The "Still a Bottom Feeder" thread is a pretty much catch all thread Ken has let us use for other things

Ron

first page of the ama forums thread list, upper left hand, there is a button for new post , click it.

Thanks, guys.

I actually found a place to post after I posted here but hadn't found a place for a new thread yet. I'll give that a shot.

Jim

[&o]

a no fly zone means aircraft cant be in it. take your model to a no fly zone and fly it you will understand then

the reason things like this get 7 pages is obvious to me....it is apparently a major issue. Seems like an easy problem to solve for the adult minded person. Guess there are more parental thinkers out there than I though...a real shame.


Sorry to see tex leave...He's had much good words I've seen in other places

next time you see an aircraft under 500' get the number and report it.

I see that you are one of the full size has all the rights type of bozo's, its funny how here in australia we have our assigned altitudes and our registered site info is available to all full size pilots if they take time to note them. But then again I guess you're one those I will fly my full sized toy where I want coz I'm a hero bozo's.. Its clowns like you that say no to any useful bit of regulation that will end in stuffing things up for all airspace users, rc'ers and full size alike. I have contacted several full size pilots and put them on this thread, most are wondering at your mentallity or lack there-off, Thier own words were if you cant give a decent leeway arounds hazards like rc clubs etc you're not fit to fly rubber band powered let alone full size. As to your second last quote, We are only asking for hieght restrictions and for them to be enforced, not total prohited zones, but then a fool like you wouldnt care, as long as you can fly your toy where and how you want. You no doubt would fight against that too. One question, with all the air space around, why do you full size pilots have to invade thew small amount we rc'ers use? is it just to show of your little toy and try to be hero? There sure as god made little green apples no other valid reason for it. I'll admit there will be the odd occasion where its a genuine accident but in a high percentage of cases it isnt.

Ok I'm trying to catch up with the conversation again.
Are we now saying that the original county park is no longer a state park, but is now a neighborhood complete with plenty of cars lining the streets and kiddies riding bicycles and playing stick ball while Ward Cleaver is firing up the barbecue in the backyard?
I'm cool with it if that's what we are agreeing on.


Say I have an idea lets just get the AMA to convince the FAA to designate all model fields class D airspace from the surface to 400' AGL that way ATC can simply instruct full scale to remain clear while model activity going on.
there problem solved.

it seems to be a very Dynamic rc field [8D]
In this PC world of Tolerance, the field is all things to all people


what about declaring nitro RC planes an Endangered Species,
and then we can make fullsize stay away like they do for nature habitat.
... or get a Noise Abatement altitude set for our fields- dang full size are so loud I cant hear my cox049

can we show the FAA the AMA pdf on PaintBall
and be declared ArialGunnery restricted?[&:]

Wow, so mature! Especially the name calling...you've really "proven" your point eh?

If you read what the guy was saying, he's NOT saying "if you cant give a decent leeway arounds hazards like rc clubs .." and "you're one those I will fly my full sized toy where I want"... He's saying the same thing a LOT of us have been saying...and that is NO MATTER HOW WRONG THE FULL SCALE PILOT IS, THE RC'er HAS TO YIELD!". That's it, plain and simple and if someone honestly doesn't see that or agree with that, they should NOT be flying RC aircraft period! Also when he's talking about making restrictions and prohibited airspace around RC zones, listen to what he is actually saying! He's saying it's not feasible! He's absolutely correct! As soon as RC clubs or AMA start trying to fight for things like this, that's how soon the RC clubs will start getting shut down! Who do you think would win a battle like that...RC "toys" as the majority of the population see's them or "real" aircraft? Whether right or wrong, who do you think has better laywers and more money to fight something like that?

I am a skydiver and trust me, I've seen many a dropzone get shut down simply because full scale pilots *****ed about having to wait to land while skydivers are in the air. And it wasn't the FAA it was the private airport owners that don't want to lose the business of the aircraft and have no problem losing the skydivers.....similar thing here.

