Go Back  RCU Forums > RC Airplanes > AMA Discussions
Reload this Page >

What should the AMA allow as the maximum weight of an RC model?

AMA Discussions Discuss AMA policies, decisions & any other AMA related topics here.
View Poll Results: A poll
Under 30 pounds including fuel, no experimental class
6.93%
Under 40 pounds including fuel, no experimental class
3.96%
Under 55 pounds including fuel, no experimental class
4.95%
Under 55 pounds not including fuel, no experimental class
3.96%
Up to 55 pounds with fuel, up to 100 pounds including fuel in the expe
5.94%
Up to 55 pounds without fuel, up to 100 pounds without fuel in the exp
10.89%
Up to 55 pounds with fuel, no limit on weight in experimental class
2.97%
Up to 55 pounds without fuel, no limit on weight in experimental class
19.80%
No special classes, unlimited weight
22.77%
Turbines should have a different limit than other aircraft
17.82%
Voters: 101. You may not vote on this poll

What should the AMA allow as the maximum weight of an RC model?

Reply

Old 04-10-2005, 11:49 AM
  #1  
J_R
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Corona, CA,
Posts: 4,444
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default What should the AMA allow as the maximum weight of an RC model?

Please vote twice. Once on a weight limit and once on the turbine question. Leaving the turbine question unanswered implies that turbines should have the same weight limits as other aircraft. Only 10 answers are allowed by RCU. Please do not vote for more than one weight limit. Voting ends 4/21/05.
J_R is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2005, 06:02 PM
  #2  
abel_pranger
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: St Augustine, FL,
Posts: 2,644
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: What should the AMA allow as the maximum weight of an RC model?


ORIGINAL: J_R

Please vote twice. Once on a weight limit and once on the turbine question. Leaving the turbine question unanswered implies that turbines should have the same weight limits as other aircraft. Only 10 answers are allowed by RCU. Please do not vote for more than one weight limit. Voting ends 4/21/05.

This is like voting on whether the law of gravity should stand or be repealed. Ultimately FAA will make the decision, and it makes little sense for AMA pronounce a limit that is anything other than what the FAA is already bound to (but apparently hasn't yet reached out to enforce). The USA is a member state of the ICAO, and ICAO agreements limit the size of a model airplane to 25 kg (about a lock of RCH under 55 lbs). FAA represents the USA in the ICAO. Why would AMA presume to alter the description of a model airplane that has been provided by an international agency that has vastly more influence over FAA than AMA does?
The weight limit is already established by international accord, and is the same regardless of powerplant. The real question for AMA is how to coordinate the waiver process with FAA for models above 25 kg as the national modeling associations in the rest of civilized world have done with their civil aviation controlling authorities. Certainly this should not be a large effort, given the close working relationship with FAA often mentioned by AMA.

Abel
abel_pranger is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2005, 12:12 AM
  #3  
ira d
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Moreno Valley, CA
Posts: 3,122
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: What should the AMA allow as the maximum weight of an RC model?

I think the aircraft weight should really be baised on where it is
operated at the field layout and location the size of the runway ect.

larger aircraft should probley only be oprated at sites that have
800 to 1,000 ft runways and somewhat isolated ie no homes
or building with 1/2 mile of the site.

by larger i mean over 55lbs

just my .02
ira d is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2005, 08:38 AM
  #4  
MajorTomski
 
MajorTomski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Oklahoma City, OK
Posts: 2,536
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: What should the AMA allow as the maximum weight of an RC model?

As the first AMA Experimental examiner in Dist 8, I've given a lot of thought on the issue over the last two years. This was principally driven by the fact that the AMA Experimental document is at least three, maybe four separately written documents that really don't make sense when taken in total. I.E. there is a paragraph labeled requirements, but and the compliance check list contains other requirements not found in the requirements paragraph. And some of those requirements are not verified in the checklist.

Then there are our own policies that don't make sense
A 55 pound jet cannot go faster than 200 MpH, yet a 55 pound propeller airplane can go as fast as technology will allow it to go (probably limited to just over 300MpH by physics), but a model weighing any fraction over 55 pounds has to magically stop accellerating and fly no faster than 80 KNOTS (92MpH)?

