Interesting tidbit from the President's Blog
05-09-2008, 10:34 AM
#26
Senior Member
My Feedback: (21)
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Manhattan,
NY
Posts: 9,227
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Interesting tidbit from the President's Blog
ORIGINAL: KidEpoxy
To apply this to RC,
would you be happy if only 15k of our 150k members get charged/fined for busting the fed,
as long as you didnt it would mean it aint enforcable?
To apply this to RC,
would you be happy if only 15k of our 150k members get charged/fined for busting the fed,
as long as you didnt it would mean it aint enforcable?
But the bottom line is this and it's in regards to the OP's note. DM is going to meet with the FAA in regards to the new UAS policies. The FAA gave us a document last Feburary that stated they were going to CLEARLY seperate what falls under AC 91-57 and what falls outside of that category. Well if they were going to define what is outside of the box, than the box must actually exist. Also the UAS clearly states that the FAA expects aeromodelrs too keep their airplanes in line of sight, which is not written into AC-91-57, but is written into UAS policy.
In regards to policing ... no I don't think the FAA will "police" anything. But one things for sure ... it will give them more control, when they need to use it. And why not .... UAV's could be a potential threat to GA. I certainly wouldn't want to fly into somebodys self built, autonomous or camera controlled aircraft. Nor would I want them to share the same airspace that sport and recretaional pilots already use without a CRYSTAL clear representation on a pilot sectional. People are actually in the planes they fly.
05-09-2008, 11:13 AM
#27
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Orange County,
CA
Posts: 5,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Interesting tidbit from the President's Blog
ORIGINAL: ira d
I wont argue the fact that the FAA has been looking into model
operation in the last year or so.
I wont argue the fact that the FAA has been looking into model
operation in the last year or so.
I can assure you that they have been doing do for far longer. As far back as 1999 or 2000 I know that the local FAA folks in SOCAL were very aware of model airplanes, and had a surprising knowledge of their capabilities.
As far as enforce actions go, I have personal knowledge of three situations where the FAA has been involved with applying AC 91-57 as the standard for model operations.
Prado Regional Park (PVMAC), El Dorado Park (EDSF), and Fairview Park (Harbor Soaring Society). All os these are in SOCAL. In all three places they are close enough to local airports that the FAA took notice and requested that the local agencies that operated the park have the modelers hold to the 400 foot limit stated in AC 91-57. Did the FAA arrest or cite people? No. But what they did do was render an opinion to the City/County agencies that own the various sites that the models need to operate in accordance with AC 91-57. Those local agencies then enforced the limits stated in AC 91-57.
I agree that in places here there is little or no chance of a conflict with full size planes the FAA is very unlikely to even notice, but in places where that potential exists I think the FAA has clearly demonstrated that they WILL get involved.
As far as the topic of this post, I see it as the next step in what they are already doing. So far their position has been that if you operate in accordance with AC 91-57, you are a model airplane. If not, then you will be subject to various regulations, some of which they are still forming. So for the vast majority of us I think we can rest easy. This is really aimed at commercial ventures and so on. I recall one FAA person a few years back telling us that at that time the Global Hawk could launch, fly at 40,000 feet across the Pacific and never once be subject to normal aviation rules. The FAA wanted to change that. And that type of operation is what this is all about.
05-09-2008, 11:28 AM
#28
My Feedback: (58)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: here
Posts: 5,413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Interesting tidbit from the President's Blog
ORIGINAL: Silent-AV8R
Prado Regional Park (PVMAC), El Dorado Park (EDSF), and Fairview Park (Harbor Soaring Society). All os these are in SOCAL. In all three places they are close enough to local airports that the FAA took notice and requested that the local agencies that operated the park have the modelers hold to the 400 foot limit stated in AC 91-57. Did the FAA arrest or cite people? No. But what they did do was render an opinion to the City/County agencies that own the various sites that the models need to operate in accordance with AC 91-57. Those local agencies then enforced the limits stated in AC 91-57.
