All I want Hugh is for you, and any of the other "FAA has no laws governing me" lot, to go to the FAA and TELL THEM. It has gotten wearisome listening to it here. PLEASE call, visit, write, whatever, the FSDO in Long Beach. Tell THEM how wrong, dim-witted, and everything else they are for trying to enforce a law, rule, or guidance that you so clearly can demonstrate to them they cannot do.

You are so certain of this position why do you keep telling US?? PLEASE, go tell the FAA. You will be a HERO!!!! They're idiots. You need to enlighten them and show them just how stupid they are for thinking they can do this to you and the rest of the modeling community. Not only will the folks at Harbor love you forever, but you will the hero of EDSF and PVMAC.

So what are you waiting for?? Can't take the fame and adoration that finally showing the FAA what for would bring you??

Let me know how it works out.

Not my place to ask. Perhaps SoCal should. However I can read and AC and it clearly states that it is only and advisory (thats why its called and Advisory Circular), not a regulation, and clearly states the 400 feet limit is recommended when withen 3 miles of an airport. However, the attitude of the landowners is another matter, and probably where the FAA gets its power from.

BTW, why so angry?

Advisory?
So they are only Advising not to hit a GA or Comercial?

Why not go hit one, and just sit back secure in knowing it aint illegal, they got nothin on you.... it was just advised to avoid them.

OK, hitting one would wreck the model, just fly in front of GA and make them yeild... if you think the FAA is only advising that RC yeilds to GA.

Who said anything about hitting a plane? Why don't you read the advisory instead of making idotic statements?

In fact here it is.

http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/1acfc3f689769a56862569e70077c9cc/$FILE/ATTBJMAC/ac91-57.pdf

Read the first part about voluntary compliance.

BTW. How are free flight aircraft to comply with this? Should the FAA fine or jail each kid who loses their ballon?

"Who said anything about hitting a plane? "

AC 91-57 Paragraph 3, part D:
They only advise yeilding, since they say to yeild in this advisory. If that is the logic behind thinking the contents of the advisory are the only control FAA has on flying models.

It almost seems absurd to think there isnt some other faa statements that mandate we have to yeild, but yet some folks declare 91-57 the onlything in the entirety of the CFRs that control RC, and it is just an advisory we can choose to blow off.

Well, Blow Off the part that says we have to yeild.
See how well that works, and be sure to tell the guys coming after you how wrong they are.


---edit
Oh, just thought of another rule that isnt about RC Models
Since ya'll keep saying the 400' is just an advisory, and nowhere else are models talked about....

Just take your model up to FL190. The deffinition of Class A doesnt mention models, so that must be one of the laws you claim are not for us.... have at it. Fly at FL190 with impunity, tell them only ac91-57 controls models when they come after you.

Or is it possible there are regulations that control the actions we do without mentioning the RC Model at all? Such as this clear example of an altitude regulation that blows the concept of "Only ac91-57" RC altitude control.

Sure we will never get our models up there, but it is a regulation, that is not ac91-57, and it does restrict our alt by law. That is just one example of the laws(cfrs) that some say dont exist.

KidEpoxy,

Show me where the FAA has any authourity on model airplanes, at all! There are some specific requirements for moored ballons, kites, etc, but nothing that does not meet the defination of aircraft. Congress has not given them a mandate to do so. However there is a mandate to keep navigible airways clear of obstructions. However airspace below 1200 feet and beyond 3 nautical miles from an airport, and a few other exceptions is not considered navigible, or at least not controlled. I keep asking the questions. Why is the FAA so worried about this club? Especially if as others claim it is more than three miles from the airport. Did they make the mistake of confusing nautical miles with statute miles?

sport pilot, rather than barking at the moon, why don't you call the FAA and ask them. when they give you an answer that sounds a lot like they have jurisdiction over virtually all airspace and anything that occupies it, you can then tell why models are excepted. be sure to include the stuff about congress and mandates....for a total load of crap it sounds pretty good!

He is angry because he is part of the problem; a local AMA slackie. He knows exactly what is going on but refuses to address the points I've brought up because of his AMA bias.

