Hydro Junkie

Never said I was or wasn't but, then again, I thought you would have figured it out back at post 81.
OH, almost forgot, A&E is a TV station, not an aircraft mechanic. You want to talk about aircraft, you need to use proper terms. In this case, it's A&P. That's short for Airframe & Powerplant

init4fun

Thank You Hydro.

I am an FAA licensed A&P mechanic (retired) and I appreciate your correction of Echo's post. I attended "East Coast Aero Tech" back in the stone age, and did my powerplant practicals on a Jacobs R-755A radial engine.

Ok, , so, yeah, I'm old.....

init4fun

Echo, I do understand the point your driving at here, at present there are no TBO requirements for RC engines, no mandated Annual inspections of RC aircraft, and manufacturers have no average life expectancy stats on servos. But please remember, this whole regulation business is brand new to our hobby, and the FAA is trying to establish what it's been mandated to do by following it's already established operation regarding full scale aircraft. Logbooks are a first step, and I do believe that there will be future guidance on exactly what should be logged and when.

ECHO24

..

ECHO24

... ever.

ECHO24

You of all people should know it's senseless writing down every time a $3 servo is replaced.

No need to play the same ping pong game over and over over the idiocy of logbooks for hobby-parts. You guys want to waste time writing down useless information, have at it.

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

$3.00 servos?????

you flying paper airplanes? If you are using $3.00 servos, do us all a favor and log your servo changes/failures so the FAA can deem them not suitable for flight. We’ll all be safer for it!

Hey, MAYBE log books CAN promote safety!!

Astro

ECHO24

Franklin, the post I quote from RCGroups, "Lokai", is now suspended and tagged "Lokai (franklin_m)". What say you?

Whoever's waiving and honking their bike horn. There's a bigger world of RC out there than your little play pen. I'm guessing Flight Test has gone through hundreds of HXT 900's. HobbyKing sells then by the10's of thousands. It's the hobby's most popular servo, maybe in the world. Out of scores I've bought, I've stripped some but never had one fail. Only someone with more money than sense would put expensive servos in a cheap foamy.

mongo

My Feedback: (15)

how are you so plugged into hobby king, that you know how many of anything they have sold, in total?

link to the hk add for this micro/indoor servo:

https://hobbyking.com/en_us/hxt900-m...2sec-9-8g.html

stang151

It's so funny watching people having a cow over keeping log books, I'll wager most of us already do of some kind or other. Those involved in competition most surly do. Hydro probably does on his boats( which props on which hulls ect). I'll bet even Franklin logs his small bird flights ( because ,well, that what Navy does). I log the date of the maiden and tick off every flight of all my planes, usually on someplace like under the canopy or on a separate card in the transmitter case if no place on the plane. Even my little E-flite PT-17 has it's flights loged ( has 108) as of this weekend. Along the way if a servo dies or I bend a part I'll log that. My GS Yak I do a yearly I.R.A.N. replace clunk line ,ck. batt. condition and I log that. It's all on the underside of the canopy. It's the only way I can remember that stuff. When I first started in the hobby and servos far outlasted airframes I kept a log of what servo was in what plane and what condition. Don't do that anymore though I should. All that to say that logs are something we already do or should not because of the FAA but because who can remember this stuff anyway.

ECHO24

Go down that rabbit hole if you like. How many servos HK sells that isn't the point, Have a look at what Flight Test sells, they look like an even cheaper knock-off. There is no benefit for accurate, tight centering servo for foam planes.

I want to hear what Franklin has to say about some RCGroups moderator (AMA member) accusing him of being behind the Lokai account. Even exf3bguy, AKA speedracerntrixie, piled on the accusation bandwagon. In light of Franklin just outlining his not so legit ban, I'd say no. But I'd like to hear it from the man himself.

Even better, At 1:55 PM yesterday one of the usual AMAers started a thread taking aim at Franklin and the "three stooges": Logbooks Required for RC Planes?

"It seems the self-appointed safety mafia on another site have decided that formal maintenance records should be required by CBOs for RC aircraft. In order to provide evidence of that the CBO has a "comprehensive safety management system" as outlined in AC91-57C.

Self-appointed safety czar f_m made this claim:"--- etc., etc., "What do these people smoke? "

Here's speedracerntrixie in his alter ego on RCGroups (typos and bag grammar SIC):

"Unfortunately the three stooges that run the AMA forum over only one has an account over here and he doesn’t post much. F_M has been banned over here three times now although he denied the last one. I think people are a bit more realistic on this site due to the fact that we can express our opinions without someone accusing someone else on a personality disorder."

