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 07-08-2014, 09:54 AM
  #201  
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 Thomas B
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
Thomas,
I read the AMA’s Objections letter and my first thought was did the AMA read the same FAA "interpretation" that I did? In the case of airport notifications the FAA intent for the past 33 years has always been to notify. The AMA’s loose interpretation of AC91-57 has been allowed to stand because back then it was not a problem because of the relatively small size and lower speeds of the models then. Today many of the models are larger, heavier and faster which is more of a threat to the NAS than in the past. Over the years I have been a member of several clubs around the country that notify the local airport operator or tower without problems. To me the implications of the notification always meant that there was a possibility that there may be a conflict and the notification provided contacts to resolve said conflicts. Also do not forget to check the NOTAMs http://www.modelaircraft.org/members...bs/notams.aspx for your area before you go fly. 336 did not exempt models from NOTAMs.


Regards
Frank
Old 07-09-2014, 06:46 AM
  #202  
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
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.
........
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.
......
Hoss, we will have to agree to disagree on the subject of notification vs. permission from airports and ATCs. If 336 wanted us to get "permission", that word would be in the law instead of "notify". I think the intent is clear.

Nothing wrong at all with a model site/club having a productive dialogue with airports and ATC as needed to keep things running smoothly when they are within 5 miles of a qualifying airport. However, a line needs to be drawn it the airport or ATC becomes unreasonable and uncooperative.

i snipped your comments about your financing a field and how other clubs can all do the same thing as it is clear that not every club has the resources or a member capable of a major investment to obtain a club owned site. Let's not forget that wide open spaces here in Texas are still fairly plentiful and sort of affordable compared to the crowded east coast and other areas in the US.
Old 07-11-2014, 12:40 PM
  #203  
crash99
Senior Member
My Feedback: (3)
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Eldon, MO,
Posts: 757
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Look guys, this is all to do with the Federal Judge telling the FAA that they way over reached. They must have thought they are kings that rule over us but the facts are they are to serve us.

All other issues facing the FAA must be fixed due to they are attacking our hobby. It has to be due to all the other issues facing the FAA have been solved and corrected. Why else would they spend so much of our tax money trying to make new rulings while there are laws all ready on the books?

Here is the deal, people that fly FPV and like it are going to fly it no matter what the FAA says. Do I care if the place a 121 meter limit on us, no! Should people be allowed to make money with it? Sure! Should the FAA stap wasting our money? Yes will they? No. Will I still fly my RC planes, heli and hex? You bet.

crash99
Old 07-14-2014, 04:55 AM
  #204  
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

Originally Posted by phlpsfrnk
Thomas,
I read the AMA’s Objections letter and my first thought was did the AMA read the same FAA "interpretation" that I did? In the case of airport notifications the FAA intent for the past 33 years has always been to notify. The AMA’s loose interpretation of AC91-57 has been allowed to stand because back then it was not a problem because of the relatively small size and lower speeds of the models then. Today many of the models are larger, heavier and faster which is more of a threat to the NAS than in the past. Over the years I have been a member of several clubs around the country that notify the local airport operator or tower without problems. To me the implications of the notification always meant that there was a possibility that there may be a conflict and the notification provided contacts to resolve said conflicts. Also do not forget to check the NOTAMs http://www.modelaircraft.org/members...bs/notams.aspx for your area before you go fly. 336 did not exempt models from NOTAMs.


Regards
Frank
When was the last time a full scale aircraft crashed because it hit one of our larger faster model's? I don't think that has ever happened. Therefore it must not be a problem even with the larger faster models.
Old 07-14-2014, 07:00 AM
  #205  
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 Sport_Pilot
When was the last time a full scale aircraft crashed because it hit one of our larger faster model's? I don't think that has ever happened. Therefore it must not be a problem even with the larger faster models.
30 Sep 1990; Goodyear Blimp made an emergency landing with six passengers on board after colliding with an RC airplane.
14 Aug 2010; SA750 N28KT grounded with significant damage after collision with RC airplane.

Frank
Old 07-14-2014, 07:27 AM
  #206  
TimJ
 
TimJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Orange County CA
Posts: 1,170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

so, two issues in the last 20 years......COME OFF IT! BTW the incident with the goodyear blimp was some idiot that decided it would be funny to fly his airplane at the blimp. I was there for that one. The second incident you list was a combination of the airboss and full size pilot's fault.

