Chris P. Bacon

My Feedback: (4)

I see Sporty, you resort to a personal attack defense when you cannot accept constructive feedback on the importance of good communication. Nice one, but part for the course with you.

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

And here we have yet ANOTHER fine example of the pot calling the kettle black! LOL!

Astro

Sport_Pilot

This is not an English class web site. I never made a personal attack, I asked you a question.

franklin_m

Perhaps, but the language used is UAS, and we know the FAA definition UAS includes model aviation, and we know it's one step closer to law since it was voted out of committee yesterday. It goes to the floor now. After that, conference with house, then to POTUS for signature.

Given the FAA is operating under it's second emergency extension, I really don't see the Senate/House conference mucking with it much, as it would have to go back to Senate for re-vote. Just my opinion.

Sport_Pilot

I see this going back and forth plenty. Not because of our issue, but because of the FAA's utter non interest in implementing NextGen. Plenty of opportunity to get this changed.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

I don't know why, but I'm thinking about this:

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/tyeJ55o3El0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>


If only it were so simple!

Hey did you see that link I posted from G Mason U yesterday? What were your thoughts on that? Iniitially I'm was thinking it's some type of pro business position, but who knows. They did at the end of the study note the difference between bird tissue/bones and lipos etc, would have been ludicrous not too of course.

Chris P. Bacon

My Feedback: (4)

I wasn't asking whether this is an English class website. Effective communications is a lifelong skill that's important to all aspects of life.

bokuda

My Feedback: (7)

I've been mulling over these proposed regs, especially the "home-brew" and FAA manufacturer approval for each model design.

How could this potentially affect models we've already built? Having 15-20 models that fit this category, it's a concern.

Also, how might it affect existing ARFs? It seems these proposals COULD effectively make all existing r/c aircraft over 8oz illegal!

I've also read of a proposal for a test of FAA regulations being required in addition to registration, with the possibility of having to carry a certificate for passing the test. That MAY be included with the registration, but the potential exists for having to carry another certificate. So, to fly at a club field or event, one would potentially have to carry four forms: FAA registration, test certificate, club membership card, AMA membership card!

Screw this, I'm goin' fish'n'.

HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

A club I was treasure then maintance bought a new 77 C-172 w/ one of the first
O-320 H2AD engines At 377.4 hours we got 2 ADs. one on the Oil Pump Gears and check for metal in the oil. LSS all lifters were spauled and most cam lobes were deformed the engine was about an hour from catastrophic failure. Funny thing it developed full power on take off. Cessna/Lycoming replaced about 750 of the first batch. Years later they said it was a metal and heat tread problem with the cams if I remember right. OH They replaced the engine with a new one Prorated oof course.

rgburrill

Another thought pulled from your adz?

Sport_Pilot

It has been a decade now and they have not done anything. Buildings sitting empty waiting for NexGen for 5 years.

franklin_m

I did. They left out a lot of data. There's been at least two fatal military crashes that I can think of off the top of my head that wasn't in their data. One Marine Helo and an E3. I also know of several that were substantial safety of flight issues, loss of the aircraft was a real possibility.

I too noted the small print qualifier at the end. I've seen too many engines seriously damaged by FOD far smaller than one outrunner on a DJI, let alone what would happen to an engine if it ate all four of them plus a good sized lipo. I fear that as soon as someone starts running tests - shooting DJIs and 350QX's into motors, windscreens, etc. the way they do now with bird carcasses, then there'll be even bigger restrictions around airports.

bokuda

My Feedback: (7)

An addition to my last post, unfortunately confirming my fears:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/johngogl.../#289b3a3fa6f2

Jim Branaum

My Feedback: (3)

I wonder what we can do about this one. Seems the FAA and it minions have put the kibosh to our hobby.

rcmiket

That just sucks but we should have known it was coming and apparently unable to stop it.

Mike

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

What an absolutely ludicrous statement. "We" should have know it was coming. Yet another in a long line of fear mongering statements, empty of substance.

Would love to know how "we" should have known this was coming....if only we could tell the future. But wait, didn't all those "traditional" modelers including yourself see this coming years and years ago? If not, how did you miss it.

And for the record, this is another in a long line of alarmist sensationalized articles from the same author at Forbes. He loves the sizzle for sure, and knows how to affect the Pavlovian instincts of a few here (not that he's writing for anyone here).

Chris P. Bacon

My Feedback: (4)

Will your hobby store will be closing tomorrow? Sorry to hear about about your job. Good luck finding a new job. Is that all your stuff I saw listed on eBay already? Smart move to get out now before anyone else sees that article. Your right, we should have known this was coming and now we're apparently unable to stop it. Game over.

bokuda

My Feedback: (7)

It has been suggested that concern over the current draft of the FAA reauthorization bill is alarmist. There certainly are alarming provisions in the draft, so if being alarmed over them is alarmist, then I am guilty. Following is a link to the entire text of the bill, plus a link to just the section that most pertains to our hobby. I have also included a link to a government site that allows you to track a particular bill through Congress.

Consider how these proposals would affect our hobby keeping in mind that the FAA now considers our toys to be sUAS's. According the the AMA website there is still a long road ahead before this bill is enacted and time for revisions to be made. Personally, I will write to my state's Congressmen and express my concern and hope many others do the same. It seems this is all we can do at this point.

Here is a link where you can track a bill as it moves through Congress. We are concerned with bill number S2658

https://www.govtrack.us/events/bill-summaries

Here is a link to the entire current text of the bill:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-...bill/2658/text

Here is a link to the section that pertains to our hobby:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-...328EB6841AE702

Here are quotes directly from the bill for those without the time to read through it all. Keep in mind that our toys are now considered sUAS's by the FAA, so these proposals will affect us if this bill is passed as is.

