RCU Forums - FAA ceiling on R/C

Page 5 of 6

« First

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

RCU Forums (https://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/)

- RC Pattern Flying (https://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/rc-pattern-flying-101/)

- - FAA ceiling on R/C (https://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/rc-pattern-flying-101/10189619-faa-ceiling-r-c.html)

tokpilot

12-14-2010 09:57 AM

RE: FAA ceiling on R/C

Looks like we will all have to install a Transponder.
Lord help us if we go over the limit AGL we may be taken to task tried as a Terriost and have out models taken away.
First it was people moving near our flying fields complaining about noise which they knew was there in the beginning now it is how high we fly.
I can see the beginning of the end here Big Brother will regulate us out of our hobby

hook57

12-14-2010 10:04 AM

RE: FAA ceiling on R/C

Quote:

ORIGINAL: Silent-AV8R

Quote:

ORIGINAL: hook57
Also, the purpose is not to prevent a mishap, it is to mitigate to an ''acceptable level of risk''.

I deal with risk assessment as part of my occupation. This is a popular term and in most instances there are actual definitions of what that is. In most uses we refer to acceptable risk as the de minimis risk. In risk assessment it refers to a level of risk that is too small to be concerned with. Some refer to this as a "virtually safe" level. Typically in toxicology and other uses the de minimis risk is defined as something which has no greater than a one in one million chance of occurring (1x10E-06).

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.

I do likewise Silent8. Although it may not be as scientific as the system you utilize in your occupation it is much more than tossing a coin several times and then summing the probabilities. Although you may not find a Webster’s type definition it is used in a rather narrow scope. My observations and dealings show they use a deductive method of analysis that is a qualitative and may become or also be a quantitative one. It was a fairly robust fault hazard analysis of an operator’s detailed subsystems to determine component hazard modes, causes of those hazards, and the resultant effects to the subsystem and its associated operations. They have used fault tree analysis in looking at equipment mission, operational constraints, success and failure boundaries, realistic failure modes, and then a measure of their probability of occurrence. It is not a matter of simply defining it and measuring it as they wish. But do keep in mind that it is the responsibility of each and every user of the NAS to observe safety and to operate safely.<o:p></o:p><o:p></o:p><o:p></o:p><o:p></o:p><o:p></o:p><o:p></o:p>The risk is flying, the hazard is the variety of components relative to a flight and I think you would agree that those components can change daily if not sooner (weather for example). So to measure the risk as an exact number becomes difficult because of the nature of the human elements (okay factors) and decisions we make. It is not that simple really, but more or less in nutshell. To say that the risk of flying in any mode is that small as to be of no concern, in my opinion, is not realistic. In addition, even a .005 % chance of occurrence will seem very high if you are on that plane when its chance arrives, but we really good at focusing on that 99.995% of not being on that other plane.<o:p></o:p><o:p></o:p><o:p></o:p>hook
sorry about the way that posted guys..

LouisB

12-14-2010 10:07 AM

RE: FAA ceiling on R/C

Guys, I don't know if this limitation is due to prevent terrorism or what? If it is terror-related, do you think these fanatics would care at all about the ruling? Don't feel alone, we have the same stupid non-sensical laws here in South Africa regarding ownership of guns. The idea is to prevent criminals from using a gun - they must first licence it before pulling the trigger. Yeah right!

Silent-AV8R

12-14-2010 10:16 AM

RE: FAA ceiling on R/C

Quote:

ORIGINAL: LouisB

Guys, I don't know if this limitation is due to prevent terrorism or what?

It is unequivocally not an anti-terrorism measure nor does it have any relation to fears of terrorism.

From the ARC Recommendations:

Quote:

In formulating the recommendations contained in this document, sUAS ARC used the following guiding principles:

1. Enable the operation of sUAS by mitigating, to an acceptable level of risk, the
hazards posed to manned aircraft and other airborne objects operating in the National
Airspace System (NAS) as well as the public on the surface.

From the recent (July 2010) sUAS Fact Sheet:

Quote:

The FAA’s Role: Safety First

The FAA’s main concern about UAS operations in the National Airspace System (NAS) is safety. It is critical that these aircraft do not endanger other users of the NAS or compromise the safety of persons or property on the ground.

