AMA Safety Code 2c - Your Interpretation?
07-19-2013, 07:11 AM
#1
AMA Safety Code 2c - Your Interpretation?
AMA Safety Code 2c-
2.
Model aircraft pilots will:
(c) Not fly higher than approximately 400 feet above ground level within three (3) miles of an airport, without notifying the airport operator.
Our Club is with in 3 miles of an Controlled Airport with a Control Zone that goes from the ground up out to 4 Nautical miles and to an altitude of 2500 feet.
Technically, our r/c field is in controlled airspace from the ground up. We have an approximate altitude restriction of 400 feet, as recommended by the AMA. Some think that the 400 feet is so that the pilot stays out of controlled airspace, but they don't realize they are already in controlled airspace the minute they taxi the plane from the pits. It has created a lot of distention in the Club. Some interpret AMA Safety Code that once the Airport Manager has been notified, you can fly above 400 feet, as long as there isn't a more restrictive Club rule.
Others read it as you can NOT go above 400 feet with the Airport Manager Notified in writing, even if there isn't a Club Restriction.
Like I have said, I have been in this Club for 9 years, and it has always been an issue. When a new President and Officers come to power, the rule fluctuates on the interpretation.
PLEASE BE Educated on the subject and Respectful on the Forum, since this is a touchy subject. Dan
2.
Model aircraft pilots will:
(c) Not fly higher than approximately 400 feet above ground level within three (3) miles of an airport, without notifying the airport operator.
Our Club is with in 3 miles of an Controlled Airport with a Control Zone that goes from the ground up out to 4 Nautical miles and to an altitude of 2500 feet.
Technically, our r/c field is in controlled airspace from the ground up. We have an approximate altitude restriction of 400 feet, as recommended by the AMA. Some think that the 400 feet is so that the pilot stays out of controlled airspace, but they don't realize they are already in controlled airspace the minute they taxi the plane from the pits. It has created a lot of distention in the Club. Some interpret AMA Safety Code that once the Airport Manager has been notified, you can fly above 400 feet, as long as there isn't a more restrictive Club rule.
Others read it as you can NOT go above 400 feet with the Airport Manager Notified in writing, even if there isn't a Club Restriction.
Like I have said, I have been in this Club for 9 years, and it has always been an issue. When a new President and Officers come to power, the rule fluctuates on the interpretation.
PLEASE BE Educated on the subject and Respectful on the Forum, since this is a touchy subject. Dan
07-19-2013, 07:44 AM
#2
My Feedback: (6)
RE: AMA Safety Code 2c - Your Interpretation?
If you haven't notified the airport operator you can't fly above 400 feet. This has nothing to do with whether there's a club rule. This much of the rule seems very clear.
If you have notified the airport operator, it gets a less clear. Do you need to get the airport operator's permission to fly higher than 400 feet? Do you have to notify them about each over-400-foot flight, or is telling them you plan to fly higher than 400 feet on Saturdays during the summer enough? The rule is ambiguous about these things. You aren't going to resolve these questions by looking at the language of the rule.
Quite apart from what the rule says or doesn't say, common sense has a lot to do with how you fly in the vicinity of full scale aircraft.
Nothing in the AMA rule says anything about controlled airspace, one way or the other.
If you have notified the airport operator, it gets a less clear. Do you need to get the airport operator's permission to fly higher than 400 feet? Do you have to notify them about each over-400-foot flight, or is telling them you plan to fly higher than 400 feet on Saturdays during the summer enough? The rule is ambiguous about these things. You aren't going to resolve these questions by looking at the language of the rule.
Quite apart from what the rule says or doesn't say, common sense has a lot to do with how you fly in the vicinity of full scale aircraft.
Nothing in the AMA rule says anything about controlled airspace, one way or the other.
07-19-2013, 07:51 AM
#3
RE: AMA Safety Code 2c - Your Interpretation?
Top Gunn:
Thank you for your response. I am trying to pass a Club Rule that after the Airport Manager has been notified, that a permenant NOTAM, Notice to Airmen, there is radio controlled aircraft fly from sunrise to sunset, approximately 2 miles to the SE of the center of the Airport. I am trying to eliminate the Club rule, due to it being irrelevant, once the Manager has been notified. To me, I interpret the rule, once the Airport Manager is notified, you can fly above 400 feet period. We do use spotters for the Gas and Turbine planes and jets. Try to keep a jet under 400 feet doing a loop or a humpy bump.
