RE: Interesting tidbit from the President's Blog  
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Tower Hobbies
Enter up to 4 keywords or Tower stock numbers
Logged in as Guest



Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
       

All Forums >> RC Airplanes >> AMA Discussions >> RE: Interesting tidbit from the President's Blog
Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>  

Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Interesting tidbit from the President's Blog - 5/9/2008 6:17:24 PM   
Sport_Pilot



Posts: 7652
Joined: 1/21/2002
From: Acworth, GA, USA
Status: offline
quote:

Exactly, which simply states that AC 91-57 has actual teeth to it, it's not just a guideline or voluntary mechanism.


Then tell me if it had teeth to it, why did the FAA have to call the AMA so that the AMA could threaten to pull their membership if that person did not stop flying to 30,000 feet AGL. Whouldn't the FAA have thrown them in the slammer instead?

Now the new UAV regs and policies may have teeth, so if you fly much over 400 feet you may have a problem with violating that. We need something to allow the soaring folks to fly in remote areas well above 400 feet. I think defining line of sight operation as an exception to UAV operations at any altitude is the way to go, providing it is not near airports or high traffic areas. Perhaps place icons reprsenting AMA flying sites on full scale sectional maps would also help.

< Message edited by Sport_Pilot -- 5/9/2008 7:09:57 PM >

_____________________________

“I Saw Elvis at 1000 Feet” John Force

(in reply to STLPilot)
       Post #: 26

RE: Interesting tidbit from the President's Blog - 5/9/2008 6:36:14 PM   
GerKonig


 

Posts: 184
Joined: 3/5/2005
From: Levittown, PA, USA
Status: offline 		I got this today:

AOPA TO GET A SAY IN UAV CERTIFICATION STANDARDS
After asserting for years that unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) should meet the same certification and operational standards as piloted aircraft before being allowed to operate freely in the National Airspace System, AOPA has been asked to participate on the FAA's aviation rulemaking committee to help develop those standards. "AOPA wants UAVs to be integrated seamlessly into the National Airspace System so that there isn't a negative impact on general aviation," said AOPA Senior Director of Regulatory Affairs Rob Hackman. Read more on AOPA Online.

This UAV things have to be regulated, in GA you check for traffic, and we avoid each other. But if you have a UAV coming your way, going from point A to B, there is nobody onboard of the UAV checking for GA traffic, so you end up w/2 AC but only 1 is blind, plus the UAV's might be hard to see.

I do not think we (rc guys) are running any risk here, BUT, let's not forget the FAA's motto: We are not happy until you are unhappy.

Gerry
Remember when the skies were "friendly"?

(in reply to Sport_Pilot)
       Post #: 27

RE: Interesting tidbit from the President's Blog - 5/9/2008 8:35:02 PM   
ira d


 

Posts: 797
Joined: 5/29/2003
From: Rancho Belago, CA, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Silent-AV8R


quote:

ORIGINAL: ira d

I wont argue the fact that the FAA has been looking into model
operation in the last year or so.



I can assure you that they have been doing do for far longer. As far back as 1999 or 2000 I know that the local FAA folks in SOCAL were very aware of model airplanes, and had a surprising knowledge of their capabilities.

As far as enforce actions go, I have personal knowledge of three situations where the FAA has been involved with applying AC 91-57 as the standard for model operations.

Prado Regional Park (PVMAC), El Dorado Park (EDSF), and Fairview Park (Harbor Soaring Society). All os these are in SOCAL. In all three places they are close enough to local airports that the FAA took notice and requested that the local agencies that operated the park have the modelers hold to the 400 foot limit stated in AC 91-57. Did the FAA arrest or cite people? No. But what they did do was render an opinion to the City/County agencies that own the various sites that the models need to operate in accordance with AC 91-57. Those local agencies then enforced the limits stated in AC 91-57.

I agree that in places here there is little or no chance of a conflict with full size planes the FAA is very unlikely to even notice, but in places where that potential exists I think the FAA has clearly demonstrated that they WILL get involved.

As far as the topic of this post, I see it as the next step in what they are already doing. So far their position has been that if you operate in accordance with AC 91-57, you are a model airplane. If not, then you will be subject to various regulations, some of which they are still forming. So for the vast majority of us I think we can rest easy. This is really aimed at commercial ventures and so on. I recall one FAA person a few years back telling us that at that time the Global Hawk could launch, fly at 40,000 feet across the Pacific and never once be subject to normal aviation rules. The FAA wanted to change that. And that type of operation is what this is all about.



I agree with you 100% However in the cases you site the FAA did not
go after individual rc plane pilots as they would have if the rc pilots had
been regulated and had a FAA license of some sort.

