rack

My Feedback: (11)

Sport_Pilot

Ok, where are the ARC recommendations for the other UAV's not sUAV's and models? Because I don't want your opinion, I want facts.

rack

My Feedback: (11)

larry@coyotenet

My Feedback: (21)

My comment about the usual suspects is in reference to the AMA haters who reqularly respond in this forum. I appreciate someone who has consistently tried to change what he perceives as problems with the AMA executive council. I have belonged to the AMA for almost forty years and have been a leader member almost that long. I don't have the same feelings about the EC that you have, probably because I have never had much dealings with them. As a club officer I do have to interact with the AMA more than most members, almost always I have been received in a friendly, competant manner. This is not to say that I agree with AMA policies 100%, but in the case of the current discussion I really don't see what the problem with the AMA's stance is. It is only common sense that the AMA would try to have a say in the FAA rules and regs that concern model aircraft and that the AMA safety guidelines would be used in order to promote safe flying. Being a club officer in a moderately sized club, 70 to 100 members, I have had to deal with the "no one can tell me what to do" element many times. My fear is that an "outlaw" flyer will do something stupid to get the FAA or Dept of Homeland Security on our necks and god help us if that happens. From what I read in the FAA focus group recommendations most of the groups concerns are covered in AMA's safety guidelines. I don't agree with the turbine restriction but can understand that if you have no knowledge and see the videos regularly posted on YouTube showing turbine crashes someone could come to the conclusion that turbines are extremely dangerous. This is were an organization like the AMA can help educate people and dispell some mistaken conceptions.

Larry

Silent-AV8R

We are discussing the small UAV ARC, not sure about others. But here is the FAA UAV information page:

http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert...ovals/uas/reg/

The Interim Guidance document covers the whole spectrum of UAVs. The ARC deals with the small ones and how they will fit into the larger framework.

http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert...dance08-01.pdf

Funny, you post endless posts comprised of nothing but your opinions, and then demand that others use a different standard. How ironic is that?

Hossfly

Is that not a bit presumptous, SP? In posts 151, 154, 158, 159, and especially 160 (#s at this time) YOU use the term, "I think..." for a number of your OPINIONS !!!

I don't know just how much you have worked with / for / or whatever the FAA in your lifetime, however in my lifetime, or at least 41 years, and especially in the last 28 of those years, I became very opinionated that as I said early in this thread, They do not operate by any standard, and have all the power of the Federal Government behind them. While I have stood up and been counted many times, even I know to step out of the way of a Tiger/Panther tank. (Translated to: no matter how poorly the machine is built and may require extreme maintenance, but when it is so very large and can do extreme bodily injury, I know when to jump. )

As an airline pilot, I knew to eat no 'burgers with poppy seed buns as they could give a positive drug test in those no-notice tests. If an airline pilot received any positive on a test, then the FAA grounded him/her for ONE FULL YEAR regardless of any information that may prove the test wrong. NO RECOURSE.
While I knew the applicable FAA regs. better than most pilots, I also knew to never push that envelope as an FAA person could, would, and DID create significant hardships using their powers. Preach regs. and details all you want. It can very well cost you a lot of Yankee $$$.

Oly

Larry,
Good post, but I'm afraid your statements are entirely too level headed and reasonable to be included in this forum.

Silent-AV8R

Biggest lie a pilot will ever hear: "Hello, I'm from the FAA and I am here to help you" [:@]

Sport_Pilot

You are right Hossfly, a lot of decisions seem to fly in the face of fact, and that would lead many to think the FAA is all powerfull. But they lose some too. Especially in my field with property rights issues. They have more lee way with air safety issues, because, well no one wants to be accused of being against air safety. And yes I do use the term I think and I don't intend to say that my opinion is the final word. Silent may well be right is at least some of what he says. But I don't see the point of argueing the same thing over and over so now for some facts. I think the ARC recomendations for other than models were stripped from the prior postings. However I have found others, and it does seem to say my example would be illegal. And I guess it may be if adopted as written, but I am not so sure it should be. Seems to me it should be allowed for at least some very small autonomous aircraft. That is without FAA certification.

Sport_Pilot

Larry Walters flew to 16,000 feet and over Long beach airport. So he should have gotten in the trouble he was in.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawn_Chair_Larry

Sport_Pilot

Sorry, I didn't mean any disrespect. But I am simply tired of argueing the same thing over and over again. Also you seem determined that you are right with no doubts. I am saying maybe not here is an alternative view. I am not even insisting that it is a certainty. Just entertain the thought. I am approaching this a bit as a devils advocate but believing it.


Bout those Reno racers. Do they get a waiver? Because if not the reason why could be useful.

rack

My Feedback: (11)

na they should have given him the high altitude award for lawn chairs

Sport_Pilot

Reading this a second time if I understand you correctly if you are standing in the open at your airfield the space around you in a 500 feet area is not navigable. However, I am not sure that is what they call navigable airspace. Whenever I research it for towers, buildings, it seems to vary from 200 to 1200 feet AGL depending were you are, especialy close to an airport. However this is the height of obstructions and the navigable airspace may be something else. See Part 77 for details.

RV7guy

Well, since my previous post got deleted for what Ken thought was not playing nice I'll try to make this nicer. Sport, as you have been for many threads, YOU ARE WRONG AGAIN!!!! If you really believe the FAA does not have jurisdiction over ALL airspace, you are sadly mistaken. You clearly don't know enough about aviation to speak coherently on this matter. Your terminology is inaccurate, your interpretation of the FAR's is wrong and you are generally just not even close on the matter. I'm going to recommend this thread get killed. It is getting out of hand.

