FAA Regulations--Please Read

[ianwood]

That the Pitts didn't take much damage is not a conclusion. It's a data point. It's not hard to imagine the ways in which an RC plane like that could devastate a Pitts and potentially kill the pilot. It's almost surprising it didn't.

Much like it's surprising when someone wraps their car around a tree at 130MPH, gets up and walks away with nary a scratch. That doesn't mean hitting trees at 130MPH is safe.

It is entirely conceivable a drone could cause at least minor damage to a large plane. It is also conceivable a drone could cause significant damage to a small plane. The very fact none of us know for sure is reason enough to avoid allowing it to happen in the first place.

 

[sdtrojan]

Govman, hope you enjoyed your little moment of fame. The first thing you said about commercial aircraft not being able to withstand any kind of impact in flight is complete garbage, and immediately flags you as a troll. As a retired USAF officer, I can tell you I have personally seen military aircraft (fighters and heavies) that have either taken significant AAA fire and were able to RTB, or were involved in mid-air incidents with other aircraft or birds that were also able to RTB. In the commercial sector, the liability factor alone would be too significant for anyone to risk if the aircraft were as fragile as eggs.

Nice try

 

[IflyinWY]

Govman, hope you enjoyed your little moment of fame. The first thing you said about commercial aircraft not being able to withstand any kind of impact in flight is complete garbage, and immediately flags you as a troll. As a retired USAF officer, I can tell you I have personally seen military aircraft (fighters and heavies) that have either taken significant AAA fire and were able to RTB, or were involved in mid-air incidents with other aircraft or birds that were also able to RTB. In the commercial sector, the liability factor alone would be too significant for anyone to risk if the aircraft were as fragile as eggs.

Nice try

Well, thanks for the lead in sdtrojan. Yea, hit a plane with a sparrow and they will fall like a rock...NOT.
There is no reason for anyone to chime in saying they think I said it's OK for drones to run into planes. I don't think it's ok.
That being said, there's a bit of a scare tactic being used on the uninformed. Here's a quote from the report on the previous page.
"The FAA inspector who examined the bi-plane reported that lower left wing was crushed aft to the main spar. A six to eight inch tear was noted in the upper left wing fabric, and damage was noted on the leading edge of the left aileron."

Wohoo, "crushed aft to the main spar", for the uninformed, that's less than 5".

I've seen worse on the wing of a Cub that ran into a duck.
This sounds like one miscommunication after another, followed by a fly-by.

Stay away from the **** runways boys and girls.

EDIT: I think govman is a troll too.

 

[Buzz313th]

Well, thanks for the lead in sdtrojan. Yea, hit a plane with a sparrow and they will fall like a rock...NOT.
There is no reason for anyone to chime in saying they think I said it's OK for drones to run into planes. I don't think it's ok.
That being said, there's a bit of a scare tactic being used on the uninformed. Here's a quote from the report on the previous page.
"The FAA inspector who examined the bi-plane reported that lower left wing was crushed aft to the main spar. A six to eight inch tear was noted in the upper left wing fabric, and damage was noted on the leading edge of the left aileron."

Wohoo, "crushed aft to the main spar", for the uninformed, that's less than 5".

I've seen worse on the wing of a Cub that ran into a duck.
This sounds like one miscommunication after another, followed by a fly-by.

Stay away from the **** runways boys and girls.

EDIT: I think govman is a troll too.

If the left wing was crushed aft to the main spar, that's the entire trailing half of the wing from the thickest point of the airfoil to the trailing edge..

Heres a picture to make it easier for you to understand

 

[nauzerlvr]

Govman, hope you enjoyed your little moment of fame. The first thing you said about commercial aircraft not being able to withstand any kind of impact in flight is complete garbage, and immediately flags you as a troll. As a retired USAF officer, I can tell you I have personally seen military aircraft (fighters and heavies) that have either taken significant AAA fire and were able to RTB, or were involved in mid-air incidents with other aircraft or birds that were also able to RTB. In the commercial sector, the liability factor alone would be too significant for anyone to risk if the aircraft were as fragile as eggs.

Nice try

Now THIS is the way to reply to ********! Salute, sir!

 

[Buzz313th]

It's really sad when I see these threads and think about the future of drone flying and the safety of general, corporate and commercial aviation. We shouldn't listen to the messenger, but the message. I am just curious about the people who have no issue with breaking the 'recommended procedures' even though they are not currently regulatory. I wonder have these people ever been in an airplane up front? Do they know how ATC works or how the workload increases exponentially upon arriving in the terminal area. Traffic avoidance 7 years ago was only looking out the window. Now with all these nifty gadgets we tend to keep our head down more than we should.

