Go Back  RCU Forums > RC Airplanes > AMA Discussions
Reload this Page >

Club letter to local airports within five miles

Notices
AMA Discussions Discuss AMA policies, decisions & any other AMA related topics here.

Club letter to local airports within five miles

Old 04-20-2012, 02:17 AM
  #176  
phlpsfrnk
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
phlpsfrnk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Spring Hill, FL
Posts: 893
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Club letter to local airports within five miles

I do not believe the intent of the public-law was/is that there needs to be an agreement between modelers and all local airports. The long standing intention was to notify of our presence within 3 miles. Only if there is a conflict does there need to be any direct “negotiations” to allow continuing operations. The only difference between the intentions of the text in the public-law and AC 91-57 is two more miles around the local airports.

Regards
Frank
Old 04-20-2012, 04:07 AM
  #177  
Top_Gunn
My Feedback: (6)
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Granger, IN
Posts: 2,344
Received 6 Likes on 5 Posts
Default RE: Club letter to local airports within five miles


ORIGINAL: phlpsfrnk

I do not believe the intent of the public-law was/is that there needs to be an agreement between modelers and all local airports. The long standing intention was to notify of our presence within 3 miles. Only if there is a conflict does there need to be any direct “negotiations” to allow continuing operations. The only difference between the intentions of the text in the public-law and AC 91-57 is two more miles around the local airports.

Regards
Frank
Agreed (except now it's going to be five miles when the reg's emerge). But that doesn't necessarily mean that the language used can't give the FAA a hook to hang very stringent regulations on. You can't put much weight on the "intent" of legislatures. After all, the legislature consists of hundreds of different people, and in most cases none of them have actually read the bills they are voting on.

It was suggested earlier that the language in question came from the AMA. If so, the AMA did a poor job of drafting.
Old 04-20-2012, 04:36 AM
  #178  
JohnShe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Round Hill, VA
Posts: 1,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Club letter to local airports within five miles


ORIGINAL: Top_Gunn


ORIGINAL: phlpsfrnk

I do not believe the intent of the public-law was/is that there needs to be an agreement between modelers and all local airports. The long standing intention was to notify of our presence within 3 miles. Only if there is a conflict does there need to be any direct “negotiations” to allow continuing operations. The only difference between the intentions of the text in the public-law and AC 91-57 is two more miles around the local airports.

Regards
Frank
Agreed (except now it's going to be five miles when the reg's emerge). But that doesn't necessarily mean that the language used can't give the FAA a hook to hang very stringent regulations on. You can't put much weight on the "intent" of legislatures. After all, the legislature consists of hundreds of different people, and in most cases none of them have actually read the bills they are voting on.

It was suggested earlier that the language in question came from the AMA. If so, the AMA did a poor job of drafting.
I strongly agree with Frank on this. The FAAhas a long history of not bothering model aviation and has no reason to write unnecessary regulations. In fact if you look at the history of the FAA, you will see that they tend to exercise a typical bureaucratic slowness at writing new regulations in response to strong recommendations from the NTSB after horrifying accidents. We have no reason to worry.



Old 04-20-2012, 05:41 AM
  #179  
littlecrankshaf
My Feedback: (58)
 
littlecrankshaf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: here
Posts: 5,413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Club letter to local airports within five miles


ORIGINAL: JohnShe




I strongly agree with Frank on this. The FAA has a long history of not bothering model aviation and has no reason to write unnecessary regulations. In fact if you look at the history of the FAA, you will see that they tend to exercise a typical bureaucratic slowness at writing new regulations in response to strong recommendations from the NTSB after horrifying accidents. We have no reason to worry.



Well, if we just had a self interested National organization prodding them along they might get into gear and write a few...
Old 04-20-2012, 06:53 AM
  #180  
KidEpoxy
Senior Member
 
KidEpoxy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 6,681
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Club letter to local airports within five miles

But that doesn't necessarily mean that the language used can't give the FAA a hook to hang very stringent regulations on. You can't put much weight on the "intent" of legislatures.
oooooo, you said the R-word

How, praytell,
are there going to be faa regulations on cbo modeleling
allowed by the wording of a condition,
when that condition is part of FAA NOT ALLOWED TO REGULATE MODELS?

