Re: [RCSE] Subject: RC and airports
Martin, I am surprised at your take on Daryl's positing. I can assure you that a collision between a model and man carrying air vehicle could have dire consequences for both pilots. RC flying exists only because our organization has succeeded in convincing the FAA that we are all reasonable people that would never knowingly pose a danger to aerial navigation. We must all conduct our flying activities so that we can never cause a collision or near miss with a full size aircraft. I have to assume that you are not a pilot, if you had flight experience you would realize how hard it is to see a model while you are on approach. Because of ground clutter and probably afternoon glare it is nearly impossible to see a model flying near you. Because of this disadvantage for the full-size pilot,the model flyermust always immediately maneuvera model away from the flight path of a full-size vehicle. Being on the ground you have a much better view of what is going on than the poor guy making his approach. I hope all model flyers take this obligation seriously. I wouldn't want to be the guy who ended RC flying in the US, while at the same time killing some poor guy and his family just trying to get home. As for Daryl overreacting, having the shit scared out of you will do that to you. Please fly safely, and think about that guy that cant see you.Larry Jolly
Re: [RCSE] Subject: RC and airports
Martin- Take a look at this video. Maybe you'll appreciate the dangers. http://www.wimp.com/stray/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Martin, I am surprised at your take on Daryl's positing. I can assure you that a collision between a model and man carrying air vehicle could have dire consequences for both pilots. RC flying exists only because our organization has succeeded in convincing the FAA that we are all reasonable people that would never knowingly pose a danger to aerial navigation. We must all conduct our flying activities so that we can never cause a collision or near miss with a full size aircraft. I have to assume that you are not a pilot, if you had flight experience you would realize how hard it is to see a model while you are on approach. Because of ground clutter and probably afternoon glare it is nearly impossible to see a model flying near you. Because of this disadvantage for the full-size pilot,the model flyermust always immediately maneuvera model away from the flight path of a full-size vehicle. Being on the ground you have a much better view of what is going on than the poor guy making his approach. I hope all model flyers take this obligation seriously. I wouldn't want to be the guy who ended RC flying in the US, while at the same time killing some poor guy and his family just trying to get home. As for Daryl overreacting, having the shit scared out of you will do that to you. Please fly safely, and think about that guy that cant see you.Larry Jolly
Re: [RCSE] Subject: RC and airports
Investigative summary of the incident: http://www.airforce.dnd.ca/dfs/pdf/REPORTS/FTI/CT155202.pdf "The mission was a navigation trip and part of a conversion syllabus designed to familiarize the Royal Air Force (RAF) student with the NFTC Hawk variant. With the area portion completed, the crew was conducting some proficiency flying at 15 Wing. The IP had just taken control and as the aircraft approached the departure end of Runway 29R, a bird was observed just left of the nose. Both crewmembers heard a thump, felt vibrations and noted a change in engine pitch. This was followed immediately by audio and caption engine warnings (T6NLECA) and high engine temperature indication (660 C). "The IP traded airspeed for altitude, confirmed that engine temperatures remained high, reduced throttle to idle and told the student to prepare to abandon the aircraft. The aircraft reached a maximum altitude of approximately 3700 MSL (1700 AGL). When the aircraft descended through 3000 MSL the IP transmitted his intention to eject to Moose Jaw tower. After confirming the student was ready, the IP ordered and initiated ejection. "Both occupants cleared the aircraft and descended under parachutes but for less than 30 seconds prior to landing. One crewmember was seriously injured in the sequence and the other received minor injuries. The aircraft was completely destroyed when it crashed about seven seconds later in a farmers field. "The investigation is on going and focusing on a wide range of issues including the aspects of low and slow speed (below 300 KIAS) engine failure in the CT155 and ejection criteria. Also, the investigation will examine engine performance after bird ingestion and aircrew life support equipment. " Ben Diss wrote: Martin- Take a look at this video. Maybe you'll appreciate the dangers. http://www.wimp.com/stray/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Martin, I am surprised at your take on Daryl's positing. I can assure you that a collision between a model and man carrying air vehicle could have dire consequences for both pilots. RC flying exists only because our organization has succeeded in convincing the FAA that we are all reasonable people that would never knowingly pose a danger to aerial navigation. We must all conduct our flying