Question about the 400 foot limit.

Question about the 400 foot limit.
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

E-Flite Mini Funtana
Seller: Erick Royer
Details: $70.00 | 9/1/2008 | Classified Ad
We will rotate YOUR AD in this spot if you select "Forum Featured" when placing or editing your ad!

This thread is locked

All Forums >> RC Airplanes >> AMA Discussions >> Question about the 400 foot limit.

Page: [1]

Login

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Question about the 400 foot limit. - 5/1/2008 9:00:44 PM

Sport_Pilot

Posts: 7652
Joined: 1/21/2002
From: Acworth, GA, USA
Status: offline

I haven't looked at it lately but was wondering about this. On a show on the Science Channel called Master Blasters two teams were to make a rocket powered glider, the large ones not the Estes type. They were to be radio controlled. As it were they both failed, I suspect that one failed due to not enough fin area, and the other due to too much engine offset and low servo strength. But if they had worked they would likely have broken the 400 foot limit. I think they may have been ok because the 400 foot rule is only an AC and they had to get a waiver for large rockets. But I am not for sure.

_____________________________

“I Saw Elvis at 1000 Feet” John Force

Post #: 1

RE: Question about the 400 foot limit. - 5/1/2008 10:28:37 PM

KidEpoxy

Posts: 3263
Joined: 10/14/2004
From: San Antonio, TX, USA
Status: offline

Say what now...
Rockets?

I beleive we could freshen up on the subject, about NAR, Tripoly, & AC91-57
this thread: Extra-AMA Modeling , a quick 2pager with citations of NAR & Tripoly rocket rules.

If you are really wondering about AC91-57 applying to RC Flight over 400' (as RocketGlider)
how are they any different than all the Sport40 glow planed doing it?

quote:

Rockets weighing less than one pound and flying on less than 4 ounces of propellant, FAR 101 rockets, do not require notification of the FAA. Large Model Rockets, weighing between 1 and 3.3 lbs and flying on not more than 4.4 ounces of propellant, while not requiring a waiver from the FAA, require a phone call to the nearest FAA tower or airport for notification of the planned activity.

Under 1lb & 4oz no calls to nobody.
Over that and you gotta call the NEAREST, that is not just if you are within 3miles.
I guess that's just how the Rocketeers roll.
Crazy things happen when you try to play both cards: Loose Rocket rules but call it a Model Plane to allow RC guidance.

< Message edited by KidEpoxy -- 5/1/2008 10:35:02 PM >

_____________________________

Optional MA is part of AMA history, we can go optional AGAIN if we just say so

(in reply to Sport_Pilot)

Post #: 2

RE: Question about the 400 foot limit. - 5/2/2008 1:19:50 PM

P-51B

Posts: 6173
Joined: 10/11/2002
From: An Iceburg in, ANTARCTICA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sport_Pilot

But if they had worked they would likely have broken the 400 foot limit. I think they may have been ok because the 400 foot rule is only an AC and they had to get a waiver for large rockets. But I am not for sure.

Were they within 3 miles of an airport?

_____________________________

In order to think "outside the box", one must first accept there IS a box.

(in reply to Sport_Pilot)

Post #: 3

RE: Question about the 400 foot limit. - 5/2/2008 2:03:47 PM

Sport_Pilot

Posts: 7652
Joined: 1/21/2002
From: Acworth, GA, USA
Status: offline

Is it the AC or the AMA rule that requires the three mile limit? I can't recall right now.

_____________________________

“I Saw Elvis at 1000 Feet” John Force

(in reply to P-51B)

Post #: 4

RE: Question about the 400 foot limit. - 5/2/2008 2:44:04 PM

KidEpoxy

Posts: 3263
Joined: 10/14/2004
From: San Antonio, TX, USA
Status: offline

AC91-57 says
Stay below 400 feet. Period. Yes period, they put a period after that direction.
Then, it says when flying within 3mile of an airport to call the airport.
AMA chose to combine those two with a comma

quote:

AC91-57, #3c. 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.

quote:

AMA SC#5: I will not fly my model aircraft higher than approximately 400 feet above ground level, when within three (3) miles of an airport without notifying the airport
operator.

See how they turned the period the govenment used into a comma, creating a conditional for the 400' cap: "When within 3miles" now looks like it gets applied to the 400, by the ama.

