Dick T.

My Feedback: (243)

No, I don't think we have. Your posts are always very informative.

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

I wouldn’t think lied to, keep in mind there is a ton of misinformation out there.

Hydro Junkie

And that, in a nutshell is why I'm asking.

franklin_m

Hydro ... PM me the names of those clubs and I'll see if they're in the data. It might also be interesting to check their Lat/Long against LAANC.

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

Hydro, from the wording of your post it appears that there was no claim by who you spoke with about legality either way. If that is true and the club has no full scale activity that could interact with the models then the answer of “ it’s not an issue “ would hold true. I make no claim of right or wrong here but if a club has no full scale activities inside the airspace in which they operate and nobody ( FAA, LEO ) is coming down on them then the perception is going to be “ non issue “.

franklin_m

Look, I know you're not trying to say this. But when someone tells me that something "isn't an issue," call me crazy, but I am prone to think that includes an assumption that it's legal. Similarly, someone who tells me that something "isn't an issue," also avoids the specific question he asked (based on my read). There are VAST swaths of places "not near an airport" where the lawful limit is indeed 400 AGL. Whether it's enforced or not is one thing, but to say it "isn't an issue" does not convey what's happening at that location is legal.

I maintain that it will be a cavalier attitude about compliance with law by "our members are not part of the problem" that will sooner or later become an issue with Congress, regulators, media, and/or the public.

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

Franklin, I realize that you only see your perspective. What was Hydo’s expectations here? There are only a few outcomes of his question.

1. These “Club affiliates “ would confess breaking a law to a complete stranger.

2. They would lie and state that they do not exceed 400’

3. They would make no legality claims and state that it isn’t an issue based on little to no safety risk and nobody monitoring them.

Regardless of what you would want them to say, what was said is going to be a very typical answer. Just maybe you and Hydro’s expectations on what the answer should have been are/were a bit unrealistic.

You can maintain whatever you want, as previously pointed out your “ predictions “ haven’t held much water.

Hydro Junkie

Okay guys, I wasn't trying to cause an issue on this one, just wondering if these guys:

1. were told the FAA rules didn't apply to them because of location or other
2. haven't been told ANYTHING at all and are assuming the best
3. are correct and that their location isn't affected by the FAA rules, something I have a hard time believing since I have to deal with FAA regulations every day at work

To me, it doesn't really matter at this point since my Kadets are not ready to fly anyway, was just thinking it would be nice to find a place I could fly them, when they are ready to go. I may just have to get my 107 paperwork and get the okay to fly at a local park or football field and call it good

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

I’m going to say none of the above.As I stated before, if there is no full scale traffic coming into the area and there is nobody checking on the club ( FAA or otherwise ) then what is wrong with “ it isn’t a problem “. Most of us who fly at club sites know that there is nobody going to come on site and start handing out citations. That is the reality of the current situation regardless of how many people want to jump up and down and shout that its against the law. You flying a .25 or .40 powered Kadet off a high school athletic field poses a much higher safety risk then me flying a pattern airplane up to 850’ for 90 seconds out of a 7 minute flight. Trust me on this, back in the day I flew a Sweet Stik out of a rather large school yard and although I didn’t have any issues, it’s something I wouldn’t consider doing now even though my skill set is much higher then back then. Even the reverb I got off the school building made the engine sound much louder. These days that alone would have people picking up the phone.

I wouldn’t be surprised if the people from the soaring club you spoke with were part of the SASS club and possibly Jim and/or Sandy.

franklin_m

First, it's illegal if they're going above 400 feet in Class G. That limit is there for a reason. It is this careless disregard for the law that will sooner or later be a problem for the hobby. Just because a very high consequence event is very low probability doesn't mean it's zero.

Hydro Junkie

The problem is there are two GA Airfields that I'm aware of in the vicinity, one of which I mentioned in an earlier post. If I figure a Cessna 150/152 taking off 9 miles away, give it an actual ground speed of say 80MPH, that's 1.33 miles in a minute or 6.75 minutes to over the R/C field. If I were to fly from that airport in Monroe to another, 32 miles away in Darrington, I would be flying almost directly over that R/C field. As any pilot knows, at a uncontrolled airport(which all three mentioned are) it's the pilot's job to inform other pilots in the area as to what he's doing as well as looking for other aircraft AT THE SAME TIME as he's taking off or landing, configuring his aircraft to land or climb to his cruising altitude and contacting the local ATC center, if required. Since the R/C field is at a higher elevation than the GA fields close by, that Cessna pilot has to climb that much higher to stay above the 500-1000 foot AGL required by the FAA. That means the Cessna pilot doesn't really have much time to be looking for R/C aircraft while climbing over an R/C field that he may or may not know is even there. Now, let's change the plane to a Cessna 310 twin. It has a rotation speed of 90knots or 104 MPH. If the pilot were climbing at, say 120 knots(138 MPH), he's doing 2.3 miles per minute. That would give him an over R/C field time of 3 minutes 55 seconds. That might not even give the pilot time to get his gear retracted before flying over the R/C field. Obviously, I didn't take into account wind speed and direction or the full sized aircraft's BSC or BAC since it won't affect the time by more than a a few seconds either way anyway. I'm just showing how it does matter if a pilot is following the rules or not, be it GA or R/C rules they need to be following

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

Yea, you keep saying that. Another reality fun fact, the 400’ advisory came about in 1981 which was 41 years ago. Between the advisory to law time frame not one single manned aircraft was downed by a model airplane. Now that it is a non enforced, unchallenged law, we all pretty much have a heightened sense of safety. Odds are that the hobby could easily go another 41 plus years without incident. That would bring us to 2063, neither of us will be above ground.

