HobbyKing.com New Products Flash Sale
Reply
Thread Tools
Old Mar 15, 2012, 01:29 PM
Registered User
San Marcos, CA
Joined Aug 2009
2,871 Posts
I can't understand why this topic is so difficult .. or it seems like it.

Why is the FAA not imposing a similar rule like on UL's.. seems to work there just fine and they fly over populated area and at night, too. And you don't even need a Pilot License and can built your own UL and fly it without any registration. They even use them for commercial use.

So what's the difference, except that a UL can actually "kill" people where a UAV R/C Model will cause property damages at worst - never heard a R/C Plane kills people except it was a Turbine Powered R/C Monster Plane with 150" wing span.

Anyway, key is that they are already regulations on other bodies in the air available that are similar to our world ..

Smells more like an Industry tries to protect themselves because they fear of competition.

And yes, I want to use my UAV for commercial use ..
flyandi is offline Find More Posts by flyandi
Reply With Quote
Sign up now
to remove ads between posts
Old Mar 15, 2012, 01:48 PM
Rocket Programmer
jasmine2501's Avatar
United States, AZ, Mesa
Joined Jul 2007
25,460 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by flyandi View Post
Anyway, key is that they are already regulations on other bodies in the air available that are similar to our world ..
Key here is actually that UAVs present many hazards other than killing people on the ground. We need to be thinking about privacy issues, security, fair competition, law enforcement needs, etc, etc... it's not just about safety.

Quote:
Smells more like an Industry tries to protect themselves because they fear of competition.
Yes, I agree. The powerful players in this WILL try to have the rules be unfair to the little guys. We need to put a stop to that. We need to be looking at the money trail, because I'm pretty sure there will be some graft and corruption in this process.
jasmine2501 is offline Find More Posts by jasmine2501
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 15, 2012, 02:11 PM
Registered User
San Marcos, CA
Joined Aug 2009
2,871 Posts
Oh I agree with you .. keyword is here "fairness" for all players. Privacy issues are probably the biggest concern but these concerns are in discussion for other bodies in the air as well.

I am a strong believer that the "Small UAV Business"-Industry is the key component to get UAV's successfully commercialized. Especially if you look at all the technologies that have been developed by the community in recent years.
flyandi is offline Find More Posts by flyandi
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 15, 2012, 03:36 PM
Rocket Programmer
jasmine2501's Avatar
United States, AZ, Mesa
Joined Jul 2007
25,460 Posts
Privacy issues are something I find very interesting, but not particularly relevant to regulation. I think people need to realize what they are saying when they complain about privacy related to UAVs. We've been ok with the government being able to spy on us from the air for at least 50 years. I was told back in the late 70s that a spy satellite could read your watch on the ground, so I imagine they are collecting much more detailed information now. I think it would be good for the privacy camp to highlight the reasons why it's ok for the federal governments of many nations to spy on the entire earth, but giving Sheriff Andy a UAV is somehow more of a concern. The capability is only slightly expanded, and I personally don't think it demands an increase in concern. We have good privacy laws already - we just need to make sure the spirit of those laws can be applied to UAVs.

It's illegal in some cases to look into someone's window for example - doing it with a UAV isn't a loophole, it's still illegal. So I'm saying, UAVs don't require new laws concerning privacy, but they will require existing laws to be interpreted differently. There's a lot of questions... like, what is the difference between me sitting in my living room with a telescope, and me flying a UAV up to your window. If I want to invade your privacy, does the method I use really matter?
jasmine2501 is offline Find More Posts by jasmine2501
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 15, 2012, 03:58 PM
Registered User
Wilkes-Barre/Scranton, Pennsylvania, United States
Joined Nov 2000
6,291 Posts
fylandi
You need to do some research. There have been fatalities, albeit not many, involving model airplanes. In almost every case the models involved were run-of-the mill glow or gas powered models.
Any aircraft flown over populated areas has the potential to cause physical harm and moreso when flown beyond los. If you are unable to see the aicraft you most likely cannot see what is on the ground under it. INMHO that creates an untenable position.

