PLANE JIM

My Feedback: (109)

Apawacholz,
I understand what you are saying and I am a strong supporter for the "Sciences" of the Academy of promoting the development of new aviation technology, theory or any other item in this realm. However, (and I am really not trying to display any attitude) I have also seen some RCers try to emulate Rutan, Doolittle, Armstrong, Lindburgh, Yeager and others with the "hangar talk" but have never been at the controls of a real airplane in their life-but thinkin the FAA is has to be good because they are in control of real aviation.
I have not seen any of them fly RC with a leather helmet and goggles yet, but I have seen the logbook types before !!!!!!!!!! (not the goggles for video)

We have rules in place don't we? avoid all people carrying aircraft by "see and avoid" -what else do we need? If one's desire is to fly without seeing his ship and able to observe the airspace around him then he probaly needs to be talking to ATC, have an encoding transponder, an instrument ticket, and whole lot more training which is way out of the area of AMA and alot of rc pilots. We should seperate ourselves and not lose the freedom we all have now and the enjoyment of a early Saturday morning flight at your local rc field.

I think we should be telling the FAA that we are two different animals-versus hoping that the rules they create will not effect us or thinking that they are friendly and they would never make a rule before thinking it out . Maybe the AMA will have to propose new rules on operation limits as far as type, speed,altitude, aircraft type because their will be somone show up with a model that will be outlandish as a individual bringing a Browning Automatic Rifle to a lazer tag event and expect to use it. Cheers

Sport_Pilot

Well tell me what regulation says I cannot fly, even over 500 feet and not near airports?

I think we all have agreed there is only an AC that is only advise.

Sport_Pilot

I have a private pilot license and the FAA leaves a bad taste in my mouth. And I have never had any problems with violations. Just that the airspace is not well managed for small planes, its all for the airlines.

Silent-AV8R

It really is pointless to continue this with you. It is like a dog chasing its tail. You feel the FAA has no authority over models or in airspace below 500 away from airports, etc. The FAA does not agree with you. Rather than continue to beat this dead horse in the RC forums why don't you contact the FAA directly and enlighten them to their errors. It would be a service to the hobby.

cfircav8r

My Feedback: (1)

It is true that there are no set regulations for model aircraft, but this is not due to lack of authority. The new regulations that are being investigated, in secret, is going to change that. One other thing that many don't know is the FAA has a thing called "Emergency Authority" that gives them the power to immediately set regulations when they believe public safty is at risk.

Sport_Pilot

They have authority in Part 77 which means they have no authority in non navigable airspace. However the 1958 FAA Act says the FAA sets those bounds, thus they wrote regulations for Ultralights. So they currently do not have authority, but can with a stroke of a pen.

Yes they do have that, but that does not come from the aviation laws but security laws given to the President, but the FAA is part of the executive branch and those power given to them by the POTUS.

TexasAirBoss

My Feedback: (22)

You absolutely nailed.

cfircav8r

My Feedback: (1)

They have the autority, they just have not set up any rules governing our aspect of flight, they therefore have no means of control yet. Lack of legal parameters does not mean lack of authority. Just remember that current regulations have a gray area that can be used to include models in a court case. Believe me when I say that a jury will always side with the FAA.

Public safety and national security are two completely different things. The emergency authority is primarily used in the interest of public safety, and not national security.

Sport_Pilot

The 1958 FAA Act gives the FAA the authority over all navigable airspace. They have no authority over non navigable airspace. Local and State governments have won cases on this ground. The navigable airspace is the limits defined in Part 77. However, the limits can be changed by writing new regulations.

Emergency operations are after the fact, the public safety has already been put in jeopardy. So essentially they are part of the security of the United States. But it matters not because they both come with the power of the POTUS in the Constitutional.

cfircav8r

My Feedback: (1)

The cases you are referring to have nothing to do with controlling aircraft operations only with controlling obstructions to A/C. Any obstrucion under 500' does not require approval from the FAA. Flight operations are controlled by the FAA at any altitude below 60,000'.

