Originally Posted by 049flyer

Without the ability to TRACE an offending drone back to the law breaking pilot, I see no possible way to regulate the activity. It is here to stay and FPV/drone activities are forever harnessed to model aviation.

Originally Posted by husafreak

I would like to see a proposal for AMA club flying sites with published and enforced restrictions agreeable to the FAA put in place. I think we already have that but lets make it official and put them on the national airspace map.
So there would be a bubble of protected airspace over and around our hypothetical AMA club field. In it RC aircraft/helis/FPV/drones/rockets/whatever, are limited to "line of sight" distances from the pilot and out of full size aviation airspace. Roof is 400, feet max speed is 200 mph, diameter is 1/2 mile, something like that. Just like the national airspace restrictions around airports but for our tiny RC airfields. And at these fields we can do what we want, in our little bubble, with the FAA's blessing. Traditional RC flying can continue without worry at our club fields. FAA or government restrictions and police actions on unlawful model aircraft flying would not apply to us at our AMA sanctioned flying fields.
We need the AMA to protect our right to fly RC models and we have to disassociate ourselves from those who would cost us our right to fly by irresponsible acts outside of the AMA umbrella. The type of models flown is irrelevant. This is purely a safety, privacy, and security issue.

Originally Posted by bradpaul

However:

Sec. 91.119 - Minimum safe altitudes: General.
Quote:
[TABLE="width: 100%"]
[TR]
[TD="class: alt2"]Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:

(a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.

(b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,500 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft.

(c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.

(d) Helicopters. Helicopters may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section if the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface. In addition, each person operating a helicopter shall comply with any routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the Administrator.
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

So the solution is actually very simple, IF the concern of the FAA is safety.

As flying at a AMA club field would constitute an "open air assembly of persons" the minimum altitude for full scale must be 1500'. And as the FAA has now classified "model aircraft" as "Aircraft" then our flying fields need to be shown on sectional charts with a minimum altitude of 1500' within 5 miles of the center of the field.

After all we all want safety in the NAS don't we?

Originally Posted by franklin_m

I think you'll find that the open air assembly will be a big hurdle. The establishment of the club field as an airport is possible, but will likely require both state and ultimately FAA approval. Since FAA would be aware of the pre-existing MTR, I suspect they'd deny the request. Additionally, FAA states in AIM that "Nonparticipating aircraft are not prohibited from flying within an MTR; however, extreme vigilance should be exercised when conducting flight through or near these routes."

I can't help but note the caution to civilian aircraft to exercise "Extreme vigilance." With an already existing requirement for all RC aircraft to yield to full scale, I suspect I know who would end up on the short end of the enforcement stick should a military jet get hit by an RC plane even if that RC plane is flying from an RC field.

Originally Posted by GOGGLES PIZANO

Hello ....my two cents if you will.most people do not have a proper understanding about how serious this drone issue is.I live in new York and there have been at least five or six drone investigations concerning airline pilot reports of drone flying in airliner airspace.the last report a pilot says a drone at three thousand feet off his left wing near JFK.we are in big jepordy and it can get ugly real.fast for.all.of us.I feel.the Ama has dragged its feet.we. very well.may have a somewhat regulated hobby as we do fly aircraft.if one commercial aircraft smacks a drone the faa will be on us like a piranha.

Originally Posted by HoundDog

According to the Phoenix FSDO as few as 2 people having a picnic in a park constitutes an open air assembly of persons.
We fly on a private restricted air strip (0WI8) as U know all air craft entering the pattern to land should (Must) be at pattern altitude (1000') AGL until in a position to start a decent to land. Exception if it's a towered airport and U are operating as on a circle to land after an instrument approach or operating on a special VFR Clearance to the airport.

Originally Posted by franklin_m

I think you'll find that the open air assembly will be a big hurdle. The establishment of the club field as an airport is possible, but will likely require both state and ultimately FAA approval. Since FAA would be aware of the pre-existing MTR, I suspect they'd deny the request. Additionally, FAA states in AIM that "Nonparticipating aircraft are not prohibited from flying within an MTR; however, extreme vigilance should be exercised when conducting flight through or near these routes."

I can't help but note the caution that civilian aircraft should exercise "extreme vigilance." With an already existing requirement for all RC aircraft to yield to full scale (all the time), and given that the MTRs are NOTAM'd, I suspect I know who would end up on the short end of the enforcement stick should a military jet on an MTR get hit by an RC plane even if that RC plane is flying from an RC field.

Originally Posted by bradpaul

Well which way does the FAA want it? Either Model Aircraft are a danger to full scale and therefore model aircraft fields SHOULD be on FAA sectional charts, or the danger is so minimal that full scale pilots do not need to know about model aircraft activities.

As for MTR's, yes it would be prudent for all AMA fields to see if their activities are in a MTR. As the AMA requires the GPS co-ordinates of insured club fields I would hope that somebody at AMA Headquarters is checking.

