Author Topic: A Rsponse by John Villasenor to the thread "DISTURBING EDITORIAL" (Read 7565 times)

Mike Griffin · « **on:** March 31, 2012, 03:46:04 PM »

I received this response by John Villasenor who wrote the article about Model Planes in the LA Times. Larry Renger made the initial post and then I found the article in the LA Times and posted it in the original post below. Since the subject drew so much attention, he asked me if I would post his further explanation of his article for all of us to see.

Here is the response Mr. Villasenor sent me. I am copying and pasting this into this post.

Hi Mike,
Many thanks for your reply and the opportunity to engage a community
for which I have enormous respect, and that I'm afraid has misinterpreted
my proposal (and I can certainly accept some of the blame for that).

Please find a response to some of the concerns that I've seen raised
at stunthanger.com (I've also sent a similar mail and had a very positive
ensuing dialog to a few other modelling groups). Please feel free to post
it to the thread - either with or without this initial note to you,
as you see fit. (I would have posted it myself, but it won't let
me create an account, so I found your web site on that thread
and sent the mail to you).

I would welcome the chance to discuss this issue further, in a respectful
manner, with members of your community in any reasonable forum (e-mail,
phone,
in-person). And that even includes the guy who called me a moron!

Thanks,
John

Dear StuntHangar.com Members,

I've read through the thread in response to my recent LA Times op-ed,
and am reaching out to your community to attempt to clear up what I
respectfully
believe are a few apparent misconceptions.

As an initial statement, I should mention that I have very good memories
of control line flying as a kid (including getting dizzy!). Much more
recently,
while I have not been in the traditional hobbyist community, I helped
to lead a large, 5-year, Navy-funded project at UCLA about 10 years ago
that was
one of the first efforts to mount sophisticated digital video systems
on UAVs for acquisition, on-board processing and transmission to ground of
real time video data.

In any case, here are some specific points:

First, I don't think that the operational limits regarding where/how people
fly model planes - be it control line, R/C, etc. - need to be changed at all.
It's the oversight (or lack of it) for operation by people like the example
I give in my sixth point below that concerns me.

Second, in the LA Times piece I didn't advocate licensing for *all* model
aircraft (which in the FAA bill is defined to include what many people call
"drones"), just the small subset of "drones capable of carrying a significant
payload". Unfortunately, this distinction seem to have been lost, including
in the response from AMA President Bob Brown; see http://bit.ly/H0TWA2).
Depending on where the "significant payload" cutoff is, and whether
"drone" is
defined for licensing purposes as limited to FPV (which I referred to as
"video-guided" in the op-ed since most people wouldn't know what "FPV"
means),
that might make such a requirement irrelevant for many or even most
hobbyists.
As I attempted to make clear in the op-ed, it's that specific combination of
*both* FPV *and* significant payload that leads to the concern. Based on my
interactions with others in the modeling community, I expect that would
impact a very small fraction of AMA members. And, of course, it would be
completely irrelevant for control line flyers.

Third, in terms of what the licensing means, it could be as simple as a web-
based registration done once every 3-5 years, that costs very little or even
nothing, and simply gives the govt. some basic information (name/address/
DOB) about who is flying drones capable of carrying a significant payload. If
you aren't on some sort of terrorist watch list, the govt. would approve the
license.

Fourth: I'm very well aware that AMA rules limit FPV operation to line of
sight
(as well as other regulations such as having the second person ready to take
over, etc.). But, a terrorist wouldn't obey AMA FPV rules. The obvious
response
to this is that a terrorist wouldn't apply for a license either. Of course
I know that as well. However, and see the sixth point below for an example,
the *existence* of a licensing program - regardless of compliance -
gives the govt. a legal tool to stop use by inappropriate people.

Fifth: Yes, all sorts of things can be used to commit attacks.
Trucks, cars, passenger-bearing planes, baseball bats, whatever.
But drones pose a very different sort of threat because they fly
and aren't detectable on rader. They aren't stopped by walls, fences,
barriers, and all the other things we have in place to limit access.
Without getting into irresponsible speculation, I think we can all agree
that poses some new concerns.

Sixth: Consider the following example: Suppose that there is a person who
is on
a terrorist watch list. Suppose that he – and let’s assume for the purposes
of this example that it’s a he – is known to have spent significant time in
Al Qaeda training camps in northwest Pakistan. Suppose that this
person comes back to the United States, and is known to frequent jihadist
web sites where he posts extremist anti-American views. Now suppose he
buys (or builds) a 50-pound, FPV drone. I think it's clear that this is a
person
who should not be allowed to operate that drone. As things stand now,
the recently passed FAA bill does not provide the govt with any regulatory
framework to prevent that from occurring. We could of course wait until
he actually does something illegal, but by then it may be too late. A
licensing
requirement - whether or not he actually applies for a license - provides the
govt with regulatory justification for stopping him from using the drone.

In response to this point, some people have said, quite rightly, that we
have controls on explosives purchases. If the explosives controls work and
he is
stopped and arrested when trying to acquire them in preparation for an
attack, then problem solved and the system worked. But why create a single
point of failure? If he somehow *is* able to get explosives, then the
problem clearly isn't solved.

With the person in this example, the logical solution isn't to let him play
around with the drone for months on end and hope we catch him when he tries
to acquire explosives. It's to not even let him play around with the drone.
With that profile, he's simply got no business using it at all.

In closing, I have enormous respect for the modeling/hobbyist community.
The concern is not people at StuntHangar.com, or the AMA, or any of the
various affiliated groups. It's that the rules could be abused by people
not from the traditional hobbyist community.

I'm not naive enough to think that after reading the above everyone at
StuntHanger is going to say - hey, great idea, you're right. But, but by
engaging in this exchange I'm hoping to provide some more context.