Sport_Pilot

Does flight operations include footballs? What regulations cover model airplanes? Only part 77 as an obstruction to air traffic.

cfircav8r

My Feedback: (1)

A football is not piloted, a model AIRCRAFT is. There are already UAV's being designed for the military that will never operate above 500' and yet the manufacurers are already being regulated by the FAA. I know the military does not fall under the FAA, but the manufacturers do until they get a military contract and oversight. You are confusing lack of current regulation with lack of authority. Our model aircraft fall under the FAA's definition of an Aircraft therefore regulated or not, they have authority. You can call us an obstruction all day long, but in the eyes of the LAW we are flying AIRCRAFT.

apwachholz

Thanks for the continued feedback everyone...very good stuff.

Response to PlaneJim -
I believe we are on the same plane, just expressing it differently.

Your last statement about "… the AMA will have to propose new rules on operation limits…" is precisely what I'm talking about in previous posts. For me, it ties directly in to how our technology has shifted. And because of that shift, we and the AMA need to redirect our focus.

I agree with your "see and avoid" comment but, I believe that it is not enough. Why do I say this? Look at r/c's Top Gun contenders and tell me that you wouldn't be a bit concerned if one of these sized aircraft got in the hands of unskilled rc pilots.

The potential damage in a severe accident (and it only takes one) and the ramifications of those actions would resonate far into the public eye and with severe consequences. It's this type of thing that the FAA is concerned about. They're not concerned about 'shutting us down', but if we don't promote a culture of safety and prove to them we adhere to such a mantra, they very well might shut us down.

Though this seems far fetched, it's not. Again, it only takes one accident and our hobby is completely tarnished in the eyes of the FAA.

You are correct in that we (AMA/FAA) are two different beasts. In many ways we are but, clearly we also share a lot in common. Airspace being the primary. To not understand each other in order to grow our organizations amicably with public safety in mind seems naive.

We shouldn't loose our freedoms to fly on Saturday mornings. But if we don't work with the FAA (who again is clearly going to make rules now and in the future) we are going to loose so much more then we realize.

By helping the FAA & General Aviation understand our community, we will understand them. And through this mutual respect we'll both be able to grow into the future; together.

hook57

My Feedback: (21)

Sport, I have to ask, and seriously as one pilot to another; when was the last time you actually (as in really) piloted a real aircraft, in real airspace, in real time? 14 CFR Part 77 is not a determinant with regard to what a model aircraft is in these threadsor otherwise, plain and simple, period.

Cfirca8, you are mostly correct; but there a instances where it's 200' though, (see §77.23). Actually it's between FL600 down to FL180 that is always controlled (with few exceptions), the rest varies upon several factors, weather, location, terminal type, etc.

only

TexasAirBoss

My Feedback: (22)

Is this what you guys are talking about ?


Class G covers almost the entire country. In very remote areas it has an upper limit at 14,500' msl. However the vast majority of area of the country it has an upper limit that follows the contour of the ground. The top of Class G usually is where the floor of the overriding Class E is. Like a coat of paint following the contour of the land. Sometimes the depth of Class G is 700', some times it's 1200', and where Class B,C,D or E extend to the surface there is no Class G.

hook57

My Feedback: (21)

Cfirca, regarding the military UAVs, if it is operated in the NAS it most likely requires a CoA. There are no commercially produced (read manufactured for sale) UAV manufacturer for use in the NAS,that fall under FAA regulatory requirements; ie., aircraft type certification, registration, airworthiness certification, etc. I believe at present, it is a case by case basis; but we all know that is changing.

hook57

My Feedback: (21)

Pretty much, I suppose FH.The reply was intended to redirect a blanket statement that it's allcontrolled below FL600. Actually, I believethat the description you providedisfrom the High Adventure website, which has a very good description of the various airspace classifications. ( I first flew hang gliders in '74', must be why I like the WSC trikes). At least the site makes an effort to update its information when it becomes available (one should still checkfor accuracy)
hook

cfircav8r

My Feedback: (1)

hook57, yes I should have used the word regulated instead of controlled, but I was speaking more to those individuals that are not familiar with the FAA's definition of controlled, as most educated pilots already know this. FAA regulations are in effect from FL600 (60,000') to the ground. Often it is not so much control as regulation that dictates how full scale aircraft operate. As model aircraft are not yet regulated we are free to do as we want, and that is what frightens the FAA most.

cfircav8r

My Feedback: (1)

I flew for years in some of the so called worst airspace in the nation and had very little trouble doing what ever I wanted to do. I flew a photo flight 1 mile off the departure end of Houston INTL for more than 10 mins at noon on a weekday. The airspace works great if you just learn how to use it.

