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 09-15-2014, 04:55 PM
  #251  
MajorTomski
 
MajorTomski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Oklahoma City, OK
Posts: 2,536
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Default

I don't know what you mean by my "other allegations." Are you still maintaining that full-scale airplanes have to stay over 2500 feet AGL within five miles of all airports? I'd really like to see a cite for that one.
No I said "That 5-mile radius is also only good up to 2,500 feet AGL. So yes a 1:1 plane can fly closer than 5 miles from an airport so long as it’s 2.501 feet above the airport." In the context of your own statement; "For example, full-scale planes routinely fly closer than five (or three) miles from small private airports (and even some larger ones) without notifying anyone, let alone getting permission." It was a specific answer to your specific what if... And the cite is found here:

AIM/FAR 2014 https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publ...aim0302.html.2
Section two
3-2-5. Class D Airspace
a. Definition. Generally, that airspace from the surface to 2,500 feet above the airport elevation (charted in MSL) surrounding those airports that have an operational control tower. The configuration of each Class D airspace area is individually tailored and when instrument procedures are published, the airspace will normally be designed to contain the procedures.

Lastly your statement:
I don't know how accurate those figures are. Does the FAA just take someone's word for these when they apply for a listing, or does someone with a GPS go there and check?
I guess you missed the little blue lat/long link on the database you want to use as gospel that will pop up google maps and show you exactly where each of those current and former airports are located.

By the way I work for the FAA Flight Inspections Services We ARE the folks that fly over each and every one of those airports on that list to verify the data is accurate to four decimal places.

You have blown this so out of proportion we can't even discuss it rationally . FAA FSDOs do not have the manpower or the desire to play traffic cop with every RC airplane operator out there. You will never see one of them in your entire modeling life time unless you or someone at your field endangers a full size airplane. That is the only time 336 will ever come into play, through poor judgment on the part of a modeler or because someone is being a "I don't need no stikin rules!" Jerk.
Old 09-15-2014, 05:19 PM
  #252  
Top_Gunn
My Feedback: (6)
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Granger, IN
Posts: 2,344
Received 6 Likes on 5 Posts
Default

No I said "That 5-mile radius is also only good up to 2,500 feet AGL. So yes a 1:1 plane can fly closer than 5 miles from an airport so long as it’s 2.501 feet above the airport." In the context of your own statement; "For example, full-scale planes routinely fly closer than five (or three) miles from small private airports (and even some larger ones) without notifying anyone, let alone getting permission." It was a specific answer to your specific what if... And the cite is found here
:

For Heaven's sake! That rule applies only in Class D airspace. The great majority of airports in the US are in Class E or Class G airspace. And very, very few "small private airports" like the ones I'm worried about are in Class D airspace.

As for never seeing anyone from the FAA, someone from the FAA visited my club's field a couple of months ago after we put in a runway. I think he was there to check that we had painted an "X" at each end, to keep full-scale planes from trying to land there. (We had.)

As for enforcement, though, I agree that the FAA isn't going to go around checking on whether we've gotten permission to fly from some guy with a backyard airstrip. But that doesn't mean we're safe. What could happen, for instance, is somebody has an accident causing enough personal injury or property damage to get people's attention. And then it turns out we're flying near an airport and didn't get permission, and the government prosecutes. Or a neighbor who doesn't like modeling complains, repeatedly, so they look into it and find that we've violated a law. And so on.

Your constant references to my character prompt another observation. Your posts here are a prime example of what C.S. Lewis called "Bulverism." It amounts to talking about the reasons why someone has said something wrong without taking the preliminary step of showing that he is in fact wrong. His example was a guy telling his wife that the sum of the lengths of two sides of a triangle has to exceed the length of the third side, and she responds by saying,, "You're just saying that because you're a man." It's really not a sensible way to conduct an argument.

