FAA ceiling on R/C
12-11-2010, 08:56 PM
#26
RE: FAA ceiling on R/C
Below 70 feet, usually. C/L are currently not model airplanes but kites. I'd want that in writing though. Park Rangers and FAA guys (except Mark "Hook 57") cannot be trusted to know that they aren't restricted without black and white, to the point print.
Chris...
Chris...
12-11-2010, 09:05 PM
#27
My Feedback: (4)
RE: FAA ceiling on R/C
ORIGINAL: Rcpilot
.................
I don't know what all the fuss is about. 400 feet above ground level is pretty darn high for normal, every day flying. Why would you need to fly higher than 400' above the ground?
I can see an IMAC contest where large planes will exceed that during uplines, and I could see a pattern plane exceeding 400' on an upline. But those instances are rare when compared to the number of RC flights being flown on a daily basis.
So why all the fuss over a 400' limit?
.................
I don't know what all the fuss is about. 400 feet above ground level is pretty darn high for normal, every day flying. Why would you need to fly higher than 400' above the ground?
I can see an IMAC contest where large planes will exceed that during uplines, and I could see a pattern plane exceeding 400' on an upline. But those instances are rare when compared to the number of RC flights being flown on a daily basis.
So why all the fuss over a 400' limit?
Yes, as a rule it is no big thing for the average R/Cer flying small electrics and .40 size sport R/C models. But I routinely go above 400 feet flying powered sailplanes and unpowered sailplanes. I want to be able to keep doing so and not be breaking an FAA regulation.
R/Cers have been hugely successful flying in the national airspace and simply seeing and avoiding any full scale traffic. That is how it needs to be, officially, and it is worth flighting for.
12-11-2010, 09:44 PM
#28
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Orange County,
CA
Posts: 5,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: FAA ceiling on R/C
ORIGINAL: shannah
Its easier for them that way, for sure. If the definition is broad and non-descript then everything falls under the guidelines and, therefore, under the regulations. I don't have a good feeling about this at all...
Its easier for them that way, for sure. If the definition is broad and non-descript then everything falls under the guidelines and, therefore, under the regulations. I don't have a good feeling about this at all...
12-12-2010, 06:47 AM
#30
My Feedback: (21)
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Apple River IL
Posts: 951
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: FAA ceiling on R/C
ORIGINAL: shannah
I should add in the definition for sUAS the capability of autonomous flight. Any of the capabilities (autonomous flight, sensors, cameras, external data communication would mean you are not operating a model.
I should add in the definition for sUAS the capability of autonomous flight. Any of the capabilities (autonomous flight, sensors, cameras, external data communication would mean you are not operating a model.
Mark
12-12-2010, 07:25 AM
#31
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: grand rapids, MI
Posts: 313
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: FAA ceiling on R/C
You may want to bookmark these links:
http://commerce.senate.gov/public/in...etyandSecurity
http://www.contactingthecongress.org...trans_aviation
This list is only valid until the new congress is is sworn in, then some of the members on these two committees will change, sometime after Jan. 3, 2011. See someone on the list from your state, or from your district? Drop them a call, email, or swing by a local office. Be nice to the congress person's staff. Start by letting them know you have a concern, invite them to a club event, swap meet etc. These Congresscritters are supposedly our voice in government. Let them hear you. Planting a seed now (or shortly after Jan. 3) will make the open comment period in June more meaningful.
http://commerce.senate.gov/public/in...etyandSecurity
http://www.contactingthecongress.org...trans_aviation
This list is only valid until the new congress is is sworn in, then some of the members on these two committees will change, sometime after Jan. 3, 2011. See someone on the list from your state, or from your district? Drop them a call, email, or swing by a local office. Be nice to the congress person's staff. Start by letting them know you have a concern, invite them to a club event, swap meet etc. These Congresscritters are supposedly our voice in government. Let them hear you. Planting a seed now (or shortly after Jan. 3) will make the open comment period in June more meaningful.
12-12-2010, 09:05 AM
#32
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Bellingham,
WA
Posts: 178
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: FAA ceiling on R/C
If the FAA gives as much effort to enforcing the regulation they write for model aviation as they do to enforcing Part 103 (Ultralight aircraft) you don't have much to be concerned about. They have much bigger issues to deal with than how much a ultralight aircraft weights or how high a model airplane flies. Typical government action. Spend millions to create massive new regulations and not ten cents for a enforcement budget. It is all "feel good" legislation.
Jim
Jim
12-12-2010, 02:32 PM
#34
My Feedback: (56)
RE: FAA ceiling on R/C
ORIGINAL: stuntflyr
Below 70 feet, usually. C/L are currently not model airplanes but kites. I'd want that in writing though. Park Rangers and FAA guys (except Mark ''Hook 57'') cannot be trusted to know that they aren't restricted without black and white, to the point print.