BM
BillM is offline Find More Posts by BillM
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 15, 2012, 04:42 PM
Advocating for RC Aviation
USA, NJ, Phillipsburg
Joined Jul 2010
1,390 Posts
The pilot-in-command (PIC) of the UL is on-board the aircraft and has direct sensory input of the flight environment and any hazards to be avoided. The PIC of a UAV does not have direct sensory input of the flight environment and relies upon telemetry to avoid hazards. This may be adequate over a battlefield abroad, but the UAPO has determined that adequate sense-and-avoid technology does not yet exist to maintain safe separation from manned air traffic. The model airplane pilot has direct sensory input of the flying environment the model is operated in and so can avoid hazard. Very likely the new Rule for sUAS will follow this logic, constraining the flight area to direct line-of-sight. They are just not ready to let unmanned vehicles into the National Airspace System (NAS), from all that I have read. It is as simple as that, really. All about aviation safety.
danamania is offline Find More Posts by danamania
Last edited by danamania; Mar 15, 2012 at 04:44 PM. Reason: Typo
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 15, 2012, 04:57 PM
Registered User
San Marcos, CA
Joined Aug 2009
2,871 Posts
@Jasmine: I am 100% with you. There doesn't need to be another debate about Privacy Concerns .. they are already so many :-)

@BM: Sure, that's what I mean with "Turbine Powered R/C Monster Plane with 150" wing span" and it's mostly bystander or the pilot itself.. like the accident in Hungary a couple years ago which was an 41% Pitts .. Most of these fatal accident involve huge R/C Aircraft's.

Of course potentially even your Mini PZ-T28 could cause destruction, but it's not in the nature of an R/C modeller to cause harm or destruction and our safety record is more than excellent.

The majority in this hobby goes the extra length to protect the hobby and privileges by maintaining safe planes and fly responsible. Even if it's only because to protect their investment. Either way, the result is the same.

I don't see why it should be different in flying UAS? We will use the same safety philosophies/approaches.
flyandi is offline Find More Posts by flyandi
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 15, 2012, 05:38 PM
Rocket Programmer
jasmine2501's Avatar
United States, AZ, Mesa
Joined Jul 2007
25,460 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by flyandi View Post
our safety record is more than excellent.
Yes, that's a huge reason why model aviation is excepted from regulation by the FAA - because we have a proven track record of safety when using the airspace.

Quote:
I don't see why it should be different in flying UAS? We will use the same safety philosophies/approaches.
It needs to be different because we have already shown that the safety methods used by the modeling community are not adequate for UAVs with additional capability and increased mission envelopes. We have also proven (beyond any doubt, I think) that some kind of regulation is needed to prevent people from operating UAVs in a dangerous manner. I am against making it technically impossible - such as restricting the sale of components. However, I do not want some jag-off's UAV landing on my car at 75mph on the highway. If the cops want to use UAVs to ticket speeders, I'm all for it, as long as they are regulated in some way.
jasmine2501 is offline Find More Posts by jasmine2501
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 15, 2012, 09:17 PM
buyer of the farm
United States, FL, DeLand
Joined Mar 2009
4,724 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by flyandi View Post
I don't see why it should be different in flying UAS? We will use the same safety philosophies/approaches.
UAVs are typically used for aerial photography, usually for commercial purposes in saving some money over a manned aircraft. Now, where are you going to fly to take aerial photos or video that you can sell?

That's right, around people and buildings. Whether you are taking pictures for a real estate ad, monitoring corrosion on a bridge superstructure, taking pictures of the high school band, whatever, that UAV is flying for extended lengths of time where the people and potential injuries and property damage are.

I think that calls for a higher state of monitoring, a higher standard to legally fly and qualified equipment. I don't think it needs to be overly complicated or expensive, just have minimum standards, inspections and flight certification for pilots. The idea has to be to allow it to be done inexpensively and safely, not to make it so freakin' expensive, time consuming and riddled with bureaucracy that nobody can do it. Otherwise, better to leave it completely free.

AMA could do that fine but they'd most likely have to have immunity from liability if one of their certified outfits has a brain fart. That's only fair.
Rockin Robbins is offline Find More Posts by Rockin Robbins
Last edited by Rockin Robbins; Mar 15, 2012 at 09:26 PM.
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 15, 2012, 09:38 PM
Electric Coolhunter
Thomas B's Avatar
United States, TX, Fort Worth
Joined Jun 2000
14,640 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by flyandi View Post
....
So what's the difference, except that a UL can actually "kill" people where a UAV R/C Model will cause property damages at worst - never heard a R/C Plane kills people except it was a Turbine Powered R/C Monster Plane with 150" wing span.