Thank you for your response. I am trying to pass a Club Rule that after the Airport Manager has been notified, that a permenant NOTAM, Notice to Airmen, there is radio controlled aircraft fly from sunrise to sunset, approximately 2 miles to the SE of the center of the Airport. I am trying to eliminate the Club rule, due to it being irrelevant, once the Manager has been notified. To me, I interpret the rule, once the Airport Manager is notified, you can fly above 400 feet period. We do use spotters for the Gas and Turbine planes and jets. Try to keep a jet under 400 feet doing a loop or a humpy bump.
07-19-2013, 10:33 AM
#5
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga,
CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: AMA Safety Code 2c - Your Interpretation?
ORIGINAL: RCFlyerDan
AMA Safety Code 2c-
2.
Model aircraft pilots will:
(c) Not fly higher than approximately 400 feet above ground level within three (3) miles of an airport, without notifying the airport operator.
AMA Safety Code 2c-
2.
Model aircraft pilots will:
(c) Not fly higher than approximately 400 feet above ground level within three (3) miles of an airport, without notifying the airport operator.
Dan,
This was copied nearly verbatim from FAA AC 91-57 dtd June 9, 1981. The original reads
c. Do not fly model aircraft higher than 400 feet above the surface. When flying aircraft
within 3 miles of an airport, notify the airport operator, or when an air traffic facility is located at
the airport, notify the control tower, or flight service station.
within 3 miles of an airport, notify the airport operator, or when an air traffic facility is located at
the airport, notify the control tower, or flight service station.
1) don't fly higher than 400 feet AGL anywhere
2) if within 3 mi of an airport, notify the airport operator (and implicitly, agree to abide by any restrictions imposed at that level).
By changing a period to a comma (much discussed in this forum), AMA made it a very ambiguous statement:
- Can I fly anywhere within the 3 mi airport perimeter up to 400 ft AGL?
- Is there any altitude limit at all beyond the 3 mi perimeter?
Ask AMA. Please come back and let us know what you learned.
cj
07-19-2013, 10:42 AM
#6
RE: AMA Safety Code 2c - Your Interpretation?
CJ!
Thank you for bringing up that Advisory Circular! Definition of an FAA Advisory Circular:
Advisory Circulars –
Advisory Circulars are publications issued by the FAA and international aviation authorities to provide guidance such as methods procedures and practices for complying with regulations and requirements. Advisory Circulars may also contain explanations of regulations and other guidance materials, best practices or information useful to the aviation community. Advisory circulars do not create or change a regulatory requirements.
That AC is there, kind of out dated. 1981?? And NOT a Law or FAA Reg by now?
Thank you for bringing up that Advisory Circular! Definition of an FAA Advisory Circular:
Advisory Circulars –
Advisory Circulars are publications issued by the FAA and international aviation authorities to provide guidance such as methods procedures and practices for complying with regulations and requirements. Advisory Circulars may also contain explanations of regulations and other guidance materials, best practices or information useful to the aviation community. Advisory circulars do not create or change a regulatory requirements.
That AC is there, kind of out dated. 1981?? And NOT a Law or FAA Reg by now?
07-19-2013, 12:05 PM
#8
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Apopka,
FL
Posts: 1,367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: AMA Safety Code 2c - Your Interpretation?
What requirement, if any, does the control tower or airport operator have to agree with RC aircraft flying above 400 feet within 3 miles of a airport.? Does not the airport operator have the final say as to who can fly within the controled airspace?
Having the attitude that "we notified you so now we will do what we want", may result in some interesting consequences...................
Seems to me if you are within 3 miles of a airport you are better off sticking to under 400 feet.
Brad
07-19-2013, 12:50 PM
#9
My Feedback: (6)
RE: AMA Safety Code 2c - Your Interpretation?
What requirement, if any, does the control tower or airport operator have to agree with RC aircraft flying above 400 feet within 3 miles of a airport.? Does not the airport operator have the final say as to who can fly within the controled airspace?
