IMAC at Vegas

Pattern at Hollister

Soaring in St. Paul Or.

Pattern and soaring in Molalla

See any buildings to be overflown in any of these pictures? Would these sites be the " problem FRIA sites " that Franklin warns people about? I don't think so.

Actually there are buildings (and roads and cars on them) in one or more photos. The others are cropped so tightly it hardly proves what's around the field.

And do an energy calculation on your 6.5 pound model impacting at 50 MPH. Works out to 735 joules, and it more than equivalent to what the construction industry considers a FATAL blow (i.e. from a dropped tool), and their calculations assume a construction grade hard hat. Which is PPE that anyone on the receiving end of your toy will not be wearing. The reason FARs say no overflight of non-participants. Keep in mind, all it takes is one disgruntled neighboring property owner...

And I couldn't help but notice you posted photo of slope soaring. How ironic that you imply these can't hurt anyone where in fact someone was just KILLED recently.

Where did I imply that our models could not cause injury? More Franklin spin on what was actually said? That didn't work out so well for you last time did it?

That was kind of you to identify all the places you fly. Again, FARs establish the rules. If you (or your fellow club member / participants) choose to break them, it's doing nothing but put your beloved FRIA at risk. It won't take long for those hostile to such places to create a "go by" for unhappy neighbors to inform themselves on what rules you're breaking and then how to articulate that to FAA in a way to have an impact.

LOL, more foolish assumptions. You have no idea the size of overfly areas, neighboring property lines, agreements with property owners etc. You responded exactly as I knew you would. So predictable, but now I'm going to go work on my new pattern airplane for 2020 that I will be flying in exactly the same fashion that I have previous years.

How many fields are lost because a new owner doesn't support it? How many are lost due to encroachment when one of those big neighbors sell to a developer? All it takes is one. Easy enough to create a roadmap of how to shut down a FRIA. Especially easy for any that are operated by governments. I mean have you or anyone else informed parks and rec etc. that club operations violate an explicit law (say 400 AGL in class G)?

IG's are a good place to send letters too ... especially when there's a sweetheart deal that's not open to all taxpayers.

Bet you're working on that right now. "Equal protection" -- what a joke.

In the interest of full disclosure, would you mind telling us what size/weight/speed threshold values you DO consider safe for model aircraft? And therefore won't be trying to ban? Some of those taken in by your "equal protection" agenda might like to know just what kind of "toys" they'll be left to play with if you get your way.

I would say that generally speaking, I'm against anything over 55lbs. It's clear that FAA views those differently, and quite honestly I think those look more like something that should be individually registered, airworthiness checked, and inspected periodically (by someone in FAA).

As for the rest, I think we should be looking at total energy. That way it automatically accounts for mass, velocity, and altitude. Beyond that, I think limits need to based on the airspace. I personally believe there should be be altitude separation between majority of manned aircraft and unmanned. I'm skeptical of spotters as a mitigation. Why? AMA's own video demonstrating spotters show both operator and spotter tracking the aircraft. An EFFECTIVE spotter should be looking 360 around the site, NOT be a second set of eyes looking at the same airspace as the operator. Without visual acuity verification and hearing checks, my confidence in spotters goes way down. So that means in class G, it's 400 AGL. However, with altitude reporting telemetry and alarm on transmitter, I could support recreational sUAS limited to no higher than 100 feet below floor of class E at the site. In controlled airspace, I support whatever ATO agrees. Additionally, I advocate a ban on recreational sUAS inside the lateral limits of Military Training Routes during published hours of operation.

I don't want to give a hard and fast size, but rather limit by TE, flying site dimensions, altitude limits per above, and flight path. Idea being that at any point in the path, based on the current velocity vector, a complete loss of control would result in sUAS impacting inside lateral limits of FRIA and no closer to 100 feet from any non-participant (FAA's definition of participant) inside the FRIA.

And your TE limit is? Preferably in terms of easily interpreted charts and graphs that the technically illiterate among us can actually USE?

That is completely impossible to predict as you very well know. A complete loss of control could occur at any time, and the model could react in any conceivable way depending on the nature of the failure. Including cruising straight and level out of the lateral limits of the FRIA.

If the aircraft remains within the FRIA, not even a fail-safe mode would help; since there are failure modes (loss of power at the receiver) which would inhibit the fail safe from acting. So you're basically wanting to ban anything physically capable of generating lethal force in a terminal dive -- with the power plant operating at 100%.

