• If you are new to GiantScaleNews.com, please register, introduce yourself, and make yourself at home.

    We're 1st in Giant Scale RC because we've got the best membership on the internet! Take a look around and don't forget to register to get all of the benefits of GSN membership!

    Welcome!

Are you going to register with the FAA? Cast Your Vote!

Are you going to register with the FAA?

  • Yes

    Votes: 59 67.0%

  • No

    Votes: 29 33.0%
  • Total voters
    88
reyn3545

reyn3545

100cc
But, if there's an incident above 500 feet, then it occurs in space that was set aside for full scale aircraft. There's not a scenario where you could ever prove that you were not at fault. If an accident occurred below 500 feet on a runway that was designed to accommodate a full scale aircraft, I can't see how a model aircraft operator would be anything other than at fault. It was just a few years ago that the FAA sided firmly with a full scale Pitts flyer who arguably was performing with a model aircraft flyer at an airshow when the two collided over the runway. I'm not choosing sides here, but the FAA clearly did, and for reasons that are clear... the full scale plane has the right of way in every situation because there are humans in the plane who's livelihood should always come before the protection of a model airplane, even if they are showing off to the audience at an airshow with a smoke pass down the runway.

If we all agree that the FAA can and should establish rules for ALL airspace, then it makes sense that they've taken steps to designate 0 - 400 feet as space intended for model aircraft. 500 and above is set aside for various types of full scale aircraft. That doesn't mean that RC aircraft cannot operate above 400 feet, it means that if you are above 400 feet and there's an incident, you could be in deep weeds. If something occurs below 400 feet and it's not in the area of an airport, then the full scale plane would have the burden of truth. I don't see any action by the AMA that would cause the FAA to consider changing that position.

Nobody (yet) has outlawed drones capable of flying above the clouds and streaming video down to an FPV pilot sitting in his basement. The ruling establishes safety guidelines that would not allow this, but its not illegal. You are flying in airspace where you have zero authority, and you would likely be 100% at fault for any accident, but that doesn't make it illegal.
 
F

Flyin4fun

70cc twin V2
Judge said:
Sort of. But in this case it backs you into a corner. You agreed to follow the guideline, which is not a rule as you correctly point out. However, in agreeing to follow it if you cause an incident above 400 feet the FAA will likely invoke Part 91.13 - Reckless or Careless operation because you violated the guideline you agreed to follow. It is a de facto rule making process that likely will end up being a loser in court and a moot point once the NPRM is finalized, but it may cost you a bunch of money to prove your innocence.

Which is why I am holding off until the last minute (2/19/16) to see what the AMA is able to accomplish (if anything).
Click to expand...
AGAIN, Bill..... the checkoff is that I agree to the guideline to "INTEND" to fly under 400 feet , "agreeing to", and "agreeing to intend to", are 2 different meanings.
AGAIN, even if I would cause an incident with a FS under 400 feet, I am still liable due to see and avoid.....
 
Last edited:
reyn3545

reyn3545

100cc
Here's my thoughts....

The club will probably require compliance

The FAA has already released their opinion

The AMA won't change that opinion, but they might combine registration processes

I don't know how they plan to enforce, but I don't want to be "inspected" and found non compliant.

So.... I registered. anyone else is certainly opinion to their own reasons and decision.
 
Judge

Judge

70cc twin V2
A conflict with a manned aircraft will ALWAYS be our fault, regardless of altitude. As noted above, even the incident outside Denver was laid on the RC pilot. It is incumbent upon us to ALWAYS give the right-of-way to manned aircraft and it is on us to "see & avoid" at all times. It is really easy for us to see them and almost impossible for them to see us.

Classic example. A buddy of mine and I flew in his RV-7 to one of the largest glider contests in the SW a few years ago. We decided to do a lap around the outside of the venue. We could see all kinds of people on the ground staring into the air at their planes, and yet we did not spot a single one!! And we KNEW they were there and what we were looking for.

I still see no reason to rush registering. I plan to give the AMA the time they requested, until 2/19/16, which is the last day for existing operators to register. AMA appears to have wheels in motion, why not give them time to see what happens??
 
reyn3545

reyn3545

100cc
Agreed... It all depends on what you expect the AMA to accomplish on top of their stellar performance this far. If you think they will make some progress... Then wait.

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top