Am I missing something here?
 

I have seen a lot of "discussion" on the proposed FAA restructuring/rules facing RC aviation and I have to wonder...

It seems that there's a whole lot of speculation and arguing over unknowns, a lot of egos, opinions, and paranoia.

I'm pretty sure the FAA isn't going to ban RC aviation but, hey, that's just me.

I did a quick search to see what was going on and I found this document from a couple of years ago.

http://www.modelaircraft.org/faa/recommendations.pdf

It's basically recommendations on how to regulate RC models under the new FAA 'restructuring' if that is the correct word.

If you look at section 3 which outlines recommendations for the regulations for RC aircraft not operating under the umbrella of something like the AMA, it doesn't really seem that 'out there' to me...

It kind of makes sense.

I'm sure that those who fly turbines will not be happy and the "400 foot altitude limit" may be a touch unrealistic but beyond that, it kind of seems like common sense.

Is the uproar just a bunch of irrational paranoia like the guy I knew who cashed in his house for gold, bought every gun he could, and moved to the hills when Obama was elected? (this is not a joke...true story and totally insane)

Or am I missing something?

RE: Am I missing something here?
 

I don't think you're missing something at all. Yes, there is a danger that the hobby could be hurt by the upcoming regulations. Yes, the AMA is negotiating for us. Yes, we might get some new rules that we don't like. But given the work the AMA is doing along with our track record that clearly shows that we are not a threat to national security, it is a little early to start boarding up the windows.

My other hobby is shooting, and those who practice it have learned to live with the constant threat of regulations. We win some and we lose some, but no sweeping limits to the hobby have come out. That hobby is far less politically correct that ours, and there are even groups working hard specifically to destroy the public's right to own firearms. But common sense has generally prevailed in a conversation that people are extremely emotional about. I do believe that it will prevail here too.

RE: Am I missing something here?
 

The ARC recommendations would severely limit our hobby as we know it. No turbines, period. Hard 400' limit would eliminate pretty much all pattern flying. 100mph speed limit would make 80% of the models out there illegal. Hard and fast 55lb weight limit would affect a lot more modelers than just the 55 on the AMA list. Not to mention banning all RC flight within 5 miles of any airport rather than the current notify the tower if flying within three - it would in effect make another 3 million square miles banned for RC flight.

In essence you're talking about eliminating a good portion of what we are currently able to do. The impact on our hobby would be significant, but the impact on the model aviation industry would be catastrophic. By including model aviation (in all its forms, not just RC) in its sUAS regulations the FAA is trying to regulate a problem that simply does not exist. That is why the push for the amendment and the current letter writing campaign. We want our hobby to survive in a recognizable form, not be destroyed so that the FAA can put us in a convenient pigeon hole definition.

RE: Am I missing something here?
 

This is kind of the 'sky is falling' kind of thing I was talking about...

Nobody I fly with has a turbine or a plane over 15lbs, let alone 55lbs.

I'm pretty sure none of us have a 100mph+ plane either...I don't think 80% of 'average' rc aircraft are capable of breaking the 100 mph speed limit.

the recommendations said that you could fly within 3 miles of an airport and that there was no restriction for under 2lb 'park flyer' electric planes. (If I remember correctly)

I think the 400' ceiling is perhaps a little unrealistic but it would be hard to enforce and I probably only get above 400' when thermal gliding anyhow.

The proposals may effect a number of specialty types of flying but for the average RC pilot, I don't think it would 'eliminate a good portion of what we are currently able to do' It would pretty much eliminate flying a giant scale turbine at 100+ mph over a local airport. I realize that that is a silly and oversimplified statement but there's also a touch of truth there.

RE: Am I missing something here?
 

The ARC airport deal
was that quiet 2lb 60mph models dont interfere with fullscale near airports,
but loud 2lb 60mph models do
... you know, cause they are loud

Now, under AC91-57 2lb model flyers NOTIFY airports of what we are doing,
under the ARC we would have to BEG PERMISSION from airports to do it
... well, unless you are quiet, then you dont even have to notify anymore[&:]

RE: Am I missing something here?
 