Last edited by Top_Gunn; 09-15-2014 at 05:30 PM.
Old 09-16-2014, 04:20 AM
  #253  
Renegade
My Feedback: (1)
 
Renegade's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Grand Rapids, Mi
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Yea Major Tom! A voice of reason, amid all the chatter. Follow the safety rules, use common sense. Watch out for "jerks " with no respect for rules. Contrary to popular belief, the sky is not falling..chicken little. Fly your plane(s) safely, have fun and be nice to your nieghbors. Those of you who contine to argue the meaning of. "Shall" vs "May" will be confined to the kangaroo court of uncommon sense, which will leave more time and space at the flying field for me!
Old 09-16-2014, 07:34 AM
  #254  
eddieC
Senior Member
My Feedback: (2)
 
eddieC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Jackson, MI
Posts: 2,102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Frank, nice letter. Well done.
I would first suggest a personal visit by a couple of club officers, maybe bearing a box or two of doughnuts.

Wow. 11 pages. Wow....,
There is a lot of conjecture and misunderstanding about what is/isn't in effect. What say we all carry on as we have been, be responsible and have fun. I doubt any black Suburbans or helis are around the corner.

"A wise man said, 'He who knows he knows, knows nothing.
He who knows he knows of nothing, really knows'."
Old 09-16-2014, 08:06 AM
  #255  
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

Al,
you keep making general statements about the NAS airspace classifications that when we get down to the specifics are either wrong or partially wrong. When we proved to you how easy it was to find the geographic center of an airport you then want to argue that the FAA "may" not use the same definition. Are you serious?

Do you have any problems with the form letter that I provided as the OP of this thread? Use it, don't use it I don't care.

Frank
Old 09-16-2014, 08:45 AM
  #256  
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
Al,
(snipped)
Do you have any problems with the form letter that I provided as the OP of this thread? Use it, don't use it I don't care.

Frank
Oh, is that what this thread is about?
Old 09-16-2014, 09:04 AM
  #257  
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
Oh, is that what this thread is about?
Forgot what it was about myself.
Old 09-16-2014, 09:30 AM
  #258  
Ken Kehlet
My Feedback: (89)
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Oklahoma City, OK
Posts: 281
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Our Flying field is located 3.5 miles from a local airport, it is also located on Park Property within the city limits. We have had this RC Flying Field for over 35 years.

In 1981, the FAA set rules for hobby aircraft in an Advisory Circular. The rules were simple and lasted all the way through 2012:

1981 FAA Rules:
  1. Be safe and don’t annoy people.
  2. Don’t fly over 400 feet.
  3. Contact ATC if you are within 3 miles of an airport.

Back in 1981, I was club president, and as such, I drafted a courtesy letter to notify our Local Airport Manager of our address location.
I included a copy of our club Lease Agreement that we held with the City. In 2003 and again in 2013, our City Lease was again extended for another 10 years.

Now, the "Distance" rule has changed to the new "5 MILE RADIUS". our club has taken the pro-active approach and the "Courtesy" to notify the present Local Airport Manager of our Address Location and our GPS coordinates. That is ALL we have done and ALL that we intend to do at this time.

Ken Kehlet AMA 1528

Last edited by Ken Kehlet; 09-16-2014 at 02:44 PM.
Old 09-16-2014, 09:45 AM
  #259  
Top_Gunn
My Feedback: (6)
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Granger, IN
Posts: 2,344
Received 6 Likes on 5 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by phlpsfrnk
Al,
you keep making general statements about the NAS airspace classifications that when we get down to the specifics are either wrong or partially wrong. When we proved to you how easy it was to find the geographic center of an airport you then want to argue that the FAA "may" not use the same definition. Are you serious?

Do you have any problems with the form letter that I provided as the OP of this thread? Use it, don't use it I don't care.

Frank
I have no problems with your letter. But I'm inclined to follow the AMA's suggestion that we not start sending these letters yet, since the rules aren't final.