Thanks for your attention to this post,
John

Mike Griffin · « **Reply #1 on:** March 31, 2012, 03:48:07 PM »

I just received this a moment ago

Randy Cuberly · « **Reply #2 on:** March 31, 2012, 04:02:32 PM »

Read my post on "The disturbing Editorial Thread".
This guy is so "full of it" in my opinion that he doesn't deserve any response.
Does he intend to make us believe that his hypothetical terrorist described above would actually apply for a liscence...
The other guy he mentioned above that called him a Moron was in my opinion too kind!
Writing the drivel in the "Times" was bad enough...now he wants absolution from the damed??? Give me a break!

I would strongly recommend to Mr Villasenor that he take a trip to the Arizona border and see how easy it is for anyone that wishes to bring explosives, drones, or for that matter even an army into our country. Now that might be a worthy editorial...oh I forgot that would offend the left wing voters!!!

Mr Villasenor, should you read this...please just crawl back into your hole!

Randy Cuberly

RC Storick · « **Reply #3 on:** March 31, 2012, 04:19:24 PM »

Just one more way to limit you and he says cost little or nothing. Don't bet on that. Just another way to waste parper and money to be pissed away in some not needed sect. I do not and will not live in fear. This is total BS and I know the AMA will stop this crap. We are already licensed and can be traced by AMA number so no need for more bureaucratic BS. He said it himself he knows they will not use the registration process so why bother. Get a life.

If we require licensing for everything lets start with radios and wood and paints and materials and all the crap that can be used. Its endless. More over its pointless! Move the desert and hide.

Mike Griffin · « **Reply #4 on:** March 31, 2012, 04:22:18 PM »

OK...let me say this before others start to post. Do not shoot the messenger (and you didn't Randy). The man contacted me after he read the thread and asked me if he wrote a more in depth response, would I post it. And that is what I did... I have a feeling this is going to turn into a very interesting thread.

Mike

Randy Cuberly · « **Reply #5 on:** March 31, 2012, 04:30:26 PM »

Quote from: Mike Griffin on March 31, 2012, 04:22:18 PM

OK...let me say this before others start to post. Do not shoot the messenger (and you didn't Randy). The man contacted me after he read the thread and asked me if he wrote a more in depth response, would I post it. And that is what I did... I have a feeling this is going to turn into a very interesting thread.

Mike

Mike,
There certainly was no intention to place any blame or association on to you for this would be saviour's activities. I for one appreciate your efforts in bringing this matter to our attention.
I feel sure that Robert also had no intention of placing any blame toward you.

Thanks,
Randy Cuberly

Mike Griffin · « **Reply #6 on:** March 31, 2012, 04:36:57 PM »

Thank you Randy. I just wanted to make sure that everyone understands that this was not my editorial or response....I simply made his words available to the forum.

Mike

louie klein · « **Reply #7 on:** March 31, 2012, 04:38:37 PM »

He can't honestly have us think that a bad person up to no good is going to tell the truth when registering for this licence.---LOUIE

John Fitzgerald · « **Reply #8 on:** March 31, 2012, 04:54:14 PM »

More licensing for what end? More hassle and trouble for the law abiding citizen! Criminals don't worry about licenses or fees.

RC Storick · « **Reply #9 on:** March 31, 2012, 05:29:01 PM »

I just got off the phone with him. Very pleasant and I told him my views. I also registered him here. We shall see if he wishes to address in person his views. I just got of the phone with my dad who is 90+ and he said every hobby in his life time has been ruined just like this. If we require licensing for the plane then there will be a fee to the hobby shop to sell the equipment. Can you imagine the look on Johny's face when his mom says we cant get you that indoor flying toy till your 18 and have a license. It will start out free then 10.00 then 50.00 the sky is the limit on a way to get your money for nothing. Because terrorists are not going to get a license anyway. Only you will pay the price.

He told me this is for drones with on board camaras. All well and good but the genral public will lump us all into one small group and we all will pay the price. Read Bob Browns rebutal

Re posted"

AMA President, Bob Brown, immediately replied to the piece with the following message:

I read with interest the March 26 op-ed piece written by John Villasenor concerning the operation of drones, and more specifically, model airplanes in the United States. Professor Villasenor’s remarks are concerning on many levels, and I felt compelled to respond. As president of the Academy of Model Aeronautics, representing 143,000 model aviation enthusiasts across the country, I would like to offer an alternative viewpoint to the professor’s position on recreational model aviation.

It appears that the professor’s approach is to take a sledgehammer to a nonexistent problem. Model aviation has existed in this country longer than manned flight itself. The Academy of Model Aeronautics has represented modelers for more than 75 years. Our safety programming, which our members operate within and self-police, has resulted in aeromodelers being one of the safest, if not the safest, group of all that use the National Airspace System.

Congress clearly recognized this when it included an amendment to the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 in February. Congress wisely saw little need to create unnecessary government regulations for a recreational activity enjoyed safely by so many Americans. In fact, the FAA feels the same way. In a recent interview, John McGraw, FAA Flight Standards Deputy Director, said, “The modeling community has been very good at coming up with standards that allow them to operate safely; they have a good record and they believe they have done a good job of that and we agree.”

Professor Villasenor believes that model airplanes need to be regulated and their operators licensed by government because they “might be a terrorist threat.” Frankly, a car, a boat, or even an individual walking down the street might be a terrorist threat. We do agree with the professor that a licensing program wouldn’t eliminate the threat of drone terrorism. However, we disagree that there is a need to further regulate a recognized and safe recreational and educational activity simply because some nefarious individual may have bad intentions and, on a remote chance, might use a model airplane to carry out that intent. That thought process makes no sense.

