RE: Support for Regulations By The FAA

RE: Support for Regulations By The FAA Gallery slideshow

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Search This Thread

Printable Version

All Forums >> RC Airplanes >> AMA Discussions >> RE: Support for Regulations By The FAA

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Support for Regulations By The FAA - 12/26/2010 1:04 AM

TexasAirBoss

Posts: 2678
Score: 151
Joined: 10/9/2002
Last Login: 5/23/2013
From: Houston, TX, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Silent-AV8R

quote:

ORIGINAL: PilotFighter

This is good news. Personally, I have no problem with the 400 foot rule. 400 feet is much higher than most people realize.

Well good for you, and apparently you could care less that 400 feet effectively kills pattern, IMAC, soaring. I mean you don't do them so who cares? Nice attitude. Would you feel differently if the proposed rules ended your area of interest?

It kills nothing.

_____________________________

ME: "I need a good rate down to one three thousand". EXPRESS: "Roger, we''re coming down like a Bonanza full of doctors"

Hide Signatures

(in reply to Silent-AV8R)

Post #: 151

RE: Support for Regulations By The FAA - 12/26/2010 1:13 AM

flyingfrog007

Posts: 87
Score: 100
Joined: 11/6/2006
Last Login: 2/10/2012
From: woodlandpark, CO, USA
Status: offline

i will give about as much support to the faa as i do any other goverment agencey and that is none all the way dowm
n to the local police dept dont you think they have taken away your rights as a citizen already wake up...

Hide Signatures

(in reply to TexasAirBoss)

Post #: 152

RE: Support for Regulations By The FAA - 12/26/2010 2:23 AM

bullseye000

Posts: 237
Score: 110
Joined: 7/31/2002
Last Login: 5/21/2013
From: Batavia, IL, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: PilotFighter

quote:

ORIGINAL: Silent-AV8R

quote:

ORIGINAL: PilotFighter

This is good news. Personally, I have no problem with the 400 foot rule. 400 feet is much higher than most people realize.

Well good for you, and apparently you could care less that 400 feet effectively kills pattern, IMAC, soaring. I mean you don't do them so who cares? Nice attitude. Would you feel differently if the proposed rules ended your area of interest?

It kills nothing.

A lot of people claim that about alcohol and brain cells.

Hide Signatures

(in reply to TexasAirBoss)

Post #: 153

RE: Support for Regulations By The FAA - 12/26/2010 2:52 AM

TexasAirBoss

Posts: 2678
Score: 151
Joined: 10/9/2002
Last Login: 5/23/2013
From: Houston, TX, USA
Status: offline

Read the meeting summary again. It clearly states that the FAA is not going to regulate model aviation. That is good news to me. I know there are plenty of drama queens that will find something bad about not being regulated.

The FAA has very little ability to leverage the AMA into writing the rules the way the FAA wants them to. But even if the AMA rolls over and does it anyway, the worse case is a 400 foot rule. And that has been in place for 30 years anyway. And if you need to exceed the 400 foot rule, you simply notify the appropriate facility, (as has been the rule for 30 years).

Essentially, nothing has changed. That is my read on meeting summary.

If I were on the AMA negotiation team, I would argue on a 900 foot rule or even a 1100 foot rule. There are good arguments for either of those as well. But even if the AMA caves and writes a hard 400 rule, we will have emerged nearly without a scratch. Its good news people. Snap out of it !

_____________________________

ME: "I need a good rate down to one three thousand". EXPRESS: "Roger, we''re coming down like a Bonanza full of doctors"

Hide Signatures

(in reply to bullseye000)

Post #: 154

RE: Support for Regulations By The FAA - 12/26/2010 3:05 AM

ira d

Posts: 1977
Score: 123
Joined: 5/29/2003
Last Login: 5/24/2013
From: Moreno Valley, CA, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: PilotFighter

Read the meeting summary again. It clearly states that the FAA is not going to regulate model aviation. That is good news to me. I know there are plenty of drama queens that will find something bad about not being regulated.

