KidEpoxy

He was non specific regarding that when he asked for an example.
We are still just trying to get him to see the FAA considers MA to be UAV, which are Aircraft, that fit the term Aeronautic Activity. The reason he is hung up on the grant(19) thing is because he is trusting his gut more than he trusts the FAA texts SA, MrP, CJR, and I have pointed out to him. Oddly, as Cj has pointed out, the underlying concept that we all have presented is actually in support of that club: CalTrans shut it down under a misinterpretation of FAA policy. I'm confused why he is fighting so hard to defend Caltrans & 1FAAGuy making a bad call to kill modeling.

phlpsfrnk

Well said Kid.

Regards
Frank

Sport_Pilot

I was commenting on the fact that you imply that prhaps the airport was in violation of a FAR. Being private the airport did not have to follow any FARs for airport operation. But the pilot had to keep seperation. No applicable FAR for MA.

Teachu2

My Feedback: (133)

My concern is that we MAY BE seeing a fundamental change in the FAA's position. In the past, modeling has not been viewed as a significant risk to full scale operations, so it has been largely left unregulated. The days of a .60-sized model being considered large and 100 mph being fast are behind us. Technology is now available to fly a model beyond line-of-sight, making see-and-avoid problematic. It is not a great leap of the imagination to see where the FAA might be looking to define how we can all safely operate in the NAS.

I have a vested interest in seeing as far ahead as possible. I'm a lifer in a club that has flown off WWII-era runways for over 50 years. If the FAA cracks down hard on the grant requirements, we'll lose the field. I'm looking for ways to defend our priviledge to fly models there - so sometimes it may sound like I'm on the FAA or CalTrans' side. Heck, sometimes we ALL are - anyone here fly R/C at LAX? I'm looking for ways to avoid LAX rules at Madera and at my field.

cj_rumley

Anything's possible............

Being out of area I don't now, but did during the early '70s. We flew R/C sailplanes (and hang gliders) from the beach bluffs to the W, where the airport authority had condemned a lot of expensive homes and demolished them in the interest of clearing a safe takeoff corridor. As you inferred, times change and so do perceptions.

Silent-AV8R

I think you have not really been grasping what I, and others, have written.

First, the FAA is NOT writing the sUAS rule because of worries about models, they are doing because of concerns about the proliferation of commercial and public agency sUAS use.

There is no fundamental change in the FAA position. In your specific situation the issue is a single person at the FAA regional office who has given CalTrans some bad advice. This backed up the incorrect assumption CalTrans made about the safety of model aircraft operations at active airports. It is not emblematic of any widespread change in thinking on the part of the FAA or an issue for the FAA. As I previously noted, the FAA people at the AMA meeting a couple of weeks ago specifically said that they were not aware of any FAA rule that prohibits model aircraft from operating at active airports.

So I would not try to make this a larger issue than it is. Certainly it has affected your club badly, but hopefully as we move forward you can get back to flying there. In fact, the coming rule may make it easier for you to do so.

Teachu2

My Feedback: (133)

Silent, I completely understand what you have written, and hope it turns out to be a completely accurate assessment. I have long experience working with government agencies, and find that the higher up the chain you go, the more disconnected from reality they are - both the level of the agency (county, state, federal) and the position of the employees (worker bee, Director).

I am encouraged by what I read here. Thank you all for the input!

warks62

My Feedback: (140)

I think that one thing the FAA has not considered is (but don't know really for sure of course) is this. I have many friends that are private pilots. They have all told me that for years there has been a decline of pilots. I would guess first reason is cost. I don't know this for sure I have not looked for numbers maybe someone else with actual numbers could chime in. Being if this is true then it seems logical that if other activities were at airports (I am not saying LAX) then there reason for staying open at least would have more substance possibly to public eye. I was told from one of our AMA personal that exact instance happened in CO where a airport manager was having a real problem with justifying the airport staying open do to low use. A local club asked if they could setup there club there and the manager thought it was great idea. He felt that it would show the community that there was more happening at the airport. The FAA said no to this request stating safety. Again this will not work at all airports and I don't think that we should be flying MA on an active runway. I have flown MA at more than one airport and it has always been done in a out of the way location on the property. Usually in one corner or another. At Madera we shared a runway that was restricted for Ag use or emergency runway only. We always communicated with the crop dusters what we were doing and always had a spotter to look for fullsize in the air. What I am trying to convey is that every situation is different. The blanket statement that RC and Full size don't mix is incorrect and Madera and many other fields just like it proove it. I could see that a minimum distance rule, height limit rule, and spotter rule all make real sense and are typical. I think that our history shows this just like many other clubs that are operating at airports. Silent has made it clear that the FAA has no rule in place and I believe him. One or more FAA official has taken it upon himself plus then you also have the Caltrans official that has his agenda which possibly may be being backed by an supposed FAA person. We need to all put pressure on the AMA to go forward with this with there full might and make use of the lawers that we are paying for with our AMA dues each year. This may not effect all of us but where will the FAA stop if they win this one?? Especially with the new rules being written right now as was stated at the beginning of this string. Email AMA asking them to go forward on this. With clubs loosing there fields then airports might be a good place for them to turn to have a new place to fly. Another thing if a fullsize pilot had felt there was a problem with the MA aircraft flying at a airport then they could of complained to the FAA. FAA would of come and inspected and implemented or advised restrictions. Something for everyone to think about.