Personally, I don't agree with any of you choices, and you're probably not going to like my ideas.

I think we should adopt European standards.
A !QUOT!hobby!QUOT! model airplane, one that is routinely flow for fun is anything up to 7 KG (15.4 Pounds)
A Large model airplane, one that is routinely flown with some level of airworthiness review goes from 7 KG up to 20 KG (44 pounds)

Anything between 44 and 150 Kg (330 pounds) is in essence an RPV/UAV/ Drone and subject some form of inspection and regulation by the local government airworthiness agency, in our case the FAA.

DON'T START SCREAMING OR FLAMING!

Now, just like the ULTRALIGHT flyers did, and just like the most recent implementation of the sport flyer rules we the flying community should be bringing these new unified standards forward.

I have a draft, would you like to see it?

Tom
AMA 8026
MajorTomski is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2005, 09:16 AM
  #5  
gow589
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: evansville, IN
Posts: 678
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: What should the AMA allow as the maximum weight of an RC model?

I don't see anything wrong with the weight we have. We have more accidents with out of control .40 and .60 airplanes as it is. I don't see that we need to upset what already works nor introduce new rules, invite the government involvement or anything else.
gow589 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2005, 09:33 AM
  #6  
P-51B
Senior Member
My Feedback: (5)
 
P-51B's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: An Iceburg in, ANTARCTICA
Posts: 6,747
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: What should the AMA allow as the maximum weight of an RC model?


ORIGINAL: MajorTomski


Personally, I don't agree with any of you choices, and you're probably not going to like my ideas.

I think we should adopt European standards.

A Large model airplane, one that is routinely flown with some level of airworthiness review goes from 7 KG up to 20 KG (44 pounds)


I have a draft, would you like to see it?

Tom
AMA 8026
Who conducts this airworthiness review on the large model airplanes?
P-51B is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2005, 11:58 AM
  #7  
MajorTomski
 
MajorTomski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Oklahoma City, OK
Posts: 2,536
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: What should the AMA allow as the maximum weight of an RC model?

ORIGINAL: P-51B


Who conducts this airworthiness review on the large model airplanes?
In other countries the Civil aviation authority of that country. In our case, since the goal is AMA coverage too, it would be by what are now the !QUOT!Experimental!QUOT! examiners with a little more comprehensive evaluation.

The goal is to follow the example set by the ultralight folks, provide the FAA with an equivalent level of safety, that is policed inside the community so that the FAA doesn't have to spend any enforcement resources on something other than manned aircraft.
MajorTomski is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2005, 12:10 PM
  #8  
J_R
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Corona, CA,
Posts: 4,444
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: What should the AMA allow as the maximum weight of an RC model?

MajorTomski

Sure I would like to see your proposal. Perhaps some of my questions will be answered. At the same time, if you have not already done so, you should probably contact Bill Oberdieck. He seems to have been the white knight of large aircraft on the EC, IMO.

So far, the FAA has taken a decidedly hands off approach to models. When the upper class you propose is reached, should the AMA still be involved, or should that class be abandoned to the FAA and excluded from AMA involvement?

To be honest, there are several things I don’t understand about the experimental class. There are over 60 inspectors and only about 16 pilots that have received certificates to fly. That is up from 10 a year ago. Why is that? Just how much interest is really there?

The poll is beginning to show a bias toward no weight limits. Some have chosen to leave the experimental class in place, showing, in my opinion, a concern that “the average AMA member” not be allowed to build and fly large aircraft without some form of inspection/certification. The largest single segment says no inspection/certification (almost as many votes as experimental class pilots with flying certifications). As you point out, all the choices possible are not in the poll, nor could they be. I am wondering if voters are of the opinion that the AMA should advance areomodeling as a matter of principle, without concern as to the integrity of the aircraft, or the ability of the pilots.


Ira_d

Just as the AMA does not tell clubs who may fly at the club, it does not tell a club what may be flown, whether based on propulsion, weight, color, or anything else. What may be flown (with the constraint of the Safety Code, of course) is at the discretion of the club. In the case experimental aircraft, they have special field requirements to begin with.
J_R is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2005, 12:26 PM
  #9  
gow589
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: evansville, IN
Posts: 678
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: What should the AMA allow as the maximum weight of an RC model?

