RE: FAA regulating model airplanes
 

Abel,
I am glad someone interpreted what I said correctly. Thank you.

My point wasbefore I was taken to task, is that the FAA has taken us to task before. And in fact it was some jet meets which were canceled. Now to you point, it involved more than jets, and I will agree with that, but Superman is a big event, and that cost a lot of folks alot of money. My sources tell me the direct impact to the immediate Metropolis area was in the neighborhood of a million dollars. That fell on deaf ears. The original intent of the ruling DID pertain to models since that is what brought about the wrath of the FAA. They were quick to point out that other things fell under the same umbrella (ie, car shows, races, etc). But when it involves the routine operation of full scale aircraft, and will effect them in any way, the FAA has full jurisdiction to heave its mighty hand.
Tommy

RE: FAA regulating model airplanes
 

Bad luck here Abel, I belong to the Prado club and I am intimately aware of the Prado/BITW situation and I can tell you that NEITHER the FAA OR the AMA got directly involved. It was the San Bernardino County Parks Department that held the cards. In fact, the AMA District X VP, Rich Hanson had worked very hard to get jets INTO Prado in the first place. But the County was very clear, NO JETS. The FAA had no position on that matter. All they cared about was that the 400 foot limit be observed as per AC 91-57 (and the long standing lease with the County).

The "influence" that the FAA had on jet events came as a result of the facts as I stated them. That is a far cry from the innuendo that the FAA/AMA/dog catcher or anyone else has it "in" for jets. The events that got cancelled due to the FAA enforcing an existing rule about airports had NOTHING to do with the Prado situation, models in general, or anything else except the use of publicly funded airports for private events, of any kind.

So, please tell me where the "spin" is here?? Jets at Prado got shut down by the lease holder WITHOUT any action from the FAA. In fact, it was the Club President at the time who made the offer to ban jets since he felt it was the only way to get the field back. BTW - the situation at Prado effectively ended the use of the field by a very large group of IMAC pilots and also Pattern pilots. So it was far more than the jet guys effected. The rest of us just got the spatter from the BITW CD.

Oh, jets got banned at the old El Toro (OCMA) field, again by the landowner/lease holder after a fire. The new OCMA field also bans jets, again due to the landowner/lease holder's concern of fires in a very fire prone area. Neither situation has anything to do with the FAA or the AMA.

RE: FAA regulating model airplanes
 

Couple of quick comments...

Seems that everyone has his panties in an uproar over something that was reported on the internet. Gee, what are the chances that it's not at all as was reported? I would think pretty high. Especially since the plane that's pictured certainly doesn't appear to be one that would be used for any type of surveillance - narrow fuselage, unlikely surveillance-plane wing planform, bright covering job, etc. Hell, it looks more like a Pattern plane than one for surveillance, which requires time on station/endurance/long flight times. One of Bruce Tharpe's Flyin' Kings would be an example of a surveillance-type plane. OK, so it has some Sheriff's stars on it, so what? A buddy of mine covered a Giant Stinger to look like an Oakland County (Detroit area) Sheriff's car would look like if it were a plane, but that didn't make it an official Sheriff's plane. If you were designing a drone for surveillance, would you be putting the stripes on it that are pictured and are sure to ensure high visibility? I wouldn't. I would make the plane damn hard to see.

Next topic...Don't know about the Prado incident, but do know about the one that caused the initial jet uproar. The issue was a simple one. The organizers wanted their event to shut down all full scale operations for the jet fly. The FAA took the position that any full scale airport that receives any federal funding is to be kept open for the intended use by the public and therefore they would not allow the operations to be stopped. The unfortunate part of this incident is that the CD wasn't willing to negotiate to only having part of the field closed, which would have satisfied the FAA. By causing a big stink, the CD of that event made the FAA strengthen their position as would any animal pinned down in a corner, and that's where we are, all due to a dumb a** CD.

RE: FAA regulating model airplanes
 

Sure, if was some privacy busting spy plane, that would make sense. But if was a Search&Rescue, you would want folks to see it, to either close in on it marking folks it found, or letting the lost ones see which way to go, or some other Public Service use besides PrivacyViloating.... a high visibility plane can serve the public better

RE: FAA regulating model airplanes
 

I went to their website. It is actually a pretty sophisticated aircraft, as are a lot of the small UAV's Look at the UAV links I posted above. Some really amazing stuff there.

