cj_rumley

Silent-

Just wanted to chime in with others and say tnx for your well done report. Some good vibes, some maybe not so good to a skeptic like me. Re the latter, I'll hold for further info; I'm not about to shoot at the messenger. [8D]

Cletus

TexasAirBoss

My Feedback: (22)

Thanks for the report SAV8R. One question, though. If the AMA is going to write the safety standards then why aren't we out of the woods?

Silent-AV8R

Because the FAA does not necessarily have to accept them as written, personnel higher up in the FAA may change the direction they want to go before the NPRM comes, or factors outside their control force changes, or........

TexasAirBoss

My Feedback: (22)

Oh, I see. Did you discuss wether or not this work group was given a budget for the regualtion of model aviation?

Erich_F

Thanks for the update SilentAV8R...

I can't help but notice how the usual "chicken littles" such as DbCisco and his ilk are awful quite all of a sudden

at101

does anyone know if we will be required to join the AMA or another group like them

Teachu2

My Feedback: (133)

He's been quiet since he got banned....

3D 4 ME

I was at the AMA Expo over the weekend, I saw the sign for the forum as I walked into the main hall. Lately, I've been thinking about the rules and regulations imposed on R/C flying and I ask myself, "Why can't we just...fly?" Did FF and UC pilots have to deal with this? I doubt it. Why is it such a big deal to fly a model airplane over 100 feet? I can see why we need to stay under 400, but how often do models even go near that altitude? How many can even do so? Maybe its only strange to me because I'm a park pilot and my models are small electrics, but even a turbine pilot is likely to maintain 200ft. I don't know why we need the FAA talks, but the AMA is sure doing a great job of defending our rights. For that, our dues are worth every penny. I guess I'm just worried that the FAA might get in our way one of these days, but thanks to the AMA, that doesn't seem likely. Kudos to them for protecting us, 75 years and counting!

Silent-AV8R

NOt sure what you mean. They meet by phone conference calls and web based seminars. Not sure what expenses they have. What is it you are trying to undertand?

Silent-AV8R

The FAA folks were pretty clear that they cannot require people to join any particular group or another. But then again it seems kind of cheesy to me to happily use the work product of some very dedicated people and others who spent untolled hours working to protect our hobby and then feel no need to join the organization. But that's just me.

at101

thanks and next time I get the money I will join the AMA

Silent-AV8R

The FAA is not doing this out of concerns based on model aircraft safety. They are concerned about what they see as a huge and growing number of commercial and public agency (police, etc.) sUAS that want to operate in the National Airspace System (NAS). They recognize our excellent safety record and want to preserve our hobby. But we need to show them that we can continue to operate safely and be exempt from the regulations.

And don't kid yourself, there are a huge number of modelers who fly over 400 feet. Pattern, IMAC, soaring, jets, etc. We have been doing it safely and want to continue doing it!

Tampatexan

My Feedback: (86)

As far as the AMA writing the safety rules...  as Silent has said, the FAA always allows multiple paths to compliance - so if the West Podunk Modelers want to write up a set of rules and submit them to the FAA for approval, this will be allowed.  Whether or not the FAA approves what is submitted is up to them.  But based on what Silent said, it would appear the FAA will certainly look favorably on any group that submits proposed safety rules.  So, in that case, you would NOT have to join the AMA, nor would you have to use their rules (you would have your own "approved" rules)..  Although I fail to see why anyone would not want to join the AMA ...

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

What about individuals that just want to fly their models??

Silent-AV8R

The best I can tell is that people will have to comply with whatever FAA-accepted safety standards are available. If there are multiple standards then they will be able to use whatever one appeals to them the most. But I'll bet that multiple standards would look an awful lot a like. I am not clear what the mechanism is for doing that, but you cannot just go out and fly and pretend like nothing applies to you. It is a good question. I am not clear if there is an "ownership" that goes with the AMA safety program or if there will be something in it that will make it difficult to say you are using it if you are not a member. I am not even sure that is permitted by the FAA.