Since the post-failure path of the aircraft cannot be predicted, the requirement to miss non-participants by 100 feet is meaningless.

Of course you were cunning enough to put this in terms of "FRIA limits". But since your stated goal is to "stick a fork in FRIAs" that's bogus. Any regulatory body adopting this concept would have no alternative but to ban anything flying ANYWHERE which is capable of generating lethal force. Which, I have a funny feeling, will be construed as anything weighing more than 0.55lb.

Pay attention folks! This what this guy really wants, and if you don't oppose him, he'll work with the FAA to make it happen.

This is actually a requirement of spotting for a driver at a boat race. The spotter's job is to be looking no less than three buoys ahead of the boat he's spotting for to make sure there is nothing in front of the boat that will be detrimental to that boat. This includes wildlife(aka ducks, geese, turtles, beaver, dogs, etc), dead boats, parts of boats that came off, free floating buoys that have been hit by boats during the heat, sticks, etc. If the spotter is just watching the boat he's spotting for, by the time he sees something on the water, it's too late for the driver to avoid hitting that object. I've not finished several heats due having to avoid something that I didn't know was ahead of my boat due to a spotter not doing his job

I can say with 100% certainty that having a spotter scanning the airspace happens more frequently then you may think. During a sailplane flight the timers job is not only to give the pilot time updates but to scan the sky for signs of lift usually in the form of wind change, cloud formations, birds, other sailplanes but most importantly since an altitude of 2,000' is not uncommon, manned aircraft. During a Pattern flight, the callers job is not only to remind the pilot of the sequence of maneuvers but to be scanning the path of the airplane to avoid other participants and help with aerobatic box positioning as well.

Since I know that some in this thread are " show me the numbers " kind of guys. Perhaps he can show statistics where see and avoid has failed in keeping traditional models and full scale aircraft from colliding.

Fortunately, the upcoming test presents an opportunity to elevate the level of technical literacy amoung recreational sUAS operators.

I see what you mean about literacy. Quite interesting that you're saying something is impossible that FARs essentially already requires you to do. To refresh, FAR 107.19(C) requires YOU to "ensure that the small unmanned aircraft will pose no undue hazard to other people, other aircraft, or other property in the event of a loss of control of the aircraft for any reason (emphasis added)." All I did was add some distances.

So your "loss of control at any time" [ironically almost word for word from FAR 107.19(C)], or loss of receiver power, etc. etc. etc. don't matter. FAR 107.19(C) is abundantly clear. NO MATTER WHAT, YOU are required to ensure that if YOU lose control of your sUAS for ANY reason, including all of the ones you mention above, it poses no undue hazard to to other people, other aircraft, or other property.


My goal is to ensure that all citizens are treated equally under this rule, and yes, I want to stick a fork in the FRIA concept as it's currently proposed. I think there is a strong equal protection argument, a strong anti-trust argument (AMA would effectively have a monopoly on flying sites), and a strong safety argument. Equal protection is solved by requiring all citizens be able to use them w/o regard to membership status, the monopoly would be solved in the same manner, and the lateral limits (combined with existing FAR 107 above) solves the safety piece.

I'm confident that regulators will see the flaw in the concept and rewrite the rule to ensure these flaws are fixed.

"More frequently than you may think?" Uhm, it's supposed to be all the time.

Show me the numbers? No need. I suggest you consult the Aeronautica Information Manual, 4-4-10(d) where it discusses systematic visual scanning (note 1). You have an obligation under the FARs to always avoid manned aircraft. You DO NOT have an obligation under the FARs to avoid other toy planes. Therefore, it is rather obvious that your "spotter's" primary job is searching 360 for MANNED aircraft. I also suggest your refresh yourself on the FARs, particularly 107.37. If your spotter isn't looking for the other aircraft 100% of the time, you can't really avoid what you don't see.

Note 1: https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publ...d_10-12-17.pdf

Headline News | Aero-News Network - The Aviation and Aerospace World's Daily, Real-time News and Information Service

Here's one kinda well publicized case of see and avoid becoming seen and crunched . While thankfully rare , it DOES happen , because there is no such thing as the 100% infallible human . Sure , we can work out butts off to make things as safe as possible and reduce the chances of accidents , but even if the "gross negligence" types could ever be completely eliminated there will always be the "small oops" kind of accidents waiting to rise up and bite your tail . I do , I do my best to follow all of the established safety rules in our hobby so that if there ever is an incident with my plane I'd like to think gross negligence on my part wasn't a factor .

