Support for Regulations By The FAA
 

All -

My goal is not to "stir-the-pot" but, rather to gain insight from the rc community about the pending FAA regulations regarding airspace in the United States. I, for one, am prepared for and welcome possible regulations to our hobby by the FAA.

Over the years, I've seen or witnessed one too many untrained rc pilots produce 'arial missiles' of their large aircraft in locations that endanger the citizens of the area. I think the time for regulating <u>certain sized</u> rc aircraft is in order. For me, we need to prove our abilities like those who need to prove the ablity to fly full-scale.

Flying radio control aircraft is a privilege, not a right. A show of support from us, regardless of the regulations passed, proves we respect those privileges and are open and willing to learn new ways. I believe these pending regulations will, in the end, make our community stronger. Rather then point out what these pending rulings prohibit, let's exploit what it allows.

A few links for reference:

http://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/...fm?newsId=6287

http://www.modelaircraft.org/news/ama-faa.aspx

RE: Support for Regulations By The FAA
 

That's a pretty broad statement given that we have no idea what the FAA is actually cooking up.

The perception of threat from large RC planes is unfortunate, but in reality, the data available do not support your supposition that people flying larger planes are more dangerous. In fact, the physics of the situation where KE = MVexp2/2 would indicate that speed is more of ta threat than size. Also, experience shows us that larger planes are generally easier to fly, although far more expensive to equip.
Alas, no matter which side you want to discuss, it all remains conjecture. There is little value IMHO trying to discuss what we think it will allow us to do. Other threads are intended to prepare us to respond in the event the published NPRM is too restrictive. If it is published and permits us to do what we've been doing anyway, there isn't much to discuss or comment on.

Unfortunately, there's nothing new in either of these links. The most detailed information was in the ARC report, but that is apparently now water under the bridge.

Brad

RE: Support for Regulations By The FAA
 

You are missguided if you think FAA regulations will make our hobby safer, even with respect to crashing into other buildings, people, etc. They could care less, all they care about are that we do not fly into full scale aircraft.

RE: Support for Regulations By The FAA
 

What are you trying to say here? I know for a fact that you need to prove your abilities to be able to fly aircraft some models. Let's start with the aircraft over 55lbs. Let's continue with the turbine waivers. You have to prove your abilities to get the waiver to fly either of those. What else are you willing to take from the Feds? I am not willing to give them one more inch from what we have right now. Line of sight, below 55lbs, slower than 200mph and the debated 400ft limit is where I stand and will not take less than that.

Although interesting, I see no "hobby" use of FPV and over the horizon flying. That is the primary problem here. The goverment is not up-to-date with the technology available.

Rafael

RE: Support for Regulations By The FAA
 

I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the situation. In addition it appears that your complacency with the coming FAA regulations for sUAS and how they will affect models is based more on a prejudice against large planes than anything else. I would further say that you clearly hav very little experience with the FAA or are totally naive if you are in fact welcoming their oversight of our hobby.

When looking at this we all need to put aside our individual prejudices and look at the larger picture of trying to protect ALL of model aviation, not just the stuff we like to do. And I certainly hope that nobody will try to use the FAA as a means to grind their own personal axes against big planes, fast planes, or anything else they dislike.

RE: Support for Regulations By The FAA
 

Beyond Visual Line of Sight (BLOS) FPV is not currently allowed under AMA safety rules. It will also not be allowed even for commercial/public agency sUAS under the new rules.

RE: Support for Regulations By The FAA
 

Thanks for agreeing with me. Compliance or not with AMA or FAA rules is not part of the point of my discussion. Notice the differentiation between FPV and over-the-horizon flying by the use of the word "and" on my original statement.