It would be intersting to find out what sort of extortion the FAA is doing to the city of Costa Mesa to get the park director so riled up. Then the city can't enforce the altitude as that is an FAA thing. But the FAA has no rules governing models.

However the city can stop all modeling at the park. My sources tell me that is going to be the "solution".

By the way the John Wayne airport is class C. Surface to 4400 feet at a five mile radius. One needs to read the remarks that commercial pilots who are also serious modelers have made in a thread in the RC Jet forum. These pilots fly in and out of JW all the time and find the warning incredulous and idiotic.

It's obvious that you are part of the problem too. Bet it would be in your interest to have NO sailplane flying at Fairview. Read my lips; everyone flys or no one flys.

Sport Pilot-
Just so I am clear on your comment.
Are you saying that you could make a 2600 pound, 4x Rotax277, 30% FreeFlight B24 Liberator (there is no 55lb law). And the take that FF 30% B24 up to FL190 into Class A Airspace out in BLM land off hwy395? Because it is a model, and the FAA doent have laws for models?

I dont care if you think you would, or whether you'd want to, or semantic tech problems with the hypothetical b24... just if you see no law against it so folks are allowed to do it without breaking the law.

400ft .lol. oops. seriously who really flies below 400 ft. i mean if i see a plane in the area i go down to probably around 200 but when i dont see a plane and no one else does im probably up around 700ft. its simple to do. my real rules is once its starts getting slightly hard to see thats ur cue to start going down. vfr rules for me. its pretty amazing when u get a piolet out there start doing circle around the airfield around 500ft. sterman i may add. especially when u have a cvs cam in the cockpit of ur plane kind of chasing him, i wouldnt say chasing just admiring the plane from a distance.

To my knowledge there has never been a midair with a model, which resulted in the full scale plane crashing. This includes free flight models.

I am sure that is correct. It is also legal for a carrier pigeon's owner's pigeons to fly right over a local airport, and even rest for a while on the control tower. You have no real control. However if flown dangerously you would have to worry about civil suit. Also if done intentionaly there is a catch about waivers that could be used. But not sure if the FAA could even use that. BTW there is no 55 pound law for radio controled aircraft either, that is an AMA rule. If the model is large enough to carry a person, then the FAA could possibly call the model an aircraft.

Where does that come from?

Part 91.1 (c)

Forgot to copy the text but that says the reg applies to each person aboard the aircraft. Aircraft in Part 14 is simply any craft which flies through the air, but either this has been changed or described differantly in another reg. But this one basically says that at least part 91 only applies to the people on the craft. I was thinking the definition defiened aircraft as having people on board, but either I have bad memory or it is defined differantly in another part.

Sport-

It surely wouldn't seem a smart thing to do, but oddly (to me), the FAA policy that is the latest I know of pertaining to this subject confirms that you are correct. Phaedrus posted this link to an official FAA memo on the subject about a week ago:

http://www.uavforum.com/library/faa_uas_policy.pdf

It basically states FAA's current (a/o Sept 05) position regarding Unmanned Aircraft (UA). In the section regarding policy toward model airplanes, it reiterates the longstanding policy of AC 91-57 applies and adds nothing new by way of regulation of model airplanes per se. It does, however, go on to state that UAs operated in acordance with AC 91-57 are considered model airplanes, and exempt from the general regulatory policy regarding UAs.
So, as long as the 'model airplane' that KE proposed stays below 400' and outside of a 3-mile radius of an airport, it's okay by FAA's explicit statement of policy. No limit on size, weight, propulsion, control mode, purpose (recreation/sport, commercial, military/police, etc.).
What kind of servos will I need for a 1:1 scale F-104 ARF, available in the military surplus market? I plan to fill the cockpit with paintballs so it is incapable of carrying a human pilot/passenger. That would void coverage under my HO policy, and possibly the FAA's definition of a UA.

Abel

Confusing what the AC states and what the AMA states. The AC is 400 feet everywhere PERIOD. The AMA is 400 feet only with in three miles of an airport. The AC also states no model flying in or next to churches, schools, hospitals and PARKS. "Parks" was left off of a list in another posting.

