Just blame the r/c idiots who put on the event in Colorado. They had no organizational skills, nor the brains to do it right.

That all makes some strange kind of sense. Strange and funny.

~ J ~

I am a dedicated lurker and hate this topic to be my first post, but you have to start somewhere I guess. Sorry in advance for the length.

I am a full scale pilot for a living with 35 years of experience. I have been flying RC for 37 years. Here is what I think is going to happen.

The FAA will have to blame someone here. It's a "captain of the ship" mentality. They can only take enforcement action against someone they have authority over. The only person they can "enforce upon" is the full size pilot by suspending or revoking his license.They have no other "immediate" powers. More on that later.

I think their position is going to be that there was careless and reckless operation by the full scale pilot irregardless of the collision with the RC aircraft. There is no way that a high speed, 40 foot altitude for the length of the runway pass, SMOKE ON no less (hey y'all, watch this!), is going to be considered a normal go-around, missed approach, or whatever. Especially with a crowd standing right next to the runway. And it's on film. He will lose his license for some period of time. FS pilots do not "own" the sky, the feds do. Their policy is that flying is a privilige, and you can't just buzz around doing whatever. And even if people are standing on your runway, and you have the right of way, there is no way that you can claim you have the right to buzz them to get their attention or make them move. Even Waldo Pepper got in trouble for that one.

Many pilots have made high speed passes down a runway and then called it a "missed approach", but everyone knows he is just having a big time. And, well, it is fun. If the story gets out to the feds, the story is "well I was just doing a go around" and it's he said she said as there is no hard documentation. Of course they are never stupid enough to do it at an airport with a control tower. But here it's on film, and it's not just a runway, but a runway with a CF going on ten feet from the edge of it. Just because you have the right of way does not mean you can intentionally place your aircraft or others in danger, even if it's the other people being the stupid ones. The PIC is the one directly responsible for the safety of operation of his aircraft. So his license is toast for a while.

Everyone is talking big lawsuits. Even in our nutty legal system there has to be some accounting of damages. The FS pilot needs to repair his left lower wing, if I have the story right. This is a homebuilt aircraft. Look at Aircraft Spruce's catalog online. A lower wing spar for an Acroduster Too is $267 and a rib kit is $85. Add a couple hundred dollars for some covering and paint and you're up to what...$600? Sure he is out some labor, but he will have plenty of time to build as he won't be allowed to fly for a while. Even if he pays someone for the labor, I just don't see big numbers.

Of course he could also sue for things like pain and suffering, mental anguish, loss of use of his aircraft, or some such legal nonsense, but he will probably look pretty stupid in front of a jury with his suspended pilot license (and a letter from the feds telling the whole world how stupid he was) while arguing all this. The RC pilot incurred a much greater financial loss, but I can't see him getting in front of a jury and saying "my $8000 toy airplane got run over by that big mean pilot", even if said pilot did get his license revoked.

The fly-in community could also see some repercussions from this. The FAA also has some jurisdiction over private runways.. Remember it is their sky. They will probably have to meet with the FAA and prove that they can continue to operate safely. I doubt they will lose their runway unless they are incredibly arrogant or stupid, but they will probably have to jump through some hoops. The so-called "air boss" will probably not be very popular for a while. And I wouldn't buy advance tickets for their next "air show."

The RC community has the most to lose. I stated earlier that the FAA has no "immediate" power over us. They can't show up and take away our RC license. However, they can have new regulations passed that affect our ability to fly in "their" sky. In fact, they are already engaged in this with their sUAS proposals and this incident gives them more ammunition to use against us. I see that one of the purposes of the AMA is to provide to the government a sense of our own self-regulation. Basically, if we regulate ourselves adequately, then the feds don't have to.

A good example is the scuba diving industry. There is no law that says you have to have a certificate to scuba dive. But the industry has set standards where it will not sell air fills to uncertified divers and dive boats will not carry them. Their own certification process provides the safety required by society, or at least they can argue that it does. Every so often there is a high profile accident and there are calls from some nut politician to regulate the industry. The industry jumps through some hoops, describes how responsible they are, and things calm down again until the next event.