activities so that we can never cause a collision or near miss with a full size aircraft. I have to assume that you are not a pilot, if you had flight experience you would realize how hard it is to see a model while you are on approach. Because of ground clutter and probably afternoon glare it is nearly impossible to see a model flying near you. Because of this disadvantage for the full-size pilot,the model flyermust always immediately maneuvera model away from the flight path of a full-size vehicle. Being on the ground you have a much better view of what is going on than the poor guy making his approach. I hope all model flyers take this obligation seriously. I wouldn't want to be the guy who ended RC flying in the US, while at the same time killing some poor guy and his family just trying to get home. As for Daryl overreacting, having the shit scared out of you will do that to you. Please fly safely, and think about that guy that cant see you.Larry Jolly
Re: [RCSE] Subject: RC and airports
Martin, You are way out of line here. I know you don't represent the sentiment and perception of the vast majority of the folks on this list. It seems you aren't even a pilot since you didn't talk about the airspace regs and minimum elevation above ground in congested areas. Noisy polluting things you say. Give me a break. By the way when was the last time an airport was built next to an existing community? Usually, if not every time it is the development of property around existing airports and runways that expose the populous to the noise and pollution. They move close to an airport and then complain. If I had my way I would live in an airport community, music to my ears, and fun to watch, and great people to be associated with. As for Daryl overreactingI am probably the one guy on this list who has the most time in the right seat with Daryl as Pilot in Command. Let me tell you this. I am a very critical flyer. I have been around general aviation for my entire life. My father was a pilot in Alaska, and we always had a small plane. My uncles, and cousins are currently flying both on the private side and the commercial side in Alaska and my uncle owns a charter service called Kenai Aviation. With all of this experience behind me I say that I feel as comfortable with Daryl as I do with my family in a small plane. Daryl knows this since I have told him the same thing. Daryl did not in my opinion OVER react. He did react, and I am glad he did. It is our responsibility as Larry Jolly mentions, to preserve our right to fly model airplanes, and Daryl brought the issue directly to the correct forum. So, if you were just sitting back just throwing out fodder for the list to read and respond to, congratulations you hit the nerve. Not a real difficult one to identify though. Please fly safe and be a responsible RC pilot. A nonchalant attitude like yours could be very detrimental to our little hobby. Sincerely, Mike Smith At 08:56 PM 10/10/2005, you wrote: And who the bleep are YOU, mystery model flyer, to expose other people to risk against their will and knowledge? (MSul1048321) While I can't condone anyone flying near full sized planes I think you're overreacting. There are such things are birds up there, lots of them, and they're going to do a lot more damage to a plane than a foam wing (which, due to its design, is not going to do much damange to anything that it hits). A bird will damage a plane but you don't see many reports on the NTSB database of accidents resulting from a bird strike. I don't think theres a single report of an accident or incident caused by a model (ecept for some moron versus a blimp a few years ago, but that was deliberate). I've never been in a position to put this to the test -- and I really don't want to ever get into this position -- but I think that if a model got close to an airplane then the wash -- the air displaced by the plane -- would push it to one side so the collision would be at worst glancing. It a propellor hit it then there would be no model -- propellors are quite tough things -- and I suspect that a small model going into a large jet engine would disappear without trace (they test for this sort of thing -- you can't have a plane exploding and falling out of the sky because an engine ingested some debris). So like the rabbit crossing the road, the biggest danger the GA pilot would have would be trying to swerve around the model and losing it.but then you're really not supposed to try doing that in a plane. While we're in rant mode I should remark that some GA pilots tend to bend the rules -- they fly too close to the ground in built-up areas, nice view but they're getting in the way of our models (not to mention that their planes are noisy, dirty, polluting things -- old school unsilenced engines with no emissions control and leaded fuel --gross, like ancient lawnmowers they creak across the sky making a darned nuisance of themselves). Yes, I know they cost you a lot of money to buy and fly and they do appear to be inherently dangerous but if you can't get into an out of airfields without bothering the neighbors then maybe its time to drive (after all, most accidents seem to be caused by pilots trying to fly slightly beyond their skill levels -- in this case it seems that the skill level needed for this approach was right on the edge for this pilot if he's going to get fazed by a chunk of packing foam. You can't be too careful with aircraft -- sometimes its more fun to sit on the ground and fly the thing by proxy. (Cheaper, too) Martin Usher RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send subscribe and unsubscribe requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please note that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off. Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail and AOL are generally NOT in text format
