Hey Sport Pilot !!!!
04-08-2016, 07:34 PM
#26
Mandating a BRS on all GA would not in any way reduce the danger to those on the ground and in more cases it would be more dangerous. Once that chute is deployed you are a passenger in a 2000#, or more, hunk of metal dropping a fair rate of speed. dropping onto a vehicle would very likely cause enough damage to kill someone especially if it dropped suddenly on a major road. Not to mention dropping onto a crowded open area. It is far safer to fly the plane in most cases. A BRS system is only designed to protect the pilot and passengers and as such is a great idea, but using a victim on the ground to say it should be mandated is ridiculous. I do believe that they should be installed whenever possible, however lives on the ground are in no way a legitimate argument.
04-08-2016, 08:56 PM
#27
Mandating a BRS on all GA would not in any way reduce the danger to those on the ground and in more cases it would be more dangerous. Once that chute is deployed you are a passenger in a 2000#, or more, hunk of metal dropping a fair rate of speed. dropping onto a vehicle would very likely cause enough damage to kill someone especially if it dropped suddenly on a major road. Not to mention dropping onto a crowded open area. It is far safer to fly the plane in most cases. A BRS system is only designed to protect the pilot and passengers and as such is a great idea, but using a victim on the ground to say it should be mandated is ridiculous. I do believe that they should be installed whenever possible, however lives on the ground are in no way a legitimate argument.
04-09-2016, 04:47 AM
#28
Senior Member
Here is some interesting analysis of statistics from 2004.
http://www.meretrix.com/~harry/flyin...vsdriving.html
So why are they concentrating on model airplanes which have never caused a fatality in even a GA sized aircraft?
http://www.meretrix.com/~harry/flyin...vsdriving.html
So why are they concentrating on model airplanes which have never caused a fatality in even a GA sized aircraft?
They actually aren't.
They're focused on those little things with multi-rotors and recording video cameras. And thought they'd include rpv's capable of carrying a payload, like many of the rpv's the military are flying. Unfortunately, they didn't realize their ignorance wound up throwing their blanket over model airplanes too.
04-09-2016, 08:38 AM
#29
Why is the FAA concentrating on model airplanes?
They actually aren't.
They're focused on those little things with multi-rotors and recording video cameras. And thought they'd include rpv's capable of carrying a payload, like many of the rpv's the military are flying. Unfortunately, they didn't realize their ignorance wound up throwing their blanket over model airplanes too.
They actually aren't.
They're focused on those little things with multi-rotors and recording video cameras. And thought they'd include rpv's capable of carrying a payload, like many of the rpv's the military are flying. Unfortunately, they didn't realize their ignorance wound up throwing their blanket over model airplanes too.
Same thing all recreational radio controled aircraft is "model aircraft" Section 336. They have no ignorance on this, unlike many posters here.
04-09-2016, 11:17 AM
#30
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
Why is the FAA concentrating on model airplanes?
They actually aren't.
They're focused on those little things with multi-rotors and recording video cameras. And thought they'd include rpv's capable of carrying a payload, like many of the rpv's the military are flying. Unfortunately, they didn't realize their ignorance wound up throwing their blanket over model airplanes too.
They actually aren't.
They're focused on those little things with multi-rotors and recording video cameras. And thought they'd include rpv's capable of carrying a payload, like many of the rpv's the military are flying. Unfortunately, they didn't realize their ignorance wound up throwing their blanket over model airplanes too.
04-10-2016, 12:22 AM
#31
So when was the last time you read a report about an R/C airplane buzzing around the landing pattern at a major airport? Last thing I read was about an FPV motor glider being flown from Liberty Island through the streets of NYC. IIRC, the operator was cited by the local police for breaking a local ordinance and asked to leave. End of story.
04-10-2016, 06:41 AM
#32
So when was the last time you read a report about an R/C airplane buzzing around the landing pattern at a major airport? Last thing I read was about an FPV motor glider being flown from Liberty Island through the streets of NYC. IIRC, the operator was cited by the local police for breaking a local ordinance and asked to leave. End of story.
04-11-2016, 06:43 AM
#35
If it don't have wings it's not an airplane.
noun
a heavier-than-air aircraft kept aloft by the upward thrust exerted by the passing air on its fixed wings and driven by propellers, jet propulsion, etc.
noun
a heavier-than-air aircraft kept aloft by the upward thrust exerted by the passing air on its fixed wings and driven by propellers, jet propulsion, etc.
