RE: NOTAM from Hell
Think you got it rough? Pity the poor guys that live in the District of Columbia. They are covered by an indefinite NOTAM that defines a regional No Fly Area, called the Washington DC Special Flight Rules Area (SFRA). It has been in effect since the beginning of 2009 with occasional updates. In order to fly they have to travel outside of the Washington Metropolitan Flight Restriction Zone (FRZ) up to Maryland or down to Virginia to find a flying field.
Posted on: 9/7/2012 3:15 PM by Author "JohnShe" in the forum "AMA Discussions"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11221079

RE: Who else has failed on their first build?
Hey 70x7, don't be discouraged. My first build, a Great Planes Spectra flew like a rock and broke it's back on the first try. I built a second one and corrected a few of my mistakes. The first Spectra was way overweight and dragged down by an extra heavy low power NiCd pack. So I watched the weight as I built it and found a much lighter and more powerful LiPo pack. This time it flew, but could have been better, My next try was a Great Planes PT-60 that I electrified. It flew beautifully, no trim issues, perfect balance and fun to fly. Yep it may take a few tries but if you enjoy building, like I do, it will be worth it. Just try to learn from your experiences.
Posted on: 9/6/2012 10:30 AM by Author "JohnShe" in the forum "Kit Building"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11219622

RE: A4 Blue Angels info needed
The phantom II had a nose wheel steering button on the joystick. The wheel would caster freely unless the button was pressed, then hydraulic power would steer the nose wheel through the rudder pedal system. Perhaps the A4 also did the same thing. On carrier flight decks, they use a small boom handle attached to the nose wheel to steer the aircraft while it is being moved by a mule.
Posted on: 9/3/2012 11:04 AM by Author "JohnShe" in the forum "RC Jets"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11215805

RE: What are these?
What do you mean when you say that you "opened an Align 600 motor"? Did you take it apart?
Posted on: 8/26/2012 10:38 AM by Author "JohnShe" in the forum "Brushed/Brushless motors, speed controls, gear drives"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11206518

RE: Any Advice on Great Planes PT-60 Conversion?
[quote]ORIGINAL: spensolo Thanks guys: Did you keep the same motor angle(downwards) as in the glow engine design? Also please tell me which equipment you used. [/quote] all three of the PT (20, 40 & 60) series aircraft have the correct thrust angle built into the firewall installation. You can not and do not want to change it. It works fine with an adequate electric motor. Mine is rated at about 1100 watts which seems quite adequate to the job.
Posted on: 8/7/2012 1:24 PM by Author "JohnShe" in the forum "Glow to Electric Conversions"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11184583

RE: Early RC Models
Well, they have a web presence. earlyrcmodels.com/index.html
Posted on: 8/6/2012 11:00 AM by Author "JohnShe" in the forum "Kit Building"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11182981

RE: Field with in 5 miles of airport letter
[quote]ORIGINAL: Silent-AV8R Basically we all need to sit tight and stay under the radar. Don't draw undue attention to our activities or post silly stuff on YouTube!! Once the FAA takes action and they work out how to implement the "exemption" for model aircraft, then the AMA will provide the details of how we are to comply. For now, fly safe, and don't draw attention to ourselves. [/quote] Absolutely right,all we have to do is fly safe and have fun. The FAA and the AMA will get things straightened out when they get things straightened out. All we have to do is wait for it to happen.
Posted on: 7/17/2012 4:57 PM by Author "JohnShe" in the forum "AMA Discussions"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11159196

RE: Field with in 5 miles of airport letter
Correct, and you do not have to be concerned unless you are a club officer in 2015 and your flying field is within 5 miles of an airport or you own your own flying field or have arrangements to fly on someone else's property that is within 5 miles of an airport. Me, I don't have a care in the world because there are no airports within 5 miles of my clubs flying field.
Posted on: 7/17/2012 12:34 PM by Author "JohnShe" in the forum "AMA Discussions"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11158860