Re: [RCSE] Subject: RC and airports
On Tue, Oct 11, 2005 at 10:31:17AM -0700, Mike Smith wrote: | You are way out of line here. I know you don't represent the | sentiment and perception of the vast majority of the folks on this | list. It seems you aren't even a pilot since you didn't talk about | the airspace regs and minimum elevation above ground in congested | areas. Noisy polluting things you say. Lots of R/C glider pilots say that about `slimers'. I figured he was making fun of that. | So, if you were just sitting back just throwing out fodder for the | list to read and respond to, congratulations you hit the nerve. Not | a real difficult one to identify though. There's two sides to every issue. So far, we've only seen Daryl's, and it's likely that's all we're going to ever see. But that's OK ... | Please fly safe and be a responsible RC pilot. A nonchalant attitude | like yours could be very detrimental to our little hobby. I didn't see any evidence of a nonchalant attitude in Martin's post. It looked like a more balanced discussion of the issue than others. I don't think anybody here has ever suggested that you should ever do anything that puts a plane with a pilot in it in danger (be it a hangglider, utlralight, single engine, etc.) but at some point we DO have to share the sky. I've never flown near an airport, but the HCAM field here in Austin has a Cessena owner who flies out of his ranch less than a mile away. He flies near the field from time to time, and we bring our planes down or at least close in to the field when we see him, and he probably avoids us too. (Bergstrom airport is perhaps 10 miles away, so it's not a big concern.) At the ASF field in Pflugerville (another AMA club field, I might add), about three months ago a jet fighter of some sort came flying overhead, probably around 700 feet up. I was there by myself, and believe I was about 1000 feet up -- he actually came rather close to flying directly _under_ my plane -- and there wasn't a thing I could do about it, flying a slow 2.5m glider. In fact, I probably made it worse by initially diving when I saw him come into view (I was assuming he was higher than me at the time.) The whole thing lasted only a few seconds ... I don't know if he saw my plane or not. The sky is big, so the odds of a collision are small, but even so, it's a risk. Really, the only sure-fire way of avoiding one is to not fly, or at least to never fly over 200 feet or so, and even that's not sure-fire. At Zilker park, downtown Austin, I see low flying helicopters on a relatively regular basis. Low as they are, they're usually higher than I am, but they're often well under 1000 feet. Really, if I personally have this many calls for concern, and I don't even fly near any airports, I can't be the only one. The FAA advisory regarding R/C planes is here -- http://www.modelaircraft.org/PDF-files/540-C.pdf and it says to let you the airport know if you're flying within 3 miles of it. In Daryl's case, the hill appears to be about one or two miles away (if I'm looking at the right place on the map -- there's a few possible hills that I see) so that would certainly qualify. It seems unlikely that the glider guy had notified the tower, as the tower would have notified Daryl, but it's possible he did. (Personally, I don't see any good reasons for Daryl not to notify the tower about anything that is seen as a potential danger, R/C or not.) Apparantly the slope flier _was_ giving right of way to Daryl (as he absolutely should -- only a fool or a lawyer would take the general FAA rule that `gliders have right of way over powered aircraft' and try to apply it to a R/C glider), and apparantly Daryl wasn't in the `normal' approach vector so maybe the glider pilot was far enough out of the normal approach to be `avoiding flying in the porximity of full scale aircraft'. I don't know, I don't fly there. I'm sure Daryl will say it's not. Certainly, the distance from the usual flight pattern is very small -- perhaps half a mile? Is that far enough for slope flying (where you probably don't go very far away or very high?) Probably not. (Nobody seems to take the 400 foot limitation in the advisory seriously, especially glider pilots, but judging from the reactions I've seen here, perhaps people _should_ be taking it more seriously. My experience tells me that the odds of a collision with a full scale airplane, extremely remote as they are since I don't fly near any airports, go way up if I'm over 400 feet.) And I doubt it's just me. I guess the real question is this -- how far away do people think is far enough? The AMA doesn't have any authority here (unless you're a member, of course), but their safety code does say this -- 5. I will not fly my model aircraft higher than approximately 400 feet above ground level, when within three (3) miles of an airport without notifying the airport operator. I will yield the right-of-way and avoid flying in the