The RC community has a big job in front of it. Unlike scuba diving where you basically just kill yourself, there is the potential for an RC aircraft / full scale collision to cause loss of life to others. Worse, loss of life to persons that are under the regulation and "protection" of the FAA. Not only can new FAA regulations over RC be considered a power grab, they are also a CYAfor the FAA as they will have to answer to congress, the press, and every nutjob media person for a high profile accident.. Luckily for us the full scale pilot in this case was not a politician or famous actor. I am glad to see that an AMA representative was dispatched to gather evidence, and I am sure the AMA is much more nervous than they are letting on over potential losses of our RC priviliges. They are most likely going to be jumping through a lot of hoops for us.

The main thing to be learned here is that one RC'er can cause grief to the entire community if there is a high profile event. I don't think that there is normally a lot of danger of this even with the so-called "unsafe" RC fliers, but when many odd events conspire as they did in this case, something bad really could happen. Short version, don't do stupid things and avoid stupid situations.

Something else to think about. The FAA has some smart and ambitious people working for them like any organization does. Many of them are young and technically literate. Imagine the evidence they could complile from our own internet forums from just using cut and paste. "Those kinds of fliers are dangerous!" "No, those guys are unsafe!" Two days of research and they could go to their boss and say "Gee, boss, even these guys consider themselves unsafe. Here's 4,720 pages of safety issues in their own words. How about I write some new regulations and get a big promotion?" Something to think about.

Now, back to lurking.

Bryan

yup

Wow, Bryan.

Well said! We appreciate your well-thought-out response.

~ Jim ~ [8D]

Preliminary NTSB Report in full:
"<center>NTSB Identification: CEN10LA487A
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Saturday, August 14, 2010 in Brighton, CO
Aircraft: SHPAKOW THOMAS SA 750, registration: N28KT
Injuries: Unavailable</center>

</p><center>This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been completed.</center>
On August 14, 2010, approximately 1100 mountain daylight time, a Shpakow SA 750 bi-plane, N28KT, was substantially damaged when it collided with a radio controlled AJ Slick airplane, while performing a go-around at the Van-Aire Estates Airport, Brighton, Colorado. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed at the time of the accident. The personal flight was being conducted under the provisions of Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 without a flight plan. The pilot and his passenger were not injured. The flight departed Centennial Airport, Denver, Colorado, approximately 1030 and was en route to Brighton, Colorado.

According to a video of the accident and multiple witnesses, the radio controlled airplane was maneuvering over runway 12. The bi-plane is seen flying from the north to south in straight and level flight when the radio controlled airplane climbs directly into the bi-planes flight path. The bi-plane was able to land without further incident. An examination of the airplane revealed that the left lower wing spar was crushed aft."

And so, the RC pilot will be faulted, as the majority of posters predicted.

Not really a big surprise.

~ Jim ~

Preliminary reports are not final.

No, they aren't. But you wouldn't bet money against it the way it it's pointing, would you?

Don't make the mistake of thinking anything is official here, this is a thread in a forum. Speculation abounds, it's the heart that pumps the blood through this thread's veins....

If we had all the answers, we'd all just go to the next thread!

~ Jim ~ [sm=49_49.gif]

I believe the NTSB investigators' report that is based on the full video and interviews of  those involved and several witnesses. I am more inclined to believe the NTSB is less biased than the opinions of people who weren't even there.
My biased opinion is that the person who was in charge of the airport is at fault for letting such an event occur without proper professional supervision.That is my own biased opinion and not based on all the information the NTSB had, I am very likely wrong

The only thing "official" is the NTSB report.

It's OK to blame me for this mess... I'm married and I'm used to the words, "It's your fault."

The NTSB Report is the only thing official so far, that's very true. I'm a full scale pilot and been flying back in the days when most piston aircraft had carburator heat and primer.

It is my experience that the FAA can do anything and their power is always increasing- either it's because people buy single seat ultralights, and fly them without any training, as a result killing themselves or damaging property. Or people flying rockets or R/C planes too close to FS aircraft.

If the FAA blames the R/C pilot, (which I do predict) who is to say they can't come up with new legislation restricting us R/C pilots even further? Sure the AMA can appeal and slow the process, but in the end the FAA will win if it ever gets in the court system.

Even if nothing is done, it's just one more thing the FAA can use against us later on.

Most of us FS plane owners don't insure our aircraft, I know my past instructors didn't. When ever a incident did occur it was always "Pilot Error" giving the insurance companies a loop hole to get out from paying anything.

