RE: Interesting tidbit from the President's Blog  
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Tower Hobbies
Enter up to 4 keywords or Tower stock numbers
Logged in as Guest



Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
       

All Forums >> RC Airplanes >> AMA Discussions >> RE: Interesting tidbit from the President's Blog
Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>  

Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Interesting tidbit from the President's Blog - 5/14/2008 4:48:02 AM   
busted2props


 

Posts: 175
Joined: 1/15/2002
From: tyler, TX, USA
Status: offline 		I've tried to stay ahead of the spin. The question that keeps coming up500'go figure. Now, for me, I will stay out of controlled airspace and do as I please.

Hopefully the upcoming meeting finds the minds open.

_____________________________

Send Lawyers, Guns and Money!

(in reply to STLPilot)
       Post #: 51

RE: Interesting tidbit from the President's Blog - 5/14/2008 12:50:54 PM   
Sport_Pilot



Posts: 7728
Joined: 1/21/2002
From: Acworth, GA, USA
Status: online
quote:

However, in full scale aircraft, you must remain 500' above buildings and people, even people on lakes, rivers, beaches, etc...


The rule is not 500 feet above people and buildings. Its 500 feet from people and buildings. You can't actually expect a small aircraft to be able to see all people in all areas so it is likely a small plane will be below 500 feet and be completly legal. I flew less than 50 feet above practicing emergency landings. Cropdusters do this all the time. So if you club has no building and your car is parked under a tree, then the small airplane can legally be right over your runway.

_____________________________

“I Saw Elvis at 1000 Feet” John Force

(in reply to STLPilot)
       Post #: 52

RE: Interesting tidbit from the President's Blog - 5/14/2008 1:08:12 PM   
Sport_Pilot



Posts: 7728
Joined: 1/21/2002
From: Acworth, GA, USA
Status: online
quote:

Now, for me, I will stay out of controlled airspace and do as I please.


If you have a sailplane flying a fast thermal this can be hard to do except in Alaska and parts of the west. There is almost no uncontrolled airspace in the east, only below 1200 feet and insome cases 700 feet when not near an airport.

_____________________________

“I Saw Elvis at 1000 Feet” John Force

(in reply to Sport_Pilot)
       Post #: 53

RE: Interesting tidbit from the President's Blog - 5/14/2008 1:15:24 PM   
STLPilot


 

Posts: 9209
Joined: 3/12/2003
From: Manhattan, NY, USA
Status: online
quote:

So if you club has no building and your car is parked under a tree, then the small airplane can legally be right over your runway.
As long as the pilot has enough clearance to land his plane without damag to persons or property if engine fails. It's not a suggestion, it's a rule. And cropdusters typically own or are in agreement with landowners if they have to put it down.

One thing for sure .. the number 500' comes up an awful lot throughout the FAR.

_____________________________

Here At The Wall

(in reply to Sport_Pilot)
       Post #: 54

RE: Interesting tidbit from the President's Blog - 5/14/2008 3:34:58 PM   
Sport_Pilot



Posts: 7728
Joined: 1/21/2002
From: Acworth, GA, USA
Status: online
quote:

As long as the pilot has enough clearance to land his plane without damag to persons or property if engine fails.


If a pilots engine fails and loses controlability he can legally crash into you. He can't help it and it may not be his fault.

quote:

It's not a suggestion, it's a rule.


It's not a rule its regulation, who said it was a suggestion?

quote:

And cropdusters typically own or are in agreement with landowners if they have to put it down.


So? If an aircrafts engine goes out he doesn't need an agreement to put it down. If you don't land you have not broken any rules. Certified pilot instructors and their students fly less than 500 feet over fields and wilderness all the time.

quote:

One thing for sure .. the number 500' comes up an awful lot throughout the FAR.


If you bothered to read the flight test standards you will find out that you should be able to maintain +- 250 feet of altitude. Not as easy as you might think on a blustery day.

_____________________________

“I Saw Elvis at 1000 Feet” John Force

(in reply to STLPilot)
       Post #: 55

RE: Interesting tidbit from the President's Blog - 5/14/2008 4:07:51 PM   
STLPilot


 

Posts: 9209
Joined: 3/12/2003
From: Manhattan, NY, USA
Status: online
quote:

If a pilots engine fails and loses controlability he can legally crash into you. He can't help it and it may not be his fault.
If a pilot crashes into you and was flying at an altitude that did not give him enough clearance to set his plane down at a location that would not cause damage to property or persons, than it was most certainly his fault, period, end of story.

CFI's and their students also have to maintain these rules as well. CFI's should not put their students life in jeopardy at any time. As a student you might think your CFI might be putting you at risk, but CFI's know the rule about keeping an their airplane at safe operating altutitudes.

The 500' I was refferring too was in regards to objects, not airplanes. I know airplanes can fly just about anywhere in the class they are allowed to move. But flying under 500' puts them at great risks since objects at that altitude are not on the charts. Scan for 500' in the FAR ... it comes up VERY often.

_____________________________

Here At The Wall

(in reply to Sport_Pilot)
       Post #: 56

RE: Interesting tidbit from the President's Blog - 5/14/2008 10:54:28 PM   
Rufcut


 

Posts: 166
Joined: 4/19/2004
From: Ignacio, CO, USA
Status: offline 		Gentleman & Ladies,
As interesting as this thread has become, I would appreciate it if you "old salts" could get us back on topic by discussing the upcoming "clarification of the definition of a model airplane."

