RunRyder RC
 13  Topic Subscribe
WATCH
 6 pages [ <<    <     3      4     ( 5 )     6     NEXT    >> ] 5211 views
Scorpion Power Scorpion Power
HelicopterMain Discussion › FAA Regulating
11-28-2011 06:52 PM  5 years agoPost 81
drdot

rrElite Veteran

So. California,​Orange County.

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

fwiw..

I'd love to..

But due to the "process' I have no idea what to put in my squwak-o-gram...

See...It's just like Nancy Pelosi.."We have to pass it to see what's in it!"....

Am I the only one who thinks this absurd?

After the NPRM is posted, we have only 90 days to respond...Not much time...And they know it...

John.

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
11-29-2011 05:50 AM  5 years agoPost 82
Sillyness

rrVeteran

Little Rock AR

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

thank you for making my point. nowhere in the SA rules does it state a needed duration for the length of a line. i am well aware that what they do say is that roll elements for the families that allow roll(s) or snap elements must be centered on a line. there's no reason to draw long lines in classes that have little or no activity on uplines or downlines, but it is seen regularly. nor is there any reason in advanced or unlimited to draw a line longer than a second before initiating whatever is required, but pilots do it regularly, and often lose points because their line wanders.
I'm going to unprove your point. You're reasoning is flawed. You said 1 second per line. That's a great expectation. The rules don't mandate 400'. 1 second and physics does. Moving to the moon might help... you'll get tighter radiuses when pulling vertical, but the lack of air to fly in and burn will be a serious detriment, so they sort of cancel each other out

Just the pull radius at 60 knots with a 5-g (4 plus "God's G" pull is about 100'. 5 G's at bottom, 4 G's reaching vertical... needed to keep it round. An 8G pull doesn't even get the pull-radius down to 50'.

60 kts=100 fps.

Starting altitude: ?
Pull at bottom: 100'
1 second up: 100'
3/4 roll + 1 1/4 snap: 150'
1 second up: 100'
Equally radiuses push/pull: 100'

Total=550' assuming we started on the runway.

You get to 400' on a humpty with 2 pulls and 2 1-second lines... no figures and no starting altitude.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
11-29-2011 07:27 AM  5 years agoPost 83
Phaedrus

rrKey Veteran

S. Orange County,​California

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Love the math, but the point koppter was making was that the Scale Aerobatics (IMAC) rules do not contain any reference to required line lengths, time flown on a line, etc. So to infer that a line must be "X" seconds long to score well is not supported by the actual rule. He was also saying that most scale aerobatics pilots fly overly long lines, which often ends up costing them points. More time on the line is more time to make mistakes for a good udge to downgrade you for.

All totally off topic however.

AMA Leader Member
Go FASST, or Go Home!!
Team Futaba

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
11-29-2011 07:29 AM  5 years agoPost 84
Phaedrus

rrKey Veteran

S. Orange County,​California

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

After the NPRM is posted, we have only 90 days to respond...Not much time...And they know it...
The FAA has already indicated that they expect a large volume of comments and that they will extend the comment period as necessary to accommodate the expected volume.

Right now there is not much we can do except prepare for the NPRM by educating ourselves on the situation and what we can do once it comes out. Until then there really is no place to make a comment that matters.

AMA Leader Member
Go FASST, or Go Home!!
Team Futaba

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
11-29-2011 08:22 AM  5 years agoPost 85
Sillyness

rrVeteran

Little Rock AR

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Love the math, but the point koppter was making was that the Scale Aerobatics (IMAC) rules do not contain any reference to required line lengths, time flown on a line, etc. So to infer that a line must be "X" seconds long to score well is not supported by the actual rule. He was also saying that most scale aerobatics pilots fly overly long lines, which often ends up costing them points. More time on the line is more time to make mistakes for a good udge to downgrade you for.
That's great but the points were irrelevant since the point of the entire thread is the new rules, one being 400 feet. It is presently unachievable in the context of the current judging criteria and figures. One second is 1/6 of a breath... It's not long at all. Look at your watch. It'd be tough to go shorter and still have a noticeable line. Even so, you already reach 400' if you start at 50' and cut all lines out completely... No lines, period. Pulling the 1/4 loops and doing the snaps/rolls simply takes space.

Also, having come off a few humpties too low, starting the downline figures too low can spell disaster, and keep in mind that down lines are faster than up lines by about 40 mph depending on the yak vs extra, etc...

The point is that a hard/fast 400 rule will require a major overhaul of IMAC rules and figures. We can't publish figures that require more than 400' to fly based on physics, regardless of how you want to lawyer up when you read the rules.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
11-29-2011 02:52 PM  5 years agoPost 86
Phaedrus

rrKey Veteran

S. Orange County,​California

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

I totally agree that 400 feet is not a realistic limit for pattern or IMAC. Nobody is arguing that point. The topic spun off when saying that the rules require you to fly tall lines. There is no such requirement.