So all the repairs will come out of the FS pilots pocket. The only way he can get reimbursed is if he goes after the R/C pilot in small claims court. When and if the FAA and AMA decides what needs to be done in the end, I hope it's the R/C pilot that gets punished, and not the rest of us. Most of us agree it is the R/C pilots fault and condemn his actions.

Pete

The FAA gave RCers guidelines which the AMA has ignored for 30 years. If the FAA cracks down on RC I am not going to blame the FAA.</p>

Tastes great !! Less filling....

With what evidence do you make your harsh complaint? Getting from the video to your statement is a jump of gigantic proportions.

The report refers to runway 12. Is anyone familiar with these types of parks and does that mean that there are at least 12 runways there? If so, I wonder why a pilot would chose to land or operate over a runway that is clearly being used for some other activity and not use one of the clear runways.

The runway number 12 indicates it's aligned to 120 degrees. The other end of the runway would be runway 30, because it's aligned to 300 degrees.

Looks like they forgot to claim it was 'Attempting To Land' by flying 'straight and level' with smoke.

That is what the fs defenders are claiming, right?
That it was an attempt to land ontop of those known people,
not a 'straight and level' smoke buzz showoff.
right?


Cause a 'straight and level' smokey buzz a dozen yards above a crowd of people is illegal,
and claiming you were intentionally trying to land on those people you see is worse

('intentionally', as in:
He saw the runway was obstructed with people,
and chose to land without knowing if the people were gone or not.
Thats a bold choice. Not a smart choice, nor a particularly legal choice, but bold none the less)



The RC was 30' too high, the FS was 470' too low,
if EITHER didnt make that mistake then the re would be no collision.
.... oh, and the Airboss & Airport Operator was just 47 ways wrong any way you slice it

eh?
Are you talking about the RC clubs event at another location that day?
Or are you thinking that the FS event put on by the FS Airport Operators,
that THEY "had no organizational skills, nor the brains to do it right".

Cause thats a harsh thing to say about those FS guys:
It sounds like you are blaming the FS guys for the collision, at their FS event, run by the FS Airport Operator,
cause that event "had no organizational skills, nor the brains to do it right"

Its my understanding that the RC event that day, run by RC guys elsewhere, went well.

LOL +1 Kid

This is old news. It has been up there for over a month. Even before the first post on this tread: Check!

This just in ... the r/c community is really screwed now!

A radio controlled jet has collided with a UFO.
The r/c jet sustained heavy damage, crashed to the ground, and burst into flames. The UFO was able to safely land at a nearby field. Witnesses said that the UFO sustained slight damage, but mostly scratches. Then it quickly departed and disappeared into the sky within seconds.

The owner of the r/c jet, an F-15, stated that the UFO was zipping all over the sky at supersonic speeds and attempting to shoot his aircraft down with laser beams before purposely crashing into it.

The USAF, NTSB, and FAA are now investigating.

Can we believe the r/c pilot?
Did the UFO have/file a flight plan?
How will this affect our hobby?
Will the military forbid us to build and paint r/c aircraft that resemble actual military aircraft?
Will this become an inter-galactic incident?

Yeah, that's what I thought. This guy has never held an RC Transmitter in his hands. He's a Full-Scale flyer, if he's a flyer at all... and doesn't even belong in here. No RC-er would make this statement. The AMA works their arses off trying to accomodate the FAA, and only an outsider would not know this.

It's one thing if we beat up on one of our own guys because we need to address concerns we have about keeping our fields. It's another thing to have an outsider come in here thinking he represents the FAA and telling us what we should know.

He has 6 posts total to his name and just joined now. He's not an RCuniverse member, he's not an RC-er at all.

I'm giving this guy the red hand right now. I suggest we all do.

~ Jim ~ [sm=punching.gif]

Oh, MY! Whatever shall we do? [X(]

~ Jim ~

I agree. (Again... holy cow.) The Full-Scalers put on this event and allowed, even encouraged the outcome we saw. Not saying the RC pilot didn't have his own failures this day, but I won't stand by and see the RC community take it in the teeth unless the Full-Scale community takes its own well-deserved shot for the planners' p*ss-poor planning and utter refusal to provide adequate safety measures. Despite the FAA's omnipotence, shared responsibility is a real-life situation and it's one that applies in this situation.

~ Jim ~ [sm=49_49.gif]