TexasAirBoss

My Feedback: (22)

Giant scale aerobatics have taken over here in Houston. Some days the field has as many as a dozen huge aerobatic scale airplanes present and flying. As large as these airplanes are on the ground, they are often so high that I can barely see them. They are obviously over 400 ft high. The appear to be 1000 to 1500 ft high. Our club is within 3 miles of two private airports, possibly 3. Can our club loose its charter or get in trouble by ignoring the 400 ft rule ?

dbcisco

I don't know about the AMA but the FAA can shure come after them if anyone calls them with a complaint.

bkdavy

My Feedback: (1)

Ask the club officers if they have notified the operators of the local airports. There is always an owner. The airport owner might want to consider posting a map with the location of your airfield clearly posted.

In our case, our airfield is outside the 3 mile radius, but one of our club members is also a VP with the AOPA, which is headquartered at the airport. He has told us that all the regular pilots from the airport are aware of our field. They often fly circles around our field watching us fly. We also keep a close eye out for any full scale traffic.

We had a heli pilot a few months ago that was flying out from the airport, directly over our field at about 200-300 feet. We did some asking around with our contacts, and apparently he was told about the location of our field. We still see him fly past, but he now does so well clear of either end of the field.

Working with the airport owner and pilots is the best way to ensure cooperative flying and avoiding interference.

Brad

dbcisco

Thanks Brad. That is a critical safety point.

KidEpoxy

FAA AC91-57 currently 'advises' you voluntarily stay below 400' eveywhere.
ASF400 and g0801 say what happens if you dont fly with in the AC.
AMA used the Infamous 400' Comma to make it an AMA 400'ceiling only when near airports.
The AMA Safety Code clearly states that it is PILOTS that will not bust that Alt without notifying the airport.
http://www.modelaircraft.org/files/105.pdf
Notice the handy requirement to just 'notify' the airport
arther than saying you have to get the airport to allow you to fly there.

It would be within the letter of the AMA safety code to notify the airport,
and then ignore the airport guys telling you you not to fly there
... after all, you did notify them as required by AMA
and just choose not to voluntarily heed the FAA 400ft 'advice' in the AC, and as some folks will have you believe, therefore ASF400/g0801 dont apply because you are within the AC by exploiting the 'voluntary' nature of the AC restrictions.

dbcisco

The genuine FAA Advisory does not have a comma. It is a period:
"c. Do not fly model aircraft higher than 400 feet above the surface. When flying aircraft
within 3 miles of an airport, notify the airport operator, or when an air traffic facility is located at
the airport, notify the control tower, or flight service station."

TexasAirBoss

My Feedback: (22)

Where can I find this FAA advisory ?

dbcisco

Thw AMA recently made a copy available on their website [link=http://www.modelaircraft.org/files/540-c.pdf]here[/link].

KidEpoxy

Pilot
Check the date AC91-57 came out.

You can also search this forum for Prado / Pomona Valley, and Mile Square Park
for situations where the authorities got all Enforcey on the 400'

dbcisco

It only took them thirty years to find it. Just in time for it to become manatory.

TexasAirBoss

My Feedback: (22)

That is 30 years old. Has it been superseded by a new advisory ?

dbcisco

It is 29 years old and the FAA is currently working on its replacement. Expect most of it to become mandatory by 2012.

KidEpoxy

a) AC91-57 has been around for decades without AMA lobbying to get it changed.
b) ASF400 talks about what happens to UAV (the things we fly) that dont stay within AC91-57.
c) Guidence0801 is the decendent of ASF400, and it too talks about what happens to folks that dont stay within AC91-57
d) There is also a Policy Statement from the FAA to clarify it.... and it says the authority to fly models is AC91-57.

Now, with all that redundancy over decades of updates, we are still being pointed to AC91-57 as what the FAA says we are supposed to do. But even with all that, folks still claim they are abiding the 'voluntary' nature of the AC by simply not volunteering to comply.