Sport_Pilot

The only trouble I have really had is one time when I wanted to fly IFR on top, and they would not respond. I could hear them but they would not answer me, could be they could not hear me. So without being sure where the cloud cover stopped, though the weather reports said I had the range, I turned back and canceled the trip. The other thing that bothers me is that they will not accept ideas that would make IFR simple for small planes. They don't seem to care that IFR flight is more dangerous than a motorcycle.

Sport_Pilot

There is a suit about this in the courts. The suit claims that the FAA does not have the authority, but I don not know the grounds. The issue is not the military, they can fly everywhere, anytime. They regularly break FAA rules they are allowed to), even flying low during flyovers at sporting events, but the FAA is not involved, though they may get chewed out or worse by their commanders. The suit is from an organization for UAVs for the police. We will see how that turns out. I still maintain that the FAA does not have authority of model airplanes in non navigable airspace per the original 1958 FAA Act, unless someone can show me where this has been changed by other congressional laws (not regulations as they cannot change law), or court cases.

This act was re-codified in the United States Code
TITLE 49, SUBTITLE VII , PART A , subpart i, CHAPTER 401, 40103. This is the law, not Federal Regulations) It says:

"(b) Use of Airspace. - (1) The Administrator of the Federal
Aviation Administration shall develop plans and policy for the use
of the navigable airspace and assign by regulation or order the use
of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the
efficient use of airspace. The Administrator may modify or revoke
an assignment when required in the public interest.
(2) The Administrator shall prescribe air traffic regulations on
the flight of aircraft (including regulations on safe altitudes)
for -
(A) navigating, protecting, and identifying aircraft;
(B) protecting individuals and property on the ground;
(C) using the navigable airspace efficiently; and
(D) preventing collision between aircraft, between aircraft and
land or water vehicles, and between aircraft and airborne
objects.

(3) To establish security provisions that will encourage and allow maximum use of the navigable airspace by civil aircraft consistent with national security, the Administrator, in consultation with the Secretary of Defense, shall—.

(A) establish areas in the airspace the Administrator decides are necessary in the interest of national defense; and

(B) by regulation or order, restrict or prohibit flight of civil aircraft that the Administrator cannot identify, locate, and control with available facilities in those areas. "

So as you see although they do have authority over aircraft, they only have authority of aircraft in navigable airspace. The exception would be certified aircraft and pilots who must abide by the rules in all airspace.

Sport_Pilot

Part 77 is applicable to all objects both stationary and moving (even other aircraft, hang gliders for example), so yes it is applicable.

bkdavy

My Feedback: (1)

Your argument for navigable breaks down because the FAA determines what is "navigable". If someone is flying an aircraft, that airspace is clearly navigable. Per the act, the FAA now has the authority to regulate that airspace for its efficient use, and protection of persons or property on the ground. That authority includes assigning "safe altitudes".

Like it or not, the FAA has the authority. To date they have not used that authority to regulate model aircraft.

If you want to avoid the regulation, your best bet is to buy a 5,000 acre farm someplace, and secede from the union.

Brad

Sport_Pilot

That is determined in Part 77, yes they can rewrite the reg.

That is not the definition of navigable, look it up in the law. Helicoptors are the only aircraft allowed to regularly fly in non navigable airspace. Other aircraft are allowed if they stay away from buildings and people by 500 feet.

The law clearly states their authority is in navigable airspace.

We are becoming a totalitarition nation. At some time the later option will become attractive.

cfircav8r

My Feedback: (1)

Yes you are right in that an Administrator can not just come ground you if he/she thinks you are unsafe as there are no regs yet. When we speak of their authority we mean they have the legal authority to make regulations controling our aspect of flight as they see fit. They do not need to establish this through congress or the courts. they just write the regs and we then have to abide by them by law. They would have to establish legal authority over say guns if they wanted to regulate them (the bullets occasionally fly through their airspace but are clearly not aircraft.)