Altitude over flying fields
 

It's interesting how many discussions about encounters between models and full scale ac over club fields talk about 400'. Yeah, one reason is that's the measurement applied to models, but it's clear a whole lot of modelers aren't familiar with the specified altitudes for full scale.

Take a look at the FAR that lays out the law for general aviation:

Quote:

---

Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 91prescribes the rules governing the operation of aircraft.

---

Your club field will probably have an "assembly of persons" on it, don't you think.

Of course it's always important to have a spotter watching for local traffic over your field, but truth is, it'd be a good idea to note any tail numbers you can read that appear under their required minimum altitude. And it'd be good to remember as well that any discussion about problems at your club field should be with an understanding that a full scale at 500 in YOUR gathering's airspace is definitely not innocent.

I fly at 3 different club fields in the area and a number of GA pilots do too. I know most of them, and awhile back thought I'd ask them what their minimums were. Only one (1) of them knew about the "open air assembly", and a couple of them make it a habit of "saying hello" at the club field that's out from town. And that field happens to have a 250' ridge immediately behind it. (absolutely within 2,000k of our runway)

QUOTE=da Rock:
And it'd be good to remember as well that any discussion about problems at your club field should be with an understanding that a full scale at 500 in YOUR gathering's airspace is definitely not innocent.

da Rock,

Innocent or not it is irrelevant. RC is to give way to full scale in ALL circumstances. Most of us don't fly at full scale fields, so interaction with full scale is rare. Nonetheless, when full scale is encountered, it is our job to get well out of the way. If the full scale is in violation of the FARs, that is between the pilot and the FAA.

Fly safe,

Bedford

When full scale is in violation, it's between them and the FAA. Exactly the case when models are in violation, it's between them and the FAA. Your point?

One of my points is the present full scale flight rules require they not be over our fields for us to have to dodge them. And another point not spelled out is their rules seem to be unknown to an awful lot of GA pilots and apparently are seldom enforced. I was flying this morning and a full scale came down to see who was at the field. He was way under the 1200' spelled out in his training. Take that incident and expand it. The GA pilot broke an unequivocally clear rule that's been in place for decades. He certainly didn't fear enforcement. For good reason. Actually for good reasons (plural). And consider how it would have to be enforced. Somebody on the ground would have to report him. To whom. etc etc Why should we fear the FAA more than that GA pilot does. He doesn't.

Everyone on the ground in fact did exactly what you suggest is "their job". As for innocence be irrelevant, not by a long shot. The 91.119(b) rule is sensible. It's clear as well. The GA's action is dangerous, and happens more than you seem to experience. You seem to believe that only collisions are relevant situations. And then pass judgment against models because they were supposed to get out of the way. A Cessna that was supposed to be over 1000' yet encountered a model that was supposed to be <400'....... sounds like equal guilt, don't you think?

So a full scale is flying along, using section (C) of the FAR paragraph quoted above. A clearing ahead shows a few cars and maybe a shed or covered structure. How close does the pilot have to be to identify that there are people out in the open? How long will it take him to react to climb to the 1000ft indicated on section (B) of the quoted FAR?

I think you may be splitting hair with this argument. The 400 ft for RC is directly tied to the 500 ft in section (C) of the above FAR. SIMPLE.

Rafael

Sounds like your model club has a pretty lousy flying site.

So your GA pilot's excuse for buzzing the crowd was he was so low and going so fast he didn't see them until it was too late to get back to legal altitude.

Quibble and try to split hairs to your heart's content, but if your sUAS is in a collision with a manned aircraft, we're all screwed. The press will scream like mashed cats and everyone who was on our side in the FAA will run for cover amidst shouts of 'Ah-ha! See we told you so!'. Please, I'd like to keep flying my planes a few more years. Take up model boats or trains till you get your altitude attitude fixed.

I have to agree with da Rock on this one. IF there is a near miss that is below 1000 ft but over 400, both pilots are at fault. If a full scale pilot buzzes a field at under 400 ft, he is in violation of several regulations and needs to be grounded, plain and simple. At the one field, with a 250 ft ridge being adjacent, there is no question that the full sized pilot is in the wrong, REGARDLESS OF ANYONE BEING AT THE FIELD OR FLYING R/C. It's easy for a full sized pilot to call foul on an R/C but, at the same time, when will you see a full scale pilot admit that he/she was in the wrong? What's even harder is for some one on the ground to call them out due to lack of accurate height finding equipment.

I was taught to be at least 1000 feet unless doing emergency landing practice. And one reason is the scenario you brought up. Not to mention it would be difficult to do an emergency landing from 500 feet.

Not splitting any hairs at all.

For years and years it's been against "the law" for full scale airplanes to fly over "outdoor gatherings" at altitudes below 1000'. It's just another FAA rule that they are supposed to enforce.

Ever hear of anyone being fined piles of money or going to jail? Or for that matter, losing their license or having it suspended? Whereas have you ever witnessed an idiot waving as he sailed over your runway at the folks gathered there? I've lost count of those incidents. And yet FAR 91.119 is no less important than any others the FAA is supposed to enforce.