You wanna see some hair raising stats from the full scale manned flight world , try searching "Runway Incursions" sometime , , , It's enough to make even the most ardent aircraft aficionado wanna avoid airports altogether

And of course the link don't work , it was an article about the full scale Biplane that demolished a RC model at an airshow a couple of years ago

I am quite familiar with that incident. It was an airshow at an uncontrolled airport. They had a line boss with a radio that had announced that the model aircraft were going to perform as scheduled. He alerted all the full scale aircraft in the area that the runway was closed to full scale traffic and to remain in the pattern until further notice. The Pitts pilot announced to the line boss he was going to make a low pass. He was told to abort multiple times but ignored the warnings. The model airplane was in a hover about 20' up when the impact happened. It was determined that the full scale pilot was at fault. In hindsight, the model pilot should have dumped his airplane into the ground when he heard the Pitts down low and close, however in the heat of the moment it's not as easy as we would hope. There would have been the risk of debris resulting from the intentional crash of the model.

Like you said, nothing is ever going to be 100%. If that were the goal for all of aviation then we simply wouldn't have any aircraft at all.

As my full-scale flight instructor taught me years ago: The FAA cannot tell you what is safe. The FAA cannot tell you what is smart. The FAA can only tell you what is LEGAL.

The word you should have emphasized is "UNDUE". Unlike you, the regulation writer clearly recognized the indisputable fact that aviation of any kind is an inherently risky activity.

The intent of the regulation is clearly to prohibit obviously unsafe practices such as flying over crowds, flying in close proximity to full-scale aircraft, or "buzzing". It does not mean that flight should be limited so that collision with people, other aircraft, or other property is physically impossible.

FAR 107.19 (b) also notes that the remote PIC (not some reg writer) is directly responsible for and is the final authority as to the operation of the sUAS. FAR 107.21 (a) authorizes the remote PIC to deviate from any Part 107 rule to the extent necessary to meet an emergency.

That's an interesting sound bite, but it will be FAA, NTSB, and litigators that decide whether the risk you imposed was "undue." The point you're missing is that your "inherently risky" and "obviously unsafe practices" are not get out of jail free cards. Nor do they justify doing what you want to do and hope that it turns out ok. Part of the evaluation of whether the risk was "undue" will be a determination of whether you planned for the loss of control or likely failures and whether your mitigations were adequate. And just like the determination of whether the risk you imposed was "undue" is entirely theirs to make, so too will be the determination as to whether your mitigations were sufficient or not. While there is risk in aviation, the FAA expects you to take measures to minimize that risk even when things go wrong ... and given loss of control happens frequently with RC toy planes, it would be "obviously unsafe" to not expect that to happen and plan for it.

Oh, and your caveat that a remote PIC can deviate from the rule to meet an emergency, your understanding of that is flawed. You could deviate from speed. You can deviate from altitude. You can even deviate from flying over people. But that carve out does NOT include deviating from the rule of imposing "undue risk." Try and make that argument.

Nope, but it does spell out 500 feet from people and buildings, etc. That is a hard rule, and as such, has been deemed to NOT be, "undue".

Astro

this will not be popular for most folk, but it is what i have done since real failsafes came available to us decades ago:
fixed wing: throttle to full idle/kill, all other controls to full positive snap inputsrotorwing: throttle to hold/kill, all others ail and rud to neutral, ele to full back.

this has worked, everytime it has been needed to keep an aircraft from flying away

Exactly. And I'd argue such a setup would be the minimum folks should do in order to ensure they stay on the right side of the "undue risk" as noted in the rule.

That sounds fine provided the airplane is out a ways. What about when an airplane is slow and over the runway or the threshold? That type of setup could easily put the airplane into the pilots station. IMO a bit more likely as while on final approach some less experienced guys tend to point the TX antenna towards the airplane where the signal pattern emitted from the antenna is weakest. If said airplane has an ignition system in front of the receiver the problem gets worse. I will stick with my failsafes set to engine off, surfaces nuetral.

Operators are not the public. They are participants under the FARs. Your system protects participants during a small fraction of the entire flight, but might well minimize damage to the toy. His method protects the public during the majority of the flight and does not consider preservation of the toy.