Interesting that the ama sponsors and hosts the national soaring championships where all "models" fly over 400 feet. So this can be "voluntary" at times and mandatory at others.

Hypocrisy.

see, now that is what I call FAA saying otherwise to AC91-57 enforcement
So much for the FAA 400' Law.

What about the 20kg International treaty--> FAA law --> AMA rule?

"The AC encourages voluntary compliance with safety standards. The Academy of Model Aeronautics recommends a weight restriction of 55 lbs. (There are exceptions to the 55 lb. limit for operating large models.) You should follow industry-developed safety standards when operating your model aircraft. "

Sounds like the ICAO/FAA 20kg is voluntary / imaginary too (what the heck is ICAO?)

http://www.icao.int/


The 25 Kg (previously cited in error as 20 Kg) limit is not codified in US law. If people ignore it, it will be the law. Then you'll be happy, right?

Abel

1. Thanx for the link

2. Happy? I would be happy if folks didnt call things that are not coded law, a law. I would also be happy with 130lb models flying safely without BigBrother or SomeBunchOfGuys having to give permission. There is a bunch of BLM land out north of 58 where a 500lb model could go in with 100gallons of gasoline, and not really hurt anything.

So the 25kg is not yet law. AMA hands out 55+ waivers. Seems the documented viloation of the non-law for the past few years hasn't brought the the heavy hand of the fed in.

No Law forces the AMA 400' (frequently officially exceeded)
No Law forces the AMA 55lb (also frequently oficially exceeded)
Autonomous is still a quagmire

This has been a very infomative thread on the AMA-FAA relationship, thankyou to all the factual contributers

How amusing, and wrong.

So now I am a self centered power flier? In fact, if anything, I am more of a glider guy than anything else. I have been very active in the SC2 contest series since 1993, I am the Torrey Pines Gulls rep to the SC2 Board, I fly regularly in contests (next one is at the ISS field in Riverside this Sunday, see you there Hugh!!), I've been to 11 of the past 14 Visalia contests, all of the past 5 SWC glider contests in Phoenix, flown gliders at the NATS and will be flying at the World Soaring Masters in Muncie this September. I have also been very active in scale aerotow as well having done tons of slope flying and a bunch of slope racing with the old CSR Series. I own two giant scale gliders (4.3 and 6 meter) in addition to 5 thermal duration ships (4 Open TD and 1 RES), 3 DLGs, my electric Graphite F5J plane, and I still have a couple of slope sleds around including my nifty little Mini-Ellipse. So what's it take to be a glider guy in your eyes?? I own 2 power planes and a heli as well, so I guess that's what makes me a glider hating self centered power pilot.

And once again, I have had very little to do with th HSS situation. I attended the site walk, and in fact raised my concerns to Maroney and Hanson that this was going to hurt the site as a glider field. So how you think I am aligned against the field as a glider field is a mystery to me. Unfortunately I planned on attending the July 6th meeting but got hung up in Chatsworth with work on that day, so I missed it.


Look Hugh, everyone knows that you have a long and tortured history about hating the AMA and anything to do with it. I could care less about that. What I do care about is when you distort facts to suit your version of reality to suit your need to bash the AMA and anyone associated with it. We get it. AMA bad. OK, but let's stick to the facts from here on out.

Oooookay....now that we've established that the AMA is not the Borg and that some AMA leaders actually think on their own (joined at the hip, indeed...sheesh), let's regroup on what actions to take.

Alright, FAA slapped together a policy and asked for voluntary compliance. I'm going to assume that if AMA ignored them, then FAA would take the next step to make it law (safe assumption, really). Since it is being kept as only a policy, it can be more easily changed. Dave Brown has requested in the past about extending the limit to 700' or 1000'.

Does anybody know if this is still being debated? Was it shut down, or did FAA say "we'll think about it." On top of that, is AMA trying to get provisions to enable a glider to fly higher? For instance, the FAA could add a clause that permits unpowered, untethered aircraft with one-way communication (no recon gear) to fly higher at pre-cleared locations. This would allow a club to get clearance to fly gliders at the higher altitudes.

So, pick up the phone and ask the questions. State your reasons and get some answers. Maybe you could even offer to assist with the research or on how a solution could be laid out.

It's certainly more productive than sitting here and insulting AMA leadership with false accusations.