Last edited by Hydro Junkie; 04-11-2016 at 06:46 AM.
04-12-2016, 11:29 PM
#37
Just some thoughts from a guy who's in love with flying and has been flying RC and full-scale since a youth:
General aviation is already being regulated into oblivion. For all the hoopla over the FAA's latest regulatory abuses of RC modelers, the full-scale community has it far worse, and has for many years. What we see as draconian encroachments upon the RC hobby, GA pilots and operators see as business as usual. Consider: extensive and expensive training for pilots and mechanics, pilot/owner maintenance mostly prohibited (without an A&P), extremely expensive and intense certification processes for something as simple and common as panel-mounted GPS technology, various regular aircraft inspections, egregious prohibitions on anything that smells like a commercial operation unless you go through lots of legal hoops and get a mother-may-I from the FAA (Part 135, 141, etc), time-limits on airframe parts, detailed aircraft documentation requirements for every little repair or maintenance procedure, temporary flight restrictions, airworthiness directives, weather requirements, ATC-policed airspace....the list goes on. You can argue the silliness or inefficacy of some of this, but the end result is not all bad: here in the US, we have a fabulous safety record. Hundreds of planes big and small, flown by hundreds of pilots from green students to 10k+ hour ATPs share the friendly skies in aircraft ranging from brand new to pre-WWII era, and yet crashes are relatively rare.
But that's a completely different world than RC. It's true that in both full-scale and RC, just missing the smallest detail can result in disaster. The stakes for RC fliers, however, are MUCH lower. Let's face it, RC planes crash....a lot. Personal injury from such crashes is virtually unheard of. We in RC don't need all the regulation that looks to be coming down the pike. In fact, I consider the FAA's latest actions and proposals a severe affront to personal liberty. Regulation of full-scale puts a curb on personal liberty as well, but considering what is at stake (the lives and property of pilots, passengers, and everyone on the ground), it is a burden we are (mostly) willing to accept.
All this regulation comes with a cost, you see. General aviation is incredibly expensive, especially considering the technology being used. The "light sport" category of aircraft was supposed to be a boon to the industry, making flying affordable to the common man. Try to find a new LSA that sells for less than $125k....good luck. The costs and liability associated with certifying, producing, selling, and supporting an airplane in this country have hurt the industry. I'm sure everyone in the full-scale community remembers the decimation of the aircraft industry in the 1980s, when lawsuits virtually shut down aircraft production in the US. Many of those aircraft models never returned. Old tech (like magnetos, ancient avionics, vacuum-driven gauges, etc) stays with us because the costs to get new gear or design changes approved are totally prohibitive. And the FAA is in no hurry to approve something "new" to replace old, well-worn technology that everyone understands and that has more or less worked out OK.
Recovery chutes: most existing aircraft designs have no place on the structure where such a chute could be attached, or even a place to store the chute. The number of accidents that could have been mitigated with a chute is relatively low. Many accidents happen at low altitude, in the takeoff or landing portion of the flight, for instance.
Many old (and NEW) designs are underpowered as it is. Requiring new add-on tech like chutes, computerized engine controls, etc will cut down on useful load even more.
Fuel lines in the cockpit: fuel is in the wings (and empennage, in many cases), and has to go to the engine.The cockpit is between the wings and the engine. Where else are you gonna put fuel lines?
Many full-scale planes that are reasonably flyable are being cut up and parted out, because the costs to A: Keep them maintained to FAA specs, or B: Fix relatively simple problems, are simply too high.
There is now a growing pilot shortage because young people wised up and realized flying was an unstable career that required tens (sometimes hundreds) of thousands of dollars and years of training to get into, plus ongoing training and currency requirements, with a good chance that you'd start out making less than a manager at Pizza Hut.....and for a lot of folks, before you could even get your foot in the door, you had to get a bunch of flight hours on your own time, either by renting or owning a plane. More $$$$. I came to this conclusion back in 2004 when I graduated college with a commercial license and instrument rating. Now I fix computers for a living, fly for fun.
