Go Back  RCU Forums > RC Airplanes > AMA Discussions
Reload this Page >

AMA - Just 250 words in FAA Report on Drone Safety

Notices
AMA Discussions Discuss AMA policies, decisions & any other AMA related topics here.

AMA - Just 250 words in FAA Report on Drone Safety

Old 04-29-2017, 04:13 AM
  #1  
franklin_m
Thread Starter
 
franklin_m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 4,561
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default AMA - Just 250 words in FAA Report on Drone Safety

Yesterday the FAA announced and published the results of that big study they funded on drones, the one looking at safety etc. that will inform the rule making process. Links are provided below. If you look at the report, which is extensive, well researched, and highly scientific, the AMA's "data" received just 250 words (counting the paragraph title) in 195 pages of dense writing.

In an email to EVP Gary Fitch about two years ago, I commented that AMA would face increasing pressure over the next few years and would find itself needing the ability to prove it's members were as safe as they say. I recommended that they start keeping much better mishap and near miss data so they would be ready for it. He pointed out that they were "pretty smart" people and didn't see the need. Now they're staring down a report mentions AMA "data" only in passing. Why? Because this is a serious scientific study and they know AMA's "data" is garbage. If data is good, you don't mention it just once in a report and never refer to it again.

This report also discusses science based risk to life from crashing "drones." They've pulled from ample sources that show about 150 ft-lbs of force to the head / torso of a standing person produces a 90% Probability of Fatality (POF). Putting that in perspective, a 30lb 200 mph "toy" represents about 40,000 ft-lbs of force. Speaking of turbine flying by AMA members, in the July EC meeting they were discussing lack of compliance / self enforcement of safety rules by turbine community. By their own admission, AMA "knows there is a problem" but that they "need to address it without driving away members." Pretty sad commentary that AMA is willing to balance membership with safety. But they are.

For a couple years I've been trying to get the AMA EVP (Gary again) to take decisive action to address the danger presented by heavy and fast models being flown by a group that has a loose sense of compliance and apparently little willingness to hold each other accountable. Now the rule making body has ample science to call for and get new rules. AMA had a chance to clean their own house, they chose the slow approach to save members at a time when time was not a luxury they had. Now the report is out and the risks are clear. It's only a matter of time until FAA can justify more restrictions.

FAA Announcement: https://www.faa.gov/news/updates/?newsId=87950
Assure Reports / PPTs: FAA and ASSURE Announce Results of Ground Collision Study ? PR

Last edited by franklin_m; 05-25-2017 at 12:33 PM. Reason: Corrected, should be 40K ft/lbs
Old 04-29-2017, 01:48 PM
  #2  
donnyman
 
donnyman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Manor, TX But my heart is in Brooklyn N.Y.
Posts: 2,357
Received 124 Likes on 97 Posts
Default

Hello
The FAA is in a power grab mode as I see it' and is usng drones to scare the populace to cough up more money for itself. Which should be of no surprise when one considers the way our governing representives function.

The AMA is limited in it's powers to make many moves, and gathering data can get expensive. What rule do you think would improve the safety of any of the activities the AMA is involved in?

I haven't ever seen rules make much of a difference in anything. For instance, DWI rules exist, but the drunks are killing on a wholesale basis. (I got many more)
One cannot control the actions of those that do not exercise common decency or respect. We will always have those that make the majority of us miserable by their actions. unless some moral changes are made.
It is understadable ones concern in these matters, but the decisive actions you call for is rather vague. What specificlly do you recommend ? other than charge the leaders to DO SOMETHING?!
Old 04-29-2017, 02:53 PM
  #3  
init4fun
 
init4fun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 4,354
Received 49 Likes on 43 Posts
Default

Hi Donny ,

I will not speak for Franklin , but for quite some time now Franklin has been advocating for the AMA to do two things ;

Properly enforce it's already written rules (things like pulling the turbine waiver from the mayhem field guy , for example) , with the public being informed of any and all corrective action(s) taken
and ,
for the AMA to keep accurate , public records of all incidents , with the idea that specific hard data can lead to better ideas of how to prevent such crashes/incidents , the less "mayhem" the better for the hobby's public and FAA image .

