AMA Acknowledges 400 foot AGL Limit in Class G
12-28-2019, 06:22 PM
#77
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Richland,
WA
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Below is screen shots from Airmap LAANC app. You can see that three are right on the border of controlled airspace, and one is not so much.
This is the only club not right on a border of controlled airspace.
All views from Airmap LAANC app
12-28-2019, 08:12 PM
#79
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Richland,
WA
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Given their proximity to active controlled airspace I thought that was ... well... reasonable. It was a reasonable request on their part. In class G airspace 1200 feet would be reasonable.
12-28-2019, 08:15 PM
#80
Thread Starter
It should be easy for the clubs to justify the higher altitudes. Compare number of sorties, number of model flyaways, and model crashes before LAANC; to the same data during the time they complied with the LAANC limits; to the same data during this exception. Should be easy to prove quantitatively what many have said, that altitude limits mean more risk. Another way, that there’s a inverse correlation between crash rate and altitude.
Oh. I forgot. All the “pretty smart” EC members said they didn’t need this data. Could have had years of data for clubs around the country. But they didn’t think past the end of their nose. And now they don’t have ANY of the type of data that aviation professionals use to measure safety.
Oh. I forgot. All the “pretty smart” EC members said they didn’t need this data. Could have had years of data for clubs around the country. But they didn’t think past the end of their nose. And now they don’t have ANY of the type of data that aviation professionals use to measure safety.
Last edited by franklin_m; 12-28-2019 at 08:20 PM.
12-29-2019, 06:07 PM
#82
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Richland,
WA
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It should be easy for the clubs to justify the higher altitudes. Compare number of sorties, number of model flyaways, and model crashes before LAANC; to the same data during the time they complied with the LAANC limits; to the same data during this exception. Should be easy to prove quantitatively what many have said, that altitude limits mean more risk. Another way, that there’s a inverse correlation between crash rate and altitude.
Oh. I forgot. All the “pretty smart” EC members said they didn’t need this data. Could have had years of data for clubs around the country. But they didn’t think past the end of their nose. And now they don’t have ANY of the type of data that aviation professionals use to measure safety.
Oh. I forgot. All the “pretty smart” EC members said they didn’t need this data. Could have had years of data for clubs around the country. But they didn’t think past the end of their nose. And now they don’t have ANY of the type of data that aviation professionals use to measure safety.
12-30-2019, 11:14 PM
#85
Thread Starter
FAA collects runway incursions data so they know where to concentrate attention on procedures, markings, or education efforts. They collect this LEADING data so they never have a LAGGING event like a mishap.
Also. You might want to check the fine print of your policy. While most don’t comply, many have fine print that requires you to report damage. If nothing else, when you do put in a claim for something, ever notice that they ask if there was any prior damage? Yep. That’s the point where you’re expected to tell them about al those curve bumps and dents from backing into garbage cans you mentioned.
12-31-2019, 07:16 AM
#86
In the NPRM the FAA itself recognizes the safety record of model airplanes. Why you continue to beat this dead horse that models are dangerous escapes me.
Page 173:
Page 173:
The FAA recognizes that UAS flying sites exist today without a significant impact on aviation safety. As proposed in § 89.205, only a community based organization (CBO) recognized by the Administrator would be eligible to apply for the establishment of a flying site as an FAA-recognized identification area to enable operations of UAS without remote identification within those areas.
12-31-2019, 03:18 PM
#87
Again. Claims are, in terms of aviation safety metrics, a lagging indicator. Leading indicators like ones I mentioned identify whether you’re at higher risk of a lagging event .... BEFORE it happens. A claim means it’s too late.
FAA collects runway incursions data so they know where to concentrate attention on procedures, markings, or education efforts. They collect this LEADING data so they never have a LAGGING event like a mishap.
Also. You might want to check the fine print of your policy. While most don’t comply, many have fine print that requires you to report damage. If nothing else, when you do put in a claim for something, ever notice that they ask if there was any prior damage? Yep. That’s the point where you’re expected to tell them about al those curve bumps and dents from backing into garbage cans you mentioned.
FAA collects runway incursions data so they know where to concentrate attention on procedures, markings, or education efforts. They collect this LEADING data so they never have a LAGGING event like a mishap.
Also. You might want to check the fine print of your policy. While most don’t comply, many have fine print that requires you to report damage. If nothing else, when you do put in a claim for something, ever notice that they ask if there was any prior damage? Yep. That’s the point where you’re expected to tell them about al those curve bumps and dents from backing into garbage cans you mentioned.
records however are being kept unlike your previous claims that the AMA has not been keeping any records of accidents. Again I will state that the records are not up to your standards but you are not what I would call an authority here. Now that being said, can we do better? IMO when it comes to safety we can always do better regardless of how well we are doing. Reaching your goal of zero accidents is simply nothing more then a Unicorn. All aviation is inherently dangerous, model aviation included, what we have done is shown that we traditional modelers have been successful overall at mitigating those dangers. Sure you can always find some bad players out there breaking club rules and typically they are first dealt with through an attempt to educate them and then if that doesn't work then they are weeded out, no different then anywhere else where rules are repeatedly broken, sooner or later the privilege is revoked.
