Originally Posted by franklin_m
(Post 12587719)
Even those of us that are lowly six digit AMA numbers? Flying control line this afternoon?
I broke a landing gear bungee on the Nieuport on landing after Flight 1. It was a nice fall day (last October), and I didn't want to waste good weather. So I replaced said bungee with a No. 64 rubber band, and carried on for five more flights. Should I have waited for an approved STC? https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.rcu...a19575b8e9.jpg Oh BTW: The landing gear isn't built to print anyway, the kit version has no shock absorption capability. Should I have gotten an approved STC before flying the model the first time? How many slaps on the wrist must I give myself before the next flight? Or do I write a letter to my local FSDO and plead for leniency? |
Originally Posted by grognard
(Post 12587847)
Oh esteemed safety officer, thou Paladin of the Blue Ether, the very thong of whose sandal I am unworthy to untie: I prostrate myself three times three, and do make this solemn confession:
I broke a landing gear bungee on the Nieuport on landing after Flight 1. It was a nice fall day (last October), and I didn't want to waste good weather. So I replaced said bungee with a No. 64 rubber band, and carried on for five more flights. Should I have waited for an approved STC?
Originally Posted by grognard
(Post 12587847)
Oh BTW: The landing gear isn't built to print anyway, the kit version has no shock absorption capability. Should I have gotten an approved STC before flying the model the first time?
Originally Posted by grognard
(Post 12587847)
How many slaps on the wrist must I give myself before the next flight? Or do I write a letter to my local FSDO and plead for leniency?
However, the real question to ask of you, an AMA member who contends you're not the problem, "Did you obey the altitude limits in part 349?" |
Originally Posted by franklin_m
(Post 12587857)
Do the FARs or AMA's beloved "code" require one? If yes to either, then you should have waited. If not, then no.
Originally Posted by franklin_m
(Post 12587857)
Did you obey the altitude limits in part 349?
The model is not equipped with altitude telemetry. Using my Mark I eyeball sensors combined with years of experience, I would estimate my maximum altitude as 399 feet, with the exception of the spin evaluation phase, during which it may have increased to 399.99. There was no operational reason to fly the model higher than necessary, since nothing short of a thunderstorm updraft would be required for "thermalling" and excessive height could result in loss of orientation. After takeoff on Flight 1 I immediately gained sufficient altitude to safely release the sticks to find the amount of trim adjustment required. Significant adjustments in both roll and pitch trim were needed to permit hands-off cruising so I maintained a comfortable margin, probably 200 - 300 feet. Traffic patterns were kept fairly high (probably 100 feet on downwind leg) since this model descends rapidly with power off. Once I had trim squared away I performed spins to left and right, both upright and inverted. Since I could not be sure of altitude required for recovery I gained an amount I judged prudent before attempting these manuevers. I should mention that the floor of controlled airspace over our club field is at 700'; we are located on flat ground with unobstructed views in all directions; and full-scale traffic at low altitude in our location is uncommon. My flying buddy acted as spotter during these maneuvers and kept a lookout for traffic. Both of us are private pilots and appreciate the need to maintain separation. Before you ask, I will say that I made absolutely no attempt to keep the model within the confines of the runway, which is the only land the club leases at the site. Doing so would have required me to perform an impossibly tight traffic pattern for a model of this size and speed, or limit flight to a succession of aerobatic maneuvers such as Immelmann turns and split-S's. None of the soybean plants in the adjacent field complained. |
Originally Posted by franklin_m
(Post 12587857)
The answer is exceedingly simple: Do the FARs or AMA's beloved "code" require one? If yes to either, then you should have waited. If not, then no.
Originally Posted by grognard
(Post 12587894)
I take it then that should the FAA require such a rule in future - no matter how petty or trivial -- that you would support it ?
Originally Posted by franklin_m
(Post 12587857)
However, the real question to ask of you, an AMA member who contends you're not the problem, "Did you obey the altitude limits in part 349?"
