JohnShe

Yes, you are correct I was careless in my use of language. The FAAis fully in charge and has been for along time. I was thinking of all of the FAA's partners in this, the airports, the aircraft manufactures, the pilots, the maintenance depots, the model aviators ...

So, you do not recognize that your letter is useless? c'est la vie :-)

Silent-AV8R

Perhaps calling unnecessary rather than useless will better describe the situation. I am confident that the AMA will develop a format in conjunction with the FAA that will fulfill the requirements stated in the law. I think it is premature to do anything at this time until the FAA notifies their field personnel of the situation and a standardized format is made available.

phlpsfrnk

Thank you Silent for your measured voice of reason. While I don't disagree with your statement as I had previously said, in the case of our club and the county board it was a required necessity for our permit. I guess this is what is meant when it’s said that "No good deed goes unpunished".

Best Regards
Frank

JohnShe

That is what I have been saying all along.

phlpsfrnk

Kid,
Thanks for your support but just so we are clear there is no "secret list";

http://www.faa.gov/regulations_polic...a_regulations/

§ 91.1 Applicability.

(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section and §§91.701 and 91.703, this part prescribes rules governing the operation of aircraft ...

(b) Each person operating an aircraft in the airspace overlying the waters between 3 and 12 nautical miles from the coast of the United States must comply with §§91.1 through 91.21; §§91.101 through 91.143; §§91.151 through 91.159; §§91.167 through 91.193; §91.203; §91.205; §§91.209 through 91.217; §91.221, §91.225; §§91.303 through 91.319; §§91.323 through 91.327; §91.605; §91.609; §§91.703 through 91.715; and §91.903.

(c) This part applies to each person on board an aircraft being operated under this part, unless otherwise specified.

The FAA expects pilots of full scale aircraft that are "on board" follow the above. They also have expected pilots of Model Aircraft (MA) to follow AC 91-57 since 1981 and have cited AC 91-57 many times since;

http://www.modelaircraft.org/files/540-c.pdf

No secrets here.

Regards
Frank

Sport_Pilot

Sorry thought this was a PM.

JohnShe

I don't know what you are quoting but this is what Advisory Circular (AC) 91-57 says:

"Subject: MODEL AIRCRAFT OPERATING STANDARDS
1. PURPOSE. This advisory circular outlines, and encourages voluntary compliance with, safety standards for model aircraft operators.
2. BACKGROUND. Modelers, generally, are concerned about safety and do exercise good judgement when flying model aircraft. However, model.aircraft can at times pose a hazard to full-scale aircraft in flight and to persons and property on the surface. Compliance with the following standards will help reduce the potential for that hazard and create a good neighbor environment with affected communities and airspace users.
3 0 OPERATING STANDARDS.
a. Select an operating site that is of sufficient distance from populated areas. The selected site should be away from noise sensitive areas such as parks, schools, hospitals, churches, etc.
b. Do not operate model aircraft in the presence of spectators until the aircraft is successfully flight tested and proven airworthy.
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.
d. Give right of way to, and avoid flying in the proximity of, full-scale aircraft. Use observers to help if possible.
e. Do not hesitate to ask for assistance from any airport traffic control tower or flight service station concerning compliance with these standards."

Here is the FAA.gov link if you don't believe me. www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/91-57.pdf


And, as I have said before, these are the exact rules in the AMA member handbook. And here is the link to the handbook since it appears that you haven't read it either. www.modelaircraft.org/files/memanual.pdf Check out page #4.

phlpsfrnk

JohnShe,
I was responding to KidEpoxy. I don’t particularly care what you think.

Regards
Frank

bradpaul

As for reading ability.........................................

AC 91-57:

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.

AMA Handbook/Safety Code:

(c) Do not fly higher then approximately 400 feet above ground level within three (3) miles of an airport, without notifying the airport operator.


"exact rules" ???????????????????????????????????????????? Please note the period after "surface" in AC 91-57.


Brad

Sport_Pilot

From the AC.

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

How 'bout we try to put this one to bed...once and for all????

FAA's advisory is advice to ALL modelers... AMA's version is AMA telling AMA members what to do... Not sure why there is so much consternation about reconciling these two....

k3 valley flyer

My Feedback: (18)

Surprised that no one has noticed that the new law provision about establied rc sites contacting airports uses the term "should". Federal laws are writtten using 2 basic terms, SHALL and SHOULD. There is a very major difference in the requirements and the impact of laws based on those 2 distinctions. Time will determine how this plays out but from experience I take comfort in the fact that this was passed using the Should term. The lawyers for all sides will work this out in due course.

JohnShe

That's a shame. If you listen to me you have an opportunist to learn something. KE doesn't know anything. I think he may be functionally illiterate.

And your response to him makes no sense, since you don't even know what AC 91-57 says.

