Pilots Man Your Computers: Get your facts first then decide

[steven yampolsky]

It's easy to cry wolf and ask for a petition without offering facts. Here's what AMA wants your vote for:

FAA airspace regulation is looking to restrict RC flying near airports. For example, a Class D airport has a 5 mile radius protective airspace around the airport. By law, no airplane can fly inside the protective airspace without being in contact with the tower. AMA regulations prohibit RC flying within 2 mile radius, well within the 5 mile zone. Wouldn't it make sense if RC pilots had the same restrictions as the regular pilots?

By the way, we are not talking just RC park fliers. We are talking Giant Scale, turbine powered RC jets that approach the size of a small airplane! Can you imagine a pilot flying a back course localizer approach(yep, they still exist), breaking out of the clouds two miles from the landing zone only to be greeted by a IMCA sized Cub in its windshield.

Other proposed FAA regulation is about limiting speed of RC models to the same speed EVERY AIRCRAFT is limited to below 10,000 feet.

Before you vote "me too", please get the facts and make up your mind before signing petitions. Here's the start:
http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?ContentBlockID=80760875-a5a3-451e-b415-7c5248645401&Dynamic=1&Range=MONTH&FromDate=01%2F23%2F2011&ToDate=02%2F23%2F2011&Category=%2Findex.cfm

Make sure to skip biased rant and read the actual proposed rules.

[Jim Kraft]

Steven; My problem is that once the FAA starts to regulate model aviation, there would be no end to it. This will just be the start of government regulations that come down the pike. Just the proposals they are proposing now would end the SAM events, free flight in general, and a host of other activities. Just my 2 cents.

[Terrence Durrill]

Steven.....at the risk of sounding political...Jim is right about keeping government out of Model Aviation.  As government regulation expands, our freedoms are lost pretty much for good.  Government is like the TarBaby.....once it touches you, you can't get away from it.  There is a reason for the old saying that the scariest nine words in the English language are "I'm from the government and I'm here to help".  KEEP THE FAA OUT OF THE BUSINESS OF REGULATING MODEL AIRCRAFT IN THIS COUNTRY!.......No apologies.......TDurrill        

[steven yampolsky]

Steven.....at the risk of sounding political...Jim is right about keeping government out of Model Aviation.  As government regulation expands, our freedoms are lost.  KEEP THE FAA OUT OF THE BUSINESS OF REGULATING MODEL AIRCRAFT IN THIS COUNTRY!.......No apologies.......TDurrill       

A few points:

1)FCC regulates frequencies. Local government regulate where it is safe to fly. Modeling is regulated ALREADY so getting up in arms about "the government" is a little too late.

2)WHERE was the outrage recently(in the last two years) when FCC said "you get these frequencies forever" and AMA said "OK"? We tend to stay quiet when the government does something right and complain "too much government" when it doesn't.

3)FAA controls the airspace. Model airplanes share that airspace with other airplanes. Someone has to keep everyone at a safe distance from each other. When it comes to model airplane vs. real airplane, if the two collide and crash to the ground, on one side, a modeler is out several thousand dollars and on the other side someone looses a father, a son, a mother. If AMA wanted to keep government out of it, it should have done something about it. It didn't.

4)For years, AMA has been unable to regulate the size, the speed and weight of model aircraft! Now that someone else has stepped up and decided to do something about it, AMA gets all worried about our rights!? Maybe if it did something about it ahead of time, it wouldn't look like a young kid brother whining about not being taken anywhere by his older brother?

[Mike Scholtes]

Your point is well taken, Steve, but I think the counter point is equally well taken: we don't want the FAA coming to regard model aircraft as within their sphere of regulatory authority. I think the AMA and chartered clubs are fully capable of keeping 250 mph turbine-powered models out of the approach corridors and anywhere that truly dangerous interference with full scale flying could occur. As one of those who flys full scale in an extremely crowded airspace in the San Francisco area I too don't want to pop out of the overcast on final approach and see a half-size F-16 in the windshield. Once regulated, there is no telling where it would go, but I think we can safely predict it will not be in a direction we want. The military and others see a future with unmanned drones doing all kinds of things, like flying FedEx shuttles, weather observation, police surveillance, and Lord knows what else, and NOT just in the immediate vicinity of airports. Apart from the Orwellian creepiness of this idea in and of itself, this means the FAA will want to keep the unmanned air vehicles under its control; it's not a big step to regulation of anything that moves in the sky, and with the power to regulate comes the  power to prohibit. And by the way I am a political progressive, not a conspiracy loonie. This scenario is very possible.

[Dave Rolley]

This isn't new.  Someone either just noticed or it was noticed for them.

The FAA has had an Advisory Circular out on Model Aircraft (AC 91-57) for about 30 years.  It was developed in cooperation with the AMA.  But the FAA has the authority and already regulates Unmanned Airborne System (UAS) aircraft.  They have already used the wording of AC 91-57 to shut down operations they consider inappropriate. 

Our protection under AC 91-57 come from our hobby usage and our line-of-sight (limited range) control systems. 

Make the operation of the model a commercial venture and the operation no longer falls under AC 91-57.  Put an advanced control system in the model and operate beyond visual range and the operation no longer falls under AC 91-57.  Once the operations fall outside of AC 91-57 it becomes a FAA regulated operation under their UAS guidance, which is another world entirely.

If individual model aircraft operations under AC 91-57 have an adverse impact on human carrying aircraft safety or create an aviation related hazard to public safety you can bet the FAA will take action.  That is their charter.

Dave

[Paul Smith]

If AMA had enforced the traditional FAI lid - 5 kilograms (11 pounds) and 10 cc (.61 cubic inches), they would not have brought this reasonable regulation upon themselves.