Please point to a statement I have made about the airspace that is even partially wrong. Certainly nobody has pointed to an error in any of those statements yet. (Someone else made a claim about flying over airports which was true only in Class D airspace, but that wasn't me.) I am serious but not particularly concerned about the possibility that the FAA may not use the geographic center of some private airports to measure the five-miles when the rule goes into effect. This isn't something I said after having been "proved" wrong, it's always been my position. I simply don't know what they will do. The FAA doesn't even use the geographic center for all purposes involving full-scale aviation. For example, the size of the class D airspace around some towered airports is determined by reference to the location of the ends of the runways; the geographic center just tells them where the center of the circle is and gives pilots a point to measure whether they're close enough to have to contact the tower. I'm sure the FAA determines the geographic center of the airports that go on the sectional charts. I'm not sure that they go to every backyard airstrip and determine their geographic centers. Maybe they do, maybe not. Nobody has even tried to "prove" this. The fact that there are latitudes and longitudes in the FAA's list of airports doesn't show where those figures came from. Major T says they do it by flying over them, which is impossible, as you'd have to know the boundaries of an airport to locate its geographic center, and you can't do that by flying over it. But why would they even bother if it isn't going to be on the sectional charts?

The "geographic center" question is a very minor issue, though. The major issue is that the FAA proposes to give all airport operators a veto over model flying within five miles of the airport, a proposal which, if adopted, will probably affect most club fields in this country, at least if they are concerned with complying with the regulations (I know some people aren't, but I didn't think you were one of them.). The time for commenting on the proposed interpretation is almost up, and most modelers aren't even aware of it. Some of those who are seem to think it's too early to worry about it. Hey, it wont affect us for a year or three, so why worry? You and others have claimed that this rule will apply only to airports on the sectional charts (some claims) or in the airport directory (one claim) or even only at airports with traffic control (a couple of claims). None of the people who have made these claims have cited anything in the law or in the proposed "interpretation" to support them. When I point this out, the only response is "you're wrong." It's like being in kindergarten again. If I'm wrong, give a reason or point to a law. I really wish someone would show that I am wrong: I don't want the rule that I think we're about to get.

Last edited by Top_Gunn; 09-16-2014 at 09:50 AM.
Old 09-16-2014, 10:57 AM
  #260  
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 Top_Gunn
I have no problems with your letter. But I'm inclined to follow the AMA's suggestion that we not start sending these letters yet, since the rules aren't final.
What rules? It is law, PL 0112-95 Sec 336 (a) (5) to be exact. It became "final" when it was signed.

Frank

Old 09-16-2014, 11:17 AM
  #261  
Top_Gunn
My Feedback: (6)
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Granger, IN
Posts: 2,344
Received 6 Likes on 5 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by phlpsfrnk
What rules? It is law, PL 0112-95 Sec 336 (a) (5) to be exact. It became "final" when it was signed.

Frank

No. That law does not require any modeler to do anything. It (purportedly, anyway) puts limits on what kinds of regulations the FAA can write. Until those regulations appear, no modeler can possibly be fined or otherwise penalized for "violating" section 336(a)(5), or any other part of that law.
Old 09-16-2014, 11:33 AM
  #262  
Sport_Pilot
 
Sport_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 16,916
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Thumbs up

Originally Posted by Top_Gunn
No. That law does not require any modeler to do anything. It (purportedly, anyway) puts limits on what kinds of regulations the FAA can write. Until those regulations appear, no modeler can possibly be fined or otherwise penalized for "violating" section 336(a)(5), or any other part of that law.
That's what I thought but some of the airports are already grounding clubs as I understand.
Old 09-16-2014, 11:50 AM
  #263  
cj_rumley
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga, CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Top_Gunn
No. That law does not require any modeler to do anything. It (purportedly, anyway) puts limits on what kinds of regulations the FAA can write. Until those regulations appear, no modeler can possibly be fined or otherwise penalized for "violating" section 336(a)(5), or any other part of that law.
FAA can write regulations as they will, and enforce regulations already on the books as they have stated in their interpretation of that law. The 'limits' are on their enforcement action, i.e., new model aircraft regulations cannot be invoked against CBO members and apparently otherwise CBO 'programmed' individuals. That is if a CBO exists that meets the conditions in the PL........there seems to be some uncertainty about when/if ever that might happen.

