littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

Good post but I;ll have to point out; Certain types of hobby aircraft are exempted from the FAA regulations by law but only if they follow other regulations. LOL


Bottom line is that virtually everything we do as humans is now regulated...people are conditioned so now to actually find comfort in that fact... whether they'll admit it or not is another story... We seem to be happier trading rights for privileges...

eddieC

My Feedback: (2)

Patently false. A property owner's air rights do not extend 'up to the minimum altitude limits of the FAA'. Where do you get this stuff? As already stated, you own the airspace for 'reasonable use'. There's nothing to stop an aircraft fromflying lowover your property, keeping the 500' limit from people or structures. By the same token, a property owner can't put up a 200' windmill and not expect FAA (or local) review.

FALSE. You are aware that there is uncontrolled airspace is the USA that extends from the surface to 18,000' (FL180), aren't you?

Which is what I said. A house is a 'structure'.

phlpsfrnk, sorry, not true. PCA (Positive Control Airspace) overlies the US 18,000-60,000', below that are several classes of airspace to include uncontrolled airspace which in some areas are ground level to 18,000'.

This is straying from the thread subject, so I'll discuss via PM.

chuckk2

Afraid not! Above 18,000 or so, the airspace is "positive control" regardless of where you are in the USA.
The Rocketeers flying LARGE rockets in contests do so with the FAA's knowledge and concent. The airspace above such activities is sort of a restricted area.

phlpsfrnk

eddieC,
I'll concede that point but the original point of my post was that the FAA control (classifications of airspace B, C, D, E & G) started at the surface. I agree with you that Sport_Pilot’s comments are patently false and I believe I showed that by posting the FAR 91.119 that he refers to and letting everyone read it for themselves what they actually say rather than his interpretation. There is a reason that bogeagle’s post about the UK regs and their similarities to ours are mainly because of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) http://www.icao.int/Pages/default.aspx which the US and the UK are members of. All of the counties in the world that I have worked and flown in begin their air traffic control from the surface up.
I am constantly amazed by some of the interpretations that come out on these forums, “It is not possible to write in such a way that cannot be misinterpreted by a reader determined to do so.�

Regards
Frank

cj_rumley

ICAO defines a model aircraft as weighing less than 25 kg. FAA represents the US in ICAO and ostensibly has the responsibility for enforcing agreed to ICAO standards in the NAS. AMA members don't comply with FAA regs, have not for a long time, and now Congress says they don't have to. AMA does not require members to adhere to a 400' ceiling and strongly opposes FAA on the issue. Cite federal regs as you will, but they don't apply to AMA members. Only AMA regulation is germane.
What is the altitude ceiling for models per AMA? They have been silent on this............

bogbeagle

We have quite a bit of Class G airspace, over here. Known as the "open FIR" or "injun Country". This is pretty much unregulated airspace and provides you with a lot of freedom with which to hang yourself.

IIRC, class G can extend to FL195, though it is often penetrated by other classes of airspace, typically airways or manoevering areas in the vicinity of airports.

However, as pointed out, there is no specific regulation pertaining to model aircraft weighing less than 7kg (in the UK) ... except the usual catch-all which places responsibility on the shoulders of the operator. That's no more than the normal civic duty-of-care, requiring "reasonable" behaviour.


“A person must not recklessly or negligently
cause or permit an aircraft to endanger any
person or property�



You can't drop things from any model.
You have to keep it in sight. (how do you do that if it's free-flight?)
You aren't allowed to make money from your flying ... unless the gubmint gets a "cut".


That's the main bits covered.

No mention is made of staying a minimum distance from people or houses or what-not. That stuff only comes into play when the model's weight exceeds 20kg. At that point, the model becomes subject to much the same regs as does a full-sized aeroplane.


When flying FPV or surveillance aircraft, the CAA has created an amendment to the effect that the model must stay 50 m away from any person, vessel or structure, which is not associated with the flying activities. That's a new one to me. It seems to be an attempt to stop the "intrusive" use of FPV equipment. I don't suppose that it can be policed, though.


But, they then went and muddied the waters again, by adding this note ... NOTE: The provision of data solely for the use of monitoring the model is not
considered to be applicable to the meaning of ‘surveillance or data acquisition’.




So, as I read it, you can fly FPV <7kg, anywhere you like (even in controlled airspace) ... provided that you are only using the FPV equipment for guiding the model (as opposed to data gathering).

What a dog's dinner. Glad I just fly 'em by eyeball.

Could be wrong about any of that ... some FPVer will likely put me right. My brain is smoking.