By your method,
the FAA will regulate models by being forbidden by Federal Law from regulating models???[&:]


I dont think so.
We wont see 'rules' or 'regulations' against models that CBOs have to obey,
but what you allude to would be Wink&Nod style common 'safety concern regarding fullscale traffic'
whereby FAA/Airports will say you cant fly models <400' in an area fullscale fly at 3000agl 'due to safety'.
Would that be a completely unrealistic use of 'Cannot endanger the NAS' ? Yup.
Is there pretty much anything we can do about it? nope
But it wont be a 'rule' or a 'regulation' cause those would be unlawful by act of congress.



You can't put much weight on the "intent" of legislatures.
Please remind the folks adding their own meanings to the text on the law.
"Provide Notice" dont mean Ask Permission,
and maybe folks should trying to change the meaning of the words in the law to make it that way because they feel that was the 'intent' of the law.
Unless you are a congressman,
you dont KNOW that when congress printed SHOULD that they actually meant the completely different (and frequently used by congress) Shall
Old 04-20-2012, 07:59 AM
  #181  
Sport_Pilot
 
Sport_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 16,916
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default RE: Club letter to local airports within five miles



Many clubs have agreements with airports as it is. If you are outside the pattern and have shown that you can behave, then there should ussually be no problem. Outside of that the full scale planes should have preference. We now don't have to worry about the 400 foot rule outside of airports and IMO no matter what happens to the 5 mile rule we are better off.

Old 04-20-2012, 08:05 AM
  #182  
Sport_Pilot
 
Sport_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 16,916
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default RE: Club letter to local airports within five miles


ORIGINAL: JohnShe


ORIGINAL: Top_Gunn


ORIGINAL: phlpsfrnk

I do not believe the intent of the public-law was/is that there needs to be an agreement between modelers and all local airports. The long standing intention was to notify of our presence within 3 miles. Only if there is a conflict does there need to be any direct “negotiations” to allow continuing operations. The only difference between the intentions of the text in the public-law and AC 91-57 is two more miles around the local airports.

Regards
Frank
Agreed (except now it's going to be five miles when the reg's emerge). But that doesn't necessarily mean that the language used can't give the FAA a hook to hang very stringent regulations on. You can't put much weight on the "intent" of legislatures. After all, the legislature consists of hundreds of different people, and in most cases none of them have actually read the bills they are voting on.

It was suggested earlier that the language in question came from the AMA. If so, the AMA did a poor job of drafting.
I strongly agree with Frank on this. The FAAhas a long history of not bothering model aviation and has no reason to write unnecessary regulations. In fact if you look at the history of the FAA, you will see that they tend to exercise a typical bureaucratic slowness at writing new regulations in response to strong recommendations from the NTSB after horrifying accidents. We have no reason to worry.




I agree with you except perhaps the last sentence. We do have some reason to worry, which is good motivation for us and to the AMA to do something about this.
Old 04-20-2012, 09:22 AM
  #183  
JohnShe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Round Hill, VA
Posts: 1,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Club letter to local airports within five miles


ORIGINAL: Sport_Pilot


ORIGINAL: JohnShe


ORIGINAL: Top_Gunn


ORIGINAL: phlpsfrnk

I do not believe the intent of the public-law was/is that there needs to be an agreement between modelers and all local airports. The long standing intention was to notify of our presence within 3 miles. Only if there is a conflict does there need to be any direct “negotiations” to allow continuing operations. The only difference between the intentions of the text in the public-law and AC 91-57 is two more miles around the local airports.

Regards
Frank
Agreed (except now it's going to be five miles when the reg's emerge). But that doesn't necessarily mean that the language used can't give the FAA a hook to hang very stringent regulations on. You can't put much weight on the "intent" of legislatures. After all, the legislature consists of hundreds of different people, and in most cases none of them have actually read the bills they are voting on.

It was suggested earlier that the language in question came from the AMA. If so, the AMA did a poor job of drafting.
I strongly agree with Frank on this. The FAAhas a long history of not bothering model aviation and has no reason to write unnecessary regulations. In fact if you look at the history of the FAA, you will see that they tend to exercise a typical bureaucratic slowness at writing new regulations in response to strong recommendations from the NTSB after horrifying accidents. We have no reason to worry.




