Notices
The Clubhouse If it doesn't fit in any other category and is about general RC stuff then post it here at the Clubhouse.

Sepulveda Basin

Old 06-02-2019, 12:05 PM
  #9076  
fw190
My Feedback: (37)
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Burbank, CA,
Posts: 1,418
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

If we did not allow drones (autonomous aircraft) to fly at the basin, we would not be in this position. Been flying at the basin for 25 years, Van Nuys airport was never a problem or even a full scale aircraft flying low and close to the field. You want to keep the field? change the sign to 'Absolutely No Drone Flying'.
Old 06-02-2019, 09:12 PM
  #9077  
[email protected]
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2019
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Wow the Sepulveda Basin / Apollo 11 Field is a wonderful flying field. I hope that the club can do whatever needed to please the FAA quickly. It would be good if the field could be closed to everyone except AMA members, maybe also closed to all users except to Valley Flyers members. I think that would reduce troubles with the authorities. Can anyone suggest how that could be accomplished, considering that it is a public park? The field and area have been used for model airplanes going back in to the 1950s (I heard of such, but can't recall all the details). So the use for models predates the Van Nuys Airport. Hopefully this problem will be resolved soon.
Old 06-03-2019, 03:52 AM
  #9078  
T3chDad
 
T3chDad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Huntsville, AL
Posts: 273
Received 11 Likes on 9 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by fw190
If we did not allow drones (autonomous aircraft) to fly at the basin, we would not be in this position. Been flying at the basin for 25 years, Van Nuys airport was never a problem or even a full scale aircraft flying low and close to the field. You want to keep the field? change the sign to 'Absolutely No Drone Flying'.
Ignorance and prejudice runs strong in this person...
Old 06-03-2019, 08:58 AM
  #9079  
Mike360
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Southern CA
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

bsnider8 has the problem right there the club needs to be able to control anyone flying there or its always going to be problem rule breakers need to be held accountable. If the COE will not allow responsible use they will get irresponsibility
Old 06-03-2019, 09:31 AM
  #9080  
Digital Pilot
 
Digital Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Rocket City, AL
Posts: 614
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 4 Posts
Default

I hate to see this.. Unfortunately its pretty cut and dry. If you read the FAA mandate and look at the controlled airspace grid, ALL RC fields that fall into the grid have altitude restrictions. Unfortunately the Basin falls into the Zero altitude zone, meaning no flying at all. One of the other big clubs in Socal has been brought down to a 100 foot max ceiling (Coachella) due to where it is on the there controlled airspace grid.


Maybe all the clubs affected can get together to fight this issue? bring forward the years of flying at there sites and the perfect safety records as well??
Old 06-03-2019, 01:24 PM
  #9081  
FUTABA-RC
 
FUTABA-RC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 1,409
Received 43 Likes on 39 Posts
Default

Where did you see CVRC is doing this? Or are you just presuming based on how the law reads?
Old 06-03-2019, 03:38 PM
  #9082  
Digital Pilot
 
Digital Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Rocket City, AL
Posts: 614
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 4 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by FUTABA-RC
Where did you see CVRC is doing this? Or are you just presuming based on how the law reads?
Shows on the list and according to the UAS Data map,
Old 06-03-2019, 03:39 PM
  #9083  
Digital Pilot
 
Digital Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Rocket City, AL
Posts: 614
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 4 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by FUTABA-RC
Where did you see CVRC is doing this? Or are you just presuming based on how the law reads?
Shows on the list and according to the UAS Data map,

Old 06-03-2019, 06:00 PM
  #9084  
DrV
My Feedback: (2)
 
DrV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Los Angeles, CA,
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by fw190
If we did not allow drones (autonomous aircraft) to fly at the basin, we would not be in this position. Been flying at the basin for 25 years, Van Nuys airport was never a problem or even a full scale aircraft flying low and close to the field. You want to keep the field? change the sign to 'Absolutely No Drone Flying'.
LOL, Its a federal law. Nothing to do with drones flying at the basin.
Old 06-03-2019, 06:50 PM
  #9085  
FUTABA-RC
 
