|
RE: FAA ceiling on R/C
I can assure you that the demo done for that group with two jet models was done as properly as you could expect a turbine to be flown. Just a simple fact that they have no idea what has to date been flown very safely with RC models.
|
RE: FAA ceiling on R/C
ORIGINAL: TonyF I don't know of a single commercial SUAS that does not get flown for most of it's mission autonomously. I'd like to see some that are manually flown during it's entire flight. Tony - please take a few moments to read the ARC memo to see what the FAA is talking about. There are sUAS that by definition are not allowed to be autonomous. 9.3 Group I Additional Operational Capabilities ! In addition to the operational capabilities outlined in Section 7 of this regulation the following capabilities are required: (1) Manual Flight Control: Group I SUAS must be capable of only manual flight control, ensuring that PIC control inputs made in the Control Station are translated directly into corresponding control surface positions. 7.4 Maneuverability ! All sUAS must have the capability to descend 50 feet within five seconds of the PIC recognizing the need for an avoidance maneuver. Maneuver should be repeatable or the aircraft should return to the ground. |
RE: FAA ceiling on R/C
ORIGINAL: TonyF I can assure you that the demo done for that group with two jet models was done as properly as you could expect a turbine to be flown. Just a simple fact that they have no idea what has to date been flown very safely with RC models. I never meant to imply that anything was done incorrectly. In fact I was supporting your statement that the performance was surprising to them. Unfortunately I was told that most of the group was surprised in a negative way, as in they were hard pressed to see how they could define turbine models as recreational aircraft. |
RE: FAA ceiling on R/C
Yeah,
Too bad that some large scale, straight wing turbine like a 50 pound T-33 wasn't flown in a well choreographed acro routine that demonstrated evidence of control over the turbine and large scale technology instead of the pure, unbridled show (read; show-off) of performance done in the usual yahoo fashion that we see at every R/C field across the country. Perhaps we could've had the fed thinking our way on maybe needing about 900 feet to fly acro with these bigger competition and serious models. Straight up through an entire airspace class, like from 0 to 2500 feet in a vertical climb at 200 kts was not the best thing to demonstrate to the FAA, maybe. Perhaps the collective "we" in R/C needed the Fed to step in, "we" don't seem to be able to control ourselves, let alone play to an audience. The AMA is to blame for allowing the "demo" in my mind. Hell, they can't figure out how to get the grass mowed for the Nationals. What a shame that the model airplane community can't figure out the difference between doing what one wants, and showing a little self-control when the need to do so was soooo advertised. The Fed will now tell us what will be done and what will not. Chris... |
RE: FAA ceiling on R/C
ORIGINAL: Silent-AV8R ORIGINAL: TonyF I can assure you that the demo done for that group with two jet models was done as properly as you could expect a turbine to be flown. Just a simple fact that they have no idea what has to date been flown very safely with RC models. I never meant to imply that anything was done incorrectly. In fact I was supporting your statement that the performance was surprising to them. Unfortunately I was told that most of the group was surprised in a negative way, as in they were hard pressed to see how they could define turbine models as recreational aircraft. I dont see anything hard about defineing turbines as recreational, To me its simple you go to aplace designated to operate model aircraft aka flying field, you only over fly the flyingfield aka flying around in circles, How could that be any thing other than recreational? |
RE: FAA ceiling on R/C
s
|
RE: FAA ceiling on R/C
ORIGINAL: Silent-AV8R ORIGINAL: TonyF I can assure you that the demo done for that group with two jet models was done as properly as you could expect a turbine to be flown. Just a simple fact that they have no idea what has to date been flown very safely with RC models. I never meant to imply that anything was done incorrectly. In fact I was supporting your statement that the performance was surprising to them. Unfortunately I was told that most of the group was surprised in a negative way, as in they were hard pressed to see how they could define turbine models as recreational aircraft. More than likely scared them. I am often behind some large object when the turbines and EDF's are doing their speed runs. What would make one think that the uninitiated guests we were hosting (that write the rules for airspace) wouldn't be impressed, surprised, scared, and think that the guys flying these things are too "cavalier" with their 250 knot toy airplanes. |
RE: FAA ceiling on R/C
Given that they are looking like they may impose a 400 foot altitude cap and perhaps a 1,500 foot lateral operation area I think they are asking the question how can we allow something that fast to operate?
Think about it this way, at 100 mph you cover 147 feet per second. 1,500 feet laterally is gone in ~10 seconds. 400 feet vertically is just shy of 3 second. Double the speed and you halve those times. So 1500 feet is gone in 5 seconds, 400 feet vertical is gone in 1.5 seconds. So if they impose those restrictions I think they ask how can a fast turbine comply? Also, every class of regulated sUAS looks to have a 100 mph limit as well, so the natural question is how can you restrict a highly regulated sUAS with strict airframe and equipment certification requirements combined with rigorous pilot training to that speed while allowing an unregulated aircraft with much more lax equipment and pilot training standards to go twice as fast when piloted for fun by a hobby pilot?? |
RE: FAA ceiling on R/C
One more point. Take a good look at the ARC memo and focus on the non-modeling sections (4 and above). Looks at the physical operational limits recommended for the regulated sUAS. I am guessing that what the FAA has in mind is to allow us similar physical operational limits while freeing us from the more onerous equipment and training requirements.