I personally do agree with both of Franklin's ideas , with the one caveat that as I've said in the past I highly doubt anyone will be reporting any incident that doesn't leave a "Paper Trail" , so a crash database would naturally only include those crashes bad enough for an injury or property damage insurance claim . This leaves out what I'd bet would be the 98% of all RC crashes ; single plane into the ground/fixed object with no injury/property damage being reported . In all reality , I know of not one person , myself included , who would report a dumb thumb rekitting of a model plane that didn't leave a paper trail along with the Balsa trail so maybe that right there should be the threshold of reporting , no report for the spreading of the Balsa confetti unless the cost of the crash is more than the value of the unfortunate now former model airplane .
Old 04-30-2017, 03:39 AM
  #4  
franklin_m
Thread Starter
 
franklin_m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 4,561
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by donnyman
Hello
The FAA is in a power grab mode as I see it' and is usng drones to scare the populace to cough up more money for itself. Which should be of no surprise when one considers the way our governing representives function.

The AMA is limited in it's powers to make many moves, and gathering data can get expensive. What rule do you think would improve the safety of any of the activities the AMA is involved in?

I haven't ever seen rules make much of a difference in anything. For instance, DWI rules exist, but the drunks are killing on a wholesale basis. (I got many more)
One cannot control the actions of those that do not exercise common decency or respect. We will always have those that make the majority of us miserable by their actions. unless some moral changes are made.
It is understadable ones concern in these matters, but the decisive actions you call for is rather vague. What specificlly do you recommend ? other than charge the leaders to DO SOMETHING?!
Well, for starters, when something is traveling at 293 feet per second, I don't understand the logic of allowing it to travel under power for almost 600 feet w/o any control. AMA doesn't require a turbine to automatically shut down for a full two seconds after loss of signal. And remember, the Assure study showed that 150 ft-lbs of energy to the torso results in a 90% probability of fatality. This same out of control turbine has on order of 80,000 ft-lbs of energy.

As to what else leadership can do, besides reducing the 2 second thing above, would be to change how they manage the revoked turbine waiver list. If someone has a history of bad behavior, doesn't it make sense to make sure that folks know about it? So if they yank someone's turbine waiver, their name stays on a list for five years. They might have earned their waiver back, but the name is still there. I'm thinking folks might behave themselves a little more.

Those are a couple ideas.
Old 04-30-2017, 06:01 AM
  #5  
donnyman
 
donnyman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Manor, TX But my heart is in Brooklyn N.Y.
Posts: 2,357
Received 124 Likes on 97 Posts
Default

I do not wish to belittle and or criticize anything said thus far, my intent is to inject a level of sanity? into the situation.
If the two second rule existed how does one enforce it? fail safe systems could accomplish the shutdown but shutdown or no, loss of signal produces a uncontroled projectile and no rule is going to change that no matter what it is.
As I said earlier, drunk drivers continue to drive with or without a license, the rules can't stop that. Look at the list of child molesters, the list, and pictures, hasn,t stopped them.

I commend you for your concerns, but I know rules are only a guide and provide a means to administer disipline AFTER THE FACT. I have tried to prevent disasters and I find rules do not accomplish the task. How many times has the established speed limits on our highways been exceeded?
Another appproach has to be used and it starts with each individual.

Respectfully..................DONNY
Old 04-30-2017, 07:57 AM
  #6  
franklin_m
Thread Starter
 
franklin_m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 4,561
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by donnyman
I do not wish to belittle and or criticize anything said thus far, my intent is to inject a level of sanity? into the situation.
If the two second rule existed how does one enforce it? fail safe systems could accomplish the shutdown but shutdown or no, loss of signal produces a uncontroled projectile and no rule is going to change that no matter what it is.
As I said earlier, drunk drivers continue to drive with or without a license, the rules can't stop that. Look at the list of child molesters, the list, and pictures, hasn,t stopped them.

