Thread Tools
Oct 18, 2019, 08:48 PM
BFMAC Founding Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray93J
You may want to look up the FAA definition of Class G and controlled vs uncontrolled airspace. Class G is not a free for all as you seem to think.
I'm well aware of the definition of Class G and controlled vs uncontrolled airspace and I don't think Class G is a free for all. I don't much care if you agree with what I posted re being amenable to more leniency toward modelers where the Class G ceiling is above 500 AGL, as I can enjoy my model flying under 400 AGL. I'll leave it to others that feel cramped by that somewhat arbitrary limit in this age to reply on that issue.
Last edited by abel pranger; Oct 18, 2019 at 09:10 PM.
Sign up now
to remove ads between posts
Oct 18, 2019, 10:16 PM
pushing the envelope
rcgroupie's Avatar
Well if you want over 400' then we need to get congress to enact a tiered system as in my other thread.
Oct 18, 2019, 10:20 PM
Registered User
Quote:
Originally Posted by rcgroupie
Well if you want over 400' then we need to get congress to enact a tiered system as in my other thread.
We aren't going to get Congress to do anything. Congress is against us. Some of them want to make the commercial drone people happy, others want UAS (including the commercial people AND us) gone entirely. If you want over 400', you'll have to be raising that Jolly Roger.
Oct 18, 2019, 10:24 PM
pushing the envelope
rcgroupie's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by nybbler
We aren't going to get Congress to do anything. Congress is against us. Some of them want to make the commercial drone people happy, others want UAS (including the commercial people AND us) gone entirely. If you want over 400', you'll have to be raising that Jolly Roger.
You took a poll of congress or just wild speculation?
Oct 18, 2019, 10:35 PM
Registered User
exf3bguy's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by rcgroupie
You took a poll of congress or just wild speculation?

Apparently he's clairvoyant.
Oct 18, 2019, 10:50 PM
Registered User
Quote:
Originally Posted by rcgroupie
You took a poll of congress or just wild speculation?
The poll was taken near the end of last year. It resulted in Section 349.
Oct 19, 2019, 01:03 AM
Registered User
kell490's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray93J
As a full scale pilot, I am very familiar with the National Airspace System and altitude restrictions. My concern is the AMA assuming flying to the upper limit of Class G in all areas would be safe and not conflict with manned aircraft traffic. At my local club field, if we flew to the limit of Class G, we would be operating 1000 feet higher than the traffic pattern of an airport 3 miles away. Traffic descending to pattern altitude to land would be flying through the same airspace. This is just asking for an accident. If the up to class E limit was the idea of AMA, it demonstrates their lack of understanding of manned air traffic. The goal is to maintain separation and give way to manned aircraft, why would they even suggest this?
Seems to me manned GA aircraft are the danger here they should be the ones the FAA keeps away from homes. This year had a Cessna 414 twin slam into a home in CA killing 4 people in a home. It's one thing want to risk your life flying in a GA manned aircraft people on the ground are at risk. When was the last time a drone or model airplane killed anyone in a neighborhood inside their home.
https://ktla.com/2019/02/03/crews-re...l-plane-crash/

I'm not anti GA aircraft I'm making a point that the FAA and congress went to far with regulation. Yes I agree when BVLOS capable UAS's begin to sell and marketed as an easy to fly platform which could fly great distance from the operator need some regulation.

What doesn't make sense to me is an ultralight can fly up to 18k feet with no regulation at all? no remote ID as long as they fly in un-populated areas.

Why can't an RC club in class G fly above 400 feet?
Oct 19, 2019, 05:45 AM
Registered User
Quote:
Originally Posted by kell490
Seems to me manned GA aircraft are the danger here they should be the ones the FAA keeps away from homes. This year had a Cessna 414 twin slam into a home in CA killing 4 people in a home. It's one thing want to risk your life flying in a GA manned aircraft people on the ground are at risk. When was the last time a drone or model airplane killed anyone in a neighborhood inside their home.
https://ktla.com/2019/02/03/crews-re...l-plane-crash/

I'm not anti GA aircraft I'm making a point that the FAA and congress went to far with regulation. Yes I agree when BVLOS capable UAS's begin to sell and marketed as an easy to fly platform which could fly great distance from the operator need some regulation.

What doesn't make sense to me is an ultralight can fly up to 18k feet with no regulation at all? no remote ID as long as they fly in un-populated areas.

Why can't an RC club in class G fly above 400 feet?
Yes, accidents do happen. Are you one that wants to stop the flights of all old military airplanes after the B-17 crash?

When all the drone jackasses started posting videos on You Tube of flying above the clouds, near and above manned aircraft and the like. You did not thing that would get the attention of the government? Manned aircraft have been flying at all altitude using a see and avoid process for many years. Model airplanes can neither see nor avoid. In fact from the You Tube videos, RC airplane operators now have the label of being bold and entitled to do what ever they want.
Oct 19, 2019, 06:03 AM
Registered User
aeronaut999's Avatar
Thread OP
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray93J
As a full scale pilot, I am very familiar with the National Airspace System and altitude restrictions. My concern is the AMA assuming flying to the upper limit of Class G in all areas would be safe and not conflict with manned aircraft traffic. At my local club field, if we flew to the limit of Class G, we would be operating 1000 feet higher than the traffic pattern of an airport 3 miles away. Traffic descending to pattern altitude to land would be flying through the same airspace. This is just asking for an accident. If the up to class E limit was the idea of AMA, it demonstrates their lack of understanding of manned air traffic. The goal is to maintain separation and give way to manned aircraft, why would they even suggest this?
I don't think this is a good argument. Obviously it is a lousy idea to fly rc planes within a full-scale traffic pattern at altitudes near or above the full-scale traffic. On the other hand I know a field that has long had an agreement with local ATC to fly to 1000' in Class D airspace. It's never been a problem because it simply doesn't lie within any traffic pattern that is ever used.

