HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

Originally Posted by HoundDog
According to the gentleman I spoke with today 10/28/14 at the Phoenix Flight Standards District Offices (FSDO)
When I asked him what's the FAA definition of an "open air assembly of persons" as in FAR 91.119 (b)
He stated, It could be a family picnic or any group or gathering there for some purpose. I then asked if there was any particular number of people that constituted an "open air assembly of persons". His answer was NO. I left it there.



Then I would say that Full Scale planes would have to maintain 1000' not 500' over any R/C Field when occupied.
Also when flying within 5 sm of an airport air planes (other than those on an instrument approach) are supposed to be at pattern altitude usually for smaller planes pattern altitude is 1000' AGL. What I getting at is that Full Scale planes should be at least 1000' AGL not 500' especially when near an airport or any R/C field. Is my reasoning right or wrong?

TimJ

Your reasoning is correct, except for aircraft that aborted a landing, and aircraft on take off. Depending on how far away the model field is from a full size airport. Oh, and don't forget about those that have a Low Altitude waver.

Anyone reading this should by now (especially after what hounddog has pointed out) that the rules the FAA are setting are not aimed at us, the Model Airplane pilot flying using AMA Safety Guidelines, but Joe Blow with the idea of flying his gopro to get a shot and not using any common sense.

joebahl

My Feedback: (2)

I have flown in both of those towns at 1/4 scale meets long ago Hoss the club in Madison took some getting use to its down in a valley and your flying with a hill in the background all of the time . I had never flown with mountains in the back grown long ago but since then Vegas has a field like it also with the mountains further away. Plays tricks on my old eyes.lmao joe

Top_Gunn

My Feedback: (6)

True, the rules aren't aimed at us. But they apply to us just the same. Granted there are enforcement difficulties, but still, nobody can now set up an RC club field within 3.45 miles of Disney world: And even if you're just flying an electric foamy in your back yard, a neighbor who doesn't like you could probably get the police to shut you down if you're within that same circle. The problem isn't that the government is out to shut us down, it's that shutting us down is the easiest way to get at the troublemakers. We're collateral damage.

The rules about lead in kids' toys were aimed at cheap junk toys from China, but they had the effect of outlawing children's dirt bikes (and even repairs of children's dirt bikes if spare parts are needed), handmade toys, and children's blue jeans with brass fasteners.

Of course, today it's "just" the 100,000 people or so that live near Disney World, plus those of us near stadiums during events. But remember, if the FAA's "interpretation" of § 336 becomes official, it could be all of us within five miles of any airport (unless we get permission, and why would anyone give us that?), and there are thousands of airports listed in the FAA's airport-contact-information list. (One county I looked at has 22, some of them just grass strips on somebody's farm.)That rule alone could put most of the USA off limits for RC.The FAA's interpretation will also shut down modeling in Class B airspace, and the AMA has said that means some 100 club fields will have to close.

(And yes, I know, a couple of people have insisted loudly but without giving reasons that the FAA doesn't mean all the airports on its list when it says "airports." Sure.)

417mack

Part (c) of 91.119 should be included in the discussion. Over other than congested areas 500' agl except over sparsely populated areas and open water 500' seperation from structure person or vehicle.
The ground is not mentioned so a person flying a model at 300' agl and 600' away lateraly could cause harm to an aircraft if in open country. The problem with the entire thread is it is up to the administrater or delegate of to deside what is reckless then you can start spending money to prove your side.

HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

Originally Posted by HoundDog
According to the gentleman I spoke with today 10/28/14 at the Phoenix Flight Standards District Offices (FSDO)
When I asked him what's the FAA definition of an "open air assembly of persons" as in FAR 91.119 (b)
He stated, It could be a family picnic or any group or gathering there for some purpose. I then asked if there was any particular number of people that constituted an "open air assembly of persons". His answer was NO. I left it there.



Then I would say that Full Scale planes would have to maintain 1000' not 500' over any R/C Field when occupied.
Also when flying within 5 sm of an airport air planes (other than those on an instrument approach) are supposed to be at pattern altitude usually for smaller planes pattern altitude is 1000' AGL. What I getting at is that Full Scale planes should be at least 1000' AGL not 500' especially when near an airport or any R/C field. Is my reasoning right or wrong?

I took it that the interpretation of by the FAA of an
"open air assembly of persons "
Was just that and it could go either way by the FAA/NTSB for prosecution purposes. But now that the FAA has put the NPRM for drone intergration into the ATC it's a moot point for another 2 years. Besides all the R/C fields I fly at pretty much are surrounded pretty much by Sub Divisions and houses. And just what constitutes "Sparingly Populated anyway." In Wisconsin where I fly in the summer, one R/C field is within 5 SM of a towered air port and the other is on a Private Restricted Non Unicom airport. Planes are ,Or should be 1000 AGL When in or crossing through the pattern of the Private air port and 1000' agl when with in 5 miles of the towered air port and in contact with the tower.

HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

Don't for get this catch all in FAR 91.119 There's a reason it's first in line about Safe Altitudes.


