Go Back  RCU Forums > RC Airplanes > AMA Discussions
Reload this Page >

AMA getting above 400 AGL - Not so successful

Notices
AMA Discussions Discuss AMA policies, decisions & any other AMA related topics here.

AMA getting above 400 AGL - Not so successful

Old 06-13-2022, 03:59 PM
  #251  
init4fun
 
init4fun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 4,101
Received 37 Likes on 31 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Hydro Junkie View Post
I get that, Astro.
At the same time, IF the FAA called the CHP to check into a called in report, WHICH IT COULD DO, then the CHP would have been within their jurisdiction, but probably not to threaten issuing a citation. The fact that we don't know WHO called the CHP, as I see it, leaves the whole thing a mute point. On the other hand, IF the CHP officers saw the planes flying and rolled up and said to cease and desist, then they were definitely outside of their jurisdiction
Hi guys, I'm gonna go ahead and give Astro the point on this, as far as the local PD not being able to issue a citation for transgressions against the FAA's rules.

But, (and, my friends, this is a pretty big butt ), I also will stand by the side point that was raised, if the local PD presents evidence to the FAA, which the FAA then uses in an enforcement judgement (the drunk Pilot was a perfect example), then that officer has become a cog in the FAA's enforcement action, and thus has become a part of that enforcement.

Oh, and Hydro, please don't take this as me being a grammar Nazi, cause I'm not chastising , but the descriptor of the point is "Moot", and not "Mute" ....

Last edited by init4fun; 06-13-2022 at 04:02 PM.
Old 06-13-2022, 04:12 PM
  #252  
speedracerntrixie
My Feedback: (29)
 
speedracerntrixie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Happy Valley, Oregon
Posts: 8,780
Received 139 Likes on 121 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Hydro Junkie View Post
I get that, Astro.
At the same time, IF the FAA called the CHP to check into a called in report, WHICH IT COULD DO, then the CHP would have been within their jurisdiction, but probably not to threaten issuing a citation. The fact that we don't know WHO called the CHP, as I see it, leaves the whole thing a mute point. On the other hand, IF the CHP officers saw the planes flying and rolled up and said to cease and desist, then they were definitely outside of their jurisdiction

Hydro, it was the pilot in the patrolling aircraft ( unmarked Cessna 182 ) that radioed into the dispatcher who then radioed to the ground units. That would make 4 people serving 3 different functions within the CHP that would have had to be mistaken about the limits of their jurisdiction. But hey, the self appointed RCU fact checker trumps everything right?
Old 06-13-2022, 04:21 PM
  #253  
init4fun
 
init4fun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 4,101
Received 37 Likes on 31 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by mongo View Post
quick correction,

every single soul in these forum conversations is a "nobody".
Mongo my friend, I've gotta admit, I've always been perfectly satisfied living my life in the comfortable anonymity I've enjoyed. The thought of being famous, and cultivating an image that no normal human could ever live up to, would truly be my idea of Hell on earth, living each day wondering which will be the day that the farce of fame explodes. Look at what happens to whole bunches of famous people, Bill Cosby ruined as a serial sexual predator, Steve Irwin killed by one of the critters he parlayed into his rough nature guy image, no thank you, I'll remain a happy nobody for my last few years here and know that there will be no crocodile tears upon my passing by a public all too wrapped up in the notion of celebrity worship.

Last edited by init4fun; 06-13-2022 at 04:25 PM. Reason: clarify my point.....
Old 06-13-2022, 04:24 PM
  #254  
astrohog
My Feedback: (1)
 
astrohog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Bellingham, WA
Posts: 2,985
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by speedracerntrixie View Post
Hydro, it was the pilot in the patrolling aircraft ( unmarked Cessna 182 ) that radioed into the dispatcher who then radioed to the ground units. That would make 4 people serving 3 different functions within the CHP that would have had to be mistaken about the limits of their jurisdiction. But hey, the self appointed RCU fact checker trumps everything right?
I don't know what more you want. I posted it verbatim from the FAA. That trumps everything. What part about that do you not understand?

