RCUer75345

Oh esteemed safety officer, thou Paladin of the Blue Ether, the very thong of whose sandal I am unworthy to untie: I prostrate myself three times three, and do make this solemn confession:

I broke a landing gear bungee on the Nieuport on landing after Flight 1. It was a nice fall day (last October), and I didn't want to waste good weather. So I replaced said bungee with a No. 64 rubber band, and carried on for five more flights.

Should I have waited for an approved STC?



Oh BTW: The landing gear isn't built to print anyway, the kit version has no shock absorption capability. Should I have gotten an approved STC before flying the model the first time?

How many slaps on the wrist must I give myself before the next flight? Or do I write a letter to my local FSDO and plead for leniency?

franklin_m

The answer is exceedingly simple: Do the FARs or AMA's beloved "code" require one? If yes to either, then you should have waited. If not, then no.


See above.

If the answer to questions above is "no," then no wrist slapping nor letter to FSDO are required.

However, the real question to ask of you, an AMA member who contends you're not the problem, "Did you obey the altitude limits in part 349?"

RCUer75345

I take it then that should the FAA require such a rule in future - no matter how petty or trivial -- that you would support it?

I would say that I met the intent of Part 349 by practicing "see and avoid", i.e. maintaining assured clear distance between the model and full-scale aircraft.

The model is not equipped with altitude telemetry. Using my Mark I eyeball sensors combined with years of experience, I would estimate my maximum altitude as 399 feet, with the exception of the spin evaluation phase, during which it may have increased to 399.99.

There was no operational reason to fly the model higher than necessary, since nothing short of a thunderstorm updraft would be required for "thermalling" and excessive height could result in loss of orientation. After takeoff on Flight 1 I immediately gained sufficient altitude to safely release the sticks to find the amount of trim adjustment required. Significant adjustments in both roll and pitch trim were needed to permit hands-off cruising so I maintained a comfortable margin, probably 200 - 300 feet. Traffic patterns were kept fairly high (probably 100 feet on downwind leg) since this model descends rapidly with power off.

Once I had trim squared away I performed spins to left and right, both upright and inverted. Since I could not be sure of altitude required for recovery I gained an amount I judged prudent before attempting these manuevers. I should mention that the floor of controlled airspace over our club field is at 700'; we are located on flat ground with unobstructed views in all directions; and full-scale traffic at low altitude in our location is uncommon. My flying buddy acted as spotter during these maneuvers and kept a lookout for traffic. Both of us are private pilots and appreciate the need to maintain separation.

Before you ask, I will say that I made absolutely no attempt to keep the model within the confines of the runway, which is the only land the club leases at the site. Doing so would have required me to perform an impossibly tight traffic pattern for a model of this size and speed, or limit flight to a succession of aerobatic maneuvers such as Immelmann turns and split-S's.

None of the soybean plants in the adjacent field complained.

franklin_m

The FARs are explicit; I believe one should follow them. It's not up to you or me to decide whether they are "trivial" or "petty," our job is to follow them.


I'm searching for the word "intent" in section 349, and I don't find it. You either complied with the altitude limitations of it or you did not. It's a simple yes or no. And if you did not, or if you rationalize your non-compliance, then YOU - an AMA member - are indeed part of the problem. And I submit that exact attitude is one of the factors that contributed to the remote ID. To think that FAA hasn't read comments like yours and others where some brag about non-compliance, and that did not in part inform the writing of the RemoteID rule, then I think that's naive. So go ahead. Keep digging that hole for the community.

I'm convinced that the hobby needs to be seen, in deed and in spirit, of complying with the rules even if we don't like them. Defiance will only give legislators and regulators the stick they need to beat us with.

RCUer75345

In a republic, laws and rules are made by elected officials and their employees, who are ultimately responsible to those who elected them. They may not be made directly by the people, but they are made for, and in the name of, "the people". And if "the people" find that laws and rules are not working well it is their right and indeed duty to complain. Otherwise the regulators will just continue making more and more onerous rules knowing that the sheep will dutifully follow them anyway.

