No Fail Test......
#101
It didn't help that I was driving a Tahoe with an off road package as some areas I didn't know if it would fit through due to both it's width and height
#102
I have and it's not fun. What I found is that THE CLOSER YOU GET TO BOSTON, THE WORSE IT GETS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It didn't help that I was driving a Tahoe with an off road package as some areas I didn't know if it would fit through due to both it's width and height
It didn't help that I was driving a Tahoe with an off road package as some areas I didn't know if it would fit through due to both it's width and height
#103
My Feedback: (1)
I agree. The problem is that Astro is going to attack anything I say, that's what trolls do. If I allow him to continue it steps on my freedom of speech. That is unacceptable. If he doesn't like what I have to say he should just ignore it. If he wants to debate then do so like an adult. Following me into other forums to derail my advise is not only disrespectful to me but the fellow modeler seeking help. Quite childish behavior.
Originally Posted by speedracerntrixie
The problem is that Astro is going to attack anything I say, that's what trolls do.
Originally Posted by speedracerntrixie
If I allow him to continue it steps on my freedom of speech.
Originally Posted by speedracerntrixie
That is unacceptable. If he doesn't like what I have to say he should just ignore it.
Originally Posted by speedracerntrixie
If he wants to debate then do so like an adult.
Originally Posted by speedracerntrixie
Following me into other forums to derail my advise is not only disrespectful to me but the fellow modeler seeking help. Quite childish behavior.
How about the pot calling the kettle black? You take your beef completely across the internet to other platforms (RCG)! You internet stalk those whom you disagree with and post their personal information here? I would call your behavior not only childish, but ALARMING!
You sir, are delusional.
Astro
#105
By it’s very nature, if you reduce speeds relative to other traffic (and that includes pedestrians), then reaction time improves and accidents are less likely to occur.
On the other hand, if everything is moving together at a relatively consistent speed, then reaction time also improves because closure rates are relative.
Any aircraft below 400’ is generally going to be flying at about 100kts give or take. Unless on exactly opposite courses, the effect of any impact begins to reduce. Physics 101. Which is why I stated it was a bad analogy.
R_Strowe
#106
While I do agree with 99% of what is said here, I have in fact flown over 400'. I have no desire to be dis honest about that. There is no data that supports that flying below 400' is going to prevent any collision between a model airplane and a full scale airplane. The only such collision that I am aware of was between a 40% model and a Pitts special that happened at 30'.
#107
Not true. There's books full of MTRs out there, all over the country, where aircraft are routinely operating well in excess of 250KIAS indicated at 200-400 AGL. I can't think of the last time I've flown one at less than 420 indicated. Altitudes vary by route but it was quite common to fly them at 420 indicated at 200 AGL. Strike-fighters often plan their routes at 480 indicated - 500 feet AGL and below.
https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publ...ction_5.html20
#108
My Feedback: (1)
I did read what you wrote. And I stand by my assessment.
By it’s very nature, if you reduce speeds relative to other traffic (and that includes pedestrians), then reaction time improves and accidents are less likely to occur.
On the other hand, if everything is moving together at a relatively consistent speed, then reaction time also improves because closure rates are relative.
Any aircraft below 400’ is generally going to be flying at about 100kts give or take. Unless on exactly opposite courses, the effect of any impact begins to reduce. Physics 101. Which is why I stated it was a bad analogy.
R_Strowe
By it’s very nature, if you reduce speeds relative to other traffic (and that includes pedestrians), then reaction time improves and accidents are less likely to occur.
On the other hand, if everything is moving together at a relatively consistent speed, then reaction time also improves because closure rates are relative.
Any aircraft below 400’ is generally going to be flying at about 100kts give or take. Unless on exactly opposite courses, the effect of any impact begins to reduce. Physics 101. Which is why I stated it was a bad analogy.
R_Strowe
I will quote Speedy's initial statement one more time....
Originally Posted by speedracerntrixie
There is no data that supports that flying below 400' is going to prevent any collision
My statement was:
Originally Posted by astrohog
There is no data to support that driving 20 MPH in a school zone is going to prevent any collision
It does not say a word about REDUCING the chances of accidents. Key word is PREVENT. That word is ABSOLUTE, it means ZERO chance of collision. Pretty easy to slip that into your narrative to make it sound more palatable. It's another logical fallacy employed by those who have little or no defense to their side of a debate.
Astro
#109
My Feedback: (1)
"Any?"
