be 1300' Minimum AGL. Not 500' like most people think. That's according to the PHX FAA FSDO.

Google map of Superstition Air Park:
https://www.google.com/maps/@33.4412...!3m1!1e3?hl=en

Now Google your favorit R/C glying spot and see what is the loest Elevation Air craft are permitted to fly over AGL . according to the FAR 91.119 (b)

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/91.119

franklin_m

I would point out that if you're flying BLOS, then you're violating AMA safety guidelines, and also no longer considered a "model aircraft" under PL112-95 section 336. Thus you are also breaking the law.

So as a lawbreaker, why should we have confidence in your level of safety? After all, you're already violating.

Thus this is precisely the reason why I think the FAA needs to act.

franklin_m

I am focused on getting an absolute prohibition against non-commercial BLOS flight, a 400' AGL limit on ALL non-commercial sUAS/UAS flights nationwide, and a streamlined process for those who have a justifiable need to exceed that being able to file for a NOTAM - thus ensuring manned aircraft are affirmatively notified of higher altitude sUAS/UAS traffic in the area.

franklin_m

A little thick on the hyperbole today eh? See below.

Sport_Pilot

Yeah, McCain thought he could do all because he was a Navy pilot. He thought wrong.

mike1974

My Feedback: (1)

Can you please point me to the LAW that I am breaking. Cmon man!!!!! Seriously?? Because I occasisonaly fly BLOS in a remote area with basically zero air traffic I don't care about safety and the FAA needs to act?? Really??

Do you ever speed while driving Franklin? Maybe you should lose your license? So as a lawbreaker, why should we have confidence in your level of operating a vehicle safely? After all, You're already violating. The DOT should act NOW!!!!

Interesting about no longer being a model aircraft. Does it transform into something different? Funny thing is, everytime I land it is still just an RC foam glider. Hmmm......

mike1974

My Feedback: (1)

You want to implement all those restrictions for a possible safety issue that has yet to even happen? You want to limit RC to 400ft? Cool, so you want to severly limit the hobby of RC, make criminals out of law abiding citizens and slow the growth of new RC technology. Awesome!!!

Chris P. Bacon

My Feedback: (4)

Speaking of sources, I'm still waiting:

http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/ama-...l#post12161509

franklin_m

Laws breaking?

PL112-95 Section 336 para (c)(2) in that the sUAS being flown BLOS by you is NOT being "flown within visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft"

One could then argue that because you're breaking that law and operating BLOS despite the prohibition, then you are not operating "carelessly or recklessly" in violation of another law 14 CFR 91.13 through 9.15.

Now, as to being no longer a model aircraft, that is correct. When you operate BLOS, as you've admitted to doing, then you are no longer considered a "model aircraft" as defined in PL112-95 Section 336. By your own admission you are violating the community based standards that are also required to be considered a "model aircraft" under the law.

Lastly, when operating BLOS as you've admitted, and since you're no longer considered a "model aircraft" under the law, you are subject to all of the FARs, including FAR 91.113, the "see and avoid" which, as you have aided vision (other than glasses or contacts), are by definition violating.

franklin_m

From a guy who lists his location as "somewhere" and uses "Chris P. Bacon" to comment on others.

TheEdge

My Feedback: (788)

When your sole objective of coming here is to prod and mess with people to feed a need to troll, one hides their true identity.