.....
There have been around 7-8 R/C model caused aircraft fatalities in the US over the last 30-40 years, plus several in England and at least a few in Europe. None were ever caused by a "Turbine Powered R/C Monster Plane with 150" wing span."

You made a comment in another post about most being caused by giant scale aircaft, which is simply not true. Only a couple of the ones I know about were cased by giant scale aircraft.

The US cases include the fairly recent R/C helicopter fatality (a .30 or .40 size heli, as I recall) a few years back in the Houston area, a WWII scale (twin .40 F-82) pylon racer in AZ that crashed into someone at a race, a .60 sized Aeromaster biplane around 20-25 years ago (Horizontal stablizer structural failure in flight) that killed a fairly well known local broadcast personality somewhere on the east coast, a gentleman flying his own .40 or .60 size trainer and hitting himself out west somewhere a good number of years back. I seem to recall another pylon racing fatality, possible Formula One, around 30 years back, as well...the others escape me for now.

The only one I have ever heard of involving a full scale aircraft happened in Germany a few years back...a 20 lb plus gas powered R/G glider tug had a midair collision with a Grob G109 powered sailplane and caused two fatalities in the Grob when it crashed.

A small .15 size trainer struck and killed a adolecent child in England years back....and there was the famous giant scale Pitts mode you mentioned in a European country a few years back that struck and killed two spectators.

As tragic as these accidents were, they also show how safe our hobby is numbers wise...millions and millions of R/C flights and vanishingly few fatal accidents or serious injury accidents.

It also shows that under the right and thankfully very, very rare circumstances, even fairly small sUAS aircraft could cause a fatality.
Thomas B is offline Find More Posts by Thomas B
RCG Plus Member
Last edited by Thomas B; Mar 15, 2012 at 09:50 PM.
Reply With Quote
Old Jul 25, 2014, 03:54 AM
Registered User
TweakRacer's Avatar
Joined Jan 2006
219 Posts
My Comment

Why is it that the FAA needs to regulate more? Just to keep itself relevant when asking Congress for taxpayer money?
This is ludicrous. The FAA was never intended to regulate model aircraft. What, just because "drones" are accessible and marketed to the mass public, and now it's a "thing" that's in the news? First, those "drones" are not autonomous unmanned vehicles, they are still radio-controlled by a hobbyist. And what's your problem with First Person View radio control flying? Technology, experimentation, hobbyists, and creative minds is what made this nation great. So, what is the FAA doing to foster that? Do you you not understand that law enforcement is frequently and ever more the worst decision makers when it comes to applying common sense discretion to enforcing laws and regulations? Laws and regulations need to be drafted strict enough to restrict or eradicate behavior that we as a society abhor. However, law enforcement and the courts are supposed to have the discretion to inject common sense into the equation. Unfortunately, recent track records of both have shown how dismally uncommon, common sense is.

What's with the new rules?

1. "The aircraft is flown strictly for hobby or recreational use." What does it matter if someone does it for profit, or commercially? Who are you to continue trying to kill off what little economic prosperity is left in our great nation? What's wrong with a sponsored radio control operators putting on a demo? What's wrong with a realtor taking a nicer picture of a home from a better vantage point? How much are you going to spend on litigation? What if the realtor just climbed a ladder or got permission to take the shot from the neighbor's second floor balcony across the street?

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." Oh, so how unconstitutionally vague and overbroad is this? The FAA can and will just use this to discriminate and criminalize our citizens for not paying into the Academy of Model Aeronautics just to be "within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization." What's wrong with using and enforcing our current civil and criminal laws? If someone operates a radio control model recklessly or negligently, they will already face civil and criminal legal action, would they not? This is nothing more than a power and money grab. Seriously, bloated bureaucracy like the FAA's reaching into hobbyists' pocketbooks and criminalizing them is what is wrong with our great nation.

3. "The aircraft is limited to not more than 55 pounds unless otherwise certified through a design, construction, inspection, flight test, and operational safety program administered by a community-based organization." You make this sounds so common that it's a real "safety" issue. This is just more bloated, overreaching bureaucracy. How many people are serious enough about the hobby, have the know-how, and the have the financial ability to fly giant-scale radio-control models, especially ones over 55 pounds. This is more unnecessary legislation for the sake of legislation, which will unfortunately criminalize otherwise innocent hobbyists.