I agree with you except perhaps the last sentence. We do have some reason to worry, which is good motivation for us and to the AMA to do something about this.
I suppose that a little paranoia doesn't hurt. After all, just because we are paranoid doesn't mean that there isn't somebody out to get us. The appropriation clearly gives the FAAa choice to accept he AMA's safety guidelines. The AMA and the FAAhave made noises that sound like they are working together. The AMAkeeps saying that they have our interests at heart. So we just have to be alert and ready to raise a fuss if something goes wrong.

Supposedly we will be seeing the FAAsUASrules and the AMAsafety guidelines one of these days. And, in both instances we will have an opportunity to protest anything that messes with us. As to whether our protests are heard, well that is another day. We shall see. Won't we?





Old 04-20-2012, 12:03 PM
  #184  
Top_Gunn
My Feedback: (6)
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Granger, IN
Posts: 2,344
Received 6 Likes on 5 Posts
Default RE: Club letter to local airports within five miles

(KE, our resident legal scholar): By your method,
the FAA will regulate models by being forbidden by Federal Law from regulating models???
If section 336 simply said "the FAA cannot regulate models" you would be right. It doesn't, so you're wrong. Nobody here wants the FAA to impose stringent limits on models within five miles of an airport, and I don't think any of us thinks it's likely that they will. But if they get a notion into their heads that they ought to, there's plenty of slop in the language of section 336 that would let them do it, your views on statutory interpretation to the contrary notwithstanding.

There's a fundamental difference in the way lay people and lawyers look at legislation. Lay people ask "what is the obvious meaning of this language?" That's the way most of us use language most of the time. Lawyers ask, "What are the possible meanings that could be given to this language?" There's almost never a simple one-line answer to that question. And while it is indeed absurd to talk about the "intent" of people who haven't even read the thing, courts and administrative agencies do it all the time. If the FAA has its heart set on regulating us, there are plenty of ways for them to do it. To find them, you have to read the whole statute carefully, not pluck a few words and phrases out of it and yell "Gotcha!"

You might take a look at the thread about the guy flying from a church parking lot near the landing pattern of a controlled airport. So far, not one hint in any of the posts there to suggest that he couldn't, or shouldn't, be stopped. And the new law won't change that one bit.
Old 04-20-2012, 08:11 PM
  #185  
KidEpoxy
Senior Member
 
KidEpoxy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 6,681
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Club letter to local airports within five miles

You might take a look at the thread about the guy flying from a church parking lot near the landing pattern of a controlled airport. So far, not one hint in any of the posts there to suggest that he couldn't, or shouldn't, be stopped.
wow
you are trying to point out that by 3pm nobody had a chance to post a particular point
in a thread that was started just this morning???
You probably should wait more than just 6 hrs
to say the lack of particular posts means anything other than it being up for just 6hrs.


ok, check this one- Internet Equal & Opposite:
If section 336 simply said "the FAA cannot regulate models" you would be right. It doesn't, so you're wrong. ...snip... your views on statutory interpretation to the contrary notwithstanding.
By the classic Same2UBuddy,
Cant I just say I found your posted opinions and interpretations
just as invalid as you found mine?
What? Whats that you say... But I'm Wright and you're wrong! [>:] ??
What a coincidence, thats is what I am saying too... I'm right and you're wrong


PL112-95 did not contain a list of some few select regulations the FAA cannot write,
a list you are trying to get us to believe doesnt contain this subject(uh, you seen the list?).
No, pl112-95 HAS NO list of a few select regulations they cannot write while allowing regs that are not on the list,
congress used a VERY broad term that protects cbo modelers
despite your attempts to correct congress' words for them after the law is in print.