Most of the attention from the FAA is, IMO, on full-scale. They are writing regulations for us RC'ers because the attention of the public and Congress has been drawn to a growing number of idiots with computerized Chinese rotary toys who don't care about flying and have little regard for the safety of full-scale aircraft, and of other people in general. I really don't think much of the FAA's limited manpower is going (or will be going) to watching RC'ers. For that matter, there's a decent share of "cowboys" flying out-of-annual aircraft, or going around with expired flight reviews, doing unauthorized maintenance or repairs, etc. If you're not involved in commercial activity, and you never bend an airplane, you will probably never have to deal with the FAA. The last FAA person I met was the DE who wrote me my instrument rating 13 years ago.
If you've made it this far in my lengthy and rambling tirade, let me finish by stating that the prohibitive expenses and the stifling of innovation that we see in full-scale could happen to RC, too. Write your Congress critters, put on public events with your club if you have one, teach others, fly safe, stay informed. What the FAA is doing has already exceeded boundaries that Congress set, I am hopeful that we can whup this and get the FAA's regulatory hands off RC again.
Matt
General aviation is already being regulated into oblivion. For all the hoopla over the FAA's latest regulatory abuses of RC modelers, the full-scale community has it far worse, and has for many years. What we see as draconian encroachments upon the RC hobby, GA pilots and operators see as business as usual. Consider: extensive and expensive training for pilots and mechanics, pilot/owner maintenance mostly prohibited (without an A&P), extremely expensive and intense certification processes for something as simple and common as panel-mounted GPS technology, various regular aircraft inspections, egregious prohibitions on anything that smells like a commercial operation unless you go through lots of legal hoops and get a mother-may-I from the FAA (Part 135, 141, etc), time-limits on airframe parts, detailed aircraft documentation requirements for every little repair or maintenance procedure, temporary flight restrictions, airworthiness directives, weather requirements, ATC-policed airspace....the list goes on. You can argue the silliness or inefficacy of some of this, but the end result is not all bad: here in the US, we have a fabulous safety record. Hundreds of planes big and small, flown by hundreds of pilots from green students to 10k+ hour ATPs share the friendly skies in aircraft ranging from brand new to pre-WWII era, and yet crashes are relatively rare.
But that's a completely different world than RC. It's true that in both full-scale and RC, just missing the smallest detail can result in disaster. The stakes for RC fliers, however, are MUCH lower. Let's face it, RC planes crash....a lot. Personal injury from such crashes is virtually unheard of. We in RC don't need all the regulation that looks to be coming down the pike. In fact, I consider the FAA's latest actions and proposals a severe affront to personal liberty. Regulation of full-scale puts a curb on personal liberty as well, but considering what is at stake (the lives and property of pilots, passengers, and everyone on the ground), it is a burden we are (mostly) willing to accept.
All this regulation comes with a cost, you see. General aviation is incredibly expensive, especially considering the technology being used. The "light sport" category of aircraft was supposed to be a boon to the industry, making flying affordable to the common man. Try to find a new LSA that sells for less than $125k....good luck. The costs and liability associated with certifying, producing, selling, and supporting an airplane in this country have hurt the industry. I'm sure everyone in the full-scale community remembers the decimation of the aircraft industry in the 1980s, when lawsuits virtually shut down aircraft production in the US. Many of those aircraft models never returned. Old tech (like magnetos, ancient avionics, vacuum-driven gauges, etc) stays with us because the costs to get new gear or design changes approved are totally prohibitive. And the FAA is in no hurry to approve something "new" to replace old, well-worn technology that everyone understands and that has more or less worked out OK.
Recovery chutes: most existing aircraft designs have no place on the structure where such a chute could be attached, or even a place to store the chute. The number of accidents that could have been mitigated with a chute is relatively low. Many accidents happen at low altitude, in the takeoff or landing portion of the flight, for instance.
Many old (and NEW) designs are underpowered as it is. Requiring new add-on tech like chutes, computerized engine controls, etc will cut down on useful load even more.
Fuel lines in the cockpit: fuel is in the wings (and empennage, in many cases), and has to go to the engine.The cockpit is between the wings and the engine. Where else are you gonna put fuel lines?
Many full-scale planes that are reasonably flyable are being cut up and parted out, because the costs to A: Keep them maintained to FAA specs, or B: Fix relatively simple problems, are simply too high.
