Not quite as exciting as model airplanes doing 150 mph.

Would have loved to see that more zoomed in so we could see what kind of planes were being flown better. My compliments to the pilots. With that many planes flying that fast as such a close course, not seeing any collisions was almost surprising

Yes, difficult to make out who is who and yes, flying in traffic can be stressful. At one point I got close to another plane and pulled up. Next turn I did a diving turn to regain the speed I lost just to find myself back in the pack. Here is a picture of that airplane.


https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.rcu...ef668aeb4.jpeg
https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.rcu...dc971e246.jpeg

I knew I saw someone "yoyo" and knew the reason was to gain speed. Some of that was like watching the first turn in the final heat at one of my boat races where six boats all hit the turn at once

At times I miss the excitement of racing buy quickly realize I have enough on my R/C plate.

I assume everyone got through the weekend either being RID compliant or were flying on a FRIA. I haven’t heard of any arrests.

I guess the FAA isn't riding the countryside in black vans looking for RID violations after all.

Probably not since they are going over Boeing with a fine toothed comb

I really believe, and this is me personally, not anything official, on record or otherwise AMA affiliated. But I really personally believe that the only time this will come into play is when someone is already screwing up and they simply want to beat them with a bigger stick.

Again, just my personal 2 cents.

100% agree. I can only imagine the backlash if a few drone violations are made public while passenger jets are coming apart in mid air. FAA, just where are your priorities?

That said, I have to feel that Boeing unintentionally has helped us by giving the FAA a reason not to over regulate us and keeping their priority where it belongs.

The problem with everything "SUPPOSEDLY" going on with the 737 are, with the exception of the stabilizer system, all structural. What if the issue isn't with Boeing? Boeing actually contracts the construction of the 737 fuse to another company so it's possible the other company is where the issues are coming from

Yes, however flight hardware should be subject to 100% inspection. Final inspection at the vendor, Boeing’s receiving inspection, component install inspection and lastly aircraft final inspection. That’s a lot of inspections that passed missing hardware and wrong hardware in the case of the door blowing off. Then we can talk about the airlines lack of maintenance that missed the same thing.

Believe me, I know all about the inspections required. I used to be one of the people that worked on the required "D" checks on UPS 727 freighters. After seeing the news report on the hatch blowing off at 16KFT, I had FOUR questions instantly in my head:
1) Who did the final install of the hatch?
2) Who QA'd the hatch?
3) Who gave the OK to install the interior panels over the hatch?
4) WHAT HAPPENED TO THE DOCUMENTATION?

Later, I heard rumors that the plane had ongoing pressurization issues, leading to a few more questions:
1) Why wasn't that plane grounded until the reason for the alleged pressurization problem was found?
2) Is there anything in the logbook about said pressurization issues?
3) Since pressurization is a "safety of flight" issue, who made the call on keeping the plane in service?

I think I've been working in the aviation industry too long when these are the first thoughts in my head on this subject

Yes, always more then one fumble that leads to a failure.

Can you name one person here who claimed that was going to happen?

Can’t recall of the top of my head who but I do recall someone stating that UAS infractions were going to happen in the same fashion as ramp checks. It may have been the same guy who thought AMA was not going to administer the TRUST test, that the TRUST test was going to include the need to read sectional charts and that it would be unconstitutional for members of a dues collection private organization to have additional access to the NAS. Of course that led to FRIAs being RID exempt and recently event altitude waivers.

What does any of that have to do with Barracuda's quote, "Riding the countryside in black vans..."????

Not trying to start an argument, just pointing out the rhetoric and spin that DOES spark the arguments and promotes the division we have seen here.

Astro

You asked if anyone made such a claim, I mentioned someone who may have along with more of his claims / predictions that didn’t come true.

I "May have" gone to the moon........

That was a generalization of the doom and gloom spread across forums and social media when the rule first dropped and when the first deadline approached. Not a shot at any one person or quote here.

Is that where you may have done “ rocket surgery “?

My take on it, circa 2/23/2018

Pretty much how I still see it today...... ;)

As always a man of wisdom. My comments were obviously aimed at someone who was a self proclaimed aviation and FAA expert who was spreading nothing but doom and gloom that of course never happened. Then there are those who drank his Cool Aid…..

well, cuda,
some folk just have to try and make everything all personal...

Boy, people sure want to get personal at the flip of a switch in here! I've been active on these threads for as long as anyone and I do not remember a single person ever even hint at black vans and such, so when that is how Barracuda characterized those who have spoken about their disdain for the FAA's involvement in our hobby, I felt it fair to question the MIScharacterization. That's all, nothing more, nothing less.

Nothing to see here, move along.

Astro