I haven't looked at it lately but was wondering about this. On a show on the Science Channel called Master Blasters two teams were to make a rocket powered glider, the large ones not the Estes type. They were to be radio controlled. As it were they both failed, I suspect that one failed due to not enough fin area, and the other due to too much engine offset and low servo strength. But if they had worked they would likely have broken the 400 foot limit. I think they may have been ok because the 400 foot rule is only an AC and they had to get a waiver for large rockets. But I am not for sure.

Say what now...
Rockets?

I beleive we could freshen up on the subject, about NAR, Tripoly, & AC91-57
this thread: [link=http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=6467655]Extra-AMA Modeling [/link], a quick 2pager with citations of NAR & Tripoly rocket rules.

If you are really wondering about AC91-57 applying to RC Flight over 400' (as RocketGlider)
how are they any different than all the Sport40 glow planed doing it?

Under 1lb & 4oz no calls to nobody.
Over that and you gotta call the NEAREST, that is not just if you are within 3miles.
I guess that's just how the Rocketeers roll.
Crazy things happen when you try to play both cards: Loose Rocket rules but call it a Model Plane to allow RC guidance.

Were they within 3 miles of an airport?

Is it the AC or the AMA rule that requires the three mile limit? I can't recall right now.

AC91-57 says
Stay below 400 feet. Period. Yes period, they put a period after that direction.
Then, it says when flying within 3mile of an airport to call the airport.
AMA chose to combine those two with a comma

See how they turned the period the govenment used into a comma, creating a conditional for the 400' cap: "When within 3miles" now looks like it gets applied to the 400, by the ama.

Remember, an AC is an "Advisory Circular" which is not a FAR (Federal Aviation Regulation), just voluntary guidelines. Of course if RC pilots routinely refuse to follow these guidelines, and cause problems for full scale, you can bet a real FAR or worse will follow.

Back to the OP's post, I would just about guarantee that Master Blasters are working closely with the FAA, ATF, DHS and other local authorities as needed!

Later!

Ok, so you say its voluntary to follow an AC the gov put out.
Is AMA, as an organization, volunteering to follow it or not?

Looks to me like they are chosing to not volunteer to have their members follow the AC where the gov says where to fly. They have made no uncertain terms about Metal Props, and DRinking & Flying, but where does the organization choose to follow what the government says as religiously as they follow what the insurance co says?

Perhaps the MasterBlasters chose not to volunteer as well?
Whynot, its what we do, right?


But for the OP
Just how big were the rockets?
FAR 101 1lb 4oz / 1-3.3lb / or the BIG boys? The FAR for rockets should trump the AC 400', but then, once you put "Guidance" on and possibly off-vertical launches... you start mixing rules & rulers to try to have something that is a forbidden rocket as a plane so you can skirt the rules.

"This is my 15lb chassis, 15lb 'fuel' , low wing aspect, nonaspirated IC drive, RC model plane. Its not an illegal / ClassI CertReq / FAA-Call rocket. So I can just bust AC91-57 400' at will."

I have seen this show a couple of times, fun to watch, but we are talking some BIG ROCKETS. On one show they shot a childs play house 1000 feet in the air with four rockets hooked to it. Master Blasters is a rockteer team in Texas

Just by the by, the only people who think a FAA AC is "voluntary" are people outside the FAA. As far as they are concerned it IS the law. They cite it whenever they want to in order to shut down or restrict model flying. Of course I have only been personally involved in about 6 cases like this so maybe it is just my local FSDO that thinks that.

wow-maybe you should fly lower

I believe most pilots that sit inside airplanes know what AC's are as well, I'm surprised Hoss hasn't jumped in to shed the light as well. Voluntary .... just another forum legend. Also the AMA doesn't have to double up on FAA's stance because in the safety code because I thought they figured that since the AMA is comprised of mostly adults, they would have figured that AC's aren't to be looked at with oversight ...EVER.

If anyone is wondering what the real FAA rules are in regards to rockets, it can be found in part 101 of the FAR. But warning ... these are not suggestions, these are federal laws, which are 1 tick below the laws of the us constitution. This should end the guessing game. Also FAR rules to do not "trump" advisory circulars. If anything it would be the other way around because they are special provisions above and beyond the laws of the FAR, no different than an amendment to the constitution.