"Airport" covers a lot of very different places, from Chicago O'Hare to some guy with a grass strip in his back yard he flies an ultralight from. It wouldn't make much sense to give the guy with the grass strip veto power over model airplane operations within a three-mile radius. Or for anybody to be flying much more than 400 feet high near a major airport. The rules we've got now don't come close to spelling out a set of sensible requirements for all these varied situations. The AMA says it's working with the FAA to come up with stuff. Hope it works.
07-19-2013, 01:08 PM
#10
RE: AMA Safety Code 2c - Your Interpretation?
Deland Golden Hawks are within that distance of Deland Municipal Airport. They operate with a permanent 400 foot restriction and when they have events like the Festival Of Giants, they get a lift to 750 feet for the event window and a NOTAM is issued for the event days only.
Otherwise it's presumed that they are operating at or below 400 feet and the airport is well informed that they are there.
Otherwise it's presumed that they are operating at or below 400 feet and the airport is well informed that they are there.
07-19-2013, 02:39 PM
#11
Junior Member
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: CORN FIELDS OF,
IN
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: AMA Safety Code 2c - Your Interpretation?
Please work with the local airport in stead of waiting for an accident and a big drama show and causing all to lose flying rights
07-19-2013, 03:27 PM
#12
RE: AMA Safety Code 2c - Your Interpretation?
Your approach of just creating a one time WRITTEN agreement with the airport authority/control tower, and constant use of spotters is probably the best approach.
As many of you know I'm an FAA employee. NOT in the enforcement side of the house, but I've looked at this issue for over 15 years now. My RC club the TORKS in OKC is just on the edge of OKC's Wiley Post airport's control zone, AND smack dab in between the glide paths of the parallel main runways at OKC's Will Rogers World airport.
Keeping low and out of everyone's hair is important to us.
Some interesting comments have surfaced in this thread that need some clarification. First, contrary to what a lot of people on these threads think the FAA does have legal jurisdiction of the ALL airspace right down to the surface. They have legal authority to control what goes in the air. Out of that our models fall into the operational requirements of 14CFR Part 91, general operating and flight rules. From that AC 91(the first number tells you what FAR you are dealing with)- 57 tells you the model operator how to comply with Part 91. It was quoted above:
True they are not law themselves but the critical wording is they tell you how to comply. when you break one, unless you can prove you've taken steps that provide an alternate level of safety that complies with Part 91 then you'd most likely be charged with a violation of some portions of Part 91.
AC91-57 was probably the most common sense piece of paper to come out of the FAA. Its short sweet friendly and to the point; Go have fun flying models, share the air, manned airplanes have priority over you. The killer is someone in DC had to have a number so they've stuck us with an un-measurable 400 foot SUGGESTED limit for32 years now.
Even that came in the spirit of the document. Full scale have to stay 500 feet above or away from people and buildings. If we stay at 400 most of the time there's an automatic 100 foot safety buffer built in.
MTC YMMV
As many of you know I'm an FAA employee. NOT in the enforcement side of the house, but I've looked at this issue for over 15 years now. My RC club the TORKS in OKC is just on the edge of OKC's Wiley Post airport's control zone, AND smack dab in between the glide paths of the parallel main runways at OKC's Will Rogers World airport.
Keeping low and out of everyone's hair is important to us.
Some interesting comments have surfaced in this thread that need some clarification. First, contrary to what a lot of people on these threads think the FAA does have legal jurisdiction of the ALL airspace right down to the surface. They have legal authority to control what goes in the air. Out of that our models fall into the operational requirements of 14CFR Part 91, general operating and flight rules. From that AC 91(the first number tells you what FAR you are dealing with)- 57 tells you the model operator how to comply with Part 91. It was quoted above:
to provide guidance such as methods procedures and practices for complying with regulations and requirements. Advisory Circulars may also contain explanations of regulations and other guidance materials, best practices or information useful to the aviation community. Advisory circulars do not create or change a regulatory requirements.
AC91-57 was probably the most common sense piece of paper to come out of the FAA. Its short sweet friendly and to the point; Go have fun flying models, share the air, manned airplanes have priority over you. The killer is someone in DC had to have a number so they've stuck us with an un-measurable 400 foot SUGGESTED limit for32 years now.
Even that came in the spirit of the document. Full scale have to stay 500 feet above or away from people and buildings. If we stay at 400 most of the time there's an automatic 100 foot safety buffer built in.
