GerKonig

What worries me about the drone issue is that everybody now wants one, not just the military. Law enforcment, traffic control, video people, the news, power line people, you name it, they want one. The industry, of course is working on the supply end, and want regulations, and airspace.

My problem is that when you fly general aviation, you are always on a "see and avoid" mode. The drones are not easy to see (most) because of size. Are they also on "see and avoid" mode or just in "missile mode" (fly right trough the PA 12 mode).
Will they see your Piper PA 12 (example) and avoid you?

Black boxes are obsolete. We have the technology to stream data continuosly so if the plane crashes and cannot be recovered (Air France, South America, not too long ago) the data arrives safe somewhere, and can be used. Eventually they will do this. Maybe I should call then Flight Recorders...

Gerry

K-Bob

My Feedback: (1)

+1

psuguru

I am pleased to announce that you have been voted an honorary member of the Victor Meldrew Association of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Essex branch).

dbcisco

And people who claim the FAA documents mean nothing and that the AMA is always right continue to post nonsense to their hearts content.
What part of the AFS 400 quote didn't you understand? The part about conforming to AC 91-57 or the part about the AMA ignoring it?

KidEpoxy

thats odd
Cause when Cisco put forth the premise that his ban had those issues contributing to it,
folks rushed to jump up and down that those issues had noting to do with it and he was making stuff up.

So as long as we are not talking about his ban, then we say his views contributed to his ban,
but when we talk about his ban we claim it had nothing to do with his views.
Is that the plan?

Silent-AV8R

I think he was taking issue with the part about it being obsolete. But none of this means anything. You are he!1 bent on making the point that in your mind that AMA instructed all of its members to openly and flagrantly thumb their noses at the FAA and AC 91-57. Nothing is going to change your mind or position on that. You are seemingly obsessed with having to be "right". It appears that this is the premise of your incorrect idea that the coming FAA sUAS rules were caused by the AMA or on account of the FAA being upset at the AMA and its members for "ignoring" AC 91-27.

Interesting side note. The FAA has "ignored" AC 91-57 as well. Despite being more than well aware of how models have been operating for decades the FAA has not once made it an issue. Go figure. They did not even pay much attention to it, but somehow the AMA or its members are negligent in your eyes.

Oh well. Bottom line is that it is irrelevant. The FAA is promulgating new rules that while exempting model aircraft are very likely to have a significant impact to our hobby. The rules are being written due to the FAA's concern with the exponential increase in sUAS use in the NAS by commercial and public agency users. FAA has to define what a model aircraft operation is in order to exempt us from the regulations. In doing so we may be impacted far more than most want to admit.

My impression is that they will likely ban turbines of any kind, hobby FPV, planes that faster than perhaps 75 to 100 mph, and night flying. We may also see the 400 foot limit written into law. So we may see the end of IMAC, pattern, competitive and most recreational soaring, pylon racing, turbines (fixed wing and heli), night flying at events, and possibly any established field close to an airport. So the idea that this will be no big deal and "all" you need to do is fly in accordance with the soon to be extinct AC 91-57 is simply wrong.

dbcisco

Yes. The AMA does ignore both AFS 400 and AC 91-57.
AFS says that outside the AC guidlines you are no longer considered model aircraft.
The reason for the new FAA is because everyone including (but not limited to) the AMA are bending and ignoring the rules.
The AMA says everything is a suggestion to ignore and the UAVs are claiming they are model aircraft and can ignore the suggestions.
Sad thing is, the all ignored AFS 400 which clerly states that going outside the guidelines od AC 91-57 is not for "model aircraft" and falls under regulation.
As a direct result of everyone twisting the regulations the FAA has decided to step in and take over.
Its all your own faults.

Everyone is crying because the cops decided to put up a speed trap where they used to ignore you speeding.

phlpsfrnk

Ok. I'm not going to argue points that in your mind nobody can change. I don't agree with you so we'll leave it at that.

What do you propose be done about it?

dbcisco

Recommend to the FAA to make the AC 91-57 mandatory.

I am sorry you can't convince me when I have the FAA documents backing me up.
Hmmm.. who is right the FAA or everyone else?