Originally Posted by grognard
(Post 12587894)
I would say that I met the intent of Part 349 by practicing "see and avoid", i.e. maintaining assured clear distance between the model and full-scale aircraft.
I'm convinced that the hobby needs to be seen, in deed and in spirit, of complying with the rules even if we don't like them. Defiance will only give legislators and regulators the stick they need to beat us with. |
Originally Posted by franklin_m
(Post 12587966)
The FARs are explicit; I believe one should follow them. It's not up to you or me to decide whether they are "trivial" or "petty," our job is to follow them.
Originally Posted by franklin_m
(Post 12587966)
I'm searching for the word "intent" in section 349, and I don't find it.
Originally Posted by franklin_m
(Post 12587966)
And if you did not, or if you rationalize your non-compliance, then YOU - an AMA member - are indeed part of the problem.
Originally Posted by franklin_m
(Post 12587966)
I'm convinced that the hobby needs to be seen, in deed and in spirit, of complying with the rules even if we don't like them.
|
Originally Posted by grognard
(Post 12587980)
In a republic, laws and rules are made by elected officials and their employees, who are ultimately responsible to those who elected them. They may not be made directly by the people, but they are made for, and in the name of, "the people". And if "the people" find that laws and rules are not working well it is their right and indeed duty to complain. Otherwise the regulators will just continue making more and more onerous rules knowing that the sheep will dutifully follow them anyway.
Safety regulations have a purpose; they aren't made up out of thin air. The reason for the 400' GENERAL rule is to provide altitude separation between model aircraft and full-scale air traffic. Speaking to an AMA District Vice President at a swap meet this winter, I heard that AMA is working with FAA on altitude limits for a number of club field within controlled airspace. In a couple of such cases the club requested AND RECEIVED an altitude limit of 500' or 600'. So 400' is not a "hard" or "final" limit even in controlled airspace -- even if that's the letter of the law at the moment. I don't think so. I don't see temporarily exceeding 400' (if I actually did) in order to SAFELY enter and recover from a spin as any different that temporarily exceeding the posted speed limit in order to SAFELY complete a passing maneuver around a semi trailer on the highway. Total flight times for this model are limited by battery capacity to 5 - 6 min. Total climb times to spin entry altitude are maybe 20 sec, with only the last 5 - 10 sec presumably over 400'. The spin itself takes another 5 - 10 sec -- again with only a portion of the maneuver presumably over 400'. Even if the model were equipped with a Mark I "Auto Snitch" Remote ID beacon transmitting location and altitude every minute, there would only be a 15% - 30% probabilty of the data stream indicating a "violation". It's trivial -- as is the associated risk. And I'm convinced the hobby needs to be totally honest with regulators about how the rules affect our operations. If we meekly comply, the other "stakeholders" who want to use the same airspace will swiftly regulate us out of existence. "Models? Aren't they just toys? Why can't they stay below 50 feet and within the limits of their runways?" Maybe if they saw what we ACTUALLY fly and what we ACTUALLY do with it they would make more reasonable rules! NICE! Regards, Astro |
In the spirit of the original intent of this thread... The Happy AMA Thread... mixed in with a little advocacy... I think I may put my latest AMA sticker on my laptop. It will look nice there and may create some questions and conversation around what the sticker is, what the RC hobby is all about and who is the AMA.
Something I wouldn't have even thought about if not for this thread! |
Originally Posted by jcmors
(Post 12587998)
In the spirit of the original intent of this thread... The Happy AMA Thread... mixed in with a little advocacy... I think I may put my latest AMA sticker on my laptop. It will look nice there and may create some questions and conversation around what the sticker is, what the RC hobby is all about and who is the AMA.