I have always said the FAA dont care what you do with your model
unless you conflict with full scale and the cases you site were clearly
conflicts with full scale operation, As to how much that will change in
the future we will just have to wait and see.

_____________________________

Ira d

(in reply to Silent-AV8R)
       Post #: 28

RE: Interesting tidbit from the President's Blog - 5/9/2008 8:51:10 PM   
STLPilot


 

Posts: 9110
Joined: 3/12/2003
From: Manhattan, NY, USA
Status: offline
quote:

I have always said the FAA dont care what you do with your model
unless you conflict with full scale and the cases you site were clearly
conflicts with full scale operation, As to how much that will change in
the future we will just have to wait and see.
Any time you put an object higher than 500' you are in conflict of full scale operation. Pilots use sectionals too show what is going to be in front of their aircraft when they fly from one place to another. If an objects higher than 500' is not listed on the sectional, then nothing is supposed to be there. For those other objects typically above 500', we call those other aircraft equipped with radios, lights and other mechanisms we use to communicate and navigate around one another. Of course we could depend on RC pilots to have NOTAM's issued ... but we know the likelihood of that.

Bottom line is the FAA does not wait for an object to strike an airplane or even come close before they start caring or taking action. And of course you can fly as high as you want in your RC airplane, everyone does it like every breaks speeding laws. Either way ... over 500' you are in "conflict". Could the airspace be shared? Sure why not ... give a RC club 2500' if they want it ... just make sure they put it on the sectional.

< Message edited by STLPilot -- 5/9/2008 9:00:38 PM >

_____________________________

Here At The Wall

(in reply to ira d)
       Post #: 29

RE: Interesting tidbit from the President's Blog - 5/9/2008 9:13:51 PM   
KingCrash



Posts: 104
Joined: 11/16/2003
From: Harpers Ferry, WV, USA
Status: offline
quote:

We need something to allow the soaring folks to fly in remote areas well above 400 feet. I think defining line of sight operation as an exception to UAV operations at any altitude is the way to go, providing it is not near airports or high traffic areas. Perhaps place icons reprsenting AMA flying sites on full scale sectional maps would also help.


I hope that this will go in a similar direction as well. I spent many times watching people thermal and have a great respect for you "wind wizards".
Has anyone written Muncie to see what the official thoughts are? I've not seen much in the way of "official position" on this issue other than the standard, we're working on it.

For the record, I have, but have received no reply yet.

Greg S

_____________________________

if it isn't fun, you're missing the point

(in reply to GerKonig)
       Post #: 30

RE: Interesting tidbit from the President's Blog - 5/9/2008 9:47:08 PM   
Silent-AV8R



Posts: 1744
Joined: 3/16/2004
From: SOCAL, CA, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ira d


I have always said the FAA dont care what you do with your model
unless you conflict with full scale and the cases you site were clearly
conflicts with full scale operation, As to how much that will change in
the future we will just have to wait and see.



Which was exactly my point. What is important now is to make certain that our models don't get lumped in with all UAVs. My other point was that the FAA has been aware of models etc., for far longer than just the past year or so.

I know at one time the AMA was trying to get AC 91-57 changed to put a limit at 1,200 feet or so away from airports and potential traffic and keep the 400 foot where it might be an issue. I am not certain where that effort went however.

< Message edited by Silent-AV8R -- 5/9/2008 9:48:52 PM >

_____________________________

Reality is Subjective. At least that's what I think.

(in reply to ira d)
       Post #: 31

RE: Interesting tidbit from the President's Blog - 5/9/2008 10:17:17 PM   
ira d


 

Posts: 797
Joined: 5/29/2003
From: Rancho Belago, CA, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: STLPilot

quote:

I have always said the FAA dont care what you do with your model
unless you conflict with full scale and the cases you site were clearly
conflicts with full scale operation, As to how much that will change in
the future we will just have to wait and see.
Any time you put an object higher than 500' you are in conflict of full scale operation. Pilots use sectionals too show what is going to be in front of their aircraft when they fly from one place to another. If an objects higher than 500' is not listed on the sectional, then nothing is supposed to be there. For those other objects typically above 500', we call those other aircraft equipped with radios, lights and other mechanisms we use to communicate and navigate around one another. Of course we could depend on RC pilots to have NOTAM's issued ... but we know the likelihood of that.

Bottom line is the FAA does not wait for an object to strike an airplane or even come close before they start caring or taking action. And of course you can fly as high as you want in your RC airplane, everyone does it like every breaks speeding laws. Either way ... over 500' you are in "conflict". Could the airspace be shared? Sure why not ... give a RC club 2500' if they want it ... just make sure they put it on the sectional.