How long are you going to continue to talk crap about me because you were proven wrong AGAIN?

You have a lot of nerve blaming me for thread denegration.

Your statements are nothing but pure speculation and rife with logical fallacies because your argument does not stand.

"That would make 4 people serving 3 different functions within the CHP that would have had to be mistaken about the limits of their jurisdiction". Is a ludicrous statement! We've already established that local LE can observe and collect data to submit to the FAA. As a State agency, they are certainly in their jurisdiction to enforce State and local laws and had every right to be there and to question you. It is NOT okay to assume (as you did in your ridiculous statement) that they were under any kind of mistaken jurisdictional confusion. You seem to be the one that is confused.

Astro


Astro
Old 06-13-2022, 04:45 PM
  #255  
astrohog
My Feedback: (1)
 
astrohog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Bellingham, WA
Posts: 2,985
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by init4fun View Post
Hi guys, I'm gonna go ahead and give Astro the point on this, as far as the local PD not being able to issue a citation for transgressions against the FAA's rules.

But, (and, my friends, this is a pretty big butt ), I also will stand by the side point that was raised, if the local PD presents evidence to the FAA, which the FAA then uses in an enforcement judgement (the drunk Pilot was a perfect example), then that officer has become a cog in the FAA's enforcement action, and thus has become a part of that enforcement.

Oh, and Hydro, please don't take this as me being a grammar Nazi, cause I'm not chastising , but the descriptor of the point is "Moot", and not "Mute" ....
init, I always appreciate your voice of reason here and I also appreciate the comments you made yesterday about engaging in discussion. I enjoy a good debate as well, as long as those involved remain civil and stick to generally accepted conventions of debate. As you witnessed last night, Echo could not. I do not understand why people will cling to the last straw and resort to the tactics we see instead of just admitting they were mistaken. It is not very often that I will enter a debate unless I am knowledgeable enough to do so, that is obviously not the case with many on here. I do not prescribe to know it all, but if I am going to open my mouth, you can be sure that I have vetted what I espouse. Not so with others, they clearly start with a bias and an agenda and double down on it, ignoring the facts until they resort to the snide remarks we see here. I don't get it.

These (especially this one) forums and threads are here to exchange information, not further an agenda or build a "rep". The more the myths and misinformation is dispelled, the better for all.

Astro
Old 06-13-2022, 05:02 PM
  #256  
init4fun
 
init4fun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 4,101
Received 37 Likes on 31 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by astrohog View Post
init, I always appreciate your voice of reason here and I also appreciate the comments you made yesterday about engaging in discussion. I enjoy a good debate as well, as long as those involved remain civil and stick to generally accepted conventions of debate. As you witnessed last night, Echo could not. I do not understand why people will cling to the last straw and resort to the tactics we see instead of just admitting they were mistaken. It is not very often that I will enter a debate unless I am knowledgeable enough to do so, that is obviously not the case with many on here. I do not prescribe to know it all, but if I am going to open my mouth, you can be sure that I have vetted what I espouse. Not so with others, they clearly start with a bias and an agenda and double down on it, ignoring the facts until they resort to the snide remarks we see here. I don't get it.

These (especially this one) forums and threads are here to exchange information, not further an agenda or build a "rep". The more the myths and misinformation is dispelled, the better for all.

Astro
Thank You Astro, and yes the feeling is mutual, I can honestly say I've never seen you draw first blood WRT the name calling. I was not amused when Echo popped out with the "Karen" diss since up till that point I thought his participation was respectful. Sure, passionate discussions can become somewhat heated, but should never devolve into name calling, and God knows as of the past few years I've done my best to not allow myself to attack the person VS the position. I know I've said this before, I really do think I could have a great afternoon of flying, or for that matter just shooting the breeze with any and every one of us here, and I try my best to carry that respect in my conversations here. I ain't no saint, I've effed up plenty in the past, and any time I did allow myself to get angry enough to post insulting crap I've always felt bad about myself afterwards.