I can't see anything positive about FAA involvement. That would be a quick way to kill modeling. There are 100's of reasons why that would be bad. It is so hard to get anything approved by the FAA, requires mounds of paper work, tons of money and every field agent has a different answer and requires something different. There is no uniformity. Certification of new aircraft cost Billions which is why new Cessna 172's still use engines with magnetos (like the model T). On top of creating an unwanted division the next thing to come about would be registration and operating fees to pay for the new bureaucracy. I have been told by the Feds that they can regulate modeling any time they want, they chose not to. They don't want to. They got enough on their plate as it is.

NOTHING GOOD COULD COME OF IT. Not for the FAA not for us. 1000 bad things would though.

The best thing we could do is operate in a manner that does not require FAA involvement. AMA does not govern modeling technically but by being the only game in town, they do shape the modeling community. This inlies the best part of AMA. If it is well ran and helps guide and shape the hobby of modeling, we can do without the FAA.

The one exception I would have would be for modeling for commercial use. RPV's and such. It would be nice if the AMA would be a go between to help modelers who want to branch out and do commercial things with their models.
gow589 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2005, 02:26 PM
  #10  
MajorTomski
 
MajorTomski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Oklahoma City, OK
Posts: 2,536
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: What should the AMA allow as the maximum weight of an RC model?

The poll is beginning to show a bias toward no weight limits. Some have chosen to leave the experimental class in place, showing, in my opinion, a concern that “the average AMA member” not be allowed to build and fly large aircraft without some form of inspection/certification. The largest single segment says no inspection/certification (almost as many votes as experimental class pilots with flying certifications). As you point out, all the choices possible are not in the poll, nor could they be. I am wondering if voters are of the opinion that the AMA should advance areomodeling as a matter of principle, without concern as to the integrity of the aircraft, or the ability of the pilots.
All that tells me is the average respondent hasn't been to enough big scale fun flys where the average older pilot has the money to build a quarterscale monster but fails to recognize he either is really lacking the flying skill to fly it or, his eyesight and motor skill won't let him fly it to the skill level he once was capable of.

Now we're pushing this thread into the realm of flight testing too OOPs!

Tom
MajorTomski is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2005, 03:42 PM
  #11  
abel_pranger
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: St Augustine, FL,
Posts: 2,644
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: What should the AMA allow as the maximum weight of an RC model?


ORIGINAL: gow589

I can't see anything positive about FAA involvement.
The quickest way to get active FAA involvement is for AMA to ignore the law that FAA is bound to by international agreement. It appears to be true that FAA would just as soon stay with their traditional hands-off approach toward model airplanes. Problem for them is, they cannot take a hands-off approach to UAVs. Thus they have to draw a clear line between what is a model airplane and what is a UAV. Flying weight is one descriptor (among others) that distinguishes between the two, and a 25 kg limit has been established by an international organization that FAA represents the US in. How long will FAA stick with the hands-off policy that has prevailed for decades and continue to let modelers be self-regulating via AMA if AMA ignores the accord that FAA has agreed the US will abide by and makes up their own rules that would violate that accord?

Abel
abel_pranger is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2005, 03:45 PM
  #12  
gow589
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: evansville, IN
Posts: 678
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: What should the AMA allow as the maximum weight of an RC model?

ORIGINAL: abel_pranger


Abel
They will stay hands off till we cause a problem.
gow589 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2005, 03:57 PM
  #13  
F106A
My Feedback: (2)
 
F106A's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Clifton, NJ
Posts: 1,849
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: What should the AMA allow as the maximum weight of an RC model?

J_R,
I can give one reason for the small numbers in the experimental category, jumping through all the hoops to get it approved. A fellow here on the east coast, who's really well known on the giant scale scene here in the NE, built a really large Stearman about 6-7 years ago. He got all the documentation and forms, built it up and called an inspector to check it over before he started to cover it. After talking on the phone, he said to go ahead and cover it and he would inspect it before the 1st flight. The model was completed and the inspector called again to check it out before the 1st flight. The inspector told him that he wouldn't inspect any experimental models because of liability concerns. The builder then called another inspector, and he said he needed to see it unconvered . Well, there was no way the builder was going to take the covering off. He then went round and round with the AMA and finally got it approved. He vowed he would never build another model over 55 because of being jerked around trying to get the Stearman approved. Maybe the procedures have changed since then, but the "word" is out about the experimental class.

