AMA thinks real pilots should avoid RC airplane's

[Aaron Novak]

Tony I agree,
In the past it took someone with dedication to build and fly. That same dedication was usually part of a personality that was intelligent, had common sense, knew to follow guidelines and wanted to be educated. Now any idiot can do it, and so we have a higher percentage of idiots doing it. Very frustrating as someone who has flown models for years under AMA guidelines. The business of commercial piloting for compensation is a sticky one. How do you separate the guy making money taking aerial photos from the one flying a demo of a hobby plane at a show? The FAA is taking a very "all inclusive" stance on their control, which worries me.

[ssmdive]

It use to be that one needed to get training in order to fly one of these Rc airplanes. With the invention of the quad copter one does not need this. People are buying these, taking them home and flying them right out of the box with no training from an AMA Club or instructor.

Its a training thing I believe. We should not allow some 13 year old to buy a quad copter and fly it not without training. But its happening everyday and youtube is full of the video's of just this thing. Grown men doing it too, like my buddy.

It is false that a person needed training to fly an RC plane. I have been flying RC for almost 30 years and I have never had to get 'training'. Not been a member of the AMA for the majority of that time either.

We need training to drive a car, shoot a gun and do many many things all in the name of safety.

There is also no formal training required to fire a gun, OR fly an ultralight for that matter. I prefer this than some arbitrary rule from some govt agency that has no idea what they are doing.

The RC groups reply to put the onus on the real pilot is bullshit. There are plenty of RC pilots that have zero training and even those that have training violating the FAR's with RC planes.... Examples have been posted on this thread already. Plus the AMA model code prohibits all of this already.

1-a: In a careless or reckless manner
2-a: Yield the right of way to all human-carrying aircraft
2-b: See and avoid all aircraft and a spotter must be used when appropriate
2-c: Not fly higher than approximately 400 feet above ground level within three (3) miles of an airport without notifying the airport opperator.

RC 'pilots' (of which I am one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcAZ8JMUVS4 ) should not get right of way over a real aircraft. RC planes are cool toys. They do not have, nor should they have, the same rights as passenger carrying aircraft.

Here is a prime example of how the RC pilot was acting like an idiot
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SpveweAqGYM

[Frank Giger]

I'm throwing a flag on the field when it comes to UAV's and manned aircraft collisions!

While we certainly agree with the importance of ensuring the safety of aircraft occupants, we must digress to point out that pilots of mancarrying
aircraft are required to stay 500 feet away from people (FAR 91.119).

Irrelevant. It is not the distance to the operator that matters one bit - it is the distance from the remote controlled aircraft that matters. Nice strawman, though.

Pilots of model aircraft would be very hard pressed to intentionally hit a moving aircraft from their ground reference.

Silly statement on their part, as it implies that RC operators would be trying in the first place but having difficulty achieving it. Secondly, intent rarely has anything to do with responsibility in an accident. It's like saying pilots would be hard pressed to intentionally hit another aircraft on a runway while landing and so they're not at fault in a runway incursion. They're excusing simple negligence by proclaiming it wasn't gross negligence.

In a collision between a model aircraft and a real aircraft, the assignment of blame should begin by determining whether the pilot of the real aircraft was recklessly operating within 500 feet of the model aircraft operator. Only after that could it be determined who was better able to avoid the accident.

Written by a non-pilot who thinks that manned aircraft are as maneuverable as an RC one. It also hearkens back to their point about intentionally hitting a moving aircraft. It's actually harder to intentionally hit a moving object from within another moving object. That's why skeet shooting is done from the stationary standing position instead of while on the run.

I get what the author is trying to say, but he leaves out the condition required - a NOTAM or warning that RC aircraft will be operating in a specific area.

The other analogy is a driver rear-ending another who is stopped at a red light. When the police arrive, they find the driver of the car that was struck had broken tail lights (say, through his own admission). The person who hit him from behind now claims he isn't responsible for the accident, as his victim himself was breaking the law at the time. Um, no, you're both in violation of the rules, but they're separate issues largely unrelated to each other.

But it's a great rhetorical device to take a specific circumstance and generalizing it to automatically remove blame from the RC operator.