MTC YMMV
07-19-2013, 04:00 PM
#13
My Feedback: (1)
RE: AMA Safety Code 2c - Your Interpretation?
Our flying field is about a mile and half from the airport I have already let myself know we are there beings I am one of the guys you would let know, nice thing we are not in the path of the runways, so it has been a none problem"
07-19-2013, 10:32 PM
#14
RE: AMA Safety Code 2c - Your Interpretation?
The way I see it is at the present time there is only a advisory to not exceed 400ft, I think however if your site is within 3mi of a airport your site should
let the airport know they are there however I dont think the airport has any authority to control your club in any way.
I think the most importaint thing is to use common sense and to avoid conflict with full scale operations because if the FAA gets involved it could lead
to the club being shut down.
let the airport know they are there however I dont think the airport has any authority to control your club in any way.
I think the most importaint thing is to use common sense and to avoid conflict with full scale operations because if the FAA gets involved it could lead
to the club being shut down.
07-20-2013, 03:51 AM
#15
RE: AMA Safety Code 2c - Your Interpretation?
Thank you contributing to this forum.
I have read everyones' response so far, and greatly appreciate everyones' comments. I think that Topp Gunn, Maj T and Ira d understand what our Club is having issue with on our airspace. The 400 feet is a nice number, but one pilot's 600 feet is another pilot's 400 feet, or one pilot's 300 feet is another pilot's 400 feet. Trust me! This has created a LOT of H3LL at our Club. Until now, with the new telemetry on the transmitters, there wasn't a true way to measure, and not sure how accurate those telemetery transmitter/receivers are working, since one of my student's have one, and it works one day, the next it doesn't. We even had one of our members that was working on UAV's, fly one of his UAV's with the autopilot/GPS at 400 feet to show the general membership. Well, a foamie at 400 feet verses a 35-44% plane look totally different at 400 feet.
Our Club has had two recent incidences with single engine full scale, due to our r/c field is under the down wind for one of the smaller runways, and a departure corrador for them too. Two Private Pilots have reported "large r/c planes" flying at or near their current altitude. Current pattern altitude for single engine and light twins is 800 feet over us. Our backs (we face South) are always at the full scales approach from the North, to both the full scale airport, and just happen to fly over us. So, the full scale planes sneak up on us every now and then. We, at our Club, have kind of gone to using spotters for gas and turbines.
Maj T, yes, I understand that the FAA and National airsystem has control to the ground to space. Retired ATP B-727 here, but haven't read any Reg's since retiring 13 years ago. Currently, as stated earlier, our Club is in a Class D airspace. Our field is only 2.2 statue miles from the center of the airport, so we are definetely in controlled airspace. I am trying to educate the non-pilots that are Officers, BOD or general members that the 400 feet isn't to stay out of controlled airspace, due to the fact, we are already there. The Officer's and BOD don't want to drawl attention to our Club, yet, the Club has been there for 30 or so years, and the airport for 50 plus years, so both places know of each other, just not formally in a letter. The Officers' and BOD feel a Formal Letter of Notification to the Airport Manager to post a NOTAM is drawing too much attention to our Club and Field. Yet, this past Month, we have had a visit from the Airport Manager, and they said one of the men were from the FAA, but he was quiet in the meeting, so I don't think he was FAA, but I personally wasn't there.
In my thoughts, if there is a permenant NOTAM on the airport about R/C aircraft possibly flying above 400 feet approx. 2 miles SE of the airport from Day Break to Sunset. Then, since the pilot will get the NOTAM in his Pilot Briefing, he will no longer report to the tower or FAA that there were r/c aircraft in the vacinity, because he knew we were there. Kind of like some of the airports that have NOTAM's for Parachute jumping, banner towing, glider operations. When I left Full Scale flying, at that time, there were NO REGS that control R/C aircraft, and to this day, there are NO REGS that control R/C aircraft.
I have read everyones' response so far, and greatly appreciate everyones' comments. I think that Topp Gunn, Maj T and Ira d understand what our Club is having issue with on our airspace. The 400 feet is a nice number, but one pilot's 600 feet is another pilot's 400 feet, or one pilot's 300 feet is another pilot's 400 feet. Trust me! This has created a LOT of H3LL at our Club. Until now, with the new telemetry on the transmitters, there wasn't a true way to measure, and not sure how accurate those telemetery transmitter/receivers are working, since one of my student's have one, and it works one day, the next it doesn't. We even had one of our members that was working on UAV's, fly one of his UAV's with the autopilot/GPS at 400 feet to show the general membership. Well, a foamie at 400 feet verses a 35-44% plane look totally different at 400 feet.
