400 foot? NOPE
07-25-2016, 06:04 PM
#376
Inspecting at a fly in or contest is not the same as a over 55lb inspection. Just talk a look at the paperwork. Not only is the air frame inspected but the pilot must fly several flights in front of the inspectors to prove competence to be signed off. Even with all this anything can happen and does all the time. A guy who spends the time and money on a over 55 lb air frame has minor BS addressed long before asking for the inspection and waiver.
How this went from over 55lb inspections and who should do them to this is beyond me.
Simple really, just follow your posts.
Mike
.
How this went from over 55lb inspections and who should do them to this is beyond me.
Simple really, just follow your posts.
Mike
.
07-25-2016, 10:57 PM
#377
Do U all suppose that there is anyway to get RCU to add the title of the Thread to the Blue line between the Post date and the Post number? Some of us O'L Geezers might have trouble remembering what post their in. If U don't believe me just wait till U get old.
Today 7:55 am 400 foot? NOPE #3xxxToda
Today 7:55 am 400 foot? NOPE #3xxxToda
07-26-2016, 05:10 AM
#378
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: El Paso,
TX
Posts: 5,277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very easily, we have migrated over to safety. I myself have never seen first hand a 55 lb plus model airplane. I have seen many average size airplanes flown in an unsafe manner. More injuries can be directly linked to a poorly built .40-.60 size models then any other size range. Personally I would not be opposed if my club had inspection requirements for every new airplane.
There's always that guy who thinks he's got it covered and has overlooked the simple stuff..
Mike
Last edited by rcmiket; 07-26-2016 at 05:35 AM.
07-26-2016, 05:13 AM
#379
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: El Paso,
TX
Posts: 5,277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Franklin , I would like to hear your thoughts on who would do the inspections of +55# models . Do you think only the FAA should do it ? If the FAA doesn't have enough inspectors (and won't hire more) should the FAA defer these inspections to a private entity ?
At least as far as motor vehicle law goes in the state I live in , you most certainly are legally bound to pay a private company to inspect your car , in other words the government forcing you to do business with a private company if you want to drive legally* . Why would it be any different for the FAA to say you need an inspection of +55# models and send you to a private company for that inspection ?
* My state does not have state run inspection facilities . A driver must take his car to the local auto repair shop that has been subcontracted by the State to do inspections .
At least as far as motor vehicle law goes in the state I live in , you most certainly are legally bound to pay a private company to inspect your car , in other words the government forcing you to do business with a private company if you want to drive legally* . Why would it be any different for the FAA to say you need an inspection of +55# models and send you to a private company for that inspection ?
* My state does not have state run inspection facilities . A driver must take his car to the local auto repair shop that has been subcontracted by the State to do inspections .
That's when I responded originally.
Mike
07-26-2016, 05:46 AM
#380
Depends on the person, some take the advise as a learning experience as when I point out an issue I always like to offer a solution as well. Some like to argue and tell me how many flights the airplane has on it with the discrepancy. One of the rules we have in racing is that no EZ connectors be used. You know the little barrel deal that goes on the servo arm with a plastic or metal press on peice then the pushrod is set screwed into place. A guy had one on his rudder. When I pointed it out and informed him that they are not permitted on a " flight surface " he proceeded to argue that the rudder is not a flight surface because it is never used in flight. I just smiled, reached in my tool box, handed him a pair of Z bend plier and informed him that he could either use the pliers or I would be more then happy to refund his entry.
In most cases guys are just fine with what I find and if needed I will assist in correcting the issue so they are able to fly the event.
In most cases guys are just fine with what I find and if needed I will assist in correcting the issue so they are able to fly the event.
07-26-2016, 10:00 AM
#384
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HeERupuicHE
07-26-2016, 10:10 AM
#385
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: El Paso,
TX
Posts: 5,277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Mike , actually if we are to track the roots of the 55 pound discussion , it was Franklin's post #246 where it was originally mentioned , followed by my question to him in post #251 . These posts were right after Crispy called us all potential crooks and the discussion kinda drifted from there , as all of these AMA sub forum threads are tending to do . "Thread purity" is kinda like "Politically Correct" , it may sound all well and good on paper but it don't usually translate too well to real life ......
Your everyday air frames can and should be checked out at a event with no problem providing the guy doing the inspections knows what to look for.
These are just my thoughts on this since I've actually been involved in the process a time or two.
Now to stay on topic with the posting of that letter from the FAA the 400 foot deal is now put to sleep.
Mike
Last edited by rcmiket; 07-26-2016 at 10:13 AM.
07-26-2016, 10:15 AM
#386
In flight test, it's always a build up approach, where you plan a flight - then execute only the planned maneuvers. After landing, the plane is checked over before any envelope expansion is attempted. Subsequent flights plan incrementally demanding maneuvers, and then they're executed. Afterwards, another check.
Another very basic rule for flight test is that if there's anything that isn't right, or doesn't perform exactly as planned (and expected), the you land and sort it out on the ground rather than assuming all is well.
07-26-2016, 11:55 AM
#387
That's great to hear. I also think folks would do well to follow many best practices from the flight test community. For example, how many guys do you see take a brand new model on the very first flight do all sorts of high stress aerobatics or high speed?
In flight test, it's always a build up approach, where you plan a flight - then execute only the planned maneuvers. After landing, the plane is checked over before any envelope expansion is attempted. Subsequent flights plan incrementally demanding maneuvers, and then they're executed. Afterwards, another check.
Another very basic rule for flight test is that if there's anything that isn't right, or doesn't perform exactly as planned (and expected), the you land and sort it out on the ground rather than assuming all is well.
