N410DC

More excellent questions. Perhaps the FAA wants to leave the language as broad as possible, to make it easier to accuse pilots of a violation whenever they desire. A dare say a many, many model aircraft pilots have violated AC 91-57, if the broad definition of "airport" I used above is considered.

Dick T.

My Feedback: (243)

I think some of you fellows are going overboard with the "What If..."

Extension of the FAA comment period is a good sign. It tells me they are still floundering with the entire UAV/Drone rule proposal and have already received an extension from Congress until end of 2014. Their limited involvement towards R/C is already governed by law and is a miniscule compared to the big picture. It is likely we will lose FPV (BLOS), 5 mile airport rule and genuine commercial applications. I doubt the currently proposed commercial aspects of R/C manufacturing/demos, etc. will be in the final draft.

dw_crash

My Feedback: (6)

I don't get this 5 mile hang up everyone down there has. In Canada, we have had to notify airport within 5 miles of our airfields for years. It is no big deal. You get a Nav map, locate your field, draw a circle then notify everyone in the circle. My club has operated for nearly 50 years within 5 miles of an airport. For years, we were in the the flight path. All we did was have a few simple club rules.....stay below 400ft....see a full size entering the area, land or drop to the deck level. We had everyone, including gliders, flying at our field. I recall only one incident where a newer guy flew his 1/4 club too high and close to a Cessna. WE received a gentle reminder to avoid this happening again.....a second time would have been very serious.

So guys....what is the issue? many have done this for years.....in fact...some of our clubs operate at a airport. they just use a radio to hear messages from air traffic control or full size entering the airport airspace. At these airports they follow uncontrolled protocol. First a 90 degree cross runway pass to check the field is clear, then a procedure turn to land. Modellers call the plane and ask for 5 minutes to land and clear the runway. These clubs work well.

DW_crash

radfordc

My Feedback: (14)

The issue is that in the past we have had to "notify" the airports. Under the new rule we will have to have "permission to fly" from the airports operators....in other words if they don't like you, you're not flying.

radfordc

My Feedback: (14)

Exactly, and just because the FAA hasn't acted before doesn't mean that they won't act in the future. The times they are a changing!

dw_crash

My Feedback: (6)

Radfordc,

noted. I see your dilemna. Permission is not possible in 99.9% of cases. When we notified, we had a gentleman's agreement on the rules etc. Permission implies something in writing etc. Based on my knowledge of how stuff works in the US, and here, there is little chance of an airport operator giving permission. The reason is that this leads to liability issues. No airport operator will grant formal permission if it means that there is liability attached. I see your problem with the FAA position. Under this premise, I doubt any model airfield could get permission when liability is attached.

DW_Crash

JohnShe

What liability? We are insured through our homeowners and AMA, the risk is managed. just so you know, my club officers already have made a deal with the local airport that is 4.5 miles away. It was a piece of cake. We have been there for years outside the 3 mile circle and have never had a problem. I expect most exiting fields will have the same experience.

ira d

Airports are not going to want the flood of calls if and when this interpretation goes into affect for one and two just by giving permission to a modeler
to fly could make the airport liable. Your homeowners nor the AMA is going to protect the airport if they or sued.

Even if there is some type of incident involving a model your homeowners will only cover the modeler if they are at fault and the same for the AMA or they
may only pay part of the claim with the airport left with the rest of the claim. The airport may not be at any fault but may be sued just because they
approved the modeler flying.

JohnShe

What flood of calls, from who? Individual and AMA liability covers all liability up to the max. Airports that have never had any trouble will not be concerned about a few model airplanes being flown safely. Our local airport has an annual open house. Along with a few museum pieces and stunt planes there is a model airplane display by a local club. Our local airport supports model aviation. How about yours?