Tom,
I guess anyone over 50 is an "older modeler" who can't see and/or fly anymore, and is closed minded about the hobby; old farts I think we're called. This is the impression I get from reading yours and other poster comments on RCU. I'm 61 and I've been going to, and flying at giant scale fun flys for over 30 years, building for over 50. I think I can still see and have reflex's, I know I can fly my FACET pretty good. AMA, IMHO should not have weight limits on models. However, since that's not going to happen as long as DB is involved, then the rules should be the same for ALL types of models, including turbines, but that's not going to happen-oh well, you know.
Well, have to get my cane and shuffle off to my car and see if I can make it home without causing a major accident.
BRG,
Jon

F106A is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2005, 04:05 PM
  #14  
abel_pranger
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: St Augustine, FL,
Posts: 2,644
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: What should the AMA allow as the maximum weight of an RC model?


ORIGINAL: gow589

ORIGINAL: abel_pranger


Abel
They will stay hands off till we cause a problem.

If we fly models (unregulated) weighing in excess of 25 kg, they will treated as UAVs (regulated). If AMA allows aircraft that FAA has said they are required to regulate to fly in the guise of unregulated model aircraft, that will 'cause a problem' very shortly after somebody flying a commercial UAV claims it is a model airplane.

Abel


abel_pranger is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2005, 04:13 PM
  #15  
gow589
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: evansville, IN
Posts: 678
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: What should the AMA allow as the maximum weight of an RC model?

Not if flown over private property within range, and out of controled airspace. Controled airspace is not just airspace around airports, it starts at different areas for different situations. In most areas controled airspace starts 1200ft above the ground. There are some real desolate areas in texas, and other vast sparcly populated areas where controled airspace does not start till much higher altitudes, I think still 18,000. If an airway coms through it will be protected both sides. IF you owned a lot of land such as a huge ranch, and you owned your own airplane you can fly below controled airspace and over your land without ANY license.

As long as we are percieved as staying out of controled airspace it won't be a problem.

*Controled airspace is generally the airspace where instrument flying is controled, and regulated by controlers.
gow589 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2005, 10:46 PM
  #16  
abel_pranger
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: St Augustine, FL,
Posts: 2,644
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: What should the AMA allow as the maximum weight of an RC model?


ORIGINAL: gow589

<snip>

As long as we are percieved as staying out of controled airspace it won't be a problem.
The buffer zone that separates our model aircraft and regulated aircraft begins at 400' AGL. That is the altitude that FAA 'advises' us, in accord with their long-standing policy of allowing us to self-regulate, not to exceed with our model airplanes. At the speed limit set by AMA for turbine powered models, a pull up from the deck will break through that 400' ceiling in about 1 1/2 seconds. Do you really think we are perceived by FAA as staying out of controlled airspace? Hint: DB was recently queried by an FAA official about model airplanes flying at up to 26,000 feet.

Abel
abel_pranger is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2005, 12:06 AM
  #17  
TexasAirBoss
My Feedback: (22)
 
TexasAirBoss's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 2,972
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: What should the AMA allow as the maximum weight of an RC model?

Actually, the satfey codes states that you will not operate above 400 ft when within 3miles of an airport. (It used to say when within 5 miles. ) without permission of the airport operator.

Many airports have control zones around them that go to the surface. The radius of these control zones is generally 5 miles, ( i think the 3 miles in the code now is a typo ). And these control zones generally have extentions that are aligned with the runway. Therefore you would actually be flying in controlled airspace. And therefore the airport operator is required to notify the FAA and issue a NOTAM or notice to airmen about the model activity. So the FAA is already involved. This is almost the same procedure followed when corperations are testing UAV's. Again NOTAM's are issued to the flying public of the activity including start times and end times. ATC doesn't actually require communication with the UAV's operator ( at least for local testing). The Flight Service Station branch is generally the point of contact for issuing NOTAMs.


