J_R

Dave Brown reports on several items of interest in his new column in Model Aviation.

Of interest is this web site: http://www.cyber-flyer.com/

Also of special interest to the members of this forum: Abel Pranger, it was interesting to note you have forged a relationship with DB.

For those that have not seen the column, it is on the AMA site at: http://www.modelaircraft.org/mag/0804/president.htm

Sport_Pilot

Ummm, and Advisory Circurlar (AC) does not have the full force of a regulation. The regs do not require waivers for model aircraft yet. Is Dave Brown aware of this? Is he trying to raise the ridiculous 400 foot limit for models?

P-51B

My Feedback: (5)

"I can't relate specifics because I don't know them, but I can relate the concepts as I understand them based on our meeting."

Based on that quote from his article, I would say that as president he should be familiar with the specifics. The whole thing sounded like he flew to a meeting in DC without a clue as to what he was meeting about. That is not good in my book.

J_R

Several times in this forum, it has been suggested that the AMA is contacting federal agencies. If nothing else, I think it is now obvious that the AMA is being contacted and not the other way around. I think it is also now obvious that the AMA does more than provide insurance.

There are a lot more questions raised by the article then are answered.

As a previous sailplane competitor, I am very curious what altititude limit will come out of this meeting in the long run. If the FAA actually insists on a 400 ft limit, it will all but eliminate sailplane competitions. Certainly there is no reason to be crusing around at 10,000 ft plus, without a waiver from the FCC, however some more realisitic altitude must be persued. If not, we lose an entire segment of the hobby. The same can be said for free flight.

In another section of the article DB appears to soften his stance on Li batteries. It would be intersting to know why he kept putting the term "expert" in quotes. It is also interesting to see that Bob Abrele has a column that attempts to put some answers to the questions about Li. Certainly it is not a rubber stamp of DB's previous column. http://www.modelaircraft.org/mag/faq/index.asp

abel_pranger

JR-

Clearly I don't agree with DB on everything, but he let's say he gets lucid once in a while. It is a little ironic that the mother-of-all-nannys in modeldom has been outdone though, and he gave due mention to that accomplishment.
He certainly wasn't thinking very fast in his meeting with FAA, if cyber-flyer's activity is typical of the concerns they raised. Anyone with an IQ above par golf can recognize that activity involves UAV's, not model airplanes, and for all his claptrap about defining the difference, DB blew a perfect opportunity to explain that to the people that matter.

Abel

P-51B

My Feedback: (5)

The problem is, that article is making me wonder if what AMA is doing is helpful or damaging. The impression I got from the article was that he went to meet with government officials, not knowing what he was meeting about. He was, therefore, unprepared to discuss any issues and was relegated to them showing him a list of what they may or may not consider problems. IMO there are few things that can cause more damage to this hobby than a leader that walks into a meeting room with government officials unprepared. Generally, it is a good idea for more than one person to attend such a meeting, it helps expand the knowledge base.

I also don't understand this talk about the 400 foot limit. That limit is only in effect within 3 miles of an airport if I remember correctly.

J_R

P-51B

In the past, when I have talked to DB, he has stated that he does not go alone to these meetings, and I doubt that this was an exception. He certainly leaves the impression that he was alone, however, I would still be willing to bet he was not alone.

The 400 ft has been an FAA advisory about forever, not just near airports. As long as it is not a regualtion, we have some wiggle room. I suspect there was a lot more going on than we are led to believe in his column and I suspect he was not so unprepared as he made himself look. We may get a better clue when the minutes of the July EC meeting are posted and he has given his "Washington Report" (an agenda item) to the EC. If, in fact, there are negotiations going on, we may not hear the results for some time.

I can also say, from previous converstions, that the AMA has been contacted by the TSA and OHS. The AMA is trying to do what is the best for all modelers, but, they have acknowledged that if push comes to shove, they will ultimately protect AMA members.

Scar

My Feedback: (3)

Wow. I'm wondering if I read the same DB column some other posters did. I don't have it in front of me, but I seem to remember that one of the govt. guys insisted on a new identifier (UA) to cover all Unpiloted Aircraft, including RC. And that the govt. guy indicated the authority over UA's rested with him, or his agency. So, I'm guessing that at that point he'd not be listening to explanations about acroynms...

I'd be interested in how many people in our forums get a question or topic list from government agencies before they get called in for questioning. I don't think it happens.

But, I could be wrong.
Dave Olson

Sport_Pilot

Here is the Advisory Circular link.

http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory...del%20aircraft

Note that it is not a regulation and not a requirement. I know I thought it was at one time but it is not. Note it states voluntary compliance.

