Originally Posted by
HoundDog
Hey Navy:
Just because U don't do anything but roundy round bolters don't Condemn others that enjoy what they do. Yes R/C anything should be restricted where commercial aircraft fly Class B C air space but look where commercial aircraft operate in VFR/IFR weather. Look at any approach plate99% of Precession approaches are 3 degrees or more. That's at 5 miles from the touch down point on the runway is 1835' AGL. Out side of the final approach fix all Comericial is kept higher than the FAF even when on a visual approach.non precision approaches are kept even higher 5 miles out. Way out side of the center ring of class B or C airspace commercial aircraft are more than 2500 AGL. There is no reason why RC has to be kept at 400' when outside 5 miles of a Class B or C airspace. In class D airspace all aircraft GA or Commercial are kept at least 1000'agl i.e. Pattern altitude or even higher when on an IFR flight plan.
As for FPV and LOS that if conducted below 400' and in non congested air space and out side of 5 miles from any airport poses no peril to maned aircraft. All flying sites when out side 5 miles or more should be allowed up to 1000' AGL if not 1500'. No FPV should be allowed over congested area's Commercial or recreational.
Congratulations on your math skills, but there is much more to IFR flight operations in/around airports that isn't limited to just 3 degree glide slopes. There's holding patters, missed approach patterns, departure trraffic, etc. There's also VFR traffic.
Let's start with the class B/C. You say there's no reason to limit RC aircraft to 400' AGL because at 5nm/3 degree GS equates to 1800' AGL. Well, where do you think the VFR traffic in that area is flying? Certainly not above the class B. Maybe above the class C. But in many cases it's operating visual flight rules UNDER the IFR traffic. And where would that put them? Yes, about 1300' AGL (to use your example), but realistically 1000' because the small planes are concerned about get flight violations for getting up into the IFR corridor. So if RC is to maintain minimum 500' vertical separation from that traffic, then the RC planes would be at 800. But with general VFR traffic able to operate at 1000' AGL, then 500' lower would be 500 AGL. And interesting how close that is to the 400' AGL that exists in FAR for model aircraft. It's like it was planned. Go figure.
As for your discussion about congested vs. non-congested airspace, who decides that? FAR defines congested, but only with reference to things on the ground. So where exactly is that defined? Or is it in the eye of the beholder? Or do you get to decide what's congested and what isn't? With VFR traffic allowed to operate as low as 1000' AGL, then a 500' vertical separation puts RC planes no higher than 500'. Yes, it's set to 400' to allow additional buffer because FAA knows that RC planes don't have a calibrated altimeter in them that's read by the pilot. Again, it's like it was planned that way. Go figure.
So you see, the 400' AGL isn't arbitrary at all, makes good sense given the existing airspace structure, and preserves the general 500' vertical separation between traffic below 18000'. By the way, any flights over 400' AGL is already in violation of AC 91-57, in place since 9 June 1981, which directs - unambiguously - in section 3c
"Do not fly model aircraft higher than 400 feet above the surface." If you've been operating above that, as your comments would seem to indicate, then you've been operating in violation of that document. I attached a copy for your convenience - with the appropriate directive language annotated.
[ATTACH]2057040[/IMG]
Oh, FYI -- by OPNAV 3710.7U, which is the regulation governing Navy flight operations "Regardless of weather, IFR flight plans shall be filed and flown whenever practicable as a means of reducing midair collision potential." So we do quite a bit more than "roundy round bolters." We actually spend most of our flight time (in the US) operating IFR.