Skarn

This has really gotten to be funny. There are simply two thought process here, mature adult and child sometimes confused with parent. For this to be understood either common sense is needed or a psych. class.

adult: do what's necessary so we can all share the air....the FAA certified craft have their area and RC'ers have theirs. No airports will have any problems with a

Parent/child. full size aircraft have RoW so get out of their way.... No objective to reasonably rectify the problem.

This is a simple problem to rectify. It may be complex in the number of people and organizations that are necessary to make it work but it is doable if desired. Simply takes mature adults working for a common goal.


maybe like common sense....the adult mindset isn't so common.

Does seem to me it has been over analyzed...




Ron

if you had read my earlier posts you would hgave read that I agreed with that no problem, that we should do all to avoid an incident with full size craft. My gripe is with the attitude of some full size pilots. I am all for working together to achieve a workable solution, but when someone like Silent AV8OR says he does not support it then I see a fool. its bozo's like that that will only hinder any sort of workable solution being reached

yeah

When we are about to drive over someone jaywalking,
there is a chronological order of procedure to follow:
1. Skid to a stop as to not hit the pedestrian... always... we know this and we do this
2. After stopping we get out of car and scream profanities at the idiot that was jaywalking hazardously

some astute readers might note that this is not about guys in crosswalks,
it has built into it the given that the pedestrian was not in a crosswalk, hence Jaywalking

We all agree to not run the guy down, there is no real reason to dwell on this part,
it is whether we horn, give bird, yell at, or punch out the jaywalker... or even call the cops, is discussable

1. GlacierGirl knew the right thing to do, and did it
2. After that, now, we try to deal with idiots causing hazards we have to avoid

Your juvenile name calling aside, I think you completely missed my point, which was that based on my experience operating in the American airspace system as both a full size and model pilot I feel that the proposed solution of designating special use airspace around model fields is impractical, unworkable, and would lead to the loss of flying site.

You can gripe all you want about your perception of the attitude of full size pilots, but in no case will anyone (FAA, local-state-federal government) ever think or believe that models have any kind of standing relative to full size. We are toys, they are not. In case of a conflict, the models will lose out all day, every day. End of story.

Interesting analogy. Except in the eyes of the FAA and just about anyone else outside of the modeling community, WE are the jaywalker. What this situation is really about is more like you are jaywalking and almost get hit by a speeder. Then you try to be all indignant because the guy was speeding. Yes, the car was wrong to be speeding, but he also had no reasonable expectation that you would be jaywalking.

I use jaywalking only as it refers to the model being in a location that would be unexpected to the helicopter pilot, not in the sense that flying the model was an illegal act.

Let's stay away from personal attacks they don't help the point being made...

I've read many of the posts and Silent-AV8R pretty much has the same impression I have if I understand his position correctly. I'm not a full scale pilot, but I did sleep at a Holiday Inn Express...[8D]

R/C folks pushing the point with FAA, City Orgs, or others is like taking a water pistol and facing off with the Battle Ship New Jersey and hoping for a satisfactory outcome...

If a Full Scale Pilot is flying unsafe, then report it. It would be best to not mention anything about being an RC Pilot and how they interfered with your flying. By even bringing it up RC Flying, you will lose any crediability to your story/complaint. Not right perhaps, but a normal human response to the situation which will serve only to draw negative attention to a hobby...

Regarding your comment "My gripe is with the attitude of some full size pilots". If this is referring to posters in this thread, don't assume that those claiming to be Full Scale Pilots really are. There are some folks that just like to banter and argue even if it means changing their position from a previous post...Just look through other threads in the AMA Discussion Forum. It won't take too long to identify who they are...If on the other hand you are referring to a stereotype personality of a Full Scale Pilot, most I know are very level headed...

LLD

strange how you say it cant be done, as I have mentioned before we do it here in aussie, 3 different airfields within 5 miles of fullsize airports, rc'ers had a cieling limit of 300 feet, and full size overflying us had a min of 500 feet. and it worked for the most part, except for the rae fool, and a quick call usually resulted in action. Silent AV8OR seems to think nothing will work and they have free riegn to fly where they will astonishes me.
My apologies if I get riled, but some peoples attitudes annoy the bejesus out of me

You drive on the wrong side of the road as well.