You three stooges, speedracerntrixie then calls you "F_M’s bridesmaids".

"a bit more realistic" RCGoupers. Those dead souls in the RCGroups echo chamber twisting themselves in knots over Franklin is pretty funny. Bouncing back and forth between the two forums to pick up tidbits to present as their own and share their brilliance, like speedracerntrixie playing both sides of the fence.

The premier RC forum RCGroups has 20 times or more RCers participating than RCU. The fact that they have to come here for an original thought is all the evidence you need that the super-duper RC forum has been intellectually gutted by banning AMA critics.

Sorry, Hydro, you are being shredded right now by speedracerntrixie. You too mongo (but you already know since you're there). Astro, you aren't spared either.
https://www.rcgroups.com/forums/show...-for-RC-Planes

ira d

More unnecessary rules will just take more fun away from the hobby and cause less people to want stay in the hobby.

ECHO24

Of course it would drive people away from the hobby. What has me psyched is the RCGroupers back in their cocoon gossiping about it. You're the only one to make the case in person. This is awesome, I'm banned from RCGoups but those poor souls, their intellectual faculties sucked dry by AMA-think, now spy on RCU for original ideas. I have more influence than I ever did. The instigators in the logbook controversy, and likely others, are on the side of the most hated person on RCGroups (besides Franklin). Let bygones be bygones. Here's to sharin' the love.

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

It doesn't bother me. I never have cared much for RCG, it is an even whinier version of RCU. RCU was a relevant forum at one time, before moderation decided they were "RC Royalty" and could garner the respect of minions like speed and propworm in order that they may also seem relevant. Pretty sad, really.

There is still some good stuff here, but not like it once was. I suppose some of the luster wears off over time, as one becomes more experienced and is attacked by the likes of speedy and propworm for having differing opinions, God forbid.

Speedy using the other forum to go on the offensive because he knows I am not likely to waste my time following him there is just more evidence of the mental disorder he desperately and repeatedly tries to dismiss. I don't know how one can be so blind as to see that he, himself, is absolutely the only one guilty of the things he accuses me of. It is disturbing, really. If I were to post over there, he would absolutely go on the attack, accusing me of "cross-platform stalking", he's done it many times and is just more evidence of his passive-aggressive nature and his only reason of being here; to be exalted as the RC God he views himself as, not "To help the new guy" as he always tries to portray. Typical self-indulgent ego stroking.

Astro

franklin_m

Now it's the "everyone knows" justification...

For adding a whole bunch of additional information needed in the log, that were never indicated by the FAA, nor stated by me.

Hydro Junkie

I almost have to laugh. . Who is this Coupez? He said this about me
As to what such records might include, another resident genius (who apparently doesn't fly model planes) offered this gem:

Quote: Now, as for a repair on an R/C, recovering part of the fuse or wing would be a simple entry. Repairing a wing spar would be a bit more complex since you would have to indicate where in the wing the work was done. An engine rebuild would require what parts were replaced though, in the case of an OS 46, for example, obviously there wouldn't be a serial number for anything other than the block.
And then, not long after that, he posted this:
And the latest plaintive attempt at justification is this:

Quote: Ships have log books, aircraft have multiple log books airports have log books and hotels have log books. Well, that might be true - but footballs, basketballs and baseballs don't have log books.

Skateboards and bicycles don't have log books.

Board games and video games don't have log books.

Clothing and shoes don't have log books.

Hammers and screwdrivers don't have log books. Neither do relatively complex shop machines like drill presses and table saws.

Let's face it. For all the time and money we spend on them, our model planes are basically disposable consumer products. We buy them, assemble or build them, and play with them. If we play hard enough and long enough, we break them. If we are sufficiently dedicated we repair or fix them; if not, we buy new ones. In the end, we dispose of them (or our surviving relatives will).

Asking us to keep records on our models - especially small and light ones - makes no more sense than asking us to keep records on the consumer items mentioned above. You'd have to be pretty OCD to think differently.

