Comment by JONATHAN on October 24, 2010 at 11:42am

It is quite sad that the model airplane community has to hide in the shadow of the FAA. I understand most of this has come about because of the fast growing community of FPV/UAV modelers as well as the popularity of large scale rc airplanes and the inherent chance of full scale/rc collision. We (society) in the last ten years have become a wimpy, non common sense, statistic happy bunch of turds. As I was sitting in the chow hall in Afghanistan, I read a article in a newspaper about a mayor or police chief of some city here in the US that ordered no more foot persuits of criminals because of a police officer that was injured (broken leg or ankle) chasing a drug dealer or something to that effect. Or how about this...in the same paper I read about this (its not the same artical but the same topic) http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090430/1258064707.shtml
Seriously!? Sorry, just had to vent.

Comment by JONATHAN on October 24, 2010 at 11:49am

Just to clarify....not picking on the blind. =) just the silly people that do not look both ways.

Comment by Paul Marsh on October 24, 2010 at 11:51am

@Jonathan--Thanks for your comments, and no need to apologize. What are forums for if not to vent once in a while?

For some very strange reason, I can't open the article link from within your post, but it will open from within the e-mail notice I got of your response. I'll post the link that's working for me, although it appears to be the same.

LINK

Comment by Rory Paul on October 24, 2010 at 12:05pm

I wrote a letter to the AMA with regards to their passive stance regarding sUAS and their lack of vision regarding where modeling is going. I received a response that just reinforced my opinion that the AMA is only interested in maintaining the current flying status. Their problem is that their membership going to start thinning and unless they come to terms with "computer aided" flying they will not attract a younger membership.

Moderator Comment by Gary Mortimer on October 24, 2010 at 12:28pm

Patrick Egan has had some pretty highly placed people commenting on a similar theme. Looks like things are coming to a head over there. I know there is strong lobbying from manufacturers that are seeing overseas deployments ending and they need a place to sell their wares.

Comment by Rory Paul on October 24, 2010 at 12:47pm

Storm in a tea cup...the bottom line is that it "looks" like the FAA may start beefing up enforcement of the COA process by adding some people. Anybody here have a COA? I do suspect that they are under pressure (being taken to play golf and lots of lunches at expensive DC restaurants) to get some type of policy in place to allow the use of sUAS in the NAS by law enforcement (thanks AV) and here lies the risk to us. The companies making miltary grade sUAS do not want us "hobbyists" muddying the waters. They want to sell units at $25-30K a pop and if we can do it for under $1K it makes them look greedy. So expect along with the policy enabling law enforcement to operate sUAS some form of attempt to clamp down on us.

Comment by Paul Marsh on October 24, 2010 at 12:49pm

Given the state of the economy, but not even necessarily because of that, I see manufacturers of both hobby and commercial systems being in a good position for favorable regulation. These are job creating activities, albeit with some risk involved. But we've seen the downside of risk in the model aviation community before and, despite the hand-wringing that follows, no clampdowns on our activities have ever really happened. We are still a self-regulated activity except for a vague fact sheet from the FAA that is interpreted differently depending on who you ask (i.e. the one that talks about being limited to 400 feet altitude).

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I'm somewhat optimistic that things will move forward in a positive way for sUAS activities, both hobby and commercial.

Moderator Comment by Gary Mortimer on October 24, 2010 at 12:55pm

You said what I could'nt find the words to say Rory I think you are bang on right.

Comment by Jan van Hulzen on October 25, 2010 at 1:59am

I am wondering what the effect of these rules are on insurance. I live in holland and there are some strict regulations which can be ignored due to loopholes in the law. For example the aircraft needs to be under control of an operator who has constant line of sight. So if the model airplane crashes into a car under human control the damage should be covered by standard insurance. A robotic craft is different but if there is a failsafe, then it is unclear. How are things in the US? Is a separate insurance needed?

Comment by Rory Paul on October 25, 2010 at 3:16pm

@Jan

As far as I know there is no insurance coverage that would cover damage caused by an accident caused by an aircraft under autopilot control. There are as far as I know two companies which provide limit coverage for aerial photography from rc aircraft.

I am sure you could buy coverage but it would cost and arm and a leg.

Comment

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• …
• 7
• Next ›
• Page