Sort of similar to the difference between commercial and private pilots. If you want to do something for money then you have stricter training standards, but operationally you both do about the same stuff. |
RE: FAA ceiling on R/C
Your signature says it all, we weren't and we will be paying.
There could have been some middle ground. The right guys flying in some sane fashion, so it at least looked as if we knew what we were doing. Maybe we could've gotten them to see that we're controlled, and have been aware of our speed and weight tech and been conservative with it. Maybe gotten 150 mph for jets, props in Pylon were OK and Pattern is slow but needs a few more hundred feet. Instead... YAHOO! Chris... |
RE: FAA ceiling on R/C
Yes,
I see that and agree. I've flown in many types of operations and know that when one shows up with, say a jet, the Fed will allow some degree of latitude. Until one screws up and scares them. (The preceeding was meant to mean full scale, airshow, jet fighter acro.) I don't think we necessarily needed to have the exact same limitations as the UAS crowd. We'll see soon enough. Chris... |
RE: FAA ceiling on R/C
ORIGINAL: Silent-AV8R ORIGINAL: Sport_Pilot The problem is that our club field is in compliance, no problem with populated areas. Outside of the yellow areas, but too many structures for planes to be 500 feet over. Why don't you get the fact that populated areas is subjective. b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft. |
RE: FAA ceiling on R/C
ORIGINAL: shannah I should add in the definition for sUAS the capability of autonomous flight. Any of the capabilities (autonomous flight, sensors, cameras, external data communication would mean you are not operating a model. <br type="_moz" /> |
RE: FAA ceiling on R/C
ORIGINAL: Sport_Pilot That has no meaning for FAR 91.119. |
RE: FAA ceiling on R/C
ORIGINAL: hook57 ORIGINAL: shannah I should add in the definition for sUAS the capability of autonomous flight. Any of the capabilities (autonomous flight, sensors, cameras, external data communication would mean you are not operating a model. Mark <br type="_moz" /> |
RE: FAA ceiling on R/C
I have seen nothing to indicate that cameras will not be allowed on models. However, I do get the impression that FPV operations for hobbyists may be jeopardy.
Just for clarification, the FAA considers model aircraft a sUAS: 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. |
RE: FAA ceiling on R/C
ORIGINAL: Silent-AV8R ORIGINAL: Sport_Pilot That has no meaning for FAR 91.119. |
RE: FAA ceiling on R/C
ORIGINAL: Sport_Pilot I am not asking what you think will be in the SFAR! I am asking what should be in the SFAR! And since FS aircraft should not be below 1000 feet over any club with a number of people such as a pattern contest, then models should have 900 feet, not 400. |
RE: FAA ceiling on R/C
ORIGINAL: stuntflyr Your signature says it all, we weren't and we will be paying. There could have been some middle ground. The right guys flying in some sane fashion, so it at least looked as if we knew what we were doing. Maybe we could've gotten them to see that we're controlled, and have been aware of our speed and weight tech and been conservative with it. Maybe gotten 150 mph for jets, props in Pylon were OK and Pattern is slow but needs a few more hundred feet. Instead... YAHOO! Chris... |
RE: FAA ceiling on R/C
1. While I think the FPV flights over the Statue of Liberty and crowded areas are incredibly stupid and unsafe and I think someone flying a high speed jet in an unsafe manner just to demonstrate the pilot has cahones to visiting officials and that does not set a good example for our sport, our government writing laws that would restrict activities (pylon, soaring, pattern, etc) unfairly will not solve ANYTHING that they APPEAR to be concerned with. I read what the AMA publishes and try to stay abreast of what is going on, but like most, I won't truly know anything *official* until it is actually announced by the FAA and/or written into law. That being said, just like gun laws won't stop a criminal from shooting someone while robbing a liquor store, FAA ceiling heights or anything else won't stop a terrorist from loading up an FPV Telemaster or something and flying a load of plastique into a crowded area. These new laws will only affect honest, law-abiding citizens. Personally, I have no idea how high 400' is. I doubt I'm anywhere close most of the time but I don't fly these events that other concerned people do. However, I certainly wouldn't want those individuals restricted just because it doesn't affect me whether they're AMA members or not.<div>
<div>2. I don't really know what the AMA's stance is or what they're using as bargaining power. I simply don't see why they don't pull out the "we're too big to fail" card. It seems to work for every other industry. If we're 140,000 strong and we're only 50% (or less) of hobbyists out there, that's easily over a quarter million people nationwide. I've been doing this for only a year and a half and I know I've spent over $5,000 in that time just on "stuff". I know that is a mere PITTANCE for many of you. That doesn't count eating and gassing up every time I go to the town where I fly, hotels when I go to events, etc. If you took all that away and converted the data to hard numbers, how would the federal government feel? How many people at Hobbico and Tower Hobbies will lose their jobs? How much tax revenue would be lost? How many LHS' would go under? It may be a small number in actual dollars compared to the "big picture" but you're talking about the lives and livelihoods of a TREMENDOUS number of people! </div></div><div> </div><div>If the FAA is concerned with the safety of the NAS, that's fine with me. If they come along and place a bunch of restrictions on events and things that have been happening for 50 years or something, where were they before? Has there all of a sudden been a massive NEED to restrict these things? Maybe that's classified information and I don't need to know, but I get sick and tired of all these restrictions being placed on "average" people in the interest of "national security" when the federal government can't even balance a budget from year to year..... it's not likely they can make our airspace any safer either. Just my two cents. :)</div> |
RE: FAA ceiling on R/C
The only caveat to Hook's post is that since the publication of the ARC Recommendations the AMA has sensed that the FAA is moving towards more restrictive definitions for models.