Chris...
Below 70 feet, usually. C/L are currently not model airplanes but kites. I'd want that in writing though. Park Rangers and FAA guys (except Mark ''Hook 57'') cannot be trusted to know that they aren't restricted without black and white, to the point print.
Chris...
You are very misinformed .
12-12-2010, 02:35 PM
#35
Member
My Feedback: (10)
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Winamac,
IN
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: FAA ceiling on R/C
Even "feel good" legislation can be a problem. Sooner or later a gung-ho FAA Administrator will
come along and start enforcing all regs, good ones and stupid ones. If anyone has trouble
seeing a model at 400 feet then I feel sorry for them. The runaway at our flying field is 850 feet
long, and even with bad eyesight I have no problem seeing a plane sitting at the end of the
runaway, even a 40 size. Our field is about 2.5 miles from a full scale airport, that in the
summertime might have 1 or 2 planes fly out of there a day, almost never even get close to our
field. If they did pass and enforce this "feel good" legislation, it would have a useless impact on
our field! This kind of legislation is like the 1968 Gun Control Act it doesn't accomplish squat! Instead
of targeting the violators they go after everyone. Typical of Government agency that can't use
common sense!
come along and start enforcing all regs, good ones and stupid ones. If anyone has trouble
seeing a model at 400 feet then I feel sorry for them. The runaway at our flying field is 850 feet
long, and even with bad eyesight I have no problem seeing a plane sitting at the end of the
runaway, even a 40 size. Our field is about 2.5 miles from a full scale airport, that in the
summertime might have 1 or 2 planes fly out of there a day, almost never even get close to our
field. If they did pass and enforce this "feel good" legislation, it would have a useless impact on
our field! This kind of legislation is like the 1968 Gun Control Act it doesn't accomplish squat! Instead
of targeting the violators they go after everyone. Typical of Government agency that can't use
common sense!
12-12-2010, 03:19 PM
#36
My Feedback: (21)
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Apple River IL
Posts: 951
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: FAA ceiling on R/C
ORIGINAL: stuntflyr
Below 70 feet, usually. C/L are currently not model airplanes but kites. I'd want that in writing though. Park Rangers and FAA guys (except Mark "Hook 57") cannot be trusted to know that they aren't restricted without black and white, to the point print.
Chris...
Below 70 feet, usually. C/L are currently not model airplanes but kites. I'd want that in writing though. Park Rangers and FAA guys (except Mark "Hook 57") cannot be trusted to know that they aren't restricted without black and white, to the point print.
Chris...
Mark
12-12-2010, 05:33 PM
#37
My Feedback: (5)
RE: FAA ceiling on R/C
ORIGINAL: hook57
That has all ready been spelled out in pretty much all of the documents available Shannah. When it comes down to two identical aircraft (sUAS), unique or not, how do you determine whether one is a ''model aircraft'' or a ''sUAS''? In my view it makes sense to ask what the intended purpose (use) of each is. Once the term commercial, surveillance, NAS, or cooperative aircraft come into the mix then the term model is not applicable. Just one way to look at it.
Mark
ORIGINAL: shannah
I should add in the definition for sUAS the capability of autonomous flight. Any of the capabilities (autonomous flight, sensors, cameras, external data communication would mean you are not operating a model.
I should add in the definition for sUAS the capability of autonomous flight. Any of the capabilities (autonomous flight, sensors, cameras, external data communication would mean you are not operating a model.
Mark
12-12-2010, 06:15 PM
#38
My Feedback: (26)
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Alexander,
AR
Posts: 259
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: FAA ceiling on R/C
The M.A.R.C.S. Club in N. Little Rock, Ar. has been flying at the same location since the mid 1950s Thay are just north of the outter marker, & I do mean just north. of Little Rock, Adams feilds outter marker. Thay havent ever had any problems with air traffic as you can see them on short final @ VLE !! We have had, I dont know how many ATC'rs come buy and tell us thay were watching us through their binoculars and thought how much fun it would be to fly R/C !! The 400' will cause problems for imac & pattern no doubt. I think their is a bigger problem with the camera rpvs and that should be the FAAs priority !!!
12-12-2010, 06:27 PM
#39
My Feedback: (26)
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Alexander,
AR
Posts: 259
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: FAA ceiling on R/C
OH YES !!! It is enforcable !! Ever heard of a Mode C transponder !! We fought against them in the 90s when I was in the EAA and the local chapter prez. I am sure with todays technology they could produce one small and light enuf for models !! and the FAA forced mode C down our throats even if your plane did not have an electrical system !!