SEC. 44803. AIRCRAFT SAFETY STANDARDS.

“(a) Consensus Aircraft Safety Standards.—Not later than 60 days after the date of enactment of the Federal Aviation Administration Reauthorization Act of 2016, the Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration, in consultation with government and industry stakeholders and appropriate standards-setting organizations, shall initiate a collaborative process to develop risk-based, consensus industry airworthiness standards related to the safe integration of small unmanned aircraft systems into the national airspace system.
“(b) Considerations.—In developing the consensus aircraft safety standards, the Director and Administrator shall consider the following:
“(1) Technologies or standards related to geographic limitations, altitude limitations, and sense and avoid capabilities.
“(2) Using performance-based standards.
“(3) Predetermined action to maintain safety in the event that a communications link between a small unmanned aircraft and its operator is lost or compromised.
“(4) Detectability and identifiability to pilots, the Federal Aviation Administration, and air traffic controllers, as appropriate.
“(5) Means to prevent tampering with or modification of any system, limitation, or other safety mechanism or standard under this section or any other provision of law, including a means to identify any tampering or modification that has been made.
“(6) Remote identification capability standards under section 2105.
“(7) How to update or modify a small unmanned aircraft system that was commercially distributed prior to the development of the standards so that, to the greatest extent practicable, such systems meet the standards.
“(8) Any technology or standard related to small unmanned aircraft systems that promotes aviation safety.

(d) FAA Approval.—Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of the Federal Aviation Administration Reauthorization Act of 2016, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall establish a process for the approval of small unmanned aircraft systems make and models based upon safety standards developed under subsection (a). The consensus safety standards developed under subsection (a) shall allow the Administrator to approve small unmanned aircraft systems for operation within the national airspace system without requiring the type certification process in parts 21 and 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
“(e) Eligibility.—The standards for approval of small unmanned aircraft systems developed under this section shall set eligibility requirements for an airworthiness approval of a small unmanned aircraft system which shall include the following:
“(1) An applicant must provide the FAA with—
“(A) the aircraft's operating instructions; and
“(B) the manufacturer's statement of compliance as described in paragraph (e) of this section.
“(2) A sample aircraft must be inspected by the Federal Aviation Administration and found to be in a condition for safe operation and in compliance with the standards required by the Administrator in subsection (d).
“(f) Manufacturer's Statement Of Compliance For Small UAS.—The manufacturer's statement of compliance required in subsection (e)(1)(B) shall—
“(1) identify the aircraft make and model, and consensus standard used;
“(2) state that the aircraft make and model meets the provisions of the identified consensus standard;
“(3) state that the aircraft make and model conforms to the manufacturer's design data, using the manufacturer's quality assurance system that meets the identified consensus standard adopted by the Administrator in subsection (d), and is manufactured in way that ensures consistency in the production process so that every unit produced meets the applicable standards;
“(4) state that the manufacturer will make available to any interested person—
“(A) the aircraft's operating instructions, that meet the identified consensus standard; and
“(B) the aircraft's maintenance and inspection procedures, that meet the identified consensus standard;
“(5) state that the manufacturer will monitor and correct safety-of-flight issues through a continued airworthiness system that meets the identified consensus standard;
“(6) state that at the request of the Administration, the manufacturer will provide access by the Administration to its facilities; and
“(7) state that the manufacturer, in accordance with a production acceptance test procedure that meets an applicable consensus standard has—
“(A) ground and flight tested random samples of the aircraft;
“(B) found the sample aircraft performance acceptable; and
“(C) determined that the make and model of aircraft is suitable for safe operation.
“(g) Prohibition.—It shall be unlawful for any person to introduce or deliver for introduction into interstate commerce any unmanned aircraft manufactured on or after the date that the Administrator adopts a relevant consensus standard under this section, unless the manufacturer has received approval under subsection (d) for each make and model.”.

TimJ

This bill as it sits will raise the manufacturing cost of our ARFs in turn raising the price to the consumer. If you like to build, this bill makes it nearly impossible to fly your model.

Yes folks, now we are screwed. Our hobby is teetering on the edge of a cliff.

NOW IS THE TIME TO BREAK OUT THE TORCHES AND PITCH PORKS!!

CESSNA 421

My Feedback: (17)

I saw this coming over a year ago when I outlined the ramifications of embracing multi rotor aircraft with the AMA and was blown off. After reading the AMA's response to me I knew it was in the interest of money for the AMA not to disallow drones at any sanctioned field or insure them through the AMA. Only those people subscribing to the Ostriage syndrome didn't see this coming...you know head in the sand hoping it would go away.

Consider this why would the government want to allow private model flyers (us) to have free reign over airspace that commercial companies using drones in their business would be willing to pay for.. just a thought.

Flight Risk

My Feedback: (1)

Just don't crash what you have, rebuild everything that is rebuildable.

bokuda

My Feedback: (7)

That assumes that existing aircraft will be "grandfathered." I see no such provision in the bill.

Sport_Pilot

I thought the bill outlawed anything homemade as well? IMO pretty ridiculous even for homemade MR's. Bet this is unenforceable.

bokuda

My Feedback: (7)

It does and it is. It is enforceable in that flying anything homemade will be illegal. You'll build and own static models if you choose under this

It is completely ridiculous. I've been in this hobby for 55+ years and suddenly what I have been doing without incident could be illegal.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

It's not even close to being illegal, and it won't be anytime soon. We should continue to fly our planes and enjoy the hobby rather then gnashing our teeth and prophesizing something that in all likelihood will never come to be. Legislation will crop up at the state and federal level in one form, it rarely if ever is passed in it's original form.