Daddyo57

My Feedback: (15)

SilentAV8R I just spent an hour looking on the site you sent! interesting and good to know, for instance if I lived 10 miles from here I coul not fly my RC airplanes due to heavy Fire Flights in the area. great Info thanks!

savagecommander

http://www.aviationtoday.com/am/issu...tebook/27.html

dbcisco

Our illegal radio station got raided by the FCC in 1974. All they did was help us adjust our carrier wave (it was clipping badly) so it wouldn't interfere with other stations. They didn't even seem to care that our power output was twice the legal limit. They were neither the Keystone cops nor Nazi wannabes. They simply wanted problems to go away as easily and quickly as possible. They were very polite and helpful.

beagleone

I guess a lot of people on this forum are not AMA members or don't fly at AMA fields. My clubs field is approx. 6 mi. from Logan International, And another a few miles from Hanscom Air Force Base. On normal regular days we have to keep below 300 ft. alt. During FTR's we do not fly r/c. It seams like a big farce, But it's better to wait out an hour or two than it is to lose a great flying field. Case in point. Mr. Obama was in the area not long ago because of flooding. Three huge (CH-53's?) Marine helicopters flew about 200 ft. directly over our field. We definitly had FTR's that day.

dbcisco

Well a club has a certain responsibility to accomodate. I am sure that every kid with a T-rex in his backyard did need to worry though.
Like I said, and it is pretty common sense, if you are flying something large enough and high enough to take out a real airplane, doesn't take much in the right spot, then you need t be aware of all air traffic situations as much as if you yourself was flyiing a real aircraft. I'm just not buying that the Secret Service is ever going to SWAT team a 12 year old with a slow-stick in the park. They aren't retarded.

daleflysrc

My Feedback: (26)

I got out of General Aviation work almost 20 years ago because of the F.A.A. !! You know !! The TOMBSTONE AGENCY !! Their lack of common sense and mass amount of useless knowledge, scared me into auto/heavy eqip. repair. I once wittnessed an F.A.A. inspector, argue with a supervisor over a P-63, being a P-38 !! NO, not a P-39 fellows !! a P-38 !! Is'nt that scarry !!
Now to top that off, another inspector, grounded a CE-421 with Q tipped props for a prop strike !! I call it Educated beyond their intelligence !! Now thay want to keep poor old Obama safe !! so boys don't fly your model airplane !! B.S. !! Then theirs the A.M.A. getting all snuggley with the E.A.A !! I remember when the E.A.A. would'nt let us even show our airplanes, less alone fly them at their events !! Might keep a person from joining the E.A.A., and thus joining the A.M.A., and oh yes the E.A.A. and the A.O.P.A. wants me and you to go get a Flight Physical, just as if whe were going to fly a full scale aircraft !! COME ON PEOPLE !! Its a Model Airplane, not a Cessna 172 !! Use some COMMON SENSE for a CHANGE !!

TexasAirBoss

My Feedback: (22)

I think more than a few people here have the ideathat its us vs. the FAA. Thats not it at all. The FAA is the band leader, but we are the band.

You and I are the eyes and ears ofour model airplanecommunity. We work <u>with</u> the FAA and law inforcement .

It is an honor to serve your fellow Americans when ever possible. With freedom comes responsibility. I am sick of the whiners complaining about doing the responsible thing.Grow up. Be a man. Do your duty.

dbcisco

I don't think we are even the band. We are the triangle player in the band. Noone even knows we exist and if we don't show up for the concert, noone cares.

Hossfly

Very Good Point, IMO, cfircav8r.

Unfortunately for the existing problem there are many RC Hobbyists that have no real information about the FAA and their 1:1 scale rules. I had 41 years as a professional fly-boy and having been retired for 14 years, I don't keep up with it anymore. Therefore I appreciate Hanson's simple approach with information concerning the TFRs and how it is being manipulated, er, uh, I mean used in this day and age.