Rafael

RE: Support for Regulations By The FAA
 

I have no idea who you are or what experience you have in the real world, however - unless you are an employee of the FAA - my money says you have no concept of the FAA or probably any other government unit. They are just out to raise their self-importance and I have preached for years that the aeromodeling public is easy meat for such a group.
The FAA can "....save the aviation world by squashing a couple 100,000 (AMA 140,000) aeromodelers..." and a not really large support business when considered as businesses. Definitely no problem with the liberal congresses that will get more pocket money from the big-business commercial users of UAV plus recognition of saving the skies from we undisciplined idiots playing with toys.
If the FCC can get - as they did today - authority to supervise/litigate the internet, then the FAA will make short work of anything that may interfere with the progress of the operation of their Big Business friends.

Hey, Man, I spent 28 years in civil aviation and 13 in military. Military was nothing with FAA. Civil was different. I even had criminal charges filed against me by an FAA Examiner and he was 100% completely wrong. Court threw the case out, FAA tried to appeal, Federal Judge said, "FAA, get out of my court." Still they can be a pain in the lower anatomy! Can be worse than an IRS audit. Also BTDT 6 times consecutive and 1 recent! [sm=cry_smile.gif]

RE: Support for Regulations By The FAA
 

from OP
I am sure there are plenty of folks that would agree with you.
Just as I am sure many of them would consider that 'certain size' to be 2lb or capable of over 60mph.

Of course its fun to sell out our comrades to save ourselves,
the hobby just dont include dangerous stuff like Turbines, FPV, above400', or the huge over10lb planes,
so the sooner we cull them off of us the safer we call call ourselves.

Notice how a bunch of folks that recreationally fly planes over 10lb consider the a 10lb model limit completely unreasonable? Just as the guys recreationally flying Experimental Large Waiver planes consider a 55lb limit unreasonable... and the folks that just got the AMA cap raised to recreationally fly toy airplanes over 100lb obviously will consider a 100lb fed cap unreasonable.
Guess the easy way out is to just say the stuff I dont fly is not part of the hobby,
as is trending with AMA members throwing recreational FPV toy airplanes to the wolves.



Support toy airplane regulation?
About the only regulation we can get a consensus as likely to happen
is the 400' cap,
and folks appear to have a really hard time swallowing even that one pill, let alone whatever comes with it

RE: Support for Regulations By The FAA
 

WRONG!

Dont know what country you think your living in, but this is the UNITED STATES of AMERICA.

If I do something that is legal, and in a safe manner, its my RIGHT.

I fly out in the middle of the desert. Let me clarify that, WAY out in the middle of the desert. No cars, people, building, trees, roads, nothing! So far out, if I had a dead battery, I would have to walk 4 hours to the nearest phone.

Driving a car on a PUBLICLY funded road/Hwy is a PRIVILEGE. Going out in the middle of nowhere, by my self, to safely fly my RC planes is my RIGHT!!

I do it all while carrying a concealed weapon, that is also my right!

The attitude that everything in this country is a privilege, is killing OUR rights................

RE: Support for Regulations By The FAA
 

First, I'd like to clarify a few things.

1) I am indeed very familiar with the FAA, its actives, and its affiliated branches of the government. I am also actively involved and informed about the General Aviation community.

2) I am not trying to squelch the viability or value of our hobby. As a matter of fact, I think our hobby is very important.

3) I am, indeed, not complacent with pending FAA regulations and what it could do to our hobby.

4) I can understand why we may see regulations placed on our hobby, especially with how closely we can at times, parallel the Unmanned Arial Systems market.

-
The reality of the situation is that I'm very aware of pending regulations from the FAA. I'm also are aware that these regulations are not being put into place in order to 'kill our hobby community'. As a matter of fact, it's quite the opposite. The purpose of the pending rulings is to protect the publics interest, its communities and its people - the American citizens.

Do I know what is going to happen? No, I don't'. But I'd rather be proactive then reactive to a situation. What I'm seeking to find out is how fellow hobbyist feel about this topic. I'm seeking to find the pulse of where we, as a community, stand. Pros and cons.

What I'm sensing, thus far, is an "us versus them" attitude towards the FAA / General Aviation. I find that attitude rather detrimental to our hobbies cause. We are not the only ones who are going to feel the pinch of possible rulings and it seems obtuse to think so.

