Sport_Pilot

But they would not be able to tell if it is a UAV or a bird at those distances. Also most UAV are less than a foot in diameter.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

Why? There is no need for this. No major incidents at all. See and avoid works just fine.


You're joking right.....

Sport_Pilot

No problem, just buy bird like drones!

Sport_Pilot

Not at all. No need for a 400 foot limit, except near airports. We have been using see and avoid with no major incidents.

JoeEagle

My Feedback: (26)

Franklin_m, are you ok with the attached?

benjack71

Third class medical certificate is a joke. That would be a show stopper if the fed required that. Actually the FPV is all I would really be putting on the table at this time. The AMA would be well enough alone to bargain with the FPV and keep the rest of the hobby hands off at this point. It would be an uphill battle, but if the AMA would establish a program now then at least they would have something in place. As it is the only program is paying a membership. With the exception of jets, which to be honest I really do not know what the procedure is with jets at AMA flying fields. I dont have answers to your questions of how. Thats why I say the AMA needs to establish the program now. I dont know what kind of qualifications the instructors would have to have. I would not be involved in TEACHING FPV or flying. I am merely saying a testing procedure, heavy on the legality of fpv flying to receive a certificate. If you want to fly FPV, you must pass this test of 50 multiple guess questions, or something of that nature. I see it as a ..well I dont know if this makes sense, but I would treat it like a hunter safety class. At least in that format

franklin_m

Sure. I think it's reasonable. I've lived with FAA scrutiny for years and I'm comfortable with them making a reasonable determination based on the facts. I doubt that will be popular in these boards, but the world has changed.

Sport_Pilot

Some of that does not make any sense. Now a RC sailplane has right of way over a full scale aircraft. And flying fields near airports must be in communication with the airport. Clearly not well thought out.

franklin_m

First, pilots "see and avoid" for a living. They're constantly looking outside for traffic. If it's a multicrew plane, that's two sets of eyes looking outside. If flying an instrument approach in visual conditions, PAC is flying instruments, the other is outside. A sizeable number of the reports were from dual piloted A/C.

Second, resolution means that at two nautical miles, someone with 20/20 vision needs at least 3.53 feet between two objects to see them as two objects. Less than that and the just see one.

Third, in a 1952 test at the Naval Air Test Center in Patuxent River MD, pilots were able to detect an F8 Bearcat, with 120 degree aspect at 17-20NM (and they weren't told "where" to look).

So I'm pretty confident in many of the reports. Not all to be sure. But many.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

Right...in the past. What we have not always had to deal with is small RC aircraft with the ability to climb several thousand feet in all types of visibility conditions. That something bad hasn't happened already doesn't mean it might not happen in the future. We've all seen the increase in reporting of near misses etc over the past few months. I don't know that 400 ft is the right number, but leaving it "unlimited" isn't realistic.

Sport_Pilot

I was a pilot and the above statement is untrue. In fact many aircraft have panels too high to see outside well. And it is rare for both pilots to be looking at the same time. IMO most of the claims (that is what they are because only 10 were reported by pilots) are fictictious.

If you can barely resolve them enough to tell it it is one or two then you cannot identify if it is a bird, kite, or UAV. You would probably need to be about half a mile or less to tell that.

Im only confident of the one where the pilots quad was stuck in a tree. And confident that 90% was just as germane.

HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

At two and three nautical miles, the resolution is 3.53 and 5.30 feet respectively. So it's entirely possible that an airline pilot could easily spot all but the smallest RC aircraft at considerable distances.

And that's if they are not heads down in the cockpit or fixated on their touch down mark.
Very seldom do U see but a flash the instant of a bird strike at 150 kts. Most birds
especially larger birds like Hawks and geese try to dive out of the way when U come up
from behind them.

Maximilionalpha

Here's a fun one, boys! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_QKHC68PhA

Sport_Pilot

I see no reason for LOS radio control to be limited as we can see and avoid. We will not be flying in poor visibility. And if FPV then the spotter would keep this under control. Right now there are only 10 reports of near miss's. The rest are just a list of reports from control towers and many maybe most are not germane. That is not near miss's or even reports of significance.

HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

From another Forum Thread by HD:
goto this URL https://www.fltplan.com/AwMainToAppr...SEARCH&end=end
Under Approach Charts (U.S. & Canada insert the 3 letter Identifier of the airport of concern, or if unknown fill in the other criteria.
Down load the approach plates for your airport. Print them out as large as U can. Study the charts especially the plan view and the profile with the decent altitudes. Now for a good idea how these approaches affect your RC field go to Google Earth activate the RULER and draw the plan views of each segment of all the approaches that might affect your RC field. Save each segment so as to be able to draw others with out loosing those already drawn. Don't for get about the circle to land criteria for altitude but usually only applies to with in 1 mile of the air port. the Missed approach may be of concern also. From this U will get a better picture where the aircraft doing actual approaches in less than VFR conditions and these Practicing in VFR conditions will or should be with in your proximity to your RC Field. Remember that many time even out side the 5 mile radius there can be extensions were planes might be flying lower than usual.
U must remember that in VFR conditions that 99% of airplanes with in 5 miles of an air port where they intend to land they willl/should be at pattern altitude i.e. usually 1000' AGL but could be as low as 800' agl anywhere in that 5 mile radius from the center of the airport. Some times at pattern altitude even farther out than 5 miles. Then their is always special VFR at a operating towered airport witch is 1 mile visibilith and clear of clouds. If your field is one of these it may behove the club to aquire an aviation capable receiver only tuned to the frequency used at that airport as it will give U a mental picture of the air traffic in your area. Reason for receive only is unless U are licensed it is Illegal to use an Aviation radio.

