rrTV-PHOTO   New HD TV
HOME   rrTV-PHOTO   GALLERIES   MY GALLERY   HELP-FAQ
myHOME PM pmRR MEMBERS 462 ONLINE 19 EVENTS SEARCH REGISTER  START HERE
 
3 pages [ <<    <     1     ( 2 )     3     NEXT    >> ]1971 viewsPOST REPLY
Boca Bearings . Modefo's RC Helicopters . XHELI.COM

.
.
Aerial Photography and Video > FAA: we ALL fly UAVs - have your say now or else!
 
 
MPA
Elite Veteran
Location: Australia

Quote 
Richard Macfarlan, CASA


Can I ask where you discovered this guy Julian.

The face of 101 to date has been Mal Walker.
If this other guy has taken over from "Mal Talker", it can only be a good thing.

After "Mal Talker" lumbering into a forum to read the riot act using completely bogus info, it became evident it his aim to ban the lot of them based on fiction not fact.

A new head to talk to and see if we can get any sense out of them would be a nice change.

Cheers
06-23-2004 Over year old.
HOMEPAGE  
 
 
ELOSSAM
Veteran
Location: Es

Julian , here´s the link

http://www.elkhart.net/~miked/Alinks.htm

Take care
Elossam
06-23-2004 Over year old.
HOMEPAGE  
 
 
MPA
Elite Veteran
Location: Australia

Quote 
I still think you guys should go for some sort of certification program in this.
I think it will lead to bigger and better things in the future along with a better public/customer image, but that is me.


This is the most obvious admission from anyone who wants to have us regulated.

The reason they want safety_regulations is not make anything safer than it already is, it is simply a means to increases their image which will increase their profit.

Seeing no immorality in using the tax payers money to have the FAA air safety regulations put in place, to boost Helicam profit.

Nothing to do with safety.

The fact is it will only improve profit for a few by the fact it will exclude some others, as it has in Australia where many openly propose it is worth having to get a commercial advantage over others
Again nothng to do with safety.

The purpose of the FAA and CASA is for Air Safety Regulations
Not a boy scout club that hands out badges to enhance the image of the wearers at tax payers expense.

Quote 
This is where the organization that is forming will come in handy.


If your intention is for the organisation to create air safety laws for the commercial benefits you stated then I for one am bitterly opposed to it.

The only organisation we need is one that works FOR ALL of us and NOT against ANY of us.
Anything that is not EQUITABLE for ALL is flawed and unwanted.

Anything else or any other perversions on that is NOT an organisation that represents ALL of OUR interests as it SHOULD.

Anything else is just a ploy by some to get an edge on others, obviously where they cant get an edge by merely providing a better service with better quality work than those they wish to have commercial advantage over by regulations.
And in some cases just a plain old a brown nosing attempt at impressing the air safety regulators with safety maven rantings.
06-23-2004 Over year old.
HOMEPAGE  
 
 
fitenfyr
rrProfessor
Location: Port Orchard, Washington

Hmmm...

So it is a "ploy" by the FAA to issue a Commercial pilots license in order for you to carry paying passangers?
Last time I checked the FAA received zip zilch nada from anyone to issue you a pilots certificate commercial or otherwise. Sure the DE gets his share, but he is NOT an FAA employee and needs to eat like the rest of us.

The FAA has never been about fees or money. Heck they have to put up with the major airlines always trying to make the little guys pay more.
There is a big push for privatization in the air traffic control system right now driven by the airlines NOT the FAA.

My opinion if you are not willing to step up and prove you have some basic understanding of what you are doing and how it COULD impact other users of the airspace not to mention those on the ground. Then you have no business doing anything with a RPV commercial or otherwise.

No offense here, but the FAA is not the Austrailian regulatory association and honestly I think they do a damn fine job of keeping our aircraft where they belong and people safe.
I am willing to sit down and listen to what they have to say and abide by some regulations in order to keep it that way.

I have been "regulated" for over 10 years now as a licensed pilot in the US and have NEVER had any issues or problems with our system.

Jason Stiffey
Fly Fast....Live Slow...
06-24-2004 Over year old.
HOMEPAGE  
 
 
MPA
Elite Veteran
Location: Australia

Quote 
So it is a "ploy" by the FAA to issue a Commercial pilots license in order for you to carry paying passangers?


Not sure what you are talking about there.
This has nothing to do with commercial pilots.