For the FAA it is all about aviation safety.

hook57

12-14-2010 10:50 AM

RE: FAA ceiling on R/C

Quote:

ORIGINAL: LouisB

Guys, I don't know if this limitation is due to prevent terrorism or what? If it is terror-related, do you think these fanatics would care at all about the ruling? Don't feel alone, we have the same stupid non-sensical laws here in South Africa regarding ownership of guns. The idea is to prevent criminals from using a gun - they must first licence it before pulling the trigger. Yeah right!

And not to minimize anything that Silent has brought out, but, from the ARC paper: Section 2.2, Model aircraft[/b]...... shall otherwise be exempt from the requirements[/b] of any Special Federal Airworthiness Regulation (SFAR).....

hook

PatrickCurry

12-14-2010 10:52 AM

RE: FAA ceiling on R/C

Quote:

ORIGINAL: hook57
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". That is because the probability of a mishap is likely never to be zero. 
hook

If something has *never* happened in the 60 or 70 years or whatever it is that we've been flying radio controlled model aircraft, I'd say that's an "acceptable level of risk". :) My point with the airliner was mainly just an example of something flying that low near an airport.... anywhere else, most stuff would be WAY out of our range anyway.... Ok, except maybe for the crop duster. :) I suspect most good ol' boys flyin' out in the boonies would probably know their neighbors and know when they were "comin dustin". As for the FPV stuff flying out of site, I could see where they would want to ban that for hobbyists and/or license it only for commercial use. Although cool, I can see where that could very well be used for dangerous intent. Kind of like building the nuclear bomb as a "maintainer of peace".

PatrickCurry

12-14-2010 10:55 AM

RE: FAA ceiling on R/C

Quote:

ORIGINAL: hook57sorry about the way that posted guys..

I would hope you WOULD be! LOL Just funnin' ya. :)

PatrickCurry

12-14-2010 10:59 AM

RE: FAA ceiling on R/C

Quote:

ORIGINAL: tokpilot I can see the beginning of the end here Big Brother will regulate us out of our hobby

Which is why the AMA needs to play the "too big to fail" card! Forget us talking to politicians about boo hoo I can't fly my model airplanes any more. I would think all those multi-million dollar corporations up there in Champaign, IL would be busting their politicians over the head with all the money and jobs they stand to lose and how it is going to affect our already suffering economy. There's more than one way to skin a cat. ;)

blhollo2

12-14-2010 11:58 AM

RE: FAA ceiling on R/C

I think 1000 feet is a good starting point,

BTerry

12-14-2010 12:06 PM

RE: FAA ceiling on R/C

Those 'multi-million dollar companies in Champaign, IL' as you call them are extraordinarily small when compared to the UAV companies - or at least their parent companies - ('Boeing'! 'General Dynamics'! 'Northrop'! cough cough). Some of the UAV companies could grease the skids with a 'political contribution' larger than Tower and Horizons combined payrolls.

Back in 'the day' when flying a screaming Curare on a piped Rossi we were PROUD of our 'towering' 400' loops where the plane seemed to be SO high.

Now any of my IMAC planes will punch through 1500' AGL less than 10 seconds, the turbine jets can easily hit that in <4 seconds, and either plane will climb at the same rate until the fuel runs out.

The times have changed and I hope the pigeonholing of our hobby doesn't make it impossible.

bjr_93tz

12-14-2010 12:20 PM

RE: FAA ceiling on R/C

Why didn't they just set up a little tin shed about 1000ft from the runway and ask people to try and fly into it? That would have revealed the compleate lack of ability for nearly any RC flyer to actually hit something intentionally or get within a couple of hundred feet of it.

I must say that the last jet meet I went to was a big eye-opener for me. Large, properly setup turbines are a far cry from what they were. The combination of size, weight, structural integrity and pure speed have pushed them over the edge of being toys and are on the same legue as a modern sportsbike, whereas IMAC, pattern and 3D whatnots are still big (and little) toys. As discused many a time in downwind turns, KE=1/2M*v^2, and a proper turbine has plenty of both M and V. That being said, turbines are just as recreational as any other model plane.

To be honest, it's not hard for the FAA to define a model airplane and it can be as simple as.

"Non man-carrying and not containing any equipment that allows the pilot to maintain controlled flight beyond his/her direct line of sight."

