IA-Flyer

I completely missed the Goodyear Blimp incident, is there a link somewhere to the story?

I wasn’t referring to you Rudeboy, this is the statement I was referring to.

"CenTexFlyer is correct, flying a model at 5000 feet isn't legal in the USA. Any altitude above 400 feet without a specific approval from FAA Air Traffic Control would be at least careless operation of an aircraft and might be considered reckless."

Ray,
Not liking something personally, or interpreting the rules to your own liking does not make something illegal...
When you accuse someone of being reckless or doing something illegal, your not playing well with your fellow hobbyists.

I think Mike accomplished a great personal achievement, and reading his other posts and looking at his equipment I know he did it safely. Any full-scale aircraft at his altitude would be visible for miles by his spotter, and if they’re flying fast enough that they couldn’t be avoided then they’re the ones breaking the rules.

Why don’t we just go over to one of the general discussions areas and ask FAA people to give us a link to the RC altitude rules? We all want to follow the rules, even if it means I have to install 5mph bumpers on my plane because I fly from roads.

RichLockyer

I couldn't find anything, but it happened a long time ago (in terms of the internet) back when we were still on Fidonet.
I'm thinking probably around 1989 or 1990.
An LA Times search might produce something, as the incident occurred over the city of Paramount, but I refuse to offer that lying rag any more personal information than they already have.

Fubar-One

My Feedback: (1)

Not a big fan of the Left Angeles Times, eh? When I got heavily into sport shooting it seemed that every article they printed painted me as some kind of rabid nut because I shot firearms. Guilty by association, I guess.

IA-Flyer

Thanks Rich, I can’t imagine what would be going through someone’s mind that would do something that stupid. I wonder if AMA insurance paid for the patch and prison cell?

Dan,
That’s cool, I did competitive benchrest a few years ago and I always saw circles on paper targets and new goals to achieve, I think the media sees high ratings and a new crisis.
I think we're lucky with RC, I've never seen a negative show on TV about flying and the media seems to separate RC and UAV / RPV well all on their own. We are entertainment to them!

Ray S.

My Feedback: (1)

IA-Flyer

I did not offer my opinion of what the rules are, I gave specific references that you are free to look up. The Federal Aviation Regulations that I referred to are available at:

www.faa.gov

If you don't want to hear it from me, try contacting your local FAA Flight Standards District Office. The telephone numbers are on the same website.

W4UAV

Ray S.

Thank you sir for your input, it will be given the attention it demands and I will check the FAA regulations,
whatever will shut you up.

CenTexFlyer

Mike, Mike, Mike......

He gave a civil reply...... chill

You should realize that there are people out here trying to make a living at something you do for a hobby. Rest assured, that if you are doing something illegal that could disrupt cash flow for someone, you will have a dime dropped on you in a heartbeat.

CTF

IA-Flyer

Thanks Ray
It's been quite a few years since I've been to a FAA safety meeting, I'll see what I can find out.
I planned on doing some checking before I attempted any UAV flights anyway. But that’s a ways down the road.

Maynard Hill went to 26,000 feet and set a FAI record, so we know it can be done.

My point is, this is a hobby, and everyone I've met in it is polite and tries to educate before accusing. There are FAA and other people with a strong full-scale background in the group, more than most imagine.
It would surprise me if everyone that climbs above 400 ft AGL is breaking FAA rules for safety as you stated. I don’t think that is the case and I think your original wording should have been different, much different.

Jim

IA-Flyer

Mike,
I'll try to get an official statement that we can post in a new thread, or get someone from the FAA to give a statement.
What ever we need to do should be easy, and it sure would be nice to do a post with out getting beat up for something.
Wish I were flying in Florida with you instead of watching the snow go above the windows in my house!

CTF,
Hey, I have been asked to join that category by a local (government) agency, on a by need basis.
Not sure what to do yet, I bet it would be an endless paperwork nightmare!

W4UAV

I started this thread to try to encourage some of my fellow AP pilots that a working
system can be built and tweaked to the point it works well and to share what I had
learned with the forum, but somehow it turned into an inquisition.

