[guyl]

Yes, No, Maybe, Never.

Our hobby has evolved in leaps and bounds over recent years.
Most R/C fields were created when a .35 glow engine was the norm
and a .60 was big. The aeromodeller was a scratch plan builder or
a kit builder and did some flying. Nowadays, we have a new generation of flyers. Yes they are not builders but flyers. They buy ARFs and
RTFs (and I dont blame them). They practice their 3D and their Aresti
maneuvers on simulators and perfect their flying real time at a R/C field.
Have a look at an IMAC 30%+ Scale Aerobatic model powered by a
90cc gassie. Such a large model use 3 or 4 times more airspace then the original models did. They can climb to great heights and some
have penetrated Positive Control Airspace of ATC Units. There was such an infraction last summer (2006) concerning a R/C club and the Mirabel
Control Tower (Montreal Area) where an IMAC event had to be cancelled
while in progress. (I believe that the club has moved or is now closed)

This thread is to create awareness of changes that are occurring
within our hobby. I believe that we members and MAAC HQ. should
start thinking about establishing guidelines to categorize R/C Clubs
into different class of activity for what they are capable of.

As an example:

A club could only offer limited type of operation such as
Park Flyers for example so as not to be hazardous to vehicular
traffic nearby.

To determine if a R/C field can safely handle large IMAC Scale
Aerobatics; some of the recommendations could mean to define
a block of airspace to accommodate such an activity. If that airspace
is under or close proximity of a Positive Control Zone of an ATC Unit,
Have MAAC establish procedures to obtain approval from the Federal
Authorities to have NOTAMs (Notice to all airman advisories) published
to make the aviation public aware of its presence just as it is done
for all other special air activities.

This is only an example on what it should be and it is not meant
to target any activities. It is for other activities as well such as electrics,
sailplane etc.

Such classification of R/C Clubs would be publish and their type
of activities would be known. In many cases it would settle disputes and arguments before there are given a chance to start.

Your opinions on this, please.

Guy LeBel MAAC 9383

[JimMcIntyre]

I think modelling is defined clearly enough and people should stick to the rules. If/when government gets involved they will not look to unclear distinctions about what's big, with them it's about laws, not "rules". We use many inspecific terms to categorize our hobby, few would hold up to scrutiny, especially in a court of law. This would be the first criteria for establishing classifications if left to a government organisation.

A model does not have to be large, or of specific capability, or "store bought" to break rules. For example; mother natures thermals are quite indiscriminate and recall losing many free-flight aircraft to loft my small models to altitudes beyond my vision....

Specialty clubs are cliques, exclusion is not an inviting concept, I strongly vote no. Variety is the spice of life and the concept of a club of cookie cutter ARFs performing 3D is as far from my idea of a stimulation as knitting. Let's see variety at our fields.

oh, and park flyers have have the potential to be as much a traffic hazard as any other form of model aviation.

[rchrf]

OK if you really want my opinion on this here it is... GET A LIFE!

[Mike Emilio]

Surely you got to be kidding!!

I enjoy the club I'm in now. But by classifying a club, I might not be able to fly there anymore. And what's worse, how much further I might have to travel to find a suitably classified club!!!

Guess what my vote would be???

[Guest]

I don't see a problem per se, if there are valid reasons why.

For example, the 400 club is really oriented towards the big scale aerobatics aircraft. However, they're also a part of this year's Nationals and I believe (pure memory) that RC scale will be held at the field.

Clique clubs exist and will continue to exist, fact of life. Nothing wrong with that. COGG field is a prime example -- glider guiders only. There are also generalist clubs such as Richmond Hill, Mississauga, Brampton....

Other side of the coin also exists, where someone tries to fly an aircraft that in not suited for the field or its surroundings (eg trying to fly a 30% scale 3D airplane where control line only is normally flown). Being shown the gate is not a "clique" item but pure safety or club organization.

[Oshawapilot]

I'm with Jim - not necessary, and we only stand to loose.