Our Club has had two recent incidences with single engine full scale, due to our r/c field is under the down wind for one of the smaller runways, and a departure corrador for them too. Two Private Pilots have reported "large r/c planes" flying at or near their current altitude. Current pattern altitude for single engine and light twins is 800 feet over us. Our backs (we face South) are always at the full scales approach from the North, to both the full scale airport, and just happen to fly over us. So, the full scale planes sneak up on us every now and then. We, at our Club, have kind of gone to using spotters for gas and turbines.
Maj T, yes, I understand that the FAA and National airsystem has control to the ground to space. Retired ATP B-727 here, but haven't read any Reg's since retiring 13 years ago. Currently, as stated earlier, our Club is in a Class D airspace. Our field is only 2.2 statue miles from the center of the airport, so we are definetely in controlled airspace. I am trying to educate the non-pilots that are Officers, BOD or general members that the 400 feet isn't to stay out of controlled airspace, due to the fact, we are already there. The Officer's and BOD don't want to drawl attention to our Club, yet, the Club has been there for 30 or so years, and the airport for 50 plus years, so both places know of each other, just not formally in a letter. The Officers' and BOD feel a Formal Letter of Notification to the Airport Manager to post a NOTAM is drawing too much attention to our Club and Field. Yet, this past Month, we have had a visit from the Airport Manager, and they said one of the men were from the FAA, but he was quiet in the meeting, so I don't think he was FAA, but I personally wasn't there.
In my thoughts, if there is a permenant NOTAM on the airport about R/C aircraft possibly flying above 400 feet approx. 2 miles SE of the airport from Day Break to Sunset. Then, since the pilot will get the NOTAM in his Pilot Briefing, he will no longer report to the tower or FAA that there were r/c aircraft in the vacinity, because he knew we were there. Kind of like some of the airports that have NOTAM's for Parachute jumping, banner towing, glider operations. When I left Full Scale flying, at that time, there were NO REGS that control R/C aircraft, and to this day, there are NO REGS that control R/C aircraft.
07-20-2013, 03:53 AM
#16
RE: AMA Safety Code 2c - Your Interpretation?
ORIGINAL: MajorTomski
Your approach of just creating a one time WRITTEN agreement with the airport authority/control tower, and constant use of spotters is probably the best approach.
MTC YMMV
Your approach of just creating a one time WRITTEN agreement with the airport authority/control tower, and constant use of spotters is probably the best approach.
MTC YMMV
07-20-2013, 03:54 AM
#17
RE: AMA Safety Code 2c - Your Interpretation?
ORIGINAL: MajorTomski
Even that came in the spirit of the document. Full scale have to stay 500 feet above or away from people and buildings. If we stay at 400 most of the time there's an automatic 100 foot safety buffer built in.
MTC YMMV
Even that came in the spirit of the document. Full scale have to stay 500 feet above or away from people and buildings. If we stay at 400 most of the time there's an automatic 100 foot safety buffer built in.
MTC YMMV
07-20-2013, 04:01 AM
#18
My Feedback: (6)
RE: AMA Safety Code 2c - Your Interpretation?
ORIGINAL: RCFlyerDan
Maj T! This is exactly what I am proposing to the Officers' and BOD of our Club.
ORIGINAL: MajorTomski
Your approach of just creating a one time WRITTEN agreement with the airport authority/control tower, and constant use of spotters is probably the best approach.
MTC YMMV
Your approach of just creating a one time WRITTEN agreement with the airport authority/control tower, and constant use of spotters is probably the best approach.
MTC YMMV
As for the difficulty in measuring altitudes, it's probably just a matter of time until models operating near airports will have to have telemetry installed, just as full-scale planes in some classes of airspace have to have transponders that show the controllers their altitude.
07-20-2013, 04:03 AM
#19
RE: AMA Safety Code 2c - Your Interpretation?