Darwin N. Barrie
AMA`12192
Professional Pilot
fixed wing, rotor wing, Commercial/Instrument in both

Sport_Pilot

What does this have to do with an ACUIZ? Do you doubt that someone can build on property without notifying the FAA? Try reading part 77 and own up to the fact that your knowledge is limited to Part 91 and other regulations required to obtain and maintain a pilots license. Nothing wrong with that but it doesn't qualify you to determine what can and cannot be built. He said that the FAA did not let him build on his property. I verified that the FAA can indeed prohibit construction on his land if he is too close to the end of the runway. This information is contained in part 77. When outside of an airport then you can indeed build without interference up to 500 feet and less if near an airport. Not that you cannot build a skyscraper or whatever but you must then jump through hoops. But this is only tangent to this thread, though it does indicate what the FAA considers navigable airspace.

I think maybe you are hung up on jurisdiction? That term is not absolute, as the FAA does have stake in some instances. But generally you have the air rights up to 500 feet.

rack

My Feedback: (11)

well if for some reason you can successfully claim the faa has no controlling legal authority, they can revert to the commerce clause which will give it to them

Avaiojet

Model airplanes have gotten to large, and model airplane pilots have gotten to bold.

And this is a non-bias view. I love modeling but love staying alive more.

Charles

55 years of modeling.
Past professional pilot.
Commercial/Commercial Seaplane

rack

My Feedback: (11)

ya its changed alot in your 55years gone from escapments to almost bulet proof radio systems

warbird addict

I dunno but I think there is another wrinkle to be considered and that is,neither the FAA, congress or anyone else in Gov't is going to allow an entire industry to dry up with all those jobs/taxes lost as a result of it, not to mention the fact that the retailers/ wholesalers, AMA as well as the end consumers and anybody else concerned is going to scream bloody murder, they may indeed place some rubber stamp rules in typical uninformed dislocated fashion on certain stuff to address certain instances that may have arisen but ANY GOVERNMENT AGENCY no matter what the initials are is going to be 10000% about the revenue and they are more than anything probing our defenses for a way to yet again drive their hands in our pockets and assign yet another FEE to our already critically limited and UNTAXED freedoms
whats any more frowned upon or dangerous than booze and smokes which kill monumentally more people annually than anything whatsover involved with an rc aircraft but I certainly don't see any indication of big brother banning them but rather they continue to raise the tax on them yet another example of GOV'T saying by example OK so you want to kill yourself with booze and cigs it's ok so long as you pay till you bleed and pad big brothers pockets first.
I mean what is anybody thinking you can't even own a damned DOG without paying the town office $35 for the priviledge and you want a freebie on being able to fly an rc aircraft
BLASPHEMY LOL what the hell were we thinking, hell I'm waiting for the waste of Maine to tell me I need to register my rc boat and slap a $15 milfoil pond weed sticker on it.

rack

My Feedback: (11)

we

maddog 71

I wouldnt say that to loud about the milweed they might hear youy and say thats a good idea! I think the goverment is just upset because there not getting enough money from us and they want control!

Teenage Pilot 14

Well, for what it's worth, I'm gonna keep doing exactly what I do until someone forces me to stop. If I can't fly my planes, I'll sell themto some Canadian personand go back to helis like before and fly them in my front yard.

I'd like to know when they're gonna try to outlaw birds. Those big ones get up just as high as our best sailplanes and they're even more dangerous. Besides, birds are far more widespread and common than R/C planes.

If my right to fly my models gets taken away, you can bet abig stack of black chips that I'll be EXTREMELYUNHAPPIERwith the government, but there's little I can do at my age except look like "thedumb kid with the toy airplanes".

Silent-AV8R

You guys need to get a grasp on the reality here. First, the ARC summary is just a list of recommendations to the FAA. The FAA will now start up their sausage grinder (as Rich Hanson called it) rules machine and put the ARC summary in there along with all the FAA rules making rules and protocols and grind on it for likely at least a year. Then they will issue a NPRM and open up for public comment. THen they review the comments and either issue a final rule or start over (rare, but it does happen). So this is at least 18 to 24 months away from being anything.

Then, if the ARC is used much at all, then really nothing much changes for AMA members. SO all in all there is a reason to be watchful right now, but hardly a reason to panic. 

Meanwhle I'm planning to fly all weekend in a contest.  See ya'

bps

My Feedback: (3)

Just my opinion but when all of the manuvering is finished if ya want to fly a model you will belong to the AMA, pay whatever dues they deem nessesary for a license and that will be that. Not venting on the AMA or FAA at all, that is just the way I see it. I have modeled for over 45 years and this should slowly kill outdoor model flying for the average Joe. Take a look at general aviation and we see our future, not exactly bright but even dimmer without the AMA. Not exactly a red letter day for those who just love model aviation.

warbird addict

The bottom line is if we as a group do not make every effort possible to police ourselves and act collectively,we are inviting outside intervention from whatever agency thatmight be appointed todo what we have failed or refusedto do, at that point we will be paying to support that agencies activities.
Additionally organizations like the AMAare going to be you're only voice with the powers that be and should be supported as long as you want to continue to have a voice in the matter
politicians are not now or ever going to listen to complaints or concerns from a million differentINDIVIDUALSthey will only listen to one representive that is "recognized" as the agency or spokespersonthatthey feel best addresses/represents the concerns of the collective group.
Any individual attemptsto have a voice unless accompanied by a 20,000 signature petition are going to fall on deaf ears or wind up in the round file without even being read
if you are lucky and at most you may receive a generic form letter signed by somebodies secretary and thats as far as it will ever go justmy .02