Compared to commercial aviation RC is a fart in the wind as far as government is concerned. If we raise our heads and make these (mostly insignifigant, IMHO) concerns be known were only asking to be regulated to the point of burden.

The real issue is having modellers use common sense - if you see or hear a fullsized aircraft in the vicinity of your RC field, either fly low untill its passed and is clear, or land.

Flying RC to the point where it begins to interfere with fullscale traffic seems unlikely in the greatest majority of RC anyways....the only guys perhaps even regularly getting to that height in RC are large scale pilots, and of all those in the RC aircraft hobby they're likely to have the most common sense of all - they're not newbies.

Sharing the airspace is not difficult, and it was one of the first things I was told when I got into RC aircraft 15 years ago - if you see or hear a fullscale aircraft, don't get in its way.. Unless your RC field is literaly only a mile or two away from an airport its not a big issue for 95% of modellers.

I fly fullscale aircraft as well for recreation and I'd have few concerns flying directly overhead our RC field - I know that everyone has the common sense to stay the heck out of my way.

I could go on and on about the altitudes that fullscale aircraft use and how unlikely a conflict is, but it seems unnecessary.

The parkflyer crowd who is not associated with any clubs or didn't receive any formal training (and could potentially be silly enough to fly in a legitimately dangerous area to fullscale aviation) may be another story but we can all only hope that they have some common sense as well. Any potential regulation that would be imposed upon them would only spill over into organized RC and would surely have many negative effects.. The stupidity of the potential few would punish the innocent many.

In the end I'm not saying that safety doesn't trump all, but I'm saying that I don't think that there's a need for making unnecessary hassles where the "issues" really aren't issues to begin with.

[JimMcIntyre]

2 topics here.

The 400 club example shouldn't be confused with classification. There will always be specialty clubs, and of course the aircraft should be capable of being flown safely within the established safety zone of the field flown at, those should be given.

I grow nervouse whenever someone tries to create classifications as this easily lends itself to exclusivity and silliness like not permitting so-called "mixed" traffic by banning pylon or pattern aircraft, helicopters etc.

When this is done, it chepens the eperience and everyone loses.

BTW, soaring (espc. thermalling) regularly reaches altitudes shared by full scale aviation, unlike "giant scale" where you're referring to large IMAC aircraft as opposed to large scale aircraft.

[Oshawapilot]

Originally Posted by JimMcIntyre

BTW, soaring (espc. thermalling) regularly reaches altitudes shared by full scale aviation

What altitudes would you estimate they're getting up to, FWIW?

That's a niche of RC I can't say I'm familliar with whatsoever...

[Incognitro]

This topic has touched onto safety concerns that I'd like some info on. Not flying at a club, I don't know what is the norm here.

My plane has a 4' black wing, and I regularly fly it to altitudes that test my visual limits. I have no idea how high that is, but my vision is pretty good, and on a clear day, it gets pretty high. I had not previously thought of this as unsafe, since I'd drop all my altitude if there was a plane in the area. What are the reasons why I shouldn't fly too high? How high is too high?

Also, how close is too close to an airport? I have flown several times near a rarely-used but active airport. Are there laws for proximity in these cases? If I hear or see a plane in the air, I land, or stay below tree height until the plane is well out of range. However, the last time I flew there, I saw a glider, which raised concerns of whether or not I'd hear it coming.

[JimMcIntyre]

Originally Posted by Oshawapilot

What altitudes would you estimate they're getting up to, FWIW?

I'm not current but, when I was, you could expect 500' from your average Hi-start. This is already broaching General aviation altitudes permitted over sparsley populated areas. I'd guess altitudes exceeding 1000' common with 3000' being a good flight. Then again, I understand many pilots are now making use of clip-on binoculars to overcome the limitations of regular eyesight.

As a pre-teen, I once built a multi-stage Estes rocket with a claimed altitude capability of over 2500'... never saw the final 2 stages again after the first launch.

Proximity to airports I believe is 3 miles before requiring special permission?