Originally Posted by HoundDog

That's a JOKE check out this http://www.modelaircraft.org/clubsearch.aspx more than 25% of the clubs that list a GPS corridents with the AMA are wrong. I've found them at the officers home in the middle of a lake and the Atlantic ocean.

Originally Posted by bradpaul

Well which way does the FAA want it? Either Model Aircraft are a danger to full scale and therefore model aircraft fields SHOULD be on FAA sectional charts, or the danger is so minimal that full scale pilots do not need to know about model aircraft activities.

As for MTR's, yes it would be prudent for all AMA fields to see if their activities are in a MTR. As the AMA requires the GPS co-ordinates of insured club fields I would hope that somebody at AMA Headquarters is checking.

Originally Posted by bradpaul

Like it or not the AMA has fully embraced the new technologies when flown for recreational use and within the guidelines of the AMA Safety Code and Documents 550, 551, 560, 570, 580. Flying within those guidelines will allow exemption from additional regulation per Sec 336 of PL 112-95.

As for those that are ignorant of the proper way to fly FPV and endanger the NAS, then bring down the wrath of the FAA and the legal system on them. If the pilot turns out to be an AMA member then the EC should expel them from membership. The way we save what er love to do is by following the rules and flying safely. Not by trying to ban a type of model aircraft.

Originally Posted by Maximilionalpha

Those are not drones! They are quadcopters/tri-copters/octocopters! The people that have labeled these rc aircraft, 'Drones', haven't a flying bone in their bodies. Before the military decided that it was okay to release the first, real drone(Predator UAV) to the rc community(some years ago), no one ever referred to an rc airplane, as a drone. Now, everything that can fly with a users input, from the ground, is considered a drone and all the media keeps doing,(just like it always does), is sensationalize on it. While I agree that no one should be even remotely close to any high traffic, commercial/private airport, I strongly disagree that there needs to be FAA, intervention, outside of that scope. What's going to end up happening, is that the government agencies, such as the NTSB/USDOT/FAA, are going to create underground rogue rc pilots, who will continue to fly as they please, but just not broadcasting it to the world. Just my thoughts on the matter!

Originally Posted by vertical grimmace

As far as I knew, the original "Drone" was something used for target practice. Either towed behind another aircraft, or flown RC, all the way back in WW2. I think the term "Drone" has been incorrectly used for a long time now. I really would not consider a "Predator" type military UAS a drone, as it is not intended to be used as a target.

Originally Posted by Maximilionalpha

Drones were around, way before the 1900's. But the only difference, was the ones in the 1800's were hot air balloons, filled with bombs that were launched by France, when the winds were right, to float into Venice.Then we come to WW2, when Germany launched the buzz bombs at Europe. Even though the buzz bombs weren't autonomously piloted, but flew until their fuel ran out,but not long afterwards, the Germans developed a drone that was compass/gyro, guided. Sorry for talking your ears off!

Originally Posted by vertical grimmace;11927025[COLOR=#b22222

]Knowing some about the V2, they were actually set to travel a certain distance[/COLOR]. They had a gyro to keep them stable, and when the trip odometer reached a certain distance, they hit down elevator. So they were not as haphazard as some may think. One of the ways they brought them down were the British Typhoon, where they would tip them over, getting under the wing tip. This threw the gyro out.

Originally Posted by bradpaul

However:

Sec. 91.119 - Minimum safe altitudes: General.
Quote:
[TABLE="width: 100%"]
[TR]
[TD="class: alt2"]Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:

(a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.

(b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,500 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft.

(c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.

(d) Helicopters. Helicopters may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section if the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface. In addition, each person operating a helicopter shall comply with any routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the Administrator.

[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

So the solution is actually very simple, IF the concern of the FAA is safety.

As flying at a AMA club field would constitute an "open air assembly of persons" the minimum altitude for full scale must be 1500'. And as the FAA has now classified "model aircraft" as "Aircraft" then our flying fields need to be shown on sectional charts with a minimum altitude of 1500' within 5 miles of the center of the field.

After all we all want safety in the NAS don't we?

Originally Posted by ira d

+1

Originally Posted by HoundDog

So the solution is actually very simple, IF the concern of the FAA is safety.

As flying at a AMA club field would constitute an "open air assembly of persons" the minimum altitude for full scale must be 1500'. And as the FAA has now classified "model aircraft" as "Aircraft" then our flying fields need to be shown on sectional charts with a minimum altitude of 1500' within 5 miles of the center of the field.

After all we all want safety in the NAS don't we?

Actually FAR 91.119b reads 1000' above the highest object within 2000' of the full scale aircraft. Not a position on the ground. 2000' is less than 1/2 mile and much less than 5 miles.

On another point if model R/C planes quads ect are considered "AirCraft" and now subject to the FAR's there should have the same restrictions as full scale.

Originally Posted by HoundDog

U mean the V1 the V2 was a more like a short range Rocket that actually left the atmosphere on an parabolic arc.
V2= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-2_rocket
V1= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-1_flying_bomb