From Dave Mathewson's December President's Column in Model Aviation: The follow up meeting took place in late September and our concerns remain. The FAA appears intent on going down the path of trying to force-fit model aviation into regulations that fail to consider the complexity of our aeromodeling activities, the diversity of the hobby, and the potential detrimental impact they will have if instituted" In addition, Rich Hanson wrote this in November: FAA Decision Looms on Model Aircraft Regulations For the past three years the AMA has been involved in the rulemaking process aimed at establishing regulations for all unmanned aircraft systems, and we have worked directly with the FAA in an effort to ensure these regulations will not have a detrimental impact on the aeromodeling community. The FAA intends to present the proposed rule for public comment in a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NMPR) in June 2011, and it has become increasingly apparent that the proposed rule will be highly restrictive and will have a significant impact on the modeling community as a whole. It’s time for all of us to understand these proposed changes, familiarize ourselves with the regulatory process, and to prepare an appropriate response to the proposed regulations. Click the link below for background. – Rich Hanson, AMA Government Relations and Regulatory Affairs Representative The President deviated from the published agenda to allow for an update from FAA representatives James Sizemore and Stephen Glowacki. • Glowacki indicated they are looking at a 400 ft. cap (within certain distances of airports and populations); lateral distances of 1500 feet from the pilot in command location, visual observers, no nighttime operations and the need for a pilot training These comments clearly indicate that there has been a shift in the FAA's thinking since the publication of the ARC Recommendations in April 2009. |
RE: FAA ceiling on R/C
ORIGINAL: hook57 <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none">Patrick, you misread my point, and I agree that putting a camera on your model does not make it a commercial sUAS. If you do it to survey your neighborhood, shoot videos at 11K’ or traffic inbound to JFK, most likely a different story.</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none"></p> <br type="_moz" /> |
RE: FAA ceiling on R/C
ORIGINAL: Silent-AV8R ORIGINAL: Sport_Pilot I am not asking what you think will be in the SFAR! I am asking what should be in the SFAR! And since FS aircraft should not be below 1000 feet over any club with a number of people such as a pattern contest, then models should have 900 feet, not 400. |
RE: FAA ceiling on R/C
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 9pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA">
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; text-align: left; border-left: medium none; background-color: transparent; color: #000000; overflow: hidden; border-top: medium none; border-right: medium none; text-decoration: none">quote: So if the distinction is only between civilian and commercial, that has nothing to do with air safety right? That sounds more like an interest of revenue which would not surprise me at all. I'm not trying to argue the point, I just don't understand the motives behind all this. I believe I read somewhere there had never been a report of a model aircraft crashing into a full size aircraft but then someone pointed out a plane flying into a model hovering over a runway somewhere but that both pilots were flying beyond regs...... if that's the case and there has never been an accident in all these years, who cares what we do or how we do it? I'm not saying someone should be flying sorecklesslyso close to an airport that they'd fly into a commercial airliner but DANG, what's all the hub-bub about? quote: </div>Patrick, If you wish to operate a civilian sUAS as other than a model then the other requirements would apply (but good luck doing that at least for now).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>As a "commercial" operator that may eventually have/gain more latitude with respect to operating in the National Airspace System as an unmanned aircraft intermixed with manned aircraft; it has everything to do with safety. It's not solely about airliners; it could be a C-150, an ultra-light vehicle, a crop duster, or a crowd at a nearby baseball game, all in conformance with whatever. Mix into the vicinity of either one a model aircraft activity (not very near an airport say) and still all would operating accordingly, thus the essence of safety falls to the “see and avoid” principle. The goal is that the principle works in the overwhelming majority of instances. Keep in mind that because something never happened does not mean it never will. Also, the purpose is not to prevent a mishap, it is to mitigate to an "acceptable level of risk".<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>That is because the probability of a mishap is likely never to be zero. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes"></span> hook</span> |
RE: FAA ceiling on R/C
ORIGINAL: hook57 Also, the purpose is not to prevent a mishap, it is to mitigate to an ''acceptable level of risk''. Unfortunately the FAA has no such stringent definition of what "acceptable risk" means to them. They get to define it and then determine what measures they feel will be effective at mitigating the perceived risks. Perhaps they do have an actual definition, but I have not been able to locate it. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:51 PM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.