IANAL but I think they don't need to create any regulation(s) to apply those that already exist if they deem a modeler's actions to compromise safety of the NAS.
Old 09-16-2014, 04:47 PM
  #264  
Top_Gunn
My Feedback: (6)
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Granger, IN
Posts: 2,344
Received 6 Likes on 5 Posts
Default

IANAL but I think they don't need to create any regulation(s) to apply those that already exist if they deem a modeler's actions to compromise safety of the NAS
.

That's true, but there is no existing regulation giving airports the power to shut down modeling within five miles. But of course that can't stop some of them from trying. Unless the FAA changes its mind, though, there will be a regulation doing that before very long.
Old 09-16-2014, 05:17 PM
  #265  
cj_rumley
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga, CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Top_Gunn
.

That's true, but there is no existing regulation giving airports the power to shut down modeling within five miles. But of course that can't stop some of them from trying. Unless the FAA changes its mind, though, there will be a regulation doing that before very long.
Al,
Don't forget the 'Statutory Construction' paragraph in the PL. I doubt that FAA will abuse that because somebody hates model aircraft, though. If a modeler or group of same are not able to come to an agreement with ATC or airport operator, I believe that FAA will intervene/moderate if there is an appeal, informal or via lawsuit. Nobody can predict exactly what circumstances might arise to create this condition. It is to me no more reasonable to presume the modeler(s) is right than to make the same presumption about those responsible for safe operation of the airport. Until the disagreement is resolved, it seems better to err on the side of caution, and that is what I see in the FAA position.

Would you really risk continuing your model aircraft operations while airport or ATC tell you not too? Even if the language AMA has interpreted as requiring permission were removed? I would really like to know what you want and think reasonable.......it's not just you or your club I'm trying to understand, but AMA's position which yours seem to mirror.

cj
Old 09-17-2014, 02:09 AM
  #266  
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 Top_Gunn
.

That's true, but there is no existing regulation giving airports the power to shut down modeling within five miles. But of course that can't stop some of them from trying. Unless the FAA changes its mind, though, there will be a regulation doing that before very long.
The FAA can and has shut down modeling (see attached). Note highlighted section page 2. These actions are known as NOTAMs and TFRs (see link)

http://www.modelaircraft.org/files/1...RAuthority.pdf

With regard to PL-0112-96 SEC 336 (a) (5) do you disagree with this statement below? "This requirement is consistent with longstanding FAA guidance for model aircraft operators. See AC 91-57, para. 3 (advising model aircraft operators to notify an airport operator, control tower, for flight service station when planning to operate within three miles of an airport)."

Frank
Attached Files
File Type: pdf
FRZ_NOTAM4.pdf (108.3 KB, 16 views)
Old 09-17-2014, 03:57 AM
  #267  
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 Top_Gunn
Please point to a statement I have made about the airspace that is even partially wrong. Certainly nobody has pointed to an error in any of those statements yet. (Someone else made a claim about flying over airports which was true only in Class D airspace, but that wasn't me.) I am serious but not particularly concerned about the possibility that the FAA may not use the geographic center of some private airports to measure the five-miles when the rule goes into effect. This isn't something I said after having been "proved" wrong, it's always been my position. I simply don't know what they will do. (They will use the ARP which is the “The approximate geometric center of all usable runway surfaces.” How do I know this you may ask and I will say because of the documents the FAA referenced in their interpretation of SEC 336.) The FAA doesn't even use the geographic center for all purposes involving full-scale aviation. For example, the size of the class D airspace around some towered airports is determined by reference to the location of the ends of the runways; the geographic center just tells them where the center of the circle is and gives pilots a point to measure whether they're close enough to have to contact the tower. CLASS D− Generally, that airspace from the surface to 2,500 feet above the airport elevation (charted in MSL) surrounding those airports that have an operational control tower. The configuration of each Class D airspace area is individually tailored and when instrument procedures are published, the airspace will normally be designed to contain the procedures. Arrival extensions for instrument approach procedures may be Class D or Class E airspace. Unless otherwise authorized, each person must establish two-way radio communications with the ATC facility providing air traffic services prior to entering the airspace and thereafter maintain those communications while in the airspace. No separation services are provided to VFR aircraft. (As you were told it is possible to fly “over” without contact. The same is true for Class B and C airports also.)
I'm sure the FAA determines the geographic center of the airports that go on the sectional charts. I'm not sure that they go to every backyard airstrip and determine their geographic centers. Maybe they do, maybe not. Nobody has even tried to "prove" this. The fact that there are latitudes and longitudes in the FAA's list of airports doesn't show where those figures came from. Major T says they do it by flying over them, which is impossible, (I believe he was referring to FAA Flight Check operations which operates over 30 aircraft of several different types and yes they fly over airports, in some cases as low as 50ft to check runway headings and other measurements.) as you'd have to know the boundaries of an airport to locate its geographic center, (No just the boundries of the runways.) and you can't do that by flying over it. But why would they even bother if it isn't going to be on the sectional charts?
Frank