A number of lessons to note here...... How effectively the FAA enforces, and how skewed your perspective of the situation.

Actually I have, when I lived in Myrtle Beach there were a lot of issues with some of the banner tow operators. Some of them were cited for flying too low over boats and assemblies. Seems they did not want to be 1000 feet over or 2000 feet from the beach. Lots of residents complained about the banner tow planes flying too low over their houses as well, Seems they did not wait till they got to altitude before turning into land. Thing is that at first the FAA did nothing but argue with local authority about jurisdiction as the local police were charging them with disturbing the peace, reckless endangerment, etc. IMO the FAA and IRA need to go.

We are fortunate to "own" our field but it is located in a rural farming area where crop dusters are obviously below 1000 feet (way below 1000 feet). They are very good about skirting our field boundaries but it is a simple matter to just land for the few minutes they are doing their thing. Besides, it's fun to watch these folks.

Sounds like the FAA at it's best.


The banner operators got fined piles of money? Went to jail? Were told to stop doing it? Or just told to follow the rules?

Crop dusters are a different animal entirely. They are low to do a job, not just buzz your field. Do they contact anyone or fly over to let you know they are there before going in on their "bombing" run?

You obviously haven't been flying in a real GA airplane in a while. You are talking about people in the open, with or without cars / structures visible. And I'm talking about 90 to 120 kts. the average speed of a Cessna. Not your or my flying field specifically.

one thing is what you are taught, another completely different thing is what is legal. Is right there in black and white on section (c) of the above quoted FAR. And since you know the subject, you are also aware that a pilot _can_ legally fly MUCH lower than 500 ft. depending on the type of airspace. Is it smart? well, that is where personal minimums come to play.

You guys keep using the term "buzzing the field". If _that_ is the case, you _MAY_ have a point. The fact that the OP insinuated that local pilots come to _visit_ the rc field could be taken as a possible infraction. Otherwise a non-local pilot would have no clue about activities not marked on the aviation charts. That is where the above mentioned personal minimums come into play.

Good luck.

Rafael

Your post kind of sounds like the Seattle area freeways. Speed limit is 60 MPH but many of the kids(hate to use that term but the way they ride shows that they are) on the rice rockets fly down the freeway, through rush hour traffic at better than 90 MPH, weaving between slower moving cars. Is it smart? well, that is where personal minimums come to play. How much room do they need to cut between cars? See the resemblance?

No I don't. Because if you had read that correctly, it actually says that legal is much more lenient than what is smart. Completely backwards to your example, where they are undoubtedly breaking the law.

Rafael

They suspended some pilot's license tined a couple of operators and pulled the operators license, mostly for poor maintenance, as I recall. One or two were OK but one had one of its aircraft have an engine failure and made an emergency landing at the Air Force base and were examined again, I think I heard they did everything proper but that was hearsay.

They are supposed to be operating under a waiver. They are under the same rules when traveling from the airport to the field and from field to field, but a lot of them fly too low when going to and from the fields.

That is completely incorrect. You cannot safely land an airplane when right above trees for example, and the rules say you can fly no lower than an altitude to safely land the plane. The fact that you do this and don't get written up does not mean it is legal.

When they crash because they were flying to low to safely land, then the FAA will write them up then. Hope they are alive to pay the fine.

My point was just because you can doesn't mean you should. Flying below 1000 ft is asking for trouble. Can we say "engine failure"? What's the glide ratio of a C150? How about a C172 or C182?
The 150, 152 and 172 all have a glide ratio of 9:1 at best. Lose an engine at 500 feet and you've got, at most, 4500 until you hit the ground, much less until you hit a tree, hill or ridge.
A 182 brings it up to 11:1 meaning you might get 5500 feet. Still not good if you have any kind of obstacles in your way
Now, lets "buzz" an R/C field at 75 ft. The 150, 152 and 172 will give you 675 ft. of maximum gliding distance. Now, lets see how long you would be airborne. At 65kts, you're traveling at 109.7 FPS. That gives you just 6.1 seconds, at most, to get the plane on the ground before it does it for you. If you're lucky enough to be in a 182, you'll have a whopping 7.5 seconds, at most, to land before gravity takes over. What I found interesting is that the Cessna's all had a better glide ratio than the Piper Cub

Which is exactly why it is illegal.

FAR 91.119 (a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.

Since we now have to register with the FAA, maybe they should show RC flying field locations on VFR Sectional Charts.

They won't do that. Even most full-scale airports aren't shown on the sectional charts. In the county I live in, there are 13 airports listed on the FAA's web site, and only two of them (one of which has no traffic at all and is probably unfit to fly into or out of) is shown on the sectional. (All 13 of them get a five-mile circle around them on the FAA's "know before you fly" web site, however, they think that if we're flying inside one of those circles we should notify the airport.)

What I like to fantasize about is this: Now that all of our models over .55 pounds are aircraft, shouldn't we have to report all of our accidents other than the really minor ones? There are, after all, laws requiring that most accidents be reported.