[NSRCA-discussion] Fwd: Altitude limits

Thu Jan 24 05:50:55 AKST 2008

I've forwarded it to my AMA district rep whose forwarded it up the chain.  I'll let everyone know if there is a response. Awareness is critical.  The decision to stir the pot or let it lie should be made by the SIG that legally represents us.
--Lance

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Lisa & Larry 
  To: 'NSRCA Mailing List' 
  Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 6:41 PM
  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Fwd: Altitude limits

  Two schools of thought on this.

  1)       Let a sleeping dog lie.

  2)       Take the bull by the horns.

  Be careful of the battles you choose. IMHO the AMA should be aware and should help those fields that come into this issue. If the issue leads to the FAA, then it is on a path to resolve conflict.

  On the other hand, if the AMA goes in guns a blazing this may cause a reaction of,  "oh, we missed that.AMA you are right.we (the FAA) will certainly be obliged to correct the document so that it reads *must*, the you *will* fly under 400ft AGL across the country.

  Larry Diamond

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.f3a.us [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.f3a.us] On Behalf Of Jay Marshall
  Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 12:51 PM
  To: 'NSRCA Mailing List'
  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Fwd: Altitude limits

  Don't we pay AMA dues to resolve things like this? If enforced it could shut down many types of models.

  Jay Marshall 

  -----Original Message-----
  From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Ed White
  Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 1:30 PM
  To: NSRCA Mailing List
  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Fwd: Altitude limits

  I'm not interpreting this the same way at all.  First, the document is a notice of policy that has been released with the action only for feedback, not for compliance.  It is not a policy yet and should not be being enforced just based on this document.  Second, making AC 91-57 the authority under which model aircraft are flown is not the same as changing its contents from guidance to mandatory.  The policy does not change any of the words of AC 91-57 and in fact repeats those words, "Model aircraft SHOULD [my caps] be flown below 400 feet above the surface ..." That is not the same as saying "Model aircraft MUST be flown below 400 feet above the surface ...".  In order for the 400 foot limit to be mandatory, the FAA will need to change the existing AC which only provides "guidance that encourages good judgment on the part of operators...".

  Nothing in the notice of policy suggests to me that the FAA is proposing to make any such change.  

  Ed

  James Oddino <joddino at socal.rr.com> 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 / FAA issued 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 

  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 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/20080124/6e5a45eb/attachment-0001.html 