AMA thinks real pilots should avoid RC airplane's

[1600vw]

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

What? Please explain how this has anything to do with blaming a pilot of an airplane if an rc airplane crashes into it? I am up on all the tech stuff and fly RC airplanes. I have had 1/2 scale. Just what is it you want me to learn. The rules or regs? How to fly them? How to use Spectrum equipment?

I know the rules and they are being broken and to blame others for a misfortune if something happens is just wrong. Why have rules if they are not going to be enforced. This is not teaching anyone anything except when it comes to rc's. There are no rules.

I have learned something from this. What I learned, if you fly into an RC anything it is on you to see and avoid. If you hit it be ready to pay for you will be in the wrong if you are not dead.

I still believe it comes down to training. No different then getting a gun permit. One must take a class and pass a test. These toys will kill and people have been killed by them. Just wait until one takes out an airliner or small passenger airplane. It will be pilot error on the pilots part. He did not see and avoid, I see it know.

Scary....

Tony

[Mike M]

Tony, the answer is hidden in your post. When an R/C or UAV or (insert acronym of the day here) is involved in an event which includes a human death, the remote operator and the whatsit owner must be executed. Bet there would be great safety equipment and extremely cautious operators.

[1600vw]

Tony, the answer is hidden in your post. When an R/C or UAV or (insert acronym of the day here) is involved in an event which includes a human death, the remote operator and the whatsit owner must be executed. Bet there would be great safety equipment and extremely cautious operators.

There you go, that would solve the problem.

If it was only that easy. But I don't believe this is the answer to this problem. I know one thing. Who ever wrote that letter is a nut case. Or has never operated an airplane bigger then what will fit in their car.

That piece could not have been written by a " Real " pilot but by someone flying a toy. You can tell from the piece he/she believes " Real " airplanes have the performance of a RC airplane.

Tony

[Mike M]

Yes, Tony, I was intentionally over-the-top with my suggestion and I'm glad the dark humor wasn't misunderstood. The underlying dilemma includes the fact that prudent people will be able to integrate disparate uses of the public airspace safely no matter what the rules are, balanced by the fact that even perfect rules can't cure stupid.

[Frank Giger]

The crazy thing is that inclusion of that paragraph was unnecessary and needlessly inflammatory.

When there is a wreck in an aircraft that causes serious damage to it or injury to the pilot or passenger the NTSB (or an FAA representative of the NTSB) investigates. The RC operator gets his say on the matter, and I can see many scenarios where he would not be held at fault (and the pilot of the manned aircraft would be).

Here's a for instance:

Let's say Tony is taking his half scale (!) RC aircraft out for a flight and is doing a lazy race track over the lake at 400' above the water and I get cute in my Champ and decide to check it out up close. Heck, I'll bet his "toy" can beat my stall speed, so I try to fly formation with it.....and as he's trying to get away from me without putting it in the drink I eat it with my prop or take it out with a wing strut. NTSB is going to say I'm an idiot and not cite Tony, as I was behaving recklessly.

Now, then, if I'm just tooling along at 500' over the lake and not being an idiot and Tony's RC plane hits mine, he's at fault - I have right of way. The presumption is that the see-and-avoid onus is on whomever does not have right of way. When a Baron plows into a Champ in the pattern, it's the Baron's fault 99% of the time, as it's much faster than the Champ.

It's up to the investigator to decide which is the case....was I acting recklessly as a pilot or not. If so, it's my fault. If not, it's the RC operator's fault. Or just damned bad luck on everyone's part. Even in the "it's always somebody's fault" way of writing up accident reports, there are mitigating factors that get explained in the findings.

In the example I provided where a biplane hit the hovering RC plane there were a lot of mitigating factors. It was simple negligence on the RC operator's part; he didn't knowingly endanger anyone. He'd be liable for damage to the aircraft, yes, but far from a charge of reckless endangerment.

Now, then, I agree with the RC guys that having to advise an airport within 5 miles of every flight of their UAV's is unworkable. For events, sure - if there's a large gathering at a football field 5 miles from my airport I'd like to know so I can avoid it. The other side is that as pilots we're lousy at checking NOTAMs for local or near cross country flights.