astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

No. LOL.

Dude, you are hilarious! No reason to get emotional, we are having a discussion about toy airplane regulations here

Astro

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

And you to one of the many logical fallacies.

Astro

RCUer75345

I thought we were talking about robbing banks.

Do you know something about robbing banks? I bet you do...

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

Classy! Didn't YOUR acolyte that just throw that same stone at franklin and decree moral high ground?

What is it, that you know about me, that makes you think I know something about robbing banks? Or was that just a lame attempt at a baseless character assasination because you don't have a stable platform on which to have a beneficial debate?

Sure wish you guys could just stick to the facts instead of playground politics....

Astro

franklin_m

I'll do this in order so it's easy to follow. The FRIA concept ... AS WRITTEN ... is fundamentally flawed. IF, and I repeat IF, the proposed rule is changed to require they be open to all citizens equally without any requirement for forced association and FRIA operations are confined to the lateral limits of the land for with the organization has exclusive use, then I could support them.


Innocent? I think just above you freely admit that you deliberately violated explicit law so you could fly your toy like you WANTED as opposed to what the law requires. And you stated your friend at the club served as a spotter, observing the wilful violation and did not stop you. Neither act is "innocent," and as Asto pointed out is a compelling example of why self-regulation has failed.

I did not. Remainder of your point on this is another hyperbolic emotional reaction to someone who does not agree with a policy because they belive in Constitutional concept of equal protection under the law.

RCUer75345

Oh sorry - you robbed a lemonade stand by mistake.

RCUer75345

But that is not why you submitted comments, and not what you really expect to happen. You are on record, multiple times, as saying the real goal is to "stick a fork in the FRIA concept". To eliminate ALL FRIAs because you disagree with the probable management of SOME FRIAs. Why couldn't you just be honest about it? Take on the issue directly instead of concocting a BOGUS constitutional argument so the FAA would do your dirty work for you?

On the contrary. I admitted to replacing a broken landing gear bungee with a #64 rubber band, but as you pointed out that was neither a regulatory nor safety code issue. Yet. I'm sure your minions are working on it.

When you attempted to convene an online kangaroo court (whose charges I was not bound to respond to BTW) I gave my best estimate of maximum altitude as 399 ft, with a possible excursion to 399.99 before beginning each of several spins. I most certainly did NOT admit to exceeding 400' at any time. I agreed that it was possible, but speculation is not an admission of guilt. And in this country one is innocent until proven guilty. So PROVE I exceeded 400' before beginning a spin. You can't -- and therefore I am just as innocent as you.

Self-regulation is working just fine. The applicable language from AMA's safety code reads:

This is what's important, and consistent with common sense and good judgement.

Putting my private pilot hat on for a moment, I'd feel a LOT safer knowing modelers are actively practicing "see and avoid" than knowing they will be head down staring at telemetry screens trying to stay just under 400'. What if I happen to be at 375?

franklin_m

If it's so bogus, why be so concerned about it? And yes, I want to stick a fork in FRIAs ... AS WRITTEN ... because ... as I've said multiple times ... I oppose granting of privileges in PUBLIC airspace based on membership in any PRIVATE dues collecting organization.

I'll have to check with my Ophthalmologist friend, but I don't think the human eyeball can discern 0.99 feet in depth at a distance of 400 feet (and likely further as you were quite likely NOT operating direct overhead - slant range). But OK, you never directly admitted to going over 400 feet, but I can't help but notice your "wink wink" reference in the below, as well as EXTENSIVE rationalization of flight above that. Which leads one to wonder, if you didn't go over 400, they why work so hard to justify something you didn't do?So I'll leave it to readers to decide whether they believe you remained below 400.


Hardly. A Pennsylvania Superior Court found that:
And this despite AMA's requirement at the time that:
In regular violation of AMA's own rules ... clearly they were not regulating themselves, and this took place repeatedly over years as noted by the court. This despite "direct representatives of the AMA" also known as CDs, in charge of such events. And regardless, AMA knew or should have known of the problems, and they did nothing either. That is a utter failure of self-regulation.