Here are some pictures from the paper:

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedi...ck=1&cset=true

Here's the plane they are testing:

http://www.octatron.com/Products/SKS.html


As I always say, we modelers are our own worst enemies.

I stand corrected on how the FAA got involved with the jets. I did not realize that it was the result of the CD being unwilling to work with the FAA. But that is still a little different than the first mention of this event that made it seem more like the FAA heard there were model jets and swooped down to shut down the event. Sadly, that situation, like Prado, has had effects far outside the small group that first caused the problem.

Oh well. Be careful out there!! Big Brother IS watching now!! Even if it is from a cheesy little $30,000 electric.

RE: FAA regulating model airplanes
 

Yes I know you belong to the Pomona Valley R/C club, and I know of your (apparently now dormant) role in communicating D-X matters, etc. I am not and never have been a member, but I do know of your club and was among the paying spectators when the incident previously mentioned occured, saw the PO'd GA pilot arrive with escort, et al.
The 'spin' has to do with the denial, continued in the post I reply to, that AMA and FAA had anything whatever to do with the drastic changes in the club's MO that followed the 'spatter' from the BITW incident. Your Club President independently of any influence of AMA and FAA expressed or implicit, took the actions he did? Maybe I'm just a hard sell.........

Regarding any FAA 'directed' role in the lockout of jet events at govt-subsidized airports around the country, let's try an analogy: does the victim of a murder care if was 1st or 2nd degree?

Abel

RE: FAA regulating model airplanes
 

wow.

RE: FAA regulating model airplanes
 

I don't know what you want from me. I spent a good amount of time on the phone with the GA pilot, the club president and such. I know what the AMA involvement was and I got first hand reports from people who were at the meetings, sometime the very day they happened. I am not denying anything. I merely reporting the facts as I know them. You clearly do not think they are correct. OK, I know what I know and you are free to deny that I do. Doesn't make me wrong, just says that you refuse to believe me. I'm OK with that.

So in your mind the FAA and the AMA forced the club and/or the County to ban jets, is that what you are saying?? If so, all I can say is that you are incorrect and leave it at that.

However, the FAA has forced two other clubs (EDSF & HSS) to significantly alter their long established operations which will substantially change the nature of those clubs. And I will agree that this heightened awareness and interest on the part of the FAA here in SOCAL is directly a result of the incident at the BITW in 05.

As to the comment about my role in the District, I have not the faintest idea what you mean by it or what bearing it has on this discussion.

RE: FAA regulating model airplanes
 

Don't want anything from you, just expressing my disagreement with some things you said. AMA may not have 'forced' the jet ban at Prado by overtly threatening to lift the club sanction until you got your act together, and FAA may not have explicitly sanctioned your club either. Nevertheless, both had an interest in your cleaning up your act, and I can't imagine that the major changes implemented in your club MO were done sans any concern over what they could have and likely would have done. The use agreement for the site may be with San Berdoo Co, but it wasn't county rules that were violated to precipitate the ensuing fallout - it was FAA's rules, and it was FAA that got the incident report, unless somebody with no apparent reason to made it up.
Were the balloons on 400 foot tethers used to provide reference for an altitude limit imposed by the county, or was it to demonstrate compliance with FAA rules? If a 400' ceiling is specified in the county codes and ordinances, pray tell where. Maybe the guys from your (former?) alternate site at Norton that I have had occasion to chat with were just spoofing me about the balloons - tell us if that is so, too.

Unless I am mistaken re who you are (in which case please accept my humble apology), we met some years ago. Introduced by Rich H. during a D-X meeting held in conjunction with the IMS in Pasadena, IIRC - though the memory of that occasion is vague and I could well be wrong. That dim recall places you as the D-X webmaster at that time. Anyway, as you say it has zero relevance to this discussion - it was just an aside.

Abel

RE: FAA regulating model airplanes
 

Actually the FAA has nothing directly to do with the "change" in HSS and the sailplane flying at Fairview Park. This is all due to the take over of the soaring club by refuge power only pilots bent on flying their large planes at Fairview Park. Their constant harping at the city to establish a controlled flying area (something that is not necessary with sailplanes) brought all of this to a head. The power flyers see the 400 foot altitude limitation as a means of removing all the sailplane pilots from the club.

They are in for a big surprise though. The city counsil will include a weight and speed limit on the power flyers if/when a permit system is established. Nothing over two pounds or faster than 25 mph.