You guys all have a good evening, , , , over & out...... (or "10-7" in my C.B. radio days)

Last edited by init4fun; 06-13-2022 at 05:05 PM.
Old 06-13-2022, 05:16 PM
  #257  
Hydro Junkie
 
Hydro Junkie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Marysville, WA
Posts: 10,129
Received 121 Likes on 115 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by speedracerntrixie View Post
Hydro, it was the pilot in the patrolling aircraft ( unmarked Cessna 182 ) that radioed into the dispatcher who then radioed to the ground units. That would make 4 people serving 3 different functions within the CHP that would have had to be mistaken about the limits of their jurisdiction. But hey, the self appointed RCU fact checker trumps everything right?
Still, the CHP 182 pilot would not have the jurisdiction to act on an R/C aircraft being flown too high, the FAA would have to make that determination and call it in themselves, based on the 182 pilot's radioed in report. The other thing is that IF that CHP pilot were to call it in, how would (s)he have known the model was too high unless that model were flown over 1000ft AGL or the pilot was flying lower than 1000ft AGL over people or structures, putting the pilot of the 182 below the minimums and actually in violation of FAA regulations. There is a lot that doesn't make sense in this case.
One other thought I just had. As we are all aware, A Sig Kadet Jr, for example, would look the same as a MKII or Senior from a distance above it and, unless the 182 pilot was familiar with all three, (s)he wouldn't know how large the wingspan is on any of them, making an altitude guess from a higher altitude vantage point suspect to distortion due to the size differences. The 182 pilot would have to get to the same altitude as the model to determine the actual altitude the model is being flown at.

Note to Init, I fixed the spelling error in all three locations, just for you

Last edited by Hydro Junkie; 06-13-2022 at 05:23 PM.
Old 06-13-2022, 06:13 PM
  #258  
speedracerntrixie
My Feedback: (29)
 
speedracerntrixie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Happy Valley, Oregon
Posts: 8,780
Received 139 Likes on 121 Posts
Default

Hydro, the 182 was flying at approximately 500’ altitude. Since we were practicing IMAC the model was a 40% Extra 260. We were exceeding the altitude of the 182 by quite a bit. The pilot later that evening or the day after filed a near miss report with the FAA. The club president was contacted by the FAA via phone. I don’t know what was said in that conversation but there was no further contact by or to the FAA concerning the incident. The club president mandated a 400’ altitude limit until the situation “ blew over “. For several months afterwards the 182 pilot made a habit of circling the flying field every weekday from 5:30 to 5:45. The IMAC guys, myself included joined the club another 15 miles south to practice.
Old 06-13-2022, 06:37 PM
  #259  
mongo
My Feedback: (15)
 
mongo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Midland, TX
Posts: 3,140
Received 48 Likes on 40 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by init4fun View Post
Hi guys, I'm gonna go ahead and give Astro the point on this, as far as the local PD not being able to issue a citation for transgressions against the FAA's rules.

But, (and, my friends, this is a pretty big butt ), I also will stand by the side point that was raised, if the local PD presents evidence to the FAA, which the FAA then uses in an enforcement judgement (the drunk Pilot was a perfect example), then that officer has become a cog in the FAA's enforcement action, and thus has become a part of that enforcement.

Oh, and Hydro, please don't take this as me being a grammar Nazi, cause I'm not chastising , but the descriptor of the point is "Moot", and not "Mute" ....
init,

i gave up on the whole moot/mute argument over a decade ago. just learned to ignore it...


Old 06-13-2022, 07:56 PM
  #260  
Hydro Junkie
 
Hydro Junkie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Marysville, WA
Posts: 10,129
Received 121 Likes on 115 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by speedracerntrixie View Post
Hydro, the 182 was flying at approximately 500 altitude. Since we were practicing IMAC the model was a 40% Extra 260. We were exceeding the altitude of the 182 by quite a bit. The pilot later that evening or the day after filed a near miss report with the FAA. The club president was contacted by the FAA via phone. I dont know what was said in that conversation but there was no further contact by or to the FAA concerning the incident. The club president mandated a 400 altitude limit until the situation blew over . For several months afterwards the 182 pilot made a habit of circling the flying field every weekday from 5:30 to 5:45. The IMAC guys, myself included joined the club another 15 miles south to practice.
Sounds to me like both sides were in the wrong in this case but, at the same time, the 182 pilot was just "daring" the R/C guys to do something wrong. If it was me, I'd have filed a complaint with the CHP command over what could be construed as harassment
Old 06-14-2022, 05:43 AM
  #261  
speedracerntrixie
My Feedback: (29)
 