Then by that we should presume that those that do should feel it is OK for them to lose their ability to enjoy their models. A 400 foot altitude limit would end RC soaring (we launch higher than that), pattern, IMAC. 100 mph limit ends pylon racing and turbine. But hey, nobody you know does those things so why worry?

Perhaps looking outside just your little neck of the woods might help you to understand the threat we are up against.

RE: Am I missing something here?
 

The same could be said
to folks ok with the rest of the hobby getting regulated as long as AMA dont have to follow those regs

RE: Am I missing something here?
 

I actually agree with that. For me the ideal world would be no interference from the FAA at all. But if that does not happen I will be glad that I am an AMA member and can keep flying with less interference than if I were not a member. But that does not mean I will be happy that all modelers cannot do the same thing.

RE: Am I missing something here?
 

Farmer - the main thing is that whatever style of model flying that any of us enjoy, we all depend on a healthy hobby industry to support our little niche. So, it's important for all of us to go to bat for the those most effected by the regulations, whether they are AMA or not.

Also, those of us older citizens have seen this cycle before with government at all levels: "minor" regulation now often leads to more of such in the future. For one example, a hard 400' altitude limit may be difficult to police now, but a decade from now the gov could simply start requiring all new receivers to shut down throttle at a certain altitude. That may sound silly and unrealistic at the moment, but once regulations become specifically directed at us, there is no telling what could happen next. A slippery slope, indeed.

RE: Am I missing something here?
 

Where does it say that about turbines.... from the FAA????

Can you show me this?

RE: Am I missing something here?
 

I'm going to make one more statement and then I'm done with this because I'm not going to get sucked into a bunch of nonsensical bickering about things that may or may not happen.

My main point in posting this was to clarify something for myself. If you read some of the 'discussions' out there, everyone is acting as though RC flying is going to be banned and that the world is going to end and it simply isn't so. I understand that those who fly turbines or giant scale or high speed pylon racing planes are probably a little freaked out as they should be and I would expect those folks to fight to prevent any regulations that might forbid them to fly but....

what percentage of 'average' rc pilots actually fly tubines or giant scale? I bet that it's very small...I would bet it's less than 5%...maybe 10-15% as a whole.

I'm not saying these folks should lose their ability to fly but everything sure gets blown out of proportion very quickly when everyone starts saying 'the sky is falling'.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that a little regulation and control isn't necessarily a bad thing and I don't buy into the argument that a little bit of regulation now leads to overbearing regulation in the future...I'm sorry but I'm just not that paranoid.

I'm going to pull in an example here that will probably also get blown out of proportion but if you look at the gun end of things...do you really thing anyone should be able to go down to the corner store and buy a machine gun? Do you think that it's probably a good idea for people who buy certain kinds of guns to have a background check? I think it probably is a good idea to regulate the sales of guns to some extent. These laws have been in effect for some time and, I'm no 'gun nut' or gun laws expert but as far as I know, most anyone without a criminal record can still go buy a gun if they follow the rules.

A few rules aren't necessarily a bad thing.

As always, and as stated by another post on this thread, I'm sure that cooler heads and common sense will prevail and we'll all still be able to fly what we want. We may have to do it in a certain area for certain kinds of planes but I'm sure it will work out. I just wanted to know for myself what this was all about and now that I feel I understand it, I'm feeling comfortable. I understand that others may not feel that way and if you don't, go fight.

Personally, I don't think that some of the proposed rules are a bad idea. Currently, the only thing that keeps someone from flying a giant scale plane is cost. I know plenty of people with money and very little common sense and what's to keep them from trying to fly something big and fast off the street in front of their house and doing some serious damage to people and property? Perhaps a competency check before someone were to fly something like that wouldn't be a bad thing. Isn't there already some kind of licensing in place for turbines anyway?

RE: Am I missing something here?
 

It was in Section 3 of the ARC Recommendations. It may survive into the rule if the FAA writes a default set of guidelines from which they may then allow deviations for operations under an accepted safety plan written by a CBO such as the AMA.

RE: Am I missing something here?
 

Here's a link to the sUAS ARC recommendations: sUAS ARC.PDF

You'll need Adobe Acrobat Reader to view the file, or another program that can open PDF files. For those unable to do so here are the relevant portions of the document:

Model Aircraft: A sUAS used by hobbyists and flown within visual line-of-sight under
direct control from the pilot, which can navigate the airspace, and which is manufactured or
assembled, and operated for the purposes of sport, recreation and/or competition.