By the way I have been told that the club at Porterville, CA who also was flying at a airport has been "Asked" to leave by the same Caltrans inspector.

modelflyer5

I want to chime in on the Madera situtation. I was at the convention and was one of the few to talk to Rich Hanson.

The FAA does not want to stop RC aircraft flight at all airports. If you read the regulations in the Cal Trans news letter, it is easy to see that that is the truth. It is not the issue....

The issue is the implamantation of FAA regulations and the understanding of them. As Silent AV8R has pointed out, the local FAA official (actually there are two) has his own interpretation of the guidlines and has informed Cal Trans of his interpratiations.

Rich Hanson asked officials at our club (Madera Aeromodelers Radio Controlled Society) to gather all documentation pertaining to this issue and hand them over to him. He is going to work with the FAA using these documents as proof of what has transpired. I have done this so I can now give you some comments on whats happening.

There is a clear misinterpratation of the guidelines by two officials in the local branch of the FAA. While at the conferance in Ontario, I was personally offended by what the FAA and AMA officals were saying about current FAA policy and RC aircraft usage on airport property. My opinion was that someone was lying. What I was told and what I read in the Cal Trans news letter was two completely different things.(the regulations were exactly the same, the implamentations were competely over reaching). Once I calmed down and listened to what Rich Hanson had to say, I realized the problem was local and not with the FAA as a whole.

I was able to get another document (that I don't know if I should talk about yet) that has even more damming evidence of what the local FAA's two officials opinions are. Cal Trans is acting on information that local FAA officials are giving them. In this document that is clearly stated. As this unfolds, I will be more at liberty to show what this other document is.

It is really easy to pick and choose little bits of imformation on an issue and bicker about it. This issue is a little more complex than that. I recomend that the guildelines on model aircraft usage on airport property need to be looked at also. The FAA needs to have a better standard on whats allowed and whats not. Madera has been flying on that restricted runway for thirty years without incident. It deserves to be able to be back home flying.

I want to know how many RC clubs in California are effected by whats happening with Cal Trans. A couple of us are trying to get the OK on starting a string on RCU pertaining to the Madera issue. I think that it would be a good idea to be able to trade information on this. . Please Private Message me with your club info and a history of what is happening to you...

I want everyone to know that as this progresses, I will keep updating as I find out whats happening.

Thank You Rich Hanson for your attention on this. I hope that you can prove our case for us. Not just for Madera but for all of the other clubs that this effects.

Matt R

Silent-AV8R

Porterville also lost their access to the airport that they flew at. CalTrans was once again the culprit. Great post Matt.!!

hook57

My Feedback: (21)

This is more in response to "modelflyer5" than SilentAV (thatpost was well put and in depth).Regarding the Madera issue, if I'm not mistaken, it was an airports district office official (ADO) that put out their, let's say understanding, of the grant issue and whether MA is or is not an aeronuatical activity. The ADO is the ADO, with respect to aviation safety, operating rules, etc, AVS's Flight Standards Divisionis the bottom line there. Has anyone attempted to discuss the "safety" aspect of MA at that location with a Flight Standards person? Doesn't have to be from the Western region, Muncie couldcall upon someone within it's own region. Just seems odd that an airports official would/should deside what isoris not an aeronautical activity. I could be mistaken about this issue and if so disregard and my apologies.
hk

modelflyer5

When all of this happened, our club thought there was no way to fight this. We still thought this until the AMA convention. Rich Hanson opened a door for us that we didn't know was there.

Our thoughts were, if the FAA and Caltrans wanted us gone that they would do anything to do that. We didn't even consider fighting it. We had the Caltrans news letter article, but didn't consider how far reaching there definitions were locally. We actually have a group of members looking at a number of different sites as we speak.

I am leaving names and titiles out of this conversation on purpose. I am not sure who reads these posts, and I do not want to add to our problems right now.

I also don't know what direction Rich Hanson is going. I know that the AMA has more pull than our members give it credit for. It really impressed me that the AMA litteraly caused the FAA to change the people on it's SUAV board.

I think that this is an issue that has been placed in the hands that it should be in for us. Rich Hanson's job is to know how to deal with the FAA. If he can't do it then no one in our club can.

hook57, I don't knowif this was the answer that you were looking for. It is the best that I can give at the moment.

Matt R

Steve Graham

Matt,

As you have become painfully aware the FAA is a complicated and very political beast. They have internal turf wars over things like rule interpretation all the time. The airlines have to deal with this frequently when an overzealous inspector, often inexperienced will get on an airplane and start interfering with the operation because "he" doesn't like what he sees. When this happens lots of people from around the country get involved and it generally gets resolved but not before it costs the airline a bunch of money in flight delays and paying people they have to hire to deal with exactly this type of situation. Years ago an inspector doing ramp checks placed tags on an aircraft grounding it because he found the prop tips had hit the ground and been "curled" back. He was roundly laughed at and publicly embarrassed by one of the local aviation rags. The props were a new design called Q tip but widely known about by those in general aviation. Another classic example of inexperience on the part of our regulators costing the public time, money and effort.

I have personally met and spoken with Rich Hanson as well and I believe your right about him. He will get you guys your field back if it is in any way possible. Hopefully you guys can also get to the bottom of any nefarious dealings on the part of public officials if in fact they occurred and can be substantiated.

Good Luck guys.

Steve

modelflyer5

Today I recieved an email from Rich Hanson. He has requested a meeting with the Head of Airport Compliance for the FAA in Washington DC. He is going to try to meet with him next week.

Let's all keep are fingers crossed.

I will post more as it comes in.

Matt R