< Message edited by KidEpoxy -- 5/2/2008 2:50:32 PM >

_____________________________

Optional MA is part of AMA history, we can go optional AGAIN if we just say so

(in reply to Sport_Pilot)

Post #: 5

RE: Question about the 400 foot limit. - 5/2/2008 4:42:22 PM

cwesh

Posts: 212
Joined: 9/28/2002
From: Georgetown, TX,
Status: offline

Remember, an AC is an "Advisory Circular" which is not a FAR (Federal Aviation Regulation), just voluntary guidelines. Of course if RC pilots routinely refuse to follow these guidelines, and cause problems for full scale, you can bet a real FAR or worse will follow.

Back to the OP's post, I would just about guarantee that Master Blasters are working closely with the FAA, ATF, DHS and other local authorities as needed!

Later!

_____________________________

Chuck.....

(in reply to KidEpoxy)

Post #: 6

RE: Question about the 400 foot limit. - 5/2/2008 5:21:46 PM

KidEpoxy

Posts: 3263
Joined: 10/14/2004
From: San Antonio, TX, USA
Status: offline

Ok, so you say its voluntary to follow an AC the gov put out.
Is AMA, as an organization, volunteering to follow it or not?

Looks to me like they are chosing to not volunteer to have their members follow the AC where the gov says where to fly. They have made no uncertain terms about Metal Props, and DRinking & Flying, but where does the organization choose to follow what the government says as religiously as they follow what the insurance co says?

Perhaps the MasterBlasters chose not to volunteer as well?
Whynot, its what we do, right?

But for the OP
Just how big were the rockets?
FAR 101 1lb 4oz / 1-3.3lb / or the BIG boys? The FAR for rockets should trump the AC 400', but then, once you put "Guidance" on and possibly off-vertical launches... you start mixing rules & rulers to try to have something that is a forbidden rocket as a plane so you can skirt the rules.

"This is my 15lb chassis, 15lb 'fuel' , low wing aspect, nonaspirated IC drive, RC model plane. Its not an illegal / ClassI CertReq / FAA-Call rocket. So I can just bust AC91-57 400' at will."

_____________________________

Optional MA is part of AMA history, we can go optional AGAIN if we just say so

(in reply to cwesh)

Post #: 7

RE: Question about the 400 foot limit. - 5/2/2008 8:19:50 PM

Crash-RCU

Posts: 106
Joined: 12/10/2001
From: Benton City, WA, USA
Status: offline

I have seen this show a couple of times, fun to watch, but we are talking some BIG ROCKETS. On one show they shot a childs play house 1000 feet in the air with four rockets hooked to it. Master Blasters is a rockteer team in Texas

_____________________________

Garry J

(in reply to KidEpoxy)

Post #: 8

RE: Question about the 400 foot limit. - 5/3/2008 4:01:55 AM

Silent-AV8R

Posts: 1744
Joined: 3/16/2004
From: SOCAL, CA, USA
Status: offline

Just by the by, the only people who think a FAA AC is "voluntary" are people outside the FAA. As far as they are concerned it IS the law. They cite it whenever they want to in order to shut down or restrict model flying. Of course I have only been personally involved in about 6 cases like this so maybe it is just my local FSDO that thinks that.

_____________________________

Reality is Subjective. At least that's what I think.

(in reply to Crash-RCU)

Post #: 9

RE: Question about the 400 foot limit. - 5/3/2008 4:36:16 AM

PLANE JIM

Posts: 873
Joined: 12/22/2002
From: pinehurst, TX, USA
Status: online

wow-maybe you should fly lower

_____________________________

"WE WILL NEVER FORGET"

(in reply to Silent-AV8R)

Post #: 10

RE: Question about the 400 foot limit. - 5/3/2008 12:06:25 PM

STLPilot

Posts: 9110
Joined: 3/12/2003
From: Manhattan, NY, USA
Status: offline

If anyone is wondering what the real FAA rules are in regards to rockets, it can be found in part 101 of the FAR. But warning ... these are not suggestions, these are federal laws, which are 1 tick below the laws of the us constitution. This should end the guessing game. Also FAR rules to do not "trump" advisory circulars. If anything it would be the other way around because they are special provisions above and beyond the laws of the FAR, no different than an amendment to the constitution.