You are wanting us to believe YOU already know what regulations on cbo modeling that FAA will write in violation of pl112-95.

but the sad part is
that you want to fight the guy opposing them and their overreaching/wink-wink cbo rules
rather than fighting them and their unlawful cbo rules

Perhaps if you spent less time defending them being unlawful
you would have enough free time to maybe help us force them to obey the law
Old 04-21-2012, 04:11 AM
  #186  
Top_Gunn
My Feedback: (6)
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Granger, IN
Posts: 2,344
Received 6 Likes on 5 Posts
Default RE: Club letter to local airports within five miles

You are wanting us to believe YOU already know what regulations on cbo modeling that FAA will write in violation of pl112-95.
This is not true. I have never claimed to know what regulations the FAA will write. What I've done is to try to explain why the law is flexible enough to allow the FAA to write some regulations that we may not like. I've also consistently said that I doubt that the FAA will do that.

Where you got the idea that I have defended the FAA's "being unlawful" I have no idea. I've said repeatedly that I hope the FAA does not do the things I've worried about. Is English not your native language by some chance? (Most native speakers would say "you want us," not "you are wanting us.") Or is claiming that people have said the opposite of what they really said your idea of argument?
Old 06-26-2014, 10:17 AM
  #187  
mr_matt
My Feedback: (10)
 
mr_matt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Oak Park, CA,
Posts: 10,446
Likes: 0
Received 12 Likes on 10 Posts
Default

FAA has interpreted this now. "Mutually agreeable" has morphed into this:

See, e.g., 14 CFR 91.127(a),
91.129(a). Operations within restricted areas designated in part 73 would be prohibited
without permission from the using or controlling agency. Accordingly, as part of the
requirements for model aircraft operations within 5 miles of an airport set forth in section
336(a)(4) of P.L. 112-95, the FAA would expect modelers operating model aircraft in
airspace covered by §§ 91.126 through 91.135 and part 73 to obtain authorization from
air traffic control prior to operating.


EDIT:
§§ 91.126 covers Class G airspace

Last edited by mr_matt; 06-26-2014 at 10:23 AM.
Old 06-27-2014, 07:54 AM
  #188  
phlpsfrnk
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
phlpsfrnk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Spring Hill, FL
Posts: 893
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by mr_matt
FAA has interpreted this now. "Mutually agreeable" has morphed into this:

See, e.g., 14 CFR 91.127(a),
91.129(a). Operations within restricted areas designated in part 73 would be prohibited
without permission from the using or controlling agency. Accordingly, as part of the
requirements for model aircraft operations within 5 miles of an airport set forth in section
336(a)(4) of P.L. 112-95, the FAA would expect modelers operating model aircraft in
airspace covered by §§ 91.126 through 91.135 and part 73 to obtain authorization from
air traffic control prior to operating.


EDIT:
§§ 91.126 covers Class G airspace
That certainly throws a wrinkle on the "notify" issue.

Frank
Old 07-02-2014, 09:17 AM
  #189  
Hossfly
 
Hossfly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: New Caney, TX
Posts: 6,130
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by phlpsfrnk
That certainly throws a wrinkle on the "notify" issue.

Frank
Gentlemen, while RCU has provided the special forum for my being a candidate to obtain a place on the ballot for AMA Executive Vice President, I find that very VERY few individuals - AMA Members - have any interest in the coming election. The real activity seems to be aimed at the bad FAA being concerned with the transfer of information by RC Clubs within 5 miles of a recognized airport. In an attempt to bring more attention to a very bad FAA, here is a forum that has brought up posts from over 2 years ago.
Now be realistic: Is it too much for a RC Club, working inside 5 statute miles of an active airport, to at least provide the Air Traffic Control, simply the Airport Tower which would forward any need of the active RC flying, to be ADVISED of said flying? When I was in Chicago Land and belonged to a club that leased 4 acres for an RC field which was in rural farm land. That lease was $4000.00 per year and the club was held to a maximum of 100 members. (Had a waiting list! ) In addition the farmer needed some 6-800 $$ Xmas present to not plant soybean rather than corn around the field borders. For you that have no knowledge of Mid-West corn, it is well higher and thicker than TX stuff.
One year a full-scale flight instructor with a student used that spot for a practice forced landing for his student. Back then a .60 was a very big power-plant. Well that flight instructor wound up with a large piped .Enya .60 embedded inside the right wing leading edge, a few inches outside the prop arc. Other points of damage were there. Now this full scale pilot was - IMO - stupid as he could see the activity on the field which the club leased. It could have been a crash.
Now for you RCers, is it too much to advise a local airport about RC models being in the air, when there are full scale machines using that airspace. The ATC controllers are always busy and they should be advised by YOU the user. (I do have some experience, 20,000 +/- hours over 41 years, 13 full military with other reserve, and 28 years UAL.) Bird and lightening strikes are bad enough, so why should Full Scale have to request your position when with a short, "Hey Guys, we are here playing with the toys today" would suffice. As a long time modeler, 44 years in RC, over 70 in CL, FF and RC, I think that is not too much to ask.
THINK, That small jet or recip. coming in for a visual approach with attention on getting safely onto a runway gets clobbered by a giant scale and snaps into the ground.
DO YOU WANT TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT BECAUSE YOU ARE TOO LAZY TO CALL IN TO THE TOWER CONTROLLER? THINK ON IT!
Now go preach that Horrace Cain is a BAD choice for AMA office!
Old 07-02-2014, 02:03 PM
  #190  
mr_matt
My Feedback: (10)
 