There is now a growing pilot shortage because young people wised up and realized flying was an unstable career that required tens (sometimes hundreds) of thousands of dollars and years of training to get into, plus ongoing training and currency requirements, with a good chance that you'd start out making less than a manager at Pizza Hut.....and for a lot of folks, before you could even get your foot in the door, you had to get a bunch of flight hours on your own time, either by renting or owning a plane. More $$$$. I came to this conclusion back in 2004 when I graduated college with a commercial license and instrument rating. Now I fix computers for a living, fly for fun.
Most of the attention from the FAA is, IMO, on full-scale. They are writing regulations for us RC'ers because the attention of the public and Congress has been drawn to a growing number of idiots with computerized Chinese rotary toys who don't care about flying and have little regard for the safety of full-scale aircraft, and of other people in general. I really don't think much of the FAA's limited manpower is going (or will be going) to watching RC'ers. For that matter, there's a decent share of "cowboys" flying out-of-annual aircraft, or going around with expired flight reviews, doing unauthorized maintenance or repairs, etc. If you're not involved in commercial activity, and you never bend an airplane, you will probably never have to deal with the FAA. The last FAA person I met was the DE who wrote me my instrument rating 13 years ago.
If you've made it this far in my lengthy and rambling tirade, let me finish by stating that the prohibitive expenses and the stifling of innovation that we see in full-scale could happen to RC, too. Write your Congress critters, put on public events with your club if you have one, teach others, fly safe, stay informed. What the FAA is doing has already exceeded boundaries that Congress set, I am hopeful that we can whup this and get the FAA's regulatory hands off RC again.
Matt
Last edited by dabigboy; 04-12-2016 at 11:32 PM.
04-13-2016, 03:53 AM
#38
Replies in red below.
Just some thoughts from a guy who's in love with flying and has been flying RC and full-scale since a youth:
General aviation is already being regulated into oblivion. For all the hoopla over the FAA's latest regulatory abuses of RC modelers, the full-scale community has it far worse, and has for many years. What we see as draconian encroachments upon the RC hobby, GA pilots and operators see as business as usual. Consider: extensive and expensive training for pilots and mechanics, pilot/owner maintenance mostly prohibited (without an A&P), extremely expensive and intense certification processes for something as simple and common as panel-mounted GPS technology, various regular aircraft inspections, egregious prohibitions on anything that smells like a commercial operation unless you go through lots of legal hoops and get a mother-may-I from the FAA (Part 135, 141, etc), time-limits on airframe parts, detailed aircraft documentation requirements for every little repair or maintenance procedure, temporary flight restrictions, airworthiness directives, weather requirements, ATC-policed airspace....the list goes on. You can argue the silliness or inefficacy of some of this, but the end result is not all bad: here in the US, we have a fabulous safety record. GA has a poor safety record see posts above, considerin that the statistics include biz jets then small airplanes are even worse, motorcycles are the only vehicle less safe. Maybe. Hundreds of planes big and small, flown by hundreds of pilots from green students to 10k+ hour ATPs share the friendly skies in aircraft ranging from brand new to pre-WWII era, and yet crashes are relatively rare.
But that's a completely different world than RC. It's true that in both full-scale and RC, just missing the smallest detail can result in disaster. The stakes for RC fliers, however, are MUCH lower. Let's face it, RC planes crash....a lot. Personal injury from such crashes is virtually unheard of. We in RC don't need all the regulation that looks to be coming down the pike. In fact, I consider the FAA's latest actions and proposals a severe affront to personal liberty. Regulation of full-scale puts a curb on personal liberty as well, but considering what is at stake (the lives and property of pilots, passengers, and everyone on the ground), it is a burden we are (mostly) willing to accept.
All this regulation comes with a cost, you see. General aviation is incredibly expensive, especially considering the technology being used. The "light sport" category of aircraft was supposed to be a boon to the industry, making flying affordable to the common man. Try to find a new LSA that sells for less than $125k....good luck. The costs and liability associated with certifying, producing, selling, and supporting an airplane in this country have hurt the industry. I'm sure everyone in the full-scale community remembers the decimation of the aircraft industry in the 1980s, when lawsuits virtually shut down aircraft production in the US. Many of the lawsuits were well deserved, like the one Cessna lost when everybody on board burned alive when the wing hit an object while taxing at 2 MPH. Many of those aircraft models never returned. Old tech (like magnetos, ancient avionics, vacuum-driven gauges, etc) stays with us because the costs to get new gear or design changes approved are totally prohibitive. And the FAA is in no hurry to approve something "new" to replace old, well-worn technology that everyone understands and that has more or less worked out OK.