Silent-AV8R

12-14-2010 01:06 PM

RE: FAA ceiling on R/C

Quote:

ORIGINAL: PatrickCurry
I would think all those multi-million dollar corporations up there in Champaign, IL would be busting their politicians over the head with all the money and jobs they stand to lose and how it is going to affect our already suffering economy. There's more than one way to skin a cat. ;)

Take a look at the latest Tower or Horizon catalog. Ask yourself exactly how much of what you see for sale will be impacted by even the worse case FAA scenario. Very little actually.

Think about this. Each year there are maybe 800 or so guys who fly an IMAC contest. Pattern probably a bit less. But call it 3000 between the two just for grins. Add in maybe 1,000 soaring pilots and 500 pylon racers and we are at 4,500. Add in about 1,500 turbine waiver holders and all told we are looking at 6,000 people who might be affected. That is may 4% of the AMA total. So in the FAA eyes their worse case negatively affects less than 5% of the modeling public, which to them looks pretty good.

TonyF

12-14-2010 02:59 PM

RE: FAA ceiling on R/C

Your numbers are really misleading. This won't affect just the competitors in the events you mention, but just about everyone at a "typical" RC model field. I can't tell you how many times while practicing a pattern flight I have to avoid a sport model during even my higher parts of the pattern. I'll bet the vast majority of the 35 and 40% IMAC models sold and flown will never see an IMAC contest. There are a whole lot of sailplane fliers that have never and will never enter a contest. Probably most racing models are used in competition.

Just look at the Joe Nall fly-in. An awful lot of large models most probably flown over 400 feet high.

hook57

12-14-2010 03:41 PM

RE: FAA ceiling on R/C

Quote:

ORIGINAL: TonyF

Your numbers are really misleading. This won't affect just the competitors in the events you mention, but just about everyone at a "typical" RC model field. I can't tell you how many times while practicing a pattern flight I have to avoid a sport model during even my higher parts of the pattern. I'll bet the vast majority of the 35 and 40% IMAC models sold and flown will never see an IMAC contest. There are a whole lot of sailplane fliers that have never and will never enter a contest. Probably most racing models are used in competition.
Just look at the Joe Nall fly-in. An awful lot of large models most probably flown over 400 feet high.

I tend to agree with Tony here, unless all of those 6000 or so are notmembers of say AMA, JPO, or some other SIG. The ARCdefines model aircraft as 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[/i].” Is there any disagreement on that?<o:p>
Again,</o:p>with regard to the 400’ rule; look at the ARC’s recommendations under Section 2, no where in there does it stipulate a 400’ ceiling? Again, in fact it states “Community based organizations, such as[/b] the AMA......." and, "Since such standards are more comprehensive, operations under such standards shall allow for a [/b]broad spectrum of operations and greater latitude [/b]in the AMA operations.” [/i]No reason thus far to think that JPO would be viewed differently than AMA (excuse me if the JPO acronym is incorrect).<o:p></o:p>[/i]For those 6000 modelers or so who are not CBO participants,Under Section 3,things are and may be different; such as mandating the 400’ ceiling to mitigate encounters with manned aircraft. The rational given for that is "below 400’ feet encounters with manned aircraft are reduced."

As an aside, it was said or I read thatD.M.got the "sense" that FAA wasleaning in a different direction ("sense" can mean "perceived', okay but based on what?)If the AMA, or any other group, knows of something or has read something that would alter the ARC's recommendation it would only seem tomake good business acumen to make the membership aware of that.The ARCrecommended that the "recommended regulations" not be overly complex so as to "facilitate analysis by FAA and other stakeholders",and that they are written in "a language like proposed regulations". The report is 74 pages, I've read it several times from day one; it's the latest with respect to howthe concrete is perhaps going to be poured.
hook

Silent-AV8R

12-14-2010 04:01 PM

RE: FAA ceiling on R/C

Nevermind.

Doug Cronkhite

12-14-2010 04:36 PM

RE: FAA ceiling on R/C

To say it 'hasn't happened yet' is also incorrect. A few years ago an idiot with a .40-sized trainer chased, and hit, the Goodyear Blimp.