I also stand by my opinion that most IMAC and pattern pilots fly unnecessarily long/extended lines. But even if they shortened the lines (which would likely score better due to less time for errors) it would still be very difficult to fly the IMAC or pattern sequences below 400 feet.

The sequence construction that would allow for that would result in a "flat" sequence which would not be much fun to fly.

And just so you know where I am coming from, I was the first chairman of the IMAC Rules and Standards Committee, ran the JR-SCAT Series for 4 years and over the years have personally judged a few thousand sequences in everything from Basic up to and including the Tucson Aerobatic Shootout Invitational Class. I have also authored a hundred or more Known and Unknown sequences.

One other point. Those that think that your IMAC plane is climbing vertically at 100 fps, consider this. That is 6,000 feet per minute. The full size Zivko Edge 540 has a maximum climb rate of 3,700 fpm. I am a big DA fan and have owned several 100s and 150s, but I'm betting my 38% Columbo-Anderson Extra (DA150) is not climbing faster than a full scale Edge.

AMA Leader Member
Go FASST, or Go Home!!
Team Futaba

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
11-29-2011 04:23 PM  5 years agoPost 87
unclejane

rrElite Veteran

santa fe, NM, USA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

>fwiw..

I'd love to..

But due to the "process' I have no idea what to put in my squwak-o-gram...

See...It's just like Nancy Pelosi.."We have to pass it to see what's in it!"....

Am I the only one who thinks this absurd?<

Yep, you're the only one.
See, we have this thing called the federal govt. (at least until the Tea Party takes over congress and starts work on eliminating it) and they have all kinds of web sites. FAA has one too specifically for things like NPRM's and participating in the process. I.e.:

http://www.faa.gov/regulations_poli...ntly_published/

Your tax dollars at work!

Now you don't have the "I have no idea" excuse anymore. Bookmark this and revisit when the NPRM is released....

LS

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
11-29-2011 04:52 PM  5 years agoPost 88
drdot

rrElite Veteran

So. California,​Orange County.

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

fwiw..

"Yep, you're the only one."

Uhhhh..The question was rhetorical...

This "Federal Government" you mention...Wasn't that supposed to be the "Most transparent in history"...?

Isn't the FAA part of that "Transparent government"...?

Guys..There's still no way to put lipstick on a pig and call it Marilyn...

I've spent a lot of time looking at every pertinent site/forum I can find....No new information that's relevant, and a distressing number of
people who thing "It won't be so bad".."It could be worse."

Gentlemen...I fly micro to mini electric helis...I really don't have to care....But I won't be one of those getting into the rail car thinking..."It won't be so bad."

Gosh...I guess Godwin was right!....

John.

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
11-29-2011 05:18 PM  5 years agoPost 89
unclejane

rrElite Veteran

santa fe, NM, USA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

>Uhhhh..The question was rhetorical...<
so was my answer

>This "Federal Government" you mention...Wasn't that supposed to be the "Most transparent in history"...?

Isn't the FAA part of that "Transparent government"...?<

Depends on what you mean by "transparent government". If you mean it has you on speed-dial and reports to you every single thing it does without you having to lift a finger to find any of it out, well.. then I have pig named Marilyn you might want to meet.

>I've spent a lot of time looking at every pertinent site/forum I can find....No new information that's relevant, and a distressing number of
people who thing "It won't be so bad".."It could be worse."

Gentlemen...I fly micro to mini electric helis...I really don't have to care....But I won't be one of those getting into the rail car thinking..."It won't be so bad."

Gosh...I guess Godwin was right!....<

Well, yeah if you don't use google and just flat won't inform yourself and participate in the political process of your govt.... yeah he probably was....

LS

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
11-30-2011 12:55 AM  5 years agoPost 90
Yeehaanow

rrApprentice

Vermont

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

LA Times article on drones-
Says the FAA will come out with rules in Jan.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-...0,6584711.story

-Tim

PM  EMAIL  HOMEPAGE  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
11-30-2011 01:05 AM  5 years agoPost 91
smallplanes

rrElite Veteran

S.C. ,SSA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

We won all wars and we will win this one.

Take care and pray hard
smallplanes


Spectra G 26cc
Jewel
Bat 27cc
Trex 700<br

PM  EMAIL  HOMEPAGE  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
11-30-2011 01:32 AM  5 years agoPost 92
Phaedrus

rrKey Veteran

S. Orange County,​California

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

LA Times article on drones-
Says the FAA will come out with rules in Jan.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-...0,6584711.story
Just so there is no confusion, the FAA plans to publish the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in January. Then there is a comment period that in this case may be up to 4 months or longer. After that they review the comments, makes changes (if any) and republish the Rule. Right now the estimate is that the actual Rule will not go into effect until some time in mid 2013 or so.