Safety regulations have a purpose; they aren't made up out of thin air. The reason for the 400' GENERAL rule is to provide altitude separation between model aircraft and full-scale air traffic. Speaking to an AMA District Vice President at a swap meet this winter, I heard that AMA is working with FAA on altitude limits for a number of club field within controlled airspace. In a couple of such cases the club requested AND RECEIVED an altitude limit of 500' or 600'. So 400' is not a "hard" or "final" limit even in controlled airspace -- even if that's the letter of the law at the moment.

I don't think so. I don't see temporarily exceeding 400' (if I actually did) in order to SAFELY enter and recover from a spin as any different that temporarily exceeding the posted speed limit in order to SAFELY complete a passing maneuver around a semi trailer on the highway. Total flight times for this model are limited by battery capacity to 5 - 6 min. Total climb times to spin entry altitude are maybe 20 sec, with only the last 5 - 10 sec presumably over 400'. The spin itself takes another 5 - 10 sec -- again with only a portion of the maneuver presumably over 400'. Even if the model were equipped with a Mark I "Auto Snitch" Remote ID beacon transmitting location and altitude every minute, there would only be a 15% - 30% probabilty of the data stream indicating a "violation". It's trivial -- as is the associated risk.

And I'm convinced the hobby needs to be totally honest with regulators about how the rules affect our operations. If we meekly comply, the other "stakeholders" who want to use the same airspace will swiftly regulate us out of existence. "Models? Aren't they just toys? Why can't they stay below 50 feet and within the limits of their runways?" Maybe if they saw what we ACTUALLY fly and what we ACTUALLY do with it they would make more reasonable rules!

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

So what you are really saying then, is that you are the self-appointed interpreter of the FAA rules and that if they do not suit you or your flying style, you will just continue to fly as you wish. (sometimes for the sake of flying the all-important spin manouver!)

NICE!

Regards,

Astro

jcmors

In the spirit of the original intent of this thread... The Happy AMA Thread... mixed in with a little advocacy... I think I may put my latest AMA sticker on my laptop. It will look nice there and may create some questions and conversation around what the sticker is, what the RC hobby is all about and who is the AMA.

Something I wouldn't have even thought about if not for this thread!

init4fun

That is a great idea for getting some public exposure . Back when I had a specific vehicle for bringing the planes to the field (A Chevy Venture minivan that ended up suffering an engine meltdown) I used to put them there and most who saw "AMA" on them without reading closer thought it was the American Motorcyclist Association (Which I was also a member of back when I still rode motorcycles)

The last bike I owned ....

franklin_m

And I'm still looking for the part of the law that says you don't have to obey it if you don't agree with it. Oh, that's right, it isn't in the law anywhere.

It's not general; it's a specific and unambiguous limit explicitly written into law as part of the FAA reauthorization act.

Wrong again. In fact, the same reauthorization act that specified an explict 400 foot limit in class G did NOT express a limit in controlled airspace. It left that to the FAA, and the FAA is operating within their authority to allow higher in controlled airspace. Which they have in a VERY few instances. But in far more instances they've exercised the same authority to set the limits lower. AMA does quite a bit of talking about results that never actually happen, for example using AMA number in lieu of registration, preserving 336, preventing operational limits in new authorization bill, etc. This is no different.

And that folks is a perfect example of "normalization of deviation," something that aviation safety professionals will immediately recognize. It also makes it difficult for those who contend AMA members are not the problem when you have an example of one rationalizing his own breaking of an explicit rule because either he doesn't agree with it or because he's been anointed by AMA with some superpower to decide, in the moment at any time, what is and what isn't a risk to manned aviation and people on the ground.

And your probability is based on what scientific study? Or is it just a number pulled out of thin air based on any number of unsupported assumptions about equipment capabilities, coverage, scan rates, data rates, etc.? Yeah, that's REALLY going to influence FAA and show them what rule followers AMA members are.

No problem. But in the meantime, I'm still looking for that part of the law that says you are not still in violation of a specific and explicit provision of law if you don't have to comply.

Tell you what. How about we have your employer follow that same premise with respect to fair labor laws? Or perhaps safety regulations in the workplace? Or maybe with respect to food safety? Or even police use of force? Or are you for selectively applying this "grognard rule for whether you have to follow something" rule? I suspect you would not be in favor of it if EVERYONE was allowed to use the same "grodnard rule".