Model aviation has been a stepping stone to careers in the fields of aviation and aerospace for thousands of this country’s young people. Many of our most notable aviation luminaries had their interest in aviation sparked by model airplanes. The average age of an aerospace engineer today is 53. During the Apollo Space Program in the 1970s the average age of those engineers was 28. At a time when the United States so desperately needs to create a pipeline that will fill the need for the next generation of engineers and aviators, let’s not place onerous and unnecessary government restrictions on the one activity that can easily help fill that void. The United States has never subscribed to this way of thinking. Let’s not start now.

To read the Op-Ed Bob Brown is responding to please visit the Los Angeles Time’s Website.

To learn more about the current status of the NPRM and FAA regulation please visit the AMA Government Relations section of the Academy of Model Aeronautic’s website.

john villasenor · « **Reply #10 on:** March 31, 2012, 05:42:04 PM »

Thank you (Robert Storick) for a very cordial phone conversation. I fully agree that if the choice is between the current
status (no licensing), and full licensing because the "general public will lump" everyone into one group as Robert states, then
licensing is a terrible idea. Just to be clear, my proposal was limited only to *large*, video-guided (FPV) drones.
That's it. I don't have exact stats but as suggested in my longer post, I'd expect this would impact a very small fraction of
planes. If it is indeed true that the "general public" will be unable to make that distinction, and that the result would inevitably
be licensing creep that would impact the hobby more broadly, then I'd be the first to say the proposal should be dropped.

RC Storick · « **Reply #11 on:** March 31, 2012, 05:49:41 PM »

Thank you John for calling me. I hope I expressed my views and I am sure they are aligned with all who are here. AS Bob Brown wrote in the AMA rebuttal and congress agreed. As stated in my post above it will spill over to the hobby shops as well along with anyone who sells materials to build or maintain model aircraft. Its endless. We don't need more government we need 75% less than we have now. We cant possibly bill enough hrs as working people to pay for all the paper shuffling.

Locks keep honest people honest and the criminals will get your stuff anyway.

Dan McEntee · « **Reply #12 on:** March 31, 2012, 10:34:11 PM »

One thing that gets lost in these discussions is that you really just can't put a video camera in a remote control airplane and fly it anywhere you want to. With out some serious telemetry and computer aided guidance I doubt if anyone could successfully fly one into anything! I've been building and flying model airplanes of one sort or another for around 50 years. I have flown R/C type airplanes since 1975. I have worked part time in a local hobby shop selling the stuff for over 30 years. In all this time I have come to the conclusion that most people CAN NOT fly any type of remotely controlled aircraft. And this includes licensed full scale pilots. Every one does nor posses the necessary eye/hand coordination and thought process that it takes to fly even the most simple R/C trainers. I don't care what some may think they are capable of with one of the computer simulators, it ain't the same in real life. I have sold what is referred to as POV, or Point Of View video equipment to many people and they all came away from the experience disappointed. You have absolutely no way to ascertain the airplanes orientation by simply viewing forward. Pilots flying full scale airplanes can not fly their craft by simply looking forward. For anyone that thinks they can just buy off the shelf equipment to build a flying bomb and execute some kind of attack, just doesn't understand the complexity of even the most simple UAV operations. UAVs are guided by an operator, who communicates to the aircraft through a satellite where he wants the thing to go. They are super stable aerial platforms that are designed to fly flat , smooth and straight, rarely getting more that 6 or 8 degrees out of level in any one axis. There is one whole hell of a lot of technology going on to even put up the smallest and simplest UAVs that you just can't go into Hobby Lobby and buy. It is my opinion that the proliferation of all the cheap, simple electric R/C aircraft of all types leads some to believe that anyone can do it and this fuels the debate. The attacks on 9/11/2001 were perpetrated by people that only had to learn how to fly the planes straight and level, and that took them a long time, and they were in the training aircraft and sims to do it. I just don't think that any kind of attack can be carried out by a terrorist with any kind model or hobby related type aircraft simply because of the difficulty in operating these things that has sent an untold number of R/C trainers to the trash cans by people that can't learn to do even the most basic of maneuvers in line of sight, no matter how much they REALLY REALLY want to, or how many hours they have the cockpit of full scale aircraft. Most people have major issues just getting AIRBORNE and back DOWN in one piece! And some can't even hit the sky!! And most of the people like Mr.Villasenor that are concerned about the possibilities of some kind of terrorist attack with model airplanes, just don't understand that concept. I'm not saying that some one couldn't get lucky and buy a SIG Kadet and learn to fly it line of sight well enough to actually hit something, but that in itself is not catastrophically dangerous. BUT THE DIFFICULTY IS AND SHOULD BE IN OBTAINING THE NECESSARY THINGS HE NEEDS TO TURN IT OR ANY OTHER KIND OF UAV INTO ANY KIND OF DANGEROUS WEAPON AND THAT IS WHERE ALL THE PREVENTIVE EFFORTS OF ANY KIND SHOULD BE PLACED!
Type at you later,
Dan McEntee

Douglas Ames · « **Reply #13 on:** April 01, 2012, 12:16:43 AM »

<snip>
"We could of course wait until
he actually does something illegal, but by then it may be too late. A
licensing
requirement - whether or not he actually applies for a license - provides the
govt with regulatory justification for stopping him from using the drone."

Substitute the word "Gun" for drone and you've got the same old gun control argument. A Terrorist group doesn't buy explosives on the open market anymore than a criminal walks into a gun store and buys a pistol. If they're determined, they will build one (UAV). The R/C hobby will suffer for it just like the hunting community and shooting sports are constantly defending their organizations due to gun related crime.