RE: Field with in 5 miles of airport letter
Yes and no. One of our esteemed and respected forum members did post a letter of sorts. The problem was that is was composed to resolve a different problem. His club was required by community authorities to communicate with the local airport. He, or his club, apparently did this then posted his letter as a possible example of how to communicate with an airport. Much discussion ensued and the thread eventually died a natural death. Anyway, there is a requirement in the last FAA authorization act (FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012) for model aviators either individually or, as a club entity, to communicate with any airport that is within 5 miles of their flying field. The appropriations bill sets a deadline for this requirement to go into effect as of September 31, 2015. So you can see there is no rush or need for concerned right now. As of this writing, the AMA and the FAA are making efforts (more so the AMA than the FAA) to determine all of the necessary particulars. These are somewhat minor things like, which airports and types of airports will need to be notified, who at the airport is to be notified, what the notification needs to say, how the information will be transmitted (snail mail, electronic, attached to a brick...) to the notifyee, and how the notifyee will respond and what happens after that, just to mention a few things. At the present moment, nothing is resolved and we know nothing about the process or specific particulars. So anyway, not to worry. if you are in an AMA club that is within 5 miles of an airport, the AMA is supposed to have your back. If you are an individual flyer at your own site and there is an airport within 5 miles then keep an eye on the FAA website.
Posted on: 7/17/2012 10:06 AM by Author "JohnShe" in the forum "AMA Discussions"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11158709

RE: Brushless motor question
[quote]ORIGINAL: rem0.061 What determines the amount of voltage a motor can handle. I have a motor that usually takes a 3s lipo and slightly gets warm with a moderate load. When I tried it on a 4s lipo with no load it got very hot after a short run time. Does the total area of the wire guage determine how much voltage it can handle? [/quote] the guys are right, It is no wonder that you haven't already cooked your motor. First install the recommended prop. Second hook a watt meter between you battery pack and the ESC and then carefully run you motor up to full load while observing the current and watts values. Stop instantly if you exceed the specs on the motor. You can either change the battery or the prop to correct the problem.
Posted on: 7/12/2012 10:50 AM by Author "JohnShe" in the forum "Brushed/Brushless motors, speed controls, gear drives"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11152719

RE: FPV SURVEY
[quote]ORIGINAL: Top_Gunn [/quote] 1. They can make a profit on the magazine. For that matter, they can make a profit overall. True, they can't pay dividends to the "shareholders," and if you had said that, you'd have been right, but irrelevant. But you said they weren't allowed to make a profit, which isn't true. 2. The intro pilot program does not allow any dues-paying member to buddy-box a non member, as you claimed. Only an intro pilot (I've been one myself) can do that. I have no idea where you got the silly idea that my club is closed to new members. You seem to have a remarkable knack for misunderstanding things. 3. Yes, you "may have misspoken." 4. You said this: "you can't fly anywhere without FAA approval, except at an AMA club field." And now you claim you never said it? Fascinating. Claiming never to have said something people can read in your original post is foolish. You should say it was "taken out of context." So, four out of four statements that were wrong. Pointing this out is not a personal attack. [/quote] 1 - If you want to split hairs then you have a point. I worked for a non-profit for many years and they never reported a profit. One year they made more money that they were supposed to so the gave all employees a rather nice bonus to balance the books. The AMA just spends their extra money on amenities. 2 - I only tersely mentioned the introductory pilot program that my club promotes on their webpage, I didn't know you wanted a legal brief with citations. Again this is nothing but hair splitting to make a point. 3 - Whatever it is just hair splitting, the AMA went out of its way to made it clear that discipline was important in the club bylaw policy statement. I just read that bylaws were required and lost sight of the strongly recommended statement. 4 - We have gotten so far from my original response that you may have forgotten that I was responding to a question about the the use of UAVs. And as I said before, the FAA has not completed or published the rules for sUAS operation. And, at present they do not permit the use of UAVs, for commercial or recreational purposes, in the NAS. However R&D and pilot training may be performed at FAA approved and highly restricted locations. This is current FAA policy and is not expected to change until the sUAS rules are put into effect. The deadline for this is September 31, 2015 I think. To that end, you could fly a UAV at a club field if they let you and you obeyed the rules. If you try to do it anywhere else you risk getting into trouble. Again, my response to the question was rather succinct because I did not know that all postings had to be legal briefs with extended citations. Next time I will ask for help from the supreme court.
Posted on: 7/9/2012 8:24 PM by Author "JohnShe" in the forum "AMA Discussions"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11149475