Yes, there probably will be telemetry required, but until that time, trying to solve an issue that changes at our field from Prez/Officer's to the next regime. Problem with the current telemetry, I beleive, is that it only tells you the highest you went for that flight? Most pilots can't look at their transmitter while flying, so there is another issue to be solved, is how to tell the pilot while flying.
07-20-2013, 05:06 AM
#20
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Clearwater,
FL
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: AMA Safety Code 2c - Your Interpretation?
MajorTomski,
can a written agreement with the local airport result in a permanent NOTAM to full scale pilots, so they can be cautious and possibly avoid altogether flying over the RC field? As RCFlyerDan points out, full scale airplanes have sometimes sneaked upon the RC pilots who, at our field, face in the opposite direction of full scale airplanes leaving the airport. While having a spotter can clearly reduce this problem, such NOTAM would even further minimize the risk, regardless of the 400' restriction, which is difficult to monitor.
can a written agreement with the local airport result in a permanent NOTAM to full scale pilots, so they can be cautious and possibly avoid altogether flying over the RC field? As RCFlyerDan points out, full scale airplanes have sometimes sneaked upon the RC pilots who, at our field, face in the opposite direction of full scale airplanes leaving the airport. While having a spotter can clearly reduce this problem, such NOTAM would even further minimize the risk, regardless of the 400' restriction, which is difficult to monitor.
07-20-2013, 06:27 AM
#21
My Feedback: (58)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: here
Posts: 5,413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: AMA Safety Code 2c - Your Interpretation?
ORIGINAL: RCFlyerDan
AMA Safety Code 2c-
2.
Model aircraft pilots will:
(c) Not fly higher than approximately 400 feet above ground level within three (3) miles of an airport, without notifying the airport operator.
Our Club is with in 3 miles of an Controlled Airport with a Control Zone that goes from the ground up out to 4 Nautical miles and to an altitude of 2500 feet.
Technically, our r/c field is in controlled airspace from the ground up. We have an approximate altitude restriction of 400 feet, as recommended by the AMA. Some think that the 400 feet is so that the pilot stays out of controlled airspace, but they don't realize they are already in controlled airspace the minute they taxi the plane from the pits. It has created a lot of distention in the Club. Some interpret AMA Safety Code that once the Airport Manager has been notified, you can fly above 400 feet, as long as there isn't a more restrictive Club rule.
Others read it as you can NOT go above 400 feet with the Airport Manager Notified in writing, even if there isn't a Club Restriction.
Like I have said, I have been in this Club for 9 years, and it has always been an issue. When a new President and Officers come to power, the rule fluctuates on the interpretation.
PLEASE BE Respectful on the Forum, since this is a touchy subject. Dan
AMA Safety Code 2c-
2.
Model aircraft pilots will:
(c) Not fly higher than approximately 400 feet above ground level within three (3) miles of an airport, without notifying the airport operator.
Our Club is with in 3 miles of an Controlled Airport with a Control Zone that goes from the ground up out to 4 Nautical miles and to an altitude of 2500 feet.
Technically, our r/c field is in controlled airspace from the ground up. We have an approximate altitude restriction of 400 feet, as recommended by the AMA. Some think that the 400 feet is so that the pilot stays out of controlled airspace, but they don't realize they are already in controlled airspace the minute they taxi the plane from the pits. It has created a lot of distention in the Club. Some interpret AMA Safety Code that once the Airport Manager has been notified, you can fly above 400 feet, as long as there isn't a more restrictive Club rule.
Others read it as you can NOT go above 400 feet with the Airport Manager Notified in writing, even if there isn't a Club Restriction.
Like I have said, I have been in this Club for 9 years, and it has always been an issue. When a new President and Officers come to power, the rule fluctuates on the interpretation.
PLEASE BE Respectful on the Forum, since this is a touchy subject. Dan
As for as agreements go with an airport...you are essentially asking them to absolve your club of liabilities in regards to higher altitude RC flight, all the while putting them in the hot seat...doesn't take much of a genius to figure a likely outcome.
The model field has operated there for a long time...Why muck it up now?
07-20-2013, 06:29 AM
#22
RE: AMA Safety Code 2c - Your Interpretation?