12-12-2010, 07:31 PM
#40
My Feedback: (42)
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Randolph,
NJ
Posts: 878
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: FAA ceiling on R/C
ORIGINAL: daleflysrc
OH YES !!! It is enforcable !! Ever heard of a Mode C transponder !! We fought against them in the 90s when I was in the EAA and the local chapter prez. I am sure with todays technology they could produce one small and light enuf for models !! and the FAA forced mode C down our throats even if your plane did not have an electrical system !!
OH YES !!! It is enforcable !! Ever heard of a Mode C transponder !! We fought against them in the 90s when I was in the EAA and the local chapter prez. I am sure with todays technology they could produce one small and light enuf for models !! and the FAA forced mode C down our throats even if your plane did not have an electrical system !!
"A 400 foot celiing is simply unrealistic, and is also unenforceable with RC flying as we know it today."
"AS WE KNOW ITTODAY".
If we are ever forced to carry an altitude reporting telemetry device in every model, which Ihighly doubt will really happen, that would be a significant factor in causing the demise of the hobby. I'll go back to flying control line before Isubmit to that.
Here's the thing - write your Representatives in Congress. You know, the new ones that start work in a few weeks from now. Let them know how you feel about this. The AMAcan only do some much. It takes strength in numbers to make a difference. Make your voices heard! Your freedoms are being stolen from you, and your only real option is to make your voice heard with letters and phone calls to Washington.
12-12-2010, 11:03 PM
#41
RE: FAA ceiling on R/C
ORIGINAL: F.Imbriaco
If I understand your statement , controline models are'nt aircraft , but kites.
You are very misinformed .
ORIGINAL: stuntflyr
Below 70 feet, usually. C/L are currently not model airplanes but kites. I'd want that in writing though. Park Rangers and FAA guys (except Mark ''Hook 57'') cannot be trusted to know that they aren't restricted without black and white, to the point print.
Chris...
Below 70 feet, usually. C/L are currently not model airplanes but kites. I'd want that in writing though. Park Rangers and FAA guys (except Mark ''Hook 57'') cannot be trusted to know that they aren't restricted without black and white, to the point print.
Chris...
You are very misinformed .
Chris...
12-12-2010, 11:10 PM
#42
RE: FAA ceiling on R/C
ORIGINAL: hook57
Hey Chris, appreciate the moral support. It almost hurts less banging your head against the wall than reading through the various threads. Having been involved at the regional level for the past few years, all the positions and stances aside, I really don't get why folks don't understand what ''exempt'' means. AMA, some other CBO or all other CBOs, aren't going to be so drastically (if even mildly) affected that we should cease buying RC gear immediately. For me, I'll take exemption any day, because it means I can smile and nicely tell the ASI, the LEO, or the FPR to take a walk, it's a ''model''. Oops, I used a few acronyms; for the sake of a those few in another thread that would be aviation safety inspector (ASI), law enforcement officer (LEO), and forest preserve ranger (FPR). See ya soon Chris.
Mark
ORIGINAL: stuntflyr
Below 70 feet, usually. C/L are currently not model airplanes but kites. I'd want that in writing though. Park Rangers and FAA guys (except Mark ''Hook 57'') cannot be trusted to know that they aren't restricted without black and white, to the point print.
Chris...
Below 70 feet, usually. C/L are currently not model airplanes but kites. I'd want that in writing though. Park Rangers and FAA guys (except Mark ''Hook 57'') cannot be trusted to know that they aren't restricted without black and white, to the point print.
Chris...
Mark
I guess Johnny Law and his lower rung counterparts like to use the "no-can-do" on people as a matter of course. Make's them feel powerful. Not all, but I see it enough for me to make such a sweeping statement.
I hope it's all easily adapted to, what our future holds.
I'm glad I'm not in Chicago tonight. They cancelled our DFW-MSP-ORD-STL today and sent us home from DFW. I went to the Huntington Harbor Christmas Boat Parade, it was 79F, calm and dry and cooled nicely into the upper 60's by 10pm.
I'm going to get that Tipo going this month and see if I can do some of those 399 foot loops.
Chris...
12-13-2010, 04:22 AM
#43
My Feedback: (56)
RE: FAA ceiling on R/C
ORIGINAL: stuntflyr
Yes, they are referred to by the FAA as being of tethered flight and are exempt from TFR's. Any other info you want to enlighten me on I would be glad to read it. Thank you,
Chris...
ORIGINAL: F.Imbriaco
If I understand your statement , controline models are'nt aircraft , but kites.
You are very misinformed .