mr_matt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Oak Park, CA,
Posts: 10,446
Likes: 0
Received 12 Likes on 10 Posts
Default

They don't direct one to "advise" the airport...........they expect us to "gain approval". Maybe you missed that part.


We have been asked to "advise" airports within 3 miles for the last 33 years. We have been expected to "gain approval" for the last 9 days.
Old 07-02-2014, 04:58 PM
  #191  
Thomas B
My Feedback: (4)
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Fort Worth, TX
Posts: 1,257
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by Hossfly
.......

Now be realistic: Is it too much for a RC Club, working inside 5 statute miles of an active airport, to at least provide the Air Traffic Control, simply the Airport Tower which would forward any need of the active RC flying, to be ADVISED of said flying? ......................

Now for you RCers, is it too much to advise a local airport about RC models being in the air, when there are full scale machines using that airspace. The ATC controllers are always busy and they should be advised by YOU the user. (I do have some experience, 20,000 +/- hours over 41 years, 13 full military with other reserve, and 28 years UAL.) Bird and lightening strikes are bad enough, so why should Full Scale have to request your position when with a short, "Hey Guys, we are here playing with the toys today" would suffice. As a long time modeler, 44 years in RC, over 70 in CL, FF and RC, I think that is not too much to ask.
THINK, That small jet or recip. coming in for a visual approach with attention on getting safely onto a runway gets clobbered by a giant scale and snaps into the ground.
DO YOU WANT TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT BECAUSE YOU ARE TOO LAZY TO CALL IN TO THE TOWER CONTROLLER? THINK ON IT!
Now go preach that Horrace Cain is a BAD choice for AMA office!
Let me back up and add to what Mr. Matt said.

Hoss, you do not understand the issue here and the exact reason people are upset about this topic.

The AMA, in the FAA Reauthorization bill in 2012 that included terms to give us some legal protection against the FAA regulating us PROMOTED the need for notification for airport managers and local ATC folks. I know not of a single AMA flyer or even non AMA member that think this is unreasonable, so you are preaching to the choir with your post.

That ain't the problem.

The FAA, in the recent letter they put out, is trying to twist the agreed upon notification of the airports and ATC into us being required to have permission from the airport and ATC. This change would subject us to endless individual interpretations, ignorance and prejudice by officials at local airports and ATC.

Go to the link below and read the last paragraph on page 13 and the rest of it on page 14.

http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives..._spec_rule.pdf

I think you might a bad choice for the AMA if you don't take some time to fully understand important issues affecting modelers before commenting on them.

[SUP][SUP]
[/SUP][/SUP]

Last edited by Thomas B; 07-02-2014 at 05:03 PM.
Old 07-02-2014, 07:35 PM
  #192  
Hossfly
 
Hossfly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: New Caney, TX
Posts: 6,130
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

To Mr. Matt and Thomas B:
I had many years working with FAA and other government. Reading and really learning the FAA's written words was, some years ago, very much part of my work.
Looking back and rereading the information several times, I still think that FAA is simply saying if any RC group fails to treat the FAA as the ultimate boss then that group of modelers could be in serious trouble, thus creating serious problems for ALL RC groups.