Re: [RCSE] Subject: RC and airports
--- Doug McLaren [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Though I do disagree with Martin on one thing -- I certainly do believe that an R/C plane could seriously damage a full scale plane. A two-pound object hitting something at 100 mph? Sorta like having a king-size catsup bottle dropped on you from a 25-story building. It might do some damage. RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send subscribe and unsubscribe requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please note that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off. Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail and AOL are generally NOT in text format
Re: [RCSE] Subject: RC and airports
I'm sorry people. I didn't mean to stir up this much [EMAIL PROTECTED] When it happened, I really didn't think much of it. Just a flash of a toy airplane, damn that was close...what the [EMAIL PROTECTED] is that doing there? and I continued with my 25 degree bank base to final turn. Ya seeI was kinda busy at the time. I didn't get pissed until after... I don't know how close that hill is to the end of the runway 25R. At 120 kts, it sure seems pretty close. The first time I went in there, my thought was, What an odd place to put a hill... It is EXACTLY where I would normally turn base. Ya see, I have just replaced my windshield at 12K, and a new engine at 70K. I doubt our infamous Zagi pilot has insurance that will cover stupidity, or my wrongful but somewhat pleasing death (for some of you)... Or... if he'd even be there when I returned to kick his a@@... ;-) I was just sending a note to ask some of us to use our heads. Take care and please be smart... D __ Yahoo! Music Unlimited Access over 1 million songs. Try it free. http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited/ RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send subscribe and unsubscribe requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please note that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off. Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail and AOL are generally NOT in text format
RE: [RCSE] Subject: RC and airports
Daryl, I totally understand your position and the positions all have taken with regard to full size aircraft. We all need to be more aware, and if possible, communicate these items to our club members and on, eventually getting to pilots out there who are not easily reached through standard methods. Reminds me of the "Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon". I would also like to add one note for you not to get too upset with the pilot standing in line behind you on the flight line when you break the 250 pound test winchlines with your huge Insanity 3.7 and it comes screaming back over our heads. The next time the line breaks I might expect the CD (or pilot/competitor) to say, hey dude, we provide perfectly good winches, which you take beyond expectations, so fly it out. There are always sides to take, some more dangerous and expensive, and we all must be aware. Chris Original Message Subject: Re: [RCSE] Subject: RC and airportsFrom: Daryl Perkins [EMAIL PROTECTED]Date: Tue, October 11, 2005 2:03 pmTo: soaring@airage.comI'm sorry people. I didn't mean to stir up this much[EMAIL PROTECTED] When it happened, I really didn't think much ofit. Just a flash of a toy airplane, "damn that wasclose...what the [EMAIL PROTECTED] is that doing there?" and Icontinued with my 25 degree bank base to final turn.Ya seeI was kinda busy at the time. I didn't getpissed until after... I don't know how close that hill is to the end of therunway 25R. At 120 kts, it sure seems pretty close.The first time I went in there, my thought was, "Whatan odd place to put a hill..." It is EXACTLY where Iwould normally turn base. Ya see, I have just replaced my windshield at 12K, anda new engine at 70K. I doubt our infamous Zagi pilothas insurance that will cover stupidity, or mywrongful but somewhat pleasing death (for some ofyou)... Or... if he'd even be there when I returned tokick his a@@... ;-)I was just sending a note to ask some of us to use ourheads. Take care and please be smart...D__ Yahoo! Music Unlimited Access over 1 million songs. Try it free.http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited/RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send "subscribe" and "unsubscribe" requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please note that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off. Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail and AOL are generally NOT in text format RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send "subscribe" and "unsubscribe" requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please note that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off. Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail and AOL are generally NOT in text format
RE: [RCSE] Subject: RC and airports