The FAA has very little ability to leverage the AMA into writing the rules the way the FAA wants them to. But even if the AMA rolls over and does it anyway, the worse case is a 400 foot rule. And that has been in place for 30 years anyway. And if you need to exceed the 400 foot rule, you simply notify the appropriate facility, (as has been the rule for 30 years).

Essentially, nothing has changed. That is my read on meeting summary.

If I were on the AMA negotiation team, I would argue on a 900 foot rule or even a 1100 foot rule. There are good arguments for either of those as well. But even if the AMA caves and writes a hard 400 rule, we will have emerged nearly without a scratch. Its good news people. Snap out of it !

It is amazing how many people can read the same thing and get so many different interpretations, When I read things like modelers who dont belong to a community based
org will be under different rules that sounds like regulation to me.

_____________________________

Ira d

Hide Signatures

(in reply to TexasAirBoss)

Post #: 155

RE: Support for Regulations By The FAA - 12/26/2010 4:36 AM

JBoyd58

Posts: 20
Score: 100
Joined: 12/31/2007
Last Login: 5/24/2013
From: sEMINOLE, TX, USA
Status: offline

You know how it is. Give the government-FAA an inch, and they will take over your Hobby!
A few new rules today, and a couple of years from now you'll be wondering where it all went wrong!

Hide Signatures

(in reply to ira d)

Post #: 156

RE: Support for Regulations By The FAA - 12/26/2010 4:47 AM

littlecrankshaf

Certified

Posts: 4101
Score: 259
Joined: 12/9/2001
Last Login: 5/24/2013
From: here
Status: offline

This thread is so far off, but then again we have certain ''Barneys'' at the field who try to enforce the 100db sound rule by standing 3 meters away from a model with their Digital Voltmeter.

[/quote]

Now That's funny...I don't care who you are... and there really are those at every field it seems.
Merry Christmas everybody.

_____________________________

Wow! Another epiphany…that is why the suckups suckup. Super sucking protection power. Yea baby.

Hide Signatures

(in reply to DISCUS54)

Post #: 157

RE: Support for Regulations By The FAA - 12/26/2010 4:53 AM

littlecrankshaf

Certified

Posts: 4101
Score: 259
Joined: 12/9/2001
Last Login: 5/24/2013
From: here
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ira d

When I read things like modelers who dont belong to a community based
org will be under different rules that sounds like regulation to me.

Bulls eye!!! A very good point!

Now, let's see some more of that collateral damage speak to put a spin on reality again while we are at it, to counter other points made elsewhere.

_____________________________

Wow! Another epiphany…that is why the suckups suckup. Super sucking protection power. Yea baby.

Hide Signatures

(in reply to ira d)

Post #: 158

RE: Support for Regulations By The FAA - 12/26/2010 3:59 PM

Sport_Pilot

Posts: 12484
Score: 233
Joined: 1/22/2002
Last Login: 5/24/2013
From: Acworth, GA, USA
Status: offline

Hook,
Your posts often imply something, if you know it or not. I am not slamming you, but your posts often imply things thay you may not intend.

_____________________________

“I Saw Elvis at 1000 Feet” John Force

Hide Signatures

(in reply to hook57)

Post #: 159

RE: Support for Regulations By The FAA - 12/26/2010 4:04 PM

Sport_Pilot

Posts: 12484
Score: 233
Joined: 1/22/2002
Last Login: 5/24/2013
From: Acworth, GA, USA
Status: offline

quote:

400 feet is much higher than most people realize.

Did you measure the typical pattern height? The pattern and IMAC pattern box's are up to a thousand feet. Tell a beginner to fly extra high above the pattern and he is probably well above 400 feet.

_____________________________

“I Saw Elvis at 1000 Feet” John Force

Hide Signatures

(in reply to TexasAirBoss)

Post #: 160

RE: Support for Regulations By The FAA - 12/27/2010 12:09 AM

aeronca52

Posts: 17
Score: 105
Joined: 6/11/2007
Last Login: 4/28/2013
From: nazareth, PA, USA
Status: offline

400 feet, really. I have a 'How High' altimeter in my electric Gentle Lady and other electric sailplanes and old timers and regularly go above 400 feet while thermaling. The Gentle Lady has topped out a couple of times above 1000 feet. It's not something I set a goal to do, it just happens while flying. When the wingspan becomes as small as the dot on the transmitter antenna then I start coming down. I also keep my ears and eyes tuned to any other sort of airborne traffic which might be in the vicinity. In 40 years of r/c flying the only other flying things I saw were birds.