RE: FPV SURVEY
I agree with everything but the goose stepping business. I see the AMA as a way to meet the needs of the modeling community by providing safe places to fly with reasonable amenities. Around here, where I live, there are no other safe places to fly. It is possible to do park flying on a limited basis, when the parks are vacant, but that requires the rather small airframes that I don't enjoy flying. I like the big ones. The AMA rules and regulations are well within the spirit of the goals and purposes regulatory agencies and good engineering practices to promote safety and fun. Plus the added value of the insurance makes the AMA a good deal to me. I also believe that irresponsible behavior should be harshly dealt with because it harms us all.
Posted on: 7/9/2012 7:52 PM by Author "JohnShe" in the forum "AMA Discussions"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11149451

RE: FPV SURVEY
[quote]ORIGINAL: cfircav8r [quote]ORIGINAL: JohnShe Am I straining your limited reasoning skills. My statement was well qualified. The jails should be full of people who cause property damage or injury by flying where they aren't supposed to As I recall, causing property damage or personal injury whether by accident or intention may be subject to local or regional ordinances. Nevertheless
Posted on: 7/9/2012 1:39 PM by Author "JohnShe" in the forum "AMA Discussions"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11149033

RE: FPV SURVEY
[quote]ORIGINAL: Top_Gunn [quote]No, you can fly anywhere you want, but the safest place is an AMA club filed. There because of self imposed responsible behavior, the possibility of accidental damage or injury is minimized. I still stand by the engineering principle behind this statement. [/quote] Amazing. Yesterday it was FAA regulations, today it's engineering principles. Tomorrow it may be monsters who will pop out from under your bed in the night if you dare to fly elsewhere than at an AMA field. This is a guy who, in the last couple of months, has told us that (1) [i]Model Aviation[/i] isn't allowed to make money because the AMA is a non-profit organization, (2) any dues-paying member of an AMA club can allow non-AMA members to fly at his field a few times, (3) the AMA requires its clubs to adopt a rule providing for expulsion of members who violate the rules, and (4) this stuff about how you can't fly FPV except from an AMA club field. All these claims are false; in each case, they're a badly distorted version of something else. For example, the AMA encourages, but does not require, clubs to adopt a rule expelling rule violators. There's no disgrace in misremebering something you've heard or read. But people really ought to check before posting about things supported by vague memories. Some people may believe the things they read here. [/quote] You do realize that you post is a personal attack and therefore I am in my right to ask that it be removed. However. I would more enjoy pointing out the error of your ways. 1 - The AMA is formed as a "non-profit" organization. And by definition, a "non-profit" is not allowed to make a a profit and distribute that profit to their shareholders (in there are any). To that end, if the AMA managed their resources well, through the sale of memberships, magazines and other products, any excess money earned must be placed back into the organization. This has allows the purchase of property in Muncie Indiana and the necessary improvements on that property., such as buildings, flying fields and runways, RC Car track and many other features. So yes, they can make Money, just not a profit. 2 - This is a method to promote model aviation. The AAMA calls it the "Introductory Pilot Program". Our club promotes it on their webpage and allows novices to fly, using buddy boxes during many of our public events as well as any time a member shows up with a friend and a qualified instructor is available.. I am told that many clubs do that, apparently your club is closed to new members. And, like the Shakers may soon become extinct. 3 - It is in the AMA member handbook and in my clubs bylaws. Apparently your club didn't get the message. In an AMA document on bylaws the section for disciplinary action is "strongly suggested" not required, as I may have misspoken. 4 - I never said "you can't fly", I said it is the safest place to fly. There is nothing to prevent you from finding a location well away from people and buildings and setting up a buddy box to fly line of sight. It just the AMA club fields already have all of the amenities necessary. So why bother? I have not misremembered anything.
Posted on: 7/9/2012 1:25 PM by Author "JohnShe" in the forum "AMA Discussions"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11149018