Prado Regional Park (PVMAC), El Dorado Park (EDSF), and Fairview Park (Harbor Soaring Society). All os these are in SOCAL. In all three places they are close enough to local airports that the FAA took notice and requested that the local agencies that operated the park have the modelers hold to the 400 foot limit stated in AC 91-57. Did the FAA arrest or cite people? No. But what they did do was render an opinion to the City/County agencies that own the various sites that the models need to operate in accordance with AC 91-57. Those local agencies then enforced the limits stated in AC 91-57.
05-09-2008, 11:32 AM
#29
Senior Member
My Feedback: (21)
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Manhattan,
NY
Posts: 9,227
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Interesting tidbit from the President's Blog
Thanks for some reality. Stl please take note... see how it is done?
05-09-2008, 12:17 PM
#30
RE: Interesting tidbit from the President's Blog
Exactly, which simply states that AC 91-57 has actual teeth to it, it's not just a guideline or voluntary mechanism.
Now the new UAV regs and policies may have teeth, so if you fly much over 400 feet you may have a problem with violating that. We need something to allow the soaring folks to fly in remote areas well above 400 feet. I think defining line of sight operation as an exception to UAV operations at any altitude is the way to go, providing it is not near airports or high traffic areas. Perhaps place icons reprsenting AMA flying sites on full scale sectional maps would also help.
05-09-2008, 12:36 PM
#31
RE: Interesting tidbit from the President's Blog
I got this today:
AOPA TO GET A SAY IN UAV CERTIFICATION STANDARDS
After asserting for years that unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) should meet the same certification and operational standards as piloted aircraft before being allowed to operate freely in the National Airspace System, AOPA has been asked to participate on the FAA's aviation rulemaking committee to help develop those standards. "AOPA wants UAVs to be integrated seamlessly into the National Airspace System so that there isn't a negative impact on general aviation," said AOPA Senior Director of Regulatory Affairs Rob Hackman. Read more on AOPA Online.
This UAV things have to be regulated, in GA you check for traffic, and we avoid each other. But if you have a UAV coming your way, going from point A to B, there is nobody onboard of the UAV checking for GA traffic, so you end up w/2 AC but only 1 is blind, plus the UAV's might be hard to see.
I do not think we (rc guys) are running any risk here, BUT, let's not forget the FAA's motto: We are not happy until you are unhappy.
Gerry
Remember when the skies were "friendly"?
AOPA TO GET A SAY IN UAV CERTIFICATION STANDARDS
After asserting for years that unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) should meet the same certification and operational standards as piloted aircraft before being allowed to operate freely in the National Airspace System, AOPA has been asked to participate on the FAA's aviation rulemaking committee to help develop those standards. "AOPA wants UAVs to be integrated seamlessly into the National Airspace System so that there isn't a negative impact on general aviation," said AOPA Senior Director of Regulatory Affairs Rob Hackman. Read more on AOPA Online.
This UAV things have to be regulated, in GA you check for traffic, and we avoid each other. But if you have a UAV coming your way, going from point A to B, there is nobody onboard of the UAV checking for GA traffic, so you end up w/2 AC but only 1 is blind, plus the UAV's might be hard to see.
I do not think we (rc guys) are running any risk here, BUT, let's not forget the FAA's motto: We are not happy until you are unhappy.
Gerry
Remember when the skies were "friendly"?
05-09-2008, 02:35 PM
#32
RE: Interesting tidbit from the President's Blog
ORIGINAL: Silent-AV8R
I can assure you that they have been doing do for far longer. As far back as 1999 or 2000 I know that the local FAA folks in SOCAL were very aware of model airplanes, and had a surprising knowledge of their capabilities.
As far as enforce actions go, I have personal knowledge of three situations where the FAA has been involved with applying AC 91-57 as the standard for model operations.