4. "The aircraft is operated in a manner that does not interfere with and gives way to any manned aircraft." Any hobbyist knows this, and most if not all hobbyists have more common sense and cognizance of their impact on the public than the average person. This is more overbroad and vague legislation which can and will be used in ways it was never intended. Has the FAA actually spent time and effort to understand the community which it intends to destroy? For example, check out how the Torrey Pines radio-control sailplane club operates in the same airspace as the real gliderport.

5. "When flown within 5 miles of an airport, the operator of the aircraft provides the airport operator and the airport air traffic control tower with prior notice of the operation." THIS IS THE WORST. I live in that zone, and you are telling me I am a criminal for not providing said notices when I fly my half-ounce quad-rotor model in my bedroom? For every 3 minute flight? Or my 10-ounce foam sailplane at my local park? Or my 1-ounce 12"-wingspan electric plane at my neighboring schoolyard? How much NONSENSE is this? You want to criminalize me for this? Seriously? This is what the FAA is about? This is what my tax dollars pay for? This is for "safety"? This is what the public demands?

Terrible, overbroad, vague, unconstitutional, trying to keep the FAA relevant doing something, waste of my tax dollars, to criminalize my fellow citizens and hobbyists. FAA you have truly gone from an agency to promote and regulate general aviation, down to just any dirty self-serving political party. The FAA's UNCONSTITUTIONAL proposed legislation disgusts me, and every American that is not an idiot statist.
TweakRacer is offline Find More Posts by TweakRacer
Reply With Quote
Old Jul 26, 2014, 01:17 AM
Your customer
Silverexpress's Avatar
Berkley, MI
Joined Dec 2009
1,408 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by TweakRacer View Post
Why is it that the FAA needs to regulate more? Just to keep itself relevant when asking Congress for taxpayer money?
This is ludicrous. The FAA was never intended to regulate model aircraft. What, just because "drones" are accessible and marketed to the mass public, and now it's a "thing" that's in the news? First, those "drones" are not autonomous unmanned vehicles, they are still radio-controlled by a hobbyist. And what's your problem with First Person View radio control flying? Technology, experimentation, hobbyists, and creative minds is what made this nation great. So, what is the FAA doing to foster that? Do you you not understand that law enforcement is frequently and ever more the worst decision makers when it comes to applying common sense discretion to enforcing laws and regulations? Laws and regulations need to be drafted strict enough to restrict or eradicate behavior that we as a society abhor. However, law enforcement and the courts are supposed to have the discretion to inject common sense into the equation. Unfortunately, recent track records of both have shown how dismally uncommon, common sense is.

What's with the new rules?

1. "The aircraft is flown strictly for hobby or recreational use." What does it matter if someone does it for profit, or commercially? Who are you to continue trying to kill off what little economic prosperity is left in our great nation? What's wrong with a sponsored radio control operators putting on a demo? What's wrong with a realtor taking a nicer picture of a home from a better vantage point? How much are you going to spend on litigation? What if the realtor just climbed a ladder or got permission to take the shot from the neighbor's second floor balcony across the street?

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." Oh, so how unconstitutionally vague and overbroad is this? The FAA can and will just use this to discriminate and criminalize our citizens for not paying into the Academy of Model Aeronautics just to be "within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization." What's wrong with using and enforcing our current civil and criminal laws? If someone operates a radio control model recklessly or negligently, they will already face civil and criminal legal action, would they not? This is nothing more than a power and money grab. Seriously, bloated bureaucracy like the FAA's reaching into hobbyists' pocketbooks and criminalizing them is what is wrong with our great nation.

3. "The aircraft is limited to not more than 55 pounds unless otherwise certified through a design, construction, inspection, flight test, and operational safety program administered by a community-based organization." You make this sounds so common that it's a real "safety" issue. This is just more bloated, overreaching bureaucracy. How many people are serious enough about the hobby, have the know-how, and the have the financial ability to fly giant-scale radio-control models, especially ones over 55 pounds. This is more unnecessary legislation for the sake of legislation, which will unfortunately criminalize otherwise innocent hobbyists.

4. "The aircraft is operated in a manner that does not interfere with and gives way to any manned aircraft." Any hobbyist knows this, and most if not all hobbyists have more common sense and cognizance of their impact on the public than the average person. This is more overbroad and vague legislation which can and will be used in ways it was never intended. Has the FAA actually spent time and effort to understand the community which it intends to destroy? For example, check out how the Torrey Pines radio-control sailplane club operates in the same airspace as the real gliderport.