I agree with the post that stated most pilots go over 400 feet without realizing it, but rule out small parkflyers.

Hide Signatures

(in reply to Sport_Pilot)

Post #: 161

RE: Support for Regulations By The FAA - 12/27/2010 4:00 AM

hook57

Posts: 840
Score: 120
Joined: 8/20/2009
Last Login: 5/22/2013
From: North Aurora, IL, USA
Status: offline

< Message edited by hook57 -- 12/27/2010 1:29 PM >

Hide Signatures

(in reply to Sport_Pilot)

Post #: 162

RE: Support for Regulations By The FAA - 12/27/2010 6:24 AM

Sport_Pilot

Posts: 12484
Score: 233
Joined: 1/22/2002
Last Login: 5/24/2013
From: Acworth, GA, USA
Status: offline

A premise is not a conclusion. In fact your conclusion partly argued against your implied premise.

Why get worked up over this? Why argue against something which we agree?

_____________________________

“I Saw Elvis at 1000 Feet” John Force

Hide Signatures

(in reply to hook57)

Post #: 163

RE: Support for Regulations By The FAA - 12/27/2010 3:16 PM

littlecrankshaf

Certified

Posts: 4101
Score: 259
Joined: 12/9/2001
Last Login: 5/24/2013
From: here
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: apwachholz

Flying radio control aircraft is a privilege, not a right. A show of support from us, regardless of the regulations passed, proves we respect those privileges and are open and willing to learn new ways. I believe these pending regulations will, in the end, make our community stronger. Rather then point out what these pending rulings prohibit, let's exploit what it allows.

With that obvious mindset we should have no problem understanding where all of our problems come from... How have we come to the realization that our pursuits to happiness is second or even third or fourth to others... simply amazing.

_____________________________

Wow! Another epiphany…that is why the suckups suckup. Super sucking protection power. Yea baby.

Hide Signatures

(in reply to apwachholz)

Post #: 164

RE: Support for Regulations By The FAA - 12/27/2010 3:33 PM

KidEpoxy

Posts: 6681
Score: 431
Joined: 10/14/2004
Last Login: 11/18/2012
From: San Antonio, TX, USA
Status: offline

quote:

A show of support from us, regardless of the regulations passed, proves we respect those privileges and are open and willing to learn new ways.

would you say the same about when the fed handed down ac91-57?
A show of support from us, regardless of the AC published, proves we respect those privileges and are open and willing to learn new ways.

just how much respect and willing to change have we demonstrated so far,
seeing how we added the Infamous400'Comma to circumvent the AC
rather than respect and change to the FAA saying 400'Everywhere in the AC

We've seen the comments here at RCU:
Folks are happy with how easy it will be to break the upcoming laws (via 'hard to enforce')
rather than worrying about the effect following the laws will have

Hide Signatures

(in reply to littlecrankshaf)

Post #: 165

RE: Support for Regulations By The FAA - 12/27/2010 6:19 PM

TexasAirBoss

Posts: 2678
Score: 151
Joined: 10/9/2002
Last Login: 5/23/2013
From: Houston, TX, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sport_Pilot

quote:

400 feet is much higher than most people realize.

Did you measure the typical pattern height? The pattern and IMAC pattern box's are up to a thousand feet. Tell a beginner to fly extra high above the pattern and he is probably well above 400 feet.

Do you consider the 400 foot rule something new ? It is 30 years old. Our pattern altitude is about 75 to 100 feet high. Training is typically conducted around 150 to 200 feet high. IMAC and pattern do use the entire 400 foot at times, but often use 75-100 foot as there hard deck. That is a conscience choice to mask slight errors in thier flying. It is not necessary to conduct the competition.

If IMAC and pattern competitions wish to exceed 400 feet, then they should notifying the appropriate facility. Both diciplines are very popular at our club and most participants manage to fly without breaking any rules. We do have a couple of individuals that routinely fly over 1000 feet, but they are anomolous to the club's othewise good behavior.

