Top_Gunn

My Feedback: (6)

Frank,

It's true that the claim wasn't "pulled out of ...." But it wasn't exactly true, either: the AMA "strongly suggests" having this rule, it doesn't "require" it. On my planet, those things are not the same.

Anyway, what does this have to do with the thread, which was about flying too close to airports without proper safety measures?

Sport_Pilot

Compulsory guidelines? Sounds like the old pirates code.

corch

My Feedback: (1)

In reply to no one in particular.  Perhaps this needs to be a sticky on this forum

phlpsfrnk

Point taken.

Regards
Frank

JohnShe

ROTFLMAO Good one

eddieC

My Feedback: (2)

Corch,

Great link! 

jeffEE

My Feedback: (5)

The OP could try going to this flying field. It's less than 10 miles away from him. Solves all problems.
www.mnvrc.com/

warbird_1

My Feedback: (61)

2. Model aircraft pilots will:
(a) Yield the right of way to all man carrying aircraft.
(b) See and avoid all aircraft and a spotter must be used when appropriate. (AMA Document #540-D-See and Avoid Guidance.)
(c) Not fly higher than approximately 400 feet above ground level within three (3) miles of an airport, without notifying the airport operator.
(d) Not interfere with operations and traffic patterns at any airport, heliport or seaplane base except where there is a mixed use agreement.

loopdeeloop

My Feedback: (4)

And then thee is this:

Conference Committee Report
Senate bill with modifications… Language including model aircraft for the purposes of sports,
competitions and academic purposes is removed and replaced with ``hobby''. The modified
section includes language requiring that the model aircraft must be operated in a manner that
does not interfere with and gives way, to all manned aircraft. In addition, language that requires
that model aircraft flown within five miles of an airport will give prior notification to the airport
and the air traffic control (ATC), and that model aircraft that are flown consistently within five
miles of the ATC will do so under standing agreements with the airports and ATC. Lastly,
language is added that will ensure that nothing in this provision will interfere with the
Administrator's authority to pursue enforcement action against persons operating model aircraft
who endanger the safety of the national airspace system. In this section the term ``nationwide
community-based organization'' is intended to mean a membership based association that
represents the aeromodeling community within the United States; provides its members a
comprehensive set of safety guidelines that underscores safe aeromodeling operations within the
National Airspace System and the protection and safety of the general public on the ground;
develops and maintains mutually supportive programming with educational institutions,
government entities and other aviation associations; and acts as a liaison with government
agencies as an advocate for its members.

KidEpoxy

Holy cow, theres that dang Notify/ProvideNotice thing again.
And just like in PL112-95, providing NOTICE is not asking for permission.

Fortunately,
MrP had drafted & posted a lovely generic notice form(pdf) folks can use
to provide airports with said Notice of model ops

KidEpoxy

Loop,
Thats a nice discussion block of text there.
BTW, did you see what words were actually typed up and published as law text?

For years we have been hearing from the FAA that they dont want to regulate models.
When they do publish their regulations on models despite that talk of no model regulation,
will you consider the chats from FAA saying No Regulation
to outweigh the actual regulations the FAA put into federal law text?

Top_Gunn

My Feedback: (6)

The people who write regulations pay as much attention, or more, to legislative history as they do to the text of the legislation. A lot of people, including me, think they shouldn't. But they do. Courts do too. No competent lawyer ever gives an opinion on what a statute means without examining the legislative history. Indeed, some people look at the history first. There's an old joke among lawyers that says courts look at the language of the statute only when the legislative history is ambiguous; it's an exaggeration, but not by much. Legislative history is especially important when the language of the legislation has some slop, like the part that says modelers operating from a permanent location "should" have an agreement with any airport within five miles. The "words that were actually typed up and published as law text" have two rules about contact with airports: (1) notice, for all people operating models within five miles, and (2) the agreement part, for people flying from a "permanent location." As a rule, before relying on a particular text it's a good idea to read it. All of it. To be sure, if we ignore the second rule we may be happier, for a while.

There's a choice here: we can pretend we live in some fantasy world we learned about in high school civics. Or we can deal with the world we really live in.

And, lest I be misunderstood yet again, I have no idea what the FAA will do with the text of the law or the legislative history when it comes to drafting regulations. My point is that they will be able to do a lot more than some people think.