This campaign smacks of a typical NRA fun rasier:  "Send us $500 today or they'll melt down all your guns."

[Marvin Denny]

  Been reading all I can find on this particular thread, and the only conclusion I can come to is that all you guys are barking at the wrong tree.  Think about it for awhile.
  Direct E-Mail or phone call to me wil be the only way I will discuss this further as I wouldn't wish it to be read by just anyone.

  Bigiron

[BillLee]

If AMA had enforced the traditional FAI lid - 5 kilograms (11 pounds) and 10 cc (.61 cubic inches), they would not have brought this reasonable regulation upon themselves.

This campaign smacks of a typical NRA fun rasier:  "Send us $500 today or they'll melt down all your guns."

Since we ARE talking about RC models as being the "culprit", Paul, the FAI limits are and have been much higher and for a very long time.

The FAI limits are defined in the Sporting code, section ABR. To quote:

"1.2. GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF MODEL AIRCRAFT
Unless otherwise stated, model aircraft shall meet the following general specifications:
Maximum flying weight with fuel 25 kg
Maximum surface area 500 dm2
Maximum loading 250 g/dm2
Maximum swept volume of piston motor(s) 250 cm3 (My comment: A little over 15 cu.in.!)
Electric Motors power source max. no load voltage 72 volts
Maximum total thrust of turbines 25kg (250 Newton)"

This has been true since at least 2003 (the oldest copy of the ABR that I happen to have).

Now for F2, each category has a maximum weight, with F2B and F2D set at 5 kilograms, F2C at 1/2KG, and F2A limited by wing loading. But for thos models where the FAA will be concerned (i.e., RC) the limit for the FAI is much higher.

As for AMA, the safety code states

"Not exceed a takeoff weight, including fuel, of 55 pounds unless in compliance with the AMA Large Model Aircraft program. (AMA Document 520-A)"

The maximum weights specified by that document are quite high!  In mid-February, I received the following e-mail from AMA HQs:
---------------------------
Large Model Aircraft Program
On January 25, 2011, AMA’s Executive Council (EC) approved an update to the Large Model Aircraft program. This program includes some significant changes.
 
One of the most prominent changes is the weight increase to 125 pounds for prop-driven models (LMA) and 100 pounds for turbine-powered models (LTMA). There are four classifications referenced within the program: LMA-1, LMA-2, LTMA-1 and LTMA-2.
 
Another important change is that classifications LMA-1 and LTMA-1 (55 pounds to 77.2 pounds) will allow for a self-inspection by the owner of the LMA . It will require two demonstration flights in front of two observers. The owner can serve as one of the observers, as long as he/she is not the pilot of the model. The other observer has to be an AMA Contest Director (CD), Leader Member (LM) or Large Model Aircraft Inspector (LMAI).
 
As an LM or CD, you can reduce the travel time and coordination required of an LMA-1 owner.  While it is a voluntary action, if you are asked to help with observing a test flight, it would be helpful for your fellow modelers and the AMA staff if you could accommodate the request.  You would not be inspecting—just verifying that the test flight was completed successfully.
 
Classifications LMA-2 and LTMA-2 will require inspection by an LMAI, followed by demonstration flights observed by the inspector.
 
To review the complete program go to http://www.modelaircraft.org/files/520-a.pdf.
---------------------------

Regards,

Bill Lee

[Bill Hodges]

Steven:

I got the facts and I did make a decision.  I sent the letters by email and am following up by snail mail.  Maybe you need the FAA or some other government entity to regulate your modeling activities.  I do not.

Bill Hodges

[Chris McMillin]

Hard to believe I was reading this ignorant rant at the top of this thread.
Chris...

[jim gilmore]

If we are talking models... My idea of models are things under the size of giving me a hernia to carry them keep the gov. out of the system all together...
If you talking some large multi engine model that would give the predator a run for it money. I see no reason not to restrict it to under 100' altitude and 2  miles from the airport. But beyond that.....I do not want their involvement..

[W.D. Roland]

I'm from the government and I am here to help.

Our country is headed down the tubes due to government involvement in all aspects of our lives.
Time to stop it ALL before it eat us all alive.

And now, Like Marvin I plead the fifth, or something like that.

Posting these 2 links again for anyone who missed them.
Edit forgot the links
http://www.modelaircraft.org/files/PR-Senate-2-2011.pdf

http://inhofe.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=3a95a1c8-9e6e-5950-fc7c-b62e89b2b53f&Region_id=&Issue_id


Bill, I will try to drive more carefully this time!

David
Bahahahd!

[Will Hinton]

Had the facts, researched the information, sent the letters!!!  Keep the FAA the blazes out of our sport!  I have NO idea where you could be coming from to start this post.

[Bill Little]

My youngest son (and his wife) are police officers in Raleigh, NC.  The State Capital.  The smarter, older, officers told him when he came on duty the first time that:

"people today are sheep". 

I found that to be true all by myself while teaching and coaching, both the students and their parents...........  it is true, and it is sad.

Big Bear

[Paul Smith]

To Bill Lee.

Yes they raised the limits, and now the chickens have come home to roost.  These so-called models have as much power and mass as a man-carrying ultra-light or a military weapon, with nowhere near the safety precautions.  This is long over due.

[steven yampolsky]

Hard to believe I was reading this ignorant rant at the top of this thread.

Facts are definitely abound in this reply. 

I felt better when someone researched the facts and still signed the AMA petition. Those people took the effort to research the issue and decide for themselves. That's all I ask for.

I also would like to thank Dave for posting the FAA regs. 

I also would like to ask everyone that the next time you receive the AMA magazine, count the number of AD's containing large scale related offerings and compare it to the total number of ads. Then I challenge you to defend AMA from the charge that it has sold out to Large Scale RC manufacturers! 

Steve the