No. Compliance with law. As we see from above example, one cannot rely on AMA members to exercise such common sense and good judgement, nor will AMA (organizationally) hold them accountable.

RCUer75345

So, because of the actions of ONE club, you want to shut down ALL clubs?

Isn't that a bit like fining ALL doctors because of ONE malpractice case? Or ALL automakers because of ONE faulty airbag case?

"Johnny wouldn't play nice with other kids in his sandbox. We gotta do something. I know: Let's BAN SANDBOXES!"

How childish.

init4fun

Well guys , since the FAA thing permeates all AMA forum threads , and understandably so since it's such a threat to the hobby , I figure while we're discussing it here in what's supposed to be the happy thread I might as well put my two cents in ;

I gotta admit to being a bit surprised by the notion put forth earlier that it's OK to break any of the new FAA directives if they interfere with an RC model airplane's flight path requirements . I would hope that especially now where the hobby is under such threat the last thing anyone would want to do would be the one who got publicly caught disobeying the present day FAA directives . Yes I know it's a one in a million (billion ? trillion ?) chance , but God forbid a small full scale (like some cute lil Cessna or Piper or similar) is brought down by an RC model airplane flying where it shouldn't be and and the literal excrement WILL be hitting the fan for the hobby (Remember guys , "Lawn Darts" were banned in the USA over one 14 year old girl's death) . And as to the inevitable question of whether I myself have been breaking any of the FAA's rules ? Since this stuff has been going on fairly strongly , for the past couple of years especially , I have only been flying my really small sized stuff (.25 and smaller glow & electric parkies) that I can deliberately keep "low & slow" because I'd be embarrassed as all Hell to end up on the 6:00 news as the guy who ruined the hobby for everyone . Meaning no , I am not knowingly breaking any FAA rules , having used a "How High" altimiter to train my eye to where 400' is for each of my presently flyable models (once I get a good feel for what 400' looks like , I shoot for about 50' less while flying) Another consideration of course is the fact that if the AMA and the coalition of RC industry leaders & other aviation interests are truly our last and only hope , I'd not want to be making their job any harder by providing any reason for the FAA to cite our unwillingness to follow their rules as the reason to nail the final nails into our hobby's coffin . "Patience is a virtue" (Or a lazy man's excuse for inaction , take your pick) and other than submitting a well written comment back when the comment period was open I'd say patience (or laziness) , and compliance are pretty much our only options right about now .....

franklin_m

One club? Yeah right. Below is maybe five minutes of internet searching. FYI, I particularly like the first one, which is almost identical to the problem that you said was "one club." In the article they even quoted the same AMA rule that should have prohibited such actions ... if self regulation existed ... or if AMA enforced their own rules. But these are too easy to find, which means there isn't sufficient self regulation nor active enforcement by the parent organization.

RC Flying Field issue comes down to oversight
"They had a habit of just flying right over our tree line and coming over into our property all the time" and even goes on to quote the AMA code saying members are to avoid such acts
https://www.newstribune.com/news/loc...rsight/637819/

Homeowners dispute with airplane club over noise from planes
https://weartv.com/news/local/homeow...se-from-planes

Model airplane club grounded by park service
https://www.poconorecord.com/news/20...y-park-service

Fire caused by remote control airplane near Cave Creek and Jomax Roads extinguished
https://www.fox10phoenix.com/weather...s-extinguished

Brush Fire Knockdown After Large Scale R/C Jet Crash
Search YouTube for above

RCUer75345

There is nothing "new" about a 400 GENERAL altitude limit for model airplane flying. I believe that was part of the AMA Safety Code when I started flying in 1976, and I believe it was included in an FAA Advisory Circular in 1981. What's different is it being treated as a "hard" limit.

As I understand it, the idea was to help separate models from full-scale traffic by keeping most of them, most of the time, below 400'. As opposed to most full scale, most of the time operating above 500'. There is no physical fence existing in this altitude band and simply observing an altitude limit will not prevent midair collisions. As has been discussed many times, there are perfectly valid reasons for some full-scale aircraft to operate below 500'. And model aircraft have been safely operated for decades above 400', doing such things as thermal soaring and vertical aerobatic maneuvers.

