The registration link
12-21-2015, 06:26 PM
#26
I tend to agree with you, And we have been getting away with flying over 400 ft because for the most part we were not causing problems. I have found for the most part most modelers don't fly much over 400ft as a matter
of not being practical to do so and most full scale don't fly below 2,000 ft unless taking off and landing with the exception being search and rescue police and fire ect. I do know with larger models and turbines and also
sail planes it can be more likely they will exceed the 400ft mark but not by a lot I don't think most of the time.
of not being practical to do so and most full scale don't fly below 2,000 ft unless taking off and landing with the exception being search and rescue police and fire ect. I do know with larger models and turbines and also
sail planes it can be more likely they will exceed the 400ft mark but not by a lot I don't think most of the time.
12-21-2015, 07:28 PM
#27
The 1981 AC 91-57 has been cancelled. It was replaced with AC 91-57A.
91-57A provides the guidelines for model aircraft and states the 400 foot limit is a "Best Practice" but stops short of banning it.
Direct Link:
https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/.../AC_91-57A.pdf
91-57A provides the guidelines for model aircraft and states the 400 foot limit is a "Best Practice" but stops short of banning it.
Direct Link:
https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/.../AC_91-57A.pdf
12-21-2015, 08:26 PM
#28
The 1981 AC 91-57 has been cancelled. It was replaced with AC 91-57A.
91-57A provides the guidelines for model aircraft and states the 400 foot limit is a "Best Practice" but stops short of banning it.
Direct Link:
https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/.../AC_91-57A.pdf
91-57A provides the guidelines for model aircraft and states the 400 foot limit is a "Best Practice" but stops short of banning it.
Direct Link:
https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/.../AC_91-57A.pdf
And , I'll ask you to please re read the passage ;"Model aircraft operators should follow best practices including limiting operations to 400 feet above ground level"
Now , if you've ever spent crazy amounts of time studying the FARs like I have , you'd know that the FAA routinely uses "Should" in the places where most of us would use "must" , It is a common misconception with the FAA because their use of the word "should" , while making it sound optional , is really saying "you really should or face the consequences" .
12-22-2015, 10:00 AM
#29
My Feedback: (17)
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Charles,
MO
Posts: 268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Since the 1981 date on FAA Advisory Circular 91-57 , the FAA has maintained that there be no model aircraft operations above 400 feet . The wording is pretty explicit , Doesn't use "Should" or say anything about any kinds of exclusions , in paragraph 3 subsection c the exact wording is ;
"Do not fly model aircraft higher than 400 feet above the surface ."
You will note that period at the end makes it a complete sentence . The next sentence goes on to state that when flying closer than 3 miles to an airport the airport operator must be notified . For years folks have been claiming that to read that it's ok fly above 400 feet as long as your further than 3 miles from an airport , and nothing could be further from the truth ! The way I read that passage since 1981 the FAA thinks per their directive that we have been staying under 400 feet , so to reinforce their 34 odd year old position on the 400 foot limit they have again expressly stated it in these new documents .
Can anyone honestly read paragraph 3 subsection c and tell me that 400 feet hasn't been the FAA's requirement on us all these years , ignored as it was up till this most recent bucket of gas was thrown on the fire ?"
If the multi rotor culprits would have been following this all along we would not be where we are today!!!
"Do not fly model aircraft higher than 400 feet above the surface ."
You will note that period at the end makes it a complete sentence . The next sentence goes on to state that when flying closer than 3 miles to an airport the airport operator must be notified . For years folks have been claiming that to read that it's ok fly above 400 feet as long as your further than 3 miles from an airport , and nothing could be further from the truth ! The way I read that passage since 1981 the FAA thinks per their directive that we have been staying under 400 feet , so to reinforce their 34 odd year old position on the 400 foot limit they have again expressly stated it in these new documents .
Can anyone honestly read paragraph 3 subsection c and tell me that 400 feet hasn't been the FAA's requirement on us all these years , ignored as it was up till this most recent bucket of gas was thrown on the fire ?"
If the multi rotor culprits would have been following this all along we would not be where we are today!!!
12-22-2015, 11:31 AM
#31
"Since the 1981 date on FAA Advisory Circular 91-57 , the FAA has maintained that there be no model aircraft operations above 400 feet . The wording is pretty explicit , Doesn't use "Should" or say anything about any kinds of exclusions , in paragraph 3 subsection c the exact wording is ;
"Do not fly model aircraft higher than 400 feet above the surface ."
You will note that period at the end makes it a complete sentence . The next sentence goes on to state that when flying closer than 3 miles to an airport the airport operator must be notified . For years folks have been claiming that to read that it's ok fly above 400 feet as long as your further than 3 miles from an airport , and nothing could be further from the truth ! The way I read that passage since 1981 the FAA thinks per their directive that we have been staying under 400 feet , so to reinforce their 34 odd year old position on the 400 foot limit they have again expressly stated it in these new documents .
Can anyone honestly read paragraph 3 subsection c and tell me that 400 feet hasn't been the FAA's requirement on us all these years , ignored as it was up till this most recent bucket of gas was thrown on the fire ?"
If the multi rotor culprits would have been following this all along we would not be where we are today!!!
"Do not fly model aircraft higher than 400 feet above the surface ."