Sec. 91.119

[TABLE]
[TR]
[TD="width: 100%, colspan: 2"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 50%"]Subpart B--Flight Rules[/TD]
[TD="width: 50%"][/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

Sec. 91.119

Minimum safe altitudes: General.

Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:
(a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.

At Best Engine out glide speed on light GA Aircraft you get between 500 and 800 feet per minute Rate of Decent. At 500' AGL that's 60 to 37.5 seconds from prop Stop to Find a suitable & Safe "emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.
All I got to say that Flying 500' AGL isn't the smartest thing in the world for a pilot to be doing. But then there are Bold Pilots and there are Old Pilots but there "NO OLD BOLD PILOTS.

(b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft.
(c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.
[ (d) Helicopters, powered parachutes, and weight-shift-control aircraft. If the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface--
(1) A helicopter may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section, provided each person operating the helicopter complies with any routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the FAA; and
(2) A powered parachute or weight-shift-control aircraft may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (c) of this section.]

phlpsfrnk

Very true, ask singer John Denver.

Frank

HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

Originally Posted by HoundDog

All I got to say that Flying 500' AGL isn't the smartest thing in the world for a pilot to be doing.


I can't ask John Denver because he was too stupid to learn the aircraft systems
or too stupid to now it needs GAS to fly.

And U just can't fix stupid, now can U.

JohnShe

My understanding of his tragic death involved overenthusiasm. He was so excited about flying his new plane that he failed to do a proper preflight. Definitely stupid. The other problem was that the emergency fuel supply valve was not accessible form the pilot's seat, a very poor design or a construction mistake. Not so much his fault.

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

hmmm... there you go again...

417mack

I agree with the you compleatly I only used your post for context but for a single RC pilot in other than congested areas there may be room for the administrator to decide what is reckless

417mack

I did not intend to debate if it is smart to fly below 500' agl but much of this thread seem to think that surface to 500' is non navagible airspace and in many areas it is but not every where. In many areas 37.5 seconds would be plenty of time also if you are at 90mph cruise and vx is 60 this will buy some added time
The point is yes the faa can take your ticket for rc flying will they or how likely is a for another discussion I think the AMA is right in putting this info out plus this is a very good discussion to have so more of us will have a better understanding of the rules of the air.

phlpsfrnk

He was also flying below 500 feet which "isn't the smartest thing in the world for a pilot to be doing."

Frank

JohnShe

I believe he was in his take off climb out when he ran out of gas. Usually take offs take place at ground level which, I believe, is below 500 ft, unless I am mistaken. I am sure LCS will enjoy this, can't wait for a snarky comment.

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

Define it "snarky" or whatever but I find no fun in making light of someone else's misfortune.

HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

[h=1]Close-Up: The John Denver Crash[/h]
http://www.avweb.com/news/safety/183015-1.html?redirected=1

Witnesses estimated the airplane at 350 to 500 feet over the residential area while heading toward the shoreline.

JohnShe

Well, so far you have done a pretty good job. On the other hand, I have tried to defend Denver as best I can despite his bad case of pilot error.

JohnShe

Thanks for posting the report. It is pretty much as I remember it. He ran out of gas on the climb out and lost it while trying to change the fuel selector handle/knob.

TimJ

BTW, don't forget the original thought of this thread; " Fear Mongering " by the AMA.

Now that the facts have come to light, Frank would be WRONG in assuming there was any "fear Mongering" by the AMA.......

r_adical

My Feedback: (19)

John Denver also did not have a valid medical Cert

HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

I dought that any paper work technicality like no medical, no endorsement or missing logs have caused many airplane accidents Unless not reading the manual on how to switch tanks or checking fuel level before take off is considered a paper work technically.

If proper paper work kept airplanes from crashing we modelers would be inundated with it.How having to fill out a 337 for every modification to a model or Just think if You had to fill out an indecent or accident with the AMA version of the NTSB Good Grief.

bradpaul

Shhhhhh...................... keep quiet about reporting paperwork, franklin_m might be reading the post.

tailskid

My Feedback: (34)

"If proper paper work kept airplanes from crashing we modelers would be inundated with it.How having to fill out a 337 for every modification to a model or Just think if You had to fill out an indecent or accident with the AMA version of the NTSB Good Grief"


It would be a simple form: Check here if pilot error and check here if it was radio failure. See, that was simple and it will cover 99.9% of all accidents.

HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

[QUOTE=tailskid;11948545]"If proper paper work kept airplanes from crashing we modelers would be inundated with it.How having to fill out a 337 for every modification to a model or Just think if You had to fill out an indecent or accident with the AMA version of the NTSB Good Grief"



It would be a simple form: Check here if pilot error and check here if it was radio failure. See, that was simple and it will cover 99.9% of all accidents.
[B]

What do U mean Radio Failure it's the era of 2.4 They are BULLET proof. LOL
As for PILOT ERROR why does it seem to always be the
same people crashing that's not Pilot error that's Incompatible plain and simple.