Quote 
My opinion


I have to say with respect to the fact I realise now that you are a full size aircraft pilot then I can understand why you advocate regulation of Helicams.

Being the fact you have a full size aircraft operaters certification already, obtaining a UAV certification will be a given for you and a minimal imposition.

Well thats good for you but not for the rest of us in here who mostly do not have the same advantage of circumstance that you have.

You have not shown any safety cause why Helicam should be regulated, and the only reasoning left over that I can see from any of you advocates is that certifcations will allow you to operate, and others not, giving you an commercial advantage over others.

If that is not the case then show cause to substantiate your claims that we need safety regulation in the form of certifications.
06-24-2004 Over year old.
HOMEPAGE  
 
 
FlightPower
Veteran
Location: Herts UK

Guys this does look like an oportunity for constructive interaction with government (your government not mine, for the US guys).

My main interest is to prevent a cascade of unhelpful regulation gaining momentum and spilling over from the CASA disaster in Australia (where they got helicams mixed up with UAVs and killed helicams dead), to the FAA to the UK's CAA.

RAPA is great but if it takes any time at all to organise then it's too late. We already have a forum right here on RR and we can act constructively right now.

If we get this absolutley right then the FAA proceedings can result in a clear delineation between UAV and RPV to begin with so we don't end up with massive unneccesary government intervention in RPV operations. Secondly we could end up with government recognition for a class of useful commercial RC models (RPVs) that actively assists in presenting a case for insurance.

Never forget that this is a negotiation. We want to have improved access to insurarance in return for the minimum government grief. Regulation-happy individuals be warned: we all agree that hurting people and damaging property with helicopters is unacceptable already - that's probably the number 1 reason why it has never happend yet with a commercial helicam (this discussion is irrelevant to non-commercial helicams). Handing over a raft of personal freedoms is not a good idea, it is one of the dearest prices you can pay in a democracy.

If you are deeply concerned that no-one behaves irresponsibly with a helicopter around people and property be assured you are in good company amongst guys who have spent a fortune getting cameras in the air and who put the reputation of their business on the line with every flight.

Thank you,

Julian
06-24-2004 Over year old.
 
 
FlightPower
Veteran
Location: Herts UK

update

ELOSSAM, thanks for the link - did you forward it to

glenn.h.rizner@faa.gov

(mfouche - thank you for the correction)


MPA - I got the R Macfralane detail from Glenn Rizner - Glenn is in correspondence with him. It may turn out that a sucessful dialogue with Rizner could lead to a re-think at CASA.

While I am against government interference generally, I would also say that I don't personally have a major practical problem with an APPROPRIATE opperatiors scheme for commercial helicams. So long as the scheme uses the standards we have developed and set for ourselves already as the benchmark. From what I understand, the CASA disaster involved asking helicam operators to adhere to standards that were possibly appropriate for A-UAVs and totally unjustifiable for the operation of any manually guided device such as a helicam.

Julian
06-24-2004 Over year old.
 
 
fitenfyr
rrProfessor
Location: Port Orchard, Washington

correct

Julian you hit it dead on.
I am not saying you have to be a full scale pilot to fly a helicam. Just able to show a REASONABLE level of compentcy (sp) in order to operate legally.

MPA,
I understand your agression towards this, but honestly you can never have an open mind on this issue.
You had a privelage taken away from you in your country by bad legislation sorry, but you will not ever change my opinion about this and time will tell if my theorys will prove true or not.

As to how a commercial pilots license plays into this.
Simple it is the same theory as a licensed UAV operator.
Think of the non-commercial helicam operator as a private pilot. He/she can take all the pictures they want and put them on the web or give them to friends just like the Notice says they will not be effected because it is recreational.

A private pilot has the same rights and privelages in this country. They can fly anywhere they want for the most part take anyone they want with them and have a great time, but cannot charge the passenger they take with them a dime. The minute they start "making money" (and yes it is a very GREY area in the regs and open to interpetation) they can be fined by the FAA for failure to comply with FAR part 91 rules.
So in steps the commercial pilot. Same privelages as the private pilot and can fly the same aircraft for the most part, but can charge what ever he/she wants for their services. All because they met a higher test standard which shows compentency at a more professional level than the private pilot.

Helicams and UAVs should be treated the EXACT same way. Want to fly for fun and not profit you will fall under the AMA guidelines.
Want to make some $$$$ with it. Step up and be tested and issued a license to operate.