I still don't see an issue. What I do see is a bias from someone whom more than likely does not like "Jets" or "Jet People" or giant scale aircraft "people".......
Old 07-14-2014, 07:46 AM
  #207  
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

Originally Posted by TimJ
so, two issues in the last 20 years......COME OFF IT! BTW the incident with the goodyear blimp was some idiot that decided it would be funny to fly his airplane at the blimp. I was there for that one. The second incident you list was a combination of the airboss and full size pilot's fault.

I still don't see an issue. What I do see is a bias from someone whom more than likely does not like "Jets" or "Jet People" or giant scale aircraft "people".......
Maybe a few collisions but I don't know of a crash...The blimp incident, if I recall correctly...was an AMA member flying the model...and that was entirely his fault...The other involved an AMA member as well...But I attribute the incident more to the full scale pilot...One common denominator is the AMA thingy...HMMM...Probably should just ban them darn AMA members from flying...that ought to do it!
Old 07-14-2014, 07:58 AM
  #208  
TimJ
 
TimJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Orange County CA
Posts: 1,170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by littlecrankshaf
maybe a few collisions but i don't know of a crash...the blimp incident, if i recall correctly...was an ama member flying the model...and that was entirely his fault...the other involved an ama member as well...but i attribute the incident more to the full scale pilot...one common denominator is the ama thingy...hmmm...probably should just ban them darn ama members from flying...that ought to do it!
rofl!
Old 07-14-2014, 09:01 AM
  #209  
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

Originally Posted by phlpsfrnk
30 Sep 1990; Goodyear Blimp made an emergency landing with six passengers on board after colliding with an RC airplane.
14 Aug 2010; SA750 N28KT grounded with significant damage after collision with RC airplane.

Frank
But there was no crash. Pretty minor really.The second incident resulted in the suspension of the full scale pilot's license.
Old 07-29-2014, 10:05 AM
  #210  
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 Sport_Pilot
But there was no crash. Pretty minor really.The second incident resulted in the suspension of the full scale pilot's license.
This is the first I've heard of that. Do you have a link to back that up? Thanks

Frank
Old 07-29-2014, 10:20 AM
  #211  
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

Someone posted info about a year after the incident. I think there was a statment by either the full scale or model pilot as well. But no I have no proof, but he did break the rule for flying to close and I think another for flying full speed over the runway which requires a waiver. The pilot had had waivers before but not for that flight.
Old 07-30-2014, 06:43 AM
  #212  
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

Originally Posted by phlpsfrnk
This is the first I've heard of that. Do you have a link to back that up? Thanks

Frank
OK I found this from the NTSB site. This is where the full scale pilots apeal to NTSB was rejected.

http://www.ntsb.gov/legal/o_n_o/docs/Aviation/5604.pdf
Old 07-31-2014, 03:03 AM
  #213  
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 Sport_Pilot
OK I found this from the NTSB site. This is where the full scale pilots apeal to NTSB was rejected.

http://www.ntsb.gov/legal/o_n_o/docs/Aviation/5604.pdf
Interesting, the appeal was dismissed because they never filed a brief within the 30 days. Search as I might I can not find the wording of the Judge's written order that was being appealed. I know he is still flying so the supension must not have been for very long. Was the order resinded or did he decide to not fight it?

Frank
Old 07-31-2014, 06:13 AM
  #214  
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

The FAA does not publish the minor suspensions they make. But the suspension had to have been for a considerable time to file an appeal. Normally the suspensions on the NTSB site are there because the violator filed for an appeal and no record of the initial FAA action. I only know from hearsay from someone else in RCU, I cannot remember who. I think it odd though that the NTSB would blame the modeler but the FAA saw it fit to take action on the pilot. I also understand there were no fines or action on the modeler, though there may have been a civil lawsuit. Likely his aircraft insurance covered it and they did not sue.

I would guess he could not fight it as he lost his right to appeal by being late filing the brief.
Old 09-10-2014, 03:31 PM
  #215  
cj_rumley
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga, CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by phlpsfrnk
Tailspin,
you are correct in that this started out as a local government issue. Without going into boring details, several years ago we had a neighbor/real-estate developer that attempted to have us shut down. His attempt failed however in our presentation to the county board for our special use permit to continue operating some of the board members picked up on the mention of notifying local airport authorities that was in the AMA safety code at that time. This triggered the requirement in our special use permit to notify the airport which was done. Fast forward to today and we have a similar requirement only instead of being mandated by a local county board it is mandated by “Public Law 112-95: FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012â€

I believe in being proactive instead of reactive in these types of matters and I drafted the form letter that I presented to the AMA and here. I never submit a draft without full expectation of reviewers bleeding red ink on my draft such as the comments from TimJ and KidEpoxy above which by the way was appreciated.