Randy Powell · « **Reply #14 on:** April 01, 2012, 01:37:17 PM »

And how many criminals use registered guns (registered to them) in the commissions of a crime? Why is a gun (or a plane) more of a weapon than a hammer? I suppose you could argue that if a guys doesn't have a license (and is actually caught) then what? He must be a terrorist?

We lost a flying site once. The deal was, only club members could fly there and there were rules around it. It was at a closed runway at and airport. There was a flight ceiling and we were supposed to stay in a certain area. Everyone followed the rules and everyone was happy. Then some yahoo with an ARF RC plane that was not part of the club jumped the fence (you only got a key if you were a club member) and proceeded to fly at the site when no club member was around. He flew over restricted airspace, buzzed an airport observation helicopter and generally violated all the rules. We were informed that we could no longer fly there. Didn't matter that the idiot wasn't part of the club. It was now an attractive nuisance.

Point is, it only take one guy (even if he isn't a terrorist) to wipe something out. Through fear if nothing else. The airport guys were afraid of getting sued. So 100 plus tax paying club member were screwed.

But in the end, it's the same argument that gun control folks use and it's just a spurious. Licensed gun owners don't go out and use their registered guns for crimes. Guys that would use a drone for nefarious purposes aren't going to get a license and wouldn't let anyone know they were doing it. They would secure the materials through fronts in secret, practice in secret and commit their crime. They wouldn't be flying out at a club field or doing anything out in the open.

The licensing argument is idiotic no matter how you look at it, but in the Nanny State, this is what we've come to expect. Regulate it into submission.

Mike Griffin · « **Reply #15 on:** April 01, 2012, 05:13:37 PM »

Sparky needs to put like buttons on here like facebook... anyway here is my like button Randy, Doug and the rest of you

RC Storick · « **Reply #16 on:** April 01, 2012, 05:33:01 PM »

Well I registered him here and he has replied once. I wonder if he's reading these posts and reconsidering this ridiculous proposal? Outlaw guns/planes/hammers what ever then only outlaws will have them. We need 75% less government.

Never been on Face Book and never will even go look as once again they are intruding on you. Some employers now require you to give them your user name and password to face book. They can have mine cause i don't and never will have a account. WAKE UP everyone a police state is on its way.

Dennis Toth · « **Reply #17 on:** April 01, 2012, 06:01:05 PM »

Mr.Villasenor,
I understand that the government or any law enforcement agent for that matter needs to a a Law on the books to charge you with breaking before they can arrest or detain you, thus the need for under your suggestion the license, failure to get one would be a chargeable offens. Before we go require licensing lets look at what you are trying to prevent. It seems you are concerned that a person with the intent of carring out an attack on a US target will use a remote control guided aircraft with or without real time visual data to fly to a location and release its weapon. In order for the attack to have any impact it seems that a considerable amount of and explosive material would be needed, with a detonator, arming and triggering device. Additionally, the aircraft would have to be flown over some airspace with people or restricted building below it. Seems there is a lot of stuff that is needed and should already be covered by law.

My question to you is what laws are currently on the books that could be used to prosecute a person who is on the watch list and starts to collect equipment that appears to be useful in carrying out an attach against a US target?

Best, DennisT

john villasenor · « **Reply #18 on:** April 01, 2012, 08:39:33 PM »

Dear Mr. Toth,

I read your post, and thank you for your input. You are correct
in that "there is a lot of stuff that is needed and should already
be covered by law." I agree with you.

My proposal was an attempt (which has obviously gone over like
a lead balloon the modeling community) to suggest an *extremely*
low burden extra mechanism, that would apply to only a *tiny*
set of people (those flying "heavy" video-camera guided drones).

It would provide one extra mechanism to prevent the wrong people
from using that specific class of drones.

I'm fully aware that if I were to join the AMA tomorrow (and become
member number 143,001), and we were all to take a vote on it,
the vote would be 143,000 to 1. And, if it really is true that 99%
or more people out there think this proposal is a poor idea, then
it probably is a poor idea and it will die the natural death it
deserves.

I continue to think it warrants discussion, but, so far, I seem
to be rather alone in holding that belief.

Thanks for providing your input.

John

John Fitzgerald · « **Reply #19 on:** April 01, 2012, 09:41:20 PM »

Mr Villasenor:
It says in your profile you are an AMA member. Why did you put that there if you are not?

Your proposals merit about as much discussion here as how to make a brick fly stunt would. They went over like the proverbial lead balloon. Maybe you should send a retraction to the newspaper, saying you didn't do any research on the subject before you wrote, now that you have been somewhat educated. We don't need any government interference with our hobby.

RC Storick · « **Reply #20 on:** April 01, 2012, 09:52:06 PM »

Quote from: John Fitzgerald on April 01, 2012, 09:41:20 PM

Mr Villasenor:
It says in your profile you are an AMA member. Why did you put that there if you are not?

Your proposals merit about as much discussion here as how to make a brick fly stunt would. They went over like the proverbial lead balloon. Maybe you should send a retraction to the newspaper, saying you didn't do any research on the subject before you wrote, now that you have been somewhat educated. We don't need any government interference with our hobby.

He is not but I added him there as a courtesy so he could view the boards and get the big picture.

John Stiles · « **Reply #21 on:** April 02, 2012, 05:45:52 AM »

Quote from: john villasenor on April 01, 2012, 08:39:33 PM

I continue to think it warrants discussion, but, so far, I seem
to be rather alone in holding that belief.

Thanks for providing your input.