As far as I know the AMA HQ folks are still working on this actively. I have not heard if the FAA has made a decision or not. Even if they do grant it the situation at EDSF and HSS will not change (nor will it change at Prado) since they are all so close to active airports.

The thing about AC 91-57 is that they will generally ignore it until we come to their attention, hence the fact that there are no worries at most places. However, if you are in a situation where you DO get their attention, then they will use it to limit your activities. That is the situation at the 3 fields out here where it has happened. All three are within 3 miles of busy airports and all three got the attention of the FAA folks at the Long Beach FSDO.

As mentioned in other posts, the FAA has granted Certificate of Authorization (COA) for special events, even at venues close to airports. The key is establishing a positive relationship with them.

In most places that I know of gliders have not had any real problems. I get around to a fair number of glider fields and HSS and EDSF are the only ones that I know have specific problems, and these are related to being so close to major airports. The other half dozen or so glider clubs in SOCAL do not have these problems. None of the other clubs I have been to in central and northern CA, AZ, or the Midwest have the same problems. Basically it is like I said, unless you do something to attract the attention of the FAA it is not an issue. But once you DO get their attention be prepared for them to use AC 91-57 and to make it clear that they do indeed own the airspace of the US.

Very well, next question:
The safety code says the altitude limit is 400ft. Is that comma a typo, and this limit only applies to those within 3 miles of an airport? In other words, is it possbile to fly a glider at high altitude at a chartered club that is distant from any airport WITHOUT breaking the Safety Code for 2006? Right now, it seems to be worded that this limit applies to all clubs.

Jim-

As the AMA rule is directly traceable to AC91-57, and the source document does not have the ambiguity caused by the comma, I'm pretty certain that the authoritative answer would be as stated in AC91-57 (cited verbatum from 1981 revision):

"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."

The period ending the first sentence resolves the question (period!).

Abel

Oops....... didn't type what I was thinking:

If you aren't going to be happy with the likely answer, don't ask the authority!

Frankly, I think that is exactly what has been done. Ignorance is bliss.....................

Some are joined at the hip others are dragged around by the ring in their nose. As there is no altitude regulation why should anyone be asking to have it raised or lowered.

Sorry, I'm kind of a "by the book" guy. If I'm going to break some rules, I at least want to be aware of it! [&:]

Here's the score:
FAA:voluntary compliance only. Not a law. You can fly high if you don't cause any trouble.
AMA Insurance (partner company): Does not have the rule. You will not be denied insurance (to the best I can tell, I'm not a lawyer).
AMA Safety Code: Black & white, don't fly over 400 feet. As I said, this is AMA's way of voluntarily complying with the FAA policy (as a sign of good faith).

There may be provisions to exceed the restriction for events or at specific sites, but the method of doing this is not listed in the Safety Code for 2006. As it stands, if you fly at a chartered club, then you are expected to follow the Safety Code. However, that doesn't mean that some clubs aren't turning a blind eye in some cases. But, if such "ignorance" activity causes an incident with a full-scale aircraft, then it will probably END any negotiations for increased altitude with the FAA.

All of this is new and some changes in both directions are to be expected. The point is that AMA wants to work WITH the FAA, not against it. FAA carries a lot more force. I can guess how this came out. FAA is under pressure to reduce future terrorist activity, and UAVs is certainly a potential tool for such things. FAA puts forth to AMA that models are to stay under 400ft. At the time, AMA was probably given the choice to either comply, or watch it get pushed to become law. With the anti-terrorism drive still going strong, this would be an easy thing for FAA to do. While AMA adheres to the policy, it can continue to negotiate for increased altitude, since policies can be easily changed.

My point is this: AMA has to work within the space that the FAA grants us. If we start copping an attitude and disregard any voluntary compliance, then FAA will simply clamp down and make the compliance nonvoluntary. The FAA will not listen to our requests if we earn a history of being difficult to work with.

Of course, there is the option of doing away with AMA and having FAA take over all RC activity, but I doubt FAA has our best interests in mind.

1. PURPOSE. This advisory circular outlines, and encourages voluntary compliance with, safety standards for model aircraft operators.

Guys, why kick the laying dog?

Everything is ok...everything is ok...everything is ok.

Man, i feel like a dog chasing its tail here.

The AMA Safety Code says 400 feet within 3 miles of an airport. And to contact the airport.

