[NSRCA-discussion] Altitude limits

[Archie Stafford]

Ed,

 

My info came directly from one of the guys who write the rules from Oklahoma
City.  He was in Del Rio working with us on a UAV project involving training
and compliances.  As I said in my post, it is in the gray area, that there
is a lot of room to interpret.  I think as long as we are smart and careful
this wont become a problem.  I'm sure that when the new UAV rules come out
over the next couple of years, we will be mentioned in there.  

 

Arch

 

 

  _____  

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Ed White
Sent: Monday, January 21, 2008 3:14 PM
To: NSRCA Mailing List
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Altitude limits

 

It is written in FAA Advisory Circular AC 91-57, dated June 9, 1981.  You
can download it from the the FAA website (www.faa.gov and then type AC 91-57
into the search box).

It says "Do not fly model aircraft higher than 400 feet above the surface."
This applies to any location.  But because the next sentence says "When
flying aircraft within 3 miles of an airport, notify the airport operator
..."  some people misinterpret the requirement as 400 feet only when within
3 miles of an airport.

The key point is that it is an ADVISORY Circular.  It outlines the FAA's
preferred model aircraft operating standards, but compliance with the AC is
voluntary.  An AC is not the same as a FAR (Federal Aviation Regulation). 

Ed

Mark Atwood <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com> wrote:

It was always my understanding that we were never supposed to exceed 400 ft
and that full scale aircraft were to stay above 500ft. But I'm not sure
where that's written...

-M


On 1/21/08 2:35 PM, "James Oddino" wrote:

> I'm getting some breaking news that there is some type of advisory
> that says we shouldn't be flying above 400 feet at our field in
> Camarillo. Are there any general rules about altitude limits that we
> should be aware of? We are pretty far from the Camarillo airport and
> never get close to any full size stuff so I don't understand why there
> would be a local restriction. More to follow I'm sure.
> 
> Jim O
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion



 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20080121/5bdb295c/attachment.html