Prado Regional Park (PVMAC), El Dorado Park (EDSF), and Fairview Park (Harbor Soaring Society). All os these are in SOCAL. In all three places they are close enough to local airports that the FAA took notice and requested that the local agencies that operated the park have the modelers hold to the 400 foot limit stated in AC 91-57. Did the FAA arrest or cite people? No. But what they did do was render an opinion to the City/County agencies that own the various sites that the models need to operate in accordance with AC 91-57. Those local agencies then enforced the limits stated in AC 91-57.
I agree that in places here there is little or no chance of a conflict with full size planes the FAA is very unlikely to even notice, but in places where that potential exists I think the FAA has clearly demonstrated that they WILL get involved.
As far as the topic of this post, I see it as the next step in what they are already doing. So far their position has been that if you operate in accordance with AC 91-57, you are a model airplane. If not, then you will be subject to various regulations, some of which they are still forming. So for the vast majority of us I think we can rest easy. This is really aimed at commercial ventures and so on. I recall one FAA person a few years back telling us that at that time the Global Hawk could launch, fly at 40,000 feet across the Pacific and never once be subject to normal aviation rules. The FAA wanted to change that. And that type of operation is what this is all about.
ORIGINAL: ira d
I wont argue the fact that the FAA has been looking into model
operation in the last year or so.
I wont argue the fact that the FAA has been looking into model
operation in the last year or so.
I can assure you that they have been doing do for far longer. As far back as 1999 or 2000 I know that the local FAA folks in SOCAL were very aware of model airplanes, and had a surprising knowledge of their capabilities.
As far as enforce actions go, I have personal knowledge of three situations where the FAA has been involved with applying AC 91-57 as the standard for model operations.
Prado Regional Park (PVMAC), El Dorado Park (EDSF), and Fairview Park (Harbor Soaring Society). All os these are in SOCAL. In all three places they are close enough to local airports that the FAA took notice and requested that the local agencies that operated the park have the modelers hold to the 400 foot limit stated in AC 91-57. Did the FAA arrest or cite people? No. But what they did do was render an opinion to the City/County agencies that own the various sites that the models need to operate in accordance with AC 91-57. Those local agencies then enforced the limits stated in AC 91-57.
I agree that in places here there is little or no chance of a conflict with full size planes the FAA is very unlikely to even notice, but in places where that potential exists I think the FAA has clearly demonstrated that they WILL get involved.
As far as the topic of this post, I see it as the next step in what they are already doing. So far their position has been that if you operate in accordance with AC 91-57, you are a model airplane. If not, then you will be subject to various regulations, some of which they are still forming. So for the vast majority of us I think we can rest easy. This is really aimed at commercial ventures and so on. I recall one FAA person a few years back telling us that at that time the Global Hawk could launch, fly at 40,000 feet across the Pacific and never once be subject to normal aviation rules. The FAA wanted to change that. And that type of operation is what this is all about.
go after individual rc plane pilots as they would have if the rc pilots had
been regulated and had a FAA license of some sort.
I have always said the FAA dont care what you do with your model
unless you conflict with full scale and the cases you site were clearly
conflicts with full scale operation, As to how much that will change in
the future we will just have to wait and see.
05-09-2008, 02:51 PM
#33
Senior Member
My Feedback: (21)
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Manhattan,
NY
Posts: 9,227
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Interesting tidbit from the President's Blog
I have always said the FAA dont care what you do with your model
unless you conflict with full scale and the cases you site were clearly
conflicts with full scale operation, As to how much that will change in
the future we will just have to wait and see.
unless you conflict with full scale and the cases you site were clearly
conflicts with full scale operation, As to how much that will change in
the future we will just have to wait and see.
Bottom line is the FAA does not wait for an object to strike an airplane or even come close before they start caring or taking action. And of course you can fly as high as you want in your RC airplane, everyone does it like every breaks speeding laws. Either way ... over 500' you are in "conflict". Could the airspace be shared? Sure why not ... give a RC club 2500' if they want it ... just make sure they put it on the sectional.
