FALCONSNEST

That would be a great way to over burden the FAA's workload!

da Rock

What you saw is certainly educational.

The FAA didn't shut down the airport they flew from did they? Only suspended a pilot. And only got the operator of the banner towing for something entirely different. Something they should have caught before from the sound of it. Something they were supposed to be enforcing all along but apparently hadn't.

It appears it took a clamoring crowd of people a lot of complaining to get the FAA off their lawn chairs to get that done.

They really aren't what you'd call a crack enforcement agency. In fact, they're not even a very active bunch. Are we really in imminent danger of losing our fields? and "licenses"? and going to jail or facing huge fines? Is the sky really falling?

Rafael23cc

My Feedback: (6)

The FAR says that you need to be able to land with undue hazard to people or property. you quoted it yourself. Nothing that I have said is "completely incorrect" as you mention. you seem to be confusing personal limits with legal, which is actually incorrect.

All of you are completely ignoring section (c) of the quoted FAR? you know, the legal part.....
'cause its there in black and white.

Rafael

Badger Flyer

I have been full-scale pilot for 30+ years but am new to the RC world (also a first time poster). I certainly look forward to learning a lot from this forum!


I think there may be a slight misunderstanding of FAR 91.119, regarding what constitutes an "open air assembly of persons". Nowhere does the FAA actually define this term, and I don't think anyone can claim to really claim to know what it means (unless of course they are charged with a violation). In my experience most most pilots and flight instructors assume it means large organized events involving hundreds or thousands of people, not a few dozen people at a flying field. I am not aware of any FAA enforcement action that has suggested otherwise.


Given this uncertainty it is incorrect to assume that a pilot who overflies an active RC field at 500 feet is automatically breaking the rules. If they fly over at LESS than 500 feet then yes, they are definitely in violation. If they are intentionally buzzing an RC field then FAR 91.13 comes into play (prohibiting “careless and reckless” operations). I would certainly encourage you to report such behavior if you can get a tail number. The FAA can and routinely does go after such pilots, who give us all a bad name.


Finally I would note that a fairly large proportion of full scale pilots are also RC pilots; we all share a passion for flying. The likelihood of a conflict between a full scale aircraft at flying at 500 feet and an RC aircraft at 400 feet seems pretty close to zero, so is there really a problem here?

Sport_Pilot

.
The first paragraph overules all others. You cannot contentiously fly below 500 feet over all terrain, unless over a very large unpopulated area and follow that rule. Even flying over the ocean you have to continuously dodge boats,.Been there done that. These pilots are reckless and the FAA does nothing. Look at all of the recent helicopter crash's which were partially caused because they were flying to low to put them in autogryo mode.

The FAA and IRA must go.

Sport_Pilot

When I recieved my ticket I was told an assembly is only several people. Later somewhere I read it was at least two people. I did not know of any pilots that believe it has to be a stadium full of people. Open means it has to be outdoors.

MajorTomski

Badger Flyer there's a problem using absolutes. Several years ago I attended a STEM related model airplane race hosted by a nationally known university with a large, competent or so I thought, aviation department.

The lunchtime 'entertainment' was four full scale aircraft, 2 Cubs, a C-152 and an ultra light of some sort doing low passes down the MODEL runway at less than 50 feet and less than 200 feet from the HUGE line of spectators, and less than 100 feet from over 100 contestants. All this on a day when the winds were gusting to 27 knots

When I pointed out that I was a non-regulatory FAA employee and that I was shocked that the university aviation department could find four idiot pilot so pull off that stunt, the department chairman said 'everything is just fine.'

Then they were dumb enough to post incriminating pictures on the web the next day. Needless to say the local FSDO had a very long grounded chat with the department head and the four pilots.

Very often the show-off gene is stronger than the I'll be breaking the law and endangering people genes.

Hydro Junkie

Have any of you ever seen the Blue Angels or Thunderbirds perform? Here in Seattle, the "Blues" perform their aerobatic show every August. The "flightline" is required to be clear of people and boats(show is over Lake Washington) or they won't even take off. There are a few times when their aircraft get below 500 ft while over the crowd, one being when the plane's pilot does a "stealth run" over the park at over twice the height of the trees. In doing so, the pilot does nothing but fly straight and level at roughly 300 kts, pulling up AFTER getting back over the lake. The others are when their patterns take them down to low level at the end of a maneuver. The major difference here is that the entire area is a "No Fly Zone" from early morning until late afternoon as mandated by the FAA specifically for the airshow. Just to be clear on this, the"Blues" are the headliner but there are aerobatic displays by civilians as well as demos by the various branches of the military and Coast Guard through out the day.

da Rock

The legal part? Every word in 91.119 is legal, c being no more or less legal than a or b.