To the fellow AP pilots, Im sorry it turned to this.

Fubar-One

My Feedback: (1)

Stupid RCU lost my last reply...[:@]

The gist of it is that no matter what you talk about or do there will be some wet blanket trying to rain on your parade.
Myself, the only "regulation" I could find was the AMA ceiling restriction of 400' near airports. The FAA site said NOTHING about RC aircraft and I could not find anything about ceiling limits there either. A full scale aircraft flying 400' above my house would lead to a huge bang when it impacted the nearby hills.
All that aside, I for one look forward to seeing what you come up with next. I am sure there are more than a few others here that feel the same.
What do you say, guys?

RichLockyer

I just plugged in various mixtures of model, aircraft, radio control, altitude, restriction, etc... Found nothing.
Do you have any direct links to the regs you are citing?

CenTexFlyer

Don't get me wrong here guys...... I fully support and encourage the development of our RPV's using off the shelf components and testing them to their limits. How else will know if that isn't done. How else will be able to give that certain government agency a report on capabilities if it isn't tested and proven. Rest assured, there WILL be a day when one, or even all of us, will need to be able to have this information to answer those questions with! I for one would like to be able to call upon Mike Robinette's well documented efforts if I am in that hot seat! As long as it was carried within all known regulations they could bring to bear. It would not do well to be quoting "A successful flight by M. Robinette in Florida in January......" and some government regulator popping off with "Oh.. you mean the one where he violated FAR 90.1.2.334? and several others". I have had the unpleasant experience of sitting thru an FAA "tribunal" and it was no picnic!

I DO believe that we need to try to remain "under the radar" for as long as possible! If that means researching a few regs and asking a few "what if" questions to make sure of not becoming a "blip" then so be it. We should regulate ourselves as vigorously as the HAM'ers do.

IA-Flyer - do you mean you could be ADVISING a government agency or actually doing AP for one? It would be KILLER if you were on an advisory committee and could do some real precedent setting! If it's taking pics for them, the paperwork is not a biggie at all. I'm doing it, and even got them to agree to covering me under their GL when I fly as a contractor!

We are on the "bleeding" edge here guys, and we all know we are taking risks. It's up to us to make sure that NONE of us take FOOLISH risks.......

CTF

scolpit

Hmmm, what about the birds with 6 feet??? do they need traffic control?

PLANE JIM

My Feedback: (109)

I just looked up the reg myself and cannot find any indication about models-where did you get your information from Centexflyer-all airspace in the USA is not controlled airspace at 400 feet AGL by the FAA,AMA or any other body that I know about. The reg you make reference to part 91 is for General operating and Flight Rules concerning civil aircraft (which are piloted by a Pilot in Command inside the aircraft) In other words "REAL AIRPLANES"-

lvspark

From FAA Definitions..
"AIRCRAFT- Device(s) that are used or intended to be used for flight in the air, and when used in air traffic control terminology, may include the flight crew."

Wether it is a model or not, it is still a device intended for flight, and is regulated depending upon who you talk to and how they interpret the FCR.. If they consider it an aircraft, part 91 is the name of the game, and try to get an airworthyness certificate on an ARF trainer! heh heh.. Also, anything above 18,000' needs IFR type stuff and transponders I think.. Lots and lots of regs to fly under part 91.

Easiest way is to call your local tower, and tell them your intentions.. In my cases, it was all good. The other route is [link=http://forms.faa.gov/forms/faa7711-2.pdf]COA[/link] form and see how it goes.. It might even be easier to fly during a high power rocket launch that already has a COA. Since it is already approved, the COA can be modified pretty easily (so I am told by my regional FAA). A rocket club around here has a COA year round to 7000' at their designated area.

