FAA Regulations--Please Read

[ianwood]

Two professional pilots duking it out. Goes to show that the rules are subject to a fair amount of interpretation. I think this may be the time to agree to disagree and leave it at that.

If Govman comes back and can shed some more light on regulations as they apply to us from the FAA perspective, I'm sure that would be welcome.

 

[Buzz313th]

Two professional pilots duking it out. Goes to show that the rules are subject to a fair amount of interpretation. I think this may be the time to agree to disagree and leave it at that.

If Govman comes back and can shed some more light on regulations as they apply to us from the FAA perspective, I'm sure that would be welcome.

I'm good..

Offers up a handshake.

 

[SteveMann]

In your case, you were simply hand-slapped per the current FAA policy:

In a November 26 letter to AOPA President Phil Boyer, FAA Acting Administrator Bobby Sturgell wrote, “I want to reassure you that pilots who commit inadvertent violations of TFRs protecting security airspace are not subject to criminal charges and fines under 49 U.S.C. 46307. The FAA will refer to the Department of Justice for criminal prosecution only TFR violations of National Defense Airspace that involve Knowing or willful conduct.”
​

In the second case, you are getting this third-hand? There were likely dozens of photos that the investigators could use to calculate the A/C position in 3D. USAF Academy graduations are held at Falcon Stadium on the USAFA campus. One mile from the USAF Academy Airfield. Close enough for the tower personnel to also witness and document the flight. It's also about five miles from Colorado Springs airport which has an approach radar facility, so there probably was a radar track showing his altitude.

EDIT
We posted at the same time, so here's my handshake. Let's drop this.
Govman, I'm waiting. Whar FAR would I be violating if I fly my drone in rural Utah at 500 ft?

 

[SteveMann]

By the way, there is on youtube a video where an idiot pilot of a real aircraft, a small cessna(??) buzzed a small private landing strip where an RC show was under way. One RC pilot was demonstrating a vertical maneuver when the idiot pilot came in at high speed and smashed into the RC.
The cessna was barely 5 feet off the ground and the pilot was just showing off.
The impact caused him to land.
I doubt that fool is flying now.

You mean this one:

 

[Buzz313th]

RC and Pitts in a midair! The Pitts pilot had hopefully announced a "Low Approach" on the Common Traffic Advisory Frequency (CTAF) assuming no tower. I bet the Pitts sustained wing damage to its cloth skin..

Who had the right of way? No tower I assume? Who's representing the RC pilots and talking on CTAF to share the airspace with planes in the pattern?

I blame the event organizers. If the Pitts Pilot just did the low approach without announcing, then his fault. If the RC event organizers had the RC event going without closing the runway and or not having someone talking to planes on CTAF then it's their fault... Bummer.

 

[SteveMann]

RC and Pitts in a midair! The Pitts pilot had hopefully announced a "Low Approach" on the Common Traffic Advisory Frequency (CTAF) assuming no tower. I bet the Pitts sustained wing damage to its cloth skin..

Who had the right of way? No tower I assume? Who's representing the RC pilots and talking on CTAF to share the airspace with planes in the pattern?

I blame the event organizers. If the Pitts Pilot just did the low approach without announcing, then his fault. If the RC event organizers had the RC event going without closing the runway and or not having someone talking to planes on CTAF then it's their fault... Bummer.

It's hard to say who was at fault because there's no record of the accident in the FAA Accident and Incident Data System (AIDS). All the anecdotal record says is that the biplane (not a Pitts) had minor damage and landed safely.

If a half-scale wood wing and fuselage gas powered model can't bring down a manned A/C, what chance does something as small and light as thePhantom have?

 

[Buzz313th]

Edited...

Just glad everyone was ok..

Just wallets got hurt..

 

[GoodnNuff]

It's hard to say who was at fault because there's no record of the accident in the FAA Accident and Incident Data System (AIDS). All the anecdotal record says is that the biplane (not a Pitts) had minor damage and landed safely.

If a half-scale wood wing and fuselage gas powered model can't bring down a manned A/C, what chance does something as small and light as thePhantom have?

If my slow witted and alcoholic Uncle can drive home from the bar three-sheets-to-the-wind night after night without an accident, what are the chances someone as quick and observant as me would ever have an accident while driving drunk? Let alone kill anyone?

Sort of the same analogy, no?

 

[SteveMann]

If my slow witted and alcoholic Uncle can drive home from the bar three-sheets-to-the-wind night after night without an accident, what are the chances someone as quick and observant as me would ever have an accident while driving drunk? Let alone kill anyone?

Sort of the same analogy, no?

No, the difference is that a 100+ pound half-scale model did not seriously damage the biplane, yet everyone here seems to think that a 3 pound Phantom is flying death.

 

[Buzz313th]

No, the difference is that a 100+ pound half-scale model did not seriously damage the biplane, yet everyone here seems to think that a 3 pound Phantom is flying death.

I would say about roughly 10-20% of the people here feel the same as you, that is, that the phantom might not bring down a plane.. So not everyone.