Mike I sent the remarks out to try and illustrate the over-reaction that we get when anyone mentions full-sized aircraft. I think I've succeeded. I don't condone flying models near full size planes or anything similar (road traffic, for example) and I don't think there's anyone else out there who would. On the other hand I also didn't like the tone of the original post for several reasons, one being that it even went as far as to threaten violence against someone for no particular reason at all except a percieved violation of their rights. You have fallen into the trap, I believe, of moving from the specifcs of this incident to an irrellevant generalization. I haven't seen foam wings collide with aircraft but I've seen them hit other vehicles and they don't seem to do noticeable damage. They're likely to scare people, though, (that's bad enough) so you keep them away traffic. Skydivers are a completely different situation -- there's much more energy involved. (There was an incident in Spain a while back where a skydiver took out a sailplane killing themself and the sailplane occupants.) Another point I was making -- and I believe this really is important -- is that sometimes people do things in planes that are probably not wise. It doesn't always result in an accident but it increases the probability that one will occur. Often they don't realize that they're doing this until something else happens and they find they're in deep trouble. In this case if someone's doing an approach to an airstrip that not only requires coming very close to a ridge, close enough that something like a bird (or a foamie) is likely to scare them to the point where they could lose control of the plane then maybe they should think twice about doing such an approach. I know this is a vague assertion but I believe that many of the accidents involving GA planes are caused by pilots getting into situations that are just a little beyond them and its usually done incrementally (ridge OK, bird OK, ridge+bird not OK). (My sources, such as they are, are the NTSB accident database and commentaries about selected incidents -- I'm not very interested in piloting planes but I am interested in why they crash.) (Modellers can also get into this type of incremental situation but the consiquences are usually just embarassing!) Anyway, I'm going off the air, back to model sailplanes..the quiet life.. Martin Usher RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send subscribe and unsubscribe requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please note that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off. Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail and AOL are generally NOT in text format
RE: [RCSE] Subject: RC and airports
At 04:26 PM 10/11/2005, you wrote: You have fallen into the trap, I believe, of moving from the specifcs of this incident to an irrellevant generalization. I haven't seen foam wings collide with aircraft but I've seen them hit other vehicles and they don't seem to do noticeable damage. They're likely to scare people, though, (that's bad enough) so you keep them away traffic. But the vehicles weren't moving at 100 mph. I have seen videos of models being crashed into various barriers as part of a test program to develop safety cages. The model may shatter but the heavy parts continue with very little loss of velocity. Want a battery pack or servo hitting a windshield or wing at 100 mph? RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send subscribe and unsubscribe requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please note that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off. Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail and AOL are generally NOT in text format
RE: [RCSE] Subject: RC and airports
Remember, It was just a piece of foam that brought down the Space Shuttle. Mark __ Start your day with Yahoo! - Make it your home page! http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send subscribe and unsubscribe requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please note that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off. Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail and AOL are generally NOT in text format
Re: [RCSE] Subject: RC and airports
I had a bird strike at 3,000 feet. Is that too low to the ground for your definition of safe operation? -Ben [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mike I sent the remarks out to try and illustrate the over-reaction that we get when anyone mentions full-sized aircraft. I think I've succeeded. I don't condone flying models near full size planes or anything similar (road traffic, for example) and I don't think there's anyone else out there who would. On the other hand I also didn't like the tone of the original post for several reasons, one being that it even went as far as to threaten violence against someone for no particular reason at all except a percieved violation of their rights. You have fallen into the trap, I believe, of moving from the specifcs of this incident to an irrellevant generalization. I haven't seen foam wings collide with aircraft but I've seen them hit other vehicles and they don't seem to do noticeable damage. They're likely to