John

John, don't feel like the lone ranger.....I am a combat veteran of the Vietnam war, and I've been declared by the current administration[along with others] to be a possible terrorist! LOL

peabody · « **Reply #22 on:** April 02, 2012, 06:04:17 AM »

I believe that there is a HUGE problem in that the AMA spends an inordinate amount of time worrying about three main things:
1) Jet powered models (they have set a speed limit of 200 mph(!) that is frequently exceeded.
2) Giant Scale aircraft....some are 60% of the aircraft they are modeled after....and certainly capable of carrying a large amount of weight.
3) Model aircraft that fly past "line of site" (somewhere on this board is a video from some moron that flew down the Hudson and around the Statue of Liberty)

The Academy realizes that Joe Average American sees all things that are unmanned as potential threats, and that jets, giants and OTH all contribute to reinforce those thoughts and lobby constantly to allow us all to fly....

Were the AMA to adopt a "hands off" approach to the three, and refuse to attempt to govern their use, I wager that ALL air-modeling would be shut down.

Avaiojet · « **Reply #23 on:** April 02, 2012, 06:51:24 AM »

Gee, let's see.

143,000 members?

That times, gee let's see, say, $100.00.

This isn't about model airplanes or drones, and it's certainly not about the safety of any American.

It's a simple Tax, nothing more.

Charles

Randy Powell · « **Reply #24 on:** April 02, 2012, 11:45:06 AM »

Well, I suppose the AMA could say that jets, giants and such are outlawed for AMA members. Then the the feds could assume anyone flying such things was doing it without license. But the AMA wouldn't do that in any case. As noted, it's about the money.

And it's a 143,000 x $50 (yearly dues). That's a bit on 7Mil a year. Plus what they get from advertisers and other contributions and probably more from RC companies that want to sell jets, giant scale an similar stuff.

In the end, guys, it's not possible to protect ourselves completely from terrorists (or idiots for that matter). You can set rules all day long and try to legislate behavior, but in the end, people will do what they do. You can make the penalties for certain behaviors steep and that will deter some, but not the terrorists or morons.

Shultzie · « **Reply #25 on:** April 02, 2012, 12:13:01 PM »

Quote from: Randy Powell on April 02, 2012, 11:45:06 AM

Well, I suppose the AMA could say that jets, giants and such are outlawed for AMA members. Then the the feds could assume anyone flying such things was doing it without license. But the AMA wouldn't do that in any case. As noted, it's about the money.

And it's a 143,000 x $50 (yearly dues). That's a bit on 7Mil a year. Plus what they get from advertisers and other contributions and probably more from RC companies that want to sell jets, giant scale an similar stuff.

In the end, guys, it's not possible to protect ourselves completely from terrorists (or idiots for that matter). You can set rules all day long and try to legislate behavior, but in the end, people will do what they do. You can make the penalties for certain behaviors steep and that will deter some, but not the terrorists or morons.

Perhaps...We should consider sending this photo along with our concerns to: where eva' n who eva should hear how we feel about BIG BROTHA watchin' all of us model airplane addicts?
(My wife's brother's son has been a Home Land Security officer now for the past few years..and a while back I was "blown away" at just how many issues that he and his team have deal with on a daily basis and those who wish to harm our nation and our free world friends----- never seem to tire in ways that they can do the most harm.

Avaiojet · « **Reply #26 on:** April 02, 2012, 01:32:39 PM »

Quote from: Shultzie on April 02, 2012, 12:13:01 PM

Perhaps...We should consider sending this photo along with our concerns to: where eva' n who eva should hear how we feel about BIG BROTHA watchin' all of us model airplane addicts?
(My wife's brother's son has been a Home Land Security officer now for the past few years..and a while back I was "blown away" at just how many issues that he and his team have deal with on a daily basis and those who wish to harm our nation and our free world friends----- never seem to tire in ways that they can do the most harm.

Shultzie,

"They" work in ways of which you have no idea. "They" even find ways to get modelers picking on modelers.

"Devide and conquer."

Works every time.

Charles

Sean McEntee · « **Reply #27 on:** April 02, 2012, 01:43:30 PM »

Mr Villasensor,

I have been building and flying models since I was 3 years old (I'm 28 now). I am also a Sergeant in the United States Army with 8 years of active service and counting as, believe it or not, a UAV operator. Never thought growing up that I could get paid to fly remote controlled airplanes

   Lets forget the argument of "can you weaponize a hobby-grade RC airplane" for a minute.

   One very legitimate threat that the proposed licensing system has ABSOLUTELY NO WAY of neutralizing is what the media refers to as "homegrown terrorism"

   People don't realize it, but the days of sending Ahmed from Pakistan to the States to blow up a gov't building are over. DHS, despite what opinion you have of them, has done a great job of making it harder for TB operatives and other such threats to get in the country. Because of this, they are turning to our own people: people who are non or unpatriotic, and sympathize with their cause. There are recruiting websites for the Taliban all over the internet (Can't just Google it, but they're out there) that people who are even just on "the fence" can go and learn about their cause. They can be reached via email, and through correspondence, can be guided on where to go, and what to do to support their cause. The case of Army Maj Nidal Hasan and the shooting on Ft Hood, TX several years ago is a good example of this. Another one is Rezwan Ferdaus, a US citizen (key word) who in September, tried to weaponize RCs with C-4. No amount of Federal registration, regulation or licensing of model aircraft could have kept him, nor any other US-born citizen from carrying out an attack.