Something I wouldn't have even thought about if not for this thread! :) That is a great idea for getting some public exposure . Back when I had a specific vehicle for bringing the planes to the field (A Chevy Venture minivan that ended up suffering an engine meltdown) I used to put them there and most who saw "AMA" on them without reading closer thought it was the American Motorcyclist Association (Which I was also a member of back when I still rode motorcycles) The last bike I owned .... https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.rcu...9ce33db23e.jpg |
Originally Posted by grognard
(Post 12587980)
In a republic, laws and rules are made by elected officials and their employees, who are ultimately responsible to those who elected them. They may not be made directly by the people, but they are made for, and in the name of, "the people". And if "the people" find that laws and rules are not working well it is their right and indeed duty to complain. Otherwise the regulators will just continue making more and more onerous rules knowing that the sheep will dutifully follow them anyway.
Originally Posted by grognard
(Post 12587980)
Safety regulations have a purpose; they aren't made up out of thin air. The reason for the 400' GENERAL rule...
Originally Posted by grognard
(Post 12587980)
... is to provide altitude separation between model aircraft and full-scale air traffic. Speaking to an AMA District Vice President at a swap meet this winter, I heard that AMA is working with FAA on altitude limits for a number of club field within controlled airspace. In a couple of such cases the club requested AND RECEIVED an altitude limit of 500' or 600'. So 400' is not a "hard" or "final" limit even in controlled airspace -- even if that's the letter of the law at the moment.
Originally Posted by grognard
(Post 12587980)
I don't think so. I don't see temporarily exceeding 400' (if I actually did) in order to SAFELY enter and recover from a spin as any different that temporarily exceeding the posted speed limit in order to SAFELY complete a passing maneuver around a semi trailer on the highway. Total flight times for this model are limited by battery capacity to 5 - 6 min. Total climb times to spin entry altitude are maybe 20 sec, with only the last 5 - 10 sec presumably over 400'. The spin itself takes another 5 - 10 sec -- again with only a portion of the maneuver presumably over 400'.
Originally Posted by grognard
(Post 12587980)
Even if the model were equipped with a Mark I "Auto Snitch" Remote ID beacon transmitting location and altitude every minute, there would only be a 15% - 30% probabilty of the data stream indicating a "violation". It's trivial -- as is the associated risk.
Originally Posted by grognard
(Post 12587980)
And I'm convinced the hobby needs to be totally honest with regulators about how the rules affect our operations.
Originally Posted by grognard
(Post 12587980)
If we meekly comply, the other "stakeholders" who want to use the same airspace will swiftly regulate us out of existence.
Originally Posted by grognard
(Post 12587980)
"Models? Aren't they just toys? Why can't they stay below 50 feet and within the limits of their runways?" Maybe if they saw what we ACTUALLY fly and what we ACTUALLY do with it they would make more reasonable rules!
|
Originally Posted by franklin_m
(Post 12588014)
...those who contend AMA members are not the problem...
Could it be simply
Originally Posted by franklin_m
(Post 12588014)
... rationalizing his own breaking of an explicit rule...
I'm not doing anything different than I was under the Section 336 exemption. Why should I strictly self-enforce an arbitrary altitude limit? Where's the FAA's safety case showing the risk to full-scale aircraft suddenly jumps from "acceptable" to "unacceptable" at 399.5 ft? So I wasn't a "problem" until the FAA made me one. And I submit that Franklin's real problem with me isn't the rule itself, but the fact that I would even THINK of breaking it. For Franklin, rules are rules and must be followed. Even questioning them is unthinkable. Here's an example of what that kind of thinking can ultimately lead to. This Chief of Naval Operations considered a trivial uniform regulation more important than his own life: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Michael_Boorda
Originally Posted by franklin_m
(Post 12588014)
Remaining within the lateral limits of the land set aside for exclusive use of the FRIA ensures that privacy rights and safety of those adjacent to that land are respected.
All Orwell got wrong was the date... |
Originally Posted by grognard
(Post 12588020)
Just what "problem" am I and other AMA member supposed to be part of?