Speaking of the FAA, I have lots of stories. I was once charged with a criminal violation. Incident in July, notified of criminal charges following March, found not-guilty in May, then FAA tried to appeal to a Federal District Court, where the judge after a review in July, simply told the FAA that they had no appeal rights, and to get their foolishness out of his court-room.

In my 13 years of military, the FAA was of little consideration. Different story in the 28 years air-carrier. In the air carriers, the FAA holds one's meal-ticket. Now with all the disappointed airline pilot wanna'-bees on the streets, I suspect FAA Inspectors are looking for whatever they can find to make work, and justify their paychecks.

RCers, you might like to be aware of what could be! [sm=angry_smile.gif]

dbcisco

If any gov't agency or agent is out to get you, there is nothing to stop them from ruining your life with false arrests.

TexasAirBoss

My Feedback: (22)

The AMA members are a very large player. Remember, information flows both ways. We observe and report suspicious behavior. We know better than anyone the difference between a modeller and an atypical stranger that may attempt to bring down VIP aircraft with a drone. And our numbers are considerable. In fact,we are several times the size of the FAA. They depend on us. So bang yourtriangle or blow your kazoo. Join the team and make noise with whatever you have if you seea threat.

dbcisco

The AMA has no power over the FAA unless the AMA has enough members to change the outcome of an election. As a gov't agency the concerns of the AMA are not going to be trampled for no reason and thus the AMA is listened to. If the NSA wants nothing unregistered in the air above 200 feet the the AMA can't stop it from becoming law. Heck, the NRA couldn't stop gun laws from being enacted and they actually have political clout.

Sport_Pilot

Blame the secret service for TFR's not the FAA. Their existance was not even part of FAA's reg's when they first started them up after 9-11, though part of some security laws.

Sport_Pilot

Who is the NSA? But in any event I suspect the AMA could band with hang gliders, ballon ad makers, as well as the RPV people to get that changed.

Silent-AV8R

i think that in a large part it is the commercial UAV community that is pushing for more restrictions on hobby RC rather than being a group who is looking to help us out with regard to the pending FAA sUAS rules.

Sport_Pilot

The part Icannot wrap my head around is how you were interfering with ground control radar a mile from the airport. Ground control radar is for tracing airplanes sitting on the ground when visibility is low. I think you got the terminology wrong, or you were piercing their airspace with the crane. If so the FAA has every right. They sometimes kill projects where tall buildings are near the airport. The fact you are ignorant of the law does not give you the right to erect a crane in their airspace.

Sport_Pilot

I would think that would change if they were looking at staying below 200 feet.

Silent-AV8R

I have not heard any mention of a 200 foot altitude cap.

TexasAirBoss

My Feedback: (22)

The FAA is not going to war with Isreal ! The PLO and the NSA are working together to ground our models and the IRA can't do a thing.The ACVA isn't going to help defend your right to brew beer at home and ground water taxes are still void in RI.


















Isn't itrediculous when someone makes a completely beligerent and unfounded reply to a post. Why do you do that ?

dbcisco

I wonder if they will scramble the jets to take out migrating geese, too.

tinner1

First off let me AGAIN explain my point was there are over powered FAA people who want to show us how important they are, so why test them. Second, I stated it was a true life incident. I did not get my "terminology wrong" because "ground control radar" is what the power hungry guy from the FAA told US we violated, and they saw our crane "moving". HE is the one who gave incorrect terminology to us. I didn't know nor do I care which is which, he made his point real clear and that was MY POINT HERE.

See "red" in quote where I said we didn't contact the FAA nor did we know we were supposed to. See "blue" in quote were I said we didn't know about notifying the airport or the FAA, and they said what I am saying to the OP of this thread, ignorance is no excuse. I NEVER said we were right, I was trying to show how overboard the FAA can and will go. They had EVERY RIGHT to shut us down and did. I NEVER said or implied they didn't.

My whole point of posting the incident was to say why not just obey the TFR's and not "test" the FAA. I hope that is clearer now to EVERYONE......