_____________________________

ME: "I need a good rate down to one three thousand". EXPRESS: "Roger, we''re coming down like a Bonanza full of doctors"

Hide Signatures

(in reply to Sport_Pilot)

Post #: 166

RE: Support for Regulations By The FAA - 12/27/2010 6:26 PM

jonkoppisch

Posts: 2479
Score: 106
Joined: 12/17/2001
Last Login: 5/24/2013
From: Mobile, AL, USA
Status: offline

That sounds alot like.... my jet will only do 199.9 mph...

_____________________________

"Washington in their infinite wisdom has lost their marbles"
Pappy Boyington

Hide Signatures

(in reply to TexasAirBoss)

Post #: 167

RE: Support for Regulations By The FAA - 12/27/2010 6:36 PM

Sport_Pilot

Posts: 12484
Score: 233
Joined: 1/22/2002
Last Login: 5/24/2013
From: Acworth, GA, USA
Status: offline

quote:

Do you consider the 400 foot rule something new ? It is 30 years old. Our pattern altitude is about 75 to 100 feet high.

The 400 foot rule is indeed something new to most of us, except for those near an airport. There has been no regard for it except when aircraft are near. Your perception of our pattern height is way off. For one 75 feet is just over the trees, most try to keep at least another tree height above them, that puts the lowest in the pattern at 100 feet, most at 150 feet and some at 200 feet.

quote:

If IMAC and pattern competitions wish to exceed 400 feet, then they should notifying the appropriate facility.

There never was a requirment to notify a facility but the appropriate authority when near an airport. Most near an airport have that authority and proceedures to follow. Those not near an airport have never been required to notify anyone.

_____________________________

“I Saw Elvis at 1000 Feet” John Force

Hide Signatures

(in reply to TexasAirBoss)

Post #: 168

RE: Support for Regulations By The FAA - 12/28/2010 1:56 AM

TexasAirBoss

Posts: 2678
Score: 151
Joined: 10/9/2002
Last Login: 5/23/2013
From: Houston, TX, USA
Status: offline

Houston is a very large city. Houston has about 15 clubs in the area. Houston also has nearly 50 commercial, corperate, and private airfields. Finding a place to fly models that is more than 3 miles away from an airport is difficult. For that reason, many of the Houston area clubs are within 3 miles of an airport. And most Houston flyers are aware of the 400 foot rules.

As you are aware, the AMA has requested that its members not fly any higher than 400 feet within 3 miles of an airport. What you may not know is that the FAA has requested that all modellers not fly higher than 400 feet anywhere. It is true that these rules are voluntary. There is no penalty for noncompliance. It isn't a felony or misdemeanor to fly above 400 feet. But the AMA and the FAA do expect a certain amount of professional courtesy. By complying with these rules we can deconflict our models from live traffic and avoid the need for any hard regulation, something that all parties wish to avoid.

I suppose that the meetings with the FAA regarding any future rules may have a much more significant impact on modellers in your situation than in my situation. I can assure you that living with the 400 foot rule isn't nearly as bad as you may think. Most of us here in Houston are so accustomed to the 400 foot rule that it simply isn't an issue to us. Good luck to you and your club members and to all of the AMA members that might be adjusting to new rules.

_____________________________

ME: "I need a good rate down to one three thousand". EXPRESS: "Roger, we''re coming down like a Bonanza full of doctors"

Hide Signatures

(in reply to Sport_Pilot)

Post #: 169

RE: Support for Regulations By The FAA - 12/28/2010 3:27 AM

jonkoppisch

Posts: 2479
Score: 106
Joined: 12/17/2001
Last Login: 5/24/2013
From: Mobile, AL, USA
Status: offline

That's funny... From the Imac site, here is the basic pattern for 2011. In the first pass, 400 ft is EASILY broken, in the first 16 seconds

In 32 seconds it's broke twice. The second maneuver would be hard to do if kept under 400 ft! Like I said, if you're doing it with foamies

Here's the video showing the basic sequence for 2011..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6SwF4KdZbE&feature=player_embedded#!

Even in the imac forum, they say that the new rules would make imac impossible in the US.

