FAA says 400 class G is NOT waiverable
07-14-2021, 12:46 PM
#51
Thread Starter
So Andy. As esteemed EC member. Care to acknowledge whether or not the financial trends I've shown in other threads are substantially correct? That they've been relatively unchanged (in trajectory) for over a decade?
07-14-2021, 01:01 PM
#52
Not questioning the see and avoid, depending of course on good lookout doctrine, good visual acuity, etc. Reality is, if someone is flying a high speed expensive sUAS, they're probably watching it and not the airspace all around them. That's where spotters come in. But most of the spotter video I've seen shows both of them watching the same model, which means neither is really scanning the sky in all directions.
With respect to complexity, my comment was a simple thought experiment.
Scenario 1. Say you have a four channel sUAS, and there's maybe 12 single points of failure in electronics: Battery, battery connector, switch, receiver, four servos, and four servo connectors. Say each of them has reliability less than one (i.e. imperfect, so some degree or another). You now can calculate a reliability figure of merit.
Scenario 2. Now say you look at more modern sUAS with multiple batteries, multiple battery connectors, one or more switches, a power distro box, 10-12 servos, 10-12 servo connectors, fuel control, and some stabilizer unit. Now you've got some number of single points of failure greater than the simple example. We can argue that some of the individual components are more reliable, but I don't think it's unreasonable to say the reliability of the entire system may well be lower. And worse yet, some of the failure modes are latent and may not be known until after a crash. NASA found that out the hard way - not once but twice. Not an exact quote, but one of the mishap investigation senior members famously said: "Complex systems fail in complex ways."
That was the basis for my comment.
With respect to complexity, my comment was a simple thought experiment.
Scenario 1. Say you have a four channel sUAS, and there's maybe 12 single points of failure in electronics: Battery, battery connector, switch, receiver, four servos, and four servo connectors. Say each of them has reliability less than one (i.e. imperfect, so some degree or another). You now can calculate a reliability figure of merit.
Scenario 2. Now say you look at more modern sUAS with multiple batteries, multiple battery connectors, one or more switches, a power distro box, 10-12 servos, 10-12 servo connectors, fuel control, and some stabilizer unit. Now you've got some number of single points of failure greater than the simple example. We can argue that some of the individual components are more reliable, but I don't think it's unreasonable to say the reliability of the entire system may well be lower. And worse yet, some of the failure modes are latent and may not be known until after a crash. NASA found that out the hard way - not once but twice. Not an exact quote, but one of the mishap investigation senior members famously said: "Complex systems fail in complex ways."
That was the basis for my comment.
Astro
07-15-2021, 01:31 PM
#53
In addition to the number of failure points is the consequence of a failure.
A failure in an LOS airplane at a typical r/c field will result in a crash on the field. There are typically specific "fly" and "no-fly" zones (keep within a certain perimeter, don't fly over the pits, etc.). A crash results in broken balsa, a bruised ego, perhaps some damage to vegetation, but typically no more.
A drone flying at 5,000 foot, or FPV well beyond the launch point, the collateral damage potential is greater.
A failure in an LOS airplane at a typical r/c field will result in a crash on the field. There are typically specific "fly" and "no-fly" zones (keep within a certain perimeter, don't fly over the pits, etc.). A crash results in broken balsa, a bruised ego, perhaps some damage to vegetation, but typically no more.
A drone flying at 5,000 foot, or FPV well beyond the launch point, the collateral damage potential is greater.
07-15-2021, 01:49 PM
#54
Thread Starter
In addition to the number of failure points is the consequence of a failure.
A failure in an LOS airplane at a typical r/c field will result in a crash on the field. There are typically specific "fly" and "no-fly" zones (keep within a certain perimeter, don't fly over the pits, etc.). A crash results in broken balsa, a bruised ego, perhaps some damage to vegetation, but typically no more.
A drone flying at 5,000 foot, or FPV well beyond the launch point, the collateral damage potential is greater.
A failure in an LOS airplane at a typical r/c field will result in a crash on the field. There are typically specific "fly" and "no-fly" zones (keep within a certain perimeter, don't fly over the pits, etc.). A crash results in broken balsa, a bruised ego, perhaps some damage to vegetation, but typically no more.
A drone flying at 5,000 foot, or FPV well beyond the launch point, the collateral damage potential is greater.
Full scale airports routinely find themselves in court defending traffic patterns, and all too often despite the airfields pre-dating the homes by decades ... the patterns and ops are changed by court order. Now that the case in Pennsylvania is recorded, that means it can and will be searched by lawyers in and outside Pennsylvania looking for ways to shut down clubs. It's kind of a slow simmer issue, but I think it was awful that AMA let that reach the courts. Yes, the property owners were ultimately the ones defending the use, but it was the activities of the club that put them at risk.
