RunRyder RC
WATCH
 24 pages [ <<    <     5      6     ( 7 )     8      9     NEXT    >> ] 20070 views POST REPLY
Home✈️Aircraft🚁HelicopterHelicopter Main Discussion › FAA comes down with aggressive position on model aircraft
07-01-2014 05:49 PM  6 years ago
KeyserSoze

rrNovice

Nashville TN

MyPosts All Forum Topic
If we don't police ourselves, someone is going to police us for us. People can't keep lobbing quads into the wild blue without regard to altitude or line of sight and then posting the videos on Youtube. As a pilot, hitting a quad at 180mph in my RV-6 scares the hell out of me. As a fellow R/C enthusiast, the irresponsibility of other people's actions are likely to restrict my enjoyment of the hobby and I resent their disregard for the rules.
Outside of airport control area, that really scares you??

Do you believe that flying over the countryside, you have a realistic chance of flying into an R/C airplane or quad copter? At what altitude will you be flying en route? What about ultralights, or weather balloons, What about geese?

I can understand if you are landing and someone within the traffic pattern or on decent is flying a quad. There could be a risk, but I am far far far far more concerned with hitting birds than I could ever be concerned with hitting a quad.

I think we need a dose of realism here. Most of these people flying quads are not flying FPV, very few of them are. The overwhelming majority are flying well below 1000 feet. Which should not be a problem for you unless you are taking off or landing. Having an FPV plane with an OSD, I can tell you that not many people fly line of sight at 1000 feet. Unless their airplane is huge. A quad at an altitude of 400 feet is a dot. Throwing FPV under the bus will not make R/C helis or RC in general safe from overregulation. The more toys such as airhogs that come out, and the smaller they make HD cameras, the more issues people are going to have with privacy and fear of drones. Its only a matter of time before people start referring to our R/C helicopters as drones

What the FAA is proposing is controlling flying toys, and that's not ok. Nothing about that is OK. That is why they lost the case against Trappy. The issues that have made the news recently have not been FPV related. They have been "drone" related. So line of sight will not save you from scrutiny for long.
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
07-01-2014 11:22 PM  6 years ago
AirWolfRC

rrProfessor

42½ N, 83½ W

MyPosts All Forum Topic
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  HOMEPAGE  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
07-02-2014 12:57 PM  6 years ago
MartyH

rrProfessor

USA

MyPosts All Forum Topic
KeyserSoze, you are obviously not a pilot. YES, these things scare me. Unlike geese or ultralights a quad at altitude isn't trying to avoid me as I'm try to avoid them and a quad will be impossible to see until it's too late. Go check out Youtube. Flight after recorded flight of quads thousands of feet in the air, in clouds and above clouds. ALL illegal and dangerous and unnecessary threats to public safety. It's going to take one hit to a commercial flight and we will see restrictions come down on us like we have never imagined. The arrogance of some of the posts believing we are untouchable is mind boggling. We're less than 150,000 members in a country of 300 million. Guess who's going to win if we don't tread more lightly. I completely agree about the toy problem. As they get cheaper, smaller and easier, we have a real problem distancing ourselves as an organized hobby from the low information crowd playing with those.
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
07-02-2014 04:55 PM  6 years ago
Chris Bergen

rrElite Veteran

cassopolis, MI USA

MyPosts All Forum Topic
Marty, you say they are ALL illegal. Please post the law that states they are illegal...

Not an AC, not a proposed reg, an actual bonafide law or regulation that states what you say is illegal.
Chris D. Bergen
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
07-02-2014 05:16 PM  6 years ago
HeimD

rrVeteran

the great southwest

MyPosts All Forum Topic
low information crowd
Looks like someone listens to Rush L.
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
07-03-2014 01:10 AM  6 years ago
revmix

rrKey Veteran

NJ

MyPosts All Forum Topic
400ft AGL
(2) the aircraft is operated in accordance with a community based set of safety guidelines and within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization;
2. Model aircraft pilots will:
(c) Not fly higher than approximately 400 feet above ground level within three (3) miles of an airport without notifying the airport operator.
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
07-03-2014 01:54 AM  6 years ago
Chris Bergen

rrElite Veteran

cassopolis, MI USA

MyPosts All Forum Topic
Apparently you don't understand the definition of "law"....

