Just a thought

What is the position of the ATF, Congress, and the HSA people with model
aircraft?
It would seem with all of the problems we have been having, and with the
statements about model rockets being made into guided missiles, what about
radio controlled airplanes which are much more of a threat I would think, as
they can be powered all of the time they are in the air, and fly against the
wind and be kept up much longer than any model rocket could, even a rocket
glider. They would be a better choice for any terrorist for use against a
building or aircraft than a rocket.
I think we get the bad press as a model rocket just looks like any other rocket
or missile to some people.
Does any one have any info or thoughts?
Reply to
Kevin Prebula
Loading thread data ...
What possible reason would the ATF have any position on RC?
If they eliminate RC I would guess they would also have to eliminate wireless cell phones.......their tones can start remote sequences. But the boyz on the hill will not relinquesh their cell phones anytime soon.
We got bad press because a senator from New Jersey and New York came out with uneducated dribble and an outright lie pertaining to model rocketry. It is not difficult to spin a tale based on lies, but it is hard to refute it once the wheels are set in motion. I firmly believe 96% of the country have very little idea about model rocketry, they could care less.
Yeah, some common sense in government.
Reply to
Chuck Rudy
The same two are proposing various limits on RC airplanes as well when one was flown across the Atlantic. Wild claims of "vulnerable to swarms of terrorist kamikaze RC planes" were made.
Reply to
a0002604
that would not protect us from the planes accross the pond, only the planes in the US that don't represent a problem. Silly stooges those two.
Reply to
AlMax714
After the HSA was formed, they met with AMA pres. Dave Brown.
They discussed the problems and proved to them that regular model airplanes were not a problem.
The AMA conceeded to self controled, self guided UAVs not being called model airplanes.
So , more restrections are around if you want to fly an atonomous self controled self guided airplane or UAV, since the AMA does not support them.
Not much more mind you, and you don't need any AMA blessing to fly planes since they have no ties to government. the NFPA 1127,1122 tied rockets to NAR/TRA. nothing like that for planes.
Reply to
AlMax714
They are the government. Their mission is to regulate stuff.
Exactly which statements are you referring to? I am unaware and very dubious of any model rocket being made into a guided missile.
Reply to
Alan Jones
Alan Jones wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:
Senators Schumer and Lautenberg asserted that this was possible and thus the proposed relaxation of regulation was a very bad thing. While they did not assert that it ever had been done, they did insist we shouldn't "make it easier" for someone to do this.
len.
Reply to
Leonard Fehskens
If senators S & L wish to make it "difficult" for terrorists to manufacture guided missiles, they should act now to ban or strongly restrict microprocessors, CCD chips, aluminum tubes, machine tooling, math books, servos, batteries, computers, and anything else that "might" be used to develop such a device.
Ironically, any group with the technical know-how to develop, test and perfect something of this nature would find it an absolute *cakewalk* by comparison to manufacture their own rocket motors. Without all of the aforementioned things, a rocket motor is about as much of a threat to an aircraft as is a boomerang - something which is apparently lost on this pair of malinformed luddites.
Reply to
BB
There is NO relaxation of regulation by SB724. It's ALL in 55.141 (exemptions). To wit:
formatting link
formatting link
[Code of Federal Regulations] [Title 27, Volume 2] [Revised as of April 1, 2003] From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access [CITE: 27CFR555.141]
[Page 240-241] TITLE 27--ALCOHOL, TOBACCO PRODUCTS AND FIREARMS CHAPTER II--BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, FIREARMS, AND EXPLOSIVES, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE PART 555--COMMERCE IN EXPLOSIVES--Table of Contents Subpart H--Exemptions Sec. 555.141 Exemptions.
(a) General. Except for the provisions of Secs. 555.180 and 555.181, this part does not apply to:
(8) Gasoline, fertilizers, propellant actuated devices, or propellant actuated industrial tools manufactured, imported, or distributed for their intended purposes.
(b) Black powder. Except for the provisions applicable to persons required to be licensed under subpart D, this part does not apply with respect to commercially manufactured black powder in quantities not to exceed 50 pounds, percussion caps, safety and pyrotechnic fuses, quills, quick and slow matches, and friction primers, if the black powder is intended to be used solely for sporting, recreational, or cultural purposes in antique firearms, as defined in 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(16) or antique devices, as exempted from the term ``destructive devices'' in 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(4).
Sec. 555.11 Definitions.
Propellant actuated device. Any tool or special mechanized device or gas generator system which is actuated by a propellant or which releases and directs work through a propellant charge.
Have senators dipstick and dumbfuck read that?
Jerry
Reply to
Jerry Irvine
So are there any direct legal implications at all to whether a given sort of small flying machine is or isn't "supported by the AMA as a 'model' aircraft"?
-dave w
Reply to
David Weinshenker
Not yet. That will be an interesting abortion of congress :)
Jerry
Reply to
Jerry Irvine
S's S&L asside, even a guided 1500 gram paper and plastic LMR is not very effective as a missile against targets. Furthermore, there is a big difference between "being made into", and "aserting that this is possible".
Alan
Reply to
Alan Jones
Not at this time. However, depending on wieght, you might need to file an FAA waiver to fly it if it was really big.
However, this was posted in a forum about controlled flying machines this week:
some------------------ I am currently involved with the Naval Reasearch Labratory which is doing a study on the threat that small (96" wingspan & above) UAVs pose and how to counter them. There is concern on the hill that these vehicles can, in fact, carry agents or devices that have the potential of doing some damage. The threat is real enough that the governent is ready to put some serious money into trying to counter it. It will be interesting to see what the outcome is but they hope to be able to bring down a UAV without firing a projectile of any kind. Work can be fun sometimes! Happy flying, Jimmy
-------------------------
Looks to me like a waste of my taxpayer money. An SUV can carry more then a 96" airplane and cause more harm. FUD mongers on the hill again only concerned with symbolisim over substance.
Reply to
AlMax714
What civics class is teaching that ?
Governments mission in the original US charter is to keep regulations away. It's not been working latly.
Reply to
AlMax714
Did Chicken Little have a sidekick? Boomer Schumer maybe?
Reply to
Chuck Rudy
I've heard that it is only "UAV's" over 50 Lbs. that are restricted(?) and under that, such model aircraft are OK, but I may have heard wrong.
Alan
Reply to
Alan Jones
Henny Penny. Ducky Lucky. Jerry Irvine.
Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!
Reply to
Bob Kaplow
If you read their statment per other posted info , they were stating that a model rocket could be made into a missel which could fly 5 miles and strike a target, so they feel it is ok to regulate model rockets to counter the efforst of Senator Enzi. See prior postings on this.
Reply to
Kevin Prebula
I'm sure the RC guys are glad you brought this to their attention....:)
Reply to
Tom Brekke
they (we) know, has been brought up a couple of times. same argument as model rockets, not enuf payload space. also too slow, hard to hit targets (they got contests for it) and limited flight time.
Reply to
tater schuld

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.