Something useful we can do

[Tonystott]

Folks,
Let's look at the big picture for a minute...

There is a fair chance that there will be requirements to meet whatever new regulations emanate from FAA, so perhaps now is the time for a co-operative effort.

Every professional AP flyer should have (to varying degrees):-
Pre-flight checklist
Airframe maintenance plan (even a rudimentary one)
Site safety check-list
Radio checklist (battery and frequency management etc)
Post-flight checklist

along with the excellent Flight log, having a professional set of documents along the above lines could be very helpful in any application for approval of a commercial AP operation.

What do you guys think about divvying this up amongst us and working together to assemble an RCAPA recommended "boiler-plate" set of docs?

I guess Word would be a good format.

Reactions please!

[staplegun]

Might also add a builders log with pictures showing that the aircraft was built by you. (I am kind of thinking about the rules surrounding maintanence of a home build vs commercial built aircraft)

[slikrx]

Another possibility, but a huge headache, would be to document all fasteners used as well as a recommnded torque and loctite recommendation for each. every AV "pro" would then need a calibrated torque wrench... :(

Also, possibly videotape a "shakedown" flight without actual AV hardware, but with some dummy weight. And fly the crap out of it. As aggressive as your setup will allow.

Another possiblity; are there official/semi-official flight certs for hobby heli flyers? I've seen on one or two sites where people are trying for "bronze wings" or something like it. But maybe SOME way to document/prove flying skills, even if it's informal.

Lastly, I think documenting conditions under which it is NOT acceptable for you to fly. (wind speed, rain, obstructions/etc) this could fit into the flight log someone mentioned. This might necessitate getting a wind speed gauge... :roll:

[Tonystott]

Steady on there! I wasn't trying to make mountains out of this, just covering the basics. I also think that listing unacceptable conditions would be way harder than listing acceptable ones, with the danger that if you had an incident and missed listing a "gotcha", you would be providing black-and-white evidence of your error....

I suspect that in due course, there might be some requirement for rudimentary evidence of pilot competence, and I suspect that the RCAPA VFE test has a fair chance of becoming the minimum. Of course, that test is aimed at planks, but something along those lines would seem logical.

[slikrx]

Steady on there! I wasn't trying to make mountains out of this, just covering the basics. I also think that listing unacceptable conditions would be way harder than listing acceptable ones, with the danger that if you had an incident and missed listing a "gotcha", you would be providing black-and-white evidence of your error....

I suspect that in due course, there might be some requirement for rudimentary evidence of pilot competence, and I suspect that the RCAPA VFE test has a fair chance of becoming the minimum. Of course, that test is aimed at planks, but something along those lines would seem logical.
Sorry if I came across as being "overly legislative" (?) :oops: I was just throwing out ideas... a spaghetti against the wall kind of thing.

Absolutely, one definite problem with documentation is that you CAN document your own failings. :roll: Then again (this is from an FDA point of view, not FAA) one of the points of documenting stuff is that you CAN track down errors/problems.

Given the relative danger (rather small) of AP helies I would hope that whatever happens it will be easy to do (from a compliance aspect, not skills)

[RotoJon]

I got into RC because the crap the FAA puts us through every day in maintaining and flying the real birds.

I would be game for a checklist or two and a "cert card" of demonstarted ability but thats all. It scares me to think what the FAA would impose on us as they sink their "claws" in.

faa/pma approved parts. The price of everything increases by a factor of ten. You need a DER to show the engineering calculation for a one time field approval to "stretch" the tail for AP work. And the list goes onand on.

Sorry to digress....

[RotoJon]

I got into RC because the crap the FAA puts us through every day in maintaining and flying the real birds.

I would be game for a checklist or two and a "cert card" of demonstarted ability but thats all. It scares me to think what the FAA would impose on us as they sink their "claws" in.

faa/pma approved parts. The price of everything increases by a factor of ten. You need a DER to show the engineering calculation for a one time field approval to "stretch" the tail for AP work. And the list goes onand on.

Sorry to digress....

[Tonystott]

I hear you, and it would be great if they just left us all alone, but realistically, I can't help thinking that they will look to formalise things to justify the time taken to come up with the "solution".

Sure it would be a pain, but then again, if we assemble a "boiler-plate" manual in soft form which covers all the bases that any regulator is likely to want, it would be a no-brainer to stick your letterhead on the page-header, hit the "print" button and keep some public servant happy

Certainly beats having each of us making our own from scratch

[RotoJon]

if we assemble a "boiler-plate" manual in soft form which covers all the bases that any regulator is likely to want, it would be a no-brainer to stick your letterhead on the page-header, hit the "print" button and keep some public servant happy

Certainly beats having each of us making our own from scratch

Yeah Tony, Would be nice if it were just a paper trail issue and we just pop our letterhead on the top.

My concern is the meat-n-potatoes of that boiler plate! It is one thing to say that we will perform inspections and be safe, got no problem there. I just know how the FAA likes to create regulations. I mean I don't understand what the big deal is if we are operating line-of-sight and under 4.00 AGL.

For cryin in the beer... Ultralights can be flown almost unregulated by an unlicensed pilot and there are no requirements for parts, inspections, logbooks, or anything. I see people suggesting all of this for our little unmanned RC platform.

I think / hope this is all just a bunch of worry for nothing. I will support the RCAPA fully if they can take that collective message to the FAA. LESS IS MORE.

[Tonystott]

All I can say is that down here in Australia, almost ALL of those requirements are mandatory, even for a Trex450 AP ship! It would not surprise me if the FAA elected to build paper files for each operator along these lines, as a way of appearing to do lots wihout having to do much at all. By using boiler-plate documentation, I am suggesting that two can take advantage of that situation The FAA then have a nice fat file of papers demonstrating that the operator has "covered the bases", which fits nicely inthe the "CARE principle" - Cover Arse Retain Employment"

[xfc3dcd]

If common sense ultimately prevails (I have some doubts it will) all that should be required is to take a flight test and have your equipment inspected for certification. By signing an operator's license you agree to abid by a set of appropriate safety rules. Then a checklist should be used to document that all these pertinent safety rules are addressed before/during/after each flight.

FAA PLEASE READ: THIS IS ALL THAT IS NEEDED!!!!!!!

An ultralight can do far more damage than any of us can and they are only lightly regulated. I don't ever recall them being shut down during their development phase.

There are a few of us who have been flying rc helis for 25 years or more. We would have to have what would be considered a Phd in the areas of building, maintaining and flying rc helis. Why isn't the FAA seeking out such persons input before they start inplimenting onerous requirements that do little other than stiffle progress in a uselful developing technology?

Wendell