   Back to the original discussion, my Dad's (Dan McEntee) assessment of the amount of difficulty of learning to fly a simple RC trainer is valid. I can even supply a number that demonstrates this. One of the aging UASs in the Army's inventory, the RQ-3 Hunter, utilizes an External Pilot to takeoff and land the aircraft. The EP is positioned on the runway and flies the AV with a box very similar to a hobby-grade RC transmitter. Every student in every class that goes through the Hunter Operator Course is screened for the aptitude needed to be an EP. This is accomplished, simply, by an instructor with an RC trainer and a buddy box. The failure rate for the screening, according to the UAV school, is 96%. Those that do pass go on to EP training once they are finished with the basic operators course. The EP course alone is a year long, and through the course, students progress from a basic trainer, to a sportier RC aircraft, to a 1/3rd scale model of the Hunter, and finally the full-scale aircraft. The wash-out rate for the course is also high.

What needs to be understood in this is that EP students are eating and sleeping with a transmitter in their hands. They fly 8-9 hours a day for 5 days a week for an entire year. Even if someone did decide to come off of the street, who posses the brainpower to fly RC, and want to weaponize it, it would take quite awhile to learn how to fly an RC model big enough and complex enough to carry weapons, perhaps too long and too much time. Ask any modeler on this forum, "Have you ever crashed" and if their answer is not "allot" they are a big fat liar. Yet they rebuild and keep trying though a passion for the hobby. I find it hard to believe that anyone would invest that much time and effort to learn to fly RC who wasn't as romantic about the hobby, even if it means praising Allah. There are many easier ways to put a bomb on a target, like the aforementioned car, or package, etc.

Cheers,
Sean McEntee

Randy Powell · « **Reply #28 on:** April 02, 2012, 03:14:41 PM »

All very good points, Sean. Thanks.

RC Storick · « **Reply #29 on:** April 02, 2012, 05:22:17 PM »

Sean I am so glad you wrote what you did. I have known you for years and you are moving up the ladder. I knew you had been flying UAV, I know how hard it is to fly RC abed most people who have never tried don't so we really cant fault him for following the general public opinion. I am glad you told Professor Villasenor the difficulty let alone the cost of how many crashed airplanes just trying to figure it out. This is really a non issue. But if we let them they will impose a tax to @#$% away on paper shuffling that does nothing but put a burdon on modelers.

Steve Hines · « **Reply #30 on:** April 02, 2012, 07:48:40 PM »

Sean I soled in a weak and was flying pattern contests in 8 months. Had my daughter taking of and landing in one day on a sim. I can fly under a hood for hours with out ever looking out of a full size aircraft, never tryed to land or take off that way. Dont know why the army is having a hard time finding people. Seen on TV weeks back about a back pack UAV the Man put it together and found a tank and some other things on they were all on video. Last year we put gyro in a plane and you could not do much wrong. I dont know what coming along next, but things are getting easyer all the time.

I dont know what should be done, but if any one ever takes and does something with a RC plane, say good bye to RC and CL. With out RC there will not be anythind left of moldeling. With out RC there would not be anyone cutting balsa, making engines, motor, all the things we need for CL. I hope it never happens, but keep saying it cant be done is not the way to do things. Trying to keep it from happening makes use the good guy's

Steve

John Fitzgerald · « **Reply #31 on:** April 02, 2012, 08:40:16 PM »

Quote from: Steve Hines on April 02, 2012, 07:48:40 PM

Sean I soled in a weak and was flying pattern contests in 8 months. Had my daughter taking of and landing in one day on a sim. I can fly under a hood for hours with out ever looking out of a full size aircraft, never tryed to land or take off that way. Dont know why the army is having a hard time finding people. Seen on TV weeks back about a back pack UAV the Man put it together and found a tank and some other things on they were all on video. Last year we put gyro in a plane and you could not do much wrong. I dont know what coming along next, but things are getting easyer all the time.

I dont know what should be done, but if any one ever takes and does something with a RC plane, say good bye to RC and CL. With out RC there will not be anythind left of moldeling. With out RC there would not be anyone cutting balsa, making engines, motor, all the things we need for CL. I hope it never happens, but keep saying it cant be done is not the way to do things. Trying to keep it from happening makes use the good guy's

Steve

My son soloed in two days several years ago when he was 13. He won a regional RC combat contest a year later, then soon lost interest. After hardly picking up a transmitter for several years, he recently bought an electric RC helicopter and flew it the first try. Some people are naturals.

As for the demise of RC, wouldn't that cause a huge return to CL, since our models are not covered under the FAA and are legally considered to be kites? If control line is all there is, then many would do it. CL and FF is basically all there was until the mid 1960s or so, and modeling was relatively more popular than it is now. I think CL would return if there was no alternative.

Mike Keville · « **Reply #32 on:** April 02, 2012, 08:42:52 PM »

Quote from: . . . CL and FF is basically all there was until the mid 1960s or so.
[/quote

If only it had stayed that way!

GGeezer · « **Reply #33 on:** April 03, 2012, 01:37:29 AM »

There are both correct and incorrect views on this thread.
1. It is correct that you can't legislate behavior or common sense so licensing is useless and costly.
2. Now for the incorrect assumption: Almost 10 years ago, Maynard Hill flew a fully automated R/C model 1800 miles across the Atlantic. In the last 10 years there have been tremendous advances in this technology. It is now possible to buy off the shelf for a reasonable price advanced guidance and navigation systems that can take a model plane to an exact spot anywhere on the globe subject just to the amount of range you could get out of the engine. It can be operated by a person without any skill at all at flying R/C and you don't have to see where you are going. All you need to do is buy one of these systems, learn how to program it, mount it in a RTF aircraft, start the engine and stand back.