Remaining within the lateral limits of the land set aside for exclusive use of the FRIA ensures that privacy rights and safety of those adjacent to that land are respected. We know from real world examples that AMA won't hold clubs accountable for following AMA rules, let alone FAA rules, therefore addtional mitigations are necessary. Had AMA taken action to hold clubs accountable, it might support allowing self-regulation. But since AMA takes a hands off approach when it comes to enforement, then FAA can (and I argue should) step in with additional measures.

RCUer75345

Just what "problem" am I and other AMA member supposed to be part of?

Could it be simply

But who made this rule? Is it necessary? Is it reasonable? Or is it merely an arbitrary "line in the sky" imposed by a bureaucrat because applying common sense and good judgement was "too hard to do"?

I'm not doing anything different than I was under the Section 336 exemption. Why should I strictly self-enforce an arbitrary altitude limit? Where's the FAA's safety case showing the risk to full-scale aircraft suddenly jumps from "acceptable" to "unacceptable" at 399.5 ft?

So I wasn't a "problem" until the FAA made me one. And I submit that Franklin's real problem with me isn't the rule itself, but the fact that I would even THINK of breaking it. For Franklin, rules are rules and must be followed. Even questioning them is unthinkable.

Here's an example of what that kind of thinking can ultimately lead to. This Chief of Naval Operations considered a trivial uniform regulation more important than his own life:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Michael_Boorda

So for the sake of the civil rights of soybean plants, all I can do with the Nieuport is taxi it around on the runway. Perfectly reasonable in FrankWorld.

All Orwell got wrong was the date...

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

Well, as much as I disagree with most of your opinions, your true colors are now showing.

Using your thoery, when the Federal speed limit was lowered to 55 mph, it would have been perfectly acceptable for me to continue driving at whatever speed I had before the law was passed because it hadn't caused any issues before.......

You sir, are an outlaw. Just what the hobby needs! Keep up the good work!

Wow, just wow!

Astro

franklin_m

It's not a rule, it's a LAW PL115-254 in fact. It was passed overwhelmingly by the US Congress and signed into LAW by the President. Even the member representing AMA's home district even voted for it. Now what's support!

See above. PL112-95 Section 336 was repealed by PL115-254 Section 349(b)(2); it no longer exists.

The FAA did not do it. See above.

Wikipedia? There was WAY more to this than just a uniform regulation.

If that's all the rules allow you to do, then so be it. Perhaps your club should buy more land instead of imposing risk (finanancial and otherwise) on your neighbors, all so you can play with your toys.

RCUer75345

No, I'm someone who has the personal integrity to be honest about the way I operate my models even though "it looks bad" in the current hypercharged debate environment. Anyone operating a model airplane with similar size and performance (54" span, 6-1/2 lb weight, about 60 MPH top speed) MAY be violating the 400' limit without knowing it. Or more likely, without asking the question because he can't stand the answer.

Funny you should bring that up, an awful lot of people did just that. It made ZERO sense to limit automobiles designed to operate safely above 70 MPH on a road network designed for 70 MPH to lower speeds just to satisfy the whims of an overreaching government. Radar detector sales soared. So did CB radio use so drivers could keep each other apprised of speed traps. Who remembers "Smokey and the Bandit?" Very few people were rooting for the cops! The government eventually saw the light and told the speed limit setters that one size does NOT fit all. As a result most interstates today have a 65 or 70 MPH limit as originally designed. And in some parts of the Far West there is no posted speed limit - drivers are free to use judgement and discretion.

I predict most model airplane fliers will adopt a similar attitude to the 400' rule, if they have not already. Though relatively few have the guts to own up to on a public forum.

RCUer75345

Fortunately the only rules that apply today are those made by the landowner. He doesn't mind us walking out into the field to pick up the occasional dropped piece or pranged bird. We know how to step between the crop rows.

RCUer75345

In this case, I'll take the Wikipedia article and its 32 sources cited over whatever cards you think you're holding. The specifics don't matter anyway; it's the principle -- the man committed suicide over what should have been regarded as a TRIVIAL infraction.

It's not surprising to read of Admiral Yamaguchi and Captain Kaku going down with the carrier Hiryu at Midway. Even though the loss of their knowledge and experience probably hurt their own side more than their enemies, it was their tradition. One does not expect to read of American officers self-immolating under similar circumstances -- let alone trivial bureaucratic minutia.