As for ignoring c, it actually has little to do with flight over occupied model flying fields, and it's certainly not "the legal part".

da Rock

91.119 says:

"no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:"

And gives THREE rules to follow.

Badger Flyer

I would certainly agree that some people will break the rules, and I’ve seen it happen as well. I think the behavior you’re describing is quite clearly in violation of 91.119 and possibly 91.13, unless the organizers had obtained an airshow waiver (probably not?). Naturally the guilty parties are not going to own up to it, but that doesn’t mean that the FAA would not pursue an enforcement action if they become aware of the situation. Unfortunately they often become aware only after there has been a problem.


This is a very different situation than a pilot legally flying along over the open countryside at 500 feet, enjoying the view. There is nothing inherently irresponsible in doing so. In my area the landscape is dominated by farm fields and being able to land safely usually isn’t much of an issue. The main safety risks at 500 feet are birds, towers, crop dusters, and sometimes powered parachutes/ultralights.


On the other side, I’m curious to know how practical the 400 altitude limit is in real life? Is there a feeling that this limit is overly restrictive? Is it always complied with? Given the performance of some modern RC models I can imagine a reasonable case for expanding the limits, for example by raising the maximum altitude over designated flying fields that are marked on sectional charts.

Badger Flyer

I don’t doubt that someone said this, but I think it had to be an expression of their own opinion rather than the law. The FAA has not published any official definition of what it means. The closest thing I’ve seen is post 9/11 Notice to Airman concerning flight restrictions around major sporting events. That NOTAM applies only to stadiums with a seating capacity of 30,000 or more.


In contrast there has been a large amount of discussion of “congested areas”, and the FAA has made it clear that this includes small towns and subdivisions.

da Rock

It actually isn't a limit, just a guideline and isn't applicable to AMA members.

It isn't restrictive at all. In an hour, I'll be out at one of the 3 AMA registered club fields around here flying my Extra 330 and a 2meter glider. The Extra will be doing competition maneuvers and probably top out around 450'. The maneuver floor is maybe 150' I'd guess. Don't have an altimeter in the Extra. The glider will top out wherever the lift and visibility decide. Both planes have my AMA number on them and my membership has been since the 50s. Oh yeah, the vario/altimeter that's temporarily in my glider usually shows 350-450' at the TOC when I start hunting thermals. It's pretty near the usual launch zoom when flying pure gliders off my highstart.

However, this year the 2m hasn't gone higher than about 600' and today's forecast doesn't suggest any conditions that promise beating that. The field where I'm going today is in an area where a fairly large flight school brings students. We often hear their engines chopped to idle and watch them experience or practice stalls. That field happens to back on a ridgeline that's 250 or so above our runway. And just north of us is a 2,400 "hazard to navigation". (we're at 860') It is quite a pleasant view that way. Maybe that's why the school comes this way to "work". BTW, I'm not suggesting the altitude hazards around our field have any applicability to our models.

This is real life, and that 400 certainly is not restrictive, as it really doesn't apply except as a guideline that is invalidated by a number of things.

Sport_Pilot

The Thunderbirds, Blue Angels, and every other aerobatic pilot is operating under an FAA waiver.

Badger Flyer

This is very helpful, thanks!

Badger Flyer

Regarding the meaning of “open air assembly of persons”, after some searching I did find a court decision on this, by the U.S. District Court in Michigan. The case has to do with a Coast Guard helicopter that flew over a horse ranch and caused a rider to fall. I’ve copied the relevant bit :

"Plaintiffs also contend that the proper altitude benchmark is 1,000 feet because a total of twenty riders and spectators on a ten-acre site constitute an "open air assembly of persons." See 14 C.F.R. § 91.119(b). Plaintiffs' argument fails to recognize that this phrase must be construed in light of its regulatory context within the subsection dealing with "congested areas." Twenty people on a ten-acre site simply cannot be equated with a congested area of a city, town, or settlement. If the phrase were to be construed as Plaintiffs suggest, then a pilot could violate this regulation by flying below 1,000 feet over a backyard barbeque. This cannot be the intent of the regulatory language. The only testimony at trial was to the contrary. Smith Kalita testified that the phrase refers to crowds at stadiums, outdoor concerts, and the like. See, e.g., Barnum v. NTSB, 595 F.2d 869 (D.C.Cir.1979) ("crowds" around a monument constituted an open air assembly of persons)."

