Four Hundred Feet?
01-06-2016, 02:14 PM
#101
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Orange County,
CA
Posts: 5,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by TimJ
What Silent Aviator is stating, is there isn't a "federal law, regulation, or rule".
When you apply for the certificate, you are agreeing to fly below 400 feet.
Otherwise there's not any real law that states you must fly below 400 feet. There's only safety guidance. Of which the FAA is trying damn hard to make it seem like law. Once you apply for your registration certificate, you are then agreeing to fly below 400 feet. Now you are obligated to fly below 400 feet after you've registered.
When you apply for the certificate, you are agreeing to fly below 400 feet.
Otherwise there's not any real law that states you must fly below 400 feet. There's only safety guidance. Of which the FAA is trying damn hard to make it seem like law. Once you apply for your registration certificate, you are then agreeing to fly below 400 feet. Now you are obligated to fly below 400 feet after you've registered.
The danger in that is now local governments are writing laws based on that and many landowners may think it is a real rule and require it in their leases. Not to mention clubs that simply do not understand the situation and who impose this as if it is a real rule.
Another interesting point is that the AMA Leadership does not think that the agreement during the registration process is legally binding. I am not sure I agree with that and I would really like the FAA to make a crystal clear statement to that effect. I would also like the Victoria's Secrets Angels to spend the night with me. Both I think are equally possible.
Last edited by Silent-AV8R; 01-06-2016 at 02:16 PM.
01-06-2016, 02:27 PM
#102
Originally Posted by Silent-AV8R
Exactly. I see this as an attempt on the part of the FAA to create a de facto rule and thereby illegally circumventing the legally required rule making process. They sincerely want everyone to think that you cannot fly over 400 feet.
The danger in that is now local governments are writing laws based on that and many landowners may think it is a real rule and require it in their leases. Not to mention clubs that simply do not understand the situation and who impose this as if it is a real rule.
Another interesting point is that the AMA Leadership does not think that the agreement during the registration process is legally binding. I am not sure I agree with that and I would really like the FAA to make a crystal clear statement to that effect. I would also like the Victoria's Secrets Angels to spend the night with me. Both I think are equally possible.
The danger in that is now local governments are writing laws based on that and many landowners may think it is a real rule and require it in their leases. Not to mention clubs that simply do not understand the situation and who impose this as if it is a real rule.
Another interesting point is that the AMA Leadership does not think that the agreement during the registration process is legally binding. I am not sure I agree with that and I would really like the FAA to make a crystal clear statement to that effect. I would also like the Victoria's Secrets Angels to spend the night with me. Both I think are equally possible.
The same thing applies to flying near airports. Heck even the International Aeromodeling Center is right next to a full scale airport.
01-06-2016, 04:17 PM
#103
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Orange County,
CA
Posts: 5,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Chris P. Bacon
The same thing applies to flying near airports. Heck even the International Aeromodeling Center is right next to a full scale airport.
Now that right there is funny!! Reese is an airport, I guess ;-) Actually I know people who have flown into Reese where the owner has hangared their plane for almost free AND given them a ride over to the AMA site. Seems like they have a pretty cordial arrangement!!
01-06-2016, 04:57 PM
#104
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Sydney, AUSTRALIA
Posts: 4,786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Washington monument is 555 feet so 400 will be roughly at the red mark.
Also the B4UFLY app is now available on the FAA site - this gives you real time TFRs and proximity to airports.
http://www.faa.gov/uas/b4ufly/
Also the B4UFLY app is now available on the FAA site - this gives you real time TFRs and proximity to airports.
http://www.faa.gov/uas/b4ufly/
Last edited by Rob2160; 01-06-2016 at 06:06 PM.
01-06-2016, 06:53 PM
#107
Originally Posted by Silent-AV8R
Now that right there is funny!! Reese is an airport, I guess ;-) Actually I know people who have flown into Reese where the owner has hangared their plane for almost free AND given them a ride over to the AMA site. Seems like they have a pretty cordial arrangement!!
01-07-2016, 12:57 AM
#108
Originally Posted by Silent-AV8R
Exactly. I see this as an attempt on the part of the FAA to create a de facto rule and thereby illegally circumventing the legally required rule making process. They sincerely want everyone to think that you cannot fly over 400 feet.
The danger in that is now local governments are writing laws based on that and many landowners may think it is a real rule and require it in their leases. Not to mention clubs that simply do not understand the situation and who impose this as if it is a real rule.
Another interesting point is that the AMA Leadership does not think that the agreement during the registration process is legally binding. I am not sure I agree with that and I would really like the FAA to make a crystal clear statement to that effect. I would also like the Victoria's Secrets Angels to spend the night with me. Both I think are equally possible.
The danger in that is now local governments are writing laws based on that and many landowners may think it is a real rule and require it in their leases. Not to mention clubs that simply do not understand the situation and who impose this as if it is a real rule.
Another interesting point is that the AMA Leadership does not think that the agreement during the registration process is legally binding. I am not sure I agree with that and I would really like the FAA to make a crystal clear statement to that effect. I would also like the Victoria's Secrets Angels to spend the night with me. Both I think are equally possible.
