A Potential Defense for RC Airplane Pilots vs. Multi-rotor Drone Litigation - RC Groups
Thread Tools
Oct 19, 2015, 03:52 PM
Simplify, then add lightness.
SeaEraCaptain's Avatar
Discussion

A Potential Defense for RC Airplane Pilots vs. Multi-rotor Drone Litigation


RC Airplanes traditionally provide thrust via propulsion systems that are mounted / provide thrust HORIZONTALLY. In most cases they cannot readily hover or remain stationary. Though in some instances they can be propelled to an airborne state via means of hand launching they typically cannot land and takeoff in small confined spaces since they must follow a lengthy horizontal egress / ingress to become airborne or to land again.

RC Multi-rotor drones typically provide thrust via propulsion systems that are mounted / provide thrust VERTICALLY. They can readily hover and remain stationary. They can take off and land in small confined spaces due to their vertical thrust.

I'm sorry this doesn't offer up much of a defense for you traditional / conventional helicopter pilots.

The best defense for traditional RC airplane pilots is to separate and distance themselves from the multi-rotor crowd. Anyone else have any ideas for differences between RC multi rotor drones vs. RC Airplanes? If so post them in this thread, maybe it will be of use to those that support / defend us.
Sign up now
to remove ads between posts
Oct 19, 2015, 04:12 PM
They call me Spock
I'm not sure it's going to make a difference. It really sounds like the FAA contends two major points:

1) they have the authority to regulate all airspace down to the ground
2) anything capable of navigating in said airspace is under their authority

Now if this entire hoopla were REALLY about safety - the arguments you present are valid. Most fixed wing are limited to more rural locations - which are subsequently usually located away from airports -due to the fact that they require a large amount of horizontal space with which to operate.

If there is one thing I notice at clubs - its the keeping up with the Joneses' attitude and the ever constant goal of flying bigger planes. This usually keeps guys at club fields which are the only places capable of accommodating such large models.

But the advent of foam, brushless and lipo have changed all of that. Most fixed wing models can be outfitted with enough power to take off from the smallest fields now. So I'm not sure how much separation can be made between the two types of RC.

Back to my original point - I think this is a power and money grab by the FAA. If a truly objective analysis were to be placed upon the real risks of injury or death resulting from a collision from full scale, we'd likely find that the threat is currently grossly overstated - and that the FAA's efforts and time would be better served to focus on the GA crashes and fatalities that are occurring almost daily in this nation. But they aren't - the question is...why?
Oct 19, 2015, 04:43 PM
Registered User
and single rotor RC helis?
Oct 19, 2015, 04:51 PM
Registered User
BuffaloJustin's Avatar
Flawed logic, the DOT/FAA doesn't care how its propulsion is oriented or whether it's fixed wing or rotary. Please quote once when anyone once equated the Term UAS OR drone as used in that press conference with rotary or multirotor craft. I know the content was thin, but I'm telling you, they're going to make this as broad as possible to avoid people wiggling through the cracks and loopholes.

We're all in this together, and you can like it or hate it, but if it flies, the FAA via the DOT wants to know, apparently. Remember, this is the agency that granted a 333 exemption request to a paper plane, to prove a point.
Oct 19, 2015, 05:12 PM
Registered User
if any thing we need to make the line in the sand based on Line of sight and flying FPV

flying LoS unaided = hobby use

any thing else = drone
Oct 19, 2015, 05:17 PM
Simplify, then add lightness.
SeaEraCaptain's Avatar
Another key difference between RC Airplanes and RC Multi-rotor drones.

RC Airplanes rely upon fixed wings to generate lift for them to become airborne and to remain aloft. Due to that fact they must maintain sufficient speed for the wings to generate lift - so it is difficult for them to reliably operate in confined areas.

RC multi-rotor drones do not rely on wings to generate lift. They generate vertical thrust to create lift - they can reliably deploy, operate and land in confined areas.

Multi-rotor drones ability to reliably operate in confined spaces is one of the key reasons why they pose a larger potential threat for misuse / irresponsible operation when compared to RC Airplanes.
Oct 19, 2015, 05:22 PM
Registered User
so just throw single rotor helis under the bus?

id like to see you fly a 600 or 700 heli in "confined space"
Oct 19, 2015, 06:01 PM
Simplify, then add lightness.
SeaEraCaptain's Avatar
I can't offer up much defense for helicopters - but there is a difference between them and multi rotor drones.