RE: FPV SURVEY
[quote]ORIGINAL: cj_rumley [quote]ORIGINAL: JohnShe The only safe place to fly FPV is at an AMA flying field, and I stand by that statement. [/quote] Rubbish. That's like saying no model airplane should be flown anywhere but at an AMA flying field. [/quote] No, you can fly anywhere you want, but the safest place is an AMA club filed. There because of self imposed responsible behavior
Posted on: 7/8/2012 2:01 PM by Author "JohnShe" in the forum "AMA Discussions"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11147768

RE: FPV SURVEY
[quote]ORIGINAL: cfircav8r [quote]ORIGINAL: JohnShe I was referring to the use of UAV and FPV flying. You will note that the buffoon at Alcatraz was cited for numerous violations of local ordinances and soon may be further cited by the FAA. You cannot fly commercial UAV anywhere except at FA approved locations and solely for the purpose of R&D or pilot training. The only safe place to fly
Posted on: 7/7/2012 3:44 PM by Author "JohnShe" in the forum "AMA Discussions"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11146866

RE: tower hobbies vista glider
You need a proper voltage regulator, but I don't know where you could find one that can handle the current. A dropping resister won't work because of the heat involved an the variation in impedance that occurs in the ESC as you advance or retard the throttle. Try a 2 cell, that is what I use with my Spectra and a 600 motor.
Posted on: 7/7/2012 8:30 AM by Author "JohnShe" in the forum "Electric General Discussion"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11146433

RE: FPV SURVEY
I was referring to the use of UAV and FPV flying. You will note that the buffoon at Alcatraz was cited for numerous violations of local ordinances and soon may be further cited by the FAA. You cannot fly commercial UAV anywhere except at FA approved locations and solely for the purpose of R&D or pilot training. The only safe place to fly FPV is at an AMA flying field, and I stand by that statement.
Posted on: 7/7/2012 8:24 AM by Author "JohnShe" in the forum "AMA Discussions"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11146428

RE: Has the extreme Heat stopped your flying
I'm an old geezer and I worry about heat stroke. So I am taking it easy and planning my winter build.
Posted on: 7/7/2012 8:18 AM by Author "JohnShe" in the forum "RC Jets"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11146421

RE: FPV SURVEY
Well, Al, it seems obvious that you appear not to read and understood the FAA document that I presented to you. The document very clearly outlines the FAA policy regarding UAV and model aviation and specifically cites two sets of policy one for each. And yes they are different because the FAA sees model aviation as a recreational activity and UAV flying as a commercial activity. Therefore the discussion is over for me also.
Posted on: 7/6/2012 4:48 PM by Author "JohnShe" in the forum "AMA Discussions"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11145819

RE: FPV SURVEY
[quote]ORIGINAL: Top_Gunn [quote]You just want to win a debate and you don't seem to care how you do it.[/quote] There is no debate. You posted some plainly false statements, claiming that the laws are different for people flying from AMA club fields than for people flying elsewhere. In response to posts pointing out that this is not true, you posted a long "fact sheet" that said not a word about AMA club fields. And in response to a post pointing that out, you seem to concede that nothing in your original post was accurate while accusing me of somehow arguing unfairly. It's really very simple. There are no laws that make flying from an AMA club field different in any way from flying elsewhere. I don't think anyone but you has ever claimed that there are, and now you have withdrawn that claim. [/quote] Well, now you are misrepresenting my statements. And, the law has no bearing, this is a regulatory issue and the FAA is in charge. My response to the gentleman's question was in regard to some subtle (and absurdly irrelevant) distinctions about flying UAV and FPV type aircraft. I told him the truth. The FAA says "you can't!" until they have published the rules and certified airframes and pilot training, which may take a awhile. (and I have proven that to you). But, he can fly FPV at an AMA club field if he obeys the rules. My club allows the buddy box rule for FPV, but I have never seen anyone do it. I also advised him of the risk of flying elsewhere. The risks are high that he could be cited for many local law violations and possibly have his equipment impounded by the local constabulary. That idiot at Alcatraz demonstrated that consequence quite well. And, you have yet to show me that you can discuss this like a gentleman.
Posted on: 7/6/2012 1:12 PM by Author "JohnShe" in the forum "AMA Discussions"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11145578