How about engine failures in a single engine, or perhaps a multi-engine a/c. Do you know what it is like to deal with the aircraft, weather and human factors during an emergency? How about pilot training? Have you ever taught a student engine out procedures down to 100AGL? What would an a/c be doing flying so low?

My post is not to add fuel to the fire, it's only to give perspective. Not sure if anyone here has dealt with the FAA, but there is NO WAY an FAA Employee would post an interpretation unless it was disseminated through a local FSDO. (This is not to Govman, but to those asking for him to post his ID).

Some or the FAA part 61/91 regs were made over 10 years ago and you should listen the way professional pilots argue over interpretation to this day. Hundreds of posts and information trying to understand the FAA's way of thinking. So what should be different now?

In addition I should note that the 'defensive, I can't be told anything has no place in aviation. As pilots we are always learning. Even from the guy in the left seat on his first flight, we can learn something from. The questions he asks, the movements he makes.

Let's all just take a minute and reflect when someone says something. Even if completely off the wall, there could be a lesson.

Again, not to poke at anyone, just a reminder that we are all students, even the 15,000 ATP.

Great Post... I hope you stay around.. The best part was...

In addition I should note that the 'defensive, I can't be told anything has no place in aviation. As pilots we are always learning. Even from the guy in the left seat on his first flight, we can learn something from. The questions he asks, the movements he makes..

 

[ianwood]

My post is not to add fuel to the fire, it's only to give perspective. Not sure if anyone here has dealt with the FAA, but there is NO WAY an FAA Employee would post an interpretation unless it was disseminated through a local FSDO. (This is not to Govman, but to those asking for him to post his ID).

Just want to call this out. I tried to make this point before. Govman actually did in his posts as well. He is the messenger. He is simply conveying the FAA's position. The crowd here is so incredulous, not only did they beat the messenger, they ripped him to shreds!

And for anyone who still thinks Govman is a troll, I have confirmed his credentials. He is an FAA inspector with the NY FSDO.

 

[Buzz313th]

Just want to call this out. I tried to make this point before. Govman actually did in his posts as well. He is the messenger. He is simply conveying the FAA's position. The crowd here is so incredulous, not only did they beat the messenger, they ripped him to shreds!

And for anyone who still thinks Govman is a troll, I have confirmed his credentials. He is an FAA inspector with the NY FSDO.

And if he wasn't "Beat To Shreads", then we would still have a great resource to this community..

I hope he comes back and can shrug it off.

 

[kirk2579]

Just want to call this out. I tried to make this point before. Govman actually did in his posts as well. He is the messenger. He is simply conveying the FAA's position. The crowd here is so incredulous, not only did they beat the messenger, they ripped him to shreds!

And for anyone who still thinks Govman is a troll, I have confirmed his credentials. He is an FAA inspector with the NY FSDO.

Wasn't there a similar thing happening in a thread about someone asking to hire drone operators/pilots a week or 2 back.

Jacob confirmed the OP credentials and validity. Also after the Op was ripped pretty badly and quickly by "experts"

 

[Buk]

Ianwood,

Perhaps if you are satisfied with "govman" 's credentials and the NY FSDO gives their official blessing, a separate forum be created say for example "FAA Answers" for govman to provide clarifications and answers to regulation questions.

The sticky could be a description of the arrangement between PhantomPilot, govman and the FAA. Plus the usual disclaimers.

This seems to meet a possible need.

 

[jadebox]

And for anyone who still thinks Govman is a troll, I have confirmed his credentials. He is an FAA inspector with the NY FSDO.

If he was acting in an official capacity, he would have identified himself. Instead, he posted under an alias, refused to give his real name, and said things that seemed more likely to spark debate than to educate. That's more troll-like than not.

But, please understand that I have a lot of respect for the FAA. I build and fly high-power rockets. Over the past couple of decades we fought a long battle with a certain government agency that was trying to over regulate us without any logical reason. At the same time, we worked in cooperation with the FAA which rewrote the regulations regarding rockets to allow us to large larger rockets with less restrictions.

So, I don't think that the FAA is out to get us. They have always understood that the airspace belongs to everyone.

Personally, I follow the FAA guidelines and strongly recommend that every in the US does the same. In spite of what Govman said, the FAA guidelines are not laws or regulations. But, by following them, you will be flying safely and responsibly and can be assured that you won't break any regulations. While the possibility of a tragic accident is very remote no matter how you fly, following the guidelines reduces the chances to close to nil.