Consider this analagy:
Rule 1: 400ft is voluntary
Rule 2: You will be punished if you do not obey Rule1

But rule2 never changes the voluntary nature of rule1,
and folks are exploiting that to say they are obeying while choosing not to volunteer to 400

TexasAirBoss

My Feedback: (22)

Where can I find this policy statement ?

dbcisco

This is the reason one of the main points of the ARC was to "determine if the self-regulation of model aircraft should continue".
The FAA may not grant the AMA as much as it thinks. The FAA can exclude any part of the ARC recommendations it chooses to, including the AMA request for CBO exceptions. I would not be surprised if the FAA excludes exceptions for CBOs. They could easily say "These are the rules for everyone" period. Like it or not that would be fair.

dbcisco

KE is [link=http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/uas/reg/media/frnotice_uas.pdf]this[/link] the statement you are refering to ?
"Policy Statement
The current FAA policy for UAS operations is that no person may operate a UAS in
the National Airspace System without specific authority. For UAS operating as public
aircraft the authority is the COA, for UAS operating as civil aircraft the authority is special
airworthiness certificates, and for model aircraft the authority is AC 91-57."

cj_rumley

Yeah, that sums it up nicely....yet it is also the primary reason cited as to why AMA takes issue with FAA and the sUAS ARC recommendations, and so the CBO should regulate model aviation by "non-regulation" which is somehow different from regulation by FAA or any other agency, pseudo-govt or otherwise.

dbcisco

If it was't for govt beaurocracy, the FAA could have just made the AC mandatory and if you want to do more, then follow the regulations for sUAS recreational use. No need for CBOs at all. Not bashing the AMA but 140K citizens getting special privilledges seems to be very unAmerican even if I am one of the people getting special treatment. If I join the SCCA should I be able to ignore the speed limit on our roads? Maybe NRA members should be allowed self-regulated machine guns. Think outside the little box of the AMA.

modelflyer5

I have kind of just skimmed through this thread, so I am not quite up to speed. I would like to make some points if I may.

In Central California, we have been witnessing the FAA using Cal Trans to shut down flying fields close to and based on Municipal airports.

As of sun down October tenth, 2010, Cal trans forced the closing of the flying sight that the Madera Aeromodelers Radio Controlled Society has been flying on with permission from the airport and the local government for over 27 years. This club has never ever had any complaints filed against them. The airport manager and the local government wants the club to be able to continue flying at this site A large number of the full scale pilots also want this club to be able to fly there. It is the FAA who wants the closure of this facility. Not only did they not want credit for this wrongful action, but they had Cal trans come in and do the honors of closing down this club. In efect, ending the club.

Now I wish to point out that once your flying sight had been targeted, YOU ARE GONE. There is no way to figtht an agency who can pull vital funding.

I am sure that the FAA wants to regulate the RC aircraft flying in this country. They want to take rights away in the name of safety. It really scares me when you hear the word safety used to regulate something. Our club was doing a very good job making sure we didn't break the rules. (especially not exceeding the 400 foot maximum altitude). We never had a pilot file a report against us in 27 years. I think that is a great record for a club that self polices. That was not good enough for the FAA. They still closed us down.

I now worry that these new regulations that are coming will in efFect make it easier to close us down. If I were part of the AMA organiztion representing there members, I would make sure that there are previsions in the new ordinances that make the FAA's inforcing agencies have to provide safe sites on government land for those clubs that were in good standing who are being forced off there fields. If they want to make it safe then make it safe for everyone including the aircfaft hobbiest.

I also think that AMA members need to come together and pressure there local, state, and federal politicains to start including these issues in there agenda or we will not vote for them. We need to find politicains who will support the continued growth of our safe hobby. The military has used the RC industry to advance it's recon and weapons systems to save pilots lives. Why can't the government pay our hobby back by supporting it. Not getting rid of it.

Thank you for your time,

Matthew Raymond

I also want to point out that there is a lot of confusion about what the rules are. Confusion that the FAA will find a way to clarify by regultion. That means that they will confuse matters more inorder to have a massive grey zone. Which means that they will pretty much be able to do what they want any way. DON'T THINK THAT YOUR CLUB IS SAFE FROM THE FAA.

beepee

PilotFighter,

Which field in Houston? If you don't want to say, I understand. If you up northwest around Hooks, they do not have their own radar. They get their radar support from IAH.