On the issue of “holding off†I received the following from Rich Hanson;
“AMA is advising its chartered clubs to hold off on reacting to the MA provision in the bill, at least for now. We are suggesting business as usual and to continue your site operations in accordance with the AMA Safety Code as in the past. However, if you’ve already sent the letter and are working towards an agreement then certainly continue with that effort. If you haven’t sent the letter, it’s recommended you hold off on pursuing an agreement until the AMA is able to provide a form and format for doing so.â€

Rich also sent;
“Thanks for the copy on your letter. I read the letter and the associated documents and it looks to be a very good approach to establishing an operating agreement with the local airport. I will certainly keep it on file as a reference.â€
I would like to publicly here thank Rich for his reply.
In closing I would like to mention that as far as “sleeping dogs†are concerned that if it’s my guard dog on duty it had better not be sleeping.

Regards
Frank

PS: Before anyone complains, I am not advocating the kicking of sleeping dogs.
Frank-

It's been 2 1/2 years..........any update relating to action taken by AMA, or is it still "on file as a reference?" A number of clubs that were not concerned back the now are.

cj
Old 09-11-2014, 02:33 AM
  #216  
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 cj_rumley
Frank-

It's been 2 1/2 years..........any update relating to action taken by AMA, or is it still "on file as a reference?" A number of clubs that were not concerned back the now are.

cj
cj,
No, and to be honest I did not expect any further contact. As you say the sample letter I provided is 2.5 years old but is still a valid means of fulfilling the contact airport requirement of PL-0112-95 section 336. Of course the attachments in the sample I provided are outdated and would require the latest versions to avoid any confusion. In spite of the AMA recommending clubs hold off I would suggest that clubs that have not contacted nearby airports before or that were outside of three miles but are now inside the five statute mile limit contact the airport(s) sooner rather than later. I disagree with the AMA’s ill advised challenging of the FAA on this issue of airport contact. From a clubs perspective I believe it is far better that if there are any conflicts that the club is operating from a position of compliance rather than noncompliance. Clubs need to protect themselves first.

I would be very interested in hearing from clubs that have contacted their local airports using this or any other method what the reactions have been, if any from the airports. My bet would be that there were far more positive than negative reactions.


Frank

PS: For some reason the Lat/Lon finder link no longer works so when I get a chance to I'll update the link and attachments and provide a new .pdf.

Last edited by phlpsfrnk; 09-11-2014 at 02:38 AM. Reason: grammer
Old 09-11-2014, 10:43 AM
  #217  
cj_rumley
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga, CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Fully agree with your suggestion, Frank. For the 'AMA way or no way' sort it would at least be prudent to have answers prepared before ATC initiates the contact. Seems more likely now that FAA has directed field offices to report back UA sightings/near misses.

cj
Old 09-11-2014, 10:45 AM
  #218  
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 cj_rumley
Frank-

It's been 2 1/2 years..........any update relating to action taken by AMA, or is it still "on file as a reference?" A number of clubs that were not concerned back the now are.

cj
So what's the difference? AMA's Model Aviation December 2013, issue, page 143, (OUT of Context,) so written first of three columns:

"One of the projects currently nearing completion is the FAA acting on the AMA's request to be recognized as a community-based organization as defined in Public Law (PL)112-95 enacted by Congress in 2012. AMA submitted its request earlier this year and expects to soon receive a letter from the FAA recognizing our organization
as such."

Hey MA, what does "....expects to soon receive ..." mean ?

Old 09-11-2014, 11:05 AM
  #219  
cj_rumley
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga, CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

I see no relevance whatever in FAA recognition of AMA CBO status, Hoss. It appears that FAA is inflating the circle from 3 mi radius to 5 mi. Seems to me issue is understanding between clubs now beyond 3 mi but less than 5mi from an airport and ATC at that airport.
Old 09-11-2014, 06:54 PM
  #220  
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 cj_rumley
I see no relevance whatever in FAA recognition of AMA CBO status, Hoss. It appears that FAA is inflating the circle from 3 mi radius to 5 mi. Seems to me issue is understanding between clubs now beyond 3 mi but less than 5mi from an airport and ATC at that airport.
Mr. Rumley, maybe I don't understand your post very well. My post above was to illustrate that the AMA hierarchy was a bit too sure of themselves and failed to keep the bull in the pen so to say. The quoted portion was right out of the AMA's MA last year. In other words, the EC back then was a tad sure of themselves and let the bridge fall into the river.
At this time I do not see where any RC modeler would P&M about alerting the Air Traffic Control of any Full Scale Aircraft facility within 5 miles of any RC facility. It's simply a safe and sane method for all concerned to insure that each group is aware of the other party. Remember at many smaller fields, Joe Blow with family, friends, etc has full hands and thoughts when setting up for entering the traffic flow and making a decent approach and landing.
As one with 41 years (13 USAF and 28 UAL) of professional aviation, I would be very happy to make such notification, just to insure the safety of someone else.