I base my comments on direct experience with these issues having worked with the FAA and various local governments. No offense intended here, but I think that counts for more than your theoretical concept of how it should work based on what goes on in your country. I am telling you the reality of my country and our situation. I do not "think" it will not work. I know for a cold stone fact how it would be received and have seen numerous examples of flying sites being lost in situations where they conflict with either full size planes or other public interest activities.

AC91-57 is our Crosswalk
(in your new reverse application of my analagy... its cool, reversal is a good balance tool).
It doesnt mean we can run out without looking both ways in our crosswalk,
but it is where we are supposed to be: 400/Call ATC in 3

but using the AC91-57 Crosswalk,
we <pedestrian/modelers> can fully get indignant at "speeders" almost hitting us in the crosswalk<AC91-57>.

If AC91-57 is an advisory from the FAA,
who is responsible to know what is in FAA advisories? Pilots?
What about this Heli pilot excuses him from knowing the FAA Advisory that puts models at 400',
if this heli pilot intends to fly below 400' a lot of the time?
It seems he should be interested in all <400' info and trafic permissions and advisories.

As such: How can he assume/expect there are not models at 75' 'treetop', when the FAA Advisory says they can go to 400?



.......
<ok, "crosswalk" may be a bit too much for AC91-57...more like cross street intersection- not jaywalking>

I know full well why, because people wont come to the table and discuss issues in a civilised manner, I mean how hard is it to agree to set limits over rc fields? its really only between the faa and the ama to discuss it, its airspace we are talking about, and any other authority shouldnt be involved period, as they will only be muddying the issues without knowing what they are interfering with. The only area where the local authorities should worry about is the distance any rc field is in relation to airfields/airports, and do full sized craft have ample room for approaches and take offs to clear. The whole situation is that simple. The things that foul up any action are those against any regs for full sized, and petty officials wanting to have thier 2 cents worth put in

The FAA has no problems listing parachute jump zones, sailplanes, warnings about heavy bird areas, private airports, moored ballons, etc and I don't think they have tried to stop any of those activities.


I know for a fact that many of the officials and inspectors are reasonable. Probably more than you!

Some people change their minds. Also this issue is somewhat different than the 400 foot altitude limit issue. I think most claiming to be full scale pilots are. Don't think that all full scale pilots would all agree on this issue.

the "it can't work attitude" goes back to the statement of parental attitude thought processes. how many of you are parents, have had a child ask you a question that you didn't want to answer, so the response was "Because I said so, or I'm mom or dad Thats why? That attitude doesn't educated the child at all and diminishes their ability to appropriately think and respond in an adult fashion. After all, as parents aren't we grooming our children to be rational adults? By showing the child its better to avoid the topics that he/she doesn't like diminishes their maturity level.

Because of his experience as Silent-AV8R mentions, it appears that he's taking the standpoint of "that's just the way it is" much like a parent would do. I don't at all disagree with how the FAA generally thinks. it appears that If it takes effort on their part just dismiss the possibility all together. He's right, chances are very slim....mainly because of the attitude that Silent-AV8R and others like him have.

Really, how hard is it to not fly in a box around an rc park or any other park for that matter, up to say 500'. The FAA already recognizes that RC craft exist and affirm the AMA rules of 400', right? So, why not error on the safe side and have the "Crosswalks" on a map?

At that height I believe it's a gray area with ATC. Here in Houston I believe that ATC takes over at 1500' and it's up to you to police 0'-1500'. In that case we need someone other than us to police the skies.

Funny. We've spent more time arguing the point than it takes to resolve the issue. Put it on a map, manned aircraft stay out of the area and we stay out of yours...get the appropriate police to issue tickets....


We have here a situation that in this economic crunch can increase the job market. Extra park rangers for both rc parks, public parks, extra FAA inspectors to keep low flying planes at the proper height above neighborhoods. (akin to constables). Public parks can issue certificates to fly there. This would help pay for the personnel, updating maps.

How about adding the AMA to a division of the FAA? Where people can be properly trained, licensed etc. Thereto is another avenue to add jobs to the job market.