Most typical RC helicopters operate off of 1 (or in some cases 2) primary rotor blades mounted vertically + 1 horizontally mounted tail rotor blade.

I can't think of too many examples of multi rotor drones that operate with less than 3 vertically mounted rotors.

Sometimes when it comes to unfavorable litigation the best defense is to look for what can separate you from the primary target of the litigation.

Otherwise RC helicopters in some iterations do have the ability to operate in much the same tolerances that multi rotor drones do. They do not typically employ as much of the automation devices/software that multi rotor drones do so it may be more difficult for them to take off / operate and land in confined areas - but they do retain the ability to do so.
Oct 19, 2015, 06:09 PM
Registered User
BuffaloJustin's Avatar
I guess I don't understand this thread.

Are we talking about registration, or something else, perhaps which will happen in the future? Regardless,

SeaEraCaptain, what makes you think that it matters what configuration your flying machine comes in, as it applies to what the FAA / DOT can cook up? They've repeatedly shown and stated that if it flies, they can regulate it. There is no incentive for them to create complex (probably impossibly so) categorizations of certain RC aircraft types, when they can simply lump them together and treat them the same. Where do you put a bicopter? A VTOL aircraft? A blimp? The answer is, "who cares! It entered the NAS!"
Oct 19, 2015, 06:30 PM
Simplify, then add lightness.
SeaEraCaptain's Avatar
The main point of this thread for my own interest is to suggest ways in which RC Airplanes are different from the primary source of trouble and negative publicity for the RC aviation hobby as a whole which is..........did you guess it yet........hmmmmmm what's been in the news so much lately for repeated acts of stupidity........oh wait, I've got it ...........IT'S MULTI-ROTOR DRONES!

It's probably too late for these suggestions now anyways - we're probably all screwed. Job well done you multi-rotor drone "pilots"!
Oct 19, 2015, 06:33 PM
Registered User
Quote:
Originally Posted by SeaEraCaptain
I can't offer up much defense for helicopters - but there is a difference between them and multi rotor drones.

Most typical RC helicopters operate off of 1 (or in some cases 2) primary rotor blades mounted vertically + 1 horizontally mounted tail rotor blade.

I can't think of too many examples of multi rotor drones that operate with less than 3 vertically mounted rotors.

Sometimes when it comes to unfavorable litigation the best defense is to look for what can separate you from the primary target of the litigation.

Otherwise RC helicopters in some iterations do have the ability to operate in much the same tolerances that multi rotor drones do. They do not typically employ as much of the automation devices/software that multi rotor drones do so it may be more difficult for them to take off / operate and land in confined areas - but they do retain the ability to do so.
the it should be unaided Line of sight vs using FPV and BVR flight

PIC must be able to physically see the aircraft from the ground with there own unaided eye

any thing else falls under a drone
Oct 19, 2015, 11:00 PM
Registered User
Ding Ding Ding, we have a winner. Anything other than line of sight needs regulation.
Latest blog entry: Testing the blog page
Oct 19, 2015, 11:07 PM
Registered User
WombatControl's Avatar
Throwing multi-rotor pilots under the bus will just mean fewer people to defend RC when the FAA decides to shut down all model aviation. The FAA doesn't care what you fly, only expanding their own power.

We all stand together or the whole hobby goes down.
Oct 20, 2015, 12:48 AM
Registered User
Easy,

Flown via line of sight = recreational use and no regations other then AMA

Flown via FPV or GPS = commercial vehicle and bound by FAA regulation.
Oct 20, 2015, 01:36 AM
Registered User
Quote:
Originally Posted by WombatControl
Throwing multi-rotor pilots under the bus will just mean fewer people to defend RC when the FAA decides to shut down all model aviation. The FAA doesn't care what you fly, only expanding their own power.

We all stand together or the whole hobby goes down.
"For the same principle which would trample upon the rights of the [remote controlled multi-rotor operator (model aircraft under 336)] would trample upon the rights of the [remote controlled fixed-wing operator (model aircraft under 336)] ... ."


Quick Reply
Message:

Thread Tools