AMA Leader Member
Go FASST, or Go Home!!
Team Futaba

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
11-30-2011 03:50 AM  5 years agoPost 93
drdot

rrElite Veteran

So. California,​Orange County.

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

fwiw...

That's good news...More time than I thought....

John.

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
11-30-2011 01:23 PM  5 years agoPost 94
BarracudaHockey

rrMaster

Jacksonville FL

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Thats probably best case for the FAA, in case you havent noticed, they are broke too. Though getting true drones under control is by necessity, a high priority.

Andy
AMA 77227
http://www.jaxrc.com

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
12-01-2011 07:32 AM  5 years agoPost 95
Phaedrus

rrKey Veteran

S. Orange County,​California

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Latest update from the AMA:

http://www.modelaircraft.org/abouta...log.aspx#113011

AMA Leader Member
Go FASST, or Go Home!!
Team Futaba

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
12-01-2011 04:05 PM  5 years agoPost 96
drdot

rrElite Veteran

So. California,​Orange County.

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

fwiw...

Doesn't sound promising, but we will soon see...

Let's recap..

Model aviation has a generally good safety record.
Other sports/industries with much higher risk factors, e.g. scuba diving, have self regulated for years with little or no governmental interference.
The majority of people in the continental US who engage in aerial activities (yes, kite flyers, you too..)have no idea of any regulation pertinent to what they are doing.
Existing FAA regulation, such as inclusion of models in the TFR restriction, is laughable on its face.Just cuz Michelle wants to eat in LA doesn't mean I don't fly.
The little information we've gotten so far regarding altitude and speed limitations are unenforceable.
Draconian prohibition of types of aircraft (turbines) are authoritarian in nature...Where is my "representative" government?

Any rule or regulation which instantly creates classes of instant criminals writes its own punch line...

Let's look at a simpler way...If the sUAS is the straw man set to promote an indefensible position, do this:

If an aircraft carries and uses GPS navigation, FPV piloting capability, or is used in a commercial application, regulate it if you must...Otherwise the existing AC works just fine. As it has been for a long time.

No amount of regulation will prevent or slow the spreading of technology...Stunts like the aerial tour of the Statue of Liberty cannot be prevented.Attempts by the government to do so will create the same situation now playing out in the "War on Drugs"...That's going swimmingly, isn't it?....

All we can do is gear up, wait, and hit 'em hard when this abomination is released...

John.

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
12-01-2011 04:20 PM  5 years agoPost 97
Phaedrus

rrKey Veteran

S. Orange County,​California

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

What still remains to be seen is how the FAA Re-Authorization Bill goes. The Senate version (S.223) contains an amendment that exempts models from regulation by the FAA. The House version (H.R.658) does not contain the same verbiage. The bill is stuck in the reconciliation process as the two houses work out their differences.

AMA Leader Member
Go FASST, or Go Home!!
Team Futaba

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
12-01-2011 04:21 PM  5 years agoPost 98
drdot

rrElite Veteran

So. California,​Orange County.

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

fwiw...

Fingers WAY crossed on that one.....

John.

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
12-01-2011 04:26 PM  5 years agoPost 99
unclejane

rrElite Veteran

santa fe, NM, USA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

>No amount of regulation will prevent or slow the spreading of technology...Stunts like the aerial tour of the Statue of Liberty cannot be prevented.<

But regulation does give you an avenue of due process of law in those events. That's the key to this whole thing and why FAA does at least some of the things that it does (i.e. why it dislikes ruling by exemption even tho it does do so from time to time). "Gentleman's agreements" like AC's don't have the force of law. They do have a long history, tho, and we know where they're appropriate and where they're not.

Just something to keep in mind when commenting on the NPRM - as I've said elsewhere, don't send in 10 pages of anti-govt. ranting or conspiracy theory. You will rightly be ignored. FAA isn't interested.

We'll just have to see what's in the rule when it comes out. Looks to me like the main target is sUAS's and not really general "3rd person control" model aviation. But it could get caught up in it all the same. Guess we'll know soon enough.

LS

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
12-01-2011 04:29 PM  5 years agoPost 100
Phaedrus

rrKey Veteran

S. Orange County,​California

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

With respect to the NYC FPV stunt, the FAA people seem to be very aware that this was not a US based modeler and indicated that this particular stunt had little, if any, impact on their process.

Keep in mind that we are not the target, we are the collateral damage.

AMA Leader Member
Go FASST, or Go Home!!
Team Futaba

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
WATCH
 6 pages [ <<    <     3      4     ( 5 )     6     NEXT    >> ] 5211 views
Scorpion Power Scorpion Power
HelicopterMain Discussion › FAA Regulating
 Print TOPIC  Make Suggestion 

 13  Topic Subscribe

Tuesday, November 21 - 9:23 pm - Copyright © 2000-2017 RunRyder   EMAILEnable Cookies

Login Here
 New Subscriptions 
 Buddies Online