Here is the reg used for model rockets, moored ballons, and kites.

http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text....2.9.2&idno=14

Note that the limit is 500 feet but it is a regulation that requires a waiver when flying above that altitude.

Doug Cronkhite

My Feedback: (34)

This is nothing to get wound up about. The FAA is concerned with people flying into the realm of the commercial world. I have no problems with the FAA's involvement at this level.

Matt Kirsch

My Feedback: (21)

The impression I got from his column was that the FAA doesn't want to have anything to do with regulating recreational R/C aviation. I don't blame them. It'd be an administrative nightmare, and they aren't manned/funded for it. On top of that, it wouldn't work. People would just fly their R/C airplanes anyway, regulations be damned.

Still, its good that the AMA keep an open, friendly dialogue with the FAA.

As far as DB going to this meeting with no idea as to what it was about, how is that his fault? It's standard operating procedure for the FAA to demand your presence and provide no reason. Besides, being the prez, he should be well-prepared to handle whatever comes up.

hanna

My Feedback: (3)

I went to the web site of the guy flying at 10000 ft. It looked like he was at a club field. The way the site is written he talks about "getting to the field early" before others arrive or words to that effect. If this is a problem it would not be hard to find out where it happens and let the club handle it.(If it an AMA chartered club) Mike Krizan

blw

My Feedback: (3)

Is there any way a glow engine can run at 10,000'? That is the limit for pilots without supplemental oxygen.

J_R

I guess we don't have any sailplane pilots in this forum. It is not at all unusual to go to a field and see several guys that have hooked a thermal put their 100"+ inch sailplane up so far that it's a dot and can only be seen when the sun flashes on the covering when turning. Most guys that are into thremal ships try to come off tow at well over 700 ft, or so, just to start.

I have no idea what percentage of the AMA now flys sailplanes, but there was a time when it was estimated to be approaching 1/3 of the membership and they were the biggest group at the NATS, year after year. I also have no idea where one would define the altitude at which we are flying in commercial space. I do know that a club that was at the Rose Bowl had a deal with the local police and used the Arroyo Secco with the police helicopter, agreeing the sailplanes would avoid it when we heard it coming.

It was not unusual to be up a couple of thousand feet, probably more.

rw Guinn

The Grand Lake, Colorado, Club has their Runway at over 10000 feet above sea level. Performance of a .60 is about like a .35
And you don't need supplimental Oxygen at that altitude-I have backpacked for days at 12000 feet, with many excursions to 14000+ during that time. It is a common passtime...

Roger

Sport_Pilot

The limit for aviation is much lower than for camping and mountain climbing. Makes a differance when you climb to altitude in minutes instead of hours! Your body doesn't have time to adjust, plus the relatively sudden lack of oxygen affects judgement as well.

rw Guinn

No argument here. Obviously, my statements went way over your head.
Regulations are made to take care of the worst possible case--which is why military pilots pretty much go on oxygen at take-off, while if supplimental O2 were required at 10000 feet, nobody could fly a private airplane in most of the Western US. The fact that the human body can run fine at 10000 feet would indicate that a glow engine will also.
In fact, normally aspirated engines have been known to operate at considerably higher altitudes than that.

Tired Old Man

My Feedback: (1)

ALL the airspace over the U.S. was under the sole authority of the FAA. The addition of the Homeland Security Act has added another agency. Regular, or commercial use airspace is usually defined as any and all controlled airspace. Controlled airspace altitudes differ by their location. Under a flight corridor, near control zones and airport traffic areas, this airspace extends from the surface to about 60,000', if I recall correctly. In "uncontrolled" airspace I would think that we have a lot more leeway in altitude usage.

Regarding advisory circulars, they should be considered as rule. An example is the FAAs' "Airmans Information Manual". The vast majority of the contents is advisory in nature, but will be used as if it were a governing authority should there be any kind of accident or legal action.

Dealing with the FAA is something best left to those that know the system well. The AMA should become very good friends and supporters of the Airplane Owners and Pilots Association. They have a tremendous amount of experience and expertise in working with the FAA. They would also be able to provide us and the AMA with workable solutions to altitude restrictions. In many ways, we share the same interests.

Mr. Browns' column addressed some issues that I had suspected were going to surface for some time. With the advent of larger models and superior technology to what we had available 15 years ago, I'm surprised we haven't heard from the FAA and NTSB sooner. Especially in light of 9-11. We must restrict some forms of model aircraft flight and available technology. I am aware that small r/c aircraft have been used in agricultural spraying operations for a long time now. Without going into detail, I think you can all understand why that may need to be a specialized and separately licensed/regulated activity.