01-07-2016, 04:26 AM
#109
Originally Posted by Sport_Pilot
How can this be legally binding? This could be used in specification writing 101 on how NOT to write specification? It says right at the top "Acknowledgement of Guidance". Look up the definition, guidance is advise not a rule!
01-07-2016, 05:22 AM
#111
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: El Paso,
TX
Posts: 5,276
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://www.suasnews.com/2016/01/4111...dy-registered/
From Huerta's speech at CES 2016 yesterday.
"Registration is simple – and it’s mandatory for aircraft that weigh between 0.55 pounds and 55 pounds. You enter basic information – name, address and email address – into our online system, and read and acknowledge our basic safety guidelines. "
Pretty cut and dry in my book.
Mike
From Huerta's speech at CES 2016 yesterday.
"Registration is simple – and it’s mandatory for aircraft that weigh between 0.55 pounds and 55 pounds. You enter basic information – name, address and email address – into our online system, and read and acknowledge our basic safety guidelines. "
Pretty cut and dry in my book.
Mike
01-07-2016, 06:37 AM
#112
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Orange County,
CA
Posts: 5,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As it was explained to me by the lawyers I asked about the subject they say that since you MUST agree as part of a compulsory action and the face that money exchanges hands it meets the requirements of a legally binding contract. Even if said money is refunded, the basic fact that you agree to a given condition is a binding agreement.
Of course unless the FAA changes the wording to something less fuzzy this will likely have to be sorted out in the courts.
But the analogy I was given was the situation with a ham radio antenna. The FCC authorizes me to put one up if I am a licensed ham. But if I move into a house and the CCRs stipulate no antennas, and I agree to that stipulation, then I am bound by that agreement.
And, what sense would it make for the FAA to require agreement if it was not binding?? Seems like a waste of time and energy.
Of course unless the FAA changes the wording to something less fuzzy this will likely have to be sorted out in the courts.
But the analogy I was given was the situation with a ham radio antenna. The FCC authorizes me to put one up if I am a licensed ham. But if I move into a house and the CCRs stipulate no antennas, and I agree to that stipulation, then I am bound by that agreement.
And, what sense would it make for the FAA to require agreement if it was not binding?? Seems like a waste of time and energy.
01-07-2016, 06:47 AM
#113
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
Originally Posted by Silent-AV8R
As it was explained to me by the lawyers I asked about the subject they say that since you MUST agree as part of a compulsory action and the face that money exchanges hands it meets the requirements of a legally binding contract. Even if said money is refunded, the basic fact that you agree to a given condition is a binding agreement.
Of course unless the FAA changes the wording to something less fuzzy this will likely have to be sorted out in the courts.
But the analogy I was given was the situation with a ham radio antenna. The FCC authorizes me to put one up if I am a licensed ham. But if I move into a house and the CCRs stipulate no antennas, and I agree to that stipulation, then I am bound by that agreement.
And, what sense would it make for the FAA to require agreement if it was not binding?? Seems like a waste of time and energy.
Of course unless the FAA changes the wording to something less fuzzy this will likely have to be sorted out in the courts.
But the analogy I was given was the situation with a ham radio antenna. The FCC authorizes me to put one up if I am a licensed ham. But if I move into a house and the CCRs stipulate no antennas, and I agree to that stipulation, then I am bound by that agreement.
And, what sense would it make for the FAA to require agreement if it was not binding?? Seems like a waste of time and energy.
01-07-2016, 07:31 AM
#114
Look at AC 91-57A section 6. MODEL AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS sub section c (4)
(4) The aircraft operates in a manner that does not interfere with, and gives way to, anymanned aircraft;
If U can accomplish this above 400' then what's the problem?
https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_91-57A.pdf
(4) The aircraft operates in a manner that does not interfere with, and gives way to, anymanned aircraft;
If U can accomplish this above 400' then what's the problem?
https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_91-57A.pdf
Last edited by HoundDog; 01-07-2016 at 07:39 AM.
01-07-2016, 10:48 AM
#115
Member
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Frisco, TX
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can't help but think there is a very easy solution to this whole problem. I don't know many people that fly IMAC, Jets, big gassers or other types of planes that normally exceed 400 ft without doing this at an AMA sanctioned field. The simple compromise is that we leave the 400' blanket limitation in place but that the FAA allow us to apply for a waiver for a sanctioned field to go higher. So lets say within 1 mile of the field, we are allowed to go to 1000' or even 1500'. They can then mark it on their sectional charts just like skydiving facilities. Simple solution and it solves most of the problems we have here.
While I don't agree with any of what the FAA is doing and I feel the AMA has really failed us here, I think it is foolish to think that the FAA isn't going to keep trying to limit all of us because of the few careless (stupid) operators that decided to fly a quad on final of a major airport. But if we are out in the middle of no where (where most of our fields are) and we ask the FAA for an exception to the altitude, I think we might be able to get that approved. They just want is out of controlled airspace.