KidEpoxy

but Cisco,
AC91-57 dont define just what makes a UAV a Model Aircraft,
other than HOW its flown
.... hence the Cesna172 with servos on the yoke and the words "Recreational Model Aircraft" on the side fits within AC91-57 as long as I keep it below 400, and dont get paid

Tired Old Man

My Feedback: (1)

Not all that many UAV's claiming to be "model aircraft". Those that are are small and, due to their lack of success to date, not likely to survive much longer in the market. Those companies that have the potential to be market contenders are not trying to skirt the aircraft definition issue. So I believe there is a lot of irrelevant arguement taking place here. Not much point is excessive concern about what "was' becaue t's all moot now. Concern about the past should terminate when recognition of changes for the future become apparent. The future is already established, and what was not longer applies. The die has been cast. We will soon receive regs that will supercede all that has gone before. The dog is dead an buried and argueing about the cause of death no longer serves any purpose.

Regarding "see and avoid" Some UAV's can perform this task as well as a human pilot in a PA-12. Some can do so much better than a pilot in a PA-12 since many manned operators don't practice see and avoid all that well. Some UAV's cannot practice see and avoid using the visual defination, however many have nanosar arrays that see better than the human eye. Others are TCAS equipped, but that does nothing for a manned light plane without an electrical system or other transponder type equipment.

We may soon see the end of no transponder aircraft and there could be a massive implementation of TCAS for all aircraft. Expensive for sure, but it's going to happen eventually with or without UAV's. The commercial manned aviation people would be pushing hard for it. We may also see regs about model aircraft size, construction methods, and flight equipment. Above a certain size and weigth some models could quickly be forced to meet minimum safety standands that would have originally been applicable to UAV's.

KidEpoxy

TOM,
the skirting we are talking about is not by commercial UAVs trying to pretend they are models
(although there HAS been many cases of commercial/public operators thinking they were MA/ac91-57),
but where do you draw the line as to what a modeler can build and still call it a toy airplane that no laws apply to.
Its not about size for them, its about the commercial part, but for us its about size/type

A LOT of folks think the 55lb cutoff is important,
and we know Muncie aint going for that.
We know a lot of folks thing the 400' cap is important,
and we know Muncie aint goin for that.

heck, enough members of the sUAS ARC thought turbines are not Models to ink that in,
and Muncie even had a man on the inside of the ARC.

Silent-AV8R

Keep in mind that AMA had a single voice out of 20 on the ARC. And Fred Marks, despite his association with model aviation, was not there representing modelers (by his own admission). What this points to is the absurdity of thinking that the AMA had the majority guiding hand in what went on in the ARC.

dbcisco

AFS-400 UAS POLICY 05-01 does define it.

"6.13. Model Aircraft. Advisory Circular (AC) 91-57, Model Aircraft Operating Standards, published in 1981, applies to model aircraft. UA that comply with the guidance in AC 91-57 are considered model aircraft and are not evaluated by the UA criteria in this policy."

However some say that AFS 400 05-01 is revoked in full by the FAA. They have failed to provide proof of such.
At least I have the courtesy to provide quotes, proper document names and links when I am trying to make a point.
I am not taking anyones word for anything without documentation.
I hear people telling me I don't have to pay the IRS because.......

My argument is and has been that the FAA said "here are the guidelines for model aircraft (AC)" "if you go beyond them then other rules apply and you will no longer be considered a model aircraft (AFS)."
Pretty simple to understand and ignored by everyone including the AMA.

dbcisco

How about the FAA UAV review for background on the issue? [link=http://www.tc.faa.gov/its/worldpac/techrpt/ar097.pdf]AR097[/link]

dbcisco

Then why is AFS-400 05-01 being referenced in a Sept. 2009 FAA [link=http://www.tc.faa.gov/its/worldpac/techrpt/ar097.pdf]Policy Review[/link]?

P.S.
Put your "IOAG 08-01" into google. Not much to back you up. Try a direct link to the document cited.

cj_rumley

[link=http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_9801603/mpage_3/key_/tm.htm#]Link here[/link]

dbcisco

How about a [link=http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ato/service_units/systemops/aaim/organizations/uas/coa/faq/media/uas_guidance08-01.pdf]link to the document[/link]

It tells modelers to use the AC 91-57 guidelines, not ignore them because they are guidelines

The FAA is attempting the close the loophole that everyone is jumping through from both sides of the 400' mark.
"Advisory Circular (AC) 91-57, Model Aircraft Operating Standards, which is currently under revision."
Expect to see them become mandatory, the days of "self-regulation" as the FAA put it are over because nobody follows guidelines.
Still, back to my point, the AMA ignored the guidelines for 30 years. The FAA has probably realized that we can't be trusted to follow their suggestions. Thank everyone that ignored the AC for getting regulated.