I respect everyone's honesty and thoughts, I really do. But I will stand by my initial response that at some levels I do support a variance of regulation on certain sized rc aircraft. If at least, a clause saying, "&hellip;if it's over 45lbs it can't be flown within X number of miles of a populated area..blah, blah, blah&hellip;" or something like that. Some types of aircraft that we now have access to, in my opinion, need special sanctions. It's freaky to see some of the sheer size and speeds that our model jets have now days. Not to mention the recent New York "Black SheepSquadron" video that will certainly have the FAA looking at our capabilites with UAS-type equipment.

I love aviation. I love flight. I'll do what I need to do (legally) in order to promote our hobby as a member of the AMA and the EAA.

<u>And in case anyone wants to know</u> my 37lb.+ Skymaster MB-339 is in the works and I have every intention of flying it, either with a waiver from the AMA, or under new regulations.

RE: Support for Regulations By The FAA
 

Having dealt with the FAA for the last 30+ years, trust me when I say that we do NOT need more FAA oversight of our hobby!

In case you are wondering how big a pain in the ***** the FAA can be, do a search for what those miserable bastages did to Bob Hoover.

RE: Support for Regulations By The FAA
 

But why do you welcome that? Don't we already have caps on weight and speed as I mentioned above? Why would you welcome a lower weight cap in the smack middle of the average weight of a "normal" scale bird. I'm positive that the 55lbs limit was well thought out given average sizes, and average weights for the majority of the modelers.

Then we have the enformcemt of these new regulations. If they become FAA regulations (read: NOT AMA regulations, but FEDERAL regulations) who is going to enforce them? Who and how is somebody going to "approve" the flying of aircraft over this arbitrary limit/s? How much are you willing to pay to obtain this waiver to fly these above-limit aircraft? Are the black SUVs going to be patrolling every possible flyng site in the US to find these aircraft? All of this will make you pay more taxes (above your new-found FAA regulations). How ch money are you going to have left after paying for the kit/materials, the waiver, and the extra taxes?

I believe that although you claim to have involvement with the FAA, you have not thought thru this "support" that you offer to these regulations.

Rafael

RE: Support for Regulations By The FAA
 

If you feel this way, I think you should be lobbying the ama or even by starting at your local club for those regs. Since you fly jets and don't like the rules for us why not approach the JPO??? NOT the feds to step in and regulate us... [:-]

It's much better that we regulate ourselves rather than having laws created with the possibility of wiping out turbines, imac etc..

RE: Support for Regulations By The FAA
 

Same issue different thread.............. apwachholz started this thread that died:

FAA & AMA What's Your Vested Interest?

http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_96..._1/key_/tm.htm

So now he is trying again under a new more controversial title.

Brad

RE: Support for Regulations By The FAA
 

Very, very scary words. Look at the freedoms we have already lost with that attitude. Check out current news about the FCC and internet control.

Well, you have received a small sample. So far I would say you stand pretty much alone in your beliefs.
The current, healthy generaldistrust of government is a good thing.

RE: Support for Regulations By The FAA
 

@Bradpaul -

You are correct. I did start that additional thread as you mentioned. As a matter of fact I've started several threads on RCU and will continue to do so.

They are all under the guise of conversing with my fellow hobbyists about topics that are important to me. And I'm trying to find out how important they are to you. I'm not attempting to raise eyebrows or start fires. I'm simply trying to gain insight from you all.