Each [link=http://www2.faa.gov/avr/afs/fsdo/index.cfm]regional office[/link] has personell assigned to this type of activity..
But be forwarned, they treat model aircraft "toys" very differently than UAV's. ( so call it a model aircraft )

CenTexFlyer

Plane Jim,

I was trying to make a point with tongue planted firmly in cheek in quoting the so called "reg". I didn't mean to quote with any specificity, just that the agency guys are GREAT at coming up with obscure regs when they have you in their clutches. Moral of the story - do what you can to avoid their clutches by playing their regulatory game!

CTF

RichLockyer

Actually, you'd be surprised at how little it would probably take. Some nylon hardware replacements and we'd probably be good to go. Very few full scale aerobatic A/C are stressed for more than 5g... our birds are extremely strong.
Browse through an Aircraft Spruce and Supply catalog and you'd swear that you are reading a Tower catalog or a Higley construction guide. Most construction methods are similar, but "add lightness" becomes even more critical.
The problem would be with pilot certification

Still, this comment shows the lunacy in arbitrarily applying full-scale regs to model A/C. "By the book", we would be unable to fly slope gliders at, for example my favorite site, Cajon Pass, where you launch at 5000ft and are immediately at 1000ft AGL. All thermal flight would be in violation, and you could probably kiss goodbye any old-time freeflight duration.
I also have a feeling that a 3 million aggregate insurance policy would be insufficiant to satisfy the FAA if offered by AOPA.

I stand by AMA rule #2, and put my faith in the fact that AMA works with the FAA and IAC and would not write a rule that offers tacit approval to violation of an FAA reg.

Once again:

"2) I will not fly my model higher than approximately 400 feet within 3 miles of an airport without notifying the airport operator."

This rule clearly allows flight above 400ft within 3 miles of an airport WITH approval of the operator. This would be consistent with the part 91 regs cited, however, though not specifically stated, this tacitly provides clearance above 400ft BEYOND 3 miles, provided that:

"I will give right-of-way and avoid flying in the proximity of full-scale aircraft. Where necessary, an observer shall be utilized to supervise flying to avoid having models fly in the proximity of full-scale aircraft."

This last section applies to operations at any location, not ONLY within 3 miles of an airport. Add to that the fact that (other than at an airport) one would not encounter a legally-operating full-scale aircraft (not in distress) at altitudes BELOW 500ft, and it becomes clear that the AMA felt that we would be flying our models in shared airspace.

If there were a governing FAA regulation that restricted all flight to 400ft, then the rule would read as follows:
"2) I will not fly my model higher than approximately 400 feet without notifying a local airport operator or FAA field office."

W4UAV

You sounded pretty sure of the regulations a few posts ago,
BTW when you are in the "hot seat" make sure you spell my name right.

Also, what 5000 foot flight?

Rj-TailSpin

Rich, I totally agree with your take on the well documented AMA rule. Unlike the idiot that flew directly into the blimp, we don't intentionally fly into full size aircraft travel paths.

What if an RC plane met a full size plane/jet? Jet engines must incur several canon shot frozen chickens before their design is approved for use. This is because the engineers know large birds are injested. Every full size plane must be able to withstand a collision with a large bird, hail, weather, wind etc... It's is risks they must be designed to handle. As long as our planes weigh less than a big bird... it is not likely the FAA will consider them high risk and impose limitations. However, things may have changed since 911.

I know the guy that held the world record in distance for solar powered electric. He checked with everyone, pre-911, and nobody told him what he planned to do was illegal. He plans to retake his world record this Summer so I'll be able to post something about any new regs at that time.

Rob

Nik

My Feedback: (12)

http://members.shaw.ca/sonde/risks.htm

READ THIS!

CenTexFlyer

Great, Nik!

I just hope one of US doesn't set a legal prececent. The sky, it appears, is the limit!

CTF

W4UAV

CTF I just sent you a PM...

Rj-TailSpin

Way too cool!!! Now all they need to do is load a model rocket in the payload bay and launch it from 100,000 feet into space!!! Show them how it can be done on a hobbyist budget-grin!

Excellent read!
Rob

CenTexFlyer

Hey rj-tailspin!

Did you get my PM?

CTF