RE: FPV SURVEY
Recreational use of the NAS is covered by FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 91-57, which generally limits operations to below 400 feet above ground level and away from airports and air traffic. The AMA safety code is based partly on AC91-57. And yes, you are correct that as long as a flyer obeys, AC 91-57 he (or she) can fly wherever permitted and wherever it is safe to fly as specified in AC91-57. Al, you are not acting like a gentleman. You just want to win a debate and you don't seem to care how you do it.
Posted on: 7/6/2012 8:09 AM by Author "JohnShe" in the forum "AMA Discussions"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11145245

RE: FPV SURVEY
Here you go Al, here are some facts. FACT SHEET UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS (UAS) Updated July 2011 Introduction Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) come in a variety of shapes and sizes and serve diverse purposes. They may have a wingspan as large as a Boeing 737 or be smaller than a radio-controlled model aircraft. A designated pilot in command is always in control of a UAS. Historically, UAS have mainly supported military and security operations overseas, with training occurring in the United States. In addition, UAS are utilized in U.S. border and port surveillance by the Department of Homeland Security, scientific research and environmental monitoring by NASA and NOAA, public safety by law enforcement agencies, research by state universities, and various other uses by public (government) agencies. Interest is growing in civil uses, including commercial photography, aerial mapping, crop monitoring, advertising, communications and broadcasting. Unmanned aircraft systems may increase efficiency, save money, enhance safety, and even save lives. In the United States alone, approximately 50 companies, universities, and government organizations are developing and producing over 155 unmanned aircraft designs. The FAA’s Role: Safety First The FAA’s main concern about UAS operations in the National Airspace System (NAS) is safety. The NAS encompasses an average of more than 100,000 aviation operations per day, including air carrier, air taxi, general aviation, and military aircraft. There are approximately 18,000 air carrier aircraft and 230,000 active general aviation aircraft in the U.S. It is critical that UAS do not endanger current users of the NAS, including manned and other unmanned aircraft, or compromise the safety of persons or property on the ground. In addition to recreational use of UAS by modelers, there are two acceptable means of operating UAS in the NAS outside of “restricted” airspace: Special Airworthiness Certificates in the Experimental Category (SAC-EC) and Certificates of Waiver or Authorization (COA). Model Aircraft Recreational use of the NAS is covered by FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 91-57, which generally limits operations to below 400 feet above ground level and away from airports and air traffic. Experimental UAS An SAC-EC is the only certification means available to civil operators for UAS and optionally-piloted aircraft (OPA). Due to regulatory requirements, this approval precludes carrying persons or property for compensation or hire, but does allow operations for research and development, market survey, and crew training. Since July 2005, the FAA has issued 94 SAC-EC, to 13 civil operators covering 20 unique UAS and OPA types. The FAA works with these operators to collect technical and operational data to improve the UAS airworthiness certification process. Public UAS The COA process is available to public entities, including military, law enforcement, and other governmental agencies who want to fly a UAS in civil airspace. Applicants apply online and the FAA evaluates the request. The FAA issues a COA generally based on the following principles: ï‚· The COA authorizes an operator to use defined airspace and includes special provisions unique to the proposed operation. For instance, a COA may include a requirement to operate only under Visual Flight Rules (VFR) and/or only during daylight hours. Most COAs are issued for a specified time period (up to one year, in most cases). ï‚· Most COAs require coordination with an appropriate air traffic control facility and may require the UAS to have a transponder to operate in certain types of airspace. ï‚· Due to the inability of UAS to comply with “see and avoid” rules as manned aircraft operations do, a visual observer or an accompanying “chase” aircraft must maintain visual contact with the UAS and serve as its “eyes” when operating outside of airspace that is restricted from other users. The FAA issued 146 COAs in 2009 and 298 in 2010, more than doubling in one year. As of June 28, 2011, there were 251 active COAs, 90 different proponents, and 77 different aircraft types. Civil UAS (Future Operations) With the proposed small UAS Rule (described below) and the update to the