Deleted post

The whole thing boils down that No Matter how many Laws (FAR's) u enact Law Breakers don't care. If laws keep people from doing Stupid Things Like robbing their Local 7-11, Drinking and driving, Running red lights. ETC etc ETC. Evidently the FAR's just enacted about not flying with in 5 miles of a towered airport has accomplished NOTHING. So what does the Over Reacting Government do? They through a wet Blanket over every R/C TOY that flies, even though the Majority of all R/C Types have never caused a problem and most likely never will. Laws are made to Provide a way of Prosecuting the Law Breaker "After the Fact" They do nothing to deter the person bent on doing wrong but only keep the Law Abiding person honest and Law abiding.

I still say the FAA was going to go after what everyone in the world considers a "DRONE" i.e. Quad Copters. That was until the AMA thru congress with amendment #336 tried to tell the FAA how and what they could & could not do. i.e. Make any rules concerning Model Aircraft. Think about it, Trying to tell a government agency like the FAA that they can't do something is like waving a red flag in front of a 2 tone brahma bull. All u will accomplish is to make him/them MAD. The proof is the response of how the FAA was going to "INTERPRET" Amendment #336. We all Know how that turned out. Now that is not working we have a new and way more serious choices on our hands, Namely
https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-...bill/4441/text
[h=1]H.R.4441 - Aviation Innovation, Reform, and Reauthorization Act of 2016
But then again I'm just "Preaching to the Choir".[/h]

717, 727, 737, 757, 767 ALL can be affected in the way I described. Let's look at the systems individually:
1) Electrical-All the planes listed have three main bus circuits, left and right engine and APU, the 727 also runs a center bus. Some of the systems are only hooked to one engine bus, some to more than one, some to one engine and the APU. Of the planes I listed, all can run the APU in flight but the 727.
2) Hydraulics-What you all have to remember is that on all the aircraft listed, you lose one hydraulic system, you're losing 3000 PSI of hydraulic pressure as soon as the engine fails. Since pretty much all modern planes run a parallel systems, the flight controls are getting a total of 6000 PSI under normal conditions. There is no way the controls are going to operate the same with half of the actuators not working
3) Thrust Reversers-This one should be self explanatory. You lose an engine, you have no thrust for the thrust reverser to reverse the direction of. To reverse the other side engine, you will have one engine throwing 50,000+ pounds of thrust forward while the dead engine is giving nothing. Since the wings are still partially supporting the plane, the tires won't be able to hold the plane from spinning. Since the landing gear are not stressed against side loads, they will probably fail as well
4) Brakes-Again, here we have a possible hydraulic pressure issue. IF the brakes are fed by both systems, you will still have some braking and now it's an issue of having enough runway to stop a 150,000+ pound jetliner. If they are fed by separate systems, you will have the same issue as with the thrust reversers. the plane may spin.
Thrust-I didh't list this as a system because it isn't one. It is, however, a major component of a plane's ability to fly. As was demonstrated by the B-17 and B-24 over Europe in WWII, a plane could fly with an engine out. In all but a few very rare cases, two engines out on the same side was fatal as the rudder wasn't able to counter the thrust from two engines on the same side. The plane usually flat spun into the ground. Our modern jetliners, by comparison, are required to fly with one engine. At the same time, however, being able to maneuver like it does with both engines isn't possible

Ask Rob what he flies......:)

When was the last time you:
1) Actually worked on an aircraft?
2) Piloted an Aircraft?
3) Used an A&P license?
4) DID ANYTHING TO AN AIRCRAFT OTHER THAN SIT IN A PASSENGER'S SEAT?

I'm a Navy trained avionic tech. My specialized training was in communication, navigation and airborne radar systems. I've also worked on the 717/MD80, 727, 737, 757, and 767. I now certify people as to being able to do the tasks required to build jetliners. I think that gives me more than a bit more experience than most giving their "opinions" that are based on nothing. Gee, SP, does that sound like you, basing your opinions on nothing?

I don't think you are getting it. I am sure he is thinking of all the FOD the engine pulls through with little problems.

Then bother youself to read the new bird strike standards for airframes and birds. Working on an aircraft does nothing to avail yourself of these standards.

I agree losing an engine in flight is not ideal but it is definitely not as bad as your post makes it sound.

Modern transport category aircraft can generally fly and land safely if one engine fails.