airraptor

My Feedback: (66)

So do the guys flying multirotors and FPV not part of a club and not an AMA member read these forums or care about our hobby?
Should the AMA be forced on everyone to be able to fly at an RC field?
If our flying fields are set up with a "bubble" do we still need the AMA ins?

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

bradpaul

Anybody actually believe that there will be FAA enforcers monitoring our flying fields? The enforcement actions will be almost always post significant incident.

IMHO, if you fly at an AMA club field and do not violate the AMA Safety Code or the Advanced Flight Systems documents you have next to nothing to worry about except for your flying skills and the other pilots on the flight line.

HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

To be determined at a later date ,,, We'll just have to wait for the next episode of "As the FAA Turns" but I'll bet bradpaul is correct. At least I hope so.

Hossfly

Mr. Franklin, you are definitely an extremely well versed in the Aviation subject and I do admire your abilities, experience/s and knowledge.
Yet I am not so certain that the pilots of the last 30 years are so interested in what is going on outside the cockpit. When I became an airline person after 14 years of watching what is happening out there, along with my flight duties, I am not very certain that even today's pilots are very interested in what the outside world brings to their minds. My eldest son is a UAL pilot after gaining his 20 years retirement in the USAF. He is not so happy with today's FAA methods that pilots must fly auto-pilot almost all the time. When I was a 2nd officer and then co-pilot, and definitely in my Captain time, I never gave up my look-outside time, and most of my time was hand-flown. I had many 1st officers that had a difficult time managing to keep even a short time of looking outside. THEIR eyes were much -- IN MY OPINION -- far too set within the forward cockpit. Now that was almost 20 years ago, yet I get reports on the lack of keeping up with outside while flying airliners. In fact I try to keep from using airliner tickets as much as I possibly can. When I instructed in the USAF's T-38, my last 2 years of USAF, again IMO, I considered that far too many young men's eyes were on the instrument panel rather than side to side, as I was taught by those days-of-old when one was taught to keep moving that head if one wished to see that other fellow first!

Just my thoughts of this old fellow!

HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

Hossfly: U my good man are absolutely correct. It was proven in Vietnam that 2 sets of eyes were better than one. In a combat situation I read that the first pilot to spot the other usuely was the victor and more than 60% of all first sitings of the enemy was made by the back seater in the case of the F4 Phantom. Now with ADS-B is coming on line by the year 2020 Pilots (Let's say AIR PLANE Drivers) not pilots will be heads down in the cockpit more than ever. New techonelogy is greate when used properly but take Cell phones and texting and the number of deaths in the reasent years because of the miss use of the technology. i.e. Texting and driving. Any technology can be good and bad all depends how one implements this new technology.

franklin_m

Just a hunch, but I suspect the FAA is encouraging the use of FMS more during enroute and approach because they can hold speed, altitude, and route with much less variation than when someone is hand flying. I gives the system much more predictable flight paths. Especially now that the commercial FMS can handle a route that includes not just point to point, but the complete route, with altitudes, planned decent points, etc. I honestly see this more driven by increasing air congestion, particularly on J routes in/out of major cities. There's been a number of articles on how the FAA is really struggling to handle the demand, which is why they're so heavily committed to the new ATC system (whenever it gets rolled out).

bradpaul

Thank you, the FAA does not have the manpower to even manage the current demand for full scale, where will the resources to manage sUAS come from? In the current budgetary situation a request to staff up will be met with tough questions about the $400 billion and climbing cost and years late delivery of NEXTGEN. And some state that NEXTGEN was not designed to handle commercial UAS so where will that money come from? In the scope of national priorities where will toy airplanes fall?

So the initial solution by the FAA will be to require LEO to enforce. As if the local law enforcement isn't already understaffed and overworked. It is idiocy to have LEO take time away from working on murders, rapes, assaults and burglaries to petrol the flying sites looking for citizens flying toy airplanes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! PRIORITIES CRIMES AGAINST PEOPLE FIRST!

Now some here (JohnShe) have advocated a STASI like citizen spy solution where if you see somebody flying FPV in the street you call the police. I can see it now get half price AMA membership if you turn in a FPV violator. Not for me............................and I hope not for you!

JohnShe

Not just FPV, that is only one technology for guiding R/C aircraft. But your criticism of my approach implies that you mighty allow an errant pilot to injure someone or cause some other damage. The AMA membership discount idea is pathetic.

bradpaul

spin, spin, spin Who are you to allow to say what I "mighty" allow? We KNOW from your prior posts that you are a self declared protector of the citizens against injury from toy airplanes. Got a badge (other then Cub Scout?)