Would the fact that I am licensed pilot in this country make it any easier for me to get a UAV ticket punched. I hope not. I would like to see the regulations fall under something similar to the IRCHA Pilot proficiency. Basic manuvers, saftey checks, pre-flight/post flight and some simple airspace rules (like don't fly above 500' within a reasonable distance from an active airport) etc.

Just like Julian said WE have a chance to give some input on this issue and heck probably even help write the standard that others WILL FOLLOW once it is written.

Nobody will be left out UNLESS they choose NOT to get licensed.

Now you step back and act like an insurace agent for a bit here (lets face it none of us want to operate without insurace)

I walk into your office with a "toy" helicopter. Say I want to insure my operation for 500K in liability insurace and oh by the way I am going to be flying this over residentail areas to take photographs. As most of us have found out they will politley say they cannot help you.

I walk in with a government license to operate a "small" RPV (just throwing out some terms) that is issued by the FAA stating I have met a standard of testing that shows a safe and competent pilot and I think the answer would be different. Maybe a well let me call the head office on this.
Sure it is going to take a bit of time to get going, but it WILL happen. Aviation insurance companies will be the first to sign onto it I am sure, but others will follow.

I am not for more laws to make our lives harder, but I am for laws that hold merit in the eyes of others which will benifit us.

By the way I also hold a commercial drivers license, state certified emergency medical technician and a bunch of other "tickets" that I had to show compentecy on to get. So I am not talking out of "theory" here I have been there and if I can get certified in something through training anyone can.

Jason Stiffey
Fly Fast....Live Slow...
06-24-2004 Over year old.
HOMEPAGE  
 
 
FlightPower
Veteran
Location: Herts UK

quote> Helicams and UAVs should be treated the EXACT same way<

(I appreciate you didn't mean that they should be treated the same as eachother - but this is the misconception that is so dangerous here)

So no thanks!!!!

Recreational helicams - a matter for the AMA, go have fun in peace.

Commercial Helicams - take test A (or perhaps better still, just be excluded from the definition of a regulated UAV)***.

UAVs - take test B

BTW, MPA may benefit from an anger management course but give the guy some credit - he was the one who warned us of this issue in the first place - and he was right.

*** Actually the CASA regs in Australia DO exempt helicams by virtue of their operation in the line of sight of the operator - the trouble there is that the authorities are applying restrictive UAV regs to helicam operators in contravention of their own mandate - i.e. illegally, because they don't fully comprehend the difference.

So we come back to the original point. All we have to do is to ensure the likes of Glenn Rizner fully understand the distinction between a UAV and a non-UAV before they get the concepts too closely intertwined in their thinking. The FAA document ALREADY has them confused. The good news is that the FAA is at the information gathering stage, they are willing to listen and there is time to put this straight by contacting them now.

Julian
06-24-2004 Over year old.
 
 
FlightPower
Veteran
Location: Herts UK

Insurance, why leave this to chance.

Suggestion: Is any US citizen / commercial helicam operator able to help champion this process in consultation with an insurer for the express purpose of turning this into an FAA-backed insurance-qualification scheme.

I cannot think of any greater benefit to the FAA than to help get helicams insured and that's exactly what helicam operators want too isn't it?

So long as this is not hijaked by an equipment manufacturer then this is a win-win. (Obviously if we end up with more "buy my stuff if you want to get insured" bull**** then this will have been a failure).

Just a thought.

I've probably said as much as is on my mind from here in the UK. This is a US issue so let me wish you the sincerest best of luck

Julian
06-24-2004 Over year old.
 
 
ImRich
Veteran
Location: Derry, NH USA

Julian,

I have to say thanks! Obviously you have the 'let's help each other out' mentality. You have a lot of good ideas, and you're not even a US citizen!

I sure wish more people would catch this helpful non-selfish spirit and try to work together. I'm trying to get a list of people who want to work together via www.helicam.org which is becoming international faster than the US consortium is growing.

So from this side of the pond, and from a fellow HeliCam operator, THANKS!

I have a call into Glen myself, but have not spoken with him yet.