Avoid the airports and control zones and you are probably good up to 1200 AGL.
TexasAirBoss is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2005, 06:17 AM
  #18  
gow589
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: evansville, IN
Posts: 678
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: What should the AMA allow as the maximum weight of an RC model?

ORIGINAL: abel_pranger


Do you really think we are perceived by FAA as staying out of controlled airspace? Hint: DB was recently queried by an FAA official about model airplanes flying at up to 26,000 feet.

Abel
I know, they werte not turbines doing that though, Park Fliers with cameras posting on this board about how high they can go!
gow589 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2005, 06:24 AM
  #19  
gow589
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: evansville, IN
Posts: 678
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: What should the AMA allow as the maximum weight of an RC model?

My point abel is that unless we do something that caused us to show up on CBS (CBS makes a conspiracy story out of everything aviation oriented) "MODEL AIRCRAFT AS LARGE AS DRONES FLYING 2000 AND HIGHER IN AIRSPACE OCcUPIED BY AIRLINERS". Unless that happends, they are going to leave us alone.

Unless of course you invite them. Is that what you want? Because if you do, the only thing they will do is say:
X is illegal, can't do it any more,
Y is illegal, can't do it any more,
Z is illegal, can't do it any more,

They don't give a rats butt about our hobby.
gow589 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2005, 08:33 AM
  #20  
MajorTomski
 
MajorTomski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Oklahoma City, OK
Posts: 2,536
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: What should the AMA allow as the maximum weight of an RC model?

Man there are lots of good points coming out on this thread.

First F-106, sorry to find your short chain, but in the context of this thread, there are older, wealthier people who just can't fathom that they have past their prime in RC and when they fly, regardless of what they fly they are more of a threat to other folks than they are fun, and to purposely allow them to fly high Kinetic energy models (low weight high speed, very high weight moderate speeds) is just friggin dangerous to everyone involved. I'm 11 years on your 6, 'six, and as I type this, by your own definition I've just become an "older modeler” but we still have it. My comment is about those with walkers, assistance, no hearing, coke bottle glasses, and the uncomfortable attitude that their 55 pound model is just a toy and it can't hurt anyone.

And the FAA. A couple of things need to be remembered here; like it or not the FAA does have authority over anything that flys in the US. In 1981 they chose to keep a positive attitude towards modeling, trying to keep it fun by formally saying to the modeling community, be a good aviation neighbor, try to stay under 400 feet EVERYWHERE, if necessary use a spotter and definitely stay away from people carrying full scale aircraft. The AMA safety code and the FAA Advisory Circular do not agree on where the 400-foot ceiling is. In general 1:1 scale airplane are supposed to stay 500 feet from any obstacle, if we stay under 400 feet then there is a 100 foot buffer and no chance of a collision. If you go above that then you must actively avoid 1:1 airplanes.

The problem arises when the folks that want to push the model technology envelope start experimenting with on board cameras and out of sight flying. They are depending on very shaky off the shelf low power technology to prevent a 3-pound model from crashing down into a major intersection. They naively forget that they aren't one a secure transmission frequency, and that components fail. They put the hobby in danger only out of lack of thought. That is why the new safety code attempts to define our hobby as with in visual range and non-commercial purposes. It draws a line in the world where the "hobby" responsibility ends. We must accept by that definition, and for the good of the hobby that those are no longer in the scope of the hobby.


And F-106, your first example is why the AMA needs to do more in training and clarifying what sort of exam a large model needs to undergo. The first inspector was wrong, in that he failed to realize that the AMA is protecting him from that liability when they appointed him an experimental inspector. The second inspector was wrong in that he was trying to be an FAA inspector and wanted a pre-covering look, and that is clearly not called for in the AMA guidelines. So for us to raise any weights above 55 we need to work on our own standards. But as I said above it is self regulation that will let us be equal to the rest of the world with out FAA involvement.
MajorTomski is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2005, 11:41 AM
  #21  
abel_pranger
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: St Augustine, FL,
Posts: 2,644
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: What should the AMA allow as the maximum weight of an RC model?