-- Roger

 

[ianwood]

Would you identify yourself in a public forum if you were treated with all the hostility he received? I can imagine being an FAA inspector may have moments where it's like being an IRS agent.

Anyway, his email address ends in "@faa.gov". Pretty convincing.

If govman comes back, we could explore having a thread for a civil Q&A where jackass comments get deleted.

 

[jadebox]

Would you identify yourself in a public forum if you were treated with all the hostility he received?

I'm sorry, but your question doesn't make any sense. He only received hostile responses only after failing to identify himself in his initial post and saying things that he should have known would incite things here.

-- Roger

 

[jadebox]

Again, no FAA employee will identify himself on a public forum period. It won't happen. Never, ever.

Yes. And no FAA employee would post anonymously in a public forum in an official capacity. Never, ever.

That was part of what I was saying at the start of my post. There was no way from his initial post for us to tell that he wasn't trolling. And, even if he is an employee of the FAA, that's no assurance that he wasn't trolling.

Anyway ... I'm sorry that I mentioned that. It wasn't the main point of my post and seems to have been a distraction.

-- Roger

 

[ianwood]

Yes. And no FAA employee would post anonymously in a public forum in an official capacity. Never, ever.

Until govman did exactly that. He emailed me from an @faa.gov email address. What more do you need? Unless you're suggesting someone from the FAA is trolling govman.

 

[SteveMann]

Just want to call this out. I tried to make this point before. Govman actually did in his posts as well. He is the messenger. He is simply conveying the FAA's position. The crowd here is so incredulous, not only did they beat the messenger, they ripped him to shreds!

No, I think he was showing his own opinion. When he says "it" is illegal, I simply asked 'by which rule is "it" illegal?' Asking for factual basis for his OPINION is not ripping him "to shreds".

 

[SteveMann]

Until govman did exactly that. He emailed me from an @faa.gov email address. What more do you need? Unless you're suggesting someone from the FAA is trolling govman.

He could answer the questions.

 

[jadebox]

Until govman did exactly that.

It's frustrating that you keep misrepresenting what I've said. I said that no government official would post anonymously to a public forum while working in an official capacity.

Now, can we get back on topic?

-- Roger

 

[SteveMann]

If the left wing was crushed aft to the main spar, that's the entire trailing half of the wing from the thickest point of the airfoil to the trailing edge..

Heres a picture to make it easier for you to understand

Challenge accepted.
The SA 750 kit aircraft wings have two spars, no flaps and the fuel is in the fuselage behind the firewall. (You don't want fuel sloshing around in the wing of an aerobatic aircraft).

Here's a photo of an SA750 wing under construction. 5-inches from the leading edge to the front spar sounds about right.:

 

[Buzz313th]

Challenge accepted.

What Challenge Steve? Don't you have anything better to do than to dig into the bowels of the internet to try and find something to continue an argument?

The SA 750 kit aircraft wings have two spars, no flaps and the fuel is in the fuselage behind the firewall. (You don't want fuel sloshing around in the wing of an aerobatic aircraft).

The picture I put on the forum of the cross section of a three spar wing, was not intended to represent an SA750 wing, as a matter of fact I couldn't give a shite what it was.. But it did serve my purpose, which was to explain to people where the main spar is in a generic wing... The Inspector stated "Main Spar", usually that means the spar that is closest to the thickest part of the wing chord... Regarding wing tanks and aerobatic aircraft... Good find again.. The internet is an amazing place, where people can find information that they didn't know before... Here's a great example. I did a quick google search querying "SA750 "Wing Tank"" And it turns out your SA750 has 14 gallon wing tanks, just like a lot of other Aerobatic Aircraft. Usually the pilot follows procedure that is recommended by the manufacturer and won't execute acro unless the tanks are below a certain level. I guess there are Tanks in the wings, aren't there? And not just behind the firewall. I'm curious why you didn't mention that in your post? Imagine what could have happened if the little, hot, toy RC engine had penetrated the Front spar and pierced the 14 gallon wing tank in the SA750? Uhh ohh, time to search the web for the flashpoint of 100LL vs the average running temperature of the "XR92 White dagger" 3cc RC engine.

Here's a photo of an SA750 wing under construction. 5-inches from the leading edge to the front spar sounds about right.:

And your point is? That the damaged area was less than what? Or more than what? It was still damage. Classified as "substantial" by someone who is paid to investigate aircraft incidents, accidents and aircraft damage to file a report for a government agency. What's your point?

I have a question for you, if you don't mind answering.. I've asked it numerous times in this thread... I was hoping you might address it at some point..

Are you a pilot?