Lets work though your points taking the 767 as an example...

Electrical - the entire aircraft system can work normally if one engine is lost.

Hydraulic - the 767 has three Hydraulic systems, Left, Centre and Right, The left and right are powered by an engine driven hydraulic pump AND a separate electrical pump. (See diagram below) If one engine fails you don't lose the associated hydraulic system at all as the electrical pump will keep it operating.

Also just one hydraulic system will provide adequate aircraft controllabilty.

Thrust Reversers - They don't provide the full rated thrust in reverse and you are not relying only on the brakes to keep straight - the rudder is very effective during the high speed phase of the landing roll. You also have ground lift dumpers providing drag and making the brakes more effective.

The aircraft I fly is a twin engine corporate jet roughly the size of a 717, you can use a single thrust reverser on landing no problem at all. We practice it annually in the simulator. (see checklist below) - I don't know about the 767 but I'll ask a friend who flies them.

Brakes - The brakes have back up systems, The 767 has two back ups, the first alternate braking is via the Central Hydraulic system (powered by an electric pump) and the second back up is via the brake accumulator. There is no risk of spinning at all as these systems operate both the left and right wheel brakes.

Even very small corporate jets have back up and emergency braking systems.

Thrust - loss of an engine will affect performance but as you say airliners must demonstrate the ability to keep flying after losing one engine or they won't get certification. At full throttle with one engine failed in level flight at 15,000 feet we have to throttle back or the aircraft will exceed VNE.

http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/atta...mentid=2153821http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/atta...mentid=2153822http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/atta...mentid=2153823http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/atta...mentid=2153824http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/atta...mentid=2153825

Your commuter jet probably has the engines located in the rear on the sides of the fuse. You can probably get away with using the reversers on it. The problem with the 767 is that the turbofan centerline-to-centerline distance appears to be 51' 11-3/8" [15.83m], with a turbofan air intake of 94.072 inches [2.389m]. Engine nacelle outer "width" is about 109.99 inches [2.79m]. This means you are getting 26 feet of leverage with the full reverse thrust trying to spin that aircraft. As you said, the reverser does not give 100% but even at 75%, you're getting up to 47,500 lbs of thrust meaning 1,238,250 ft-lbs of torque trying to spin that plane, not an insignificant amount

You are right, our engines are mounted on the side of the fuselage and I totally agree with your point that a wing mounted engine has more 'leverage"

The 767 has a VMCG (Minimum single engine control speed) of 106 kts, Below this speed the rudder is not effective enough to compensate for the yaw - this is assuming full thrust on the good engine.

During a landing if using 75% throttle with reverser you are not getting the same value of thrust "in reverse" that you would normally, the reversers are not that efficient.

Reversers are most effective during the high speed phase and are closed on many aircraft below 60 Kts.

Another point is that landing distance does not increase dramatically if you don't use reversers, 30-50% typically, at most airports there will be ample runway to stop without reversers.

A flapless landing is far worse and can require twice the runway to stop. I have a couple of friends that fly 737s and 767s so I'll ask about single engine reverser use. I honestly don't know if they do that for those aircraft.

Totally techno geeking out here and lovin it........

It will be interesting to see since there have been changes on the planes since I worked on them. It's funny how much an aircraft design can change due to operational upgrades and working out bugs that no one knew were there over the lifetime of the production run.

It really is amazing the changes over the past 5 years alone. We fly with a true paperless cockpit using iPads for chart display and these show real time tracking in flight and on the chart itself. .

So much easier than fumbling with paper charts and amendments are automatic and take minutes instead of manually replacing charts for hours.

The aircraft databases are updated every 14 days via a usb stick. Occasionally there are cabin system updates that automatically download via satellite during a power up.

http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/atta...mentid=2153921http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/atta...mentid=2153922http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/atta...mentid=2153923

I have to agree here. Low and slow (e.g. takeoffs and landings) are the most dangerous phases of flight. Any evasive maneuvers during takeoff and landing are much more likely to cause a stall, as compared to high speed, straight-and-level flight.

Right of way rules do not specifically state if full scale aircraft have right of way over sUAVs (not yet, anyway.) In general, aircraft that are less maneuverable have right of way over aircraft that are more maneuverable (with some exceptions.) Thus, lighter-than air balloons have right of way over everything else in the sky. If one were to argue that sUAVs are more maneuverable than large, full-scale aircraft, then it might stand to reason that full scale aircraft should have right of way over sUAVs.