And then, of course, we have Speed. I thought we had a nice little exchange in PMs just a few days ago due to my first post in this thread that went like this:
I've been trying to stay out of this thread but this post has me drawn in. Since I work in full sized commercial aviation, I know how the FAA works and what is required for record keeping and documentation on aircraft, simply put,
A LOG BOOK
It's actually very simple:

• change oil in the engine, log it by date and engine hours
• do a tune up, log it by date and engine hours
• change a tire, log it by date and airframe time
• do an annual inspection, log it by date and airframe time with any issues found and follow with corrective action taken for each issue

How can this be applied to R/Cs? Again, it's very simple:

• replace ESC, log the date and new serial number
• replace servo, log the date and new serial number, if there is one
• do a structural repair, log the date and repair performed

You don't have to give the FAA any information about what you do with or to your aircraft unless they request it. If they have a question, you go to the local office with your log book and let them read it, YOU'RE DONE

Original PM Posted by speedracerntrixie
First off thanks for posting a reply without following the nonsense of the other two. I truly believe that you and I can have a conversation without it de evolving. So the thing I am concerned about in your post is the serial number thing. I honestly haven’t looked specifically but I don’t recall ever seeing serial numbers on those components. If that data becomes required, then I also thing there would be a need to demonstrate that you selected the appropriate servo or ESC for the model. So it has the potential to drive prices up just like buying a Cessna gasket that should cost $4 but is actually $200. The next is the need to log a structural repair, who has training on this? Perhaps you can see what a slippery slope this can be.
MY RESPONSE
Trust me, I do know how slippery it can get. I've seen how good some repair work has been done and I've seen how bad it can be as well.
Personally, I don't see the FAA getting that involved with requiring inspections and such on R/C aircraft. At the same time, I can see where it would be advantageous to keep a log book on an aircraft, if for no other reason, just to keep track of what's been done to it. Obviously, logging battery changes would be ridiculous since they get changed after every flight but for other parts that don't get changed that often, it would be a way to see how long the parts are lasting and, possibly, a way to see if a part had just wore out and became the cause of a crash. As far as parts for full sized aircraft, I do agree, they are vastly overpriced. That said, however, they are also manufactured under higher quality control levels due to the fact that you can't just pull off the road if something goes wrong when you're at 110 knots and 7,000 feet
HIS REPLY
Thanks for the reply, with the reliability of today’s equipment failures just don’t happen all that often unless poor equipment choices are made. I haven’t had an equipment failure in 8 years. But that’s just me. As for the forum, I’m done. It’s starting to take some enjoyment out of the hobby for me. I’m just going to continue to build and fly as I am able. As regulations come about I will deal with them. Started flying helicopters again for the fields that are restricted to 400’. I hope that you continue with your builds.
AND NOW, WHAT I SEE AT RCG
Unfortunately the three stooges that run the AMA forum over only one has an account over here and he doesn’t post much. F_M has been banned over here three times now although he denied the last one.
Here’s the latest arguments from F_M’s bridesmaids on why log books are a good idea.


This kind of says it all. Until now, I've given Speed the benefit of the doubt, BUT NO MORE!!!!! Speed's nothing more than a two faced fraud that obviously can't be trusted. I've had others point out his double talk between here and RCG but, to tell me one thing and then make me look like I'm an enemy of the hobby, NO MORE WILL I BELIEVE A WORD HE POSTS SINCE IT'S OBVIOUS HE'S BEYOND BEING TRUSTED FOR ANYTHING

franklin_m

A couple things are interesting:
- First, for someone who contends he's not responsible for getting me and some innocent guy banned on RCG, he sure seems to know an awful lot about who, how often, and why.

- Second, amazing how he (and others) are permitted to attack others in RCG posts, but yet retain their accounts. Sounds like bans over there are "arbitrary" at best.

- Third, Echo isn't the only one to sprint to the extreme and attribute thoughts to me that I never made. For example, one member over there who "refuses to be drawn into the BS" spends a great deal of time explaining how full scale parts are managed - and intimates that's the argument I'm making here - yet it's not something I ever advocated.

And lastly, the duplicitous behavior by Speedy as shown by Hydro above. He says one thing over here, or in private notes, then immediately jumps to RCG. And over there, the Admins appear to allow him and others to bash at will and retain their accounts. If it weren't for double standards, RCG admins would have no standards at all!

ECHO24

Your clue should have been when he PMed you whispering in your ear and gossiping about your forum mates.

"logging battery changes would be ridiculous since they get changed after every flight "

That's exactly the sort of thing you'd have to put in a logbook. Going further down the rabbit hole playing like a real airplane, you'd have to keep records for the flight times for each battery, with a reserve, and time your flights, In the event of an accident with a GA aircraft they can go back and see if the pilot put enough fuel in at his last stop. It's all about safety. Got to dot all the i's and cross all the t's with a logbook for our toys too.

ECHO24

I'd rather hear what you have to say about the "Lokai" closed account on RCGroups that's now tagged with your name.

You've got the RCGroupers hypnotized, the guys there are still devoting entire threads to you and you're not even there. Maybe they've driven themselves hysterical inside their hermetically sealed cave. I'd still like to hear your take on it. I could see a non-interested party making a casual observation. But how would a new RCG guy know about the Franklin attack thread? Who would comb both forums to read every one of your posts? At a second glance it doesn't pass the smell test. Whoever it is is laying it on a bit too thick.

