deadstick8409

My Feedback: (2)

This is the kind of stupidity that the FAA must be concerned with, I think to a higher degree than the "NYC" video:
http://vimeo.com/14565779
Taking the model up to 11,200 feet in the NAS.
Then the person who made this video went on to tell everyone on the forum that it was all perfectly legal.

The argument they have is that the chance for a collision with air traffic is very, very small.

The chance is still there.

The technology is out there, and it is cheap, but the ignorance is rampant. And no matter what FAR's are made, I think that there will be plenty of cowboys who do what they want.

we go hard in jersey

My Feedback: (1)

i do not fly airplanes. BUT WELL DONE. quality vid. the perspective was amazing,and the cameras images ...huh i was impressed

hairy46

My Feedback: (1)

This is a thread that can bum a person out! Most of us follow the rules of RC flight just to have these idiots doing what ever they want to do and posting it on the net, The stupid are what is hurting every one and there is nothing we can do to stop them! They will keep putting this garbage on utube for the whole world to see, And hurt all of us! And they will just move on to other things and we that really love this hobby will be the ones that suffer! Yes I do like utube, When I am looking to get a new plane I get to watch it fly first, and learn allot about it, But with the good comes allot of bad, They just keep getting more stupid with what they are putting out there and someone will pay the price, us! Anyone that thinks this stuff is cool needs to think of what we have to lose!

pminmo

My Feedback: (4)

Yes, unfortunately all these videos are giving the FAA amunition to do something we won't like. Best case scenerio maybe certified RC flying sites. I think the vast majority of AMA clubs do take the safety code into consideration.

scooterinvegas

My Feedback: (1)

Im with ace on this one!!!

Wait a damn min. I just realized I can legally stand in my bank with a loaded gun under my coat, and the government is trying to tell me when and where I can fly my model plane!?!?!?!? W*T*F?

pminmo

My Feedback: (4)

Who said what the government does or legislates always make common sense? If your locality permits concealed carry and the bank permits it, I would assume that could be true. I believe currently that’s governed by state and local laws. Airspace is under federal law. And right now, RC modelers flying in uncontrolled airspace on private land with the landowners permission is not an issue. But we know change is coming with the FAA and unmanned aircraft because of all the interest in commercial UAV's, and the RC model community is at the bottom of the food chain. I belong to a club that in the last decade was involved in helping/supporting commercial miniature uav development. It evolved quickly in that the FAA required a COA then forced the flight to be some 50 miles from the nearest major airport and requiring a chase plane with an RC pilot in the plane and an RC pilot on the ground, either of which could take control over the automous portion of the flight. A few club members are still involved in that development and the word is the FAA is focused on military and commercial UAV and could care less how the fallout affects the RC model hobby. This is where and why the AMA has asked the membership to be watchful about the upcoming changes.

As far as you ruling the government, go fly your RC model into the airspace at a major metropolitan airport and see what happens....

Tired Old Man

My Feedback: (1)

Big sky, little airplane theory. It was tried in Iraq but almost downed a CH-46 full of troops. In another country a small UAV slammed into a troop filled helo when the helo was in the wrong place at the wrong time. Nobody hurt but that was pure luck. Lot's of positive separation now, and lots of small transponders.

Sport_Pilot

Technically he may be right. However, legal isn't always smart.

deadstick8409

My Feedback: (2)

How do you figure this has any basis in legality? He has NO ability to see and avoid, except for what is directly in front of him. And flying at 30 knots, that is of little value. As someone who spends a lot of time wandering around in these altitudes, it offends me that he calculates the risk while standing on the ground.

If the military can not fly a UAV in civil airspace (not moa), why do people think they can?

EDIT: Do you suppose he used a standard radio like a dx7 to get a model 2 miles up in the sky?

The Toolman

2 miles up makes for a heckuva antenna to receive.

Sport_Pilot

What law or regulation says he cannot? Hardly worth arguing at any rate. There will soon be a regulation to cover this. We are upset over this type of behavior not because it is illegal, but that it will result in regulations that will make it illegal.

As well as the fact that it is stupid for the reasons you mentioned. Although it can be done safely if one is aware of air traffic.

Actually I think a standard radio might work. I know sail planes fly a mile up with no problems.

Silent-AV8R

I think people need to grasp that the coming regulations are only for SMALL UAS, hence the "s"UAS. Larger, and what most of us think of as UAVs, like the Predator and Global Hawk have an entirely different set of operating standards and they do no apply to either us or to the sUAS community.