FAR 101: http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=04ef991ea5dd38f89fb9f6cc83ac0ea4&rgn=div6&view=text&node=14:2.0.1.3.15.3&idno=14

_____________________________

Here At The Wall

(in reply to PLANE JIM)

Post #: 11

RE: Question about the 400 foot limit. - 5/3/2008 6:40:32 PM

Sport_Pilot

Posts: 7652
Joined: 1/21/2002
From: Acworth, GA, USA
Status: offline

quote:

Also FAR rules to do not "trump" advisory circulars. If anything it would be the other way around because they are special provisions above and beyond the laws of the FAR, no different than an amendment to the constitution.

You cannot lose your pilots license for not following an AC, unless doing so caused some other rule to be broken. I am a pilot although presetly inactive and know this to be a case when I did fly. Also FSDO's can apply further restrictions above the FAR and AC's when they feel they have special safety requirements to do so. The FAR's allow this and if you break one of these regional rules then you can be in trouble, but it is not breaking the AC that gets you in trouble. They can site an AC when doing so, but that does not make the AC a FAR, and certainly not above a FAR.

I would think Master Blastes contacted the FAA and recieved a waiver, but I am not certain it would waive the 400 foot AC. But then unless they were near the LA FSDO they were probably OK because the AC is voluntary.

< Message edited by Sport_Pilot -- 5/3/2008 6:42:24 PM >

_____________________________

“I Saw Elvis at 1000 Feet” John Force

(in reply to STLPilot)

Post #: 12

RE: Question about the 400 foot limit. - 5/4/2008 3:57:47 AM

STLPilot

Posts: 9110
Joined: 3/12/2003
From: Manhattan, NY, USA
Status: offline

You're right, an AC is part of another rule. An AC is actually a permanent or temporary clearer definition of that rule. In this case the rule is "somewhere" in part 91.

But let me ask you this, just for entertainment purposes. You're hold an airmen certificate and you are an RC pilot. You are flying your RC airplane at 900' AGL and by accident you fly your RC airplane into a GA aircraft. The GA aircraft was more than 1000' ft from you and any building. You fly your RC airplane into that GA aircraft. Question, do you think you could lose you pilot's license or have some kind of action against it?

_____________________________

Here At The Wall

(in reply to Sport_Pilot)

Post #: 13

RE: Question about the 400 foot limit. - 5/4/2008 6:45:46 AM

combatpigg

Posts: 9592
Joined: 11/22/2003
From: arlington, WA, USA
Status: offline

When things get slow at the AMA Forum, out come the "400 foot rule" threads. "400 foot rule" threads are a great opportunity to show the world that a little bit of knowledge is dangerous.
When it comes to the 400 foot rule, never has so much been said about so little.

_____________________________

Led Zeppelin is NOT "old fogie" music.

(in reply to STLPilot)

Post #: 14

RE: Question about the 400 foot limit. - 5/4/2008 8:35:05 AM

ira d

Posts: 797
Joined: 5/29/2003
From: Rancho Belago, CA, USA
Status: offline

I will repeat what I have said many times, And that is the FAA does not care what you
do with a model air plane unless you do somthing to conflict with full scale avation or
they somehow find out you are over flying an area that you shouldnt whereby you are
causing a hazard.

_____________________________

Ira d

(in reply to combatpigg)

Post #: 15

RE: Question about the 400 foot limit. - 5/4/2008 10:07:59 AM

busted2props

Posts: 175
Joined: 1/15/2002
From: here, , USA
Status: offline

Ya know what? Airport traffic areas are within 5nm of the airport, with some extensions. If you plan your activity within that 5nm area then you are required to notify air traffic control or base ops or flight facility responsible for that area. HMMMM

C'mon...The 400ft limit is just added safety. The lowest allowable VFR traffic pattern is 800ft above ground level(normally, generally and as a rule). That gives us 400ft of verticle separation. Full scale aircraft is 500ft separation. Who flies above a couple of hundred of feet anyway?

I'm with PIGG, here comes the horse puckey. 400 ft this and 500ft that and omg this and that....

Okay, now after posting this, maybe I'll read the whole thread....(this is the edited part.)

< Message edited by busted2props -- 5/4/2008 12:51:42 PM >

_____________________________

Send Lawyers, Guns and Money!

(in reply to ira d)