But time will tell. I believe that FliteTest represents a serious challenge to AMA. Not for ALL members, as LMAs, FW turbine, sailplanes, and other small groups will always NEED the FRIA. However, they are a small minority compared to the FliteTest crowd who largely don't need above 400 feet and can pretty much fly anywhere. So the question will be can AMA survive in its current form on just those that truly NEED the FRIA fields?
07-15-2021, 02:51 PM
#55
[QUOTE=franklin_m;12686121But time will tell. I believe that FliteTest represents a serious challenge to AMA. Not for ALL members, as LMAs, FW turbine, sailplanes, and other small groups will always NEED the FRIA. However, they are a small minority compared to the FliteTest crowd who largely don't need above 400 feet and can pretty much fly anywhere. So the question will be can AMA survive in its current form on just those that truly NEED the FRIA fields?[/QUOTE]
That has been exactly my contention for quite some time now. So I guess we can agree on at least one thing!
That has been exactly my contention for quite some time now. So I guess we can agree on at least one thing!
07-16-2021, 10:43 AM
#56
Thread Starter
I believe that FliteTest represents a serious challenge to AMA. Not for ALL members, as LMAs, FW turbine, sailplanes, and other small groups will always NEED the FRIA. However, they are a small minority compared to the FliteTest crowd who largely don't need above 400 feet and can pretty much fly anywhere. So the question will be can AMA survive in its current form on just those that truly NEED the FRIA fields?
For almost ten years I worked at a location in an industry heavily regulated by DOT, Interior, EPA, and OSHA at the Federal level, and by similar agencies at the state level. There were two major companies working in the same area, I supported one of them. Each took dramatically different approaches to compliance with the aforementioned regulatory agencies. One chose to follow the rules and check themselves to ensure they were following the rules (culture of compliance) and the other chose the approach of writing rules, but not really checking to see if indeed they were doing as they said. In the culture of compliance organization, when they found something out of compliance, they reported themselves to the appropriate agency along with their actions in response.
I'll give you one guess which company enjoyed much more favorable interactions with all of the regulatory agencies? Yep. The compliance culture. And why? Simple really. The government agencies did not expect anyone to be perfect, but concerns were greatly eased when they knew the company was checking themselves. And because they were checking themselves, the compliance culture company had decades of records to point to showing that they took substantial efforts to not just comply with the letter of the law, but the spirit and intent as well.
But AMA chose to be hands off. And other aviation stakeholders, as well as legislators, regulators, media, and the public are rightfully skeptical. One doesn't have to look to far to see examples of reckless behavior. But because AMA did not step in with a firm hand years ago, and enforce the culture these other groups want to see, now they cannot point to any pattern of conduct by them that shows they hold members accountable.
07-16-2021, 12:14 PM
#57
My view is that AMA made a fundamental and irrecoverable error many years ago when they decided to take a hands off attidue toward compliance by members. Instead of being the ones seen as doing things right, and can prove it; they contend they're the ones doing it right - because they say they are.
For almost ten years I worked at a location in an industry heavily regulated by DOT, Interior, EPA, and OSHA at the Federal level, and by similar agencies at the state level. There were two major companies working in the same area, I supported one of them. Each took dramatically different approaches to compliance with the aforementioned regulatory agencies. One chose to follow the rules and check themselves to ensure they were following the rules (culture of compliance) and the other chose the approach of writing rules, but not really checking to see if indeed they were doing as they said. In the culture of compliance organization, when they found something out of compliance, they reported themselves to the appropriate agency along with their actions in response.
I'll give you one guess which company enjoyed much more favorable interactions with all of the regulatory agencies? Yep. The compliance culture. And why? Simple really. The government agencies did not expect anyone to be perfect, but concerns were greatly eased when they knew the company was checking themselves. And because they were checking themselves, the compliance culture company had decades of records to point to showing that they took substantial efforts to not just comply with the letter of the law, but the spirit and intent as well.
But AMA chose to be hands off. And other aviation stakeholders, as well as legislators, regulators, media, and the public are rightfully skeptical. One doesn't have to look to far to see examples of reckless behavior. But because AMA did not step in with a firm hand years ago, and enforce the culture these other groups want to see, now they cannot point to any pattern of conduct by them that shows they hold members accountable.