In most cases this could not be the operator of the model aircraft.

And with a flourish we end stating emphatically that it could not be the operator of the model aircraft, with the very weak "in most cases." I'd of gone with "invariably" or "In all but a few extreme cases" to really cement the idea.

The author clearly places the value of a remote control airplane above that of human life, which is his prerogative - but one I strongly disagree with.

Now, then, let's look at a collision between an RC plane and a real one. According to the AMA, it's the pilot's fault because he flew within 500 feet of the operator. Remember, "In most cases this could not be the operator of the model aircraft.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hoZD9pczEVs

The AMA would have sided with the RC pilot, though, based on his "500 foot" rule.

The NTSB report says otherwise. http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/Ge...10LA487&rpt=fa

In an interview with the event coordinator, he clarified that the title of airboss was not a formal

position. He did provide a safety briefing with the radio controlled airplane operators the morning of
the event. In this briefing he emphasized that only one aircraft was to fly at a time, they were to

fly on the east side of the runway, not over the runway, and no one was to fly without first speaking
to him. He carried a radio with him to monitor traffic.

[1600vw]

I'm throwing a flag on the field when it comes to UAV's and manned aircraft collisions!



Irrelevant. It is not the distance to the operator that matters one bit - it is the distance from the remote controlled aircraft that matters. Nice strawman, though.



Silly statement on their part, as it implies that RC operators would be trying in the first place but having difficulty achieving it. Secondly, intent rarely has anything to do with responsibility in an accident. It's like saying pilots would be hard pressed to intentionally hit another aircraft on a runway while landing and so they're not at fault in a runway incursion. They're excusing simple negligence by proclaiming it wasn't gross negligence.



Written by a non-pilot who thinks that manned aircraft are as maneuverable as an RC one. It also hearkens back to their point about intentionally hitting a moving aircraft. It's actually harder to intentionally hit a moving object from within another moving object. That's why skeet shooting is done from the stationary standing position instead of while on the run.

I get what the author is trying to say, but he leaves out the condition required - a NOTAM or warning that RC aircraft will be operating in a specific area.

The other analogy is a driver rear-ending another who is stopped at a red light. When the police arrive, they find the driver of the car that was struck had broken tail lights (say, through his own admission). The person who hit him from behind now claims he isn't responsible for the accident, as his victim himself was breaking the law at the time. Um, no, you're both in violation of the rules, but they're separate issues largely unrelated to each other.

But it's a great rhetorical device to take a specific circumstance and generalizing it to automatically remove blame from the RC operator.



And with a flourish we end stating emphatically that it could not be the operator of the model aircraft, with the very weak "in most cases." I'd of gone with "invariably" or "In all but a few extreme cases" to really cement the idea.

The author clearly places the value of a remote control airplane above that of human life, which is his prerogative - but one I strongly disagree with.

Now, then, let's look at a collision between an RC plane and a real one. According to the AMA, it's the pilot's fault because he flew within 500 feet of the operator. Remember, "In most cases this could not be the operator of the model aircraft.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hoZD9pczEVs

The AMA would have sided with the RC pilot, though, based on his "500 foot" rule.

The NTSB report says otherwise. http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/Ge...10LA487&rpt=fa

Here in lies the problem. The AMA sided with the RC pilot. But yet the RC pilot was told do not over fly the runway and to stay east of said runway. Then this RC pilot is worried about his 8 grand he lost. If he would have followed rules he would not have lost it. To have the AMA side with this rc pilot, lets just say I lost all respect for the AMA.

I wonder if anyone has any numbers on the RC flying fields located at small airports. If the powers at be side with the AMA, those whom fly out of said field will always be in the wrong when it comes to a collision between said two airplanes. The manned airplane will always be in the wrong.

I see this turning bad real fast. For I know some a-holes who would love to do nothing more the cause problems for those hogging their airfield with these slow flying N numbered airplanes.

Tony

[WLIU]

Be careful what you wish for.

First, AMA advocates for the RC folks just like EAA advocates for sport pilots. You have to read their input from that perspective. You do not have to agree with it. Its up to us to advocate our own point of view, which EAA does. TO put it another way, when you reply to a policy proposal, you speak to the proposal, you do not debate the other submitters.