FUTABA-RC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 1,409
Received 43 Likes on 39 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Digital Pilot
Shows on the list and according to the UAS Data map,
I understand that. I was curious if you heard something from the club itself. Many clubs are operating by what the AMA has told them, which is, to continue on as before, get a LOA, etc. The Basin is a different situation since it is not a single club field and is located within 2 miles of a an airport inside controlled airspace.
Old 06-03-2019, 07:00 PM
  #9086  
Digital Pilot
 
Digital Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Rocket City, AL
Posts: 614
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 4 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by FUTABA-RC
I understand that. I was curious if you heard something from the club itself. Many clubs are operating by what the AMA has told them, which is, to continue on as before, get a LOA, etc. The Basin is a different situation since it is not a single club field and is located within 2 miles of a an airport inside controlled airspace.
I do know that the CVRC is filing for an LOA. My concern is that if its posted and if you do get cited by the FAA for flying, will the AMA pay the fine or whatever consequences arise for you?

Just be careful..
Old 06-03-2019, 07:45 PM
  #9087  
[email protected]
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes on 5 Posts
Default

Hi Guys
I am Daniel Metz President of the CVRCCLUB

Yes we have applied for a LOA with the most Altitude and Radius choice for flying possible. 2000' X 2000'.

The comment page on the application allowed us to use 255 characters, so this is what we filled in. This describes our clubs activities and yearly accomplishments. "As a 501-C-3, CBO, Gold Ldr Club, WarBirds, Scale, Gliders, Jets, Aerobatics, AstroCamp, STEM Class, PS Museum Youth, Give $1500 yearly to Vets. At loc since 2001, no full scale issues, Prvt funded $300K. Fly@JC airshows. EAA co/op. 2 POTUS TFR waiver."
The last POTUS TFR Waiver entry represents 2014/2015 when the last president flew into the valley. That waiver gave us a 1/2 mile dome of air space above, and radius around our field.

We were the only club ever allowed to have a Wounded Warrior benefit Jet Event during a POTUS visit. We had 6 SS officers, a bomb sniffing dog, a FAA representative and Rich Hanson in attendance. After 1/2 hour they were having a wonderful time. I told them to order anything they wanted from our food truck caterer. The second year I called the Special office of Security at the white house again. They said "You guys were great so no problem" I have emails from all of the above too.

A interesting Federal Aviation Regulation have been found as well. It is in the May 2019 Reg. issue.

"Open air assembly of persons
Title 14 of Federal Air Regulations (FARs) para.91.119(b) says “over any open air assembly of persons, the minimum safe altitude is 1000’ above the highest obstacle within a radius of 2000’." The highest object is a power line within that 2000' radius, it is approx 100' high.

We also have joined the local EAA chapter and have attended their fly ins and meetings. By the way Jackie Cochran Airport does not have a Manned Tower, we are in E-2 class airspace. There is an inverted air space cake above us, the lowest AGL over our field right now is 1200'.

The FAA and full-scale aviation people tend to judge things in terms of flight-hours. We think the following is an extremely conservative estimate.
In making our case for the safety of our field operations vs manned aircraft, if we presume 40 model flights in a typical week, at 5 minutes per flight = 200 flight-minutes or 3.33 flight-hrs/week.
3.33 hrs/week x 50 weeks/yr x 18 yrs = 3,000 model flight-hrs with not even a single incident of conflict with manned airplanes. We think 3,000 incident-free flight hours over 18 years is an impressive number.

The last thing that we are doing now is to use the Air Maps For Drones web site. We post a flight plan for the period of time we are flying, that web based site allows a designation of "Flying for Fun"

It allows a 1000' altitude and 1500' flying radius choice. It also contradicts the drone map grid over us and says we can fly at 400"?

Dan

Last edited by [email protected]; 06-03-2019 at 08:15 PM.
Old 06-04-2019, 04:37 AM
  #9088  
fw190
My Feedback: (37)
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Burbank, CA,
Posts: 1,418
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

OMG! I just broke the law, last Memorial Day weekend I flew at Atwater Airport for the Castle Event, I think I need to turn myself in!

It is not just about the law it is about permission.
Old 06-04-2019, 07:52 AM
  #9089  
F16Jeff
My Feedback: (11)
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Simi Valley, CA
Posts: 259
Received 9 Likes on 8 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by DrV
LOL, Its a federal law. Nothing to do with drones flying at the basin.
I understand it is law as well. Our jets are being blamed as well as the drones. Because the jets are fast, noisy, and use smoke.