speedracerntrixie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Happy Valley, Oregon
Posts: 8,780
Received 139 Likes on 121 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Hydro Junkie View Post
Sounds to me like both sides were in the wrong in this case but, at the same time, the 182 pilot was just "daring" the R/C guys to do something wrong. If it was me, I'd have filed a complaint with the CHP command over what could be construed as harassment
Absolutely agree. The model pilot should have landed as soon as the 182 came on the scene. After the 182 started going into the area every weekday a call should have been placed by the club president. A few of us approached him to do just that and he declined. His thought was that by doing so it had the potential to bring some bad press to the club.
Old 06-14-2022, 10:18 AM
  #262  
mongo
My Feedback: (15)
 
mongo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Midland, TX
Posts: 3,140
Received 48 Likes on 40 Posts
Default

and, he, the club pres, was right.
Old 06-14-2022, 10:47 AM
  #263  
init4fun
 
init4fun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 4,101
Received 37 Likes on 31 Posts
Default

Kinda brings to mind a song.........


Old 06-14-2022, 10:58 AM
  #264  
Hydro Junkie
 
Hydro Junkie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Marysville, WA
Posts: 10,129
Received 121 Likes on 115 Posts
Default

How was the club president right? Not trying to be argumentative here, just trying to understand your reasoning.
If I had been the president, I would have given the pilot two days, on the third it would have been file a complaint against the pilot for harassment and flying below minimums to both the FAA and the CHP headquarters.
Old 06-14-2022, 06:43 PM
  #265  
mongo
My Feedback: (15)
 
mongo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Midland, TX
Posts: 3,140
Received 48 Likes on 40 Posts
Default

you cant win the publicity war between a bunch of overly affluent guys playing with expensive toys and the CHP trying to be there to enforce the law from the air.

it is a loose loose situation for the club to fight with the CHP.
Old 06-14-2022, 06:49 PM
  #266  
astrohog
My Feedback: (1)
 
astrohog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Bellingham, WA
Posts: 2,985
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

But, but, but.......we're PILOTS dammit! We demand respect!
Old 06-14-2022, 07:14 PM
  #267  
Hydro Junkie
 
Hydro Junkie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Marysville, WA
Posts: 10,129
Received 121 Likes on 115 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by mongo View Post
you cant win the publicity war between a bunch of overly affluent guys playing with expensive toys and the CHP trying to be there to enforce the law from the air.

it is a loose loose situation for the club to fight with the CHP.
That's why you also file a complaint with the FAA. The 182 pilot is below 1000 feet above the ground AND flying over people and structures. I don't care if he claims he's doing his job, he's breaking the law in the same way a motorcycle or car officer is when they exceed the speed limit without running their blue lights and the fact that he did it for at least three days in a row means it's intentional.
Old 06-14-2022, 07:27 PM
  #268  
speedracerntrixie
My Feedback: (29)
 
speedracerntrixie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Happy Valley, Oregon
Posts: 8,780
Received 139 Likes on 121 Posts
Default

Correct me if I’m wrong but I was under the impression that minimum altitude for manned aircraft is 500’ and cannot fly within 500’ of people and structures. In this case no structures or people were overflown. Hydro, he repeated this behavior for several months. I encouraged the president of the club to just inquire as to the reason why the CHP aircraft had to circle the flying site at the beginning of his shift just to see if they were aware of what was happening instead of issuing a complaint. No dice. I did understand where he was coming from. The site is on county land and they were rather sensitive to any sort of complaints. The club suspended one member for a month over the use of foul language. The site has a bike trail leading directly into the parking lot. A family happens along as a member voiced his frustrations over an engine that didn’t feel like running.
Old 06-14-2022, 07:51 PM
  #269  
mongo
My Feedback: (15)
 