I commend you for your concerns, but I know rules are only a guide and provide a means to administer disipline AFTER THE FACT. I have tried to prevent disasters and I find rules do not accomplish the task. How many times has the established speed limits on our highways been exceeded?
Another appproach has to be used and it starts with each individual.

Respectfully..................DONNY
In dealing with any number of real world events, I've observed that "There is no problem that can't be made worse." Sooooo, let's say we have that out of control airplane and it's going to crash. One of the premier operators, Bob Violett, said that "Experience has taught us that if the engine is switched off just seconds before impact, the probability of a fire is greatly reduced (note 1)." Therefore, why allow the engine to run w/o receiver control for 2 seconds, or almost 600' at 200mph, before it crashes? AMA's rule takes a bad problem and makes it worse by greatly increasing the chance of a crash AND a fire.

As for compliance? At events attended by the by the public, make it a condition of participation that failsafe be demonstrated. Start turbine on the ground, then event official shuts off signal and watches what happens. Given that AMA's recommended standoff is well less than 600 feet, I'd recommend a shutdown more appropriate to the distance one of these projectiles can travel before the motor shuts down (plus some safety buffer). So maybe more on the order of half-second?

The problem with many unfamiliar with public policy making and implementation is that they expect a single rule to solve all problems. In reality, compliance with any rule is imperfect, and it's a fabric of rules that result in the desired outcome. In professional aviation safety program management, we don't assume that any single think will prevent a mishap. We look for layers of protection, each imperfect, yet any single layer can prevent a chain of events (note 2). In aviation safety programs we go one further, and that is assume failures, and develop ways to mitigate the impact of the failures. That's why at full scale air shows there's seldom maneuvers that have the velocity vector pointed at the crowd. Yes, the Blues and the T-Birds do it, but that maneuver is tightly controlled and executed by some of the most well trained and disciplined operators in the world, flying some of the best maintained aircraft in the world, aircraft that have redundant flight control systems. And even then there's extensive plans on where to point the airplane if there's any sign of trouble.

So yes, I think the immediate things AMA could do would be to change the failsafe to less than a second for these heavy and fast aircraft. But AMA's got to step up to the plate and enforce, something they're loathe to do. Just go look at minutes from the July 2016 EC meeting. They admit they know there's a problem safety in the jet community, but they "don't want to drive away members." I think that speaks volumes...membership concerns affecting safety decisions.

Note 1: Safety Issues
Note 2: Accident Causation Model - AviationKnowledge
Old 04-30-2017, 08:22 AM
  #7  
donnyman
 
donnyman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Manor, TX But my heart is in Brooklyn N.Y.
Posts: 2,357
Received 124 Likes on 97 Posts
Default

Having been in the military and as a rated pilot I have found that many things we think as well work out isn't any better than what we are doing right now, Alot of those pilots are dead today and the rules didn't help one bit.

My opinion doesn't negate the need for rules and you are not unreasonable in what you say.

please suffice it to say many of our leaders haven't a clue as to what maybe best overall and your comments with suggestions should help that thought process.

I rest my case at this point with this ... Rules won't get the job done! only our individual respect and morality will.

DONNY
Old 05-24-2017, 12:50 PM
  #8  
GSXR1000
My Feedback: (7)
 
GSXR1000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Carrollton, TX
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by donnyman
Having been in the military and as a rated pilot I have found that many things we think as well work out isn't any better than what we are doing right now, Alot of those pilots are dead today and the rules didn't help one bit.

My opinion doesn't negate the need for rules and you are not unreasonable in what you say.

please suffice it to say many of our leaders haven't a clue as to what maybe best overall and your comments with suggestions should help that thought process.