05-09-2008, 03:13 PM
#34
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Harpers Ferry,
WV
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Interesting tidbit from the President's Blog
We need something to allow the soaring folks to fly in remote areas well above 400 feet. I think defining line of sight operation as an exception to UAV operations at any altitude is the way to go, providing it is not near airports or high traffic areas. Perhaps place icons reprsenting AMA flying sites on full scale sectional maps would also help.
Has anyone written Muncie to see what the official thoughts are? I've not seen much in the way of "official position" on this issue other than the standard, we're working on it.
For the record, I have, but have received no reply yet.
Greg S
05-09-2008, 03:47 PM
#35
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Orange County,
CA
Posts: 5,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Interesting tidbit from the President's Blog
ORIGINAL: ira d
I have always said the FAA dont care what you do with your model
unless you conflict with full scale and the cases you site were clearly
conflicts with full scale operation, As to how much that will change in
the future we will just have to wait and see.
I have always said the FAA dont care what you do with your model
unless you conflict with full scale and the cases you site were clearly
conflicts with full scale operation, As to how much that will change in
the future we will just have to wait and see.
Which was exactly my point. What is important now is to make certain that our models don't get lumped in with all UAVs. My other point was that the FAA has been aware of models etc., for far longer than just the past year or so.
I know at one time the AMA was trying to get AC 91-57 changed to put a limit at 1,200 feet or so away from airports and potential traffic and keep the 400 foot where it might be an issue. I am not certain where that effort went however.
05-09-2008, 04:17 PM
#36
RE: Interesting tidbit from the President's Blog
ORIGINAL: STLPilot
Any time you put an object higher than 500' you are in conflict of full scale operation. Pilots use sectionals too show what is going to be in front of their aircraft when they fly from one place to another. If an objects higher than 500' is not listed on the sectional, then nothing is supposed to be there. For those other objects typically above 500', we call those other aircraft equipped with radios, lights and other mechanisms we use to communicate and navigate around one another. Of course we could depend on RC pilots to have NOTAM's issued ... but we know the likelihood of that.
Bottom line is the FAA does not wait for an object to strike an airplane or even come close before they start caring or taking action. And of course you can fly as high as you want in your RC airplane, everyone does it like every breaks speeding laws. Either way ... over 500' you are in "conflict". Could the airspace be shared? Sure why not ... give a RC club 2500' if they want it ... just make sure they put it on the sectional.
I have always said the FAA dont care what you do with your model
unless you conflict with full scale and the cases you site were clearly
conflicts with full scale operation, As to how much that will change in
the future we will just have to wait and see.
unless you conflict with full scale and the cases you site were clearly
conflicts with full scale operation, As to how much that will change in
the future we will just have to wait and see.
Bottom line is the FAA does not wait for an object to strike an airplane or even come close before they start caring or taking action. And of course you can fly as high as you want in your RC airplane, everyone does it like every breaks speeding laws. Either way ... over 500' you are in "conflict". Could the airspace be shared? Sure why not ... give a RC club 2500' if they want it ... just make sure they put it on the sectional.
STL
You are correct in what you say however IMO the reason the FAA has
paid little attention to model planes over the years is because there
has been so few conflicts. Most model planes become very hard to
see and control at around 500 feet and most full scale planes dont
fly below 2,000 feet except when takeing off or landing.
05-09-2008, 04:47 PM
#37
Senior Member
My Feedback: (21)
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Manhattan,
NY
Posts: 9,227
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Interesting tidbit from the President's Blog
ORIGINAL: ira d
You are correct in what you say however IMO the reason the FAA has
paid little attention to model planes over the years is because there
has been so few conflicts. Most model planes become very hard to
see and control at around 500 feet and most full scale planes dont
fly below 2,000 feet except when takeing off or landing.