Dan McEntee · « **Reply #34 on:** April 03, 2012, 09:59:22 AM »

Quote from: GGeezer on April 03, 2012, 01:37:29 AM

There are both correct and incorrect views on this thread.
1. It is correct that you can't legislate behavior or common sense so licensing is useless and costly.
2. Now for the incorrect assumption: Almost 10 years ago, Maynard Hill flew a fully automated R/C model 1800 miles across the Atlantic. In the last 10 years there have been tremendous advances in this technology. It is now possible to buy off the shelf for a reasonable price advanced guidance and navigation systems that can take a model plane to an exact spot anywhere on the globe subject just to the amount of range you could get out of the engine. It can be operated by a person without any skill at all at flying R/C and you don't have to see where you are going. All you need to do is buy one of these systems, learn how to program it, mount it in a RTF aircraft, start the engine and stand back.

Maynard Hill was considerably more than your average modeler. The really amazing thing about his flight was that it used only about a gallon of fuel to do it. And there was about 40 years or more of practice and expertise in duration, distance and high altitude flying behind the flight to achieve it. I doubt if there is anyone else alive that could have put that flight together, and even with his experience it took three tries and a lot of luck to reach Ireland. It took a lot of logistical effort and coordination to accomplish it also. It wasn't just "done."
Where can one buy one of these systems "off the shelf"? How much? If this is possible, re-read your last sentence and think about the difficulties involved with this simple statement of "All you need to do."
All I need to do to win the Indy 500 is buy a really fast car, turn left and be able to hold my water for three and a half hours!

Type at you later,
Dan McEntee

Sean McEntee · « **Reply #35 on:** April 03, 2012, 04:48:23 PM »

Quote from: GGeezer on April 03, 2012, 01:37:29 AM

There are both correct and incorrect views on this thread.
1. It is correct that you can't legislate behavior or common sense so licensing is useless and costly.
2. Now for the incorrect assumption: Almost 10 years ago, Maynard Hill flew a fully automated R/C model 1800 miles across the Atlantic. In the last 10 years there have been tremendous advances in this technology. It is now possible to buy off the shelf for a reasonable price advanced guidance and navigation systems that can take a model plane to an exact spot anywhere on the globe subject just to the amount of range you could get out of the engine. It can be operated by a person without any skill at all at flying R/C and you don't have to see where you are going. All you need to do is buy one of these systems, learn how to program it, mount it in a RTF aircraft, start the engine and stand back.

No UAV is completely autonimous. Guidance systems, even on the big stuff, do not calculate wind correction nor do they compensate for turbulance. Even the $9 million Grey Eagle that I fly for big Army still requires manual inputs for precise flying. People are under the impression that UAV operators just sit in a box and watch it fly around. The best thing that I can equate the controls on most UAVS to are that of an auto-pilot. There are inputs for altitude, airspeed, heading, vertical speed, and so on. There is allot of checklist dicipline. Allot of UAVs are actually flown "stick and rudder" with controls comparable to that of a real airplane. So UAVs dont really do a whole lot on their own.

Now, youre telling me that I can buy this magic box that I can stick into an RC that can make it take off, fly around, and land ALL by itself...and all I need to do is go up to Hobbytown up in Tucson and pull one off the shelf? If I didnt know better, I would run up there today and pick one up, stick it on a Grey Eagle, and make my job a WHOLE lot easier....

RC Storick · « **Reply #36 on:** April 03, 2012, 04:53:51 PM »

I sure hope Mr. Villasenor is still reading this thread. I have seen little input from him.

john e. holliday · « **Reply #37 on:** April 03, 2012, 06:28:51 PM »

All I need to do to win the Indy 500 is buy a really fast car, turn left and be able to hold my water for three and a half hours!

Type at you later,
Dan McEntee
[/quote]

You forget you have to keep it off the walls and on the track, besides dodging the other cars.

GGeezer · « **Reply #38 on:** April 04, 2012, 12:47:09 AM »

Shaun,
I work at the design end of the small UAV industry, primarily helicopter based camera platforms. You would be amazed at what can be done. GPS is used for navigation, both position and altitude so wind in the lower atmosphere can have little effect on the navigation so long as it is less than the craft's forward velocity. Turbulence is handled by the multitude of sensors like accelerometers, magnetometers etc. A computer handles the flight program. You can also manually fly the machine to a target, press a button called "park" and take your hands off the sticks. The craft will stay at that altitude and position no matter if it is windy, turbulent or what-ever. The operator is now free to focus on operating the camera system which is downlinking the video to a monitor screen on the controller to be viewed and recorded.
We sell UAV systems on a restricted basis to clients all around the world who fly their operators to the factory for training. about 4 hours in the classroom and another 4 in the flight training area and these operators who came with no R/C flying skill at all take their machines home ready to operate them.
Landing and taking off a helicopter platform automatically is a lot easier than a winged craft where landing is a big challenge, but it can be done.

Sean McEntee · « **Reply #39 on:** April 04, 2012, 06:16:52 AM »

Quote from: GGeezer on April 04, 2012, 12:47:09 AM

Shaun,
I work at the design end of the small UAV industry, primarily helicopter based camera platforms. You would be amazed at what can be done. GPS is used for navigation, both position and altitude so wind in the lower atmosphere can have little effect on the navigation so long as it is less than the craft's forward velocity. Turbulence is handled by the multitude of sensors like accelerometers, magnetometers etc. A computer handles the flight program. You can also manually fly the machine to a target, press a button called "park" and take your hands off the sticks. The craft will stay at that altitude and position no matter if it is windy, turbulent or what-ever. The operator is now free to focus on operating the camera system which is downlinking the video to a monitor screen on the controller to be viewed and recorded.

It almost sounds like youre telling me that I dont know how to do the job that I have been doing for 8 years and 3500 flight hours, and am in school for right now, but that might just be my imagination. Guidence systems correct for heading, not course. They also ARE affected by turbulance. Fly into any turb that causes change in attitudes in excess of +/- 20 AOB or pitch, and its impossible for a guidance system to recover from it, which is why we are not able to fly in anything that concidered moderate turbulance for a typical GA-sized aircraft.