FAR 101: http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text...3.15.3&idno=14

You cannot lose your pilots license for not following an AC, unless doing so caused some other rule to be broken. I am a pilot although presetly inactive and know this to be a case when I did fly. Also FSDO's can apply further restrictions above the FAR and AC's when they feel they have special safety requirements to do so. The FAR's allow this and if you break one of these regional rules then you can be in trouble, but it is not breaking the AC that gets you in trouble. They can site an AC when doing so, but that does not make the AC a FAR, and certainly not above a FAR.

I would think Master Blastes contacted the FAA and recieved a waiver, but I am not certain it would waive the 400 foot AC. But then unless they were near the LA FSDO they were probably OK because the AC is voluntary.

nvm

You're right, an AC is part of another rule. An AC is actually a permanent or temporary clearer definition of that rule. In this case the rule is "somewhere" in part 91.

But let me ask you this, just for entertainment purposes. You're hold an airmen certificate and you are an RC pilot. You are flying your RC airplane at 900' AGL and by accident you fly your RC airplane into a GA aircraft. The GA aircraft was more than 1000' ft from you and any building. You fly your RC airplane into that GA aircraft. Question, do you think you could lose you pilot's license or have some kind of action against it?

When things get slow at the AMA Forum, out come the "400 foot rule" threads. "400 foot rule" threads are a great opportunity to show the world that a little bit of knowledge is dangerous.
When it comes to the 400 foot rule, never has so much been said about so little.

I will repeat what I have said many times, And that is the FAA does not care what you
do with a model air plane unless you do somthing to conflict with full scale avation or
they somehow find out you are over flying an area that you shouldnt whereby you are
causing a hazard.

Ya know what? Airport traffic areas are within 5nm of the airport, with some extensions. If you plan your activity within that 5nm area then you are required to notify air traffic control or base ops or flight facility responsible for that area. HMMMM C'mon...The 400ft limit is just added safety. The lowest allowable VFR traffic pattern is 800ft above ground level(normally, generally and as a rule). That gives us 400ft of verticle separation. Full scale aircraft is 500ft separation. Who flies above a couple of hundred of feet anyway?
I'm with PIGG, here comes the horse puckey. 400 ft this and 500ft that and omg this and that....

Okay, now after posting this, maybe I'll read the whole thread....(this is the edited part.)

Did stl pickup on something? Naw, just wishful thinking. His rockets might apply, but it sure doesn't apply to airplanes...Who flies above 400ft anyway? Surely not anyone I know. Okay, I lied, sometimes....Not within the Airport Traffic Area, anyway.

Yes, the FAR is 1 tick below. There are no laws in between the Constitution and the FAR. There are no states or local jurisdictions that trump the FAR without special permission from the FAA. As are most federal laws, rules and regulations. Let's just say the FAR ain't exactly the AMA Safety Code and if you ever want to test it ...you'll find out the hard way.

Also IRA what you said that the FAA doesn't care about what you do until you come in conflict with a GA aircraft is a dangerous claim to make on these forums. The FAA is in the preventative business, not the cleanup business.

So STL, what's your experience with the FAA and FAR's? May I tell you that the FAA or FAR's do not apply to model avaition until you become within 5nm of a controlled airport/airspace? That may change, now that we have payload capable aircraft. Hmmm, maybe we screwed ourselves?! Our large turbine powered cargo models now look like the real thing. Think about where we are going. Yes, you are correct in the dangerous territory aspect. Hmmm...I thought I would never agree with model planes being a threat, but here I sit thinking about it...

Anyone else think the same way? Maybe we should limit the capabilities of our hobby? No, that is fascism and running scared. So, what do we do? Now is the time for the AMA to lobby. Naw, they won't do that either well maybe they will, let's see.

Oh yeah, I hear that.
I gave the OP the numbers (FAR101 & AC91-57), linked the last thread we did this in, and gave my 2cents.

We've done this 400foot thing to death a few times now,
so I'm letting the "Does Not / Does Too ,Nuh-uh / Yuh-uh" crowd bicker amungst themselves.

Thankfully every club has at least one member genetically predisposed with the over powering need to enforce nebulous rules like 400 feet and 200 mph. They can do it by ear and with one thumb held in front of the other thumb with an eye squint thrown in to look more convincing. [)]

Right?[&o][&o][&o]

Sure you can tell me that, but if you intend to fly your model airplane outside the scope of AC 91-57 than you need to file for an experimental certificate and your "model airplane" is no longer a "model airplane" and you are no longer considered a hobbyist as far as the FAA is concerned.. You are now in the realm of the UAS.