Could it be simply But who made this rule? Is it necessary? Is it reasonable? Or is it merely an arbitrary "line in the sky" imposed by a bureaucrat because applying common sense and good judgement was "too hard to do"? I'm not doing anything different than I was under the Section 336 exemption. Why should I strictly self-enforce an arbitrary altitude limit? Where's the FAA's safety case showing the risk to full-scale aircraft suddenly jumps from "acceptable" to "unacceptable" at 399.5 ft? So I wasn't a "problem" until the FAA made me one. And I submit that Franklin's real problem with me isn't the rule itself, but the fact that I would even THINK of breaking it. For Franklin, rules are rules and must be followed. Even questioning them is unthinkable. Here's an example of what that kind of thinking can ultimately lead to. This Chief of Naval Operations considered a trivial uniform regulation more important than his own life: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Michael_Boorda So for the sake of the civil rights of soybean plants, all I can do with the Nieuport is taxi it around on the runway. Perfectly reasonable in FrankWorld. All Orwell got wrong was the date... Using your thoery, when the Federal speed limit was lowered to 55 mph, it would have been perfectly acceptable for me to continue driving at whatever speed I had before the law was passed because it hadn't caused any issues before....... You sir, are an outlaw. Just what the hobby needs! Keep up the good work! :confused: Wow, just wow! Astro |
Originally Posted by grognard
(Post 12588020)
But who made this rule? Is it necessary? Is it reasonable? Or is it merely an arbitrary "line in the sky" imposed by a bureaucrat because applying common sense and good judgement was "too hard to do"?
Originally Posted by grognard
(Post 12588020)
I'm not doing anything different than I was under the Section 336 exemption.
Originally Posted by grognard
(Post 12588020)
So I wasn't a "problem" until the FAA made me one.
Originally Posted by grognard
(Post 12588020)
Here's an example of what that kind of thinking can ultimately lead to. This Chief of Naval Operations considered a trivial uniform regulation more important than his own life:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Michael_Boorda
Originally Posted by grognard
(Post 12588020)
So for the sake of the civil rights of soybean plants, all I can do with the Nieuport is taxi it around on the runway. Perfectly reasonable in FrankWorld.
|
Originally Posted by astrohog
(Post 12588021)
You sir, are an outlaw.
Originally Posted by astrohog
(Post 12588021)
Using your thoery (sic) , when the Federal speed limit was lowered to 55 mph, it would have been perfectly acceptable for me to continue driving at whatever speed I had before the law was passed because it hadn't caused any issues before...
I predict most model airplane fliers will adopt a similar attitude to the 400' rule, if they have not already. Though relatively few have the guts to own up to on a public forum. |
Originally Posted by franklin_m
(Post 12588031)
If that's all the rules allow you to do, then so be it.
|
Originally Posted by franklin_m
(Post 12588031)
Wikipedia? There was WAY more to this than just a uniform regulation.
It's not surprising to read of Admiral Yamaguchi and Captain Kaku going down with the carrier Hiryu at Midway. Even though the loss of their knowledge and experience probably hurt their own side more than their enemies, it was their tradition. One does not expect to read of American officers self-immolating under similar circumstances -- let alone trivial bureaucratic minutia. But in this brave new century, perhaps you believe standard equipment for the FAA field teams performing ramp and ops checks at FRIAs should include an automated judgement app and a small portable gallows? |
Originally Posted by grognard
(Post 12588042)
In this case, I'll take the Wikipedia article and its 32 sources cited over whatever cards you think you're holding. The specifics don't matter anyway; it's the principle -- the man committed suicide over what should have been regarded as a TRIVIAL infraction (emphasis added).
Originally Posted by grognard
(Post 12588042)
It's not surprising to read of Admiral Yamaguchi and Captain Kaku going down with the carrier Hiryu at Midway. Even though the loss of their knowledge and experience probably hurt their own side more than their enemies, it was their tradition. One does not expect to read of American officers self-immolating under similar circumstances -- let alone trivial bureaucratic minutia.