You will note that period at the end makes it a complete sentence . The next sentence goes on to state that when flying closer than 3 miles to an airport the airport operator must be notified . For years folks have been claiming that to read that it's ok fly above 400 feet as long as your further than 3 miles from an airport , and nothing could be further from the truth ! The way I read that passage since 1981 the FAA thinks per their directive that we have been staying under 400 feet , so to reinforce their 34 odd year old position on the 400 foot limit they have again expressly stated it in these new documents .
Can anyone honestly read paragraph 3 subsection c and tell me that 400 feet hasn't been the FAA's requirement on us all these years , ignored as it was up till this most recent bucket of gas was thrown on the fire ?"
If the multi rotor culprits would have been following this all along we would not be where we are today!!!
- (c) Not fly higher than approximately 400 feet above ground level within three (3) miles of an airport without notifying the airport operator.
Last edited by bokuda; 12-22-2015 at 11:52 AM.
12-22-2015, 11:47 AM
#32
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga,
CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very interesting. I've been an AMA member since the '70's and always assumed there was no altitude limit outside of 3 miles from airports. I've flown sailplanes to nearly out-of-sight altitudes, probably several thousand feet AGL without any worry a tall. The AMA safety code states:
- (c) Not fly higher than approximately 400 feet above ground level within three (3) miles of an airport without notifying the airport operator.
12-22-2015, 12:54 PM
#33
Very interesting. I've been an AMA member since the '70's and always assumed there was no altitude limit outside of 3 miles from airports. I've flown sailplanes to nearly out-of-sight altitudes, probably several thousand feet AGL without any worry at all. The AMA safety code states:
- (c) Not fly higher than approximately 400 feet above ground level within three (3) miles of an airport without notifying the airport operator.
Hi bokuda ,Yes sir I always found it odd that our AMA safety code would condone behavior that appears to run contrary to the FAA directive . I believe there never was an FAA challenge to this wording because there had never been an incident where the altitude of a model aircraft had relevance to an investigation . With this latest ruling , I'll bet the farm that if a drone OR an old circle flying warbird were to be planted into a jetliner's windscreen at 1000 feet , the fact that it was above 400 feet will certainly figure into the legal charges the pilot of the too high UAS will face .
12-22-2015, 02:39 PM
#34
So picture yourself the AMA president with the ability to accept, or turn away new members. You feel like telling this guy sorry, your masterful creations have more than one rotor that controls flight, so sorry....you're out! Yes yes, I know helis are also multi rotors too, but we mean other kinds of multi rotors, the kind you culprits fly.
Seem fair to you? Seem reasonable?
12-22-2015, 02:56 PM
#35
This will be my standard response now to the folks who looove to throw the blame at MR people, as if they were and are the scourge of society. Please see the Model Aviation Mag, December issue, turn right to page 43, the story by Otto Dieffenback (written in the first party). Check out his builds. After all, "building" seems to carry with it a certain "gravitas" amount modelers. Now, could you do what he did? The craftsmanship, the vision, the building, the programming, and of course, the flying. After 30 years away from a hobby he enjoyed with his dad, he comes back to rejoin this great thing we do. And what would some here greet him with? Scorn, labels like "culprit", and "rouge", and a heaping of blame for everything the AMA and FAA has done bad.
So picture yourself the AMA president with the ability to accept, or turn away new members. You feel like telling this guy sorry, your masterful creations have more than one rotor that controls flight, so sorry....you're out! Yes yes, I know helis are also multi rotors too, but we mean other kinds of multi rotors, the kind you culprits fly.
Seem fair to you? Seem reasonable?
So picture yourself the AMA president with the ability to accept, or turn away new members. You feel like telling this guy sorry, your masterful creations have more than one rotor that controls flight, so sorry....you're out! Yes yes, I know helis are also multi rotors too, but we mean other kinds of multi rotors, the kind you culprits fly.
Seem fair to you? Seem reasonable?
do you use the word "rouge" instead of "rogue" on purpose, or do you really just not know the different meanings of those 2 words?
12-23-2015, 09:00 AM
#37
Hi bokuda ,Yes sir I always found it odd that our AMA safety code would condone behavior that appears to run contrary to the FAA directive . I believe there never was an FAA challenge to this wording because there had never been an incident where the altitude of a model aircraft had relevance to an investigation . With this latest ruling , I'll bet the farm that if a drone OR an old circle flying warbird were to be planted into a jetliner's windscreen at 1000 feet , the fact that it was above 400 feet will certainly figure into the legal charges the pilot of the too high UAS will face .
https://www.faa.gov/regulations_poli...cumentid/22425
It says that Advisory Circular 91-57 is cancelled.
12-23-2015, 09:09 AM
#38
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Orange County CA
Posts: 1,170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I just came across this:
https://www.faa.gov/regulations_poli...cumentid/22425
It says that Advisory Circular 91-57 is cancelled.
https://www.faa.gov/regulations_poli...cumentid/22425
It says that Advisory Circular 91-57 is cancelled.
https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/.../AC_91-57A.pdf
12-23-2015, 10:05 AM
#39
And now we have to worry about being scammed by fake FAA sites http://amablog.modelaircraft.org/ama...on-scam-sites/
12-23-2015, 11:46 AM
#41
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Orange County CA
Posts: 1,170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And now we have to worry about being scammed by fake FAA sites http://amablog.modelaircraft.org/ama...on-scam-sites/
12-23-2015, 11:49 AM
#42
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Orange County CA
Posts: 1,170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