I can image that doing a sequence with only 200-250 foot of maneuvering room wouldn't make for a very symmetrical sequence. It would probably look all squished..

_____________________________

"Washington in their infinite wisdom has lost their marbles"
Pappy Boyington

Hide Signatures

(in reply to TexasAirBoss)

Post #: 170

RE: Support for Regulations By The FAA - 12/28/2010 3:42 AM

combatpigg

Posts: 16885
Score: 376
Joined: 11/22/2003
Last Login: 5/24/2013
From: arlington, WA, USA
Status: offline

Thankfully the Donner Party never met such hardships.
If Imaac contests can't secure the proper variances, then the equipment and the pilots would be forced to adapt.
Oh, the humanity!

!!

_____________________________

Blatantly corrupt umpiring at Yankee Stadium is an American tradition
It''s just part of the game.

Hide Signatures

(in reply to jonkoppisch)

Post #: 171

RE: Support for Regulations By The FAA - 12/28/2010 4:02 AM

TexasAirBoss

Posts: 2678
Score: 151
Joined: 10/9/2002
Last Login: 5/23/2013
From: Houston, TX, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jonkoppisch

That's funny... From the Imac site, here is the basic pattern for 2011. In the first pass, 400 ft is EASILY broken, in the first 16 seconds In 32 seconds it's broke twice. The second maneuver would be hard to do if kept under 400 ft! Like I said, if you're doing it with foamies

Here's the video showing the basic sequence for 2011..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6SwF4KdZbE&feature=player_embedded#!

Even in the imac forum, they say that the new rules would make imac impossible in the US.

I can image that doing a sequence with only 200-250 foot of maneuvering room wouldn't make for a very symmetrical sequence. It would probably look all squished..

Please explain something to me. I simply can not understand why the IMAC community can routinely ignore the FAA requests to remain below 400 feet, but then they tremble at the thought that the AMA might make the exact same request. It would seem that they would simply ignore the AMA also. Why does the IMAC community care about the AMA request more than the FAA request?

_____________________________

ME: "I need a good rate down to one three thousand". EXPRESS: "Roger, we''re coming down like a Bonanza full of doctors"

Hide Signatures

(in reply to jonkoppisch)

Post #: 172

RE: Support for Regulations By The FAA - 12/28/2010 5:31 AM

Sport_Pilot

Posts: 12484
Score: 233
Joined: 1/22/2002
Last Login: 5/24/2013
From: Acworth, GA, USA
Status: offline

The FAA never made such a request. The FAA made a recommendation. The AMA did more than make a request they made a rule. The FAA has agreed with the rule, but never rewrote the AC because it is a recommendation not a request.

_____________________________

“I Saw Elvis at 1000 Feet” John Force

Hide Signatures

(in reply to TexasAirBoss)

Post #: 173

RE: Support for Regulations By The FAA - 12/28/2010 3:16 PM

go vertical

Posts: 501
Score: 110
Joined: 1/20/2003
Last Login: 3/13/2012
From: mt.pleasant, PA, USA
Status: offline

I feel every one is missing info you all seem to be focusing on 400' . what about loss of jets and loss of giant scale as we now know them . I HAVE NO SUPPORT FOR REGULATIONS THAT RESTRICT US ANY FURTHER THAN NOW
WERE IS THE TEA PARTY WHEN WE NEED THEM

Hide Signatures

(in reply to Sport_Pilot)

Post #: 174

RE: Support for Regulations By The FAA - 12/28/2010 3:44 PM

K-Bob

Posts: 1206
Score: 169
Joined: 11/27/2009
Last Login: 5/23/2013
From: Anytown, USA
Status: offline

IMAC is a SIG of the AMA.

_____________________________

K-Bob. The K is silent. "The only time you can have too much fuel is if you are on fire"

Hide Signatures

(in reply to Sport_Pilot)

Post #: 175

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 next > >>

All Forums >> RC Airplanes >> AMA Discussions >> RE: Support for Regulations By The FAA
Page: << < prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 next > >>

Jump to:

Charities we support that also need your help
Yorkie Rescue | Humane Society | ASPCA | Crohn's-Colitis America

1.266RCU1