5. "When flown within 5 miles of an airport, the operator of the aircraft provides the airport operator and the airport air traffic control tower with prior notice of the operation." THIS IS THE WORST. I live in that zone, and you are telling me I am a criminal for not providing said notices when I fly my half-ounce quad-rotor model in my bedroom? For every 3 minute flight? Or my 10-ounce foam sailplane at my local park? Or my 1-ounce 12"-wingspan electric plane at my neighboring schoolyard? How much NONSENSE is this? You want to criminalize me for this? Seriously? This is what the FAA is about? This is what my tax dollars pay for? This is for "safety"? This is what the public demands?

Terrible, overbroad, vague, unconstitutional, trying to keep the FAA relevant doing something, waste of my tax dollars, to criminalize my fellow citizens and hobbyists. FAA you have truly gone from an agency to promote and regulate general aviation, down to just any dirty self-serving political party. The FAA's UNCONSTITUTIONAL proposed legislation disgusts me, and every American that is not an idiot statist.
Liabilities, liabilities, liabilities..... It's a crazy world out there....

http://www.detroitnews.com/article/2...0103/307170040
Silverexpress is offline Find More Posts by Silverexpress
Last edited by Silverexpress; Jul 26, 2014 at 01:28 AM.
Reply With Quote
Old Jul 26, 2014, 03:49 AM
All under control, Grommit!
leccyflyer's Avatar
United Kingdom, Aberdeen
Joined Sep 2000
12,670 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas B View Post
There have been around 7-8 R/C model caused aircraft fatalities in the US over the last 30-40 years, plus several in England and at least a few in Europe. None were ever caused by a "Turbine Powered R/C Monster Plane with 150" wing span."

You made a comment in another post about most being caused by giant scale aircaft, which is simply not true. Only a couple of the ones I know about were cased by giant scale aircraft.

The US cases include the fairly recent R/C helicopter fatality (a .30 or .40 size heli, as I recall) a few years back in the Houston area, a WWII scale (twin .40 F-82) pylon racer in AZ that crashed into someone at a race, a .60 sized Aeromaster biplane around 20-25 years ago (Horizontal stablizer structural failure in flight) that killed a fairly well known local broadcast personality somewhere on the east coast, a gentleman flying his own .40 or .60 size trainer and hitting himself out west somewhere a good number of years back. I seem to recall another pylon racing fatality, possible Formula One, around 30 years back, as well...the others escape me for now.

The only one I have ever heard of involving a full scale aircraft happened in Germany a few years back...a 20 lb plus gas powered R/G glider tug had a midair collision with a Grob G109 powered sailplane and caused two fatalities in the Grob when it crashed.

A small .15 size trainer struck and killed a adolecent child in England years back....and there was the famous giant scale Pitts mode you mentioned in a European country a few years back that struck and killed two spectators.

As tragic as these accidents were, they also show how safe our hobby is numbers wise...millions and millions of R/C flights and vanishingly few fatal accidents or serious injury accidents.

It also shows that under the right and thankfully very, very rare circumstances, even fairly small sUAS aircraft could cause a fatality.
Good post Thomas
leccyflyer is offline Find More Posts by leccyflyer
Reply With Quote
Old Jul 26, 2014, 10:15 AM
buyer of the farm
United States, FL, DeLand
Joined Mar 2009
4,724 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by TweakRacer View Post
What's with the new rules?