I think that you are just letting you imagination run amok. I don't think you have any real evidence to back up your out of control speculation.

radfordc

My Feedback: (14)

I think it's safe to say that 99% of us won't ever have any negative impact from the new rules. But, "someone's" going to be affected for sure.

cj_rumley

Sounds like an appropriate issue to "Ask AMA" about, ira.

ira d

There is nothing to ask the AMA about. If someone sues the airport because of some incident that they feel happened because the airport approved for
models to fly nearby the airport is on it's own. Now if the airport can identify a certain person involved they can sue them and if it can be proven they
were at fault then that persons insurance would come into play. I am not a lawyer i'm just speaking from common sense.

JohnShe

Ira, I hate to have to say this, but you really need a better tinfoil hat. You are making up absurd scenarios. We have been flying model aircraft within 3 miles of airports, and in some cases, on airports with no problems at all. Nothing is gonna change.

ira d

John I am well aware that rc and full scale has coexisted for many years with no problems and I see nothing wrong with it either but the FAA does. If you feel nothing is
going to change you are free to feel that way I just happen to feel if the FAA gets it's way there will be changes. Please don't accuse me of wearing tinfoil hats I don't
think it funny and have said nothing that should make anyone feel they need to make make such comments.

JohnShe

Well, I am sorry that you didn't get the joke. But, your scenario is absurd. It is based on an unfounded and somewhat ridiculous belief that the FAA is out to get us (the cause for my diagnosis of paranoia). We have been flying under AC 91-57 since 1981 and the FAA has never done anything to us. The only change is a few words in a law written by congress directing the FAA to allow model aviators to police themselves as long as we do a few simple things that we have been doing since 1981. Nothing has changed at all. Quit being so paranoid about it.

DISCUS54

My Feedback: (211)

That is correct! Its like going to your Doctor...your going to get the finger no two ways about it, now how painless is it going to be?

N410DC

The issue here is indeed the power that the new interpretation gives to an airport operator. Before, the club or pilot simply had to send a one-time letter telling the airport operator that they are going to fly near the airport. If the airport operator did not like this, there was nothing they could do (aside from ratting out the modeler to the FAA if he/she violated AC 91-57.) Now, the FAA claims that the airport operator has the final say, not the model aircraft pilot. I think many airport operators will be happy to grant permission, particularly the ones that already have a good relationship with an R/C club. However, put yourself in the shoes of an airport operator. What does the operator have to gain from allowing model aircraft to fly within 5 miles? The answer is nothing, in some cases. Model aircraft do not bring in revenue from fuel sales, tie-down/hanger fees, etc. So, what do they have to loose? Well, if the pilot of a jet gets angry at model aircraft flying in "his" airspace, perhaps that pilot lands elsewhere, thereby paying another airport up to $4,000 for a fill-up of Jet-A fuel. Furthermore, the airport's attorney may see how the airport could be exposed to liability if they permit a model aircraft to fly within 5 miles, and may advise the operator to deny a request for permission for model aircraft operations. As for the clubs who are lucky enough to have a good relationship with an airport, this can change in the blink of an eye, for any number of reasons (e.g. the hiring of a new airport manager, or the election of new officials if the airport is owned by a city or county government.) In the end, I think some airport operators would quickly take advantage of their new found authority, and prohibit model aircraft operations.

If I recall correctly, the FAA had never issued a $10,000 fine to a model aircraft pilot, until recently. Even if Pirker won this case (though he has not yet won the appeal,) the FAA has demonstrated that he can be a major thorn in a model aircraft pilot's rear end. I am glad that Pirker is winning this case thus far, but I would not want to go thorough what he has gone through. In the end, I doubt a federal Court wold uphold FAA action against a pilot who was simply flying within 5 miles of an airport without permission (assuming the pilot did not do anything stupid, such as taking pictures of a full-scale pilot's nose hairs.) However, the FAA can force a modeler to spend a great deal of time, energy, and money to defend themselves from the FAA.