Backing away from any thought of flying in Class D or higher and just looking at Class G versus Class E, the main functional difference between Class G and Class E from the standpoint of a VFR pilot is that you need to stay further from the clouds in Class E, because IFR traffic may be present.

I guess what I'm saying is that nothing is cut-and-dried, except that full-scale aircraft always have right-of-way over model airplanes. An anecdote about a particular place next to an airport, where it is not safe to fly rc models higher than 400', or 200', or whatever, doesn't mean that it would never be safe to do so at some other location. No one is suggesting that model airplanes actually be given right-of-way up to the top of the Class G. That would demonstrate a huge misunderstanding of what Class G means. Model airplanes NEVER have right-of-way over full-scale airplanes in any airspace, and everyone has always known that.

No one is proposing giving rc aircraft a free pass to fly to the top of the Class G regardless of full-scale traffic, any more than anyone has ever proposed allowing them to fly to 400' in Class G regardless of full-scale aircraft.

We don't need rules that limit us only to airspace where virtually no full-scale airplanes will ever fly. Safe separation can be accomplished by keeping our eyes and ears open, and by staying well away from traffic patterns and other high-traffic areas. In some locations that can safely be accomplished well above 400' AGL.

Lack of clarity over this point is the core of our problem. Sure, if we suddenly have BVLOS commercial drones flying everywhere, they'll have to be well-segregated from full- scale air traffic. This doesn't mean there's suddenly a need to shoehorn recreational rc planes into the same box as BVLOS commercial drones, when there never was a need for such draconian limits on us in the past. Collision avoidance between recreational rc traffic and full-scale traffic is not really the issue here; rather collision avoidance between BVLOS commercial drones and full-scale traffic is. As far as collision avoidance between recreational rc aircraft and BVLOS drones goes, designated fixed sites and LAANC should both help with that, plus when we are above their designated ceiling, what is the problem?

We need to advocate against the idea that there's suddenly a need to shoehorn recreational rc airplanes into a new box that is being created to deal with an anticipated era of widespread commercial beyond-line-of-sight drone flight.

Recreational BVLOS flight is kind of a grey area. Frankly I don't care what rules get placed on it. If it can only be legally conducted under part 107 rules, fine. Some guy dodging the treetops with FPV goggles on is still probably not going to face any enforcement even if he didn't bring along a spotter to keep eyeballs on the plane or drone. Some guy flying thousands of feet overhead in an aircraft approach corridor is another matter.
Last edited by aeronaut999; Oct 19, 2019 at 03:30 PM.
Oct 19, 2019, 09:43 AM
Flying R/C since 1964
kallend's Avatar
Just think how many lives would have been saved if FAA had spent more time and effort with Boeing's 737 MAX and less time worrying about model airplanes flying above 400ft.

But Amazon's and UPS's money talks, of course, and they want that airspace.
Oct 19, 2019, 10:17 AM
Registered User
Quote:
Originally Posted by nybbler
The poll was taken near the end of last year. It resulted in Section 349.
While I'm not saying that it would have made a difference, Section 349 was buried inside a much larger bill that overall had nothing really to do with model aircraft. I don't think most of the congressmen and women even knew or cared that there was anything concerning RC models in there at all.
Oct 19, 2019, 10:40 AM
Registered User
exf3bguy's Avatar
I wonder where some guys get their knowledge on what they present as " Going to happen "?
Oct 19, 2019, 11:30 AM
Registered User
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray93J
Yes, accidents do happen. Are you one that wants to stop the flights of all old military airplanes after the B-17 crash?
If the FAA were applying the same standards to them as to models, we would.

Quote:
Model airplanes can neither see nor avoid.
Nobody's talking about BVLOS in this thread.
Oct 19, 2019, 01:05 PM
Registered User
kneesaknockin's Avatar
You've been flying RC in an area for 30+ years without incident. Then all of a sudden you are breaking the law. Ask yourself, what changed? What seems to be the problem, now?

I don't hear the outcry's from the Large AMA sanctioned events. No more large scale aircraft, no more large scale jets, no giant scale? No more AMA.

If you map out all the 400ft. glide patterns in a 3 mile radius around the US, what is left? That is were you can fly RC.

Ask the FAA, how many RC aircraft have caused Full Scale fatalities in the past year, the past 10 years, the past 30 years?
Oct 19, 2019, 01:36 PM
Team Futaba
Silent-AV8R's Avatar
AMA is basically telling everyone to pretend this new law is not real.


Quick Reply
Message:

Thread Tools

Similar Threads
Category Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Discussion AMA Acknowledges Limit in Class G = 400 AGL franklin_m Model Aircraft & Drone Advocacy 321 Oct 17, 2019 07:33 PM
Discussion Muslim Author: I Feel Safer in the U.S. Than I Do in Any Muslim Country MtnGoat Life, The Universe, and Politics 19 Feb 11, 2017 10:10 AM
Discussion Does a glider fly any differently in lift than it does in sink? Miami Mike Thermal 67 Dec 19, 2016 06:17 AM
Discussion Any vacuum baggers in the greater Indianapolis area? BloomingtonFPV Sailplane Talk 3 Jan 25, 2016 11:47 PM
In-Flight Amps- greater or less than static? RSCherry Sport Planes 8 Nov 09, 2002 10:24 AM