Hydro Junkie

Got to thinking about the post from Coupez that I referenced and just couldn't leave this one alone. In his post, he said the following:
And the latest plaintive attempt at justification is this:

Quote: Ships have log books, aircraft have multiple log books airports have log books and hotels have log books. Well, that might be true - but footballs, basketballs and baseballs don't have log books.

Skateboards and bicycles don't have log books.

Board games and video games don't have log books.

Clothing and shoes don't have log books.

Hammers and screwdrivers don't have log books. Neither do relatively complex shop machines like drill presses and table saws.

Let's face it. For all the time and money we spend on them, our model planes are basically disposable consumer products. We buy them, assemble or build them, and play with them. If we play hard enough and long enough, we break them. If we are sufficiently dedicated we repair or fix them; if not, we buy new ones. In the end, we dispose of them (or our surviving relatives will).
What he failed to take into consideration is none of the things he referenced fly under their own power. As a general rule, sporting goods are expected to take a beating and not have long lives. Board games spend over 90% of their lives in their boxes and will generally be thrown out due to lack of interest before they wear out. Tools, like sporting goods, are designed to have a service life and to take a beating as well. What the hell, let's throw full sized vehicles into this as well. The average person will either lease a car and return it at the end of the lease(normally less than 5 years) or trade it in and buy a new one in the same time span. In either case, is a car a disposable consumer product? If I follow along with Coupez logic, the answer is yes.
Now, let's look at what the rest of us do:

• We buy a vehicle and run it until it can't be repaired any longer(my oldest car is a 1999 with 243K on it) and then buy a "new" used car to repeat the process
• We buy a home, when we save up enough money for a down payment, and live there for decades(I've not moved, or for that matter considered doing so, in over 20 years)
• We don't look at most things as "disposable consumable products" since we use them for decade. Almost all of my larger power tools are over 15 years old, does that mean I need to replace them?

I look at my R/C's the same way. I build them, normally from scratch. Does that make them "disposable consumer products"? Not to me. I took the time to build them, maintain them and, if needed repair them. The boat I've been racing for several years was built in 2001, should I throw it away? NO, since it's irreplaceable. The guy that laid up the parts is dead, the molds are long gone and anything I would replace it with wouldn't be the same. That makes it unique, not something that can be bought off the shelf. My bicycle is the same way, irreplaceable. The manufacturer is long out of business, the frame was semi-custom and it has parts that aren't made any longer. Same with the aircraft I'm building. I'm building from the plans of a kit that hasn't been sold in over a decade. When I get it done, it won't be like any other aircraft at the field because of that. It's not like any of the "out of the box" cookie cutter foam pieces of crap that you buy for $49.95 at any hobby shop or Walmart.

Hydro Junkie

Echo, when I said "logging battery changes would be ridiculous since they get changed after every flight", I was referring to an aircraft specific log. If it was me, I would number the packs and keep a log on each showing:

• when it was charged
• when it was cycled
• amount of time used per run/flight
• charger indicated pack condition

I know that two of my chargers give me pretty much all of that information, even though I only use them to charge my 4.8V Futaba receiver packs. Actually found a bad pack the night before a race last July when I put it on one of the chargers and tried to cycle it.

Hydro Junkie

Gee, Franklin, you really got the guys over at RCG riled up.
This was a recent post from Coupez that started a conversation about you:

• It isn't the FAA I'm worried about at this point.
  
  F_m's strategy appears to be to convince the AMA that they need to mandate record keeping in order to support the FAA's rather nebulous goal of a "comprehensive safety program". Otherwise, he argues, FAA might not grant CBO status to AMA, or might revoke it.
  
  We who are AMA members need to show our leadership why this is a bad idea. Keeping "safety" records with no expectation of confidentiality means handing the FAA a stick to beat us with. And it's absurd to require more paperwork from hobbyists than is required of commercial operators.
  
  We who are NOT AMA members also need to resist this, because the requirement to "follow the safety programming of an approved CBO" means that once AMA starts doing this, EVERYONE will be expected to fall in line.
  
  I don't think it's enough just to ignore it and hope it will go away. This Frankenstein needs to be strangled in its cradle.

What I thought was really funny is that Aymodeler had to reply with this:

• I think you give him more credit than is due. Yes, he is vocal and has a dedicated group of cronies that back up everything he says, but it is a pretty small group. The more we argue with him/them, the more he/they will dig in and push their idea.
  