Asking FAA to treat every RC aircraft owner like the worse case example can easily come around to the FAA treating every sport pilot like the worse case example. It is not in our collective interest to encourage the FAA to start thinking that way.

There are bad apples in every walk of life. Most folks who stray out of bounds do so out of ignorance. And they don't stray too far. Some bad apples do stupid stuff because they just do stupid stuff and need more serious guidance. I suggest that we want the FAA to propose rules that assume that most folks try to do the common sense thing, some folks make mistakes but are open to education, and that a small group needs more aggressive treatment. To encourage the FAA to act more expansively and aggressively is likely to have side effects that you and I will not like. When you look in the mirror, do you see a violator? I can assure you that some of our federal friends do. So lets go easy on encouraging that view of anyone, including some peers that we don't enjoy.

Today's challenge is that the unmanned flying machine world is changing faster than some folks can digest. We have to get used to that and figure out effective strategies for working with the changes around us. Or get run over by them.

Best of luck,

Wes
N78PS

[Frank Giger]

Wes, I have no problems with the other points they make - in fact, I agree with them.

Where I have issues is when they want parity or even primacy over manned aircraft. Frankly the attitude that when an RC plane and manned plane collide that it should be presumed the pilot in the air is presumed to be at fault is scary.

Since collisions of this sort are very rare it's clear they're looking towards the future, and their vision of the future is a threat to GA. Why allow those noisy, dangerous manned aircraft around when they're a hazard to safe, less intrusive RC aircraft? Make the local uncontrolled county airport RC only and the safety factor goes up, not down, but by all means keep funding them and keep them open!

[1600vw]

They need to enforce the rules and regs that have been put in place for RC use. Why change anything. Line of site to 400' nothing more. This really is not about the airplane hitting an rc down at runway height as it is about running into an rc at altitudes even if those altitudes are 700' or 4000'.

Don't bust me for hitting or crashing into an RC at 1000' telling me I should have kept a 500' rule. Not when these RC airplanes can fly circles around the airplane people like myself fly.

The only thing I wish for is free open space to fly my airplane in without running into some sort of UAV aircraft. Or worse yet having one run into me and blaming me for it.

Like I said I can see bad things coming from this.

Tony

[Fastcapy]

Don't bust me for hitting or crashing into an RC at 1000' telling me I should have kept a 500' rule. Not when these RC airplanes can fly circles around the airplane people like myself fly.

Sometimes it is hard enough to pick out a 172, trying to see and avoid a RC plane moving at the speeds some of them do is very difficult. Sorry, but a guy flying a "toy" (and I have a few of those R/C toys myself) should not have right of way or priority over a manned aircraft...

[WLIU]

"Where I have issues is...." I agree. My point is that we should expect the AMA to have this point of view and when we have an opportunity to provide input on the FAA policy we should clearly and rationally offer our view supporting or suggesting changes to the FAA policy that protect manned aircraft flight. No use burning up lots of energy on a group that you can not influence.

Unfortunately, I agree with the post above that notes that in this area the FAA is good at stating policy but poor on follow up. The AMA has a directory of affiliated clubs. A start towards corralling the folks who do not understand the hazards of mixing their models with manned aircraft would be the FAA crafting a guidance doc and delivering it to every one of the AMA affiliated clubs. And having each FSDO's FAAST representative make the rounds of RC club meetings to meet, greet, and speak with the members. That sort of effort might go a long way towards taking care of the RC guys who simply need education. But I will hazard a guess that it will be a while before that moves up the priority list.

Best of luck,

Wes
N78PS

[Rick Rademacher]

Both sides could learn something from one another. It’s too bad that pilots aren’t up on the fantastic leaps of technology that are taking place in the RC world that may filter up to general aviation. And, it’s too bad that many new RC pilots lack many of the safety precepts that all full scale pilots recognize.
I was thinking about bringing my 350QX2 AP quad to Oshkosh to demonstrate as long as it doesn’t get confiscated by security. We all need to work together for the common good and enjoyment of the skies.

This one is for Neil