Whether you think that FAA is or is not boss of the airways, well take your choice but they ARE whether you like it or not. All they need is a bit of bowing down to them, and before flying in the 5 mile space, SIMPLY ASK IF ALL IS OK TODAY or maybe even tomorrow. If you don't and the "president" is coming into your area, well you are going to stir up some really- bad for you. Your choice!

In government there is simply nothing like ASKING PERMISSION. Now I will not state just how one ultimately asks "permission" yet I have been there and done that. So you vote as you wish. Again I am sure my name will never appear on any AMA Ballot. Maybe you might ask your DVP to see the letter that he already has, much more than the official "Resume". The one submitted to DVPs ahead of time was called "The RESUME in STORY Time".
AMA is as afraid for me being on that Ex. VP ballot, with a possibility of winning, as you are of the FAA.

Last edited by Hossfly; 07-03-2014 at 07:43 AM. Reason: wrong words. Change AMA to FAA
Old 07-02-2014, 11:03 PM
  #193  
ira d
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Maricopa County AZ
Posts: 3,249
Received 5 Likes on 5 Posts
Default

There is no reason that a modeler should have to try to contact a airport that may be five miles from them in order to fly if at a rc site. Now as for clubs that are within five miles
of a airport they should send a letter to the airport informing them of their location and then it should be the airport informing incoming and outgoing traffic of the rc site.

I do think if someone is not at rc site and they know there is a airport within five miles of where they plan to fly they should contact the airport. I also think the AMA and
the FAA should work together to identify all rc sites that or within five miles of each other and the FAA should provide contact info for the airports.

I also think that most airports would not welcome the increase in phone traffic if every body was to call to inform them they are going to fly.

Last edited by ira d; 07-02-2014 at 11:08 PM.
Old 07-03-2014, 03:14 AM
  #194  
phlpsfrnk
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
phlpsfrnk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Spring Hill, FL
Posts: 893
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Gentlemen/Hoss,
I started this thread over two years ago to help other club secretaries with a mutual problem of airport notifications. The only thing that has really changed is the distance from three to five miles. I have carefully read the “Notice of Interpretation with Request for Comment” (Specifically footnotes page 13) and find nothing new here. Another thing we need to all remember is that this is an evolving document which after the comment period more than likely will be amended.

I worked in the air traffic control industry for many years and while I do not have anywhere near the flight time Hoss does I do hold a private ticket and one of the first things they teach in flight school is to know how to read FAA Regs. The FAA gives pilots a lot of latitude in decision making however no matter how “advisory” (Refer foot note 8) if you do not comply, you had better have a good reason (One that may have to stand up in court if you survive the incident).

I agree with Hoss, love them or hate them it is far easier to work with the FAA then it is to work against them. To me this is a shot across the bow that local clubs and the AMA need to be more cognizant of the NAS and its rules and regs that we all fly in.

Regards
Frank
Old 07-04-2014, 08:30 AM
  #195  
Hossfly
 
Hossfly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: New Caney, TX
Posts: 6,130
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by ira d
There is no reason that a modeler should have to try to contact a airport that may be five miles from them in order to fly if at a rc site. Now as for clubs that are within five miles
of a airport they should send a letter to the airport informing them of their location and then it should be the airport informing incoming and outgoing traffic of the rc site.

I do think if someone is not at rc site and they know there is a airport within five miles of where they plan to fly they should contact the airport. I also think the AMA and
the FAA should work together to identify all rc sites that or within five miles of each other and the FAA should provide contact info for the airports.