RCflyerDan, you and MajorT are each learned aviation persons. Since there is no absolute solution to the 400 ft ceiling problem, I suggest that any RC Club
wishing to keep out of trouble simply move their facility to outside the 3 mile (better if 5 miles) distance. You and I well know that there are many Civil Aviation "Airplane Drivers" (Pilot ?? ) that have no concern for any RC activity. Even in professional aviation, you know as well as I do that there are many "pilots" that have their heads glued into the cockpit. Even as a second officer back in late '60s-early '70s I know that I called out many outside "intruders" while the Capt. and F/O were glued in the cockpit even on clear days. Today's pilots, with all this computer crap flying, definitely are simply flying - in the Simulator - as when they are trained. My son, now a UAL F/O, but also a retired Lt. Col, USAF, sees a lot of that with current Captains mostly younger than himself.
IMO, any RC Club that wishes to not get into any problems with 1:1 scale, will keep themselves out of any area where such may happen, especially in a 3 mile distance from a public airport. Regrdless of the situation, RC will never win in any contest with Full Scale. [
]
wishing to keep out of trouble simply move their facility to outside the 3 mile (better if 5 miles) distance. You and I well know that there are many Civil Aviation "Airplane Drivers" (Pilot ?? ) that have no concern for any RC activity. Even in professional aviation, you know as well as I do that there are many "pilots" that have their heads glued into the cockpit. Even as a second officer back in late '60s-early '70s I know that I called out many outside "intruders" while the Capt. and F/O were glued in the cockpit even on clear days. Today's pilots, with all this computer crap flying, definitely are simply flying - in the Simulator - as when they are trained. My son, now a UAL F/O, but also a retired Lt. Col, USAF, sees a lot of that with current Captains mostly younger than himself.
IMO, any RC Club that wishes to not get into any problems with 1:1 scale, will keep themselves out of any area where such may happen, especially in a 3 mile distance from a public airport. Regrdless of the situation, RC will never win in any contest with Full Scale. [
]
07-20-2013, 06:36 AM
#23
RE: AMA Safety Code 2c - Your Interpretation?
ORIGINAL: littlecrankshaf
Not sure where to start, but kicking lying dogs can bite you... the rule as written is clear and further clouding it with ''technicalities'' within the club is a road that may well lead to very unfavorable situation for the club. AMA has made the rule and by the the very virtue of being an AMA member you have already agreed to such. So redundant club rules can have unintended ramifications.
As for as agreements go with an airport...you are essentially asking them to absolve your club of liabilities in regards to higher altitude RC flight, all the while putting them in the hot seat...doesn't take much of a genius to figure a likely outcome.
The model field has operated there for a long time...Why muck it up now?
ORIGINAL: RCFlyerDan
AMA Safety Code 2c-
2.
Model aircraft pilots will:
(c) Not fly higher than approximately 400 feet above ground level within three (3) miles of an airport, without notifying the airport operator.
Our Club is with in 3 miles of an Controlled Airport with a Control Zone that goes from the ground up out to 4 Nautical miles and to an altitude of 2500 feet.
Technically, our r/c field is in controlled airspace from the ground up. We have an approximate altitude restriction of 400 feet, as recommended by the AMA. Some think that the 400 feet is so that the pilot stays out of controlled airspace, but they don't realize they are already in controlled airspace the minute they taxi the plane from the pits. It has created a lot of distention in the Club. Some interpret AMA Safety Code that once the Airport Manager has been notified, you can fly above 400 feet, as long as there isn't a more restrictive Club rule.
Others read it as you can NOT go above 400 feet with the Airport Manager Notified in writing, even if there isn't a Club Restriction.
Like I have said, I have been in this Club for 9 years, and it has always been an issue. When a new President and Officers come to power, the rule fluctuates on the interpretation.
PLEASE BE Respectful on the Forum, since this is a touchy subject. Dan
AMA Safety Code 2c-
2.
Model aircraft pilots will:
(c) Not fly higher than approximately 400 feet above ground level within three (3) miles of an airport, without notifying the airport operator.
Our Club is with in 3 miles of an Controlled Airport with a Control Zone that goes from the ground up out to 4 Nautical miles and to an altitude of 2500 feet.
Technically, our r/c field is in controlled airspace from the ground up. We have an approximate altitude restriction of 400 feet, as recommended by the AMA. Some think that the 400 feet is so that the pilot stays out of controlled airspace, but they don't realize they are already in controlled airspace the minute they taxi the plane from the pits. It has created a lot of distention in the Club. Some interpret AMA Safety Code that once the Airport Manager has been notified, you can fly above 400 feet, as long as there isn't a more restrictive Club rule.