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

Yet they have been in the same vicinity for decades. Maybe Franklin can invoke another FOIA to see how many near misses have been reported. That would certainly tell us more then your speculation. The two of you are starting to sound like the guys on the ground flying their models can’t see or hear any full scale approaching.

Hydro Junkie

If the guys on the ground are following the rules, it won't matter, will it? If the pilots in my example have to avoid an R/C, what is the first thing they are going to do? CALL ATC AND REPORT IT!!!!! Reporting it will include altitude, location and time of day. If the R/C is over 400ft AGL, that field could(and should) be shut down. ARE YOU WILLING TO RISK THAT? If I was flying a $350,000+ Cessna 310 and had to avoid an R/C, my flight plan would go right out the window as I would be circling that flying site, at a higher altitude, until ATC had an accurate fix on the location before continuing on to my planned destination

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

Hydro, keep things in perspective please. Both you and Franklin seem to talk about this subject as if there are near misses happening on a daily basis. Franklin, Astro, you and a few others are always talking about facts right? One elephant in the room fact that you seem to want to ignore is still THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A MANNED AIRCRAFT BROUGHT DOWN BY A MODEL AIRPLANE. Reality is that there are much higher odds of two MANNED AIRCRAFT coming together.

Hydro Junkie

I'm not saying this kind of situation is a daily occurrence. What I am saying is it will be a non-issue if everyone is FOLLOWING THE RULES!!!!
Today, on my way to work, I passed an accident on the freeway that was backing up traffic. A minivan had the rear smashed in by another vehicle. What rule(s) was/were broken:

• striking driver was speeding
• striking driver was texting or in some other way was distracted
• striking driver was under the influence of drugs or alcohol
• struck driver cut off striking vehicle, not giving time to be avoided
• struck driver was texting or in some other way distracted
• struck driver was under the influence of drugs or alcohol

All six examples are violations of Washington state traffic laws and subject to fines, suspension/revoking of license or jail time. Fortunately, no one was injured, at least as far as I could see. Is this a daily occurrence? Unfortunately, it happens more often than not. The six bullet points I listed probably cover 80%+ of all traffic incidents in the Seattle/Tacoma area. Of course, there's always mechanical failures and reckless driving but those are normally the minority of reasons for accidents

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

Hydro, statistically speaking it’s already a non issue. It’s beyond me how anyone can claim otherwise. As you just pointed out, there is no such thing as a zero risk activity. History clearly shows that the mitigation efforts in practice for the last 60 plus years are effective.

Hydro Junkie

If it was a non-issue, the FAA wouldn't have made the altitude limits a law instead of an advisory, would they?
R/C aircraft have struck helicopters, grounded fire fighting aircraft, been flown recklessly and have nearly hit people. That is what the FAA has seen and reacted to. Were any of these events regular R/C aircraft? NO, they weren't. As far as the FAA is concerned, anything R/C is subject to the laws regardless of what configuration it is

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

LOL, yet it’s the FAA that are allowing R/C airplane events that they are fully aware exceed 400’. AMA Nats are less then two months away. I’ve got $100 that says all events happen without FAA intervention. You willing to take that bet?

Hydro Junkie

Nope, not going to just give away money. That said, if any of the sites are "busted", I would request that you tell us about it so we can hear that our tax dollars are actually used in the manner they are supposed to be.

mongo

My Feedback: (15)

don't be forgetting the goodyear blimp getting struck by a r/c pilot back in 1990:

https://www.deseret.com/1990/10/1/18...rgency-landing

https://apnews.com/article/523905da2...2a0c29f3eb987\

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

I stand corrected. We have one incident. Curious as to what altitude the blimp was at the time.

R_Strowe

But also keep in mind that the pilot of that Cessna 310 is also climbing out at 1500 fpm+. So at 3 to 4 minutes flight time, that airplane would be between 4500’ and 6000’. And typical pilots in that type of aircraft aren’t going to be loitering at lower altitudes. They want to get to cruise ASAP, and get going.

I spent several years flying as well as training others on the mighty 310. Owned a 1955 one myself, boy do I miss the old gal!

R_Strowe

ira d

Full scale planes rarely fly below 2,000 feet unless taking off or landing with the exception being law enforcement or other types of emergency operation's or crop dusting. The reason that conflict
between models and full scale are so rare is that its impractical for full scale to fly low enough or models to fly high enough to interfere with each other. That being said models having been operating
over 400' for years with no problems but in realty most models operate under a 1000' and most closer to 5-600' and there is no reason to have a hard 400' limit for models I could see a hard
1000' limit but lower is impractical unless a model is being operated within 5 miles of a airport inside the approach pattern.

Hydro Junkie

So, are you saying I got most of the information on the 310 correct? I know the rotation speed is 90 and max gear speed is 138, was guessing on the rest.
As far as the 150/152, I know they are slow by comparison and won't climb near as fast as a 310 will. That kind of limits the altitude it can achieve in 6 or so minutes, especially when the runway is at less than 100 ft and the R/C site is significantly higher