TexasAirBoss

My Feedback: (22)

Neither Shall nor Should were used in the legislation. The word used was Provide. Provide prior notice to the A/P operator.

Top_Gunn

My Feedback: (6)

Really? Except for this legislation, the only times I've seen a federal law use "should" is in reference to something that should have been, but wasn't done in the past. (For instance, there are provisions in the tax code dealing with items that should have been but were not reported.) The new law is the very first time I've seen it used to refer to something people should do in the future. Apparently you and another poster who claimed to know how regulations change "should" to "shall" know more about federal law than I do, although I've been a lawyer, dealing mostly with federal matters, for most of my adult life. I'd appreciate some examples of this kind of use though. After all, it's never too late to learn about an aspect of the law I'd overlooked for all these years. And an example would also serve to refute people who might otherwise think you were making stuff up.

@ United Pilot: The legislation says that people flying models from a permanent location within five miles of an airport "should establish a mutually-agreed upon operating procedure ..." You are right about "shall, though.

phlpsfrnk

This from someone that admittedly comments on things that he "never read". KE may be alot of things but "functionally illiterate" is not one of them.

Frank

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

WOW!

Other than the user names, it is hard to distinguish which ego driven posts is who's here.

k3 valley flyer

My Feedback: (18)

5) when flown within 5 miles of an airport, the operator of the aircraft provides the airport operator and the airport air traffic control tower (when an air traffic facility is located at the airport) with prior notice of the operation (model aircraft operators flying from a permanent location within 5 miles of an airport should establish a mutually-agreed upon operating procedure with the airport operator and the airport air traffic control tower (when an air traffic facility is located at the airport)).



See word should in third line above. I defer to your expertise, however my 2 sons that are Federal agents and have had individuals prosecuted and convicted are aware of the distinctions. Not to say that will apply here.

TexasAirBoss

My Feedback: (22)

Wether or not you are at a permanent location, the legislation says that you Provide prior notice to the A/P operator. Then it mentions that you Should work out some arrangements if you intend to fly at the same local permenantly. Thats how I read it.

I don't think the second portion exempts you from the first part of the requirement. It certainly makes no claim to.I don't read any "either or" in that line.

Top_Gunn

My Feedback: (6)

I agree. The part using "should" is a puzzle. It seems that this says you "should" do something that clearly isn't required to be immune from the new regulations, and it says nothing about what happens if you don't do what they say you 'should" do. Furthermore, it would be difficult, maybe even impossible, to sanction people who don't make these operating agreements, because it takes two people to agree, so if agreement isn't reached it can't be blamed on one of the two. It's very odd. (That's why I get a bit annoyed at would-be legal experts who confidently make claims about all the federal laws that supposedly say people "should" do things. Do people who aren't pilots tell you they know more about flying than you do, the way people who aren't lawyers are always telling me astonishing things about the legal system? Especially in this forum.)

TexasAirBoss

My Feedback: (22)

I think they simply don't want a phone call prior to each flight, (from permanently located clubs). The phone would be ringingall day.

Top_Gunn

My Feedback: (6)

Sure. The puzzle is why they said "should" instead of "may." "May" would simply have clarified the earlier sentence to make clear that it didn't really require notice (or two notices, in the case of airports with air traffic facilities) for every flight, or even every day's flight. "Should" seems to suggest that there's some sort of obligation, which makes no sense. And laws don't usually suggest things.

TexasAirBoss

My Feedback: (22)

I'm just guessing here:

"may" has a very neutral, we don't care one way or the other, tone about it.

Where as "should" sounds more like, they would prefer it. As in, lets streamline this thing as much as possible, those guys are kinda busy.

Top_Gunn

My Feedback: (6)

Maybe so, but laws are usually about obligations, not about what the people passing them would prefer that you do. That's why it's so rare to see a law saying people "should" do things. To be sure, they couldn't require people to make agreements, since that gets you into insoluble problems of "whose fault is it if you didn't make an agreement."

One of the several reasons why this law is probably not Congress's last word on the subject is that, as you've said, it would be crazy to have you call the airport (and the tower as well, if there is one) before every flight, yet that seems to be what the law says you have to do to be exempt if you can't reach one of these agreements. Just one club doing this ought to be enough to get the FAA to go back to Congress and say it isn't working; try again. If that happens, they'll probably remember to ask for a 400-foot rule, too, if they haven't slipped one into the regulations already. The people who think this legislation has solved all our problems for many years to come may be disappointed.

Sport_Pilot

This is a law that requires the FAA write regulations. The law says they will not write anyregulation for models except for a very few exceptions.WhenCongress said that we shouldwork out an operating proceedure, it was really saying that the FAA shouldwrite this into the regulation. While congress says should, then you can bet it will be written into the regulations, and that should will become shall. For when they write theregulation making us agree on an operating proceedure will more thansatisfy the "should" in the law.