---
Rich
06-24-2004 Over year old.
HOMEPAGE  
 
 
FlightPower
Veteran
Location: Herts UK

Thanks Rich,


Just one last thing, here's what happens to your next Real Estate shoot if you let this opportunity slip:


UNMANNED AIR VEHICLE (UAV)
REMOTELY OPERATED AIRCRAFT (ROA) CHECKLIST

1. Complete FAA Form 7711-2, Application for Certificate of Waiver or Authorization. On the form, complete sections 1-3, 5-7, and 15. Leave section 4 blank, technically there are no CFR’s that explicitly pertain to UAV/ROA’s. Submit the form to myself at the following mailing address: FAA, Southern Region, ATTN: ASO-520.10, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta, GA 30320.
(NOTE: Any authorization issued constitutes relief from the specific regulations stated on the Certificate of Waiver or Authorization, to the degree and period of time specified in the certificate and does not waive any state law or local ordinance. Should the proposed operations conflict with any state law or local ordinance, or require permission of local authorities or property owners, it is the applicant’s responsibility to resolve the matter.)

2. Along with FAA Form 7711-2, include the information listed in items 3-19. In some instances a statement would suffice.

3. Include a detailed description of the intended flight operations, including the following for each route:
a. Departure Point
b. Track across the ground (coordinates, Fix/Radial/Distances or waypoints)
c. Altitudes to be flown in sequence of events
d. Proposed Departure Time and event window
e. Proposed Arrival Time and event window
f. Emergency/contingency routings/destinations

4. UAV/ROA physical characteristics, including configuration, length, wingspan, gross weight, method of propulsion, fuel capacity, color, lighting (UAV must be equipped with standard aircraft position lights and High Intensity Strobes IAW 14 CFR 23.1401 and operating during all phases of flight), etc.

5. Flight performance characteristics (Top speed, cruise speed, maximum altitude, rate of climb in the various regimes, range/endurance, means of recovery, etc.).

6. Method of pilotage and proposed method to avoid other air traffic. NOTE: You must provide an equivalent level of safety to “see & avoid”. (May be radar observation, forward and/or side-looking cameras, electronic detection systems, visual observation from one or more ground sites, patrol or chase aircraft- or a combination. Also indicate whether the Command and Control Operator (CCO) will be physically present during all phases of the UAV/ROA’s flight and if they hold at least a current FAA instrument pilot rating or its military equivalent.)

7. Coordination procedures with ATC.

8. Communication procedures with ATC.

9. Lost data link/mission abort procedures, ground tracks, altitudes and criteria for activation of each procedure.

10. Statement from manufacturer that the UAV/ROA is in a condition for safe flight.

11. Means to safely terminate flight in the various locations, flight regimes and under differing contingencies.

12. Specific and defined procedures for mission abort during takeoff, enroute and rejected landings.

13. Specific flight termination procedures.

14. UAV must be equipped with an altitude encoding transponder (IAW 14 CFR 91.215).
a. Set on a code assigned by ATC.
b. Unless a specific special-use code is authorized by FAA, the UAV/ROA Pilot-in-Command (PIC) shall have the capability to reset the code and activate the Ident feature while airborne.
c. UAV/ROA shall have the capability to automatically reset Transponder to 7600 if loss of VHF/UHF ATC coordination and communications is experienced.
d. UAV/ROA shall have the capability to automatically reset Transponder to 7700 if loss of data link and or navigational capability is experienced.
e. If Transponder fails during flight, Region/ATC Facility may, at their discretion, cancel/recall the mission.

15. Instantaneous direct and/or relay through aircraft 2-way communication with all affected ATC facilities are required.

16. Compliance with all ATC clearances is mandatory. (The UAV/ROA Operator shall comply with all Air Traffic Control (ATC) clearances and instructions.)

17. Proponent and/or its representatives shall be responsible at all times for all collision avoidance maneuvers with nonparticipating aircraft and the safety of persons or property on the surface.

18. Proponent shall be responsible for issuance of appropriate NOTAM(s) for each flight. (I’ll provide you with the recommended verbiage and process.)

All activities shall be conducted in Visual Meteorological Conditions. (UAV/ROA operations shall not be conducted at any altitude where there are clouds or obscuring phenomena of more than five-tenths coverage and not less than 500 feet from the base of any cloud. Or the simpler version of UAV/ROA operations shall be conducted in VFR conditions. )

Scared yet? You should be.

Julian
06-24-2004 Over year old.
 
 
ImRich
Veteran
Location: Derry, NH USA

Hi Guys,

I just got off the phone with the FAA,

I had a good long conversation with them. It's going to be tough to try to summarize all of it.