However, thanks for noticing my threads. I hope you reply....http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/js/f...sn/biggrin.gif

<div>@K-Bob</div><div></div><div>"Well, you have received a small sample. So far I would say you stand pretty much alone in your beliefs."</div><div></div><div>I don't think I do.</div><div></div><div>Bob, what you might be misconstruing about what I'm saying is an understanding that I want hard and fast rules on our hobby. As a matter of fact I don't. However, in order to avoid conflict or issues with the FAA, I believe it's best to put some things in place before something happens and then we really get locked down.</div><div></div><div>Times have changed and now more then ever we need to have a continued dialogue with the FAA. We're too closely tied to them thanks to improved technology (which is good!) so by natural progression we&rsquo;ll begin to walk the line of falling under their jurisdiction; at some small level.</div><div></div><div>Interestingly enough, the Gen Av. community in the wake of 9/11 had very hard and fast rules applied instantly, much to their distain. However, as things progressed and AOPA worked with the FAA, rules were lifted and freedoms regained. This is what the AMA is working towards however; the support from underneath them (i.e. us) is somewhat lack-luster from what I've been experiencing thus far.</div><div></div><div>@jonkoppisch</div><div></div><div>"If you feel this way, I think you should be lobbying the ama or even by starting at your local club for those regs"</div><div></div><div>I am currently a Team Lead member of the Strategic Task Force reviewed and assembled by the AMA whose sole objectives are to increase our AMA memberships and impact within our communities. One of our current tasks is reviewing AMA sanctioned clubs and how to better involve them and grow memberships and increase visibility.</div><div></div><div>I am indeed active in what I am passionate about.</div><div></div>

RE: Support for Regulations By The FAA
 

Maybe the best sentence ever on this forum. Kudos scooterinvegas!

RE: Support for Regulations By The FAA
 

The FAA is probably thethird most beuracratic (IRS and the military are the worst) and probably the second largest money waster (the military being the worst). They and the NTSB don't even get many of the crash's right!

RE: Support for Regulations By The FAA
 

And what about the people who consider the 254 pound weight limit ureasonable!? Do understand there are people flying aircraft weighting under 250 pounds that will likely have less restrictions than our models when this is done?

RE: Support for Regulations By The FAA
 

<div style="border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; overflow: hidden; border-left: medium none; color: #000000; border-bottom: medium none; background-color: transparent; text-align: left; text-decoration: none">No the AMA has a rule, but that does not prevent you from building and flying something larger. In fact it is legal to fly a full scale aircraft by radio control. In fact it has been done, but mostly by companies doing research, and the milatary for target practice.
</div>

RE: Support for Regulations By The FAA
 

Please do not lump General Aviation in with the FAA. One is a government agency and the other is a population of general aviation pilots and we have our own issues with that government agency. I would like to think that as aviation modelers we are also a part of general aviation.

Regards
Frank

RE: Support for Regulations By The FAA
 

Lemme fine tune you comment to drive the point home even more:

Do understand there are people flying IN aircraft weighting under 250 pounds that will likely have less restrictions than our models when this is done?

/sarc
Toy airplanes ( over10lb??) are dangerous and need regulation & moneygrabbing uh.. license/registration,
because they are unlike the p103Ultralights that you can risk your life inside without much FAA concern
(~sure its a deathtrap that might fly over folks in an 'uncongested' area, but as long as its a <250lb and <5gal gas deathtrap piloted by the untrained and unlicensed over country folks... then its ok)
/sarc :eek:

back to my point however,
is that modelflyers will sell out the 250lb model flyers, yet balk at selling out the 10lb model flyers.
Its folly to decry the bigger the plane the more dangerous,
until one first says the smaller the plane the sefer.... which is of course talking about the helmets required for .15CL Combat... heck, not only are they small, but they are on a leash. I dont see a helmet requirement for Experimental 55lb Waiver toy airplanes like the lil .15CLC have

Maybe we should throw all the RC under the bus to protect CL
... easy enough for CL and FF guys to say RC & FPV and MetalProps are not even part of the hobby,
and welcome regulations making the hobby of ff&CL safer



The enemy dont need to Divide & Conquer us,
we come self dividing, ready to be conquered

RE: Support for Regulations By The FAA
 

I fear given your position and viewpoint what we have in store from the faa but maybe I'm reading you wrong.... [:o]

RE: Support for Regulations By The FAA
 

Guys,

This thread shows us perfect example of how our hobby will go to hell in a handbasket...Support that? Not a chance in hell.