JohnShe

First thing, there is a lot that an airport manager or tower controller can do. They will call the local constabulary and have them issue a cease and desist coupled with arrest and confiscation if necessary.

Secondly, your scenario is just as absurdly paranoid as Ira's. Nobody will sue the airport. They will track down and sue the modeler, his club and maybe the AMA. The airport is always in the clear. Believe me, any permission granted will be full of caveats, any modeler who breaks the rules endangers himself and his club but not the airport.

cloudancer03

My Feedback: (22)

Flying near airports has not been an issue for my club.that airport rule is nothing new .I think the far is reacting to media hype and public negativity especially with the term drone.that perception and all the killing by drones has frightened people as nuts as that sounds.the big Quads are here and things will get sorted out my solution would be to license and regulate them as unmanned comerecthat is not far fetched given amazons future plans.a fellow O'Dell has 2 quads one is small no big deal.the second one is several thousand dollars and already has realty and survey firmhe plans to make money and put it to comerical use.he is a sensible person knows the difference between recreation and commerce.if they fly line of sight on am a grounds no problem.otherwise it needs a license and get registered I know everyone hates that oh well

N410DC

Actually, we are both correct. The modeler and the airport would be sued, along with the companies that manufactured the individual components of the aircraft (engine(s), aircraft, radios, etc.) This is not paranoia, it's a legal concept that is known as Joint and Several Liability. In civil suits, plaintiffs sue as many parties as humanly possible, in hopes of winning a decision or settlement from one or more of those parties. I know many physicians who have been sued for medical malpractice. In 100% of these cases, multiple physicians were sued, along with the hospital, individual administrative staff members at the hospital, owners of the private practices where the doctors worked, and other entities. This is not paranoia, this is a historical fact. Albeit, I am not aware of any past cases where a model aircraft pilot has been sued, but such a scenario not all that inconceivable. The more idiots we have taking close-up pictures of full-scale aircraft in flight (among other stunts,) the higher the risk of a mid-air collision that results in damage, and possibly a crash. If such an incident were to happen, I can guarantee you multiple entities will be sued. The more news stories the airport operates read about reckless UAV incidents (we have seen 2-3/month recently via. national media,) the less likely they are to allow model aircraft in "their" airspace. Yes, it is unfair and inappropriate for responsible modelers to be associated with these idiots who have never heard of the AMA safety code, but I think the stigma has nonetheless been generalized to responsible modelers.

I think responsible AMA clubs will be able to educate most airport operators about the low risk that model aircraft operations pose towards full-scale aircraft. This will hopefully result in approval in most cases. However, I seriously doubt that 100% of the airports out there will be willing to authorize model aircraft operations. This will likely result in some AMA flying fields being closed permanently. Some clubs may dissolve altogether as a result, and some modelers will quit the hobby altogether out of frustration. We need to prevent this from happening.

JohnShe

You scenario is still unnecessarily paranoid. Consider that airports have everything to gain by supporting responsible model aviation. It is the irresponsible idiots who create the problem. They have nothing to do with AMA clubs and operate independently. Since they will fly because they can and will not ask permission, they are the ones to fear. Not responsible model aviators. If a club nearby asks permission and there is no reason or expectation of interference, then the airport will let them fly and even publicize it for their own good.

ira d

Tracking down the modeler is easier said than done and if they or found they may not have insurance so no point in suing them. The airport is there you don't have track it down
and will almost always have deeper pockets than any individual. In this day and age people don't really care who's at fault but look for who has the most money.

JohnShe

They know exactly who is responsible, the club asked permission, don't you remember. It is the errant jerk idiot who they may have trouble finding. The club and the airport are in the clear.

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

Please excuse the cherry pick...but its exactly that naivety that has brought us to the brink...

We are so screwed, as evidenced by the words of apparently many intelligent men...

Sport_Pilot

The FAA will not be able to do a good job of that, it should be the local or state police. Besides it is outside of FAA's mandate.