Civil UAS NAS Integration Roadmap, the FAA is laying the path forward for safe integration of civil UAS into the NAS. The roadmap will describe the research and development necessary for the FAA to develop standards and policy for safe integration. An evolved transition will occur, with access increasing from accommodation to integration into today’s NAS, and ultimately into the future NAS as it evolves over time. Operation and Certification Standards To address the increasing civil market and the desire by civilian operators to fly UAS, the FAA is developing new policies, procedures, and approval processes. Developing and implementing new UAS standards and guidance is a long-term effort. ï‚· The FAA created the Unmanned Aircraft Program Office (UAPO), within Aviation Safety (AVS), and the Unmanned Aircraft Systems Group, within Air Traffic Organization (ATO), to integrate UAS safely and efficiently into the NAS. These specific AVS and ATO offices are co-located to enhance communication and efficiency. ï‚· The FAA, working closely with stakeholders in the UAS community to define operational and certification requirements, stood up UAS Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC) to bring inputs and recommendations to the FAA on UAS matters. It is critical to develop and validate appropriate operational procedures, regulatory standards, and policies to enable routine UAS access to the NAS. ï‚· The FAA has asked RTCA – a group that frequently advises the agency on technical issues – to work with industry and develop UAS standards. RTCA will answer two key questions: 1. How will UAS handle communication, command, and control? 2. How will UAS “sense and avoid” other aircraft? ï‚· In addition, the FAA continues to work closely with its international counterparts to harmonize standards, policies, procedures, and regulatory requirements. Data is Key More safety data is needed to assist the FAA in making informed decisions on integration of UAS into the NAS, where the public travels each day. Currently, operations under COAs are required to report monthly operational data and incident/accident data. Increased data collection will allow the FAA to assess and enhance safety and expand the use of this technology. Small Eyes in the Sky The FAA expects small UAS (sUAS) to experience the greatest near-term growth in civil and commercial operations because of their versatility and relatively low initial cost and operating expenses. The agency has received extensive public comment on sUAS, both from proponents who believe their small size warrants minimal regulation and from groups concerned about hazards to manned general aviation aircraft and persons or property on the ground. In April 2008, the FAA chartered the ARC to examine these operational and safety issues and make recommendations for proceeding with regulating sUAS. From this process, the agency drafted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking with anticipated publication, late 2011. One of the most promising potential uses for sUAS is in law enforcement. Although the sUAS ARC was not focused specifically on law enforcement organizations, these proponents were active participants on the ARC. Currently, any law enforcement organization must follow the COA process to conduct demonstration flights. The FAA is working with urban police departments in major metropolitan areas as well as national public safety organizations on test programs involving unmanned aircraft. The goal is to identify the challenges that UAS will bring into this environment to determine the operations that can be conducted safely by law enforcement. The Bottom Line Because of their inherent differences from manned aircraft, such as the pilot removed from the aircraft and the need for “sense and avoid,” introduction of UAS into the NAS is challenging for both the FAA and aviation community. In addition, UAS must be integrated into an evolving NAS, from one with ground-based navigational aids to a GPS-based system in NextGen. Each year, public agency interest and use of COAs have increased. With the introduction of the sUAS Rule for civil operators, there will be an increase in the number and scope of UAS flights in an already busy NAS. Decisions being made about UAS airworthiness and operational requirements must fully address safety implications of UAS flying in the same airspace as manned aircraft, and perhaps more importantly, aircraft with passengers. Overcoming these challenges associated with the differences between manned and unmanned aircraft while simultaneously transitioning to NextGen further amplifies the need for extensive cooperation between the FAA, other government agencies, and industry. The PDF file can be found on the FAA website. www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/uas/media/UAS_FACT_Sheet.pdf
Posted on: 7/5/2012 6:49 PM by Author "JohnShe" in the forum "AMA Discussions"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11144659