RE: FAA regulating model airplanes
 

I cannot state it any more clearly than I have. In fact it was the club's idea to use the balloons. AMA made no threats about sanction (actually it would be a club charter, but let's no get off on a tangent) revocation or anything else. It WAS the County lease that was violated since it had the 400 foot limit from day one in it. It is not a County ordinance, it is in the lease agreement. All I can say is that your sense of the facts from your vantage point in Florida and mine from being local and in communication with the pricncipals differs. Let's leave it at that.

I am indeed Bill Malvey. I make no real secret of that fact. I am a District X AVP here in SOCAL and I was the District X web master some years ago (over 5 or 6 now). Now why you feel you would owe someone else an apology for confusing them with me indicates that there is some shame in being me. [&o] Although I do know some people who have been offended for just that sort of confusion!! As I said in my PM to you, we'll just have to agree that we see things differently on this issue. All I do know is that the FAA is not making SOCAL a Happy Model Playground right now!!

RE: FAA regulating model airplanes
 

Hi Hugh -

I agree with much of what you say here. However, I do know that the FAA has made a systematic move lately to enforce AC 91-57. They did it at Prado and at EDSF. Having said that, the FAA came to the recent HSS meeting and is essentially requiring the club to acknowledge and write the guts of AC 91-57 into their new lease agreement with the City. That seems pretty direct to me!!

Bill Malvey (as we all know now!!)

RE: FAA regulating model airplanes
 

Retracted. Was a reply to post that has been materially edited.

Abel

RE: FAA regulating model airplanes
 

The 400 feet has been orchestrated by the few power only flyers that have taken over the club. The intent to do this goes back several years -- intensified in the last year. The club made the contact with the FAA and kept pushing the 400 limit with them and the city. There has been outright falsehoods (nice name for lying) propagated by these few power flyers in their attempt at total control. Even "a certain" member of EDSF has offered to help the club "set this all up" to remove the sailplane flyers.

When the club was not run by these idiots the 400 foot limit was shown to be unenforceable as it is only an advisory. I have to add that the AMA has been a total wanker on this too. At least the "advice" the jerks chose to relate to the city. Then when Maroney (and Malvey) actually visited the flying site and sent a letter telling them that the park was not a safe place to fly power they buried his comments and refused to share them with the city. Maroney; "The dirt walking path crossing the runway and flying area must be closed!" and "The main RC runway is planned to be approximately 500’ by 150’. It does not appear that a buffer zone of 250 feet is provided for either end of this runway." The city park department has absolutely no intention of fencing off any part of Fairview. This effectively blows out the AMA site insurance because of a violation of safety rules. Oh that's another item; the wankers have convinced the park manager that rules are not rules and they can pick and choose which ones they want. This allows them to fly 30 to 40 pound electrics just feet away from one of the most heavily traveled public paths.

Then the gas is thrown on the fire; Maroney; "Normal day-to-day flying activity is limited to 400 feet altitude by FAA Advisory Circular 91-57. Sailplane flying should only be done on a scheduled basis and with a NOTAM issued." To be noted that HSS is/was the oldest soaring club in the AMA and had been flying at Fairview Park for almost 30 years with out the 400 foot problem. Only after a visit by Maroney and his entourage does this start to become an "issue". I would not be surprised if there were "others" in the area that are clandestinely helping this along.

In the last 35 years of flying sailplanes one non-flyer has been injured by a tow line. In the last year of intensifying power flying four non-flyers have been hit, two of which were injured, one requiring stitches. There has also been three litho battery fires that I know of; one charging on the car, two from crashes. It does not matter how much insurance coverage the AMA has when a non-flyer gets hit by a 30 pound electric doing 50 mph. You can kiss any flying (at Fairview Park) goodby. It seems to me that such a reputable AMA club would be helped to over come the fallacious 400 limit (actually 1,000 feet when you look at the actual inverted wedding cake limits to the side of the runway) rather that be effectively ousted from the rc flying community.

RE: FAA regulating model airplanes
 

"It seems to me that such a reputable AMA club would be helped to over come the fallacious 400 limit (actually 1,000 feet when you look at the actual inverted wedding cake limits to the side of the runway) "

uh, 1000' ? I thought G came in 2 flavors, 700 & 1200, and the 91-57 stuff for models... now where does 1000' come from?

