[NSRCA-discussion] Fw: Altitude limits

[Lance Van Nostrand]

The key points were forwarded to AMA and their conclusion is that this was a 
red herring.  The rule has been in effect since 1981.
--Lance

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Dave Mathewson" <dmathewson at mindspring.com>
To: <patterndude at tx.rr.com>; "'Greg Hahn'" <gregh at modelaircraft.org>
Cc: "'Jim Cherry'" <jcherry at modelaircraft.org>; "'Bob Underwood'" 
<bobrae53 at sbcglobal.net>; "'JIM RICE'" <District8VP at SATX.RR.COM>
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2008 10:21 PM
Subject: RE: Altitude limits


> Hi all,
> 1. Ed White is right. The "breaking news" Jim O. is referring to was part 
> of
> AC-91-57 dated 1981. AMA provided input into the drafting of that document
> in 1981.
> 2. Greg, has anyone run this discussion past Jay Mealy? I know Jay is not
> only aware of FRD No. FAA-2006-25714; Notice No. 07-01 dated 2/13/07, but 
> if
> I recall played a part in its development. Jim, see Jay's email of 2/15/07
> to the EC and Executive Staff.
>
> Dave
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: patterndude at tx.rr.com [mailto:patterndude at tx.rr.com]
> Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2008 4:11 PM
> To: Greg Hahn
> Cc: Jim Cherry; Bob Underwood; Dave Mathewson; JIM RICE
> Subject: RE: Altitude limits
>
> Greg,
>
> It was pointed out by Chris Moon below that the regulation uses the words
> "should be flown below 400 ft" and not "must".  if true, then there is a
> subjective nature to the ruling.  This might affect the way we seek
> clarification.
>
> It appears the AMA is caught off guard in this.  I'm sure there's no way 
> to
> know what every ruling body is up to so I'm glad we were able to get this 
> on
> the radar.
>
> --Lace
>
> ---- Greg Hahn <gregh at modelaircraft.org> wrote:
>
> =============
> All,
>
>
>
> So if I'm reading correctly Bryan Hudson's note, since last Feb, all
> altitude record attempts were, are or will be breaking Federal law. So to
> make such an attempt will now require some type of waiver from the FAA or
> the designated enforcement body.
>
>
>
> Also the Sailplane guys and gals are essentially breaking the law every 
> time
> they go for an afternoon of flying.
>
>
>
> I'm not sure just how the FAA handles enforcing such a law considering the
> difficulty and expense of proving the altitude of  a model size aircraft
> constructed mainly from wood or plastic. Radar doesn't work well below 500
> feet and wood/ plastic isn't a good reflector, even a 30 % model has a 
> very
> small foot print and would most likely never show up and also would 
> require
> altitude reporting capabilities.
>
>
>
> We do need to keep clear of the UAV distinction. They will no doubt cause 
> us
> (modelers) problems in the future. They want to be considered part of us 
> to
> limit regulation and keep their costs down.
>
>
>
> I'll look into this today
>
>
>
> Thanks for the head's up
>
> Gregory Hahn
>
> Technical Director
>
> AMA
>
>
>
> From: Jim Cherry
> Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2008 10:10 AM
> To: JIM RICE
> Cc: Lance Van Nostrand; Greg Hahn; Dave Mathewson; Robert Underwood Jr.
> Subject: RE: Altitude limits
>
>
>
> All:
>
>
>
> Those  familiar with the AMA position on the interpretation of FAA 
> Advisory
> Circular AC 91-57, with the 400 Ft. limit have always taken the next
> sentence as a part of the (key word here)  ADVISORY... within 3 miles of a
> airport.
>
>
>
> Thanks
> Jim
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: JIM RICE [mailto:District8VP at SATX.RR.COM]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 10:17 PM
> To: Jim Cherry
> Cc: Lance Van Nostrand
> Subject: Fw: Altitude limits
>
> Jim,
>
>
>
> Lance has forwarded this for consideration.  I guess it would fall into 
> Greg
> Hahn's area.  Seems doable but needs a professional look and I am not that
> guy.
>
>
>
> Thanks, see you tomorrow,
>
>
>
> JR
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
>
> From: Lance Van Nostrand <mailto:patterndude at tx.rr.com>
>
> To: JIM RICE <mailto:District8VP at SATX.RR.COM>
>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 5:14 PM
>
> Subject: Fw: Altitude limits
>
>
>
> Jim,
>
>
>
> Thought you might already be aware of this, or might be able to help.
> AMA is our national SIG for flying models so if our political 
> representation
> in Washington was not aware of this they should be.  If they are and there
> is an implied waiver for us modelers then we might all benefit from this
> information.  If a waiver needs to be fought for, then let's initiate that
> process.
>
>
>
> Let me know if this needs escalating.
>
> Thanks,
>
> --Lance
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
>
> From: Keith Hoard <mailto:khoard at gmail.com>
>
> To: NSRCA Mailing List <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 12:33 PM
>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Fwd: Altitude limits
>
>
>
> 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 
> /
> 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/frn
> otice_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
> <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> 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
> > _______________________________________________