I have and it's not fun. What I found is that THE CLOSER YOU GET TO BOSTON, THE WORSE IT GETS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It didn't help that I was driving a Tahoe with an off road package as some areas I didn't know if it would fit through due to both it's width and height

:) Hi Hydro , Yeah , it's crazy , anywhere 20 or so miles outside of Boston it isn't too bad , but like you say the closer you get to Boston you literally take your life in your hands driving here ! Maybe it is because most of our roads are actually cow paths that predate any kinds of modern travel beyond the horse , I guess having no room to drive is reason enough to turn driving into a gladiator sport ?

HUH? Freedom of speech?
You can use the word, "attack" if you want, but it is not necessarily accurate. When someone makes a statement that doesn't align with fact, or is incomplete, or there are other perspectives and someone posts those, it is called debate.
If you allow me to continue WHAT? Practice MY freedom of speech? Are you delusional, or just a fan of compelled speech, and only if it fits a certain narrative?
Do you even read what you write? I mean, you post plenty about what you don't like about what I say. Do you have some kind of rights that I don't?
You mean like call people names, track down and post personal pictures and info about people (what do they call that? Doxing?), threaten physical harm, repeatedly report things you don't like to moderation? Come on, Speed...adult?....REALLY?
LOL. Follow you into other forums here? I didn't know that I wasn't allowed to check out other threads on RCU!
How about the pot calling the kettle black? You take your beef completely across the internet to other platforms (RCG)! You internet stalk those whom you disagree with and post their personal information here? I would call your behavior not only childish, but ALARMING!

You sir, are delusional.

Astro

I'll ask again, since you seem to be the resident expert at naming trolls...

Are you a troll?

Is Propworn a troll?

Astro

I did read what you wrote. And I stand by my assessment.

By it’s very nature, if you reduce speeds relative to other traffic (and that includes pedestrians), then reaction time improves and accidents are less likely to occur.

On the other hand, if everything is moving together at a relatively consistent speed, then reaction time also improves because closure rates are relative.

Any aircraft below 400’ is generally going to be flying at about 100kts give or take. Unless on exactly opposite courses, the effect of any impact begins to reduce. Physics 101. Which is why I stated it was a bad analogy.

R_Strowe

I seem to remember a wanna-be CBO president arguing that because a bunch of people are not following the law - they should be prosecuted. And yet here we have Speedy saying that it's ok to not follow the law. I guess if it weren't for double standards the AMA wouldn't have any standards

"Any?"

Not true. There's books full of MTRs out there, all over the country, where aircraft are routinely operating well in excess of 250KIAS indicated at 200-400 AGL. I can't think of the last time I've flown one at less than 420 indicated. Altitudes vary by route but it was quite common to fly them at 420 indicated at 200 AGL. Strike-fighters often plan their routes at 480 indicated - 500 feet AGL and below.

https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publ...ction_5.html20

Stand by your asessment all you want, doesn't make it any more accurate or correct. I asked you to read the words.

I will quote Speedy's initial statement one more time....


My statement was:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by astrohog

There is no data to support that driving 20 MPH in a school zone is going to prevent any collision

---

They are absolutely IDENTICAL and valid parallel analogies to one another, regardless how you feel. Words have meaning. If you one cannot use correct vernacular, they should think twice about engaging in adult debate.

It does not say a word about REDUCING the chances of accidents. Key word is PREVENT. That word is ABSOLUTE, it means ZERO chance of collision. Pretty easy to slip that into your narrative to make it sound more palatable. It's another logical fallacy employed by those who have little or no defense to their side of a debate.

Astro

But that doesn't fit their narrative. Quit trolling, Franklin.....

Astro

Talk about cherry-picking what somebody says. You do know what GENERALLY means, right?

Unless you are talking about the thousands of military aircraft just flooding the MTR’s:confused:

R_Strowe

I don't think you can quantify how many aircraft are operating at or below 400 feet AGL on a given day. So absent that kind of data, you have no way to support your statement that "generally" they're at a specific speed or below.

On the other hand, MTRs are plentiful, spread throughout the country, and used by some non-trivial number of aircraft each day, operating well below 500 AGL, and "generally" well in excess of 100 KIAS (on VR routes specifically).