RE: FAA regulating model airplanes
 

[quote]ORIGINAL: SoCal GliderGuider

To be absolutely accurate here, I did in fact visit the site and I have flown there on numerous occasions over the year. But Hugh, you are 100% incorrect in saying that I had anything to do with this letter. If in fact Carl Maroney wrote such a letter, and I do not know that he did, I can assure you that I was not party to it, authored in whole or in part, reviewed it, nor was a signatory to it. So get the facts straight at least and please do not make inaccurate statements about my actions.
Thanks.

RE: FAA regulating model airplanes
 

I was not implying that you had anything to do with the letter -- directly. I would bet that there was considerable discussion on the way back to Maroney's hotel. If you have not read the letter it can be found in the club's news letter of 02-2006 at their web site;

http://harborsoaringsociety.org/

Specifically;

http://harborsoaringsociety.org/Plan...06/02-2006.pdf

I do expect an apology as to your assertions that I made this up.

RE: FAA regulating model airplanes
 

Keep waiting. Again, you clearly put my name directly next to Carl's implying that I was partially responsible for the letter.

Here is your quote to refresh your memory:

In addition, I drove away in my own car, did not accompany Carl, or anyone else, to his /their hotel , nor have I had any contact with Carl relative to this situation since we parted ways the day of the site visit on the Monday after the AMA Convention In Ontario in January 2006.

I never implied that you made up the letter, only that your statement (by implication) that I was associated with it is 100% incorrect.

But I guess I would be foolish to expect you to apologize to me for spreading an incorrect rumor about my involvement in this.

RE: FAA regulating model airplanes
 

Actually I've been foolish in thinking you would discuss this in a reasonable manner and not latch onto some insignificant incongruity to divert attention away from the core of the discussion.

Foolish me.

I also find it incredulous that you have not been kept abreast of what comes out of the AMA especially about a subject that you appear to have a keen interest in. How was the July 6th meeting with HSS?

As to the 400 foot thing; this is an "advisory" not a regulation no matter how much the local FAA, or city or what ever wants it to be. Until there is a solid regulatory process by the FAA it don't mean doodoo. If a local club ain't got the balls to stand up to it then they deserve loosing the field. Since it's obvious that tha AMA is bending over backwards for the FAA big one this proves how worthless they are.

I mentioned 1,000 feet in another posting. Had to look over my notes and this is where it comes from:


FAR 91.119 Minimum safe altitudes: General.

Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:

(b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft.

RE: FAA regulating model airplanes
 

The FAA does not agree with you and since they hold all the cards it does not matter what any of us thinks. I'm done arguing this point. Please call the FSDO in Long Beach, CA. Tell them your expert opinion on this issue. I am certain that they will see their error and change what they have been doing. You clearly understand their policies and procedures better than they do themselves. Take care Hugh.

RE: FAA regulating model airplanes
 

ok, 1000' is a safety floor for GA in any airspace class, not a cieling for models. If that was interperated to models, they would not be allowed to fly below 1000' near the Open Air Assembly of clubmembers at the field.

Regarding the RC model, does the 400' ac91-57 carry punitive enforcement (as any FAA Advisory), or just a suggestion? Is there some other CFR-FAR law type limit? This is beggining to sound like the 20kg legal limit without it actually being a coded law. Cause if we ignore the 400' suggestion, just what ceiling do we have, ClassG - the GoForIt class ?

In my twocents, I'm gonna take 91-57 to be the way it is untill I see FAA documents otherwise. When the FAA uses terms like Shall and Must, why poke them with a stick to see if they arrest you.

RE: FAA regulating model airplanes
 

Are you talking about Superman, or the Ozarks thing?

RE: FAA regulating model airplanes
 

Just as I thought. You are in on pushing the sailplanes out. Typical self centered power flyer. As you are not part of the answer it's more than obvious that you are part of, if not, the problem. As you are joined at the hip with the ama the "problem" is a national infestation.

The FAA does not have the authority to limit model flying. Instead they pressure the muni's that control the flying site. I know of nothing that the FAA can use as legitimate "pressure" against a muni -- nothing. So where is the authority? Unless it's written in the FARs there is none. As you have passed the buck to the FAA what do you have to hide? What is your role in this?

RE: FAA regulating model airplanes
 

Actual text from the FAA web site:

Question: Does FAA have regulations for operating small radio-controlled, gas-powered airplanes?