  And that's the point, what he really wants is the argument. Think about it, the group that thinks they want this is the the same group that is the first to cry out against government overreach and too much interference from the FAA and no need for organizations like the AMA. This would only further institutionalize the very things they most often rail against.
  
  IMHO, if we just ignore it, it will fade away because absolutely nobody, not the FAA, not the AMA, not the average club guy building in his basement or the guy flying a foamie in the park wants this. And in the end "Frankenstein" and his followers don't really want it either.

Of course, Coupez couldn't leave this alone. He had to respond with:

• Originally Posted by aymodeler
  And in the end "Frankenstein" and his followers don't really want it either. I beg to differ.
  
  "What Franklin wants" is a matter of public record. His program for the future of RC is in a letter dated April 15, 2019 he submitted to the FAA. I'm not smart enough to get my machine to give me a direct link, but you can easily find it by searching on "Mellott ltr FAA-2018-1086.odt". Since it's public info I'm also attaching a downloaded copy.
  
  And since the entire document is available for context, I don't think I'm being unfair to him by making a few quotes:
  
  Quote: I am convinced the Community Based Organization (CBO) self-regulation of recreational sUAS is a failure...Regulation of ALL sUAS, commercial and recreational, is inherently governmental. Quote: End self-regulation of recreational sUAS by unaccountable private dues collecting organizations (CBOs); promulgate operational rules for ALL sUAS operating in the NAS, recreational and commercial. Sorry, but I really can't reconcile that with the idea that he believes "government overreach is excessive", or that we have "too much interference from the FAA".
  
  Quote: ...require CBOs to retain any and all records for not less than ten years on aviation safety matters. This would include, but not be limited to: testing, certification, or designation of officials and agents of the organization; incident reports, investigations, and claims; operational or safety policy discussions, meeting minutes, decisions, and votes; substantiated and unsubstantiated reports of non-compliance; revoked certifications and justification for revocations; and any and all waivers granted along with justification for such waivers as well as individual accountable for making thewaiver decision. All records under this rule shall be made available to the FAA or NTSB immediately upon request, and made available to any other organization – without challenge - upon receipt of a lawful subpoena or court order. Quote: ...require such recognized CBOs to establish a program that actively confirms compliance with organizational, FCC, and FAA rules when operating at CBO sanctioned or sponsored events, and/or operating from CBO sanctioned clubs or sites. CBO shall be required to maintain of such compliance confirmation checks for for not less than ten years. All records under this rule shall be made available to the FAA or NTSB immediately upon request, and made available to any other organization – without challenge - upon receipt of a lawful subpoena or court order. These last two reinforce my suspicion that the real agenda here is not development of a positive "safety culture", but just to hand the regulatory authorities a stick to beat us with.
  
  Quote: Establish 4 categories of recreational sUAS operations:
  Category A: Small Light Low Risk recreational sUAS
  Category B: Fixed wing, turbine powered, high performance recreational sUAS
  Category C: Fixed wing large / heavy, recreational sUAS
  Category D: General recreational sUAS This is his "vision" for the future. Full details are in the document, but it's enough for most to note that Category A models would be limited to 5lb weight and 200' AGL max altitude. Category D (most models over 5 lb) would be limited to "500 feet laterally from non-participating people/property". That's larger than the space owned/rented by many clubs - which basically means Franklin wants the hobby limited to 5lb models flown at 200' AGL or less.
  
  The letter is dated 2019, but I've seen no indication that he thinks differently today.
  
  That's the agenda, folks. Puny little planes flown strictly within site boundaries (which means over the runway in many cases) at a maximum of 200'. And a mountain of paperwork every time you go up. Which you have to keep for ten years!

This got a response from Aymodeler of:

• What is his motivation? Won't he and his minions be just as adversely impacted?

And, of course Speed had to chime in with:

• To the beast of my knowledge none of them activity participate in the hobby ( R/C aircraft ).

To which Coupez revealing what he thinks will "rock the world of model aviation":

• Looks like he's working for something called the Drone Pilot Ground School:
  
  https://www.dronepilotgroundschool.com/author/fmellott/
  
  https://www.dronepilotgroundschool.com/drone-program/
  
  So it all fits. Regulate the hobbyists out of the airspace to make room for commercial drones. All in the good name of safety, of course...

Gotta love the "conspiracy theories" guys

ira d

If we are forced to keep safety records or log books it wont in most cases help anything, most modelers will just write in their logs whatever they think someone will
want to hear.

Hydro Junkie

And that is probably true, that is until something happens and the FAA starts checking log books and finds discrepancies

ECHO24

Enough is enough with the logbook nonsense (and repetitive, bodaciously long posts). Another one for ignore button.