Not true. There's books full of MTRs out there, all over the country, where aircraft are routinely operating well in excess of 250KIAS indicated at 200-400 AGL. I can't think of the last time I've flown one at less than 420 indicated. Altitudes vary by route but it was quite common to fly them at 420 indicated at 200 AGL. Strike-fighters often plan their routes at 480 indicated - 500 feet AGL and below.
https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publ...ction_5.html20
Not true. There's books full of MTRs out there, all over the country, where aircraft are routinely operating well in excess of 250KIAS indicated at 200-400 AGL. I can't think of the last time I've flown one at less than 420 indicated. Altitudes vary by route but it was quite common to fly them at 420 indicated at 200 AGL. Strike-fighters often plan their routes at 480 indicated - 500 feet AGL and below.
https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publ...ction_5.html20
Astro
#110
I did read what you wrote. And I stand by my assessment.
By it’s very nature, if you reduce speeds relative to other traffic (and that includes pedestrians), then reaction time improves and accidents are less likely to occur.
On the other hand, if everything is moving together at a relatively consistent speed, then reaction time also improves because closure rates are relative.
Any aircraft below 400’ is generally going to be flying at about 100kts give or take. Unless on exactly opposite courses, the effect of any impact begins to reduce. Physics 101. Which is why I stated it was a bad analogy.
R_Strowe
By it’s very nature, if you reduce speeds relative to other traffic (and that includes pedestrians), then reaction time improves and accidents are less likely to occur.
On the other hand, if everything is moving together at a relatively consistent speed, then reaction time also improves because closure rates are relative.
Any aircraft below 400’ is generally going to be flying at about 100kts give or take. Unless on exactly opposite courses, the effect of any impact begins to reduce. Physics 101. Which is why I stated it was a bad analogy.
R_Strowe
"Any?"
Not true. There's books full of MTRs out there, all over the country, where aircraft are routinely operating well in excess of 250KIAS indicated at 200-400 AGL. I can't think of the last time I've flown one at less than 420 indicated. Altitudes vary by route but it was quite common to fly them at 420 indicated at 200 AGL. Strike-fighters often plan their routes at 480 indicated - 500 feet AGL and below.
https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publ...ction_5.html20
Not true. There's books full of MTRs out there, all over the country, where aircraft are routinely operating well in excess of 250KIAS indicated at 200-400 AGL. I can't think of the last time I've flown one at less than 420 indicated. Altitudes vary by route but it was quite common to fly them at 420 indicated at 200 AGL. Strike-fighters often plan their routes at 480 indicated - 500 feet AGL and below.
https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publ...ction_5.html20
Unless you are talking about the thousands of military aircraft just flooding the MTR’s
R_Strowe
#111
On the other hand, MTRs are plentiful, spread throughout the country, and used by some non-trivial number of aircraft each day, operating well below 500 AGL, and "generally" well in excess of 100 KIAS (on VR routes specifically).
#112
I don't think you can quantify how many aircraft are operating at or below 400 feet AGL on a given day. So absent that kind of data, you have no way to support your statement that "generally" they're at a specific speed or below.
On the other hand, MTRs are plentiful, spread throughout the country, and used by some non-trivial number of aircraft each day, operating well below 500 AGL, and "generally" well in excess of 100 KIAS (on VR routes specifically).
On the other hand, MTRs are plentiful, spread throughout the country, and used by some non-trivial number of aircraft each day, operating well below 500 AGL, and "generally" well in excess of 100 KIAS (on VR routes specifically).
R_Strowe
#113
My Feedback: (15)
OK then, oh wise one; How many operations daily occur on MTR’s? High speed, low speed, VR and IR? And how does that compare to civilian operations? Because the way you state it, you must be aware of such operations to be able to say that I cannot quantify the number of operations. I’d really like to know. Because the last thing I would to have happen is to collide with the massive numbers of military aircraft operating in the below 400’ altitude window.
R_Strowe
R_Strowe
#115
I have and it's not fun. What I found is that THE CLOSER YOU GET TO BOSTON, THE WORSE IT GETS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It didn't help that I was driving a Tahoe with an off road package as some areas I didn't know if it would fit through due to both it's width and height
It didn't help that I was driving a Tahoe with an off road package as some areas I didn't know if it would fit through due to both it's width and height
I will admit that, since moving to southeastern VT, and having made a few trips to travel out of Logan, that the number of blue and grey Ford Explorers is crazy!
R_Strowe
#116
OK then, oh wise one; How many operations daily occur on MTR’s? High speed, low speed, VR and IR? And how does that compare to civilian operations? Because the way you state it, you must be aware of such operations to be able to say that I cannot quantify the number of operations. I’d really like to know. Because the last thing I would to have happen is to collide with the massive numbers of military aircraft operating in the below 400’ altitude window.