For almost ten years I worked at a location in an industry heavily regulated by DOT, Interior, EPA, and OSHA at the Federal level, and by similar agencies at the state level. There were two major companies working in the same area, I supported one of them. Each took dramatically different approaches to compliance with the aforementioned regulatory agencies. One chose to follow the rules and check themselves to ensure they were following the rules (culture of compliance) and the other chose the approach of writing rules, but not really checking to see if indeed they were doing as they said. In the culture of compliance organization, when they found something out of compliance, they reported themselves to the appropriate agency along with their actions in response.
I'll give you one guess which company enjoyed much more favorable interactions with all of the regulatory agencies? Yep. The compliance culture. And why? Simple really. The government agencies did not expect anyone to be perfect, but concerns were greatly eased when they knew the company was checking themselves. And because they were checking themselves, the compliance culture company had decades of records to point to showing that they took substantial efforts to not just comply with the letter of the law, but the spirit and intent as well.
But AMA chose to be hands off. And other aviation stakeholders, as well as legislators, regulators, media, and the public are rightfully skeptical. One doesn't have to look to far to see examples of reckless behavior. But because AMA did not step in with a firm hand years ago, and enforce the culture these other groups want to see, now they cannot point to any pattern of conduct by them that shows they hold members accountable.
07-16-2021, 01:28 PM
#58
I'm not sure a "compliance culture" would help much with the AMA's demographic problem though, which in my opinion, is their bigger issue. And FliteTest could never be help up as a shining example of a compliance culture either. I would go so far as to say that FliteTest originally caught on with younger entrants to the hobby because they found the AMA (and AMA clubs) too rigid and stiff.
07-17-2021, 02:49 AM
#59
Thread Starter
I'm not sure a "compliance culture" would help much with the AMA's demographic problem though, which in my opinion, is their bigger issue. And FliteTest could never be help up as a shining example of a compliance culture either. I would go so far as to say that FliteTest originally caught on with younger entrants to the hobby because they found the AMA (and AMA clubs) too rigid and stiff.
That's where AMA, as a big user of airspace above 400 feet pi**ed away an opportunity to be seen as a non-risk. Non-risk because they followed the rules and held themselves accountable. But instead, they took hands off approach. And FAA (and others) can search any number of popular online forums and read examples of people all but admitting they don't follow the rules. "I never go higher than 399.99" or "The maximum speed of my jet is 199.99." Or, even open declarations that they don't intend to follow rules. Combine that with court cases, videos of AMA events where planes crash into crowds, videos of diving at high speed toward busy highways, or even flights to high altitude in the middle of a Victor Airway (with no spotter), and the sense is a culture that says one thing but does another. Which means self regulation has failed and creates reason for formal regulation.
Last edited by franklin_m; 07-17-2021 at 03:52 AM.
07-17-2021, 06:34 AM
#60
I'm not sure a "compliance culture" would help much with the AMA's demographic problem though, which in my opinion, is their bigger issue. And FliteTest could never be help up as a shining example of a compliance culture either. I would go so far as to say that FliteTest originally caught on with younger entrants to the hobby because they found the AMA (and AMA clubs) too rigid and stiff.
Astro
07-17-2021, 07:04 AM
#61
I was thinking along different lines. The FliteTest crowd may not be the picture of compliance, but nor are they big users of airspace over 400 feet. So in that sense, I figure the rest of the aviation stakeholders don't see that group as any threat to the airspace above 400 that others are looking to monetize. In short, "If you stay below 400', we kinda don't care."
That's where AMA, as a big user of airspace above 400 feet pi**ed away an opportunity to be seen as a non-risk. Non-risk because they followed the rules and held themselves accountable. But instead, they took hands off approach. And FAA (and others) can search any number of popular online forums and read examples of people all but admitting they don't follow the rules. "I never go higher than 399.99" or "The maximum speed of my jet is 199.99." Or, even open declarations that they don't intend to follow rules. Combine that with court cases, videos of AMA events where planes crash into crowds, videos of diving at high speed toward busy highways, or even flights to high altitude in the middle of a Victor Airway (with no spotter), and the sense is a culture that says one thing but does another. Which means self regulation has failed and creates reason for formal regulation.
That's where AMA, as a big user of airspace above 400 feet pi**ed away an opportunity to be seen as a non-risk. Non-risk because they followed the rules and held themselves accountable. But instead, they took hands off approach. And FAA (and others) can search any number of popular online forums and read examples of people all but admitting they don't follow the rules. "I never go higher than 399.99" or "The maximum speed of my jet is 199.99." Or, even open declarations that they don't intend to follow rules. Combine that with court cases, videos of AMA events where planes crash into crowds, videos of diving at high speed toward busy highways, or even flights to high altitude in the middle of a Victor Airway (with no spotter), and the sense is a culture that says one thing but does another. Which means self regulation has failed and creates reason for formal regulation.
