[NSRCA-discussion] Fwd: Altitude limits

Thu Jan 24 07:06:19 AKST 2008

 The way I see it this is all common sence if full scale aircraft are close give right of way, get low or land, as I said the other day we are across from an army base and never know when there will be air traffic sometimes so heavy I just go home but most times it just a matter of stay low while they pass. If we have to stay below  400 ft. well we might as well all go buy foamys and say good bye to anything bigger than a few few oz's.

Lance Van Nostrand <patterndude at tx.rr.com> wrote:      v\:* {   BEHAVIOR: url(#default#VML)  }  o\:* {   BEHAVIOR: url(#default#VML)  }  w\:* {   BEHAVIOR: url(#default#VML)  }  .shape {   BEHAVIOR: url(#default#VML)  }        st1\:*{behavior:url(#default#ieooui) }              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_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

---------------------------------
Never miss a thing.   Make Yahoo your homepage.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20080124/5e6976fb/attachment-0001.html 