You are correct in what you say however IMO the reason the FAA has
paid little attention to model planes over the years is because there
has been so few conflicts. Most model planes become very hard to
see and control at around 500 feet and most full scale planes dont
fly below 2,000 feet except when takeing off or landing.
And thanx to companies like Hobby Lobby, you won't have to be able to see your plane from the ground anymore. What do you think the person who bought this $500 outfit from Hobby Lobby is going to do when they crash their plane? Replace $10 worth of foam or move the equipment into a larger model. This is just the begining ... well really not begining ... but a path to the next generation to come. And now it comes faster than it ever has.
Certainly don't condone HL from making money, god bless them. But they are helping to make autonomous flight, very affordable. So are 100 other companies.
05-09-2008, 04:48 PM
#38
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: San Antonio,
TX
Posts: 6,681
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Interesting tidbit from the President's Blog
Pilots use sectionals too show what is going to be in front of their aircraft when they fly from one place to another
Remember VFR? Or havent yo gotten that far in your flyin learnin yet?
For those other objects typically above 500', we call those other aircraft equipped with radios, lights and other mechanisms we use to communicate and navigate around one another
part103 Ultralights, with no xponder or radio, or lights, in 1200' Class G
just dont exist?
Have you called the FAA to warn them that non-cert'ed / non-licensed 103Ultralights are above 500'?
Your argument is weak, due to the holes in it
05-10-2008, 02:08 AM
#39
My Feedback: (58)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: here
Posts: 5,413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Interesting tidbit from the President's Blog
ORIGINAL: STLPilot
Certainly don't condone HL from making money, god bless them. But they are helping to make autonomous flight, very affordable. So are 100 other companies.
Certainly don't condone HL from making money, god bless them. But they are helping to make autonomous flight, very affordable. So are 100 other companies.
Then you say; "But they are helping to make autonomous flight, very affordable."
autonomous??? I don't think autonomous is applicable in this context as it relates to hobby lobby’s new system...Maybe I am overlooking something though.
Now off to the hobby lobby website to investigate another great aspect of our hobby…how cool!! Thanks stl
05-10-2008, 04:23 AM
#40
Senior Member
My Feedback: (21)
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Manhattan,
NY
Posts: 9,227
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Interesting tidbit from the President's Blog
Thanks LCS, I'm so glad I have you to inform me of my mistakes. But I think I know what autonomous means. I meant the path thereto. Sorry if it wasn't clear enough for you. I know you're not on moderated status like I am. I think I'll grab one of those FPV's as well.
05-11-2008, 12:37 AM
#41
My Feedback: (58)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: here
Posts: 5,413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Interesting tidbit from the President's Blog
ORIGINAL: STLPilot
But I think I know what autonomous means. I meant the path thereto. Sorry if it wasn't clear enough for you.
But I think I know what autonomous means. I meant the path thereto. Sorry if it wasn't clear enough for you.
Thanks for clearing that up, even more than before. [sm=spinnyeyes.gif]
05-11-2008, 08:41 PM
#42
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Harpers Ferry,
WV
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Interesting tidbit from the President's Blog
Hmmm. Well to try and bring this back to the original intent of the poster, I find the differing views quite interesting. I'm glad SOMEONE is going to be there to give aeromodelling a voice, no matter how tiny it is. I don't feel it has anything to do with the VFR vs IFR "type" sidetrack, as I can certainly mount the pilot view and still keep my plane in visual range and within the (oh god I'm bringing it up) 400' ceiling. (coma or period nonwithstanding 
)
Thanks to all that have shared an opinion so far. I look forward to hearing others [8D]
Greg S
)Thanks to all that have shared an opinion so far. I look forward to hearing others [8D]
Greg S
05-12-2008, 09:04 AM
#43
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Ignacio,
CO
Posts: 289
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Interesting tidbit from the President's Blog
A "clarified" definition of model aircraft? I'm worried what this may mean for the hobby. With the new equipment available, one doesn't need a lot of imagination to realize that someone from the dark side could cause a lot of damage. Hopefully, we all won't be looking for indoor flying sites.