Last edited by phlpsfrnk; 09-17-2014 at 04:03 AM.
Old 09-17-2014, 04:45 AM
  #268  
bradpaul
 
bradpaul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Apopka, FL
Posts: 1,367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by phlpsfrnk
The FAA can and has shut down modeling (see attached). Note highlighted section page 2. These actions are known as NOTAMs and TFRs (see link)

http://www.modelaircraft.org/files/1...RAuthority.pdf

With regard to PL-0112-96 SEC 336 (a) (5) do you disagree with this statement below? "This requirement is consistent with longstanding FAA guidance for model aircraft operators. See AC 91-57, para. 3 (advising model aircraft operators to notify an airport operator, control tower, for flight service station when planning to operate within three miles of an airport)."

Frank
First AC 91-57 was only guidance not a mandatory requirement. This has been discussed over and over, I am surprised you still misunderstand it.

Second, Frank you also totally misunderstand PL-0122-96 SEC 336. It only establishes a path and requirements to be exempt from new FAA regulation. It does NOT create new regulations for model aviation.
Old 09-17-2014, 06:06 AM
  #269  
MajorTomski
 
MajorTomski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Oklahoma City, OK
Posts: 2,536
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Default

Brad then please explain how your statement:
Second, Frank you also totally misunderstand PL-0122-96 SEC 336. It only establishes a path and requirements to be exempt from new FAA regulation. It does NOT create new regulations for model aviation.


Can explain away the 'IF' in the actual law:
SEC. 336. SPECIAL RULE FOR MODEL AIRCRAFT.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law relating to the incorporation of unmanned aircraft systems into Federal Aviation Administration plans and policies, including this subtitle, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration may not promulgate any rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft, or an aircraft being developed as a model aircraft, if—
(1) the aircraft is flown strictly for hobby or recreational use;
(2) the aircraft is operated in accordance with a communitybased set of safety guidelines and within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization;
(3) the aircraft is limited to not more than 55 pounds unless otherwise certified through a design, construction, inspection, flight test, and operational safety program administered by a community-based organization;
(4) the aircraft is operated in a manner that does not interfere with and gives way to any manned aircraft; and
(5) when flown within 5 miles of an airport, the operator of the aircraft provides the airport operator and the airport air traffic control ower (when an air traffic facility is located at the airport) with prior notice of the operation (model aircraft operators flying from a permanent location within 5 miles of an airport should establish a mutually-agreed upon operating procedure with the airport operator and the airport air traffic control tower (when an air traffic facility is located at the airport)).


I agree with you cannot create new regulations IF when flown... How is Frank 'misunderstanding' a pretty clear statement?

Old 09-17-2014, 06:08 AM
  #270  
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 bradpaul
First AC 91-57 was only guidance not a mandatory requirement. (True. Do you disagree with the FAA’s statement?) This has been discussed over and over, (Also true.) I am surprised you still misunderstand it. (I’m not surprised you still misunderstand.)

