Originally Posted by ECHO24

Nice design. I haven flown a weight-shift but it seems like they'd be better for cross-wind landings.

No, the opposite is true.

Originally Posted by RC Man

That might not pass the cruel and unusual punishment amendment of the Constitution.

It's not punishment; it's not criminal. It's just debt that the FAA magicks into being.

You could argue that anything more than a speeding penalty fine is not Constitutional.

You cannot argue anything, because you cannot reach a court on anything but the subject of "did the FAA have any substantial evidence of the violation".

FAA needs to realize that there is a big difference between dealing with commercial pilots and some kid out having fun on the weekend.

They do; commercial pilots have lobby groups and kids having fun on the weekend do not, so the latter can be treated any way they like.

Originally Posted by aeronaut999

Fast losing interest in advocating for model aviation-- time to raise the pirate flag

Just sayin'...

time to raise the pirate flag

...

Originally Posted by nybbler

Governments have solved the civil disobedience strategy. If you make the penalties high enough and the press not care, they can deter most and destroy the rest.

Yeah that totally worked with digital music and movie piracy. Oh wait no it didn't. People understand that a one in a million chance of being caught is actually less than the chance of being killed in a car wreck commuting to or from work. If people were that terrified on long shot disaster scenarios nobody would leave their house.

Somthing to keep in mind, if an RFID device has a failure or glitch and reports a higher altitude than it was actually at the FAA is just going to assume it was right and they never fail or have glitches and slap you with a fine anyway.

Originally Posted by Atomic Skull

Somthing to keep in mind, if an RFID device has a failure or glitch and reports a higher altitude than it was actually at the FAA is just going to assume it was right and they never fail or have glitches and slap you with a fine anyway.

Seriously doubt this. Mostly because the FAA has stipulated that the RID modules only need an accuracy of +/- 150 feet.. So you could be at 400 feet in reality but the device can report 550 feet and still be within specs.

In addition, this concept that the only one of the 8 conditions for recreational operations in 44809 that the FAA cares about is the altitude condition is silly. The FAA, not anyone else, is going to have roving bands of altitude police just waiting to slap a fine on a person for being at 401 feet.

Originally Posted by Silent-AV8R

Seriously doubt this. Mostly because the FAA has stipulated that the RID modules only need an accuracy of +/- 150 feet.. So you could be at 400 feet in reality but the device can report 550 feet and still be within specs.

In addition, this concept that the only one of the 8 conditions for recreational operations in 44809 that the FAA cares about is the altitude condition is silly. The FAA, not anyone else, is going to have roving bands of altitude police just waiting to slap a fine on a person for being at 401 feet.

It will be interesting to see how far they expect the broadcast to go although I was surprised how far ADS-B goes I setup a Piaware system at my house just a dipole antenna on top of my house I can pickup aircraft far away as 200 plus miles. If the FAA has enough receivers they could record data how high you are going.

<250g airplanes have become extremely popular in the past year. So popular that one new US company started up that specializes in that size. They are so popular that they have trouble keeping them in stock. I have several and am about to finish another one. They are more fun than I expected, although I wish FAA would raise that to a couple of Lb. 1 Kg would be a nice round number.

FAA says they are toys and does not regulate them. That may be the future.

https://willynillies.com/

.

Originally Posted by RC Man

<250g airplanes have become extremely popular in the past year. So popular that one new US company started up that specializes in that size. They are so popular that they have trouble keeping them in stock. I have several and am about to finish another one. They are more fun than I expected, although I wish FAA would raise that to a couple of Lb. 1 Kg would be a nice round number.

FAA says they are toys and does not regulate them. That may be the future.

https://willynillies.com/

.

There is a lot to be said for smaller stuff - lower cost, less fuss, less hassle transporting, less room needed to fly, etc. I just wish that the cut-off was a bit higher (say 1kg). Most of what I fly today still falls outside that range, but I could see a having a lot of fun with stuff that falls under that limit.

So I put my powered dirigible on the scale and it was negative, guess I'm good to go <250g.

Originally Posted by rcgroupie

...it was negative...

What, it pulled up on the pressure plate?

You would think, but I bet FAA would say uninflated weight is what counts

Man, it's pretty crazy how some of the threads in the MAADA subforum have lately gone kind of obsessive-compulsive character-attacking crazy into the negativo-sphere. As far as doing something positive for the hobby, I'm proud of my efforts to try to rouse others up to contribute comments on the RID NPRM back in early 2020. I also intend to spearhead efforts to get my local flying site approved for a ceiling higher than 400', since it's clear that the local club leadership had no clue whatsoever how to go about doing that when the opportunity first presented itself, and likewise still have no clue how to go about doing that. (Maybe says something about the quality of communication between the AMA and the local clubs? Or not? I really don't know. All I know is that I'm going to take it on as personal project and try to get it done.) So that's what I'm focused on now, just positive stuff, nothing about bashing people. Of course, it goes without saying, that none of my fly-for-fun hobby aircraft will ever under any circumstances whatsoever be befouled with a disgusting thing like a RID transmitter. If I'm using a quadcopter drone for commercial work or academic research, sure, whatever, I'll play by their rules. But not while I'm just out enjoying my hobby.

Guys, let's face it. The FAA is being squeezed by heavy pressures coming both from the security/safety/anti-terrorism side of things, and from the "let's create a world where the national airspace system has a clear path for intensive commercial and scientific drone usage" side of things. That's the reality. That's the brave new world that we live in. No one can deny that a rc aircraft can easily be turned into a deadly weapon, or that idiots are flying their quadcopters in the airliner approach paths and other stupid places, or that the numbers of commercial/scientific drones flying in the airspace in the near future absolutely will proliferate exponentially for a while and the FAA must come up with some response to that. We hobbyists ought to do our best to just stay under the radar and not make waves, as we fly non-compliantly in our own little neck of the woods, be that via a quadcopter drone racing though the treetops under FPV with no spotter, or via a pattern flyer punching up well above 400' AGL during his practice session, or via a sailplane specked out at 2500 to 3000' AGL over the rural countryside far from any airport. That's what we do, and that's what we are most certainly going to keep doing. Safely.