Subpart A. Model Aircraft
2. Model Aircraft Operated in Accordance with
FAA Accepted Standards
2.1 Applicability
Model Aircraft operations that are conducted in accordance with an FAA accepted set of
standards established and administered by a community based association as discussed in
Section 2.2, shall otherwise be exempt from the requirements of any Special Federal
Airworthiness Regulation (SFAR) that results from this recommendation as long as they are
operated by:
• Hobbyist for the sole purpose of sport, recreation and/or competition under the
conditions of such an FAA accepted program
• Manufacturers which are flight testing aircraft intended to be operated for the sole
purpose of sport, recreation, and/or competition and they are tested at an approved
field as defined by and in accordance with an FAA accepted program with the
approval of the community-based association responsible for the location
• Educational institutions and/or students for the sole purpose of education or research
and they are operated at an approved field as defined by and in accordance with an
FAA accepted program with the approval of the community-based association
responsible for the location
• Manufacturers which are flight testing aircraft intended to be operated for other than
sport, recreation, and/or competition and they are tested at an approved field as
defined by and in accordance with an FAA accepted program with the approval of the
community-based association responsible for the location
RATIONALE: Reflects FAA"s concept of regulating model aviation by
exempting Model Aircraft from regulation. Under this approach, modelers
participating within an aeromodeling structure/organization such as the
Academy of Model Aeronautics (AMA) may operate their Model Aircraft
in accordance with an accepted set of standards and operating
procedures. Based on a more rigorous attention to safety, risk assessment,
and risk mitigation, the accepted standards may provide greater latitude
in the Model Aircraft operations. Modelers not participating in the
additional safety programming established in an accepted set of standards
shall comply with the requirements of Section 3.

COMMENTARY: It is important that manufacturers of Model Aircraft
are able to test fly their aircraft as they do today without having to adhere
to sUAS regulations. In order to give educational institutions (e.g.,
universities) the flexibility to provide "hands on" instruction and training
to students preparing for careers in the UAS and aviation industries they
are allowed to fly these systems under the requirements for Model
Aircraft. For consistency, manufacturers who develop sUAS that are
functionally similar to Model Aircraft, are allowed to test at a location
following a community-based and FAA-accepted program.

2.2 Accepted Model Aircraft Standards and Procedures
Accepted Model Aircraft Standards and Procedures may be established and administered by
a community-based association. An accepted set of standards shall be based upon accepted
and recognized safety principles and will include but not be limited to the following:
RATIONALE: Community based organizations, such as the AMA, that
have credibility within the Model Aircraft community and that have an
established safety record and have demonstrated the ability to influence
participant compliance shall be afforded the opportunity to establish a set
of safety standards that are more comprehensive than the requirements
and limitations given for non participating modelers, and use these
standards as an alternative means of compliance with any regulations
which may results from these recommendations. Since such standards are
more comprehensive, operations under such standards shall allow for a
broad spectrum of operations and greater latitude in the AMA operations.
(1) Prescribed safety program entailing oversight, assessment, risk mitigation, and
accident/incident reporting.
(2) General safety guidelines and operating principles.
(3) Operating guidelines specific to the location and to the type, size, performance, and
propulsion of the various Model Aircraft.
(4) Comprehensive programming addressing Model Aircraft having non standard
weight, or identified as having unusual propulsion types or extraordinary flight
characteristics.
(5) Programming to facilitate Model Aircraft events, competition, national and
international record attempts, gatherings, and Model Aircraft demonstrations and
exhibitions.
(6) Educational programming that assures participants are provided relevant safety
information and validates the learning process.
(7) Educational programming that addresses essential piloting issues including:
• Recognition and avoidance of manned aircraft
• Safe operation near spectators and other non participants
• Safe and cooperative operation with other modelers
• Transitioning to higher performance and more complex models
(8) Methodology for establishing and designating dedicated Model Aircraft flying sites
providing:
• Guidelines for flying site location, configuration and design layout applicable to
its intended use and the type(s) of Model Aircraft flown, and which ensures
Model Aircraft operations do not interfere with manned flight operations
• Safety guidelines that ensure the safety of the public and provide adequate
separation of persons and property from the Model Aircraft operations
• Guidelines for coordinating and reviewing operating policies and procedures
with the airspace controlling authority for those flying sites located within
controlled airspace
• Guidelines for coordinating and reviewing operating policies and procedures
with the airport and applicable airspace control authority for those flying sites
located within 3 NM of a military or public-use airport, heliport, or seaplane
base.
• Guidelines for establishing and disseminating flying site operating procedures,
limitations and safety guidelines including the following:
- Hours of Operation
- Flying site operating procedures
- Frequency control procedures (if applicable)
- Traffic pattern and flight operations
- Cooperation with other modelers
- Applicable altitude restrictions
- Applicable No-Fly zones and operating area limits
- Flight line and pit area safety procedures
- Spectator and public access policies
- Emergency Procedures (e.g., Fire, First Aid)