Not interested in the opinions of the BMFA ... they carry no regulatory weight.

phlpsfrnk

cj,
Please read A.2.c of your AMA Safety Code.

Sport_Pilot

What Isaid is correct and was confirmed by your post. Other than some details that I did not mention and not really gemain to the discussion.

Or was it that this did not mention navigable airspace? I don't think that is anywhere in that part. It is elsewhere in the law and possibly in the FAR's.

Also someone quoted something said from Causby VS the US. That is that one has only the right to reasonable use to his air space above his property. Often interpreted that the owner has no rights in any airspace an aircraft is using. But Ido not believe that is the case with many cases of trespassing.In factthe reasonableuse clause has been usedagainst thegovenment foraircraft flying well above minimum altitudes.Aircraft owners have been succesfully sued for noise and other damage over property. The government has had to pay damages from sonic boom for aircraft flying way above minimum altitudes. Even in Causby VS US the govenment had to pay compensation, though that may have been for air rights, not sure. Remember this was right after WWII and most were very pro military, not sure if a similar suit would fall the same way again.

Sport_Pilot

The air rights actually extend above that limit for real estate purpose. You can build a windmill as high as you want if not near an airport or other restricted airspace, with the proper permits that is.Though a radio tower is another matter. But for aircraft flying too low the FAA rule defines where the aircraft cannot be and that cannot be less than 500 feet above a house or group of people. In fact they must be above 1000 feet above in populated areas.

[/quote]

Navigable airspace and controlled airspace is a different concept. Controlled and uncontrolled airspace includes both navigable andnon navigable airspace.The fact thatan airplane can actually flythrough non navigable airspace does not makeit navigable airspace.

cj_rumley

There is a lot of airspace beyond 3 mi proximity to an airport, Frank.

Sport_Pilot

Definition of navigable airspace.

http://definitions.uslegal.com/n/navigable-airspace/

phlpsfrnk

cj_rumley,
Highlighted above you make some blanket statements about the AMA that are just not true.

Thirty seven years ago in Jan 1976 then AMA Executive Director, John Worth wrote in part:

F.A.A. REQUESTS AMA COOPERATION AGAIN

A few years ago, in 1972, the Federal Aviation Administration responded to some reports of near misses between models and full-scale planes by asking AMA cooperation to alert modelers to the need for vigilance in their operations. At the time, much controversy arose because it appeared that the FAA was trying to limit model flying to altitudes less than 400 feet.

That was cleared up when AMA-FAA discussions indicated that the altitude figure was not a limit but a warning point. What it boiled down to was the fact that the FAA was (and still is) concerned about any model flying over 400 feet, to the extent that they wanted to be informed when and where such flying might take place particularly if this was within 3 miles of an airport.

Once the air was cleared on this point there began a general movement toward dialogue between modelers and FAA personnel on the local scene. The FAA was pleased by this because they gained a much better idea of the location and nature of model flying actives and they also got to know many modelers and gained an appreciation for their activities. At the same time, many modelers got to know about FAA problems concerning aircraft traffic control and the need to be conscious of full-scale activity near their flying sites.

The FAA record since 1972 has been noticeably free of any incidents between models and full-scale aircraft...

It was because of those discussions in the 70’s between the AMA and FAA that the AMA safety code has had some version of it that we see today. AC 91-57 was published in 1981 and several AMA officials have discussed it since then.

It was mentioned in Mar 1977 by then AMA President, John Clemems
It was mentioned in Jan 1981 by then AMA President, Earl Witt
It was mentioned in MA articles by AMA PR representative Geoffrey Styles in Jun 1982, Jan 1990 and Jan 1992.

More recently I quote;

You are correct in that a difference does exist between the language in the current FAA Advisory Circular, AC 91-57, and AMA's implementation of this guideline in the AMA Safety code. AMA believes the only significant risk to the manned aviation community posed by aeromodeling is when model aircraft are flown in close proximity to an airport. As such, the AMA Safety Code advises modelers to remain at or below 400' AGL when within 3 miles of an airport. AMA believes this meets the intent of the Advisory Circular in creating a means by which model airplanes can operate in a safe and cooperative manner without imposing an undue restriction on the modeling community.

AMA's experience has shown that the risk posed by model aviation diminishes significantly at distances greater than 3 miles and any residual exposure can be mitigated almost entirely by proper safety training and the modelers ability to see and avoid the manned aircraft when a conflict exists. This has been AMA's position since the AC was published in June, 1981, and this is AMA's position going forward.