I also think that most airports would not welcome the increase in phone traffic if every body was to call to inform them they are going to fly.
Unfortunately, ira d, you and I do not have the choice when it comes to Hobby / Fun / Recreation, etc over the government's prevention programs, when HARM to PEOPLE is the possibility code. Be honest with yourself, would you really want to trust some letter of maybe months ago placed away in a computer or file to be the
item that is the Personal Safety machine for Real People in REAL Airplanes? As a flier of real people carrying machines - sometimes just me - but mostly after the USAF time, it was with real people that trusted my expertise to get them safely to a destination, I can do whatever is required to keep RC flying a safe operation for those people. (41 years total, 28 airline) In my opinion this love of the drones, etc,, especially FPV, has made the system far more liable to hurting people than prior to the drone's initiation into the skies.
As a long time aero-modeler, and full scale flier, I personally can live with some minor reporting of position when it is for the safety of other persons. Been there done that in a number of situations, both military and airline. It is almost painless. For certain grabbing the phone, calling a number and asking if RC is OK today, well heck if it ain't, O.K. so beer-call comes early. As Scarlet O'hara said, "Tomorrow is another day!" This note could go on all day, but for me the buck stops right here.
Enjoy your FOURTH!
Old 07-04-2014, 10:19 AM
  #196  
ira d
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Maricopa County AZ
Posts: 3,249
Received 5 Likes on 5 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Hossfly
Unfortunately, ira d, you and I do not have the choice when it comes to Hobby / Fun / Recreation, etc over the government's prevention programs, when HARM to PEOPLE is the possibility code. Be honest with yourself, would you really want to trust some letter of maybe months ago placed away in a computer or file to be the
item that is the Personal Safety machine for Real People in REAL Airplanes? As a flier of real people carrying machines - sometimes just me - but mostly after the USAF time, it was with real people that trusted my expertise to get them safely to a destination, I can do whatever is required to keep RC flying a safe operation for those people. (41 years total, 28 airline) In my opinion this love of the drones, etc,, especially FPV, has made the system far more liable to hurting people than prior to the drone's initiation into the skies.
As a long time aero-modeler, and full scale flier, I personally can live with some minor reporting of position when it is for the safety of other persons. Been there done that in a number of situations, both military and airline. It is almost painless. For certain grabbing the phone, calling a number and asking if RC is OK today, well heck if it ain't, O.K. so beer-call comes early. As Scarlet O'hara said, "Tomorrow is another day!" This note could go on all day, but for me the buck stops right here.
Enjoy your FOURTH!
RC has been operating at are close to airports for years with no conflict, Like I said I don't think the airports would want every flyer that shows up at the site to call them when a letter to the airport
will do. And what about non towered airports? Also who makes the call if you are inside the five mile zone? It seems there are more questions than answers at this point.
Old 07-04-2014, 12:50 PM
  #197  
Hossfly
 
Hossfly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: New Caney, TX
Posts: 6,130
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by ira d
RC has been operating at are close to airports for years with no conflict,
Heck, ira d, I have been in this world for 78 years and 4+ months. I flew 1:1 scale airplanes for 41 of those years. Would that mean I would never have
any accident? Well way back there I got ahead a bit and I did pancake one into the brush. I was not hurt but airplane suffered some hurt. Still I never wished to try
it again. Hey, Man, where was that letter when I needed it? OH Shucks, I wasn't using RC, just DRATS!

Like I said I don't think the airports would want every flyer that shows up at the site to call them when a letter to the airport
will do. And what about non towered airports? Also who makes the call if you are inside the five mile zone? It seems there are more questions than answers at this point.
O.K. ira d. Have it your way. However for your personal information, check out this AMA Information that has been available for a long time.

www.modelaircraft.org/files/540-D.pdf AMA wrote it long before these current "problems" surfaced which mostly concerns the "Gladiators" with their drones.

A. General General paragraphs 7, 8, and 11 are definitely in accord with what I believe. B. Spotters, all 4 items should, IMO, be in the mind of any person flying RC at any and all times.
Old 07-05-2014, 11:46 AM
  #198  
Thomas B
My Feedback: (4)
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Fort Worth, TX
Posts: 1,257
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Hoss, there is precedence in the FAA regulations for a situation where "notify" is all that is required for an aeromodeling activity.

The rocketry folks were able to get the FAA to agree to be notified (only) when modelers are operating what are termed "mid size" rockets (more than one pound, but not to exceed 3.3 lbs and not to exceed 4.4 oz of propellant) are being operated. The FAA does not have to give permission. It is in place and operating.

I feel that model aircraft operating within 5 miles of an airport would fulfill all safety needs by using the notification only system that was in 336, plus the AMA document you links above. The FAA is overstepping the letter of the law in 336 which states they are to be notified only.

There has already been a report that an airport operator who was approached since June 24 suggested that if modelers wanted to fly within 5 miles of an airport, they had better consider getting a sport pilot license. Unbelievable. If the FAA requirement for permission is allowed to stand, there will at least 50 different interpretations of what is allowed or not allowed for ever 75 airports of ATCs asked.