1. "The aircraft is flown strictly for hobby or recreational use." What does it matter if someone does it for profit, or commercially?
I'll buy that for a dollar. I agree. It is the character of the flight and vehicle, not the purpose to which it is put that bears on the safety of its operation. In fact it could be argued that commercial use would normally be safer than hobby use.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TweakRacer View Post
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." Oh, so how unconstitutionally vague and overbroad is this? <etc>
I won't quote the stuff that's entirely wrong. Here's the deal. I agree with the vague part. I don't agree with the overly broad smear. But the intent is just like it is in Britain, where if an incident occurs the fault is found in light of the rules of the national RC organization regardless of whether the perp is a member or not. Nobody is forced to join anything and any contention to the contrary is a crock of smelly biological waste.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TweakRacer View Post
3. "The aircraft is limited to not more than 55 pounds unless otherwise certified through a design, construction, inspection, flight test, and operational safety program administered by a community-based organization." You make this sounds so common that it's a real "safety" issue.
You've left the reservation again. Fifty-five pounds is a generous weight limit for exempted FPV. I'd argue in favor of 10 pounds for wholly unregulated use. Less said and less bellyaching on this term the better. It's more than reasonable and fighting it distracts from the important issues. Leave it alone.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TweakRacer View Post
4. "The aircraft is operated in a manner that does not interfere with and gives way to any manned aircraft." Any hobbyist knows this, and most if not all hobbyists have more common sense and cognizance of their impact on the public than the average person.
This shows your misunderstanding of the issue. The problem is that with 100 mph closing speed, entirely typical between a general aviation craft and an FPV plane and directly head, on so pan and tilt and mechanical scan frequency cancels out of the equation, the FPV pilot gets about 14 seconds from first sighting of the general aviation plane to impact. That is IF he happens to be looking at the exact spot where it appears, with a 1x not a wide angle camera and that it is an HD camera and monitor, which is quite unlikely. This is barely enough time for instantaneous reaction and maneuver to move the FPV 20' to the side to avoid. Most times it would not be possible to avoid.

Worse, for the full size plane looking at a 4' wingspan FPV plane head-on there is a 1.5 second time between sighting and impact. They have no chance whatever to avoid. If that FPV hits the windshield, it is coming through with probable fatal consequences. If you were an automobile driver what would be your position on a law entitling kids to toss frisbees across interstate highways? I bet you'd be agin' it and the consequences of that probably wouldn't be fatal. Maybe. Even if it were don't they have the right to play? Should our government be overreaching so far as to make little kids criminals? This is serious kaka.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TweakRacer View Post
5. "When flown within 5 miles of an airport, the operator of the aircraft provides the airport operator and the airport air traffic control tower with prior notice of the operation." THIS IS THE WORST. <followed by histrionics of comic proportions>
Guess what. I live in the zone too. It makes my Vapor something I can't fly outdoors without approval. You know what? Your indoor comment is just silly. I will simply e-mail my airport manager requesting blanket permission to fly my plane within a four or six block area defined by longitude and latitude at altitudes of less than 100' and I'll be golden forever. I don't think this is unreasonable so long as permission isn't arbitrarily denied, and all authority can be abused. That is not grounds for advocating elimination of that authority. It's grounds for changing the person wielding that authority.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TweakRacer View Post
Terrible, overbroad, vague, unconstitutional, trying to keep the FAA relevant doing something, waste of my tax dollars, to criminalize my fellow citizens and hobbyists. FAA you have truly gone from an agency to promote and regulate general aviation, down to just any dirty self-serving political party. The FAA's UNCONSTITUTIONAL proposed legislation disgusts me, and every American that is not an idiot statist.
It doesn't offend me and I am not a statist, even the idiot kind. It needs refinement. It does not need to go in the garbage. Renegade FPV is a clear and present danger to the general aviation pilot. I understand that. I respect that. I will take all reasonable steps to avoid contact between FPV aircraft and general aviation aircraft. My yuks do not trump others' safety.
Rockin Robbins is offline Find More Posts by Rockin Robbins
Last edited by Rockin Robbins; Jul 26, 2014 at 10:32 AM.
Reply With Quote
Old Jul 26, 2014, 12:50 PM
Promoting Model Aviation...
Murocflyer's Avatar
United States, CA, Tehachapi
Joined Nov 2005
25,456 Posts
Post #1 updated with the latest info and links.

Interesting how this is all playing out like we discussed almost 4 years ago and a good look back into how we got to where we are to go.

Frank
Murocflyer is offline Find More Posts by Murocflyer
Last edited by Murocflyer; Jul 26, 2014 at 12:57 PM.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Similar Threads
Category Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Discussion Should I be concerned? F-14 Tomcat56 Trader Talk 9 Jul 27, 2008 01:08 PM
Discussion As far as the FAA is concerned can we contract to take photos via RC heil/plane? Adams123 Aerial Photography 23 Mar 01, 2008 11:10 AM
Discussion Triton 1 should i be concerned? JustinMoore12 Batteries and Chargers 6 Dec 08, 2007 06:40 PM
Joke Why the U.S. should be very concerned about long-term climate change... Flyingwingbat1 Humor 0 Jan 10, 2007 09:20 PM
Got my Rocket 3600 motor. Almost no cogging, should I be concerned? BING! Power Systems 10 Jun 19, 2005 11:34 AM