But in this brave new century, perhaps you believe standard equipment for the FAA field teams performing ramp and ops checks at FRIAs should include an automated judgement app and a small portable gallows?

franklin_m

Were it a uniform matter alone, it would be trivial. But as I said before, there is way more to this than what was published in public sources.

See above.

I think there would be some benefit from a few well timed and well placed FAA checks of compliance at events. However, on the subject of RemoteID, I do think every law enforcement agency should have sets of interrogation equipment to use in the field. Then when a new person buys the property adjacent to your field, and maybe they don't want your toys crashing in their fields or people trespassing to retrieve them, law enforcement and the court will be much more easily be able to crush the guilty.

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

In all reality, Grognard flying his model over a soybean field is a multitude safer then Franklin flying in a park/schoolyard. I flew today without coming anywhere close to 400'. Only because the fog hadn't lifted so the F5J sailplane didn't leave the car. Instead I enjoyed my first helicopter flights since 1995.

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

That could be debated, but it doesn't change the fact that we are discussing how he justifies breaking the law, safe or not.

Astro

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

LOL. Are you a psychopath? Should bank robbers who openly admit to robbing banks be hailed for their integrity?

I don't believe ignorance is a sound defense to breaking the law.

And they broke the law. Doesn't make it justifiable.

Yet they did, and it was most certainly the law.

There are many contributing factors to the changes in the speed limit. Not one of them was because people had radar detectors! In fact, the majority of the reasons have absolutely nothing to do with the ones you stated! As one who has traveled extensively on the Interstate highway system in the West, there are actually very few areas with no posted speed limits, and just because it is left to the drivers' discretion, does not eliminate the chance of getting a speeding ticket.

That just means that "most" people will be breaking the law. Certainly doesn't justify it.

I find it surprising that you were so active promoting that every modeler submit comments to the FAA and spent so much time crafting your comments, just to basically say, "I don't care what laws you enact, I will fly how I see fit anyway." Do you expect they will take your comments seriously?

Astro

init4fun

So how do you guys feel about the whole "Ginger VS Maryann" conundrum ? and can sweet AND sexy ever occupy the same physical form ?

If Pizza is round how come it comes in square boxes ?

RCUer75345

Come on Astro, do you honestly put speed limits for cars and altitude limits for toy airplanes on the same level as robbing banks?

So tell us -- how can you be absolutely sure that you've never been above 400' with any of your model planes? Or ever crossed a property line. You can't -- unless you have an altitude transponder and GPS installed and calibrated. And neither can anyone else in this discussion, including Grand Admiral Nimitz Nelson himself.

I don't expect them to be tracking comments signed with actual names against posts made on social media under pseudonyms - so yes, I expect them to take them as seriously as all the others.

I think the FAA realizes it's in their interest to make rules UAS users of all kinds will WANT to comply with. They have no real means of enforcement, and despite certain members' fantasies, local LEOs are not going to waste time and resources chasing down rogue toy plane fliers. Self-enforcement is the only viable option, so make rules people want to follow.

I hope the comments made will help sway the FAA to modify the proposed rules in appropriate ways. What I do then will depend on what comes out of the sausage machine.

Now you've torn it.

If any of you guys even TOUCH my Nieuport -- I'll have to kill ya.

If any of you even TOUCH my field box -- I'll have to kill ya.

If any of you even TOUCH my car -- I'll have to kill ya.

Just kidding, of course...

RCUer75345

Probably because round ones are more expensive to make?

RCUer75345

The only rational explanation I can come up with for this post is pure jealousy. It must gall you deeply that some of us have access to such nice facilities. 30+ plus older guys - and a few young - having fun with their toys on the margin of a crop field. In "the middle of nowhere" somewhere in the Midwest, where you wouldn't want to live anyway. And it has to be quashed, because it doesn't conform to your preconceived notions.

init4fun

Well that sure beats my "The boxes are square to give the bugs 4 corners to hide in" answer all to Hell ....

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

Are you actually going to tell me that you have NEVER bent a law or two? Never went over the speed limit? Never fudged the numbers on a Tex return? Never made an illegal U turn? If the way you break the rules here on RCU is any indication how you view rules and laws I would have to say you are the kettle calling the pot black.