First, before I forget, he mentioned that he's gotten at least three calls from some of us helicam operators in the last day.

Jason, he said your message was a little garbled, but that Glen thinks the conversation will go similar to the one which I just had with him. If you feel the need, feel free to call him back, but Glen thinks that he understands our point of view and he hears us clearly, so he's not going to try to return your call as he's got a lot going on, but he did invite you to call back if you want to talk with him.

The FAA will start a rulemaking on UAVs probably in July. It will probably take 2 years to come into affect.

The FAA would like to take RC models into account. They have to determing where to draw the line where 'recreational/hobby' crosses into 'commercial'.

The FAA had the AMA (Dave Brown) in to visit and the FAA asked the AMA if they should review the current rules such as the 400 ft ceiling. The said the answer from the AMA was silence!

They also do not want to over-regulate us. As to the issues which happened to Austrailia, he asked me to visit www.casa.gov.au and review the rules there. I can let them know if they feel that the Aussies went overboard with their classifications and rules.

I also let them know that we are starting to organize, set standards, etc (ie RAPA) and that we are organizing around www.helicam.org he thought that could only be a good thing. With this in mind, I'm going to start to build up the content here. He thought that would only server to help our cause.

I can also tell you that some of the people who post outrageous acts on the internet are not helping the people who fly with safety in mind. The types of people who fly above 400ft (commercial floor in the USA?), which is definately into commercial airspace without coordination are simply the types who are pushing the envelope too far and causing the FAA to have to sit up and take notice.

We need to organize around the helicam operators if we want to be able to have a unified voice in this. We don't want to get lost in the noise of the general RC operators who don't care about aerial photography. With this in mind, more to follow on helicam.org

---
Rich
06-24-2004 Over year old.
HOMEPAGE  
 
 
JKos
Elite Veteran
Location: City of California in the state of Maryland

Dave Brown talks about his experience of visiting the FAA in the new Model Aviation magazine. Very similar statements to what Rich just posted. And yes, the high altitude stunts being bragged about on-line (they even showed him one of the web sites) are really not helping any of us.

- John
06-24-2004 Over year old.
 
 
FlightPower
Veteran
Location: Herts UK

My e-mail to Glenn

Hi Glenn,

Thank you once again for your time on the phone yesterday. I understand that some US guys are taking up this baton and I wish you well in reaching an understanding.

To re-state the key points I wish to convey to you:

1. Please consider more than once class of commercial remote vehicle. An Autonomous UAV is very different animal from a modified RC helicopter, the latter requires a much lighter touch from a regulatory stand point and it may be reasonable to conclude that existing AMA guidelines, local and state laws provide sufficient cover already. CASA actually exclude helicams from their definition of a regulated UAV by virtue of its operation within the line of sight of the operator - the problem is a lack of understanding regard how this ruling is applied. UAV regs are actually being enforced illegally by the Australian authorities upon helicam operators whose equipment is only capable of operation within the line of sight of the operator.

2. When considering your definitions of a Manned or Unmanned air vehicle, please take into account the control process. A radio controlled aircraft is a Manned aircraft, the control of the craft is manual, the loss of control of the aircraft makes the operator personally responsible for a failure to control the aircraft, no additional regulation is required in order to make this connection. A UAV is Unmanned when the control of the aircraft is vested in automatic systems. The loss of control of a UAV may or may not be the responsibility of the individual who initiates the flight - a systems or mission failure is likely to be the responsibility of an organisation who may or may not be present at the flight location, or may be the OEM. In the latter case it is useful for regulations to create an audit trail to establish accountability of the UAV operator prior to the commencement of any operation.

2.1 The grey area comes with devices that are either computer-assisted or mixed-mode. I would propose that it may be useful to analyse these cases in terms of who or what has the "final decision". If it is reliably the human operator then it is a manual machine. If the system cannot operate without the automated navigation system, then it's a UAV. You can further classify a UAV operator and a non UAV operator in terms of whether they are permitted by their class of license to fly out of sight - again a scenario where automated navigation is the final failsafe. As a helicam operator I would be attracted by the ability to use a mixed-mode system, but I would see no need to apply for a license to operate an out-of-sight UAV.

