[NSRCA-discussion] Fwd: Altitude limits

Mon Jan 28 05:55:26 AKST 2008

That's good to know. . . thanks Tony!!

On 1/28/08, Tony <tony at radiosouthrc.com> wrote:
>
>  The AMA has great contacts with the FAA in these issues.  As a matter of
> fact, I just saw a letter this weekend while I was in Muncie at an EC
> meeting,from the FAA to the AMA inviting the AMA to sit on a rules advisory
> board as THE AUTHORITY on model aircraft.  This puts us in a great position
> where we are involved and have a say in what happens.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Tony Stillman, President
>
> Radio South, Inc.
>
> 139 Altama Connector, Box 322
>
> Brunswick, GA  31525
>
> 1-800-962-7802
>
> tony at radiosouthrc.com
>  ------------------------------
>
> *From:* nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:
> nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] *On Behalf Of *Keith Hoard
> *Sent:* Thursday, January 24, 2008 1:38 AM
> *To:* NSRCA Mailing List
> *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Fwd: Altitude limits
>
>
>
> Or. . . you can have some FAA bureaucrat in a back office write it into
> law (lumping model aircraft into the UAV category) and get it signed by the
> Administrator. . . . THEN we get to spend months or years fighting an uphill
> battle, paying lawyers and and politicians to go back and get the rule
> changed. . . meanwhile your local model field will get random checks from
> the local FAA FSDO office to check for compliance with the new 400' AGL
> rule.
>
> On Jan 23, 2008 4:41 PM, Lisa & Larry <lld613 at psci.net> wrote:
>
> 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<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>* 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
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Keith Hoard
> Collierville, TN
> khoard at gmail.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>

-- 

Keith Hoard
Collierville, TN
khoard at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20080128/e6b61664/attachment-0001.html 