Quote from: GGeezer on April 04, 2012, 12:47:09 AM

We sell UAV systems on a restricted basis....

You just answered your own concern. I cant go down to Costco and buy a UAV, nor can I go up to General Atomics, plop down a few million dollars for a Grey Eagle, and practice at home. Established UAV businesses realize how valuble that UAS assets are, and that our enemies are just as interested in not only having their own but neutralizing ours. They just dont sell them to anyone that comes through the door.

GGeezer · « **Reply #40 on:** April 04, 2012, 06:24:18 PM »

Shaun,
Please rest assured that I am not telling you your business, only telling you what we can do with the small UAVs. I'm really sure you are very good at what you do. With all the activity and research that is going on in the small UAV area at engineering colleges everywhere and because the cost is so much lower than the large drones you fly, development can be much more rapid. This development eventually migrates into the large UAV technology which changes much slower.

I just read an interesting article in the last issue of the Smithsonian Air & Space magazine. The Air Force announced last Jan. that the U-2 spy plane will continue to fly missions because the Global Hawk (drone replacement for the U-2) is suffering from cost escalation and it isn't known whether it will go into service anytime soon. Do you know if this true?

Bob Reeves · « **Reply #41 on:** April 05, 2012, 09:22:45 AM »

For $300.00 you can buy the brains including a GPS module that will navagate a model airplane to anywhere you program it to go.

https://store.diydrones.com/Full_ArduPilot_Mega_kit_from_Udrones_p/kt-apm-02.htm

Sean McEntee · « **Reply #42 on:** April 05, 2012, 12:23:09 PM »

Quote from: GGeezer on April 04, 2012, 06:24:18 PM

Shaun,
Please rest assured that I am not telling you your business, only telling you what we can do with the small UAVs. I'm really sure you are very good at what you do. With all the activity and research that is going on in the small UAV area at engineering colleges everywhere and because the cost is so much lower than the large drones you fly, development can be much more rapid. This development eventually migrates into the large UAV technology which changes much slower.

I just read an interesting article in the last issue of the Smithsonian Air & Space magazine. The Air Force announced last Jan. that the U-2 spy plane will continue to fly missions because the Global Hawk (drone replacement for the U-2) is suffering from cost escalation and it isn't known whether it will go into service anytime soon. Do you know if this true?

I actually saw a couple U-2s in Afghanistan. From what I've heard there has been allot of R&D issues with the Global Hawk. I know for one that it has problems with spins. Being a pusher and having such a big engine in the back, it and other pusher aircraft (predator, reaper, grey eagle) suffer from pedilum effect in high-yaw situations. I hear it also has significant software issues. Even heard talk of canceling the contract, between the problems that theyre having with it and all of the cutbacks that the Air Force is going through. Guess we will have to just wait and see.

Dan McEntee · « **Reply #43 on:** April 06, 2012, 12:08:30 AM »

I just read an interesting article in the last issue of the Smithsonian Air & Space magazine. The Air Force announced last Jan. that the U-2 spy plane will continue to fly missions because the Global Hawk (drone replacement for the U-2) is suffering from cost escalation and it isn't known whether it will go into service anytime soon. Do you know if this true?
[/quote]
I read the same article and it said that they haven't figured out how to get the high resolution camera from the U-2 into the Global Hawk airframe. It's a wet film camera and quite large, I guess, and I'm assuming that they haven't come up with anything digital yet that can take it's place. And I guess it boils down to the fact that sometimes, no matter how advanced the technology, it is just better to have a human brain and eyeball working in conjunction with all that new technology.
Type at you later,
Dan McEntee

RC Storick · « **Reply #44 on:** April 06, 2012, 06:32:34 AM »

No faster computer than the brain.

Rod Claus · « **Reply #45 on:** April 07, 2012, 07:35:30 PM »

As a general aviation pilot and modeler,I really don't like the idea of unpiloted drones in our airspace.
To me,this is just a foot in the door for government survellance over the people of this REPUBLIC we call the USA.
Wake up folks......

RC Storick · « **Reply #46 on:** April 08, 2012, 05:44:26 AM »

too late already happening. Our country is no longer a free country its a police state. WAKE UP! before its too late

Mike Griffin · « **Reply #47 on:** April 08, 2012, 08:25:12 AM »

The one non violent recourse we still have to preserve our liberty and freedom is the ballot box. Make sure you exercise that right this coming November. If and when the ballot box is taken away from us or becomes irrelevant, then we will have to take whatever action is necessary to maintain our freedom from tyranny.

Mike

Randy Cuberly · « **Reply #48 on:** April 08, 2012, 12:08:27 PM »

Quote from: Mike Griffin on April 08, 2012, 08:25:12 AM

The one non violent recourse we still have to preserve our liberty and freedom is the ballot box. Make sure you exercise that right this coming November. If and when the ballot box is taken away from us or becomes irrelevant, then we will have to take whatever action is necessary to maintain our freedom from tyranny.

Mike

You're absolutely right, Mike. Unfortunately the ballot box may already be irrelevant due to apathy and the promise of the glorious "Nanny State" to those that are too lazy to make their own decisions or take care of themselves.
Personally I think the balance may have tipped in their favor. Half of the people currently in the US seem to either not care what happens or are buying the "we know what's best for you line".
Unfortunately the one major problem with a democracy is that the majority is often dead wrong!
Not that I have a better system in mind.
Vote and pray are the only recourse for now...and hope we don't have to resort to the other option.

Randy C.

Mike Griffin · « **Reply #49 on:** April 08, 2012, 03:57:45 PM »

AMEN Randy....Amen.....

Mike