R/C Aircraft pilots can be jailed in L.A. Cointy
10-24-2015, 01:53 PM
#51
Quad...Hex...Octocopter...you've got 4...6...8 motors made out of Steel, Aluminum, Copper...Neo Magnets, etc...all of which are considerably harder / denser than any (typically) hollow bird bones...4, 6 or 8 times the chances for parts to get scattered through an airliner's engine...(or wherever)
You get bits and pieces of just one brushless outrunner motor going through the core of a jet engine...especially at Take Off power setting...and you've got REAL problems...
Most of the doubters seem to think that the big fan in the front of the engine is all that's to it...?!?
I don't mean to add to the derailment of the thread, but...I keep reading the same thing over and over, from many different people, here in RCU and over at RCG, who seem to live in a world of denial...they keep making the same comparisons of birds vs. "Drones"...(or whatever label ya wanna use)
I am no expert, but I don't think that there are any birds (the hard parts of them) with the same density as Steel, Aluminum, etc. etc...not to mention the batteries, carbon fiber and electronics, and camera components, and so on...that might constitute a "Drone" or "Traditional" model aircraft
Can we stop please with the comparisons??? There is no comparison...
You get bits and pieces of just one brushless outrunner motor going through the core of a jet engine...especially at Take Off power setting...and you've got REAL problems...
Most of the doubters seem to think that the big fan in the front of the engine is all that's to it...?!?
I don't mean to add to the derailment of the thread, but...I keep reading the same thing over and over, from many different people, here in RCU and over at RCG, who seem to live in a world of denial...they keep making the same comparisons of birds vs. "Drones"...(or whatever label ya wanna use)
I am no expert, but I don't think that there are any birds (the hard parts of them) with the same density as Steel, Aluminum, etc. etc...not to mention the batteries, carbon fiber and electronics, and camera components, and so on...that might constitute a "Drone" or "Traditional" model aircraft
Can we stop please with the comparisons??? There is no comparison...
Last edited by proptop; 10-24-2015 at 01:55 PM.
10-24-2015, 04:19 PM
#52
10-24-2015, 04:22 PM
#53
Most of the doubters seem to think that the big fan in the front of the engine is all that's to it...?!?
10-24-2015, 08:23 PM
#56
I did not say there is nothing to worry about, but that this is too drastic for the danger it does impose.
10-24-2015, 08:24 PM
#57
10-24-2015, 09:33 PM
#58
Originally Posted by drac1
Pretty sure you are in the minority there.I'm glad you fly nowhere near me. And hopefully nowhere near any airport.
I said you are in the minority saying you are happy to be in a full size jet when a model plane goes through the engine and I'm glad you fly nowhere near me and hopefully any airport. Is that plain enough for you to understand?
But seeing as you brought it up, I wouldn't lose any sleep if quads/drones were outlawed. They are the main reason RC flying is getting all the unwarranted attention and bad publicity it is.
10-25-2015, 07:19 AM
#59
Umm, really?? No I didn't say that. How did you come up with that from this?
I said you are in the minority saying you are happy to be in a full size jet when a model plane goes through the engine and I'm glad you fly nowhere near me and hopefully any airport. Is that plain enough for you to understand?
If quads are outlawed then radio control models will be as well. Maybe not at first but right behind.
Last edited by Sport_Pilot; 10-25-2015 at 07:23 AM.
10-25-2015, 01:04 PM
#61
1. I didn't, you would rather bash me than stay on topic. So I asked questions about the topic.
2. I do not presently fly any full scale. 3. I think you are misunderstanding the entire premise. 4. That is that the whole thing is overblown and not as dangerous as the FAA and the press are making out.
5. If quads are outlawed then radio control models will be as well. Maybe not at first but right behind.
2. I do not presently fly any full scale. 3. I think you are misunderstanding the entire premise. 4. That is that the whole thing is overblown and not as dangerous as the FAA and the press are making out.
5. If quads are outlawed then radio control models will be as well. Maybe not at first but right behind.
2. Didn't say or imply that either.
3. I understand perfectly.
4. Maybe a bit concerning small models and drones, but there are larger models, (and large scale), flown at model fields as well. These would definitely cause serious damage or possibly a crash. There is no way to have a height restriction for one without the other.
5. Who's sensationalising now?
10-25-2015, 03:59 PM
#64
I didn't, you would rather bash me than stay on topic. So I asked questions about the topic.
I do not presently fly any full scale. I think you are misunderstanding the entire premise. That is that the whole thing is overblown and not as dangerous as the FAA and the press are making out.
If quads are outlawed then radio control models will be as well. Maybe not at first but right behind.
I do not presently fly any full scale. I think you are misunderstanding the entire premise. That is that the whole thing is overblown and not as dangerous as the FAA and the press are making out.
If quads are outlawed then radio control models will be as well. Maybe not at first but right behind.
We just have different opinions.