The mod.... um, aircra... um, that abomination B24 I described wasnt a test of weight, but just an explicit example of a model taht possibly could get to FL190, It was to get folks here to say Yes Or NO to our FreeFlight Models going up into Class A Airspace completely unregulated.

The trend I read here is ya'll say there is no law against going into FL190 ClassA all willy-nilly with a FF model B24.
(yes, we all know about ac91-57 and the ama spin on it)

KE-

I haven't flown a GenAv craft since I was a young punk like you, putzing around upstate NY with my Dad in a Cub or Luscombe, Swift or whatever else he had most recently restored. What's FL190 in 20 words or less? I get a lot of hits on googling, but none define it.

BTW, I've not said you can fly a model (or UA defined by FAA as a model airplane) into any airspace with the blessing of FAA if it is above 400'

Abel

Hey, I went back and read the AC and it states that flying near schools, churches, and other gatherings is not recommended. As far as flying within 3 miles it was recommended that you call the tower or airport operator. It also recommends a observer and remaining clear of aircraft in vicinity, DUH. if you are above 400' and the cops fly by at or below 1000' then there may be a problem coming your way. Maybe the club can make it so no power in the park, seems stupid because of the density of people. but if the power flyers are in the club then they have a voice as to who, what, when and where. if someone went to the FAA and the parks dept. to start a pi$$ing match then you all will lose a good thing because the feds will pressure the city/county to handle the problem that has been presented.

FL190- Flight Level
Basicly- altitude of 19,000'
More words- 19,000' using a single standard pressure for altimiter calibration (29.92)

Abel: Sorry for you getting caught up in that ya'll I threw out. Try Wiki for info... with a grain of salt as most internet things

No prob, lil' bro.

Actually I'm glad you brought up the general topic. It got me to considering the potential impact on modelers of the latest epistle from FAA. Initially I felt it too loose in terms of regulation.........the part about UAs being classed as model airplanes if they are operated like model airplanes. Unusual reaction for me, as I'm big on freedom - not a law & order type of guy by any measure. Justice and freedom fan yes and big time, but the law in this country has very little to with justice any more, and order is at the opposite pole from freedom. So, I've decided I like the wild west open-endedness that the wording in the FAA policy memo seems to infer. It's more in line with my general philosophy of the way things should be. It is the sort of lack of specific guidance that forces people to exercise good judgment and responsibility in their actions, rather than relying on the law to tell them how act. From many discussions in this forum, this one included, it is obvious there a lot of folks that are very uncomfortable when they don't have somebody else to tell them what to do. Tough noogies. They'll have to deal with it in this isolated instance. They well deserve that discomfort IMHO. Have you noted the perversity in our society that those same people that need having rules to live by dictated to them in order to feel warm and fuzzy are invariably the same one's that feel they are best qualified and are the most motivated to make rules governing how the rest of us should act?

Abel

Read the AC again. The first paragraph. All AC's are only advisory's. They are more similar to the safety articles in AMA's magazine than a regulation. That is why they are called ADVISORY circulars. If you disregard them there is no law or regulation broken. However they can be used against you in civil court to prove negligence.

Sport Pilot-

So, Yes or No?
Is AC91-57 the only FAA regulation of models, and it is just an advisory, so we can do whatever we want, such as flying at 19000' in Class A Airspace with a model?

I saw folks saying the FAA only has ac91-57 for models, now you say there may be some other criteria (91.1c) that can make our models passenger planes? Why would we care if ac91-57 is the only limits.... unless there ARE INDEED other limits & regulations that dont have the word MODEL in them yet set criteria by regulation for our activities with models. It didnt take long after I ask about the huge model that you came up with 91.1c... so do we find all the regs that actually aply to us one by one as I come up with extreme examples that demonstrate regulated activities/limits?

This isnt just to SportPilot (not picking on him, he just happen to be a recent one), anybody that thinks the FAA only has ac91-57 to deal with models can answer.