Full decision text is here:
https://asci.uvm.edu/equine/law/case.../mickalich.htm

Sport_Pilot

Interesting. Anything on this on the FAA site? I have seen model contests with hundreds of people and no notam.that I knew of. So how many people if not 20?

Badger Flyer

Good questions. The FAA unfortunately has been unhelpful in answering them. The only thing they've published is the regulation itself, without any detailed guidance. The general message seems to be that they don't want to box themselves in; instead they'd rather consider each case within it own context. Ultimately its up to an administrative law judge or other court to decide.

The responsibility for filing a NOTAM rests with the event organizers. They do get issued regularly for a host of reasons such as parachute jumping, air shows, balloon fests, construction cranes, laser light shows, etc. I would hope that model contests are also on this list?

da Rock

Nit picking?

"or"

The word "or" is important. "Over any congested area......or over any open air assembly of persons" would suggest the assembly of persons to be something other than any congested area yet equal in importance.

As for the definition of assembly being density specific, where is that suggested. When the entrants showed up for our glider contest today, they were assembling. Every single one of them. When the soccer moms bring their kids to my neighborhood's private field they are most certainly assembling. And it's not contingent on any sort of density, no 5 people per acre kind of requirement.

No wonder these threads go round and round.


BTW, I just got back from the club where a glider contest is assembling. OK, where glider flyers are assembling to fly this weekend. Walking around looking at the models there wasn't a single one with an AMA number on it. Probably out of style nowadays. And no registration numbers but then they don't have to be visible from the exterior. And every flyer I observed was obviously trying for every foot of altitude he could. And every flyer seemed to be seeking a fun assembly of pilots.

Sport_Pilot

AMA numbers do not have to be displayed outside of the model.

Badger Flyer

You're expecting regulations to actually make sense? That may be too much to ask!

Looking at the bigger picture, there are plenty of folks out there who would like to severely restrict ALL forms of private aviation. Rather than pointing fingers at each other I think we should be banding together to preserve our existing rights.

Top_Gunn

My Feedback: (6)

Or, for that matter, inside, I hope. I've never put my AMA number on or inside a model.

Hmm. I see that the AMA Government Relations site now says your AMA number, as well as the FAA number, has to be on the plane. When did this rule, if it exists, come about? I thought the AMA safety code required only your name and address.

da Rock

That's right. If you are correcting me, you misread what I said. I looked around at the contest to see how many had AMA numbers displayed. Why? To see how many old timers there were in that assembly of modelers. Having been a Contest Director for years and years, you sort of get into a habit of looking for numbers on the planes. You see, they were required on models for years but the only enforcement was at contests. And who enforces it? Old habits die hard. We no longer get a rule book when renewing do we. So I must admit, now at renewal time I don't make an effort to find where the rule book "is" to check for things like display of AMA number. But then, all I said was I didn't see any. You assumed from there.... you were wrong in your assumption.

Having to explain in enough detail to protect yourself from misreading seems to be the norm for the internet. No wonder threads go round and round AND ROUND.

da Rock

Got a link?
The AMA site still shows the AMA Safety Code with only mention of the AMA number. The code is linked off the front page of the page you get to if you search for "AMA Government Relations". http://www.modelaircraft.org/aboutama/gov.aspx

The Safety Code spells out display of your AMA number but doesn't mention FAA registration anywhere? And the code is dated: Jan 1, 2014

Top_Gunn

My Feedback: (6)

This is what the AMA government relations blog says in one of its FAQs:

"Q: Do I need to list both my AMA number and my federal registration number on my aircraft?

A: Yes, you need to list both your AMA number and Federal registration number on your aircraft. We are advocating to allow members to use their AMA numbers. We believe an AMA membership already meets the intent of registration, but at this time place both numbers on your aircraft."

Here's the link: http://amablog.modelaircraft.org/ama...ked-questions/

But the Safety Code doesn't say that, unless it's been amended since 2014. It says you must have your name and address or your AMA number in your plane. It always seemed to me to make more sense to put my name and address (and phone number) in a model, rather than the AMA number, since chances are if it got lost and somebody found it, it would be a lot easier to track me down that way.