Others read it as you can NOT go above 400 feet with the Airport Manager Notified in writing, even if there isn't a Club Restriction.
Like I have said, I have been in this Club for 9 years, and it has always been an issue. When a new President and Officers come to power, the rule fluctuates on the interpretation.
PLEASE BE Respectful on the Forum, since this is a touchy subject. Dan
As for as agreements go with an airport...you are essentially asking them to absolve your club of liabilities in regards to higher altitude RC flight, all the while putting them in the hot seat...doesn't take much of a genius to figure a likely outcome.
The model field has operated there for a long time...Why muck it up now?
As for Full Scale, if you don't fly full scale and understand that no matter what happens, 85% of the time it is pilot error. NOTAM's simply notify that full scale pilot of another impending disaster on their flight for that day. It all comes down to see and avoid, but with a NOTAM, at least we each know of each other's presence. Yes, it does then transfer a responsibility to the PIC.
07-20-2013, 06:38 AM
#24
RE: AMA Safety Code 2c - Your Interpretation?
ORIGINAL: Hossfly
RCflyerDan, you and MajorT are each learned aviation persons. Since there is no absolute solution to the 400 ft ceiling problem, I suggest that any RC Club
wishing to keep out of trouble simply move their facility to outside the 3 mile (better if 5 miles) distance. You and I well know that there are many Civil Aviation ''Airplane Drivers'' (Pilot ?? ) that have no concern for any RC activity. Even in professional aviation, you know as well as I do that there are many ''pilots'' that have their heads glued into the cockpit. Even as a second officer back in late '60s-early '70s I know that I called out many outside ''intruders'' while the Capt. and F/O were glued in the cockpit even on clear days. Today's pilots, with all this computer crap flying, definitely are simply flying - in the Simulator - as when they are trained. My son, now a UAL F/O, but also a retired Lt. Col, USAF, sees a lot of that with current Captains mostly younger than himself.
IMO, any RC Club that wishes to not get into any problems with 1:1 scale, will keep themselves out of any area where such may happen, especially in a 3 mile distance from a public airport. Regrdless of the situation, RC will never win in any contest with Full Scale. []
RCflyerDan, you and MajorT are each learned aviation persons. Since there is no absolute solution to the 400 ft ceiling problem, I suggest that any RC Club
wishing to keep out of trouble simply move their facility to outside the 3 mile (better if 5 miles) distance. You and I well know that there are many Civil Aviation ''Airplane Drivers'' (Pilot ?? ) that have no concern for any RC activity. Even in professional aviation, you know as well as I do that there are many ''pilots'' that have their heads glued into the cockpit. Even as a second officer back in late '60s-early '70s I know that I called out many outside ''intruders'' while the Capt. and F/O were glued in the cockpit even on clear days. Today's pilots, with all this computer crap flying, definitely are simply flying - in the Simulator - as when they are trained. My son, now a UAL F/O, but also a retired Lt. Col, USAF, sees a lot of that with current Captains mostly younger than himself.
IMO, any RC Club that wishes to not get into any problems with 1:1 scale, will keep themselves out of any area where such may happen, especially in a 3 mile distance from a public airport. Regrdless of the situation, RC will never win in any contest with Full Scale. [
]
07-20-2013, 11:44 AM
#25
My Feedback: (11)
RE: AMA Safety Code 2c - Your Interpretation?
I sure wish the RC world could start using the terminology General Aviation GA uses for themselves. As both a GA and RC pilot... I just shake my head. It is like a foreign language. There are many GA pilots who fly both aircraft types. RC must give right of way to GA no matter what is happening. Moving a flying site is not a practical solution given the expense of creating the field and facilities. Come on, we both don't want any collisions so spotters are necessary. I fly telemetry in one of my RC planes, 400 feet is a lot of airspace. Not for everyone, but for most.
ORIGINAL: Hossfly
IMO, any RC Club that wishes to not get into any problems with 1:1 scale, ... Regrdless(sp) of the situation, RC will never win in any contest with Full Scale. []
IMO, any RC Club that wishes to not get into any problems with 1:1 scale, ... Regrdless(sp) of the situation, RC will never win in any contest with Full Scale. [
]