scare people, though, (that's bad enough) so you keep them away traffic. Skydivers are a completely different situation -- there's much more energy involved. (There was an incident in Spain a while back where a skydiver took out a sailplane killing themself and the sailplane occupants.) Another point I was making -- and I believe this really is important -- is that sometimes people do things in planes that are probably not wise. It doesn't always result in an accident but it increases the probability that one will occur. Often they don't realize that they're doing this until something else happens and they find they're in deep trouble. In this case if someone's doing an approach to an airstrip that not only requires coming very close to a ridge, close enough that something like a bird (or a foamie) is likely to scare them to the point where they could lose control of the plane then maybe they should think twice about doing such an approach. I know this is a vague assertion but I believe that many of the accidents involving GA planes are caused by pilots getting into situations that are just a little beyond them and its usually done incrementally (ridge OK, bird OK, ridge+bird not OK). (My sources, such as they are, are the NTSB accident database and comme ntaries about selected incidents -- I'm not very interested in piloting planes but I am interested in why they crash.) (Modellers can also get into this type of incremental situation but the consiquences are usually just embarassing!) Anyway, I'm going off the air, back to model sailplanes..the quiet life.. Martin Usher RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send subscribe and unsubscribe requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please note that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off. Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail and AOL are generally NOT in text format RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send subscribe and unsubscribe requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please note that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off. Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail and AOL are generally NOT in text format
Re: [RCSE] Subject: RC and airports
Saying a jet engine doesn't mind ingesting FOD shows a lack of understanding. FOD the size of a bird or plane usually *does* damage the engine, by breaking or weakening blades. The hot section of jet engines is armored inside the nacelle, (they weren't always, it took tragic deaths to bring that innovation about) so that when the broken or damaged blade gets thrown outwards by suddenly released centripetal force, it doesn't fly thru the engine casing, the airframe, control lines, fuel lines, and hydraulic hoses, and passenger's bodies... but instead, the disintegration of the engine is contained within the nacelle. This makes an engine FOD emergency somewhat more survivable, but it doesn't mean the engines don't care about ingesting FOD. The props on GA planes can get nicked or dented by hitting a model, this throws the prop out of balance, and the vibration generated by the imbalance can, in an extreme situation, throw bearings, even rip the engine from it's mounts. Jet or prop, this still means a dead engine, at best. Happening on approach or takeoff, the time you need absolute engine power and reliability the most. So no, I don't think my hard words were out of place, Martin, I think you're talking thru your hat regarding this subject. If you disagree, feel free to volunteer to get on a plane that's ingested a bird, without having the engine pulled for inspection or repair. I didn't think so. Meanwhile, the list members who ARE in that area need to spread the word locally, in the hobby shops and clubs, to watch for this guy, find him, explain the danger to him, so this doesn't happen again. If he causes a tragedy, the news carries nationwide, and adds another nail to the coffin for use of public flying sites. Your site. My site. Even though we did no wrong, no harm. The public will tar us all with this guy as the brush. Public opinion may not be right, but it's always powerful, and you don't want to put the public against the sport. We need to police the hobby ourselves, or authorities will gladly do it for us in ways I guarantee you will not like. -Mark. RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send subscribe and unsubscribe requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please note that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off. Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail and AOL are generally NOT in text format
Re: [RCSE] Subject: RC and airports
It was just a piece of foam that brought down theSpace Shuttle. Icarus was warned by his father, yetfell to the ground and was killed and didn't even get touched by foam! Gordy
Re: [RCSE] Subject: RC and airports