The Valley Flyers are working with the park district to keep the field open. The latest update as of yesterday, is they are working to have at least a 250' max altitude. No landing approaches from the north past the end of the runway. No take offs headed north should the wind direction change. No flying over the golf course.

Some options being looked at:
1. Move the runway further south, of course this is expensive.
2. Field becomes organized under Valley Flyers
3. AMA is required for anyone flying there
4. The electric flying area north of the pits and runway would be closed

This information was provided at our local club meeting last night by a Valley Flyers member who is directly involved.

Hope we can get this resolved.

Jeff
Old 06-04-2019, 08:40 AM
  #9090  
FUTABA-RC
 
FUTABA-RC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 1,409
Received 43 Likes on 39 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by [email protected]

It allows a 1000' altitude and 1500' flying radius choice. It also contradicts the drone map grid over us and says we can fly at 400"?

Dan
Hey Dan - FWIW, AirMap has been shown to be a fairly unreliable source of information and it does not replace any actual laws. Be careful of using it as any kind of authorization. In addition, none of the current airspace awareness apps have been updated to reflect the new rules. Personally I use Kittyhawk over AirMap. Kittyhawk is also owned by a former modeler who even flew a couple of SCAT contests!!

But overall you sound like you have things well under control and this is why I was asking since the statements seemed to indicate a similar issue as the Basin. Your situation is entirely different than the Basin's.

Good luck to you.
Old 06-04-2019, 08:46 AM
  #9091  
[email protected]
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes on 5 Posts
Default

Thank you Bill,
Your comments are duly noted. We are trying very hard to keep what we have created.
I will download that app now. I wish there was a NOTAM based app, that talked to the the full scale guys real time.
I appreciate your endorsement and I will keep everyone posted.
Dan

Last edited by [email protected]; 06-04-2019 at 09:58 AM.
Old 06-04-2019, 09:59 AM
  #9092  
FUTABA-RC
 
FUTABA-RC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 1,409
Received 43 Likes on 39 Posts
Default

On the computer there is a great app called "SkyVector." Shows airspace using current sectionals and also shows TFRs

https://skyvector.com/
Old 06-04-2019, 10:09 AM
  #9093  
[email protected]
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes on 5 Posts
Default

Hi Bill
Can I post a Notam on this site? You can send me a private message if you wish.
Dan
Old 06-04-2019, 11:38 AM
  #9094  
z06kal
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Woodland Hills, CA
Posts: 211
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by F16Jeff
I understand it is law as well. Our jets are being blamed as well as the drones. Because the jets are fast, noisy, and use smoke.

The Valley Flyers are working with the park district to keep the field open. The latest update as of yesterday, is they are working to have at least a 250' max altitude. No landing approaches from the north past the end of the runway. No take offs headed north should the wind direction change. No flying over the golf course.

Some options being looked at:
1. Move the runway further south, of course this is expensive.
2. Field becomes organized under Valley Flyers
3. AMA is required for anyone flying there
4. The electric flying area north of the pits and runway would be closed

This information was provided at our local club meeting last night by a Valley Flyers member who is directly involved.

Hope we can get this resolved.

Jeff
Thanks for the update Jeff. Not sounding too good. No north end landing approaches would make it impossible to land anything with a high wing loading like a big jet or warbird. In low wind I suppose we could take off up wind and land down wind with a jet with brakes but boy that would get real sketchy adding another 10-15mph on an already fast approach. Further, the entire pattern would have to be flown much further south anyway. I can live with a 250ft altitude but not being able to fly the pattern corresponding to geometry of runway or land into the wind is a no go IMHO. If anything it will make operating the "SUAS's" much more dangerous for the pilots on the flight line. This whole situation is just so terrible...
Old 06-04-2019, 12:47 PM
  #9095  
FUTABA-RC
 
FUTABA-RC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 1,409
Received 43 Likes on 39 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by [email protected]
Hi Bill
Can I post a Notam on this site? You can send me a private message if you wish.
Dan
Not sure about that. Most likely have to use the FAA's NOTAM portal.
Old 06-04-2019, 02:04 PM
  #9096  
rcphotog
 
rcphotog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: murrieta, CA
Posts: 382
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by F16Jeff
I understand it is law as well. Our jets are being blamed as well as the drones. Because the jets are fast, noisy, and use smoke.