3. Model Aircraft Not Operated in Accordance with
Accepted Set of Standards
3.1 Applicability
The following general requirements and limitations apply to Model Aircraft which are not
operated in accordance with an FAA accepted set of standards, but are operated by hobbyists
for the sole purpose of sport, recreation, and/or competition.

ALTERNATIVE VIEW: Eliminate Section 3.0 in its entirety.
ALTERNATIVE RATIONALE: AMA believes this approach is flawed in
that it fails to recognize the substantial diversity of the hobby, establishes
unrealistic and unenforceable restrictions, and leaves absent a safety
surveillance program to oversee the activities of those modelers who
choose not to participate in a formal aeromodeling structure/organization
More importantly, as a baseline set of standards, these limitations have
the inherent potential of imposing a devastating impact on the
aeromodeling activity and the hobby industry.

3.2 General Requirements
(1) Model Aircraft shall be flown in open spaces and in a manner that does not
endanger the life and property of others.
(2) Model Aircraft shall yield the right of way to all manned aircraft.
(3) Model Aircraft shall not interfere with operations and traffic patterns at airports,
heliports, and seaplane bases.
(4) Model Aircraft shall not be operated at locations where Model Aircraft activities
are prohibited.
(5) Model Aircraft are limited to unaided visual line-of-sight operations. The Model
Aircraft pilot must be able to see the aircraft throughout the entire flight well
enough to maintain control, know its location, and watch the airspace it is operating
in for other air traffic. Unaided visual line-of-sight does not preclude the use of
prescribed corrective lenses.
(6) Model Aircraft shall be designed, equipped, maintained and/or operated in a
manner in which the aircraft remains within the intended area of flight during all
operations.
(7) Model Aircraft pilots may not intentionally drop any object from a Model Aircraft
that creates a hazard to persons or property.
(8) Model Aircraft shall be operated in a manner that respects property rights and
avoids the direct overflight of individuals, vessels, vehicles, or structures.
(9) Model Aircraft shall not be operated in a careless or reckless manner.
(10) Model Aircraft pilots shall not operate their aircraft while under the influence of
alcohol or while using any drug that affects the person’s faculties in any way
contrary to safety.
(11) Model fixed-wing and rotorcraft aircraft shall not use metal-blade propellers.
(12) Model Aircraft shall not use gaseous boosts.
(13) Model Aircraft shall not use fuels containing tetranitronmethane or hydrazine.
(14) Model Aircraft shall not use turbine-powered engines (e.g., turbo-fan, turbo-jet) as
a propulsion source.

RATIONALE: Turbine powered aircraft are perceived by many members
of the sUAS Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC) as being a higher
risk.
ALTERNATIVE VIEW: Eliminate the limitation.
ALTERNATIVE RATIONALE: The blanket prohibition of turbine
engines does not take into consideration the various and diverse turbine
engines currently produced and impose an unjustified economic impact on
the hobby industry.

3.3 General Limitations
(1) Model Aircraft shall not exceed 55 pounds (lbs).
(2) Model Aircraft shall remain clear of clouds.
(3) Model Aircraft will not operate in Class B airspace without the permission of the
ATC authority.
(4) Model Aircraft shall not be operated within 3 NM miles of an airport, heliport, or
seaplane base without the permission of the ATC authority or airport manager.
(5) Model Aircraft shall operate in close proximity to the ground, at or below
400 feet above ground level (AGL), and shall at all times remain below and well
clear of all manned aircraft.