I assume there have been no complaints. Take a practical approach. Do you get full scale traffic in the area? Are you regularly in their pattern? Maybe a spotter is appropriate.

Good luck,

Bedford

phlpsfrnk

This argument is getting old. From http://www.modelaircraft.org/files/FAAARCFAQs8.pdf

Though there is some variation between the language in the FAA Advisory Circular and the
AMA Safety Code, AMA believes its guidelines meet the intent of the Advisory Circular.
When published in 1981, AC 91-57 presented a very general policy statement regarding model
airplane operations and a philosophy that model aviation should operate safely and cooperatively
within its communities. The Advisory Circular is not regulatory and the conception of the AC
did not go through the rigor and public scrutiny required of a rulemaking process, and by nature
the AC allows for situational awareness and personal judgment.
In February of 2007, the FAA did publish a clarification of AC 91-57 in the Federal Register.
This posting was made to clarify the intent and application of AC 91-57. It states that the
Advisory Circular only applies to model aircraft flown for recreational purposes and not to
commercial/public use unmanned aircraft systems (UAS).
There is a difference between the language in the current FAA Advisory Circular and AMA's
implementation of this guideline in the AMA Safety code. AMA believes the only significant
risk posed to the manned aviation community by aeromodeling is when model aircraft are flown
in close proximity to airports. As such, the AMA Safety Code advises modelers to remain at or
below 400' AGL when within 3 miles of an airport. AMA believes this meets the intent of the
Advisory Circular in creating a means by which model airplanes can operate in a safe and
cooperative manner without imposing an undue restriction on the modeling community.
Moreover, model aviation’s impeccable safety record over the past 28 years has proven this to be
the case.
AMA's experience has shown that the risk posed by model aviation diminishes significantly at
distances greater than 3 miles and any remaining risk can be mitigated almost entirely by proper
safety training and the modeler’s ability to see and avoid the manned aircraft when a conflict
exists. This has been AMA's position since the AC was published in June, 1981, and this is
AMA's position going forward.
That having been said, there are some unique aeromodeling activities such as thermal soaring
and Free Flight where additional risks do exist due to the nature of the operations. In these
incidences AMA is considering additional means for mitigating the risks while essentially
allowing the modelers to continue to enjoy these activities. We will work directly with the
modelers, the Special Interest Groups and the FAA in developing these procedures. Once the
concepts are developed and put forward for consideration more information will be made
available through the AMA web site.
Though there are as yet no guarantees, AMA is confident we will be able to work through these
issues, resolve any remaining concerns and ultimately provide a safe and effective program that
allows the modelers to continue to enjoy the hobby in much the same way as they have in the
past.

Regards
Frank

phlpsfrnk

If you where a member back then or did your resreach you'd know that the AMA requested it. They did not just find it.


Regards
Frank

tinner1

You give reference to where you got this post (bold above)in your next post, HOWEVER the first sentence of THAT document says
The use of the wording "encourages voluntary compliance" would say, IMHO, this is what they suggest, or would like the public to do, but it is NOT mandated or the law. I would like to see "anywhere" that it is spelled out as "law". Usually a law posting is followed by defining penalties if the law is broken, and as of yet I have seen no such "law" referenced here on RCU. I am NOT saying it is not a good "safety rule" only questioning whether it is a "law" or "suggested guideline". There is a difference...

Luchnia

My Feedback: (21)

I think you are encouraged to voluntarily run the speed limit too. Rather or not you do is still within your power

This is why the documents are not worth the paper they are written on or the time and money wasted to compose them. Any lawyer worth his salt can provide that a doc is worthless when there are more than a few sentences. [X(]

I was also wondering how difficult it would be to impose a 400 foot rule. Can you imagine policing and enforcing that rule as far as some remote localities go?

dbcisco

The FAA said please try to follow these suggestions. The AMA said No, we know more about aircraft safety then the FAA so we are ignoring your sugggestions and make up our own rules.

That is what happened in a nutshell.

Soon the FAA is going to say, "Here are the laws, follow them."