That having been said, there are some unique aeromodeling activities such as thermal soaring and Free Flight where additional risks do exist due to the nature of the operations. In these incidences AMA is considering additional means for mitigating the risks while essentially allowing the modelers to continue to enjoy these activities. We will work directly with the modelers, the Special Interest Groups and the FAA in developing these procedures. Once the concepts are developed and put forward for consideration more information will be made available through this forum and the AMA web site.

Though there are as yet no guarantees, AMA is confident we will be able to work through these issues, resolve any remaining concerns and ultimately provide a safe and effective program that allows the modelers to continue to enjoy the hobby in much the same way as they have in the past. “

Rich Hanson
AMA Government and Regulatory Affairs

We can discuss the merits of the issues quoted above but to say that the AMA ignores the FAA or that the AMA has been “silent� on the 400’ issue is patently false.

Regards
Frank

phlpsfrnk

Sport,
That definition only proves to me that your interpretation of FAA regs and the NAS is flawed.

Your original post stated;

That statement is either false or if it is a question, see post #37 above.

Regards
Frank

Sport_Pilot

No my interpretation is not flawed, yours may be. You are trying to apply part 92 to an issue of jurisdiction and it just doesn't work. The boundries of jurisdiction overlapand the fact that the FAA has control of airspace to the surface does not mean that state and local has no jurisdiction in matters other than how aircraft are operated. For example, If your assumption was correct, then the localpolice would have no jurisdiction of stolen aircraft at airports because the FAA has control of aircraft to the surface. But of course the police can arrest you for stealing an aircraft from an airport because the FAA's control only extends to the control of traffic and aviation regulations. Trespassing is not an aviation regulation.

You took that out of context. I also said I was not sure where we are right now. That is I was not sure if it had changed right now.

We had no 400 foot rule except near airports and the FAA only had an advisory. Not sure how that will change because the FAA's stanceseemed to bethat they would regulate models above 400 feet.

phlpsfrnk

I thought this argument had a familiar ring to it;

http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9602439

I do not think anyone agreed with you back then either.

Sport_Pilot

Actually my position has changed since then. At one point I had it confused and maintained that the FAA did not have control of non navigable airspace, that is not true. But I was confusing control with jurisdiction which overlap.

eddieC

My Feedback: (2)

SP,
I did a search on the FAA National Airspace System website, and your term 'non-navigable airspace' does not exist other than in your head. This is what I turned up:

As you are a master of half-truths, trollery and innuendo, are you sure you weren't a Washington lawyer at some point?

cj_rumley

Frank,

Read your own sig line.......

I didn't say AMA has been silent on the 400' issue. I said they have been silent as to what the altitude ceiling for models should be, as opposed to the 400' limit that FAA has advised and seems headed toward codifying. If AMA cannot offer any alternative(s), the issue cannot be resolved in a manner that is favorable to AMA.
More than four decades of AMA 'working through the issues' would seem to be ample time for consideration and coming to some conclusion.

CJ

mongo

My Feedback: (15)

don't think they have been silent, just not overly clear in stating their position, that, outside of the airport radius, there should be no altitude limit for model aircraft. near as i can tell, that would be the AMA stance on alt limits.

cj_rumley

Yeah, that's what I read into the gaps between the lines.............but when I said so (post #30) accusation of spreading patent falsehood ensued. I sense from other reading that the dialog between AMA and FAA has trended similarly.

CJ

Sport_Pilot

Of course not, it has nothing to do with airspace control.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/40102

eddieC

My Feedback: (2)

Didn't see it there either, SP. It's not mentioned in a reg anywhere, so really isn't germane to the discussion. 

OliverJacob

My Feedback: (12)

You can fly above someone else's house, it's just not a good idea. If your plane goes down, it's there's.
Noise would be a limiting factor here.
If some kid flies a little foamy into my tree, I will help getting it out.
Now if a camera drone flies around my house, it might catch a bullet and I make sure it falls onto my property.

What is this thread about?

Regulations leave some room for interpretation, but the airspace above your property is not yours. A full scale plane is supposed to stay away from you, that does not mean you own the airspace used for safety.

Sport_Pilot

Quote:

Didn't see it there either, SP.

Do you have trouble looking up alphabetized lists?

(32)“navigable airspace” means airspace above the minimum altitudes of flight prescribed by regulations under this subpart and subpart III of this part, including airspace needed to ensure safety in the takeoff and landing of aircraft.


This is not a reg, but it is the law. US Code trump's FAA regs.

Do I have to explain what it means when you add the non prefix to any word, including this?

Sport_Pilot

You can also rob banks, and its also not a good idea.