STL

You are correct in what you say however IMO the reason the FAA has
paid little attention to model planes over the years is because there
has been so few conflicts. Most model planes become very hard to
see and control at around 500 feet and most full scale planes dont
fly below 2,000 feet except when takeing off or landing.

_____________________________

Ira d

(in reply to STLPilot)
       Post #: 32

RE: Interesting tidbit from the President's Blog - 5/9/2008 10:47:44 PM   
STLPilot


 

Posts: 9110
Joined: 3/12/2003
From: Manhattan, NY, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ira d
You are correct in what you say however IMO the reason the FAA has
paid little attention to model planes over the years is because there
has been so few conflicts. Most model planes become very hard to
see and control at around 500 feet and most full scale planes dont
fly below 2,000 feet except when takeing off or landing.
Well it's not the most I'm worried about, it's the other that can effect GA.

And thanx to companies like Hobby Lobby, you won't have to be able to see your plane from the ground anymore. What do you think the person who bought this $500 outfit from Hobby Lobby is going to do when they crash their plane? Replace $10 worth of foam or move the equipment into a larger model. This is just the begining ... well really not begining ... but a path to the next generation to come. And now it comes faster than it ever has.

Certainly don't condone HL from making money, god bless them. But they are helping to make autonomous flight, very affordable. So are 100 other companies.


Attachments
Click to see fullsize image.
Click for fullsize


_____________________________

Here At The Wall

(in reply to ira d)
       Post #: 33

RE: Interesting tidbit from the President's Blog - 5/10/2008 8:08:22 AM   
littlecrankshaf



Posts: 2112
Joined: 12/9/2001
From: here
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: STLPilot



Certainly don't condone HL from making money, god bless them. But they are helping to make autonomous flight, very affordable. So are 100 other companies.



Somehow this doesn't make sense…"Certainly don't condone HL from making money, god bless them." That one makes my head spin


Then you say; "But they are helping to make autonomous flight, very affordable."
autonomous??? I don't think autonomous is applicable in this context as it relates to hobby lobby’s new system...Maybe I am overlooking something though.

Now off to the hobby lobby website to investigate another great aspect of our hobby…how cool!! Thanks stl




_____________________________

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

(in reply to STLPilot)
       Post #: 34

RE: Interesting tidbit from the President's Blog - 5/10/2008 10:23:23 AM   
STLPilot


 

Posts: 9110
Joined: 3/12/2003
From: Manhattan, NY, USA
Status: offline 		Thanks LCS, I'm so glad I have you to inform me of my mistakes. But I think I know what autonomous means. I meant the path thereto. Sorry if it wasn't clear enough for you. I know you're not on moderated status like I am. I think I'll grab one of those FPV's as well.

_____________________________

Here At The Wall

(in reply to littlecrankshaf)
       Post #: 35

RE: Interesting tidbit from the President's Blog - 5/11/2008 6:37:53 AM   
littlecrankshaf



Posts: 2112
Joined: 12/9/2001
From: here
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: STLPilot

But I think I know what autonomous means. I meant the path thereto. Sorry if it wasn't clear enough for you.




Thanks for clearing that up, even more than before.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to STLPilot)
       Post #: 36

RE: Interesting tidbit from the President's Blog - 5/12/2008 2:41:04 AM   
KingCrash



Posts: 104
Joined: 11/16/2003
From: Harpers Ferry, WV, USA
Status: offline 		Hmmm. Well to try and bring this back to the original intent of the poster, I find the differing views quite interesting. I'm glad SOMEONE is going to be there to give aeromodelling a voice, no matter how tiny it is. I don't feel it has anything to do with the VFR vs IFR "type" sidetrack, as I can certainly mount the pilot view and still keep my plane in visual range and within the (oh god I'm bringing it up) 400' ceiling. (coma or period nonwithstanding )

Thanks to all that have shared an opinion so far. I look forward to hearing others

Greg S

_____________________________

if it isn't fun, you're missing the point

(in reply to littlecrankshaf)
       Post #: 37

RE: Interesting tidbit from the President's Blog - 5/12/2008 3:04:53 PM   
Rufcut


 

Posts: 153
Joined: 4/19/2004
From: Ignacio, CO, USA
Status: offline 		A "clarified" definition of model aircraft? I'm worried what this may mean for the hobby. With the new equipment available, one doesn't need a lot of imagination to realize that someone from the dark side could cause a lot of damage. Hopefully, we all won't be looking for indoor flying sites.

(in reply to KingCrash)
       Post #: 38