The Valley Flyers are working with the park district to keep the field open. The latest update as of yesterday, is they are working to have at least a 250' max altitude. No landing approaches from the north past the end of the runway. No take offs headed north should the wind direction change. No flying over the golf course.

Some options being looked at:
1. Move the runway further south, of course this is expensive.
2. Field becomes organized under Valley Flyers
3. AMA is required for anyone flying there
4. The electric flying area north of the pits and runway would be closed

This information was provided at our local club meeting last night by a Valley Flyers member who is directly involved.

Hope we can get this resolved.

Jeff
Thanks for the update. I wonder how, by moving our predominant landing pattern a few hundred feet further South will increase safety for the full-scale aircraft departing 16R or landing 34L. And the East pattern of Van Nuys airport already "avoids" the BASIN regardless of wind direction. I'll most certainly abide by the new rules but I'm just wondering out loud what has or is precipitating these almost draconian new requirements and restrictions. Is this in preparation for Amazon to launch their proposed fleet of autonomous delivery drones I wonder.
Old 06-04-2019, 02:18 PM
  #9097  
[email protected]
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes on 5 Posts
Default

I also think that perhaps your club could become affiliated with Cal State North Ridge to develop a STEM Drone school at that site. After all if you cannot beat them, join them. It seems that the AMA now calls all of our planes, Jets included "Drones".
Re-incorporate as a 501-C-3 as that is one of the base requirements for becoming a CBO. Just a suggestion!

Perhaps this is the reason they avoid that area?
Maybe this can help. A interesting Federal Aviation Regulation have been found as well. It is in the May 2019 Reg. issue. Use it as a supporting REG for your field? Although I do not think that Van Nuys airport would mandate that steep of a take off nor approach.
"Open air assembly of persons
Title 14 of Federal Air Regulations (FARs) para.91.119(b) says “over any open air assembly of persons, the minimum safe altitude is 1000’ above the highest obstacle within a radius of 2000’."
Dan
Old 06-04-2019, 07:14 PM
  #9098  
FUTABA-RC
 
FUTABA-RC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 1,409
Received 43 Likes on 39 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by [email protected]
It seems that the AMA now calls all of our planes, Jets included "Drones".
It is not the AMA, it was Congress and the FAA. There are no more "model airplanes" or "hobby" flying. There is just one big bucket of small Unmanned Aircraft Systems (sUAS). We are operating under the "Limited Recreational Unmanned Aircraft Systems" rule.
Old 06-04-2019, 08:22 PM
  #9099  
rcphotog
 
rcphotog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: murrieta, CA
Posts: 382
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by FUTABA-RC
It is not the AMA, it was Congress and the FAA. There are no more "model airplanes" or "hobby" flying. There is just one big bucket of small Unmanned Aircraft Systems (sUAS). We are operating under the "Limited Recreational Unmanned Aircraft Systems" rule.
But I don't fly - "unmanned aerial systems", I, me, a person operates via remote control, using a radio transmitter, miniature aircraft. My operation of said aircraft is not autonomous or at anytime (other than during periods of equipment failure) out of my direct control. It is true that I don't fly a "man-carying" aircraft at this location, but I am in constant control of said aircraft non the less. It is "manned" by me at all times while in the sky via remote control. I'm just saying in different ways to try to get a point across.
Old 06-04-2019, 09:03 PM
  #9100  
FUTABA-RC
 
FUTABA-RC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 1,409
Received 43 Likes on 39 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by rcphotog
But I don't fly - "unmanned aerial systems", I, me, a person operates via remote control, using a radio transmitter, miniature aircraft. My operation of said aircraft is not autonomous or at anytime (other than during periods of equipment failure) out of my direct control. It is true that I don't fly a "man-carying" aircraft at this location, but I am in constant control of said aircraft non the less. It is "manned" by me at all times while in the sky via remote control. I'm just saying in different ways to try to get a point across.
Good for you. However, the only thing that matters is what Congress and the FAA think.

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.