(2) the aircraft is operated in accordance with a community based set of safety guidelines...
Chris D. Bergen
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
07-03-2014 03:31 AM  6 years ago
revmix

rrKey Veteran

NJ

MyPosts All Forum Topic
definition of "law"....
P.L. 112-95/336
the aircraft is operated in accordance with
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
07-03-2014 04:34 AM  6 years ago
AirWolfRC

rrProfessor

42½ N, 83½ W

MyPosts All Forum Topic
You seem to be confused with the definition of "law"
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  HOMEPAGE  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
07-03-2014 05:58 PM  6 years ago
unclejane

rrElite Veteran

santa fe, NM, USA

MyPosts All Forum Topic
You seem to be confused with the definition of "law"
It's kind of going around, like a bad flu lol:

https://rc.runryder.com/t768914p1/

But Chris Bergen is ultimately right. We're essentially back to a kind of Trappy-case square one in terms of actual regulations. FAA has only clarified that they intend to redefine FPV operated "model aircraft" in the future. But legally we're no better or worse off than before.

So we won't be in this legal limbo forever. Eventually we FPV'ers will be either regulated or killed off period, one of the two...

LS
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
07-03-2014 06:19 PM  6 years ago
revmix

rrKey Veteran

NJ

MyPosts All Forum Topic
Roller/Comic
FAA's claim just fair
AMA's aim only keep out feds
like monkey see, monkey do
r/c law FAR past over due
hobby is for pure game
as poor verdict paperplane
rights for all spirit of 4th of July
play by the rules, or pay the fine
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
07-03-2014 06:25 PM  6 years ago
don s

rrElite Veteran

Chesapeake, VA

MyPosts All Forum Topic
Puff then pass, not puff puff puff puff puff, lol.E820, Raptor G4N, X50F/E, E620, Forza 450, and some planks.
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
07-03-2014 07:21 PM  6 years ago
Ace Dude

rrProfessor

USA

MyPosts All Forum Topic
The arrogance of some of the posts believing we are untouchable is mind boggling.
If you think those are bad, check out the posts from the AMA member who flys FPV w/o a spotter because he believes he doesn't have to follow the AMA safety code and AMA Document #550 when he's not flying at what he defines as an "AMA field".

He states:
When flying at an AMA field I, of course, willingly follow all the rules as required and have no problem with doing so. When not flying at an AMA field those rules do not apply
Complete post can be found here:

https://rc.runryder.com/p6327833/
  
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
07-03-2014 10:16 PM  6 years ago
HeimD

rrVeteran

the great southwest

MyPosts All Forum Topic
I was listening to the RC Heli Nation weekly podcast earlier this week and one of the guys brought up an interesting point. His "tin foil hat" conspiracy was that the AMA has been sitting on its ass to have let things progress this far with the FAA overstepping their bounds, ignoring the Congressional mandate that the FAA shall pose NO regulations on model aviation, etc. This "community based organization" thing is mentioned over and over again. You can easily see how that can slip into "required to be a member of a community based organization". If that happens? BOOM...AMA has a lock on everyone in the hobby, whether they fly at a club field or not, being required to be a member. Money, money, money.
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
07-03-2014 10:29 PM  6 years ago
rexxigpilot

rrProfessor

rexxig2@comcast.net

MyPosts All Forum Topic
Flight after recorded flight of quads thousands of feet in the air, in clouds and above clouds. ALL illegal and dangerous and unnecessary threats to public safety.
You forgot the most important fact. This type of flying is overwhelmingly being done outside of the USA. Where it is legal!!!!

It is a sad day when true freedom only exists outside our borders.
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
07-03-2014 10:37 PM  6 years ago
unclejane

rrElite Veteran

santa fe, NM, USA

MyPosts All Forum Topic
You forgot the most important fact. This type of flying is overwhelmingly being done outside of the USA. Where it is legal!!!!
It is a sad day when true freedom only exists outside our borders.
Well in full scale at least, "cloud surfing" is actually legal, but is strictly regulated by certain cloud clearance requirements (when VFR of course). They're favorite questions on flight orals and biennial flight reviews, etc.