I rest my case at this point with this ... Rules won't get the job done! only our individual respect and morality will.

DONNY
So you and Franklin are both ex Military Pilots and have a differing opinion on what the AMA should do for the short term?
Old 05-24-2017, 04:54 PM
  #9  
Hydro Junkie
 
Hydro Junkie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Marysville, WA
Posts: 10,523
Received 130 Likes on 123 Posts
Default

Being military pilots doesn't mean they think alike since values and experience also come into play in any thought process. While not a pilot, I'm also a "product" of naval aviation. What I see going on as someone that's worked in the most dangerous environment in the world is that neither the AMA or FAA have a clue as to how to handle what's going on in the world of R/CAir.
The AMA thinks all is good or, at least, tries to put on a facade as such. In actuality, the EC is in protection mode, trying to keep the little bit of influence they have with the flyers. Their court case against the FAA has been shown to be a joke so they are scrambling to retain "face" in the R/C world.
The FAA is scrambling to make good on their "power grab" after losing in court. The loss to a private individual cost the FAA serious amounts of clout with Congress and the general population so they are in panic mode.
Neither one is looking at the real problems:
1) quads being flown recklessly by people that either don't know the laws or don't care to follow them
2) planes being flown outside the AMA's vaunted "Safety Code" by people that should know better
3) park flyers buzzing people in parks because the people flying them look at them as toys and not as a dangerous projectiles that can harm or even kill
Until the two, along with Congress, start working together to solve the issues with a workable solution, things are only going to get worse
Old 05-24-2017, 07:13 PM
  #10  
MajorTomski
 
MajorTomski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Oklahoma City, OK
Posts: 2,536
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Default

Interesting thread. I didn't find it till today. I echo what has been written here. In my opinion, the AMA safety committee has absolutely no idea how to effectively develop and enforce any form of meaningful safety measures with respect to model aviation. And the committee is afraid of anything that could possibly point that out to the rest of the world.

With the FAA taking a closer look at model aviation, I will bet that within 5 years there will be a model related mishap with a jet or an LMA that will force the FAA to negate the AMA's CBO status for models.
Old 05-25-2017, 11:56 AM
  #11  
S_Ellzey
Senior Member
 
S_Ellzey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Waco, Texas
Posts: 524
Likes: 0
Received 15 Likes on 8 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by franklin_m
Yesterday the FAA announced and published the results of that big study they funded on drones, the one looking at safety etc. that will inform the rule making process. Links are provided below. If you look at the report, which is extensive, well researched, and highly scientific, the AMA's "data" received just 250 words (counting the paragraph title) in 195 pages of dense writing.

In an email to EVP Gary Fitch about two years ago, I commented that AMA would face increasing pressure over the next few years and would find itself needing the ability to prove it's members were as safe as they say. I recommended that they start keeping much better mishap and near miss data so they would be ready for it. He pointed out that they were "pretty smart" people and didn't see the need. Now they're staring down a report mentions AMA "data" only in passing. Why? Because this is a serious scientific study and they know AMA's "data" is garbage. If data is good, you don't mention it just once in a report and never refer to it again.

This report also discusses science based risk to life from crashing "drones." They've pulled from ample sources that show about 150 ft-lbs of force to the head / torso of a standing person produces a 90% Probability of Fatality (POF). Putting that in perspective, a 30lb 200 mph "toy" represents about 80,000 ft-lbs of force. Speaking of turbine flying by AMA members, in the July EC meeting they were discussing lack of compliance / self enforcement of safety rules by turbine community. By their own admission, AMA "knows there is a problem" but that they "need to address it without driving away members." Pretty sad commentary that AMA is willing to balance membership with safety. But they are.