Still does not explain why the FAA is still citing AFS-400 05-01 in several recent documents.

Tired Old Man

My Feedback: (1)

Kid,

I agree with much of what you wrote but one area you are mistaken in, and that's Muncie having someone inside the committee. The AMA rep had ZERO voice in the ARC discussions. The closest modeling had to a voice was with Fred Marks, and his involvement was not representative of modeling. So modeling was not represented at all where any kind of voice was concerned. Muncie didn't have any say in the entire process. Mu'ncie can "go for" or "not go for" whatever they want. Muncie means nothing to the process. I really do mean nothing.

The defination of a UAV will be extremely important, and how theye differentiate a UAV from a model. For the moment some of that separation is beyond nebulous. The altitude cap has pretty much always been there where the FAA and NTSB are concerned, since anything listed as advisory becomes a mandate the second something happens. The Airman's Information Manual is a great example. Mostly all advisory in nature but Lord help you after a crash where any of that "advice' was ignored and not used.

Turbines were literally shot out of the sky for the ARC due to an accidental public demonstration of turbine antics in front of an ARC and FAA representative. The turbine idiot didn't know who he was flying in front of. The information is first hand, not hand me down. I fly ginat scale for fun and I have more than a few concerns about how that's going to end up. I can't get all the info either, but some things look a bit scary.

dbcisco

Imagine [link=http://jalopnik.com/5617310/video-crash-of-rc-plane-into-real-one-sparks-dogfight-over-air-rights?skyline=true&s=i]a mid-air collision like this[/link] at 1000'.
Now ask if the anyone cares whether you call it a model or sUAV. Someone could die because the AC is just suggestions to ignore.
I will pay KE's dues if the AC doesn't become mandatory rules by Dec. 2012.

hook57

My Feedback: (21)

Don't need to Dbc, I have a copy on my desk. I was short on time thus the abreviation, sorry I thought you wouldfind it, but at least it was found. Now regardingthe reference AFS-400 05-01, and to quote you "Not much to back you up",Istrongly suggest a thorough reading of the "policy review" which you tagged in your post. Especially since on page 3it clearly states "Also, on March 13, 2008, the FAA issued Interim Operational Approval Guidance 08-01 to replace Policy Memorandum 05-01, which is referenced in this report. " Further, at the end of IOAG 08-01, it clearly states that 05-01 was cancelled. A reference is by no meansindicative of an outcome.

It's easy to read a few paragraphs, cite a few quotes, and get strong (often wrong) reactions. It sometimes is wiser, and less tiring, to read, comprehend, and digest information critically, before saying the moonis falling. Idon'tfeel that the FAA has ignored the AC for thirty years, but as they stated, it was just not seen as an"area of interest" until the concept (growth) of "commercially viable" UAs inthe NAS. Not trying to be a smart a@!, but you really need to find current references to make sense of what direction this thing is going. I personally don't think it's the Doomsday scenario you ascribe to.

hook
And please excuse any grammar errors, I don't need that cra*p.

Silent-AV8R

I will:

http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives...dance08-01.pdf

From the last page:

dbcisco

Bottom line is that the FAA is going to define what a model aircraft is and make mandatory regulations as to what, when, where and how to fly model aircraft.
Say hello to mandatory 400' limit, size, weight and propulsion limits and probably a bunch more "do's and don't's".
Don't blame me, I followed the guidelines.

Look forward to getting some of these regulatory factors:

Where UAs fit into the current or any future regulatory scheme depends upon how they will be defined and categorized. This, in turn, may be driven by the need to classify types of UAs on the basis of a variety of characteristics:
•
Operating altitudes
•
Endurance
•
Operational characteristics (such as vertical takeoff and landing capabilities)
•
Operating environment
•
Mission type (intent), either in a military or civilian setting
•
Kinetic speed and/or mass
•
Takeoff weight
•
Range and maximum altitude
•
Gross categories, such as size (wingspan, weight, etc.) or complexity (wind-up rubber band versus miniature jet turbines)

Desertlakesflying

My Feedback: (28)

We need a bunch of armed ones on the border.

VF84sluggo

My Feedback: (55)

Dang, all this is giving me a headache. Looks like the bottom line is that I better just fly the wings off of my L-39 while I can, do big loops and stuff, lots of high speed, too, run the turbine out, then dump the tired ol' sUAS on some poor sucker who doesn't know that the party's over come Dec 2012.

The FAA is nothing more than a carbuncle on the ass of progress and has set aviation back at least 20 years.-Bill Lear, circa 1958