RE: FPV SURVEY
[quote]ORIGINAL: warningshot [quote]ORIGINAL: JohnShe [quote]ORIGINAL: TexasAirBoss Are FPV drones/models required to maintain 500' seperation from people/structures ? [/quote] The FAA regulations have not been published yet, so we don't know what the regulations will say. Therefore there is no FAA answer to your question. The only answer right now is you can't fly anywhere
Posted on: 7/5/2012 4:41 PM by Author "JohnShe" in the forum "AMA Discussions"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11144523

RE: FPV SURVEY
[quote]ORIGINAL: TexasAirBoss Are FPV drones/models required to maintain 500' seperation from people/structures ? [/quote] The FAA regulations have not been published yet, so we don't know what the regulations will say. Therefore there is no FAA answer to your question. The only answer right now is you can't fly anywhere without FAA approval, except at an AMA club field. If you fly at an AMA club field you will be held accountable to the posted field rules and any applicable AMA policy. If you choose to fly somewhere else, you are on your own. The jails should be full of people who cause property damage or injury by flying where they aren't supposed to.
Posted on: 7/4/2012 6:08 PM by Author "JohnShe" in the forum "AMA Discussions"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11143251

RE: wing servo wire tubes?
[quote]ORIGINAL: DaveFri What is a low cost way to run servo wires in large wings..80"...some sort of tubing ...so you don't have to go fishing in the event of a problem..Any ideas on this? thx,Dave [/quote] Estes rocket tubes BT-5 or Bt-20 work real well. www.estesrockets.com/rockets/accessories/tubes-couplers-lugs You can also roll up a sheet of paper. I recommend something heavier that standard printer paper, maybe heavy photo paper about 13x19. But you will find the Estes tubes to be much cheaper.
Posted on: 7/4/2012 12:52 PM by Author "JohnShe" in the forum "Giant Scale Aircraft - General"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11142917

RE: FPV SURVEY
Wow! Those jerks broke every rule imaginable. What a couple of morons. Let's see, endangering public property, endangering people, flying over public property without permission, the list just goes on and on. And, that is not counting all the AMA safety rules they broke. The deserved the citation, hope they do some serious jail time.
Posted on: 7/2/2012 2:04 PM by Author "JohnShe" in the forum "AMA Discussions"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11140236

RE: PBS NOVA program is looking for UAV hobbyist in DC area
Actually, I think the original posting was bogus. This guy is just a troll looking for excitement. You will notice that he has never come back and commented on any of our postings, right or wrong.
Posted on: 7/1/2012 12:23 PM by Author "JohnShe" in the forum "Electric General Discussion"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11138755

RE: PBS NOVA program is looking for UAV hobbyist in DC area
[quote]ORIGINAL: weasel33 im sure someone in the states is doing the same, i just did a google search and found you this one http://www.quadrocopter.us/ even takes a DSLR brian [/quote] ROTFLMAO, did you see the price for the quadrocopter? Over $9,000. That is not a recreational model airplane, by any means.
Posted on: 6/30/2012 1:52 PM by Author "JohnShe" in the forum "Electric General Discussion"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11137876

RE: FPV SURVEY
[quote]ORIGINAL: beepee Do I need to put on my flame suit now? Bedford [/quote] Nope, you don't need a flame suit because you are absolutly correct. The whole point of the AMA FPV policy is about risk management just as you have described.
Posted on: 6/30/2012 1:47 PM by Author "JohnShe" in the forum "AMA Discussions"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11137870