R_Strowe
R_Strowe
#117
And how will they do that when even AMA admits that:
"... we found out the most members did not understand the text of the TFR nor could they understand the sectional... (emphasis added)" - Dave Mathewson in email 28 April 2017 email discussing TFRs.
How will they find out there's an MTR where they're about to fly? A Ouija board?
"... we found out the most members did not understand the text of the TFR nor could they understand the sectional... (emphasis added)" - Dave Mathewson in email 28 April 2017 email discussing TFRs.
How will they find out there's an MTR where they're about to fly? A Ouija board?
Last edited by franklin_m; 12-20-2020 at 06:26 PM.
#118
In one squadron, putting 6 aircraft a day on VR routes is rather routine. Some parts of the turnaround cycle much more, other parts less, but rarely zero. Those would be all over Washington state. When weather bad in western WA, fly the routes in eastern WA. Not uncommon to schedule two to four flights to/from Fallon a week. VR routes both ways through OR and NV. Sixteen squadrons at one base. Of course some of those squadrons are deployed at any given time. But you also have FRS unit there, and they alone can put 10-20 sorties a day on VR routes during some parts of the training cycle. Extrapon up there, and not uncommon for them to have 10-12 sorties a day just from them. 52 weeks a year. Even if you discount that by half, that's still over 2000 flights a year ... just from one NAS. Now add all the other Navy tacair bases, training bases bases (orange and white planes). Those are just VR and IR routes. Now add gray helis plus training helis on SR routes. Can't stop there though. Have to add Marine tacair, Marine Helos, USAF tacair, USAF helos, Army Air too. That's quite a few aircraft out there, each and every day, with a great many at low altitude and very high speed.
https://sos.noaa.gov/datasets/air-traffic/
Sorry, but your military flights are a drop in the bucket. Civilian aviation easily outnumbers military by a total factor of 15. You simply aren’t using that much airspace.
R_Strowe
#119
Thank you for making my point. There are, on a typical day in the US, just over 5 times the number of General Aviation flights, nearly 5 times the number of Air Taxi (135 charter) flights, and almost 6 times the number of airline (121 Air Carrier) flights.
https://sos.noaa.gov/datasets/air-traffic/
Sorry, but your military flights are a drop in the bucket. Civilian aviation easily outnumbers military by a total factor of 15. You simply aren’t using that much airspace.
R_Strowe
https://sos.noaa.gov/datasets/air-traffic/
Sorry, but your military flights are a drop in the bucket. Civilian aviation easily outnumbers military by a total factor of 15. You simply aren’t using that much airspace.
R_Strowe
#120
Thank you for making my point. There are, on a typical day in the US, just over 5 times the number of General Aviation flights, nearly 5 times the number of Air Taxi (135 charter) flights, and almost 6 times the number of airline (121 Air Carrier) flights.
https://sos.noaa.gov/datasets/air-traffic/
Sorry, but your military flights are a drop in the bucket. Civilian aviation easily outnumbers military by a total factor of 15. You simply aren’t using that much airspace.
R_Strowe
https://sos.noaa.gov/datasets/air-traffic/
Sorry, but your military flights are a drop in the bucket. Civilian aviation easily outnumbers military by a total factor of 15. You simply aren’t using that much airspace.
R_Strowe
#121
Part of the FAA's JOB is to report such things. Is it part of AOPA's job to report accidents/incidents? Is it part of NBAA's job? How about the RAA? ALPA? Yet you and others want to apply the standards of a government agency to a 'private, dues paying organization'.
if I'm ever a a car accident, I'll be sure to report it to AAA as well as the state and my insurance company.
R_Strowe
if I'm ever a a car accident, I'll be sure to report it to AAA as well as the state and my insurance company.
R_Strowe
You just don't get it do you? Or you don't want to get it.
The AMA is the one making the claims of safety. Which wouldn't be so bad in itself except the AMA is pointing to their insurance claims as their proof. When in fact the vast majority of RC accident damage and injuries never make it to the AMA. They're handled either privately or by someones primary insurance policy. This in turn makes the AMA's claims unfounded. Yet they and their members continue to spew forth what amounts to a bald faced lie. The only thing the AMA can claim is a relatively small number of insurance claims over the last xx years.
And in their research do you actually believe the FAA and government haven't noticed this?
I started this thread for a specific purpose. However I did expect it to turn into another one of the type of thread it has. You guys have both disappointed and NOT disappointed me. I'll stick to my original hobby thank you. You can have RC for as long as it might last.
Last edited by Retiredat38; 12-21-2020 at 04:37 AM.