RATIONALE: By keeping Model Aircraft at or below 400’ encounters
with manned aircraft are reduced. This recommended general limitation
is consistent with the current Model Aircraft guidance contained in
AC91-57.
ALTERNATIVE VIEW: Replace (5) with the following:
Model Aircraft shall operate in close proximity to the ground, shall stay at
or below 400’ AGL when within 3 NM of an airport, and shall at all times
remain below and well clear of all manned aircraft.
ALTERNATIVE RATIONALE: Though it is agreed that there needs to
be some altitude limit on the modelers that are not participating in a
structured safety program such as AMA's, AMA also knows from their
experience that creating a hard and fast across the board altitude limit,
such as 400’ is unnecessarily restrictive, unrealistic, and arguably poses a
greater risk to personnel on the ground. AMA's experience has shown that
the greatest risk to other participants in the NAS and perhaps the only
significant risk posed by model aviation is when Model Aircraft are
operated within three miles of an airport. The language in the
ATERNATIVE VIEW mirrors the current guidelines in the AMA Safety
Code.

(6) Notwithstanding the above limitations, Model Aircraft weighing less than or equal
to two lbs incapable of reaching speeds greater than 60 miles per hour (mph)
(52 knots), and powered by electric motor or mechanical stored energy (e.g.,
rubber-band powered) may operate within 3 NM of a military or public-use airport
or heliport; if they remain a safe distance from the airport or heliport, remain well
clear of all manned aircraft, and remain below 400’ AGL.

RATIONALE for the above limitations:
(1) Currently accepted domestic weight limit and has international
precedent as well.
(2) Is consistent with the concept of visual line-of-sight (VLOS).
(3) Class B is positive control. All aircraft are required to operate on a
clearance. Gaining permission from ATC is equivalent to receiving a
clearance.
(4) Model Aircraft permitted to operate within 3 NM of the airport will be
provided applicable operating limitations.
(5) 400’ is appropriate for Model Aircraft operations in Class C airspace
without coordinating with ATC and is consistent with the intention of
current domestic policy and with the UK, CASA, and Canada.
(6) This is consistent with the guidelines currently established by
AC91-57.
(7) Makes a blanket exception for models weighing two lbs or less. This
is an appropriate allowance for "Park Flier" and "toy" type models
and allows them to use parks and small fields closer to airports.
(7) Model Aircraft will not be flown at an airspeed that would cause the aircraft to
inadvertently leave the prescribed maneuvering area.
RATIONALE: The pilot will be responsible for limiting their speed so
that they can remain within the prescribed maneuvering area.

ALTERNATIVE VIEW: Replace (7) with the following:
Model Aircraft cannot be operated at airspeeds which exceed 100 mph
(87 knots).
ALTERNATIVE RATIONALE: Restricting the speed of Model Aircraft
not participating in an FAA-accepted safety program will mean that highperformance
aircraft will not be operated by individuals that are not
being scrutinized by their peers. Eliminating high-performance aircraft
will also help to ensure that the operator will be able to keep their aircraft
within the defined operational area (line-of-sight and below 400’ AGL).
Limiting the speed also will reduce the likelihood of turbine powered
aircraft being operated without the guidance of an FAA-accepted safety
program. Turbine powered aircraft are perceived by many members of
the ARC as being a higher risk.

(8) Model Aircraft cannot launch pyrotechnic devices which explode or burn.
(9) Excluding take-off and landing, no powered Model Aircraft may be flown closer
than 25 feet to any individual, except for the pilot and the pilots helper located at
the flight line.

(Above edited to remove non-standard characters and replace them for ease of reading. No change of wording or content has been made.)