Tarasdad

Unfortunately it's not just the FAA who seem to suffer from Little Tin God Disease among those who get paychecks from Federal agencies. My wife is a Notary Public here in California. She gets called out to the local detention center where those in custody on immigration charges are held all the time. Well, apparently a new batch of ICE employees just came on board out there. My wife was called to notarize some documents for a gent out there, because of state law she can only accept certain types of ID as proof of identity. The only thing this guy has is his passport, but that's in the custody of his ICE case officer. That individual told my wife she (my wife) wasn't allowed to be there any time but weekend visiting hours, that oly lawyers could visit during the week, something that is totally untrue because as a public servant (technically an officer of the state) my wife has the same privileges AS an attorney when conducting notary business. She told the ICE officer that and got "state law doesn't mean jack, we're Federal" in return. She was then told this would be the only time the ICE officer would allow her to have the passport during the week and that from now on she needed to come on weekends. Minor problem is that ICE doesn't work weekends, and they're the only ones with access to the passports of detainees. When my wife asked about that the ICE officer said "not my problem" and walked off. The sheriff's officer who was also present (all actual supervision and detainee care are done by the county sheriff) just shook his head, looked at my wife and said "she's new."

My wife is actually out there right now doing work for the same guy. Can't wait to hear how it went this time.

Sport_Pilot

Then I suspect that this was detected by the ground control radar, but not the reason it was prohibited.

Depending on the elevation of the suface your crane was sitting on it likely pentrated the 100 to 1 foot slope from the runway.

http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text....2&amp;idno=14

Seems to me they didn't even come close to going overboard. What if a planeflew into the crane just as you raised it?

hook57

My Feedback: (21)

<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"><span style="font-size: 9pt">Sorry to throw my few cents in, can't help myself:
Horrace, the criminal charge had to have a basis other than a 14 CFR rule/reg... then or now, given your years of experience I'm betting you know that and it's an important distinctionto makefor thoseunfamiliar with due process or civil law. Not saying it didn't happen, but whatever it washad to possess an element that would cause/provoke a civil action rather thana proposed certificate action. Dbcisco etc, you have to realize that there are several LOB's within most organizations (government and corporate) and you should refer to each respectively, FAA for example: AFS, ATO, ATC, AVN, FICO, Security, etc. when each represents various functions. I suspect ATC and or AVN was involved with the crane deal. Also, Sport, radar does not paint airplanes, cars,or metal, only on days with low visibility. Perhaps the crane was located at a point where it interfered with the ILS system (LOC or G/S) or produced a large hit on the radar scope that interfered withan approach course. Also, it is not &ldquo;100 to 1&rdquo; for the obstruction clearance plane (which I believe you are referring too) it&rsquo;s closer to 20 &ndash; 1, but there are several other factors involved such as aircraft performance, etc. Not defining it, but just surmising a possibility. Ignorance of the law is unfortunately appliedalmost universally to anything we do that involves codification. Do I agree with that? Not always, but sometimes it's best to watch the 800 lb gorilla from a distance than to try and cross his path. That 800 lb gorilla did not gain all that weight overnight either, so I doubt he is going to lose much of it overnight either. Additionally, the rules on TFRs were in place long before 9/11, they've just beenmuch more highlighted since then. There ispossibly a means to get around that which I have inquired about, because it nearly nipped a classic pattern contest a few months ago (would hate for that to actually happen), we'll see. Tinner, not knowing what LOB it was,unfortunately there are some (maybe more than we'd like) that take their discretionary authority a bit too far. It sounds like that may have been the case in your incident.
hook</span></div>

Sport_Pilot

There are several slopes and 100 to one is one of them, though I think the 50 to one may have been the correct slop.. At 5000 feet 100 to onethat would be a restriction of only 50 feet and 50 to one is 100 feet.This is well below the limits of the airspace you are thinking of. It's in the regulation I linked in my post if you care to read it.