[NSRCA-discussion] Fwd: Altitude limits

Pattrnflyr at aol.com Pattrnflyr at aol.com
Thu Jan 24 06:57:05 AKST 2008 

I retired from the FAA after 29 years.  I had dealt with this AC in my  job.  
Remember a few things:
The FAA and the IRS can impose penalties WITHOUT due process.
While the AIM and AC's are technically NOT FAR's, the FAA will still  violate 
people based on the AIM and AC's.
It seems that every couple of years you hear of a near miss with a model  and 
a full scale aircraft.  It usually dies away.
Now with the advent of toys that you can buy and fly at a much greater  
altitude, it seems probable that a non AMA member has the potential to stir  things 
up.
Pilots are aviators like us, and models are as fascinating to them as  full 
scale is to us, they will generally be tolerant of models.  The FAA  will not.  
The FAA is staffed by pilots but run by politicians.  I  think we should just 
be responsible pilots (full or Model) and not do  anything until we are 
forced to.  The FAA cannot make a rule without a  Notice of Proposed Rule making 
(NPR) and the have to take public comment.   That is why the AOPA and EAA have 
been so effective. 
The chances of a full scale pilot seeing you before you see them is slim,  
just stay away from them.
 
Bruce  Reins
A Stock Hydro/Runabout
15-R  

 
In a message dated 1/23/2008 5:43:56 P.M. Mountain Standard Time,  
lld613 at psci.net writes:

 
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-discussio
n-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_ (mailto:gbflyer at sbcglobal.net) >
 
Date:  January 22, 2008 10:00:42 PM  PST
 
To:  James Oddino <_joddino at socal.rr.com_ (mailto: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_ (http://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_ (http://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_ (mailto:joddino at socal.rr.com) >  wrote:

 
 
Begin  forwarded message:
 
 
From:  Ed White  <_edvwhite at sbcglobal.net_ (mailto:edvwhite at sbcglobal.net) >
 
Date:  January  21, 2008 1:13:55 PM PST
 
To:  NSRCA  Mailing List <_nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org_ 
(mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org) >
 
Subject:  Re:  [NSRCA-discussion] Altitude limits
 
Reply-To:  NSRCA  Mailing List <_nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org_ 
(mailto: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_ (http://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_ (mailto: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"  <joddino at socal.rr.com>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_ 
(mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org) 
>  _http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion_ 
(http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion) 

_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion  mailing list
_NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org_ (mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org) 
_http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion_ 
(http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion)  

</joddino at socal.rr.com>_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion  mailing list
_NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org_ (mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org) 
_http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion_ 
(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



**************Start the year off right.  Easy ways to stay in shape.     
http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp00300000002489
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20080124/39c16bfe/attachment-0001.html

More information about the NSRCA-discussion mailing list