As you can see the ARC recommendations are far more wide-reaching than just altitude limits and weight restrictions. There are sections covering what makes an appropriate flying site even! I have italicized a couple of sections that are of special concern, one that is a blanket ban on all turbine powered models, the other one that mandates ALL model aircraft be fitted with equipment or designed in such a way that they are incapable of leaving a defined flying area. Several other parts of this document contain language that is so open to interpretation that they could easily be used to justify prohibiting ALL aeromodeling activity, such as "Model Aircraft shall not be operated in a careless or reckless manner" or "Model Aircraft shall be flown in open spaces and in a manner that does not endanger the life and property of others." These may seem simple enough, but trust me they can be used by those opposed to our hobby to make us seem like dangerous, blood thirsty lunatics. People have succeeded in shutting down ELECTRIC FLIGHT ONLY FIELDS for NOISE problems! If they can do that, they can easily use this language to stop ALL model flying activity.

I've seen what happens when you give a government agency an inch. They're never satisfied with just a mile, they want the whole freaking road.

RE: Am I missing something here?
 

I have seen it to, but apparently some haven't, and still others outright reject the notion. Oh well. Some modelers will be blissfully happy through it all, as the sky is not falling in their corner of the sandbox.

Yet.

RE: Am I missing something here?
 

Ok, ok , I got it. I'll go on my blissfully ignorant way and think everything is peachy keen when actually the world is coming to an end because I'm not as smart or worldly as everyone else here and I'm incapable of reading and understanding a document. Good luck with everything.

RE: Am I missing something here?
 

Farmer, you don't need to pity yourself. You must be a pretty good RCer, as you state in your profile that you have been flying for 4 years and consider yourself an "Advanced Pilot." Hey, IMO, Fantastic.

However there are a vast number of RC airplane people that have long experience in Dealing with Government, be it work, social, or otherwise. We have learned to look behind every door, and under the bed because what government says has almost nothing to do with TRUTH. Besides the government's objectives change and sometimes drastically change each 2 years.
No one can today accurately predict what government will do tomorrow, and frequently what they did yesterday they have already forgotten. Those of us that have witnessed a number of wars (mine started with WW II) and have lived under 13 Presidents have every right to be suspicious. If you don't believe it just think of our plight today, when people without any consideration of what can happen with government put us into some 2 years ago.

I prefer stopping everything that can place me under the control of any additional government control. Actually I prefer that anything other than defense of the nation be removed from government control. In this case, Tarasdad has it all figured out.
:D

RE: Am I missing something here?
 

Ted,
Basically what you are saying is you willing to let the FAA propose these rules that even the AMA says is over the top, as long as your not affected?
Yes I think you may be missing the point.

RE: Am I missing something here?
 

OH MY GOD!! THE GOVERNMENT IS GOING TO TAKE AWAY MY BASIC FREEDOMS, STUPID GOVERNMENT, i MAY WAKE UP TOMORROW AND BE ARRESTED FOR LEAVING MY HOUSE, PARANOIA, OUTRAGE, STUPID GOVERNMENT!!!

I mean, what does the government do for me besides provide a military, public education, a police force, firemen, roads, an infrastructure, civil rights, etc. etc. etc. I forgot that I need to mistrust the government for providing these luxuries and all I have to do is pay some taxes.

How dare they want to regulate things flying through the air, HOW DARE THEY!!! It's bad enough that I can't land a Cessna 172 in my back yard and that I have to have a license to fly it. Now they want to take away my right to fly my 46% Ultimate through my neighbor's picture window or fly my 200 mph F-16 over a schoolyard of children at recess. How dare they say I can't fly my pylon racing plane over a full scale airport and through the windshield of a Bonanza. I'm an average person with no common sense, after all, and I should be able to do whatever the hell I want to, when I want to.

That stupid Farmer Ted guy thinks that it's OK for the government to maybe limit certain kinds of RC flying to certain areas. He doesn't know anything, they're going to steal my cat next, I'm 165 years old and have seen it all before. Regulations only lead to more regulations which take my basic freedoms away. This is why cars a more polluting and more dangerous than they've ever been, and why everyone used to be able to vote and now only white males can, and I think it goes on and on, or do I have that backwards?

I say we take back the universe. I want to steal an F-22 and go supersonic over a residential area at 100 feet AGL, I want to drive an 8000 HP top fuel dragster down the freeway at 325 MPH, the government says I can't do these things, these are my rights! I should be able to mount a a rocket launcher to my house to thwart my enemies. Damn government!



_____________________________________

If you want to live your lives with this kind of fear and paranoia, be my guest. I refuse to.