99 outa of 100 times it's not flying death. Or maybe 50 out of 100 times it's not.. Maybe just a failed engine? Maybe just a broken Pitot Tube, cracked windscreen, chipped rotor, broken tail rotor.. Who knows.. But I wouldn't want to be the pilot, or better yet a passenger on the experiment to find out.

SteveMann, Are you a Pilot?

 

[Marlin009]

No, the difference is that a 100+ pound half-scale model did not seriously damage the biplane, yet everyone here seems to think that a 3 pound Phantom is flying death.

As far as the biplane incident, it depends on where / what it hits, no?
Looks like that pilot got lucky.

 

[Buzz313th]

As far as the biplane incident, it depends on where / what it hits, no?
Looks like that pilot got lucky.

The pilot of the "Pitts" was very lucky... And if you watch the video closely, you will see he tries to avoid it at the last moment. If he hadn't, maybe he wouldn't have been so lucky.

 

[Marlin009]

The pilot of the Pitts was very lucky... And if you watch the video closely, you will see he tries to avoid it at the last moment. If he hadn't, maybe he wouldn't have been so lucky.

I noticed that. Looks like he just clipped it with the wingtip but it's hard to tell. Change of pants is definitely in order.

 

[Buzz313th]

This is a good conversation for an aeronautical engineer.. Wonder what they would say if the FAA asked them to include Phantom strike tests on Airliners and Turbine Engines?

I know what they would think... Something along the lines of..

"Are these guys crazy"

"We do Birdstrike tests because we can't tell the birds to stay away from airplanes.. Why are we going to throw a 4 pound man made object made of Metal, Plastic and copper with a combustable Lipo Battery into our engines?"

Really?

 

[GoodnNuff]

No, the difference is that a 100+ pound half-scale model did not seriously damage the biplane, yet everyone here seems to think that a 3 pound Phantom is flying death.

LOL, 100 + lbs eh Steve? Seriously? Have a link to support your "facts" or are these more constructed "facts" to support your argument?
That RC plane was under 30 lbs. Most "giants" (as they are known in RC lingo) are 18-28, maybe 29 lbs.
This plane wasn't anywhere near the weight you are saying it was!
Gawd your funny.

And that was a Pitts - go read about it on RCGroups...

And again, not every drone is a little 4lb Phantom.

 

[SteveMann]

You're correct. The typical flying weight for the half-scale A/C looks more like 30-40 pounds.

As I said, there's nothing in the FAA Accident and Incident Data System (AIDS) about the incident. It looks like it could be a Pitts, but the tail is wrong (too tall, wrong shape) and the wings are a different length (the upper and lower wings are the same length on the Pitts. Also the strut between the upper and lower wing doesn't look like the aerodynamic struts on a real Pitts. Other reports call it a homebuilt.

 

[Buzz313th]

You're correct. The typical flying weight for the half-scale A/C looks more like 30-40 pounds.

As I said, there's nothing in the FAA Accident and Incident Data System (AIDS) about the incident. It looks like it could be a Pitts, but the tail is wrong (too tall, wrong shape) and the wings are a different length (the upper and lower wings are the same length on the Pitts. Also the strut between the upper and lower wing doesn't look like the aerodynamic struts on a real Pitts. Other reports call it a homebuilt.

Please... Steve, your reaching here...

Here are screen grabs of the video...
https://www.dropbox.com/sc/atl2djn0cr533fv/AACrkYhImXECkgvc80qUKUu6a
https://www.dropbox.com/sc/u1g4cxfc7ymvxr8/AABa0BG9ayaVd7eweMFWFnLLa

And here are pics of a Pitts S2B

You can get them with different wing kits.. Some with Tip kits that make the upper Wing wider than the lower Wing.

Considering how poor the image from the video is, I'm surprised you were able to get such an accurate measurement of the vertical stabilizer and idea of it's shape. And from the video's low resolution and poor compression, I can't even distinguish the struts as anything more than Dark blobs.

And furthermore.. The Pitts can be Homebuilt and Factory built.

It sure looks like, sounds and performs like a Pitts to me... If it's not, then it's a Christian Eagle, which is made by Aviat, the same company that currently sells the Pitts kits and factory competition aircraft.

 

[SteveMann]

There's no tail number, no FAA accident/incident report, there's conflicting reports of the aircraft make and model on different forums, so we simply don't know.

 

[Buzz313th]

But we do know one thing out of all these posts, which I'm sure we can all agree upon...

That Manned Aircraft and Unmanned Aircraft don't like flying into each other... And when they do, it will result in damage to the aircraft and possibly injury or death to the occupants of the aircraft that has people on it. And that it's probably a really good idea to get everyone on the same page so that they can coexist together in the same airspace.

 

[SteveMann]

I still can't find the accident report in the FAA database, but SUAS News (link) seems to know more.

The FAA report:-
On August 14, 2010, approximately 1100 mountain daylight time, N28KT, a Shpakow SA 750 bi-plane, was substantially damaged when it collided with a radio controlled AJ Slick airplane, while performing a go-around at the Van-Aire Estates Airport (CO12), Brighton, Colorado.
​

Not a Pitts.