Yes, 400' is now the letter of the law; and legalists among us insist it be strictly observed and enforced. But look at how that "law" was made. Congress did not debate or discuss the issue; it was simply tacked onto an FAA reauthorization bill. Did the FAA really intend this to be a "hard" limit, for everyone, forever? Where is their justification for that? Laws are living things -- they change all the time.

And no, I disagree that we should roll over and play dead. If we stay well below 400' and are afraid to even talk among ourselves about exceeding it -- here on a model plane forum, for Pete's sake -- then the airspace above 350' becomes unused and available. The FAA will take it. Then we'll dutifully stay below 300', until they take that too. Then 200', 100' -- and goodbye R/C flying.

The real test of this will occur during the new season when Soaring, Pattern and other large scale model events occur. If the FAA does not shut them down, then they are clearly not serious about enforcing this limit. In the meantime, we need to educate the FAA about what we do and how much airspace is required. We are legitimate airspace users too, and their job is to figure out how to accomodate everyone -- to the maximum extent possible.

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

You jump from rolling over and playing dead to downright breaking the law, as if there are no other options? Seems very unreasonable to me.

Astro

RCUer75345

Prove I broke the law.

I could see exactly where Franklin was going with this when he started it. I played along, because I think the conversation is worthwhile. Does the FAA meet our needs, or do meet theirs? Are we airspace users or are we sheep to be corralled until eaten?

init4fun

Didn't you say you hold a private pilot's rating ? As one who is presumably used to operating within the FAA's rule structure I'm surprised to hear all this rebellious talk of "playing dead" and "sheep" . What our hobby needs is proper representation and not "John Wayne" esque bravado producing negative results and creating martyrs .

When fighting "tyranny" it's best to not find one's self on the loud end of the gun , but instead to live to fight another day .....

RCUer75345

Is this a courtroom or a Congressional hearing? Do I need to put on my suit and prepare a PowerPoint presentation to talk here? Or is this an open discussion forum where all points of view are welcome?

Or are you afraid that if you aren't a Good Boy, certain members will turn you in to the FAA?

init4fun

Naw , I'm not worried about being turned in to the FAA ..... (cause I'll bet they're already here) .

Is it still being paranoid if they really ARE out to git ya ?

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

I’d love to have a meaningful discussion with you but it is impossible with the big chip you carry on your shoulder and the fact that you keep using logical fallacies as your weapon.

Astro

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

Time for a little happy to come back to this thread ( well at least for me ) as of right now I have 5 pattern events and 6 Soaring events on my 2020 calendar. I would be willing to bet my RCU membership that all these events will go as planned without any interference from the FAA, just as the same events took place in 2019.

RCUer75345

If you did, you would not have equated a momentary altitude deviation with bank robbery. You are evidently only interested in discussions with people who agree with you.

RCUer75345

My buddy and I are working on several 1/6 scale WWI planes to take to the annual "Dawn Patrol Rendezvous" at Dayton, OH this fall. We'll be some of the smaller models there - I think the 1/4 and 1/3 scale types rarely cruise BELOW 400'. And this is on an Air Force base!

And on that happy note -- my work here is done. I intended to quit after the NPRM comment period closed, this last week reinforces that decision.

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

Very nice, I imagine some of the WWI airplanes can be challenging to fly due to ground handling. I do tend to gravitate towards biplanes, I have 3 of them currently in my fleet.

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

LOL. your, "momentary altitude deviation" is a self-admitted complete disregard and contempt for the law. oh, and you should take a quick look in the mirror!

Astro

jcmors

I don't have telemetry equipment on most of my models. I honestly believe that I fly well below 400 ft, but I KNOW for a fact that I have never endangered a manned aircraft as I practice see and avoid and generally have a spotter. There is NEVER a full size manned aircraft anywhere close to my models, if one become visible at all, I'm landed and on the ground before it is close enough for me to make out what kind of aircraft it is. Not to mention, since I generally fly below the treeline, if a full sized manned aircraft is in danger of being hit by my model, they have bigger problems because they are likely on the way to crashing!

mongo

My Feedback: (15)

and,
good riddance to ya.