The model industry and the AMA need to team up, lawyer up and do battle in the courts and on Capitol Hill so that we get the degree of model aircraft operating freedom intended in 336 and not be subject to the FAAs capricious and overreaching interpretation of 336. I will put some money where my mouth is, in support of this legal action, even though nothing in the FAA letter actually affects me and where and how I fly.

Last edited by Thomas B; 07-05-2014 at 12:16 PM.
Old 07-05-2014, 12:18 PM
  #199  
Thomas B
My Feedback: (4)
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Fort Worth, TX
Posts: 1,257
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Here is a link to the AMA's most detailed a recent response to the FAA letter. Coves the issues pretty well and points out many inconsistencies in FAA policy.

http://www.modelaircraft.org/files/A...iveRule614.pdf
Old 07-08-2014, 08:24 AM
  #200  
Hossfly
 
Hossfly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: New Caney, TX
Posts: 6,130
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Thomas B
Hoss, there is precedence in the FAA regulations for a situation where "notify" is all that is required for an aeromodeling activity.

The rocketry folks were able to get the FAA to agree to be notified (only) when modelers are operating what are termed "mid size" rockets (more than one pound, but not to exceed 3.3 lbs and not to exceed 4.4 oz of propellant) are being operated. The FAA does not have to give permission. It is in place and operating.

I feel that model aircraft operating within 5 miles of an airport would fulfill all safety needs by using the notification only system that was in 336, plus the AMA document you links above. The FAA is overstepping the letter of the law in 336 which states they are to be notified only.

There has already been a report that an airport operator who was approached since June 24 suggested that if modelers wanted to fly within 5 miles of an airport, they had better consider getting a sport pilot license. Unbelievable. If the FAA requirement for permission is allowed to stand, there will at least 50 different interpretations of what is allowed or not allowed for ever 75 airports of ATCs asked.

The model industry and the AMA need to team up, lawyer up and do battle in the courts and on Capitol Hill so that we get the degree of model aircraft operating freedom intended in 336 and not be subject to the FAAs capricious and overreaching interpretation of 336. I will put some money where my mouth is, in support of this legal action, even though nothing in the FAA letter actually affects me and where and how I fly.
In all reality, there has been a number of changes in the aeromodeling world since your precedence was set. The number ONE ( # 1) problem is this DRONE society
where anyone-and-all can tour the skies from the ground below it, to out-of-sight in the sky. While FAA can be a #1 stinky T_ _ D, they are going to win until a Court Decision is in their favor. In civil courts, unless it is a plain-view situation, the most money wins. BTDT. That is why lawyers are well compensated.
Personally, if a RC club just has to fly within the 5 mile area of an active airport, then in my opinion as both an active RC flier and many years (41) ACTIVE aviator I am on the side that advising the local air-traffic person/s does not seem to be too much for the RCers to do. Well, if it is, I am sorry for them, but they need to live in a real world like most real people do.
I belong to 3 RC Clubs. Two I seldom get to. The main one, I financed with a large loss of money ($250,000.oo) that could have been enriching my portfolios, over some 10+ years. Check www.jetero.com for a facility that owns 50 acres and a nice RC facility. Now some 18 years later, a large number of the membership think they are the ruling class and some think they do not have to observe AMA and/or Club member rules. The officers get re-elected because they look the other way when rules are being broken.
In this day and age, most government entices are going to take the easy way and whatever way creates the least amount of labor, from above. That means that real people like those that have personal entertaining hobbies and or labors, will only hurt themselves if they insist on "...being RIGHT...". RCers can create / buy / etc. all kinds of very expensive model stuff, but they balk at having to spell out a few bucks to lease or purchase a facility of their own.
Something as simple as calling in to an airport facility for permission to fly this day seems to me to be very simple and not worth the fact that they are endangering their situation and the situation of the entire hobby-sport.
Besides when the Revolution comes, you ain't gonna' be flyin' any RC models fer fun!!! Git muh drift thar Ol' Pard!

Last edited by Hossfly; 07-08-2014 at 08:27 AM.

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.