My observation has been that the younger, potential modelers/members have been greeted with the FOG attitude and instead of promoting the fun side of the hobby, are told how they MUST join AMA, follow the rules, etc., etc, It is clear that Muncie has lead with the same FOG attitudes that have been at least somewhat responsible for turning the younger generation away from the AMA ranks.
I am not saying I have all the answers, but I honestly believe that overall, the environment that the hobby finds itself in is both very nuanced and complex and cannot be reduced to simple soundbite solutions. There are so many actors, factors and agendas involved including demographics, prevailing social attitudes, commercial opportunities, bureaucratic posturing, politics, regulatory overreach, security paranoia, safety concerns, privacy concerns. History will tell us that whenever new a technology emerges (in this case, practical UAVs), it unleashes disruption and creates a VUCA environment. That's where we are right now, but history will also tell us that it will eventually settle into some new normal (one that we may not be totally happy with, but one that the majority of people can live with). The one certain thing is that you can never go back to the way it was before.
07-17-2021, 07:30 AM
#62
On one hand, there is criticism that the AMA was not doing enough to enforce compliance with rules. On the other hand, there is criticism that that the AMA telling new entrants that they MUST follow the rules was a turn off. Seems like a damned if you damned if you don't situation to me.
Astro
07-17-2021, 02:04 PM
#63
Fortunately, my club experience has not been like this at all. Yes, there are some who are more active and others who are more passive, but I have never personally experienced (now in 3 different clubs) the kind of good 'ole boy behavior others have described.
07-18-2021, 06:07 PM
#65
Senior Member
I didn't intend for my post to be an "AMA bashing". In fact, your last post's first paragraph's last few sentences kind of backed up what I was saying. I've also grown tired of the threads all turning into "AMA bash sessions" and all of the "anti-AMA" defensive posts that go along with them. Just wanted to throw out a friendly reminder that the AMA is financially weak and that they need to do something to shore up their financial deficiencies or they will be gone and all of the discussions, like this one, will have been a waste of time and that is something I would prefer to not see happen
haggling, endless debate, etc., relative to the actual risk than flying model airplanes.
For myself, I've blown it all off. No FAA, no tests, no AMA, no nothing but flying where possible. I don't fly drones so sue me.
I just bought from an estate sale 5 wings from 36" to 72" and 6 other sailplanes from 48" span to 5 meter. I plan to fly them all
whenever and wherever I can.
Last edited by ECHO24; 07-18-2021 at 06:32 PM.
07-19-2021, 11:15 AM
#68
Senior Member
the hobby is over drones, the bad rep, restrictions, testing, etc., all of it. No need to worry about me or anyone else flying model planes causing
"anyone else any issues".
I recently built an 8' Cub with a 50cc gas engine. I've never flown it. With a 24" prop and 5hp it would be like putting up a flying chainsaw with
hobby electronics controlling it and hoping nothing would go wrong. No thanks. Maybe someday way out in the desert. Electrics, on the other hand,
have made the hobby as risky as playing golf. Pointy nose gliders are more dangerous, which is why I don't own one.
As an aside, I'm a licensed pilot, which makes it ridiculous that I should have to pass a test to fly model airplanes. How about Franklin, a
career Navy jet pilot? Thirteen year-olds flying a RTF in a field, similarly a nonevent, are now banned. What's the average age at an AMA
club now, 60? The whole thing is a joke.
07-22-2021, 08:20 PM
#70
Senior Member
Maybe AMA should have figured that out before getting on board the drone train.
As a result, the RC flying hobby is now pigeon-holed as a subset of drones, restricted to authorized fields.
Franklin will be sharing the declines in AMA membership as we all watch it swirl the drain.
07-23-2021, 04:11 AM
#72
I do tend to agree that the AMA could have done more to create a distinction between traditional model aircraft and "drones", but I also believe that no matter what the AMA did, we would not have gotten a free pass with regard to regulations. Further, I believe that the AMA has made positive contributions towards mitigating the worst aspects of the original proposed regulations. In that regard, I am in a vocal minority here.
On the other hand, I do also believe that the AMA is completely failing to keep current and attract younger entrants into the hobby (as compared to Flite Test, for example). I also am concerned about the AMA's financial trends (it is time to ditch the print magazine!).
Ultimately, the AMA is in a bit of a tightrope walk here and it is definitely starting to wobble.
07-23-2021, 05:07 AM
#73
Thread Starter