In flight test, it's always a build up approach, where you plan a flight - then execute only the planned maneuvers. After landing, the plane is checked over before any envelope expansion is attempted. Subsequent flights plan incrementally demanding maneuvers, and then they're executed. Afterwards, another check.
Another very basic rule for flight test is that if there's anything that isn't right, or doesn't perform exactly as planned (and expected), the you land and sort it out on the ground rather than assuming all is well.
http://www.carlb-rcplanes.com/
07-26-2016, 12:05 PM
#388
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: El Paso,
TX
Posts: 5,277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If we are talking plans over the 55 lb category then who do U suppose would build just such a monster and not be qualified to inspect his own? How many people here have built any planes (R/C) over 55 lbs and feel qualified to inspect such. Take a look at the credits of the planes built by Carl Bachhuber of Mayville WI. Over 30 by my count.
http://www.carlb-rcplanes.com/
http://www.carlb-rcplanes.com/
Oh yea the 400 foot rule is no longer a rule.
Mike
Last edited by rcmiket; 07-26-2016 at 12:10 PM.
07-26-2016, 12:13 PM
#389
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
Sure he's qualified but it's the AMA that requires the inspection. Trust me if this gentleman or anyone like him with his building skills and experience needed a inspection for a wavier it would be no problem as there would be a line of guys willing to do it.
Oh yea the 400 foot rule is no longer a rule.
Mike
Oh yea the 400 foot rule is no longer a rule.
Mike
07-26-2016, 10:14 PM
#390
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Orange County,
CA
Posts: 5,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Got this from one of the clubs I belong to. We are only 2 miles from Chino airport. It shows how despite the FAA's letter there are still situations and circumstances where flying over 400 feet is not going to be permitted.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the Academy of Model Aeronautics (AMA) have come to an agreement that model aircract may fly over 400 feet as long as they are part an AMA charted club. However, that does not apply to Prado Airpark due to the following reasons:
1) We have a previous agreement with the Chino Airport Tower, that no rotor or fixed wing aircraft will exceed 400 feet above ground level at Prado Airpark.
2) We have the same agreement with the San Bernardino Parks Department, who is our direct landlord.
3) We have the same agreement with the Army Corp Of Engineers, who own the land on which Prado Airpark is located.
Bearing this in mind, Prado Airpark will continue to enforce a strict altitude limitation of 400 feet above ground level where the ground level is measured at Prado Air Park.
If you have any questions regarding this policy, please contact any PVMAC Director.
Thank you for your continued cooperation,
The PVMAC Board of Directors
1) We have a previous agreement with the Chino Airport Tower, that no rotor or fixed wing aircraft will exceed 400 feet above ground level at Prado Airpark.
2) We have the same agreement with the San Bernardino Parks Department, who is our direct landlord.
3) We have the same agreement with the Army Corp Of Engineers, who own the land on which Prado Airpark is located.
Bearing this in mind, Prado Airpark will continue to enforce a strict altitude limitation of 400 feet above ground level where the ground level is measured at Prado Air Park.
If you have any questions regarding this policy, please contact any PVMAC Director.
Thank you for your continued cooperation,
The PVMAC Board of Directors
07-27-2016, 04:20 AM
#392
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: El Paso,
TX
Posts: 5,277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mike
07-27-2016, 06:49 AM
#393
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Orange County,
CA
Posts: 5,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My point exactly. The FAA letter is a lot like Nevada's old no speed limit thing. It did not mean you could go as fast as you wanted to anywhere and any time you wanted to. PVMAC has had a strict limit for a long time, so this is just restating the long standing policy.
07-27-2016, 06:57 AM
#394
My question would be, is this agreement based on the longtime but misplaced belief that there is a 400 foot limit? Or is it based on a safety analysis that includes the approach/departure paths of the airport.
If its based on the first, and the second shows that they wouldn't expect any traffic under normal circumstances, perhaps the agreement could be modified to say 800 feet with spotters or something. On the other hand there's always the often valid "let sleeping dogs lay" policy if stirring these waters would potentially make things worse.
If its based on the first, and the second shows that they wouldn't expect any traffic under normal circumstances, perhaps the agreement could be modified to say 800 feet with spotters or something. On the other hand there's always the often valid "let sleeping dogs lay" policy if stirring these waters would potentially make things worse.
07-27-2016, 07:18 AM
#396
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Orange County,
CA
Posts: 5,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
07-27-2016, 07:20 AM
#397
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Orange County,
CA
Posts: 5,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My question would be, is this agreement based on the longtime but misplaced belief that there is a 400 foot limit? Or is it based on a safety analysis that includes the approach/departure paths of the airport.
If its based on the first, and the second shows that they wouldn't expect any traffic under normal circumstances, perhaps the agreement could be modified to say 800 feet with spotters or something. On the other hand there's always the often valid "let sleeping dogs lay" policy if stirring these waters would potentially make things worse.
If its based on the first, and the second shows that they wouldn't expect any traffic under normal circumstances, perhaps the agreement could be modified to say 800 feet with spotters or something. On the other hand there's always the often valid "let sleeping dogs lay" policy if stirring these waters would potentially make things worse.
07-27-2016, 07:21 AM
#398
It is a rule in the AMA safety code. I believe it is also a rule in the FAR. And a rule per law. When within 5 miles of an airport there is a 400 foot ceiling that model airplanes and other sUAS must not cross.
07-27-2016, 07:47 AM
#399
NTSB WPR11LA373: The flight instructor/owner of the experimental amateur-built helicopter took the rotorcraft-rated private pilot on an informal demonstration flight. The two spent about 40 minutes conducting traffic pattern work at a local airport and then departed the area, flying about 500 feet above ground level.