That would be reasonable when you consider that the rules of the road for boats and ships specifically states that a more maneuverable vessel MUST GIVE WAY to one less so. In plain english, a power boat must avoid a sail boat while under sail in the same way that a sail boat must give way to a ferry or other commercial vessel. Can you imagine what would happen if the 1187 foot, 225,282 ton Oasis of the Seas had to avoid an 8 ft dingy?

The point was that if we had NextGen and drones had transponders then the full scale CAS will see the drone many miles out. Way before they are low and slow.

Too bad you forgot three little details:
1) Transponders will seriously jack the price of the R/C so equipped
2) To make the transponder powerful enough to be feasible, it would require a much larger machine to be able to support the weight of the transponder itself AND the larger battery pack that would be needed to power the transponder.
3) The airspace around many of our larger airports is already highly congested and confusing with aircraft alone and even more so when looked at by radar. How much more confusing would it be with R/Cs suddenly popping up with transponders screaming "I'M HERE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

I didn't forget anything, though it was not my idea. But I was making similar arguments as yours a month or so ago. However a NextGen transponder or ADB-S would be no different than a cell phone and it sends the altitude and position per its built in GPS. It communicates with satellite and trancievers likely added on existing cell phone towers, not radar. The system is more robust and can display the data on the aircraft monitor as well as ground control and would likely differentiate between full scale and drones. As I said it was not my idea. A couple of links..

http://www.trig-avionics.com/knowled...tion-to-ads-b/

http://diydrones.com/profiles/blogs/...on-an-ar-drone

I know I originally liked the idea of a low powered transponder. After thinking about it more, I think the issues with the ATC system would outweigh the benefits, especially the way the FAA and Senate are looking at regulating anything not sitting on the ground

Which is why I like the house bill which not only better for R/C models, but also privatizes the ATC system which would get NextGen going. I don't think FAA wants it.

The technology has already been miniaturized to the point where it can be carried by many model aircraft. The cost is still an major issue, though. Currently, the cheapest "ADS-B Out only" transmitter I could find is around $1,200; far more expensive than most model airplanes (even when the cost of the engine and radio system is added.) Google is working to reduce the cost, but unless they can get it into the low triple digits, many modelers will not be able to afford it. That said, if the FAA decides to require ADS-B on all model aircraft, many ADS-B manufacturers will quickly start pouring money into developing small, low cost transmitters to meet the demand. Designing such a transmitter is not impossible; we have the technology. The manufacturers just need assurance that they will be able to sell enough units to make it worthwhile, financially.

One option is to design an ADS-B transmitter that can be easily swapped between aircraft, thus requiring each modeler to purchase only one transmitter (perhaps an inexpensive antenna and mounting plate could be installed in each aircraft, with the main unit being swappable.) Some modelers do this with expensive radio components, such as GPS telemetry sensors. From what I understand, the aircraft's "N" number is transmitted by the ADS-B unit. Perhaps ADS-B transmitters for modeling use could transmit the pilot's FAA registration number instead, since this single registration allows each pilot to own/operate an unlimited number of aircraft.

So what does the FAA want? And why don't they want NextGen? Do you have any actual sources or data to back this up, or just your opinion (which obviously is fine).

I would think the technology would get cheap real fast. The GPS is easy and probably costs less then $50, so the cost is the ADS-B out transmitter. The frequency is very close to cell phone frequencies. If the FAA hangs the transceivers on nearly every cell phone tower then they would not need much power. Also every full scale aircraft will be operating like a flying cell transmitter.

I think they are just looking at RTF quads for now. I do not think the FAA would be allowed to make us require it without another act of Congress because the Special Rule does not allow further regulation. IMO it would be pointless as we mostly fly from fields and cooperate with airports. But at a later date on models weighing more than 2 Kg would probably not be a bad idea.

NextGen would reduce the number of controllers and may eventually get rid of the need for controllers altogether. Thus reducing their empire.

Not likely. ATC is basically the ones that keep planes away from each other. When you think about it, small planes probably aren't going to have most of the hi-tech stuff, they will need to have someone "assisting" them. What worries me is that the FAA may require us to have two way communications with ATC to prevent accidents as well