Second, Frank you also totally misunderstand PL-0122-96 SEC 336. It only establishes a path and requirements to be exempt from new FAA regulation. (True, and IF we do not meet the requirements i.e. PL-0112-95 SEC 336 (a) (5) we are not exempt from existing regulations.) It does NOT create new regulations for model aviation.
Frank

Last edited by phlpsfrnk; 09-17-2014 at 06:12 AM.
Old 09-17-2014, 06:09 AM
  #271  
Top_Gunn
My Feedback: (6)
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Granger, IN
Posts: 2,344
Received 6 Likes on 5 Posts
Default

My last post seems to have disappeared. But here's the key thing:

The main question I have tried to bring up here is which airports will have to get notifications of modeling activity (and, if the FAA's interpretation" stands, will have the power to veto all modeling within five miles? If the answer is "all airports for which the FAA's web site has contact information," modeling is potentially in big trouble, because those five-mile circles will cover nearly all of the US. Frank and others have said that it's only airports shown on the sectional charts. (There have been claims that it's only airports with ATC, but I don't think anyone is still pressing that). I hope this is true. But I have yet to see a reason for the insistence on that position, or a cite to anything that supports it.

Anybody have some evidence?
Old 09-17-2014, 06:53 AM
  #272  
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 only regulations the FAA may be able to apply are the regulations for obstructing airspace. IE don't fly in front of planes. Part 91 specifically says that it applies to all on board the aircraft so it does not apply. Also in the Pirker case the NTSB judge said there are no regulations that apply to model aircraft. I know the FAA is saying otherwise, but saying so and actually charging you for violation of a regulation are two different things.
Old 09-17-2014, 08:34 AM
  #273  
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
The only regulations the FAA may be able to apply are the regulations for obstructing airspace. IE don't fly in front of planes. Part 91 specifically says that it applies to all on board the aircraft so it does not apply. Also in the Pirker case the NTSB judge said there are no regulations that apply to model aircraft. I know the FAA is saying otherwise, but saying so and actually charging you for violation of a regulation are two different things.
Model aircraft that do not meet these statutory requirements (i.e. PL-112-95 SEC 336 (a)(5)) are nonetheless unmanned aircraft, and as such, are subject to all existing FAA regulations, as well as future rulemaking action, and the FAA intends to apply its regulations to such unmanned aircraft.

Do you disagree with the FAA's statement above? and if so How are they wrong?

Frank
Old 09-17-2014, 09:16 AM
  #274  
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
Model aircraft that do not meet these statutory requirements (i.e. PL-112-95 SEC 336 (a)(5)) are nonetheless unmanned aircraft, and as such, are subject to all existing FAA regulations, as well as future rulemaking action, and the FAA intends to apply its regulations to such unmanned aircraft.

Do you disagree with the FAA's statement above? and if so How are they wrong?

Frank
No I do not agree with that. It's just not me. The NTSB judge said that there are no present FAA regulations that apply to model aircraft. Or at least not that applied to the Pirker case. However, I do believe the regulations on obstuctions can be applied.
Old 09-17-2014, 09:33 AM
  #275  
bradpaul
 
bradpaul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Apopka, FL
Posts: 1,367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by phlpsfrnk
Model aircraft that do not meet these statutory requirements (i.e. PL-112-95 SEC 336 (a)(5)) are nonetheless unmanned aircraft, and as such, are subject to all existing FAA regulations, as well as future rulemaking action, and the FAA intends to apply its regulations to such unmanned aircraft.

Do you disagree with the FAA's statement above? and if so How are they wrong?



Frank
Tom and Frank, you do understand that there has been NO "nationwide Community Based Organization" recognized by the FAA, so it is IMPOSSIBLE to meet the criteria of SEC 336. In addition the FAA has stated that they "do not have the authority to recognize a "nationwide Community Based Organization".

That along with the part of SEC 336 that Tom left out make this Law worthless.

"(b) Statutory Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the authority of the Administrator to pursue enforcement action against persons operating model aircraft who
endanger the safety of the national airspace system."

Who defines "endanger the safety of the national airspace system" why the FAA of course. And nothing is more dangerous to our hobby then PO'ed bureaucrats at the FAA being challenged in court.

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.