As a group, we must find a way to allow the flight of R/C gliders at greater altitudes. This will probably require that "special use" airspace be allocated for such use, and that advisory circulars be made available to full scale pilots that fly in the surrounding airspace. Don't forget that the protection of full scale aircraft and passengers has priority over any other form of aviation. A 120" span glider at 10,000' agl impacting the front of Cessna at the same altitude would in all probability cause the death of the Cessna's occupants.

Don't misunderstand me, I'm am in no way opposed to jets, large aircraft, or any other form of radio controlled or other types of flight, but I can easily see the need for establishing some better guidelines than those we don't have now if we want to continue this "hobby"

Although I agree to a point that Mr. Brown may have not been completely informative in his column, I do believe that the intent of the column was to give us, the membership, a real good "heads up' about things to come. In that, it worked quite well. I would not think that any rules or regulations have been decided on by the federal agencies yet, but I'm certain they are coming. We can only hope that we will be able to influence those regs in a manner that won't be too restrictive.

blw

My Feedback: (3)

The AIM or the General Planning manual would be the sources for airspace rules. It's been a few years since I had to know the rules, and they have changed a few times in that time.

I think that 10,000 was the FAA limit too for altitude without supplemental oxygen. You could go to 12,000 for only an hour, or up to 14,500 for half an hour, with a combined time of anything above 10,000 of only one hour....if I remember it right. The highest I went was 25,000 in the atlitiude chamber, with and without suppl. oxygen. You don't want to be flying anything as you are mostly reduced to giggling or passing out.

Erich_F

Not that it's really on topic for this thread, but the altitude requirement for supp Oxygen is 12,500, after 30min. 14,500 full time. Passengers must be PROVIDED with oxygen at all times above 15,000. I have flown a normally aspirated C172 up to 13,500, and a whimpy ole C152 up to 10,000. Takes awhile, but no problem. Service ceilings for light GA planes is usually around 13,500. You military pilots had(have) a 10,000 foot limit, but that's a different ball game entirely.

As far as airspace limits go...

1200 AGL is ceiling for class G airspace (uncontrolled), unless withing a control zone of an airport having an instrument approach procedure, which is then 700. Victor Airways (low altitude en route corridors) have a floor of 1200 agl to 18,000. Above 18,000 are the Flight levels, ie FL 180 to FL600. Only instrument flight rules aircraft are allowed into Class A airspace (Flight Levels).

There is a simple procedure for alerting pilots and operators of unusually high altitude activities, called NOTAMs, Notices to Airmen.
A simple call to the local Flight Service Station is all that's required to have a NOTAM issued about activities such as high altitude glider operations, UAV ops, tethered balloons, and rockets. Any questions call 1-800-WX-BRIEF, which puts you through to your nearest FSS.

If you regularly fly high altitude with models, you should get yourself a VFR Sectional chart from your local airport, which will display and annotate the airspace in which you intend to operate. Class B airspace terminals extend to up to 30 miles from the airport, Class C areas up to 10. A Chart is helpful in defining the sometimes odd-shaped boundaries of such airspace, in which flying high could be a hazard.

Erich_F

Here is a chart showing the boundaries of Airspace:

Tired Old Man

My Feedback: (1)

Thanks Erich,

I left the active pilots roster shortly before they changed all the airspace regs and titles, and haven't bothered to come back up to speed with them. Your information helps to illustrate some of the areas that we need to address within the R/C fraternity.

augiep38

My Feedback: (3)

Does this mean that we should also regulate and license the use of Flower vases and steak knives? I have heard that they have been used in cases of spousal abuse............................................. ...........................

Jim Branaum

My Feedback: (3)

Sure, along with keyboards, jet-A, monitors, computers, and the list goes on and on.

<Only 1/2 G>

However, that is not all we need to do to insure perfect public safety.

We really should start by outlawing R/C in West Virginia. . .

fprintf

As a current sailplane pilot I am very concerned about Dave Brown's competency as president of the AMA. I have had no previous beef with Mr. Brown, however his statement in a magazine:
has got to either be intentional misrepresentation or completely cluelessness about a significant segment of the model aviation community that he represents. I would not say 700 foot sailplane launches into speck height (logged at 1,500 - 2,500 ft. altitude) flights are "slightly above 400 feet". In fact if you read the AMA safety guidelines on altitude and then the FAC advisory you will see the AMA has completely misinterpreted the regulations by connecting two disparate thoughts, altitude and distance from an airport.

I think Mr. Brown needs to come clean here either to his misrepresentation or to his understanding of his constituency. Either way I am not sure he is qualified to lead this organization in discussions with the FAA.