10-25-2015, 08:13 PM
#65
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Studio City, CA
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Attention Los Angeles RC pilots:
Mr Matt made this crystal clear at the top of this thread, but I will reiterate as follows:
The Los Angeles City proposed ordinance will ban flying model aircraft with 5 miles of any airport within the city limits without permission from The airport control tower. This ordinance was unanimously passed by the City council and is on the mayors desk waiting for his signature. 40 days after he signs it, The law take effect. All that needs to happen then is for parks and rec to padlock the gate to any model airfield within 5 miles of an airport and it's closed. The end. Unless the airport control tower decides to give permission for it to re-open. Doubtful imho. Why would anyone in the tower take on the liability? It only takes one idiot to spoil it for us all.
It seems to me flying RC in the city of Los Angeles will be at least disrupted for a time of not completely eliminated by the end of the year. I am not buying any more new planes. Might have a few for sale though.
just my .02
Steve
Mr Matt made this crystal clear at the top of this thread, but I will reiterate as follows:
The Los Angeles City proposed ordinance will ban flying model aircraft with 5 miles of any airport within the city limits without permission from The airport control tower. This ordinance was unanimously passed by the City council and is on the mayors desk waiting for his signature. 40 days after he signs it, The law take effect. All that needs to happen then is for parks and rec to padlock the gate to any model airfield within 5 miles of an airport and it's closed. The end. Unless the airport control tower decides to give permission for it to re-open. Doubtful imho. Why would anyone in the tower take on the liability? It only takes one idiot to spoil it for us all.
It seems to me flying RC in the city of Los Angeles will be at least disrupted for a time of not completely eliminated by the end of the year. I am not buying any more new planes. Might have a few for sale though.
just my .02
Steve
10-25-2015, 08:22 PM
#66
but there are larger models, (and large scale),
10-26-2015, 03:51 AM
#70
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
Attention Los Angeles RC pilots:
Mr Matt made this crystal clear at the top of this thread, but I will reiterate as follows:
The Los Angeles City proposed ordinance will ban flying model aircraft with 5 miles of any airport within the city limits without permission from The airport control tower. This ordinance was unanimously passed by the City council and is on the mayors desk waiting for his signature. 40 days after he signs it, The law take effect. All that needs to happen then is for parks and rec to padlock the gate to any model airfield within 5 miles of an airport and it's closed. The end. Unless the airport control tower decides to give permission for it to re-open. Doubtful imho. Why would anyone in the tower take on the liability? It only takes one idiot to spoil it for us all.
It seems to me flying RC in the city of Los Angeles will be at least disrupted for a time of not completely eliminated by the end of the year. I am not buying any more new planes. Might have a few for sale though.
just my .02
Steve
Mr Matt made this crystal clear at the top of this thread, but I will reiterate as follows:
The Los Angeles City proposed ordinance will ban flying model aircraft with 5 miles of any airport within the city limits without permission from The airport control tower. This ordinance was unanimously passed by the City council and is on the mayors desk waiting for his signature. 40 days after he signs it, The law take effect. All that needs to happen then is for parks and rec to padlock the gate to any model airfield within 5 miles of an airport and it's closed. The end. Unless the airport control tower decides to give permission for it to re-open. Doubtful imho. Why would anyone in the tower take on the liability? It only takes one idiot to spoil it for us all.
It seems to me flying RC in the city of Los Angeles will be at least disrupted for a time of not completely eliminated by the end of the year. I am not buying any more new planes. Might have a few for sale though.
just my .02
Steve
10-26-2015, 06:34 AM
#73
The law was signed by the mayor 24 hours after I got a message from the AMA about it.
It had passed the city council 5 weeks prior to that.
The AMA lobbiests write a (poorly worded) bill, FAA interpreted "notifying" an airport to mean "getting permission" from an airport and now LA city council interprets "getting permission" to mean "permission in writing" from the control tower.
It had passed the city council 5 weeks prior to that.
The AMA lobbiests write a (poorly worded) bill, FAA interpreted "notifying" an airport to mean "getting permission" from an airport and now LA city council interprets "getting permission" to mean "permission in writing" from the control tower.
10-26-2015, 06:51 AM
#74
The law was signed by the mayor 24 hours after I got a message from the AMA about it.
It had passed the city council 5 weeks prior to that.
The AMA lobbiests write a (poorly worded) bill, FAA interpreted "notifying" an airport to mean "getting permission" from an airport and now LA city council interprets "getting permission" to mean "permission in writing" from the control tower.
It had passed the city council 5 weeks prior to that.
The AMA lobbiests write a (poorly worded) bill, FAA interpreted "notifying" an airport to mean "getting permission" from an airport and now LA city council interprets "getting permission" to mean "permission in writing" from the control tower.
10-26-2015, 08:00 AM
#75
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
The law was signed by the mayor 24 hours after I got a message from the AMA about it.
It had passed the city council 5 weeks prior to that.
The AMA lobbiests write a (poorly worded) bill, FAA interpreted "notifying" an airport to mean "getting permission" from an airport and now LA city council interprets "getting permission" to mean "permission in writing" from the control tower.
It had passed the city council 5 weeks prior to that.
The AMA lobbiests write a (poorly worded) bill, FAA interpreted "notifying" an airport to mean "getting permission" from an airport and now LA city council interprets "getting permission" to mean "permission in writing" from the control tower.