[NSRCA-discussion] Fwd: Altitude limits

[Bob Richards]

In the compliance standards that I deal with, "shall" and "must" are synonymous.  The word "should" means that it is "suggested". In any case, the wording of AC 91-57 has not changed: "This advisory circular outlines, and encourages voluntary compliance with, safety standards for model aircraft operators."
   
  However, if we as a group choose to ignore the AC in all situations, and operate without consideration of full-scale activities, then the wording could likely be changed as a result. JMHO.
   
  I have no problems flying above 400 feet, as long as there are no full-scale planes in the vicinity. I think it is really neat that at my club flying site, there are a few full scale pilots (some are members of the club) that will circle the field occasionally, one guy will even shoot touch-n-goes on our 300ft runway. They are cognizant of the fact that they are flying in OUR domain, and will not fly in front of the flight line as long as any model aircraft are in the air. If the field is not that busy, we will usually land so they can do a fly-by.
   
  Bob R.
   
  
chris moon <cjm767driver at hotmail.com> wrote: 
      .hmmessage P  {  margin:0px;  padding:0px  }  body.hmmessage  {  FONT-SIZE: 10pt;  FONT-FAMILY:Tahoma  }    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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20080124/ab38ff13/attachment.html