Recovery chutes: most existing aircraft designs have no place on the structure where such a chute could be attached, or even a place to store the chute. The number of accidents that could have been mitigated with a chute is relatively low. Many accidents happen at low altitude, in the takeoff or landing portion of the flight, for instance.
Many old (and NEW) designs are underpowered as it is. Requiring new add-on tech like chutes, computerized engine controls, etc will cut down on useful load even more.
Fuel lines in the cockpit: fuel is in the wings (and empennage, in many cases), and has to go to the engine.The cockpit is between the wings and the engine. Where else are you gonna put fuel lines? You put the fuel lines inside a sealed tube making sure there is a way for the fuel to drain out between the fuel line and the outer wall.
Many full-scale planes that are reasonably flyable are being cut up and parted out, because the costs to A: Keep them maintained to FAA specs, or B: Fix relatively simple problems, are simply too high.
There is now a growing pilot shortage because young people wised up and realized flying was an unstable career that required tens (sometimes hundreds) of thousands of dollars and years of training to get into, plus ongoing training and currency requirements, with a good chance that you'd start out making less than a manager at Pizza Hut.....and for a lot of folks, before you could even get your foot in the door, you had to get a bunch of flight hours on your own time, either by renting or owning a plane. More $$$$. I came to this conclusion back in 2004 when I graduated college with a commercial license and instrument rating. Now I fix computers for a living, fly for fun.
Most of the attention from the FAA is, IMO, on full-scale. They are writing regulations for us RC'ers because the attention of the public and Congress has been drawn to a growing number of idiots with computerized Chinese rotary toys who don't care about flying and have little regard for the safety of full-scale aircraft, and of other people in general. I really don't think much of the FAA's limited manpower is going (or will be going) to watching RC'ers. For that matter, there's a decent share of "cowboys" flying out-of-annual aircraft, or going around with expired flight reviews, doing unauthorized maintenance or repairs, etc. If you're not involved in commercial activity, and you never bend an airplane, you will probably never have to deal with the FAA. The last FAA person I met was the DE who wrote me my instrument rating 13 years ago.
If you've made it this far in my lengthy and rambling tirade, let me finish by stating that the prohibitive expenses and the stifling of innovation that we see in full-scale could happen to RC, too. Write your Congress critters, put on public events with your club if you have one, teach others, fly safe, stay informed. What the FAA is doing has already exceeded boundaries that Congress set, I am hopeful that we can whup this and get the FAA's regulatory hands off RC again.
Matt
General aviation is already being regulated into oblivion. For all the hoopla over the FAA's latest regulatory abuses of RC modelers, the full-scale community has it far worse, and has for many years. What we see as draconian encroachments upon the RC hobby, GA pilots and operators see as business as usual. Consider: extensive and expensive training for pilots and mechanics, pilot/owner maintenance mostly prohibited (without an A&P), extremely expensive and intense certification processes for something as simple and common as panel-mounted GPS technology, various regular aircraft inspections, egregious prohibitions on anything that smells like a commercial operation unless you go through lots of legal hoops and get a mother-may-I from the FAA (Part 135, 141, etc), time-limits on airframe parts, detailed aircraft documentation requirements for every little repair or maintenance procedure, temporary flight restrictions, airworthiness directives, weather requirements, ATC-policed airspace....the list goes on. You can argue the silliness or inefficacy of some of this, but the end result is not all bad: here in the US, we have a fabulous safety record. GA has a poor safety record see posts above, considerin that the statistics include biz jets then small airplanes are even worse, motorcycles are the only vehicle less safe. Maybe. Hundreds of planes big and small, flown by hundreds of pilots from green students to 10k+ hour ATPs share the friendly skies in aircraft ranging from brand new to pre-WWII era, and yet crashes are relatively rare.