ORIGINAL: gow589

My point abel is that unless we do something that caused us to show up on CBS (CBS makes a conspiracy story out of everything aviation oriented) "MODEL AIRCRAFT AS LARGE AS DRONES FLYING 2000 AND HIGHER IN AIRSPACE OCcUPIED BY AIRLINERS". Unless that happends, they are going to leave us alone.

Unless of course you invite them. Is that what you want? Because if you do, the only thing they will do is say:
X is illegal, can't do it any more,
Y is illegal, can't do it any more,
Z is illegal, can't do it any more,

They don't give a rats butt about our hobby.
I think the reason we disagree on this is because I see see a significant difference between staying under the radar and having our national organization codify operating rules that are defiant of the law. I think the latter is an open admission that we are not responsible enough to be self-regulating, and sends an invitation for regulation by the federal organization that has the ultimate authority and responsibility for the national airspace. I'm not saying that it will happen, but that there is a risk, and that risk should be weighed against the motivation for such an audacious action.

The question relates to only a handful of AMA members, those that want to fly turbine powered models with a take-off weight in excess of 55 lbs. Every other kind of model airplane, if compliant with AMA rules, is either compliant with FAA rules or subject to a waiver requirement, i.e., the Experimental Class rules.

The reason a change in AMA policy woould be needed to accomodate these few modelers is based in another accomodation: humoring the emperor and admiring his new clothes. That accomodation is the reason that turbine powered models are treated differently than models powered by any other means, and is the only reason for considering the question asked by JR at the start of this thread.

The real question that should be asked is: Should the EC quit kowtowing to the emperor and apply the same rules to turbines as are applied to all other models, i.e., under 55 lbs allowed under general rules, over 55 lbs requires waiver under Experimental Class rules?

If the answer is YES, then there is no reason to even think about a change to AMA rules re model aircraft weight that are currently in compliance with FAA 'guidance.'

Abel


abel_pranger is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2005, 12:27 PM
  #22  
gow589
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: evansville, IN
Posts: 678
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: What should the AMA allow as the maximum weight of an RC model?

Abel, I am confused what we dissagree about. Can you restate what you think we need. Certification for turbines over 55lbs? At what do you draw the line?

How they are powered?
What their weight is?
If they are flown locally over private property or weather they fly over non-private property?
If they enter controled airspace (the 400' altitude has nothing to do with that)
If they fly higher than 400' (which has nothing to do with controled airspace).

Yes the FAA regulates all airplanes and can regulate our models at any time but they don't regulate airplanes not in controled airspace OVER PRIVATE PROPERETY which makes the 400' rule mute. This puts the altitude more near 700'

I will re-state what I said before, if you own a 2000'acre farm and you own a Stearman, you can stay over your farm and bellow 700' (assuming in your area that is where controled airspace begins) without a pilot's license or even without the airplane being certifiably airworthy. Why would models be subject.

This part of the discussion does not address modelers near airports or control zones or other airspace.

Abel some times we say the same things, some times we say different things it's confusing.
gow589 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2005, 01:11 PM
  #23  
abel_pranger
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: St Augustine, FL,
Posts: 2,644
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: What should the AMA allow as the maximum weight of an RC model?

gow589 -

Comments interspersed in bold type.

Abel

ORIGINAL: gow589

Abel, I am confused what we dissagree about. Can you restate what you think we need.

Certification for turbines over 55lbs? YES - Experimental Class rules, just like everyone else. At what do you draw the line? 55 LBS
How they are powered? NO
What their weight is? YES
If they are flown locally over private property or weather they fly over non-private property? N/A
If they enter controled airspace (the 400' altitude has nothing to do with that) N/A
If they fly higher than 400' (which has nothing to do with controled airspace). N/A

Yes the FAA regulates all airplanes and can regulate our models at any time but they don't regulate airplanes not in controled airspace OVER PRIVATE PROPERETY which makes the 400' rule mute. AMA should make general rules based on the assumption that everybody flies over private property? Does FAA issue NOTAMS warning pilots overflying private property that they are in uncontrolled airspace? This puts the altitude more near 700' Where does that figure come from? FAA Advisory Circular, etc?

I will re-state what I said before, if you own a 2000'acre farm and you own a Stearman, you can stay over your farm and bellow 700' (assuming in your area that is where controled airspace begins) without a pilot's license or even without the airplane being certifiably airworthy. Why would models be subject. AMA should make general rules based on the assumption that everybody flies over a 2000 acre farm?