I haven't seen foam wings collide with aircraft but I've seen them hit other vehicles and they don't seem to do noticeable damage. And how many of those vehicles were doing 120kts or more? Because of their construction and speed, planes are tremendously more vulnerable to strike damage than any ground based vehicle. The comparison with birds is ridicules. Birds don't carry lead ballast and nose weight. Lead, you know, the stuff bullets are made out of. Birds are also not under human control and don't understand planes. Foam planes are suppose to be in control of a thinking human. Obviously some are not. Over-reaction. Ok Martin. Let somebody put your life in danger and see how you over-react. Randy RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send subscribe and unsubscribe requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please note that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off. Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail and AOL are generally NOT in text format
RE: [RCSE] Subject: RC and airports
Oh, yes, My favorite saying is from Einstein There are two things that are infinite, the Universe and Human Stupidity. I am unsure about the Universe. C Original Message Subject: Re: [RCSE] Subject: RC and airportsFrom: "Randy Bullard" [EMAIL PROTECTED]Date: Tue, October 11, 2005 10:43 pmTo: soaring@airage.com I haven't seen foam wings collide with aircraft but I've seen them hit other vehicles and they don't seem to do noticeable damage.And how many of those vehicles were doing 120kts or more? Because of their construction and speed, planes are tremendously more vulnerable to strike damage than any ground based "vehicle."The comparison with birds is ridicules. Birds don't carry lead ballast and nose weight. Lead, you know, the stuff bullets are made out of. Birds are also not under human control and don't understand planes. Foam planes are suppose to be in control of a thinking human. Obviously some are not."Over-reaction." Ok Martin. Let somebody put your life in danger and see how you over-react.RandyRCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send "subscribe" and "unsubscribe" requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please note that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off. Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail and AOL are generally NOT in text format RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send "subscribe" and "unsubscribe" requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please note that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off. Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail and AOL are generally NOT in text format
Re: [RCSE] Subject: RC and airports
And who the bleep are YOU, mystery model flyer, to expose other people to risk against their will and knowledge? (MSul1048321) While I can't condone anyone flying near full sized planes I think you're overreacting. There are such things are birds up there, lots of them, and they're going to do a lot more damage to a plane than a foam wing (which, due to its design, is not going to do much damange to anything that it hits). A bird will damage a plane but you don't see many reports on the NTSB database of accidents resulting from a bird strike. I don't think theres a single report of an accident or incident caused by a model (ecept for some moron versus a blimp a few years ago, but that was deliberate). I've never been in a position to put this to the test -- and I really don't want to ever get into this position -- but I think that if a model got close to an airplane then the wash -- the air displaced by the plane -- would push it to one side so the collision would be at worst glancing. It a propellor hit it then there would be no model -- propellors are quite tough things -- and I suspect that a small model going into a large jet engine would disappear without trace (they test for this sort of thing -- you can't have a plane exploding and falling out of the sky because an engine ingested some debris). So like the rabbit crossing the road, the biggest danger the GA pilot would have would be trying to swerve around the model and losing it.but then you're really not supposed to try doing that in a plane. While we're in rant mode I should remark that some GA pilots tend to bend the rules -- they fly too close to the ground in built-up areas, nice view but they're getting in the way of our models (not to mention that their planes are noisy, dirty, polluting things -- old school unsilenced engines with no emissions control and leaded fuel --gross, like ancient lawnmowers they creak across the sky making a darned nuisance of themselves). Yes, I know they cost you a lot of money to buy and fly and they do appear to be inherently dangerous but if you can't get into an out of airfields without bothering the neighbors then maybe its time to drive (after all, most accidents seem to be caused by pilots trying to fly slightly beyond their skill levels -- in this case it seems that the skill level needed for this approach was right on the edge for this pilot if he's going to get fazed by a chunk of packing foam. You can't be too careful with aircraft -- sometimes its more fun to sit on the ground and fly the thing by proxy. (Cheaper, too) Martin Usher RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send subscribe and unsubscribe requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please note that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off. Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail and AOL are generally NOT in text format
