AMA's Muncie site capped at 700AGL
 

While AMA is breaking it's arm patting itself on the back for getting higher altitudes in class G, I see something interesting. AMA posts a link to an FAQ that tells users how to find out the highest altitude they can get in class G at their location. See below.

I did that and saw that AMA's Muncie site is located under Class E5 airspace that begins at 700 feet; it will be REALLY interesting if AMA is going to ignore the limits at their home field...

https://faa.maps.arcgis.com/apps/web...06ebf6a06754ad


https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.rcu...c6004e353a.jpg


Attachment 2272591https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.rcu...ddc9afca37.png

Soaring Nats
 

The soaring NATs are just a few months away. Why don’t you go and see for yourself.

It may not happen right away, but if FAA comes to the realization that AMA won't stay within the latitude it's giving them through this agreement, what better justification to eliminate it?

Maybe the FAA's playing the long game...

The 400' limit is unenforceable until telemetry with altitude is mandated.

Yea, you keep saying that and the evidence points the opposite direction. You need to start seeing what’s happening and not what you are wishing for.

I'm playing the long game ... i.e. "or" instead of "and". All it takes is one jet into a crowd, one jet into a highway, one giant scale into a crowd, one passenger aircraft impact, etc. etc. One thing that's as constant as the sun is lack of flight discipline. For example, people who know the limit is 400 AGL, yet freely admit they violate it.

Know anyone like that?

Of course if AMA had it's money in SVP, things might happen sooner rather than later.

We’ll see, you’ve been wrong more then right.

Regardless, there's an "or" in the law vs. an "and." That must have made a real impact. How do I know? The EVP is still taking about it. In his latest column he says "...they believe you have to be a member..." (paraphrase) because only members have to sign someone that says they'll follow AMA's beloved "code."

Which is really ironic. You're a member. You signed that you'd follow their "code." Their "code" requires members to follow the law. So you are personally undermining their talking point. As clearly signing that you'd follow their code (and thus the law) doesn't stop you from exceeding 400 AGL in class G (by your own admission).

How would someone know they were exceeding 400'?

Telemetry for one...

It's the only one. And it's not required or even common. How could someone be cited? They can't just on the mere fact. The only way it would come up is if someone was reported by a passing aircraft. I'm not aware of that ever happening in uncontrolled airspace. If it's below 1,000' the pilot could end up being the one in trouble.

That's exactly what happened to me and a friend. The passing aircraft was a CHP subcontractor and reported us to dispatch who sent out two ground units. The pilot stated that we were exceeding 1,500’ . The officers threatened to cite us. The sad thing is that this was in 2006. Great example of how clueless law enforcement is regarding FAA law.

Of course Franklin thinks he’s funny by singling me out because I’m being truthful about flying my pattern sequence, at times flying above 400’ for a few seconds at a time. I shouldn’t be surprised about his lack of appreciation for honesty ( he’s been caught in several lies on these forums ). So IMO the FAA is coming to the realization that flying over 400’ can’t be enforced nor is it a safety concern at approved sites such as an approved FRIA. They have announced event waivers ( directly associated with AMA event sanctions ) and I predict that in the future most FRIAs will have standing waivers for flight to 800’ or 1,200’.

And to add to Echo's post, witnesses on the ground are notoriously bad at judging the altitude of aircraft. And that's with full-scale aircraft. It won't be any better with models.

R_Strowe

It's likely the CHP contractor said you were at 1.500' because he was the one in violation. While it's legal for a GA aircraft to be below 1,000' over sparsely populated areas, it's not legal over an "open air assembly of persons", as would be the case with you and your friend. He was required to be 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft. That would be the case for just about any GA aircraft around an active flying field.

So it would not be legal for AMA clubs where the flying area is over the heads of people riding horses and people walking on paths...?

Agreed.

In black and white, you are 100% correct and it is something I would never do. One of the reasons why I haven’t flown anywhere with public access for over a decade now.

However here in the real world, what is the risk assessment difference between flying a 50 mph model directly overhead or within 50’?

Poor Franklin. Someone nominate him for the crying Charly award. https://contentsharing.net/actions/e...W93SyzYlyuQn-S

Then let's see if you'll head over to the other site, quote the post where they talk about flying over people, and call them on it. Let's see if you'll call out other AMA acolytes for behaviors in explicit violation of AMA's beloved "code" ... violations despite signing Randy Cameron's "oath of all oaths" to follow AMA code. My money is you won't.

Depends. Within 50 feet at what altitude and velocity? Directly overhead at what altitude?

As a Canadian, I'll cut you some slack about how US legislation works. It's a long way from a couple statements in a House (lower chamber) hearing to being included in a law. And in fact, if memory serves AMA once before was touting their success in a similar manner, only to have substantial changes made during conference between House and Senate.

So in short, nothing is actually accomplished until it's put into law - like when an "and" was changed to an "or" in the law that was actually passed.

A person would need to train their eye to know what their model looks like after setting it tilted up on a work bench and then walking 400 feet away from it.
Then repeat this exercise over and over and over until until you get real good at it.
Nobody outside of a golfer, a surveyor, a logger, or a sniper have trained themselves to be such expert judges of such range.
I think I have some ability to judge range in the 300 to 500 foot category having spent so much time as a ball player.
How high would you reckon this "Full Scale" plane was flying when he showed up unannounced while I was flying RC with a plane that has 18 inches of span.
The Airport Manager said it looked like the GA plane was at 500 feet .
I told the Airport Manager that my 18 inch plane would barely be visible at 500 feet [almost 2 football fields]..and totally invisible at an altitude high enough to safely clear the full scale plane.
I told the manager that the GA plane looks to be flying about 200 feet high and that my loop around it probably topped out at 300 feet..
The Airport Manager was clearly "protecting" one of his GA friends.
Oh yeah..this flying site was about 1/2 mile from Interstate 5

Just curious, where is that field located? Is it by the "Stilly"? Looks like a good place to fly my Kadet, when I get it done :rolleyes:

HJ...this field was where I flew my little speed planes and a lot of RC Combat for the better part of 20 years.
It is right off of Smokey Pt Blvd almost directly opposite of Bruce & Beckys old barn.
The field was owned by a Korean War pilot.. I real nice guy who didn't mind me flying there but he warned me that a sale was going to happen some day.
He sold all 100 acres and it is now where a Mental Hospital and a RV Dealership sits
I have no idea where to go fly RC except to join The Arlington Eagles.
So how high would you say that plane was flying when I did the accidental loop around it...?

Too bad, the field was within biking distance of my house.
That full sized plane was definitely way too low but, without seeing it in person, it's not something I would want to call. You also have to remember, you're less than a mile from the south end of Arlington Airport so being low might be deemed to be okay.