Thomas B

12-14-2010 05:23 PM

RE: FAA ceiling on R/C

Quote:

ORIGINAL: PatrickCurry

If something has *never* happened in the 60 or 70 years or whatever it is that we've been flying radio controlled model aircraft, I'd say that's an ''acceptable level of risk''. :) My point with the airliner was mainly just an example of something flying that low near an airport.... anywhere else, most stuff would be WAY out of our range anyway.... Ok, except maybe for the crop duster. :) I suspect most good ol' boys flyin' out in the boonies would probably know their neighbors and know when they were ''comin dustin''. As for the FPV stuff flying out of site, I could see where they would want to ban that for hobbyists and/or license it only for commercial use. Although cool, I can see where that could very well be used for dangerous intent. Kind of like building the nuclear bomb as a ''maintainer of peace''.

Four known midairs between R/C models and full scale aircraft. The Goodyear blimp incident a number of years back, in the late 1990s. That one was on purpose, by some brain donor R/C pilot....sigh. Then there was the recent famous one near Denver between the biplane and the large 3D model and there was one between a Blanik and a R/C sailplane on the slope at Torrey Pines. There was evidently one in 2005 between a Cessna and an R/C model near College Station, TX, but there was not a lot ever written about it:

http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?C...-aa40e9537923&

If anyone knows of any others, let me know.

There have been a couple or three other slope soaring incidents, but these involved hang gliders or parasails, not registered aircraft.

prop wash

12-14-2010 05:39 PM

RE: FAA ceiling on R/C

I really hate to start this but this is nothing but big gov taking more of our rights away from us,just like they will do with the internet and the news media. Tom

hook57

12-14-2010 05:53 PM

RE: FAA ceiling on R/C

Quote:

ORIGINAL: PatrickCurry

Quote:

ORIGINAL: hook57
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". That is because the probability of a mishap is likely never to be zero. 
hook

Patrick, sorry, I missed your post in response to the above. Again, I would say that, that "level of risk" is acceptable to you; until it is your wife, your son, your daughter......... that you have to go to the morgue to identify what's left.....
My point is what price is put on a life, or the maiming of one? So what we do inaviation, be it RC or full scale, has some inherentdegree of risk, someunforeseen hazard, and we need to be pro-active in showing that we are sincere in our efforts and intentions of mitigating it to whatever level is deemed reasonable. And yes, reasonable does have economic issiues involved in that reasonable cannot be such that it imparts an economic hardship on stakeholders (that's the buzzword everyone likes).

Okay, as for crop dusting, itain't just in the boonies either; I live a few minutes from a major expressway (dang noise) and it is not uncommon to see "dusters" alongside the expressways dustin those fields. They also perform insect eradication too, not just out in the boonies. Plus, you've got ultra-light vehicles, helicopters (who think minimum safe altitude rules don't apply to them) etc, etc.

hook

hook57

12-14-2010 05:58 PM

RE: FAA ceiling on R/C

Quote:

ORIGINAL: prop wash

I really hate to start this but this is nothing but big gov taking more of our rights away from us,just like they will do with the internet and the news media. Tom

Then don't.
Read the material to familiarize yourself with the facts that are available. Ithas nothing to do with that... at all.

Mark

Thomas B

12-14-2010 06:10 PM

RE: FAA ceiling on R/C

Quote:

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.

I disagree...we should have the same limits as they have in Germany. In their class G and class E above G airspace, the altitude limit for models is 10,000 feet and the additional rule is perfect...see and avoid..........which is what we have been doing with outstanding success for many, many years.

In the UK, models less that 7 kilos appear to not be altitude limited. When the CAA altitude limits do come into play, near airports and for heavier models, they seem to have a simple notification process with their CAA to get permission to fly higher.

It will really be a shame if we in the US end up with the most restrictive rules for model aircraft operations in the world......

hook57

12-14-2010 06:33 PM

RE: FAA ceiling on R/C

Quote:

ORIGINAL: Thomas B
Idisagree...we should have the same limits as they have in Germany. In their class G airpsace, the altitude limit for models is 10,000 feet and the additional rule is perfect...see and avoid..........which is what we have been doing with outstanding success for many, many years.

In the UK, models less that 7 kilos appear to not be altitude limited. When the CAA altitude limits do come into play, near airports and for heavier models, they seem to have a simple notification process with their CAA to get permission to fly higher.

It will really be a shame if we in the US end up with the most restrictive rules for model aircraft operations in the world......