But I'll ask the question again, what kind of person will willingly take advantage of the plan and also feel that they have no reason to be a member? Kind of like saying "thanks a lot for the plan, now screw off". Not very honorable in my mind. But I am not sure there is anything that will prevent that either.

archie05

Thanks for your report Silent, and for your responses.

Archie

3D 4 ME

Well, when I was talking about the altitude limit, I was refferring to casual flying, not special aircraft rules. I know full well that it is possible to gain permission to exceed the limit. Altitudes of over 400ft. require an FAA permit, don't they? I don't think that people get those every time they go to the local field, but again, I'm a park pilot (for now). I don't see turbine jets or even standard .40 size planes all that often. Seeing as I don't own anything that requires an official flying field, I don't go there much. In any case, all seems well at the moment, we are still flying afterall. Well...at least you guys are, I fried the battery of my Blade 400, gonna get a new one soon. lol

Silent-AV8R

There is no current regulatory limit and no persmission required to fly over 400 feet. The FAA AC 91-57 was a voluntary compliance guideline that does not carry any force of law or regulation.

Nope. See above.

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

What plan?? And how would one take advantage of it? Sorry, but it isn't clear what you mean...

Silent-AV8R

The operating standards for model aircraft that the AMA is writing.

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

I don't recall any inquiries of the membership as to what standards they should be writing... Heck, I don't recall much about anything that has been firmly passed to the membership for consideration in regards to any need for such writings either... How does all this come about without membership inputs? Just crazy...

phlpsfrnk

The AMA has been writing standards for many years in the form of the safety code and guidance such as 540-D See and Avoid Guidance and the most recent 550 First Person View (FPV) Operations and many others. These may need to be in a format more acceptable for the FAA standards but the AMA will not be doing anything it has not been doing already.

Regards
Frank

bkdavy

My Feedback: (1)

I suspect this is an indicator of the type of problem we face in trying to get standards in place that are not overly restrictive - the fact that people not exposed to it don't understand it.

I can pretty much guarantee that on any given weekend most pilots probably exceed 400 feet without even realizing it. After all, there is no direct feedback to the pilot regarding altitude. And it isn't practical to expect every model aircraft to have a data downlink with realtime altitude information sent back, although systems do exist. 400 feet is about the height of a 40 story building, or less than half the height of the empire state building. The Washington Monument is about 500 feet high. Standing on the ground that seems really high, but when you're flying the plane, it suddenly becomes much lower.

And IMAC, pattern, etc, don't have special rules in effect for safety. We follow the AMA safety code. My field is about 5 miles from an uncontrolled airport. I've also been to contests that are near airports. In all cases, we are VERY concious of any aircraft in the area. If there is a nearby aircraft, we orbit low at the opposite end of the field for the few seconds necessary for them to get clear. The local pilots know where our field is located, and even have it marked on the maps at the airport office.

One time a club member reported that a helicopter did a very low pass over our field. We asked some of our contacts at the airport if they were familiar with the aircraft (couldn't get the tail number). Although we never found out who, it was clear that word got out, and we have seen the local helicopters actually turn away from our field at a far distance. We respect them, they respect us, and we get along very well. I hope this can be used as a good example of how the regulations should operate.

Brad

Silent-AV8R

The membership will be able to read, review, and comment prior to the standards being finalized. The people on the working group ARE members as well.

DMichael

My Feedback: (5)

Correct me if I'm wrong but from your message I interpret that you are flying very small models- probably by yourself, not at a club and not around a lot of other flyers or other model types.

Every weekend at clubs around the country, moderately sized glow or electric or larger gas powered models - larger than the small electric models you describe- are being flown. 400ft is not very high even for moderately sized models. To put it in perspective even at only 60mph, a speed I think is attainable by most models at a club field, you are traveling 88 feet every second. In just 4.5 seconds you are at 400ft. As for higher performance models, at 120 mph-a speed easily attained for turbines - just over 2 seconds of vertical flight has the plane at 400ft- less than that unless you are flying at ground level when you start. You submit that a turbine pilot is likely to maintain 200 ft. At 120 mph- - 200 feet takes just about 1-2 seconds.

400 ft altitude cap would be a severe restriction for all but park flyers.