05-12-2008, 10:26 AM
#44
RE: Interesting tidbit from the President's Blog
Any time you put an object higher than 500' you are in conflict of full scale operation.
05-12-2008, 10:30 AM
#45
RE: Interesting tidbit from the President's Blog
Putting a video camera on a plane is by no means autonomous. You would need a nav system and robotic controls for that. Those are harder to come by.
05-12-2008, 10:40 AM
#46
Senior Member
My Feedback: (21)
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Manhattan,
NY
Posts: 9,227
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Interesting tidbit from the President's Blog
ORIGINAL: Sport_Pilot
Outside of airports and a few other airspaces, controled airspace does not extend to 500 feet. The five hundred feet rule is that aircraft not fly closer than 500 feet from people or buildings. If you are in a remote area with no buildings and people you can fly ten feet above trees as cropdusters often do.
Any time you put an object higher than 500' you are in conflict of full scale operation.
GA pilots are responsilble for knowing the entire FAR, not just parts of it. They know that below 500' you can come in conflict with objects that are not listed on the sectionals. I'm all for RC ops to go higher than 500' and even utilizing FPV's. But at the same time, if they are going to hold these operations on a designated flying site, even on a casual basis, than it should be listed on a sectional.
Would be interesting to sit through that meeting with AOPA/AMA. I'm sure EAA will be added to the list as well. I would bet that if the 400-1200 ft rule for RC comes into play, they will be listed on the charts, they would have to be.
05-12-2008, 11:29 AM
#47
RE: Interesting tidbit from the President's Blog
ORIGINAL: Sport_Pilot
Outside of airports and a few other airspaces, controled airspace does not extend to 500 feet. The five hundred feet rule is that aircraft not fly closer than 500 feet from people or buildings. If you are in a remote area with no buildings and people you can fly ten feet above trees as cropdusters often do.
Any time you put an object higher than 500' you are in conflict of full scale operation.
Although you can fly as low as you like be it 10ft are whatever, but
anytime you fly above 500 ft AGL you are in risk of conflict with
full scale aircraft.
As I have said before most models dont fly above 500ft and most
full scale dont fly below 2,000ft unless takeing off or landing.
Of course the exception to the 2,000ft practice would be crop dusters
search and rescue and police aircraft and sometime ultralight craft.
05-12-2008, 04:03 PM
#48
RE: Interesting tidbit from the President's Blog
Although you can fly as low as you like be it 10ft are whatever, but
anytime you fly above 500 ft AGL you are in risk of conflict with
full scale aircraft.
anytime you fly above 500 ft AGL you are in risk of conflict with
full scale aircraft.
As I have said before most models dont fly above 500ft and most
full scale dont fly below 2,000ft unless takeing off or landing.
full scale dont fly below 2,000ft unless takeing off or landing.
05-12-2008, 04:07 PM
#49
RE: Interesting tidbit from the President's Blog
Right, but I was talking about in regards to rules governing objects, either temporary or fixed which must remain at or below 500'. It also just so happens that kites and tethered balloons must operate at 500' and below as well.
Whereas rockets rules use physics to keep them under certain heights based on power/weight combinations.
05-12-2008, 06:53 PM
#50
RE: Interesting tidbit from the President's Blog
I used the term at risk of conflict although it is minor IMO for the reasons I previously
stated. And yes the FAA rule is an advisory but I think most of all common sense
needs to prevail. I fly at a some fields that are in full scale landing patterns and also
have ultralights in the area but I have never seen a conflict.
stated. And yes the FAA rule is an advisory but I think most of all common sense
needs to prevail. I fly at a some fields that are in full scale landing patterns and also
have ultralights in the area but I have never seen a conflict.