But that's a completely different world than RC. It's true that in both full-scale and RC, just missing the smallest detail can result in disaster. The stakes for RC fliers, however, are MUCH lower. Let's face it, RC planes crash....a lot. Personal injury from such crashes is virtually unheard of. We in RC don't need all the regulation that looks to be coming down the pike. In fact, I consider the FAA's latest actions and proposals a severe affront to personal liberty. Regulation of full-scale puts a curb on personal liberty as well, but considering what is at stake (the lives and property of pilots, passengers, and everyone on the ground), it is a burden we are (mostly) willing to accept.
All this regulation comes with a cost, you see. General aviation is incredibly expensive, especially considering the technology being used. The "light sport" category of aircraft was supposed to be a boon to the industry, making flying affordable to the common man. Try to find a new LSA that sells for less than $125k....good luck. The costs and liability associated with certifying, producing, selling, and supporting an airplane in this country have hurt the industry. I'm sure everyone in the full-scale community remembers the decimation of the aircraft industry in the 1980s, when lawsuits virtually shut down aircraft production in the US. Many of the lawsuits were well deserved, like the one Cessna lost when everybody on board burned alive when the wing hit an object while taxing at 2 MPH. Many of those aircraft models never returned. Old tech (like magnetos, ancient avionics, vacuum-driven gauges, etc) stays with us because the costs to get new gear or design changes approved are totally prohibitive. And the FAA is in no hurry to approve something "new" to replace old, well-worn technology that everyone understands and that has more or less worked out OK.
Recovery chutes: most existing aircraft designs have no place on the structure where such a chute could be attached, or even a place to store the chute. The number of accidents that could have been mitigated with a chute is relatively low. Many accidents happen at low altitude, in the takeoff or landing portion of the flight, for instance.
Many old (and NEW) designs are underpowered as it is. Requiring new add-on tech like chutes, computerized engine controls, etc will cut down on useful load even more.
Fuel lines in the cockpit: fuel is in the wings (and empennage, in many cases), and has to go to the engine.The cockpit is between the wings and the engine. Where else are you gonna put fuel lines? You put the fuel lines inside a sealed tube making sure there is a way for the fuel to drain out between the fuel line and the outer wall.
Many full-scale planes that are reasonably flyable are being cut up and parted out, because the costs to A: Keep them maintained to FAA specs, or B: Fix relatively simple problems, are simply too high.
There is now a growing pilot shortage because young people wised up and realized flying was an unstable career that required tens (sometimes hundreds) of thousands of dollars and years of training to get into, plus ongoing training and currency requirements, with a good chance that you'd start out making less than a manager at Pizza Hut.....and for a lot of folks, before you could even get your foot in the door, you had to get a bunch of flight hours on your own time, either by renting or owning a plane. More $$$$. I came to this conclusion back in 2004 when I graduated college with a commercial license and instrument rating. Now I fix computers for a living, fly for fun.
Most of the attention from the FAA is, IMO, on full-scale. They are writing regulations for us RC'ers because the attention of the public and Congress has been drawn to a growing number of idiots with computerized Chinese rotary toys who don't care about flying and have little regard for the safety of full-scale aircraft, and of other people in general. I really don't think much of the FAA's limited manpower is going (or will be going) to watching RC'ers. For that matter, there's a decent share of "cowboys" flying out-of-annual aircraft, or going around with expired flight reviews, doing unauthorized maintenance or repairs, etc. If you're not involved in commercial activity, and you never bend an airplane, you will probably never have to deal with the FAA. The last FAA person I met was the DE who wrote me my instrument rating 13 years ago.
If you've made it this far in my lengthy and rambling tirade, let me finish by stating that the prohibitive expenses and the stifling of innovation that we see in full-scale could happen to RC, too. Write your Congress critters, put on public events with your club if you have one, teach others, fly safe, stay informed. What the FAA is doing has already exceeded boundaries that Congress set, I am hopeful that we can whup this and get the FAA's regulatory hands off RC again.
Matt
04-13-2016, 03:53 AM
#39
Matt,
Your post was well stated, based on actual facts and well presented. Being someone that works in the aviation industry, it's nice to see someone that understands things and bases their comments on personal experience rather than on what they think is correct.
Thank You
Your post was well stated, based on actual facts and well presented. Being someone that works in the aviation industry, it's nice to see someone that understands things and bases their comments on personal experience rather than on what they think is correct.
Thank You