Josh
While I don't agree with any of what the FAA is doing and I feel the AMA has really failed us here, I think it is foolish to think that the FAA isn't going to keep trying to limit all of us because of the few careless (stupid) operators that decided to fly a quad on final of a major airport. But if we are out in the middle of no where (where most of our fields are) and we ask the FAA for an exception to the altitude, I think we might be able to get that approved. They just want is out of controlled airspace.
Josh
01-07-2016, 11:26 AM
#116
My Feedback: (169)
Easy way to find out if you are 400' AGL. Measure back 400 ft from the flight line. Have a spotter stand at the 400 ft line and look up at a 45 degree angle while you fly over the flight line. Find a way to make sure you are looking up 45 degrees. Build a 2x4 frame with a right angle and two equal sides ( like two 8ft 2x4's) then connect the ends with another 2x4 or string or something. You will find that the distance needed between the ends of the 8 fter's is real close to 11ft 3-3/4in. Now you have a triangle that gives you a line of sight that is at 45 degrees. Make sure the bottom leg is real close to level. If you look up at that sight line and the plane is above it, your over 400 ft. This method is much like the estes rocket device shown on page two. Have fun with this at your club and don't take yourselves to serious. Remember, different size airplanes may fool you. Make sure you have someone who understands this concept before you dabble in it, if you don't understand it, you can screw it up. This could be a useful tool if a LEO shows up and questions, "How high are you". At least with practise and "flying smart" you should be able to dazzle anyone with your applied scientific knowledge of how "politically correct" you are flying.
01-07-2016, 12:05 PM
#117
Originally Posted by Silent-AV8R
As it was explained to me by the lawyers I asked about the subject they say that since you MUST agree as part of a compulsory action and the face that money exchanges hands it meets the requirements of a legally binding contract. Even if said money is refunded, the basic fact that you agree to a given condition is a binding agreement.
.
.
01-07-2016, 12:36 PM
#118
Don't worry about it. They don't have enough people to keep real airplanes under control now. picture a football field and then go half again. At 400 ft your 40 size plane will look like a toy.
01-07-2016, 01:16 PM
#119
Originally Posted by raptureboy
Don't worry about it. They don't have enough people to keep real airplanes under control now. picture a football field and then go half again. At 400 ft your 40 size plane will look like a toy.
01-07-2016, 01:20 PM
#120
So I'm really curious. If sUAS use grows as projected, how exactly do folks propose keeping them separated from manned aircraft if they're not going to confine them to 400' and below?
01-07-2016, 01:28 PM
#121
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
Originally Posted by franklin_m
So I'm really curious. If sUAS use grows as projected, how exactly do folks propose keeping them separated from manned aircraft if they're not going to confine them to 400' and below?
01-07-2016, 01:42 PM
#122
Originally Posted by Joshy4u2
I can't help but think there is a very easy solution to this whole problem. I don't know many people that fly IMAC, Jets, big gassers or other types of planes that normally exceed 400 ft without doing this at an AMA sanctioned field. The simple compromise is that we leave the 400' blanket limitation in place but that the FAA allow us to apply for a waiver for a sanctioned field to go higher. So lets say within 1 mile of the field, we are allowed to go to 1000' or even 1500'. They can then mark it on their sectional charts just like skydiving facilities. Simple solution and it solves most of the problems we have here.
While I don't agree with any of what the FAA is doing and I feel the AMA has really failed us here, I think it is foolish to think that the FAA isn't going to keep trying to limit all of us because of the few careless (stupid) operators that decided to fly a quad on final of a major airport. But if we are out in the middle of no where (where most of our fields are) and we ask the FAA for an exception to the altitude, I think we might be able to get that approved. They just want is out of controlled airspace.
Josh
While I don't agree with any of what the FAA is doing and I feel the AMA has really failed us here, I think it is foolish to think that the FAA isn't going to keep trying to limit all of us because of the few careless (stupid) operators that decided to fly a quad on final of a major airport. But if we are out in the middle of no where (where most of our fields are) and we ask the FAA for an exception to the altitude, I think we might be able to get that approved. They just want is out of controlled airspace.
Josh
01-07-2016, 01:43 PM
#123
Originally Posted by franklin_m
So I'm really curious. If sUAS use grows as projected, how exactly do folks propose keeping them separated from manned aircraft if they're not going to confine them to 400' and below?
Most sUAS are confined to 400 feet. Just not Model Aircraft under 336.
01-07-2016, 01:48 PM
#124
Originally Posted by RCFlyerDan
Not a Lawyer, but I see it the way you do too. I would see it this way too, if I was still a Chief Pilot of a Company signing papers as we do for registration of aircraft, or anything else to do with the FAA.
01-07-2016, 01:59 PM
#125
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Orange County,
CA
Posts: 5,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by HoundDog
Look at AC 91-57A section 6. MODEL AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS sub section c (4)
(4) The aircraft operates in a manner that does not interfere with, and gives way to, anymanned aircraft;
If U can accomplish this above 400' then what's the problem?
https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_91-57A.pdf
(4) The aircraft operates in a manner that does not interfere with, and gives way to, anymanned aircraft;
If U can accomplish this above 400' then what's the problem?
https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_91-57A.pdf
e. Model aircraft operators should follow best practices including limiting operations to 400 feetabove ground level (AGL).