Originally Posted by grognard
(Post 12588042)
But in this brave new century, perhaps you believe standard equipment for the FAA field teams performing ramp and ops checks at FRIAs should include an automated judgement app and a small portable gallows?
|
In all reality, Grognard flying his model over a soybean field is a multitude safer then Franklin flying in a park/schoolyard. I flew today without coming anywhere close to 400'. Only because the fog hadn't lifted so the F5J sailplane didn't leave the car. Instead I enjoyed my first helicopter flights since 1995.
|
Originally Posted by speedracerntrixie
(Post 12588051)
In all reality, Grognard flying his model over a soybean field is a multitude safer then Franklin flying in a park/schoolyard.
Astro |
Originally Posted by grognard
(Post 12588038)
No, I'm someone who has the personal integrity to be honest about the way I operate my models even though "it looks bad" in the current hypercharged debate environment.
Originally Posted by grognard
Anyone operating a model airplane with similar size and performance (54" span, 6-1/2 lb weight, about 60 MPH top speed) MAY be violating the 400' limit without knowing it.
Originally Posted by grognard
Funny you should bring that up, an awful lot of people did just that.
Originally Posted by grognard
It made ZERO sense to limit automobiles designed to operate safely above 70 MPH on a road network designed for 70 MPH to lower speeds just to satisfy the whims of an overreaching government.
Originally Posted by grognard
As a result most interstates today have a 65 or 70 MPH limit as originally designed. And in some parts of the Far West there is no posted speed limit - drivers are free to use judgement and discretion.
Originally Posted by grognard
I predict most model airplane fliers will adopt a similar attitude to the 400' rule, if they have not already. Though relatively few have the guts to own up to on a public forum.
I find it surprising that you were so active promoting that every modeler submit comments to the FAA and spent so much time crafting your comments, just to basically say, "I don't care what laws you enact, I will fly how I see fit anyway." Do you expect they will take your comments seriously? Astro |
:D So how do you guys feel about the whole "Ginger VS Maryann" conundrum ? and can sweet AND sexy ever occupy the same physical form ?
If Pizza is round how come it comes in square boxes ? |
Originally Posted by astrohog
(Post 12588057)
Should bank robbers who openly admit to robbing banks be hailed for their integrity?
Originally Posted by astrohog
(Post 12588057)
I don't believe ignorance is a sound defense to breaking the law.
Originally Posted by astrohog
(Post 12588057)
I find it surprising that you were so active promoting that every modeler submit comments to the FAA and spent so much time crafting your comments, just to basically say, "I don't care what laws you enact, I will fly how I see fit anyway." Do you expect they will take your comments seriously?
I think the FAA realizes it's in their interest to make rules UAS users of all kinds will WANT to comply with. They have no real means of enforcement, and despite certain members' fantasies, local LEOs are not going to waste time and resources chasing down rogue toy plane fliers. Self-enforcement is the only viable option, so make rules people want to follow. I hope the comments made will help sway the FAA to modify the proposed rules in appropriate ways. What I do then will depend on what comes out of the sausage machine.
Originally Posted by astrohog
(Post 12588057)
Are you a psychopath?
If any of you guys even TOUCH my Nieuport -- I'll have to kill ya. If any of you even TOUCH my field box -- I'll have to kill ya. If any of you even TOUCH my car -- I'll have to kill ya. Just kidding, of course...:D |
Originally Posted by init4fun
(Post 12588060)
If Pizza is round how come it comes in square boxes ?
|
Originally Posted by franklin_m
(Post 12588049)
Then when a new person buys the property adjacent to your field, and maybe they don't want your toys crashing in their fields or people trespassing to retrieve them, law enforcement and the court will be much more easily be able to crush the guilty.
|
Originally Posted by grognard
(Post 12588063)
Probably because round ones are more expensive to make?
|
Originally Posted by astrohog
(Post 12588053)
That could be debated, but it doesn't change the fact that we are discussing how he justifies breaking the law, safe or not.
Astro Are you actually going to tell me that you have NEVER bent a law or two? Never went over the speed limit? Never fudged the numbers on a Tex return? Never made an illegal U turn? If the way you break the rules here on RCU is any indication how you view rules and laws I would have to say you are the kettle calling the pot black. |
All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:02 PM. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.