Answer: We do not have regulations for small radio-controlled, gas-powered airplanes operated for sport and recreation. We do have guidance for operating "model" aircraft in Advisory Circular (AC) 91-57 "Model Aircraft Operating Standards. The AC encourages voluntary compliance with safety standards. The Academy of Model Aeronautics recommends a weight restriction of 55 lbs. (There are exceptions to the 55 lb. limit for operating large models.) You should follow industry-developed safety standards when operating your model aircraft.

Oops! There is that AMA tie in. Note that the words "guidance" and "voluntary" are used. Also re-read the first five words of the answer.

The actual AC (note that this is typed in from the PDF of the typed page -- spelling errors are most likely mine):

AC 91-57
Date June 9, 1981

ADVISORY CIRCULAR

"DOT Logo"

Subject: MODEL AIRCRAFT OPERATING STANDARDS

1. PURPOSE. This advisory circular outlines, and encourages vouluntary compliance with, safety standards for model aircraft operators.

2. BACKGROUND. Modelers, generally, are concerned about safety and do exercise good judgement when flying model aircraft. However, model aircraft can at times pose a hazard to full-scale aircraft in flight and to persons and property on the surface. Complicance with the following standards will help reduce the potential for that hazard and create a good neighbor environment with affected communities and airspace users.

3. OPERATING STANDARDS.

a. Select an operating site that is of sufficient distance from populated areas. The selected site should be away from the noise sensitive areas such as parks, schools, hospitals, churches, etc.

b. Do not operate model aircraft in the presence of spectators until the aircraft is succesfully flight tested and proven airworthy.

c. Do not fly model aircraft higher than 400 feet above the surface. When flying aircraft within 3 miles of an airport, notify the airport operator, or when an air traffic facility is located at the airport, notify the control tower, or flight service station.

d. Give right of way to, and avoid flying in the proxibity of, full-scale aircraft. Use observers to help if possible.

e. Do not hesitate to ask for assistance from any airport traffic control tower or flight service station concerning compliance with these standards.

sighed: R. J. Van Vuren
Director, Air Traffic Service

Initiated by: AAT-220

The PDF can be found at :
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/1acfc3f689769a56862569e70077c9cc/$FILE/ATTBJMAC/ac91-57.pdf


Looks like even the FAA can pick and choose the parts of this they want to make an issue about. HSS flys at a "park".

RE: FAA regulating model airplanes
 

(edit: SoCal posted simultaneously. Ah well, we both have different takes on the same info).

Funny how this stuff get's recycled each year. This was discussed at the "other" site last year:
http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=397503

Now...down to the nuts and bolts.
FAA's circular "encourages voluntary compliance." Read it here: http://www.eoss.org/faa/ac91-57.pdf
Here's the meat of it:
"C. Do not fly model aircraft higher than 400 feet above the surface.
When flying aircraft within 3 miles of an airport, notify the airport operator,
or when an air traffic facility is located at the airport, notify the control
tower, or flight service station."

AMA's ruling is technically not voluntary to AMA-insured flying sites (we are not suppose to disregard the safety code, after all):
"5. I will not fly my model aircraft higher than approximately 400 feet above ground level, when within three (3) miles of an airport without notifying
the airport operator." (ref: http://www.modelaircraft.org/PDF-files/105.pdf)

The wording is a bit legaleze, and that comma does much to change the meaning. Best I can tell, it means no AMA-insured field can permit flying over 400'. If the field is within 3 miles of an airport, they have to notify the airport of their flying.

The 700' to 1000' reference is from when Dave Brown was trying to raise the 400' limit. Apparently he was unsuccessful.

Bottom line: FAA made a toothless rule and requested voluntary compliance. AMA has volunteered its compliance. I don't know all the reasons, but I'm sure its partially to do with insuring that FAA doesn't start scrutinizing AMA and the modelers it represents. If AMA were to staunchly deny compliance and say "make me," FAA may decide to push it into law and start putting AMA under the magnifying glass.

No doubt, this is upsetting for thermalizers who wish to fly at an AMA flying site. One course of action is to remind the EC to not let up on the push for a higher ceiling. This is one of the reasons that AMA exists, after all. In the meantime (ironically enough), you can still fly at other parks and areas where you are permitted to do so. But, until the safety code is changed, it does seem like AMA has pushed out thermalizers from the flying sites.