This part of the discussion does not address modelers near airports or control zones or other airspace.

Abel some times we say the same things, some times we say different things it's confusing. I understand what I am saying - sorry if I confused you. I am less articulate at times than I want to be.
abel_pranger is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2005, 04:09 PM
  #24  
gow589
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: evansville, IN
Posts: 678
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: What should the AMA allow as the maximum weight of an RC model?

ORIGINAL: abel_pranger
I understand what I am saying - sorry if I confused you. I am less articulate at times than I want to be.
[/quote]

Me too. that's the nature of the human language.

Actually 700' is wrong it's 1200'. That is the altitude where in most areas (not around airports) that is where controled airspace begins. If you look at this it would be labled as "class G" airspace. Notice some areas go to 14,500 (i think it used to be 18,000).

http://www.flytandem.com/airspace.htm

I always fly instruments and when I learned the airspace it was not labled class a, b, c.... I have forgotten a lot since then. Any way the predication of uncontroled airspace is bassed on flying IFR or VFR. VFR guys fly on their own and are not controled unless around an airport (simplistic explination). IFR guys fly in/out of clouds and are seperated by ATC. To get into the specifics here could get confusing even for me. But, I stand by what I say, if we are flying over our own property, why do we need anything. You say well we fly over other peoples property too. Maybe but this get's into a real technical aspect and I doubt anyone wants to micro analize it that much. We certainly are not bouncing our wheel off anyones houses and if we are that's a problem anyway. The fact that we fly them in our imediate proximity is adequat for the FAA and others.

Right now what happends if we fly an airplane over 55lbs? Do we need a waver? Yes but from AMA right. They make the guidlines we follow but they don't make the laws. I generally see people following the guidlines so why bring in the FAA. There was a huge concord making the rounds at the jet meets a couple years ago. I don't know if it ever flew but for a long time it was held up by insurance coverage. AMA nor anyone else would cover it so he never flew it. If he want's to take it to the Nevada desert and fly it without insurance, I would's see any problems.

The Jets and the Huge (over 55lb) airplanes are few by percentage so many say "Make them pay" or "spend time regulating them". They as of right now take care of themselfs. I don't see any problems with them and I certainly don't see them taking jets to 26,000 to take photos. What they do does not only benifit them. Jet meets and big airplanes get soooo many prople excited about the hobby including those already involved. I think we have to reason that suporting these people suports everyone.

Lastly, when do I think we need FAA involvement?

1. Airplanes for comercial use and development
2. Airplanes taken cross country for purpose
3. Other airplane experiments which go beyond local area modeling.

It would be nice for the AMA to be a gobetween so people can devellop RPV's, and help educate industry and individuals who would like to do more with the airplanes.

AMA needs to make enough guidlines so the FAA does not get involved in the rest of it. We don't want them in our hobby and they don't want us.
3. A

As far as sorting this out,


gow589 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2005, 04:18 PM
  #25  
gow589
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: evansville, IN
Posts: 678
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: What should the AMA allow as the maximum weight of an RC model?

There is reason behing the 400' altitude too. Pilots in rural areas are limited to 500'. Rural areas are areas where there is something like 1 person per sq mile. A club would be considered populated area (if two people are out there) which requires 1000 agl. With no one around a pilot can actually fly all of the way to the surface BUT if some one is close enough to see him and report him, it's concidered populated. The altitude with respect to that would be up for discussion too. I personally don't see flying up to 1000 a problem in most areas. Aircraft flying VFR fly by "See and Avoid". You see another airplane, you avoid it. I don't think some one flying an airplane would notice a model right off but a modeler would notice an airplane right off. A modeler would notice a real airplane beter than a pilot in a full scale would see another full scale. I fly with TCAS which displays other traffic. I am amazed how many times there are airplanes within 1-2 miles of me and within 1-2000 ft that I cannot see or find.

We never have a "REAL" problem with modelers and real airplanes at any field I have seen. An airplane flying 5,000 overhead and the guys start yelling, "your too close, get the airplane down". People don't realize their over a mile away.
gow589 is offline  
Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service