Thanks,
Rufcut

(in reply to STLPilot)
       Post #: 57

RE: Interesting tidbit from the President's Blog - 5/14/2008 11:15:16 PM   
littlecrankshaf



Posts: 2135
Joined: 12/9/2001
From: here
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Rufcut

Gentleman & Ladies,
As interesting as this thread has become, I would appreciate it if you "old salts" could get us back on topic by discussing the upcoming "clarification of the definition of a model airplane."

Thanks,
Rufcut

Apparently the "clarification of the definition of a model airplane" will include how high “it” is flown or how high “it” is capable of being flown. stl is hard at work nailing it down for us...we have nothing at all to worry about. I hope he decides for us that it depends on how high flown instead of the altitude capable due to a phenomenon called thermal lift Wait, on second thought, them glider guiders are a pesky bunch. I think we should be required to put self destruct explosives in our models that will prevent our models from going higher than 400’. End of problem

Next


_____________________________

Wow! Another epiphany…that is why the suckups suckup. Super sucking protection power. Yea baby.

(in reply to Rufcut)
       Post #: 58

RE: Interesting tidbit from the President's Blog - 5/15/2008 12:05:18 AM   
abel_pranger


 

Posts: 2319
Joined: 5/7/2003
From: St Augustine, FL,
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Rufcut

Gentleman & Ladies,
As interesting as this thread has become, I would appreciate it if you "old salts" could get us back on topic by discussing the upcoming "clarification of the definition of a model airplane."

Thanks,
Rufcut


Go to the PDF Docs section on the AMA web page and select 500-l, The Westchester Liability Insurance Policy. Look up Exclusion g. Read it with the assistance of your lawyer. The only definition of what a 'model airplane' is that is of any concern to any AMA member (aka 'insured person') is what is stated in the insurance contract. The wording is the usual land shark legalese (i.e., borderline Swahili) and contains ambiguities and is not self contained - for example, the definition of covered 'model airplane' is referenced in part to such external sources as the AMA Safety Code, which the whim of the EC and even individual officers/employees of the AMA have changed frequently and often capriciously. If you are relying on AMA provided liability insurance for protecting your fiscal state-of-health (FWIW, I do not and would not), never mind what anyone in a forum like this tells you. Get it from the source, and if you need legal advice to understand it, get it.

Abel


(in reply to Rufcut)
       Post #: 59

RE: Interesting tidbit from the President's Blog - 5/15/2008 12:07:15 AM   
NorfolkSouthern


 

Posts: 905
Joined: 7/17/2006
From: Ann Arbor, MI, USA
Status: offline 		I have read elsewhere that the good old advisory circular is under revision. Some have stated that it's 3 pages long. If anything, I assume the FAA will follow the AMA's definition, and limit it to anything under 55 pounds. I have not read anything about altitude capability or speed, at least not from the aerial photography folks. I would assume that most of what's available today would fall under the category. Stick a camera on a Nexstar, fly it at the local club, share the video with friends. You're probably good to go. What concerns me, though, is that "under revision" statement on the new UAV directive by the FAA. And so far, they have spoken no word. I am sure the folks on RCGroups will be the first to know when it all happens.

NorfolkSouthern

(in reply to abel_pranger)
       Post #: 60

RE: Interesting tidbit from the President's Blog - 5/15/2008 5:28:34 AM   
littlecrankshaf



Posts: 2135
Joined: 12/9/2001
From: here
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: NorfolkSouthern

If anything, I assume the FAA will follow the AMA's definition, and limit it to anything under 55 pounds.


Let us hope some such blunder or misconceived perception will not cause an action/definition such as that.

This forum appears to consist of some of the brightest people in the hobby but gives strong evidence that we are in deep, deep trouble…


_____________________________

Wow! Another epiphany…that is why the suckups suckup. Super sucking protection power. Yea baby.

(in reply to NorfolkSouthern)
       Post #: 61

RE: Interesting tidbit from the President's Blog - 5/15/2008 5:46:39 AM   
KidEpoxy



Posts: 3409
Joined: 10/14/2004
From: San Antonio, TX, USA
Status: offline
quote:

If anything, I assume the FAA will follow the AMA's definition, and limit it to anything under 55 pounds


Or they might look forward to what some folks call the inevidable domination,
and take AMA's other definition, and limit all americans to Just Electrics Under 2Lb

_____________________________

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

(in reply to NorfolkSouthern)
       Post #: 62

RE: Interesting tidbit from the President's Blog - 5/15/2008 1:11:37 PM   
Sport_Pilot



Posts: 7728
Joined: 1/21/2002
From: Acworth, GA, USA
Status: online
quote:

If a pilot crashes into you and was flying at an altitude that did not give him enough clearance to set his plane down at a location


Flying 50 feet over a field is enough altitude to put it down in the field if the engine quits on throttle up. Your point is only valid flying low over say a forest. Besides this has nothing to do with the fact that a full sized aircraft can legally be 50 feet above the airfield. I did not say it would be legal for all model airfields. Even it it were illegal doesn't really matter much.

My point is simply that model airplanes are safely flown over 400 feet and much much higher. And that there can be conflict even if we stay under 400 feet. We need a procedure for that. The start would be to have a correct definition of a model airplane by the FAA.

< Message edited by Sport_Pilot -- 5/15/2008 1:13:20 PM >

_____________________________

“I Saw Elvis at 1000 Feet” John Force

(in reply to KidEpoxy)
       Post #: 63

RE: Interesting tidbit from the President's Blog - 5/15/2008 7:01:40 PM   
ira d


 

Posts: 812
Joined: 5/29/2003
From: Rancho Belago, CA, USA
Status: offline 		Full scale aircraft almost never fly as low as 500 feet unless they have
a specific reason for doing so such as crop dusting or police work.

_____________________________

Ira d

(in reply to Sport_Pilot)
       Post #: 64