[NSRCA-discussion] Fwd: Altitude limits

Wed Jan 23 09:34:13 AKST 2008

Perhaps the AMA should contact the FAA about getting all of the established
model fields a fixed chunk of airspace up to, say, 1000 AGL and 1/2 mile
radius.  The vast majority of model fields in the US would extend into
uncontrolled airspace so it wouldn't be a problem and then people can quit
worrying about the AC.  This would most likely end up being a simple NOTAM,
but it would finally put this issue to rest.

There are many types of operations in uncontrolled airspace such as
full-scale aerobatics, parachuting, model rockets. . . all of them get
permission to use airspace above 400 AGL, model airplanes should get the
same authority.

On Jan 23, 2008 10:05 AM, chris moon <cjm767driver at hotmail.com> wrote:

>  Here is the important excerpt from the clarification of policy letter:
>
> *"Model aircraft should be flown below 400 feet above the
> surface to avoid other aircraft in flight."
> *
> There is a BIG difference as far as the feds are concerned between the
> words "should" "shall" and "must".  We are not regularly above 400 feet
> throughout a flight and frankly have no means of determining our altitude
> accurately, so I don't see how this is any big change for us.  The intent
> was of course to regulate the big UAV craft and they had to mention our
> models so that the big UAV guys could not claim their planes were just
> hobbyist models.
>
> Chris
>
> James Oddino wrote:
>
>
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
>  *From: *Bryan Hudson <gbflyer at sbcglobal.net>
> *Date: *January 22, 2008 10:00:42 PM PST
> *To: *James Oddino <joddino at socal.rr.com>
> *Subject: **Re: Fwd: [NSRCA-discussion] Altitude limits*
>
>  Jim,
>  That used to be correct up till Feburary last year. Long story short. FAA
> (Advisory Circular) AC 91-57 for model airplanes has been around since 1981.
> It "advises" fly models below 400 feet AGL (above ground level). Because of
> the growing unmanned aircraft industry, last February the NTSB / FAAissued a "Policy Statement" in the Federal Register officially making AC
> 91-57 the "Authority" under which models will be flown. So as of last Feb.
> fly below 400 AGL is federal law. This information has recently been added
> to the FAA's own web site, and now it looks like the new policy is being
> enforced.
>  New regulation on FAA's web site www.faa.gov
>  To fly a UAS you must have an (Experimental Airworthiness Certificate)
> EAC, *unless *you are a hobbyist and intend to fly your model aircraft in
> accordance with the guidance in AC 91-57 "Model Aircraft Operating
> Standards."
>  In other words, if you want to fly higher than AC 91-57 allows (above 400
> AGL) then you must have an EAC. EACs are not being issued to modelers so
> don't even think about that.
>   You can find the Federal Register Policy Statement that lays this out on
> this site also.
>   Go to
> www.faa.gov
>  then click on:
>  Aircraft Tab
> Aircraft Topics - Aircraft Certification
> Design Approvals
> Types of Aircraft - Unmanned Aircraft
>   At this point click on Regulations and Policies for links to::
>
>    - Advisory Circulars - AC 91-57 Model Aircraft Operating Standards
>    - Policies - Federal Register Notice – Clarification of FAA Policy<http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert/design_approvals/uas/reg/media/frnotice_uas.pdf>
>
> Or after Unmanned Aircraft click on FAQ for statement on FAA's web site.
>  Bryan
>
>
> *James Oddino <joddino at socal.rr.com>* wrote:
>
>
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
>  *From: *Ed White <edvwhite at sbcglobal.net>
> *Date: *January 21, 2008 1:13:55 PM PST
> *To: *NSRCA Mailing List <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> *Subject: **Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Altitude limits*
> *Reply-To: *NSRCA Mailing List <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>
>  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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing listNSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.orghttp://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
>
> ------------------------------
> Connect and share in new ways with Windows Live. Get it now!<http://www.windowslive.com/share.html?ocid=TXT_TAGHM_Wave2_sharelife_012008>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>

-- 

Keith Hoard
Collierville, TN
khoard at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20080123/05abb6ac/attachment-0001.html 