quote:

littlecrankshaf
Is that right??? Hmmm...so you admit AMA help form the new regs...interesting.

quote:

Sport_Pilot
Models are too small for the impact terrorists want.

quote:

What exactly is the fascination with some people here about metal props.

quote:

One person is literally obsessed with them and it seems others are starting to share that obsession.

quote:

ORIGINAL: freakingfast

Most laws(rules) only burden the good....evil doers will simply ignore the law. Just what we need is more law where there's next to no problem. At least ten times the number of full-scale aircraft have been struck by golf balls than model planes so lets ban golf courses near air strips.


This is just another agency wanting to get larger and create more gov jobs and in turn alienating more good citizens. You would think the FAA would have their hands full hunting down the knuckle heads firing green lasers at planes. The fact is they love these laser guys, it gives them reason for being. If they really wanted it to go away, they wouldn't talk about it, don't make an issue, just let it fade away. To do so only inspires copycats....and something for feds to do.

quote:

What the CBO approach is trying to provide is a self regulating approach that provides flyers with some additional latitude when they voluntarily comply with the standards established by that organization. The AMA, in the interest of the AMA members, is working to establish a set of standards that the FAA would find acceptable.

quote:

ORIGINAL: cj_rumley

How has voluntary compliance worked out for standards set by FAA, ala AC 91-57?

Will it work out better for voluntary standards set by a CBO whose leadership opted out of voluntary compliance with FAA standards?

quote:

ORIGINAL: bkdavy

quote:

ORIGINAL: cj_rumley

How has voluntary compliance worked out for standards set by FAA, ala AC 91-57?

Will it work out better for voluntary standards set by a CBO whose leadership opted out of voluntary compliance with FAA standards?

AC 91-57 is not a standard. It is advisory guidance. The safety record between model aircraft and full scale aviation has been exemplary operating under the AMA safety code, which demonstates that the ''guidance'' in AC 91-57 is overly restrictive in the use of the altitude restriction, and that more permissive limits in combination with other aspects of the AMA safety code (the nefarious comma) are perfectly justified.

Brad

quote:

ORIGINAL: cj_rumley

quote:

ORIGINAL: bkdavy

quote:

ORIGINAL: cj_rumley

How has voluntary compliance worked out for standards set by FAA, ala AC 91-57?

Will it work out better for voluntary standards set by a CBO whose leadership opted out of voluntary compliance with FAA standards?

AC 91-57 is not a standard. It is advisory guidance. The safety record between model aircraft and full scale aviation has been exemplary operating under the AMA safety code, which demonstates that the ''guidance'' in AC 91-57 is overly restrictive in the use of the altitude restriction, and that more permissive limits in combination with other aspects of the AMA safety code (the nefarious comma) are perfectly justified.

Brad

FAA in para 2 of AC 91-57 says in part ''Compliance with the following standards will help reduce the potential for that hazard and create a good neighbor.........'' Let's just not quibble over semantics.
The safety record between model aircraft and full scale aviation has been exemplary.<<<<<period
AFAIK, exception to FAA guidance ala AMA wrt to altitude restriction has not resulted in any serious conflict with regulated aircraft in the NAS, but I also think that risk exposure has been presented by a very small segment of the aeromodeling population. Most of us, AMA members and public alike, generally do fly below 400 feet, but I'll accept the premise that the objective measure of risk for those that exceed it is statistically small. Perception of risk is another matter though, and I think there are better options than ignoring FAA guidance and fighting over it - there is room for compromise. The brits exempt smaller and presumably more frangible models fom the general ceiling restriction for, example. FAA classification (classes II and III) of UAS differentiates between frangible UAS and those that are more robust. Then there are waivers.......HP rocketry wouldn't exist without that process. There is room for accommodation via negotiation and compromise here, and that seems a much more sensible approach than telling FAA ''we know better than you do so delegate the control to us.''

quote:

ORIGINAL: 804

I think you are making much more of this 400' thing, especially the ignoring thereof, than is really there.
For nearly 30 years, FAA has ignored us much as we have ignored them, blissfully so on both sides.
Only the advent of the growing sUAS phenomenon has brought attention to us,
not ignoring the 400' advisory.

quote:

ORIGINAL: cj_rumley


..........................

The other issues in focus that seem to be in the chasm between FAA and AMA are model weight and speed. I think the 25 kg weight thing is a foregone conclusion, as it comes from ICAO and FAA represents the US as a member nation of that international body. Speed limit of 100 mph was proposed by the AMA rep that participated in the sUAS ARC as an Alternate View/Rationale in Section 3.3(7) of the ARC recommendations. If that is not what AMA wants it to be, then what is and how is anybody to know?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sport_Pilot

Silent is right this has nothing to do with terrorists.  But terrorists want hundreds of pounds,  25 pounds of C-4 isn't even a good car bomb.  I think the smallest car bombs are around 50 pounds and sometimes hundreds.

quote:

ORIGINAL: paintballer9876

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2T97edeQBg here is your 25lbs of c4 it would take out a 3-4 cars close together or do a little damage to a building, this isnt what terrorist are looking for. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thomas B

quote:

ORIGINAL: cj_rumley


..........................

The other issues in focus that seem to be in the chasm between FAA and AMA are model weight and speed. I think the 25 kg weight thing is a foregone conclusion, as it comes from ICAO and FAA represents the US as a member nation of that international body. Speed limit of 100 mph was proposed by the AMA rep that participated in the sUAS ARC as an Alternate View/Rationale in Section 3.3(7) of the ARC recommendations. If that is not what AMA wants it to be, then what is and how is anybody to know?

cj, you have misinterpreted this part of the ARC. The alternative view/rationale for the 100 mpH speed limit was put forth by some other entity in the ARC, not the AMA. Given that some in the ARC wanted a 100mph speed limit for the sUAS aircraft, I predict it was the same entity and my guess is that it is the FAA.

quote:

ORIGINAL: cj_rumley


.................................. The other mention in the ARC Recommendations of a 100 mph speed limit for the non-MA sUAS cited a determination made by AMA that MA operating at speeds in excess of 100 mph are high performance aircraft. Apparently that is bravo sierra, but it did reinforce my mis-recollection that AMA was the source.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thomas B

quote:

ORIGINAL: cj_rumley


.................................. The other mention in the ARC Recommendations of a 100 mph speed limit for the non-MA sUAS cited a determination made by AMA that MA operating at speeds in excess of 100 mph are high performance aircraft. Apparently that is bravo sierra, but it did reinforce my mis-recollection that AMA was the source.

I think that is a valid definiton on the part of the AMA. I think the turbine waiver used to require that pilots demo a high performance model that could fly at that speed, at least. Being high perforamce does not mean the AMA wanted them limited...that is coming from elsewhere.

quote:

ORIGINAL: cj_rumley



Ah, that turns up the light...........
For most of us that don't fly turbines the source of that limit was obscure. OTOH, those with turbine-powered MA in their gun sights, and it's clear they were well represented on the ARC, would easily zero in to find it in AMA docs. Similar to a pattern evident in other MA restrictions proposed, lifted straight from AMA Safety Code. They picked at AMA docs until they found what they wanted to beat us down with.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thomas B
Our possible 100mph speed limit for CBO members is going to result from the sUAS operators complaining that we should not be allowed to fly faster than they do.