If people were even slightly more intelligent than they are and had a LOT more common sense, we wouldn't need so many government regulations, but they aren't, they don't, and we do.

If you think I'm selfish for not thinking some minor regulations pertaining to certain types of RC planes isn't a bad idea, I think that you're selfish for thinking you should be able to do whatever the hell you want unchecked.

And, by the way, read the damn document...I believe that any type of RC plane would be allowed at an 'approved' RC airport under the eye of an organization like the AMA. Larger and faster planes would only be banned outside of these types of areas...and who actually flies their giant scale or jet planes outside of an AMA club as it is?

I'm done, go spread your sensationalized fear somewhere else.

RE: Am I missing something here?
 

You know, FT, I was all prepared to come in here and say that while I don't agree with what you're saying 100% that's just fine, because that's the way this country runs. Given that last bit of diatribe and vitriol, however, I've changed my mind.

That last post of yours is so over the top it's not even in orbit any more, it's headed for interstellar space at near light speed. Of course nobody wants to do the idiotic things you've accused us of wanting to do. What we want is to keep the status quo, to keep to the same safe, virtually incident-free model aviation we've been practicing for NEARLY 100 YEARS. We, the modelers, are far better at creating a safe flying environment than some FAA shill sitting in an office in Washington, DC who doesn't give a flying flip about ANY aspect of our hobby. THAT is why we are so up in arms. THAT is why we're fighting so hard to stop absolutely unneeded regulation of our hobby. Only those who have been abusing the system for commercial, non-recreational purposes should be the target of the FAA, not those of us who have taken great pains and spent untold sums to make sure we AREN'T creating safety hazards for anyone other than our own selves.

Normally I'd say we'd just have to agree to disagree, but somehow I don't think you'd settle for anything less than a total surrender to your particular viewpoint.

RE: Am I missing something here?
 

Ft Collins CO?
Take a gander at all the ranches and farms over in Kit Carson County,
and tell me why you believe that those folks with a couple full sections of horse property
should be prohibited from flying their toy airplanes over their fields
... but some postage stamp AMA club in Fremont,CA is plenty safe for that


and keep in mind
under the ARC, its the MEMBERS of cbos(AMA) that can do things with stuff, not the 'club field'.
Members of AMA would be ok to fly their toy airplanes in their front yards downtown
(if they follow AMA safetycode/ cbo standard... AMA dont require you to fly at clubs only)

RE: Am I missing something here?
 

This statement is not based on anything except your own opinion. Since we have no idea what the FAA rule looks like and we also do not know anything about what the new AMA safety standards look like it is impossible to actually make any statement about what will, and will not, be permissible under either the FAA rule of any CBO standards, the AMA's included.

RE: Am I missing something here?
 

I'm guessing you didnt read the part where I fully qualified my text by saying
now, had I said 'under the NPRM', then your point wouldnt be so misguided
... but alas, I didnt say the NPRM, I did clearly say 'under the ARC'


"Since we have no idea what the FAA rule looks like"
But, we know EXACTLY what the ARC looks like / has looked like for years now.

RE: Am I missing something here?
 

The ARC is a moot point. It is nothing more than recommendations that are not binding on the FAA. The two FAA people at the AMA Expo made it clear that not much of the ARC recommendations have survived into the rule. In addition, you added you own conjecture and interpretation about flying off the street and so on.

RE: Am I missing something here?
 

didn't silent mention something about no modeler being in favor of new regulations on a forum somewhere?
this thread has at least one such.

RE: Am I missing something here?
 

Silent
The OP very clearly mentioned he wanted to talk about what was in the ARC.... he even had a link to the ARC text.
The guy missed out when we discussed the ARC years ago,
and there has been no Retraction or Cancellation of the ARC... it is just as recommendy now as it was the day after it was inked.

So let the guy talk about what is in the ARC,
cause no matter how many time you tell folks that the recommendations are not the actual NPRM & Regs,
it dont change what was recommended to the FAA in the ARC by AMA + 19 Others.

You know the ARC is just recommendations.
I know its just recommendations.
And even the OP made it clear that HE knows its just recomendations
seee, he knows and admits it recommendations not final regulation decisions