In Germany, I believe Class G is generally up to 1500', or 760m and Class E is 10k, or about 3000m (where they also mix in parasailers and gliders). In GB, I believe you can't fly "above" 400' in "uncontrolled" airspace; in controlled airspace you can negotiate altitude with ATC. US airspace is comprised ofsomewhat more airspace geographically and volumetrically than Germany. Not really a "one size" fits all solution.

hook

Gooseman240

12-14-2010 06:48 PM

RE: FAA ceiling on R/C

Quote:

ORIGINAL: Silent-AV8R

I've said this before, I think that overall the majority of people in this hobby will be largely unaffected. But a small minority will be very badly affected. Sadly everything I like to do is in that small minority. Your average sport RC guy who makes up the bilk of this hobby will likely not notice a huge impact.

IMAC, pattern, pylon racing and soaring I think are in some real jeopardy unless the FAA moves in a direction different from what it appears they are moving right now. I think best case we can hope for is a more flexible altitude cap far away from anything (airports and population areas) and perhaps even then only with an event specific waiver.

Again, find your field here:

http://www.runwayfinder.com

Then start looking for places away from the yellow and any airport or other high traffic airspace.

Talk about luck, that website went down the day you posted the link.... LOL

Not at you, but the timing. ;-)

PatrickCurry

12-14-2010 08:07 PM

RE: FAA ceiling on R/C

Quote:

ORIGINAL: Silent-AV8R

Take a look at the latest Tower or Horizon catalog. Ask yourself exactly how much of what you see for sale will be impacted by even the worse case FAA scenario. Very little actually.

told we are looking at 6,000 people who might be affected. That is may 4% of the AMA total. So in the FAA eyes their worse case negatively affects less than 5% of the modeling public, which to them looks pretty good.

I was thinking about it today at work and I have to agree with you guys.... It's got to be pretty hard to selectively disqualify certain flyers and allow others. We fly at an abandoned airfield in a small town. When a plane *does* come by he's typically nowhere near us, but when a "Sunday afternoon flyer" comes by lower, someone always calls out if he's "going around" and we take evasive action if necessary. With a club located in a metropolitan area near airports, I'm sure that's an entirely different story and the FAA has to take one and all into consideration. Again, I was just using Tower and all those guys as examples, I really meant the industry as a whole. I seriously doubt any of this will affect me, but a buddy at our field has a turbine that'll top 250 and we sure enjoy watching that thing go! Will be a dang shame if he can't fly it any more. :(

Thomas B

12-14-2010 08:20 PM

RE: FAA ceiling on R/C

Quote:

ORIGINAL: hook57

Quote:

ORIGINAL: Thomas B
I disagree...we should have the same limits as they have in Germany. In their class G airpsace, the altitude limit for models is 10,000 feet and the additional rule is perfect...see and avoid..........which is what we have been doing with outstanding success for many, many years.

In the UK, models less that 7 kilos appear to not be altitude limited. When the CAA altitude limits do come into play, near airports and for heavier models, they seem to have a simple notification process with their CAA to get permission to fly higher.

It will really be a shame if we in the US end up with the most restrictive rules for model aircraft operations in the world......

In Germany, I believe Class G is generally up to 1500', or 760m and Class E is 10k, or about 3000m (where they also mix in parasailers and gliders). In GB, I believe you can't fly ''above'' 400' in ''uncontrolled'' airspace; in controlled airspace you can negotiate altitude with ATC. US airspace is comprised of somewhat more airspace geographically and volumetrically than Germany. Not really a ''one size'' fits all solution.

hook

I spoke with a knowledgable German modeler on the subject and he told me models are "not to be flown above 10,000 in class G". The implication was that it is doable to fly in the E type airscape above uncontrolled G. They seem to treat a model a little more like a real aircraft, in a lot of ways.

I reread the CAA rules for the UK: http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP658.PDF and in Chapter 5, the clear implication is that a model weighing less than 7 kilos is exempt from altitude limits in uncontrolled airspace. In controlled airspace, yes, there are 400 foot limits, with (apparently) simple paths to gain exceptions from the authorities. Models above 7 kilos "should not be flown above 400 feet" without gaining permission.

A tranlated link to the German rules: http://translate.google.com/translat...2-0001-00.html

Given that we have vastly more airspace and more elbow room than Germany, I disagree that their "size" does not fit us...rules that work for that much more crowded country would suit the larger US airspace just fine.

All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:55 AM.

Page 5 of 6

« First

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page