For a couple years I've been trying to get the AMA EVP (Gary again) to take decisive action to address the danger presented by heavy and fast models being flown by a group that has a loose sense of compliance and apparently little willingness to hold each other accountable. Now the rule making body has ample science to call for and get new rules. AMA had a chance to clean their own house, they chose the slow approach to save members at a time when time was not a luxury they had. Now the report is out and the risks are clear. It's only a matter of time until FAA can justify more restrictions.

FAA Announcement: https://www.faa.gov/news/updates/?newsId=87950
Assure Reports / PPTs: FAA and ASSURE Announce Results of Ground Collision Study ? PR
You calculated the energy for a 30 lbs Jet at 200 mph wrong. It is more like 40,000 ft-lbs (one half times mass times velocity squared)

But it only takes a 5 pound object going 30 mph to get 150 Ft-lbs of kinetic energy. (1/2 * 5/32.2 * (30*5280/3600)^2) That is a .60 sized Ugly Stick at half throttle. So there is a whole bunch of models out there that can kill you if you get hit by one. Same can be said of automobiles.

The big difference between the Jet and the Ugly Stick is:

The Jet is required to have a failsafe setting, the Ugly Stick is not. (the jet community went to the AMA with that regulation by the way) The Ugly Stick can fly off and do damage at long ranges, the Jet will come down in a definable area.

The Jet is flown by someone who had to prove he could fly it, the Ugly Stick is not.

The Jet has requirements on its fuel system, the Ugly Stick does not.

The Jet has requirements for a brake system, the Ugly Stick does not.

The Jet has a defined speed limit, the Ugly Stick does not.

These are facts, not speculation, unlike your comments about a group that has a loose sense of compliance.

We can hang together or hang separately, you seem to be advocating separately.
Old 05-25-2017, 12:23 PM
  #12  
franklin_m
Thread Starter
 
franklin_m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 4,561
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by S_Ellzey
The big difference between the Jet and the Ugly Stick is:

The Jet is required to have a failsafe setting, the Ugly Stick is not. (the jet community went to the AMA with that regulation by the way) The Ugly Stick can fly off and do damage at long ranges, the Jet will come down in a definable area.

The Jet is flown by someone who had to prove he could fly it, the Ugly Stick is not.

The Jet has requirements on its fuel system, the Ugly Stick does not.

The Jet has requirements for a brake system, the Ugly Stick does not.

The Jet has a defined speed limit, the Ugly Stick does not.

These are facts, not speculation, unlike your comments about a group that has a loose sense of compliance.

We can hang together or hang separately, you seem to be advocating separately.
Those are great, so long as they're enforced. If you read the AMA EC minutes from summer, you'll see talk of failure to enforce by jet community. There's also any number of videos that I've found showing AMA members at thousand feet or more, without a spotter, inside class E airspace that begins at 700', and within a Victor airway. Or AMA waiver holders at a field standing around doing nothing as a flier does speed runs, posting them on you tube (252 MPH), diving at high speed toward heavily travelled interstate interchanges. Or flying over countless non-participating people and buildings in the park. Again, video also shows AMA members standing by and watching (have to be AMA to fly at field).

And then there's the LMAs that narrowly miss crowds, large and fast aircraft rocketing toward crowds, and safety standoff distances waived by AMA "officials". Or how about the large electric heli that went into the crowd at Muncie this summer? Not like there's been a pretty recent case of such an aircraft actually killing someone.

My point is that AMA has rules, but rules are useless if they're not actively enforced. And that's where I think AMA fails. It's not if there's an ugly mishap, it's just when. There's lots of leading indicators, including a complete flyaway of a turbine (as reported by AMA AVP in these pages) at Nall. So much for all those safety systems eh?

Complex systems fail in complex ways, and they're failing frequently.
Old 05-25-2017, 12:32 PM
  #13  
franklin_m
Thread Starter
 
franklin_m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 4,561
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by S_Ellzey
You calculated the energy for a 30 lbs Jet at 200 mph wrong. It is more like 40,000 ft-lbs (one half times mass times velocity squared)
Good catch.

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.