OK then, oh wise one; How many operations daily occur on MTR’s? High speed, low speed, VR and IR? And how does that compare to civilian operations? Because the way you state it, you must be aware of such operations to be able to say that I cannot quantify the number of operations. I’d really like to know. Because the last thing I would to have happen is to collide with the massive numbers of military aircraft operating in the below 400’ altitude window.

R_Strowe

then, just never fly in a designated MTR.

Bingo!

R_Strowe

Thanks for the heads up! Had no idea they were so militant.

I will admit that, since moving to southeastern VT, and having made a few trips to travel out of Logan, that the number of blue and grey Ford Explorers is crazy!

R_Strowe

In one squadron, putting 6 aircraft a day on VR routes is rather routine. Some parts of the turnaround cycle much more, other parts less, but rarely zero. Those would be all over Washington state. When weather bad in western WA, fly the routes in eastern WA. Not uncommon to schedule two to four flights to/from Fallon a week. VR routes both ways through OR and NV. Sixteen squadrons at one base. Of course some of those squadrons are deployed at any given time. But you also have FRS unit there, and they alone can put 10-20 sorties a day on VR routes during some parts of the training cycle. Extrapon up there, and not uncommon for them to have 10-12 sorties a day just from them. 52 weeks a year. Even if you discount that by half, that's still over 2000 flights a year ... just from one NAS. Now add all the other Navy tacair bases, training bases bases (orange and white planes). Those are just VR and IR routes. Now add gray helis plus training helis on SR routes. Can't stop there though. Have to add Marine tacair, Marine Helos, USAF tacair, USAF helos, Army Air too. That's quite a few aircraft out there, each and every day, with a great many at low altitude and very high speed.

And how will they do that when even AMA admits that:

How will they find out there's an MTR where they're about to fly? A Ouija board?

Thank you for making my point. There are, on a typical day in the US, just over 5 times the number of General Aviation flights, nearly 5 times the number of Air Taxi (135 charter) flights, and almost 6 times the number of airline (121 Air Carrier) flights.

https://sos.noaa.gov/datasets/air-traffic/

Sorry, but your military flights are a drop in the bucket. Civilian aviation easily outnumbers military by a total factor of 15. You simply aren’t using that much airspace.

R_Strowe

Maybe not but, when you compare the numbers, a majority of the civilian planes will be above 1000ft and, unless you look at the small wooden home builts and Cubs, very few will be at below 100kts IAS. Obviously, there are exceptions like agricultural spraying planes but, normally, you won't see GA aircraft below 1000ft unless they are in the vicinity of a GA airport and that will normally be taking off or in the landing pattern. One thing Franklin didn't mention is that when military aircraft are flying fast and low, they are, more often than not, using terrain following radar to guide them. I know I wouldn't want to be flying something like a Glasair III at 200 ft at 250kts IAS. The Glasair is a fully aerobatic plane but, that said, I'd be worried about not being fast enough on the controls to avoid terrain and man made hazards(high tension lines would be a good example)

Part 135 and 121 don't operate 400 feet and below except for takeoff and landing. And of the civilian aviation number, how many of those operate at 400 feet and below extensively? Much less than your five times number. Numbers I forwarded were for flights where the majority of the time is spent below 400 feet. The 5 times number you quoted for general aviation spends the majority of their time ABOVE 400 feet AGL.

Yes but none of those organizations are running around claiming they should be afforded special privileges based on a manufactured safety record.

You just don't get it do you? Or you don't want to get it.

The AMA is the one making the claims of safety. Which wouldn't be so bad in itself except the AMA is pointing to their insurance claims as their proof. When in fact the vast majority of RC accident damage and injuries never make it to the AMA. They're handled either privately or by someones primary insurance policy. This in turn makes the AMA's claims unfounded. Yet they and their members continue to spew forth what amounts to a bald faced lie. The only thing the AMA can claim is a relatively small number of insurance claims over the last xx years.

And in their research do you actually believe the FAA and government haven't noticed this?

I started this thread for a specific purpose. However I did expect it to turn into another one of the type of thread it has. You guys have both disappointed and NOT disappointed me. I'll stick to my original hobby thank you. You can have RC for as long as it might last.