If FPV flight is ever allowed at high altitudes, I would imagine there would be similar requirements imposed there. But it remains to be seen if that's in the cards for us.

LS
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
07-03-2014 10:45 PM  6 years ago
unclejane

rrElite Veteran

santa fe, NM, USA

MyPosts All Forum Topic
His "tin foil hat" conspiracy was that the AMA has been sitting on its ass to have let things progress this far with the FAA overstepping their bounds
FWIW, the FAA tends to be pretty harsh on "community based organizations"; they tend to deceive and then basically destroy them at a pretty decent rate. AMA should have been more diligent about that (though I guess there's not much they could have done about it had they known).

But still, this happened bad to organizations like the USUA and the ultralight arm of the EAA back during the Sport Pilot rule process. They were practically wiped out when the FAA up and decided to simply eliminate the UL-type 2-place training exemptions that were the bread and butter of those orgs. FAA had strung the orgs along forever, lulling them into a false sense of security that the exemptions weren't going away or were going to simply be replaced with something else very similar. Don't worry, don't worry... everything will be fiiine.... Lots of back slapping and buddy-buddy type stuff between officials of the orgs and FAA at Oshkosh and Sun-n-Fun and so on.

Then instantly, right at the end, FAA simply announced the exemptions were expiring forever, every 2-place training operation was going to be part 91, meaning completely illegal, after such and such a date, and they had no choice but to go SLSA on the aircraft, and CFI-SP on the instructor rating...

Basically wiped ultralighting completely out and it has never recovered. In fact, just now many years later, Quicksilver finally came out with an SLSA 2-place and it costs 40 large....

So AMA should have really studied this case and known about the FAA's general hostility towards CBO's... They were kind of caught with their pants down and they really should have been more prepared.

LS
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
07-04-2014 02:25 AM  6 years ago
Ace Dude

rrProfessor

USA

MyPosts All Forum Topic
FWIW, the FAA tends to be pretty harsh on "community based organizations"; they tend to deceive and then basically destroy them at a pretty decent rate.
Often times they're left with no choice. The community based organizations always start out great, but they're based on a mutually agreed upon set of terms and conditions. What often happens oven time is one party believes they no longer have to follow all of the terms and conditions and the mutual agreement falls apart. The governing body has no choice but to step in, cancel the mutual agreement, and devise new policies.
  
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
07-04-2014 09:05 PM  6 years ago
revmix

rrKey Veteran

NJ

MyPosts All Forum Topic
The governing body has no choice but to step in

Watch at YouTube

SHARE  PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
07-05-2014 12:03 AM  6 years ago
unclejane

rrElite Veteran

santa fe, NM, USA

MyPosts All Forum Topic
Often times they're left with no choice. The community based organizations always start out great, but they're based on a mutually agreed upon set of terms and conditions. What often happens oven time is one party believes they no longer have to follow all of the terms and conditions and the mutual agreement falls apart. The governing body has no choice but to step in, cancel the mutual agreement, and devise new policies.
No, that's not what happens. That's what you want to be true, because you're still stinging from all the hand slapping I've been giving you and you want it all to be my doing somehow. But again the truth is something else than simply what you want it to be.

In both cases I'm familiar with - CBOs in the Sport Pilot debacle and the current FPV debacle - the CBOs were actively misled by the FAA. The current case we're already familiar with; in the SP case the orgs were reassured that the 2-place training exemptions would have a ready, inexpensive and easily complied-with analogue under the SP rule. What they actually got, however, was an ugly surprise. By then the rule was out and ultralight training under the exemptions granted the orgs - which had one of the best safety records in the history of aviation - was dead. And ultra lighting itself followed shortly after that.

As I said, this lesson was there for AMA to have studied, but they kind of didn't do their home wrk there...

LS
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
WATCH
 24 pages [ <<    <     5      6     ( 7 )     8      9     NEXT    >> ] 20070 views POST REPLY
Home✈️Aircraft🚁HelicopterHelicopter Main Discussion › FAA comes down with aggressive position on model aircraft
 Print TOPIC  Make Suggestion 

 26  Topic Subscribe

Thursday, August 13 - 3:56 pm - Copyright © 2000-2020 RunRyder   EMAILEnable Cookies

Login Here
 New Subscriptions 
 Buddies Online