Sport_Pilot

I thought both small and large UAV regulations will be comming in the next year or so.  But you are right only the sUAS standards apply to us.

pminmo

My Feedback: (4)

From what I understand RC models by definition fall into UAV's as defined by the FAA regardless of size:

http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives...notice_uas.pdf

Many years ago the FAA created an "exception" for RC hobbyists:

http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/1acfc3f689769a56862569e70077c9cc/$FILE/ATTBJMAC/ac91-57.pdf (Which by the way for those that think what Trappy did was legal need to read)

Per the AMA and RC hobbyists who because of their knowledge and skills have been employed to support the development of UAV's, Minature UAV, SUAS, etc a change is coming.

http://www.modelaircraft.org/mag/AUG2010/onthefly.htm
http://www.modelaircraft.org/files/AMAWGroup.pdf
http://www.modelaircraft.org/mag/FEB10/execdirector.htm

A similar thread on the AMA forum: http://www.modelaircraft.org/forums/...m=5003&mpage=1

Bottom line, the FAA regulates/controls the US National Air Space and what flies in it which includes RC model aircraft and model rockets. Were probably at the bottom of the food chain.....and those who have disregard for safe operations of RC models in the NAS HURT the perception of RC modelers and make us more vulnerable to regulations we won't like.

KidEpoxy

pminmo
You are pretty much on track

be advised,
the chain is AC91-57, ASF400 / Guidance0801, 07Policy
for what we currently have

The problem is
AC91-57 is just a VOLUNTARY sheet of advice,
and everything from FAA since has deferred to that AC without putting actual teeth to it


sUAS is just teeth that have been long overdue

pminmo

My Feedback: (4)

If I were a betting man I'd put my money on it in this way: The FAA has authority over US NAS, all aircraft including RC models. As long as we RC modelers follow the "voluntary" guidelines published in AC91-57 they don't have a beef, that’s what AC91-57 is about...i.e. hey folks follow this outline and we'll never come down on you. If an RC modeler does something outside of AC91-57 they have the authority at their discretion to take action, which they probably wouldn't do unless the event that was outside the guidelines was so bad it forced their hand...

jazzboy

My Feedback: (1)

You can see the booster antenna in the video. Legal? I don't think so. We quibble over milliwatts and this f-tard is allowed to walk away from a stunt like that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It doesn't matter how "cool" the video is, he just put every legit flier under the microscope. Maybe him being Austrian, we can get the Gubernator to have a chat with him! Terminator to goof.

KidEpoxy

The FAA has authority over US NAS, all aircraft including RC models. yes
As long as we RC modelers follow the "voluntary" guidelines published in AC91-57 they don't have a beef yes
that’s what AC91-57 is about...i.e. hey folks follow this outline and we'll never come down on you. yes
If an RC modeler does something outside of AC91-57 they have the authority at their discretion to take action, which they probably wouldn't do unless the event that was outside the guidelines was so bad it forced their hand


uh-oh
if that AC said 400'cap everywhere,
how would you say they feel about folks printing disregard for that limit in their SOP/SC?

..

as for this FPV in NYC re AC91-57, a similar FAA discussion yeilded

You and I can speculate on what the FAA thinks of drones/FPV/Autonomous and AC91-57,
but we can read what the FAA says the FAA thinks about it.
"that applies to pilotless drones recommends—but doesn't require—"

Rich404

I'm a NY'er and I think that was a cool video.

I don't think there is anything wrong with the video they shot. The guy flying the plane was obviously good inhisintentions and he obviously has good skill in his RC'ing capabilities. In addition, they were forthcoming with the authorities when they were approached by them. The NYPD are a VERY capable group of professionals thatcan spot a bull$**ter from a mile away. If these guys were up to no good, the NYPD would havethemselves a model airplane and their butts would be in custody and before a judge with the quickness.. The officer obviously saw that their intentions were harmless and stood nearby as they flew the plane. If they were going to do something stupid, there was now nowhere to run.

I do agree however that no amature RC'er should attempt to fly in city limits like that. I think that you should be an accomplished flyer and have very reliable gear for everyone's safety. I also think that they should have done the right thing and inform authorities of their intentions before they fly. This could be classified as a type of filmaking and NYC gives out permits for that sort of thing all the time.

-Rich.

deadstick8409

My Feedback: (2)

Yes. I know when I have airspace or FCC part 15 questions, the first person I seek out is NYC beat cop.

Sport_Pilot

I believe they correctly call them unmanned vehicles. However, there is no guidance system other than line of site, so not a UAV. But we will have to wait and see.

pminmo

My Feedback: (4)

True it's speculation, hopefully we'll never know....But the quote does say "the recreational exception COULD provide clever lawyers with an opening" I read that as implying they think if necessary they could go after... but a clever laywer might exploit the exception.

Sport_Pilot

The FAA and NTSB have their court system with their own judges so I don't think they will be fooled by clever lawers.  Appeals past that perhaps, but they would have to be on constitutional grounds or they stop at the NTSB court.

deadstick8409

My Feedback: (2)

It falls under administrative law. There is NOpresumption of innocence.

The Toolman

Hahahaha thats funny...what leads you to think that. I am a ham radio operator an I didn't see no booster antenna (hahahaha) in that vid.
Thats funny, is it like the "Booster antennas" they sold to stick in the back of yer cellphones......hehe.....


Besides, after watching the vid again I noticed at the first he is trying to sell these things, watch it an look for the bubble at the first with sales info in it. I think he's made this as a commercial for his stuff more than anything. But thats not saying he went about it the right way though.....