mongo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Midland, TX
Posts: 3,140
Received 48 Likes on 40 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Hydro Junkie View Post
That's why you also file a complaint with the FAA. The 182 pilot is below 1000 feet above the ground AND flying over people and structures. I don't care if he claims he's doing his job, he's breaking the law in the same way a motorcycle or car officer is when they exceed the speed limit without running their blue lights and the fact that he did it for at least three days in a row means it's intentional.
so, you have never heard of a waiver.
folks like pipeline inspectors, and yes even law enforcement folk, get them really regular in the performance of their jobs.
forestry folk and other similar occupations are issued them fro time to time also.
Old 06-18-2022, 02:51 PM
  #270  
robert waldo
My Feedback: (1)
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: valley springs, CA
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

First of all I have suffered the FAA for over 43 years. Their competence was showcased for the world to see over the Max 737. They will have to enforce the 400 foot law eventually by ADSB or ID telemetry . The patriot act got rid of the FAA administration process so instead of breaking a regulation you have now broken a law enforceable by the IRS who can and will collect fines. Your going to be treated exactly like a pilot when violated. Have fun.
Old 06-19-2022, 05:17 AM
  #271  
franklin_m
Thread Starter
 
franklin_m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 4,092
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by speedracerntrixie View Post
Correct me if Im wrong but I was under the impression that minimum altitude for manned aircraft is 500 and cannot fly within 500 of people and structures.
And yet it's so easy to look up the actual rule to provide clarity:
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-1...section-91.119

There's the "anywhere" provision, 14 CFR 91.119(a), plus either congested areas, 14 CFR 91.119(b), or other than congested areas, 14 CFR 91.119(c).

If indeed an "other than congested area" and "sparsely populated', there is no 500 foot minimum altitude as stated above, only the requirements of 91.119(a) and 91.119(c). On the other hand, if it is an "other than congested area" and NOT "sparsely populated," then the 500 foot minimum altitude would apply and the 500 feet from any "person, vessel, vehicle, or structure" would be moot.
Old 06-19-2022, 05:32 AM
  #272  
speedracerntrixie
My Feedback: (29)
 
speedracerntrixie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Happy Valley, Oregon
Posts: 8,780
Received 139 Likes on 121 Posts
Default

In this particular case then the 182 pilot was not to fly under 500 as his flight path placed him over Hwy 101 at times. Having spent time in California Im confident you can imagine what that 2 lane section of 101 just 8 miles south of San Jose on a weekday at 5:00 PM.

Last edited by speedracerntrixie; 06-19-2022 at 06:15 AM.
Old 06-19-2022, 06:02 AM
  #273  
franklin_m
Thread Starter
 
franklin_m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 4,092
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by speedracerntrixie View Post
In this particular case then the 182 pilot was not to fly under 500 as his flight path placed him over Hwy 101 at times. Having spent time in California Im confident you can imagine what that 2 lane section of 101 just 8 mines south of San Jose on a weekday at 5:00 PM.
The FAA is the agency that gets to decide what is and is not sparsely populated. Just because you think the 101 should be the controlling factor does not mean the FAA agrees. If the club felt that strongly about it, then get the N-number and file a complaint.
Old 06-19-2022, 06:17 AM
  #274  
speedracerntrixie
My Feedback: (29)
 
speedracerntrixie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Happy Valley, Oregon
Posts: 8,780
Received 139 Likes on 121 Posts
Default

So flying over vehicles at less 500’ does not apply?
Old 06-19-2022, 06:23 AM
  #275  
speedracerntrixie
My Feedback: (29)
 
speedracerntrixie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Happy Valley, Oregon
Posts: 8,780
Received 139 Likes on 121 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by franklin_m View Post
The FAA is the agency that gets to decide what is and is not sparsely populated. Just because you think the 101 should be the controlling factor does not mean the FAA agrees. If the club felt that strongly about it, then get the N-number and file a complaint.
Since this happened in 2006 I think that ship has sailed. Not to mention that the reason why a complaint wasnt filed has already been discussed.

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.