Come on people, we have far more than enough real problems in today's world. My bet is that 99.5% of all RCers have a cell-phone at the field. Easy enough to have the local ATC number posted at the field. In my experienced opinion, RCer sends, "Hey folks, we are here flying," and the reply comes, "Thanks Fellows, ya'll have a good day."

Nothing better than working together and no one is shooting at you.
Old 09-11-2014, 08:06 PM
  #221  
cj_rumley
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga, CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Hossfly
Mr. Rumley, maybe I don't understand your post very well. My post above was to illustrate that the AMA hierarchy was a bit too sure of themselves and failed to keep the bull in the pen so to say. The quoted portion was right out of the AMA's MA last year. In other words, the EC back then was a tad sure of themselves and let the bridge fall into the river.
At this time I do not see where any RC modeler would P&M about alerting the Air Traffic Control of any Full Scale Aircraft facility within 5 miles of any RC facility. It's simply a safe and sane method for all concerned to insure that each group is aware of the other party. Remember at many smaller fields, Joe Blow with family, friends, etc has full hands and thoughts when setting up for entering the traffic flow and making a decent approach and landing.
As one with 41 years (13 USAF and 28 UAL) of professional aviation, I would be very happy to make such notification, just to insure the safety of someone else.

Come on people, we have far more than enough real problems in today's world. My bet is that 99.5% of all RCers have a cell-phone at the field. Easy enough to have the local ATC number posted at the field. In my experienced opinion, RCer sends, "Hey folks, we are here flying," and the reply comes, "Thanks Fellows, ya'll have a good day."

Nothing better than working together and no one is shooting at you.
Maybe I didn't understand yours very well, Hoss. I read it as relating the CBO thing directly to the 5 mi rule issues. My bad, you were just using it for illustration of a too cocky mindset amongst our fearless leaders, as you have clarified.
At any rate we seem to be in agreement as to the sensibility of a proactive approach by modelers to foster understanding with ATC in areas where they need to avoid conflicts in some abutting slices of airspace, and can do so, cooperatively.

I'll do my part to send you off to Muncie periodically so you can perhaps influence the big cheeses to think before they act......and remind them that besides all the marketeering they seem obsessed with, they already have an org that needs to be run.

cj
Old 09-11-2014, 10:23 PM
  #222  
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

I don't understand the CBO thing. I didn't see anything in the recent law that the FAA must certify a CBO.
Old 09-12-2014, 07:38 AM
  #223  
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 Sport_Pilot
I don't understand the CBO thing. I didn't see anything in the recent law that the FAA must certify a CBO.
That's OK, MR. Sport: My initial post was just relating to Mr. Rumbly's post and question concerning "on file as a reference". I brought in that the CBO was expected in AMA some time ago, as written by AMA's Executive Director in the Dec. 2013 MA. NOW, Connect that with last winter's AMA and FAA's "....Understanding". CBO , if I remember correctly right now, there was no mention in that document of the much acclaimed AMA becoming the "Community Based Organization."

Now we have this topic of the RCers and notification of Air Traffic when within 5 miles of an airport. This will probably not be a good political statement, but I see no problem with RC Fliers, AMA members, doing a call-in when within 5 miles of an airport with Air Traffic Control.

Gentlemen, it's time we show our professional abilities to the world.
Old 09-12-2014, 08:56 AM
  #224  
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

I agree, but some airports might try to claim they can ground the RC plane. What to do then?
Old 09-12-2014, 02:23 PM
  #225  
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 Sport_Pilot
I agree, but some airports might try to claim they can ground the RC plane. What to do then?
Darn good question.

There are options:
1. Stay grounded for a short period and call again.
2. Visit the airport, seek the airport manager, and request the reason for being grounded with no information for why and how long?
3. Seek a flying sight at 5.1 miles outside the airport center.
4. Hire a lawyer!!!!

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.