3. If modified RC helicopters are to be caught by the broad definition of a UAV, all be it in a lesser class than a genuine UAV, the main concern of existing US operators is the difficulty of obtaining insurance to operate. The FAA and "Helicam" operators have an opportunity to work together to define and provide recognition for a class of vehicles that do useful work such as a Helicam or any other manually-guided RPV and to instigate a certification program that is recognised by insurers. The FAA will achieve a useful result by both enabling and ensuring that these vehicles are insured.


For your information, please see the following link, this is an ad-hoc collection of helicam operators within the US and internationally. You will note that these are normally small businesses. I trust that you will be impressed by the emphasis on safety-mindedness espoused by almost all of these operators' web sites. I should also mention that there has only ever to my knowledge been one single fatality world-wide in the entire history of RC helicopters, this being a flying instructor struck by a student's machine and not a non-participant of any description. To my knowledge there has NEVER been a safety incident involving any commercial helicam operation. Commercials helicams are typically operated by intelligent and experienced individuals with significant private money invested in their equipment and their business on the line every time they fly. This is one of the least likely centres of reckless behaviour in existence.

http://www.elkhart.net/~miked/Alinks.htm


Thank you,


Sincerely,

Julian Cox
Autography Aerials (UK)

Julian
06-24-2004 Over year old.
 
 
Polariman
Senior Heliman
Location: Annandale, Minnesota

I just sent a short email to glenn to show my support for us. I think he need to get a feel for how many of us are doing this.

Whatever self governing we do, if kept general and participation is high, will only be good for us.

Join helicam.org.
06-24-2004 Over year old.
HOMEPAGE  
 
 
MPA
Elite Veteran
Location: Australia

fitenfyr

Quote 
time will tell if my theorys will prove true or not.


Unfortunately you wont be able to unscramble these eggs if you are wrong.
06-24-2004 Over year old.
HOMEPAGE  
 
 
daggit
Elite Veteran
Location: Waseca MN

good job Julian... nicely written email. I hope the FAA people agree.
06-24-2004 Over year old.
HOMEPAGE  
 
 
nfg2u
Heliman
Location: USA

Just my opinion.... r/c helicopters are few and far between, ask 100 people if they ever saw one fly and you might get one yes. Of all the reading that I have done.. I think the FAA and the problems that UAV's pose is at a higher level than any of us here. The new UAV's that are being developed go into the flight levels.. (anything over 18000 ft) and are tracking through airspace that is used by airlines and other aircraft. They are being developed for military use and research. I am not sure what everyone is getting all worked up about here. There is still a ton of airspace where "joe blow" can go out and fly his piper cub without a radio or transponder or anything and be just as legal as the next guy. If you are worried about the FAA grounding your 15lb chopper cam that barely travels through 200 ft, I seriously doubt it!!! They have alot more things to worry about than that!! Watch what it goint on yes.. but call the FAA and tell them that there are all these R/C heli's doing aerial photography and that they could pose a risk, but I will show you that I am not a liability.. we can demonstrate proficiency... whoooo.. easy... thats like putting a steak in front of a dog and telling him not to eat.....
Trust me the last thing you want is having a government organization rulling what we can do with our R/C Helicopters!! It will only couse you money, time, and frustration and will not make things any better than they are now.. So let the dog lie.. and let the FAA worry about the big boys with thier big toys trying to get military contracts and lets all go on with what we were doing before all this started,

passing on good info about r/c helis and taking photos from them.
Thats all I have to say about that.. .

Steve
And yes I know about working with the FAA..... look in my gallery..
06-25-2004 Over year old.
 
 
FlightPower
Veteran
Location: Herts UK

Steve, ordinarily I would agree with you 100% and this has been my view for the past 12 months, however this has changed becuase the FAA are going to group commercial helicams with 18,000ft UAVs and hold us to the same standards unless we can explain successfully that we don't belong in that category - which of course we don't - but how are they going to find out unless the microscopic group of us who actually do this take the trouble to let them know we exist.

Julian
06-25-2004 Over year old.
 
 
3 pages [ <<    <     1     ( 2 )     3     NEXT    >> ]1971 viewsPOST REPLY
Autography FlightPower . Advantage Hobby . Revolution Models

.
.
Aerial Photography and Video > FAA: we ALL fly UAVs - have your say now or else!
 PRINT TOPIC Advertisers 

Subscribe to This Topic

Tuesday, December 2 - 12:24 pm - Copyright © 2000 - 2008 runryder.com | email | link to rr | runryder needs cookie