FAA AC 91-57 says 400 feet period and to contact the airport when within 3 miles.

Historically the FAA has not gotten involved unless there is a conflict. When they do, they see the 400 foot limit as the gospel. Right or wrong, argue until you are blue in the face, that is what they have done.

The only times I have seen the FAA get involved is at EDSF and HSS in SOCAL (and Prado by way of Chino Tower). At all three places the fields are within 3 miles anyhow and all the FAA is saying to do is comply with the AMA Safety Code.

So it seems to me that despite the fact that the FAA can use AC 91-57 in its most limiting fashion (400 feet everywhere all the time) they tend to actually defer to the AMA Safety Code.

My conclusion is that if you are more than 3 miles from an airport, don't worry about it. If you are within 3 miles, then follow the safety code, which none of the three places mentioned were doing.

Why make it any more difficult than it needs to be. The FAA is only going to get involved if you have a problem, like regularly violating the safety code limit of 400 feet within 3 miles of an airport. This is exactly what their position has been at EDSF, HSS and Prado. You are within 3 miles of an airport, keep it under 400 feet. Otherwise they make it tough for you to deal with your lease holder.

Didn't mean to frustrate, it's just the wording of the AMA code is a tad ambiguous. Observe:
"5. I will not fly my model aircraft higher than approximately 400 feet above ground level, when within three (3) miles of an airport without notifying the airport operator."

That stupid comma muddles everything up. If it is separating two sentence objects, then it can be separated as follows:
1. I will not fly my model aircraft higher than approximately 400 feet above ground level.
2. I will not fly my model aircraft when within three (3) miles of an airport without notifying the airport operator."

Without the comma, then it means what you say: the altitude limit only applies when near the airport. It gets better: it would mean you CAN fly over 400ft by the airport, but you have to notify them first.

Every sentence will make sense to the person who wrote it. They need to have others proof-read their polices more often.

Kinda what I wanted to say but was too lazy I guess

As the crow flys the Fairview Park flying area is over 19,000 feet from the closest end of the runway. This is due west of the typical departure which is almost due south by ten degrees or so west. Actually further from the tower. Think that is a tad over three miles.

True enough (3.24 NM at its closest) , but in this case it is entirely (and well) within the Class C airspace of one of the busiest general aviation airports in the US, and that trumps the distance. Still close enough, especially when you realize that the park lies directly below the VFR approach route that the SNA tower gives most pilots approaching from the west.

Again Hugh, PLEASE CALL THE FAA. Tell THEM how wrong they are. I am certain they will listen to you and accept just how wrong they are.

VFR approach is 1,000 feet min. Should be 1,200. I don't think it will be necessary as the latest word is the city is going to shut down all flying at the park. They figured out that the 400 foot is unenforceable and the pork-chopper is still squeeling about the models.

Another one lost to ama interference/indifference.

What I'm getting so far, is that the FAA is only going to regulate altitude, perhaps bringing it to a maximum of 400 feet. I used to work at a university, which had a big soccer field. The gliders there would be specked out, and a large airport with a military base was about 5 miles away. The field was directly in the flight path of large jets and military F-16s. There was never an issue brought up that I remember, and I think that was in the late 1980s. Could those gliders have been flying over 400 feet? They weren't really that big on the ground, at least they didn't look big.

From what I know, anybody can still possess an RC model, whether they fly it at a sanctioned club or not. There is no background check required, so getting a model airplane and gear is certainly easier than getting a gun. Could the FAA possibly regulate who can purchase and fly a model airplane? Would they? I honestly have my doubts, but fill me in. About the only hobby that I know of that came under government scrutiny is high powered rocketry, which still seems to be going strong in spite of the ATF regulations. Most of that regulation is over the government's idea of the solid rocket propellent as being explosive (it's not, to my knowledge). My biggest bet, is that the likelihood of an incident with an RC model plane is very highly unlikely, and the modeling community has been very good about regulating its self. I'm not the "sharpest tool in the shed" regarding this hobby, but I would tend to wonder why the FAA would want to waste its time over a 3 ounce park flyer, let alone a 40-sized trainer. I'm all ears anyway.

NorfolkSouthern

Could they? Certainly.
Would they? Unlikely.

I agree and I would add other than a total ban of model air planes it would next
to impossible for the FAA to regulate them. I dont think the FAA is going to assign
N numbers to models or make them install tranponders.