ORIGINAL: stuntflyr
Below 70 feet, usually. C/L are currently not model airplanes but kites. I'd want that in writing though. Park Rangers and FAA guys (except Mark ''Hook 57'') cannot be trusted to know that they aren't restricted without black and white, to the point print.
Chris...
Below 70 feet, usually. C/L are currently not model airplanes but kites. I'd want that in writing though. Park Rangers and FAA guys (except Mark ''Hook 57'') cannot be trusted to know that they aren't restricted without black and white, to the point print.
Chris...
You are very misinformed .
Chris...
12-13-2010, 04:46 AM
#44
RE: FAA ceiling on R/C
ORIGINAL: Derek.Koopowitz
I honestly do not see this happening. I've been on a workgroup that involves all R/C disciplines and the feeling was that the FAA will leave it up to the AMA to determine what the ceiling should be...
ORIGINAL: jeide
What happens to pattern if the FAA new rules limit R/C to 400 feet maximum altitude? Also R/C gliders and IMAC.
What happens to pattern if the FAA new rules limit R/C to 400 feet maximum altitude? Also R/C gliders and IMAC.
12-13-2010, 05:04 AM
#45
RE: FAA ceiling on R/C
There are some large differencies between us and model rockets.
1. Potentially modelrockets can go much higher.
2. Other than looking for air traffic before launching model rockets cannot see and avoid.
3. Model rockets, even small ones can cause more damage because of the high velocities.
1. Potentially modelrockets can go much higher.
2. Other than looking for air traffic before launching model rockets cannot see and avoid.
3. Model rockets, even small ones can cause more damage because of the high velocities.
12-13-2010, 05:08 AM
#46
RE: FAA ceiling on R/C
I have a difficult time understanding how the FAA could justify allowing models with much more lax operator certifications and training requirements to have greater operational flexibility as compared to the more stringently regulated pilot group.
12-13-2010, 05:12 AM
#47
RE: FAA ceiling on R/C
ORIGINAL: Rcpilot
We've been following the 400' limit set forth by AMA for years and years. Since our club is only about 5 miles from a full scale airport, we try and regulate ourselves to 400' above ground level anyway.
See paragraph 2 - sub section (C)
http://www.modelaircraft.org/files/105.PDF
I don't know what all the fuss is about. 400 feet above ground level is pretty darn high for normal, every day flying. Why would you need to fly higher than 400' above the ground?
I can see an IMAC contest where large planes will exceed that during uplines, and I could see a pattern plane exceeding 400' on an upline. But those instances are rare when compared to the number of RC flights being flown on a daily basis.
We've put monitoring devices in a UAV that I work on part-time. It's a long ways up to 1200 feet above ground level. A 44lb UAV starts looking pretty darn small up there. I can't imagine flying a glow or gasoline powered RC model up to 1000 feet above ground level. I've flown thermal gliders up over 1500 feet above ground level. Gliders with 150" wingspans look like a DOT at that altitude.
So why all the fuss over a 400' limit?
We've been following the 400' limit set forth by AMA for years and years. Since our club is only about 5 miles from a full scale airport, we try and regulate ourselves to 400' above ground level anyway.
See paragraph 2 - sub section (C)
http://www.modelaircraft.org/files/105.PDF
I don't know what all the fuss is about. 400 feet above ground level is pretty darn high for normal, every day flying. Why would you need to fly higher than 400' above the ground?
I can see an IMAC contest where large planes will exceed that during uplines, and I could see a pattern plane exceeding 400' on an upline. But those instances are rare when compared to the number of RC flights being flown on a daily basis.
We've put monitoring devices in a UAV that I work on part-time. It's a long ways up to 1200 feet above ground level. A 44lb UAV starts looking pretty darn small up there. I can't imagine flying a glow or gasoline powered RC model up to 1000 feet above ground level. I've flown thermal gliders up over 1500 feet above ground level. Gliders with 150" wingspans look like a DOT at that altitude.
So why all the fuss over a 400' limit?
12-13-2010, 06:23 AM
#48
My Feedback: (45)
RE: FAA ceiling on R/C
I was at a MAJOR UAV conference in New Mexico last week. The idiot with the first person view goggles flying around New York a couple of weeks ago, did not do the R/C guys any favors at all. DHS and the FAA were both very unhappy with that. I don't know how it will affect the overall outcome, but it certainly didn't help our community at all,
Arch
Arch
12-13-2010, 06:27 AM
#50
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Orange County,
CA
Posts: 5,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: FAA ceiling on R/C
I think the damage will be done by way of the FAA not being in a mood to be more lenient. What I mean is that the rules are likely pretty well fleshed out right now from rumors I have heard. But as the review process goes on internally if there are any questions like "Do we really need to be that strict?. The answer will be "yes" and the video will be the proof.